Revising the 1913 Lockout

Biruni

Okay, so I recently saw that the magazine Business Plus
was doing an article entitled: "Crushing Larkin: The Tycoon who saved Dublin from Anarchy". I haven't read the article myself, but I'm curious about it. I heard it was written by some historian claiming that William Martin Murphy was the hero of the lockout, which is kind of what I'd expect from the title.

Now, to me, this sounds like complete nonsense. It goes against everything I ever learned about history throughout school and college. I also realise that a business magazine isn't exactly the place to be looking for serious history writing. Nevertheless, since my knee-jerk instinct was to dismiss it entirely, that's exactly what I'm not going to do.

I've decided to ask this forum if there is in fact a serious case to be made for this view of the lockout. Have any eminent Irish historians written book or papers which present William Martin Murphy in a more positive light than Jim Larkin? If so, how strong do you think their arguments are, and where can I find them?

goose2005

Kevin Myers (not a historian) has the usual contrarian bit: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/the-union-cult-of-larkin-is-built-on-factually-baseless-myths-29079014.html

Larkin was certainly not the peaceful pioneer of collective-bargaining, as is now being so preposterously proclaimed, but a syndicalist who ruthlessly used the strike as a weapon to wreck private enterprise. Workers who refused to follow his boycott of blacklisted companies were savagely beaten, even at their homes, while 'The Irish Worker' published the names and addresses of uncompliant women.

In December 1913, Havelock Wilson of the Sailors and Firemen's Union spoke bitterly of the £60,000 raised by unions for "the victims of Larkin's stupidity and blindness". It was not his union's policy – quoting Larkin – "to destroy the employers of labour . . . and the capitalist system", but merely (and note this, please) "to bargain collectively". Larkin, Wilson added, had broken all his promises.

Failure duly followed, and Larkin departed for the US; thereafter, the ITGWU prospered. By 1923, it had 100,000 members, an annual income of £130,000 and assets worth £140,000. Larkin returned that year, and launched a violent putsch against the ITGWU, as he and his followers forcibly occupied Liberty Hall and the union offices in Parnell Square. The ITGWU leaders – Thomas Foran, William O'Brien, Thomas Kennedy: all colleagues of Larkin during The Lockout – sued him.

Santa Cruz

To a certain degree this entire Lockout commemoration has been very one sided with portraits of Larkin and Dublin working class good, William Martin Murphy bad.
As with everything there are many sides to it. Larkin has a strong personality and was not a great believer in democracy as a means of running unions, many of the Dublin working class actually ignore Larkin and worked during the lockout. Murphy was a businessman, often benevolent, but determined to beat Larkin.

The only way to get a firm view is to read a wide spread of material relating to the issue and form your opinion based on this. I read a good bit of history and my views of people like Collins, De Valera, Brugha, Parnell have been changed immensely.
It's just to easy for lazy people to resort to popular stereotype

Biruni

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Murphy was a businessman, often benevolent, but determined to beat Larkin.

To be honest, I've never heard anyone deny that William Martin Murphy was a good employer. It's one of the things that's normally emphasised about him. There was a great quote in one of my old history books, though I can't seem to find it now, about his being a good employer making him a very dangerous opponent. I think it may have been from Yeats. I'll see if I can find it.

Jawgap

Like Kennedy said the enemy of truth is not the lie, it's the myth - it sounds like it was intended to be an opinion piece. I think once you go down the road of ascribing notions of heroism and villainy to one or other individuals you start to get very subjective.

As an aside, I think the way Larkin and Murphy are portrayed has a lot to do with Strumpet City

As @santa cruz suggests, read broadly and make up your own mind.

Here's some articles on WM Murphy.....

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23195146?uid=3738232&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102590614921

http://liverpool.metapress.com/content/xr5206807205jxv4/

Qualitymark

The original demands were that Irish workers should have pay parity with Scottish, I think?
The employers who locked out thousands of union members were quite vengeful after the lockout; for instance I met someone the other day whose grandfather was an IG&GWU man and was refused re-employment after the lockout; he had to go to Canada to earn and send money back to his wife and family, and died there after a couple of years.
It's a moot point whether employers like William Martin Murphy - a magnate who owned and controlled the gigantic tram system, the Independent newspaper, prosperous city hotels, etc - were good employers when they barred all union membership. In the case of the Shackleton mill in Lucan, for instance, one working man was instantly sacked when he was seen walking down the street in Lucan wearing a union badge.
Working and earning conditions in Ireland were a scandal then; some of the first to come out were the barefoot newsboys and newsgirls employed by Murphy, described by Padraig Yeates in his superb book Lockout
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lockout-Dublin-1913-Padraig-Yeates/dp/0717128911/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378553052&sr=8-1&keywords=lockout+padraig+yeates
(which everyone should read) as being at the more prosperous end of the working class.

Jolly Red Giant

goose2005 wrote: »

Kevin Myers (not a historian) has the usual contrarian bit

and that is all that needs to be said.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

To a certain degree this entire Lockout commemoration has been very one sided with portraits of Larkin and Dublin working class good, William Martin Murphy bad.

The commemoration of the Dublin Lockout is a working class commemoration. If the bosses want to go off and organise a bosses commemoration of Murphy and the rest of the employers then that is their choice. They haven't done it simply because it would be monumentally embarassing for them to expose the exploitation of the Dublin working class in 1913 and it would draw too many similarities with the current situation in the country.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

As with everything there are many sides to it. Larkin has a strong personality and was not a great believer in democracy as a means of running unions, many of the Dublin working class actually ignore Larkin and worked during the lockout.

This is claptrap. The ITGWU was probably the most democratic organisation in the country at the time and it was built by the efforts of Larkin and James Connolly with the assistance of large numbers of rank and file activists. In the period leading up to the Lockout trade unions comprised primarily of of old fashioned conservative craft unions that had been bought off on the backs of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The creation of the ITGWU changed the social and industrial landscape in the city and rocked the trade union movement to its very foundations. Murphy and the employers locked out the members of the ITGWU - no other union. Many unions supported the workers during the Lockout (and the workers had massive support from the working class of the city) - some of the more 'compliant' craft unions played their usual role as the lapdogs of the employers.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Murphy was a businessman, often benevolent, but determined to beat Larkin.

Murphy was a businessman engaged in the ruthless exploitation of his workforce. Murphy and the Dublin employers initiated a full-scale class war to break the unions in order to protect their power, privilage and wealth.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The only way to get a firm view is to read a wide spread of material relating to the issue and form your opinion based on this. I read a good bit of history and my views of people like Collins, De Valera, Brugha, Parnell have been changed immensely.
It's just to easy for lazy people to resort to popular stereotype

I agree - and maybe you should read a bit more.

Biruni wrote: »

To be honest, I've never heard anyone deny that William Martin Murphy was a good employer. It's one of the things that's normally emphasised about him.

I have only ever seen this claim made once - by Tom Morrissey - a historian who has made a career out of re-writing history from the Jesuit 'industrial relations' perspective. Its a load of claptrap and has zero basis in reality

Qualitymark wrote: »

The original demands were that Irish workers should have pay parity with Scottish, I think?

The origins of the Dublin Lockout arose from the decision by Murphy to sack six workers in the tramway company for joining the ITGWU. Workers in Dublin had won substantial pay increases in the first six months of the year and union organisation was spreading into Murphy's companies.

Qualitymark wrote: »

The employers who locked out thousands of union members were quite vengeful after the lockout; for instance I met someone the other day whose grandfather was an IG&GWU man and was refused re-employment after the lockout; he had to go to Canada to earn and send money back to his wife and family, and died there after a couple of years.

Yes they were - in a class war no prisoners are ever taken. More than thirty industrial disputes had occurred in 1913 prior to the beginning of the lockout - some over pay - many over union recognition. The workers had been successful in almost every case. The Lockout, from the employers perspective, was payback - they were determiend to smash the ITGWU (something which they actually failed to do).

Santa Cruz

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

and that is all that needs to be said.


The commemoration of the Dublin Lockout is a working class commemoration. If the bosses want to go off and organise a bosses commemoration of Murphy and the rest of the employers then that is their choice. They haven't done it simply because it would be monumentally embarassing for them to expose the exploitation of the Dublin working class in 1913 and it would draw too many similarities with the current situation in the country.


This is claptrap. The ITGWU was probably the most democratic organisation in the country at the time and it was built by the efforts of Larkin and James Connolly with the assistance of large numbers of rank and file activists. In the period leading up to the Lockout trade unions comprised primarily of of old fashioned conservative craft unions that had been bought off on the backs of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The creation of the ITGWU changed the social and industrial landscape in the city and rocked the trade union movement to its very foundations. Murphy and the employers locked out the members of the ITGWU - no other union. Many unions supported the workers during the Lockout (and the workers had massive support from the working class of the city) - some of the more 'compliant' craft unions played their usual role as the lapdogs of the employers.


Murphy was a businessman engaged in the ruthless exploitation of his workforce. Murphy and the Dublin employers initiated a full-scale class war to break the unions in order to protect their power, privilage and wealth.


I agree - and maybe you should read a bit more.


I have only ever seen this claim made once - by Tom Morrissey - a historian who has made a career out of re-writing history from the Jesuit 'industrial relations' perspective. Its a load of claptrap and has zero basis in reality


The origins of the Dublin Lockout arose from the decision by Murphy to sack six workers in the tramway company for joining the ITGWU. Workers in Dublin had won substantial pay increases in the first six months of the year and union organisation was spreading into Murphy's companies.


Yes they were - in a class war no prisoners are ever taken. More than thirty industrial disputes had occurred in 1913 prior to the beginning of the lockout - some over pay - many over union recognition. The workers had been successful in almost every case. The Lockout, from the employers perspective, was payback - they were determiend to smash the ITGWU (something which they actually failed to do).

It's a pity your bias has undermined your post. Describing other unions as lap dogs and ignoring the widely reported autocratic tendencies of Larkin and Connolly dosent help. General workers are not the only workers that needed unions

Qualitymark

Santa Cruz wrote: »

It's a pity your bias has undermined your post. Describing other unions as lap dogs and ignoring the widely reported autocratic tendencies of Larkin and Connolly dosent help. General workers are not the only workers that needed unions

Was Connolly autocratic? Yet in the GPO, for instance, he made no distinction between officers and men.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The commemoration of the Dublin Lockout is a working class commemoration. If the bosses want to go off and organise a bosses commemoration of Murphy and the rest of the employers then that is their choice. They haven't done it simply because it would be monumentally embarassing for them to expose the exploitation of the Dublin working class in 1913 and it would draw too many similarities with the current situation in the country.

If you believe that remembering the lockout is simply a "working class" commemoration then you are mistaken. It is much wider than simply honouring a strike. It also entails the conditions these people lived in, conditions that were eventually improved with the involvement of employers. Tenements, poor health & bad sanitation developed over a longer period of time as a result of many things and this was also a part of the protests of 1913. When we consider the wider community that wishes to share in remembering these times we have amongst other groups, descendants of the 1913 workers from a wide variation of society. With regard to your point about exploiting working class Dublin an argument can be made that this was done by the Larkin to build up the ITGWU as a means of promoting syndicalism.

Santa Cruz

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you believe that remembering the lockout is simply a "working class" commemoration then you are mistaken. It is much wider than simply honouring a strike. It also entails the conditions these people lived in, conditions that were eventually improved with the involvement of employers. Tenements, poor health & bad sanitation developed over a longer period of time as a result of many things and this was also a part of the protests of 1913. When we consider the wider community that wishes to share in remembering these times we have amongst other groups, descendants of the 1913 workers from a wide variation of society. With regard to your point about exploiting working class Dublin an argument can be made that this was done by the Larkin to build up the ITGWU as a means of promoting syndicalism.

Jolly Red Giant wouldn't be happy until we are all surrounded by Rashers Tierney types as we sit and enjoy our bowl of coddle provided by the Anarchist Workers Collective (Joshua Nkomo Division)

Jolly Red Giant

Santa Cruz wrote: »

It's a pity your bias has undermined your post. Describing other unions as lap dogs and ignoring the widely reported autocratic tendencies of Larkin and Connolly dosent help. General workers are not the only workers that needed unions

At the time of the Lockout in Dublin the craft unions operated as a type of labour aristocracy. Craft workers were (and needed to be) organised but they looked down on semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Even the nationalist leadership criticised them for being more interested in sucking up to the British establishment to get offered positions as Justices of the Peace etc - despite the fact that the bulk of working class support for nationalism came from craft workers. Divisions are nothing new within the trade union movement - and the divisions tend to be on a left/right divide. During the lockout many craft unions were highly critical of the struggle of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers who made up the ITGWU. As for your accusation that Connolly and Larkin were 'autocratic' - I would suggest that this requires you to produce some evidence to back it up.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you believe that remembering the lockout is simply a "working class" commemoration then you are mistaken.

It absolutely is a working class commemoration. The Lockout was a class struggle between labour and capital in a class war initiated by the capitalist class (in the same way that the current class war by the ruling elites in Ireland was instigated by them to foist the cost of the gambling debts on the Irish working class). Labour history has been buried for decades - relegated to the sidelines as the ruling elites dictated the history that should be acknowledged. Any attempts by the likes of Gilmore to claim the heritage of the Lockout must be resisted.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is much wider than simply honouring a strike. It also entails the conditions these people lived in, conditions that were eventually improved with the involvement of employers. Tenements, poor health & bad sanitation developed over a longer period of time as a result of many things and this was also a part of the protests of 1913.

And who were the people who were living in the slum tenaments? who were the people suffering the poor health? the workers of the Lockout and their families.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the improvement in living conditions came about because of some 'benevolence' of the bosses in this country. If the William Martin Murphy's of this country had their way the working class would still be living in slums and suffering abject poverty. The reason why conditions have improved is precisely because of the battles fought in 1913 and in subsequent years. It was because of the fighting spirit of the Irish working class that improvements in housing, wages, and public services were made.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

When we consider the wider community that wishes to share in remembering these times we have amongst other groups, descendants of the 1913 workers from a wide variation of society.

The overwhelming majority of the decendants of those who fought in the Lockout are still working class people. Irish society is one of the countries that has the least social mobility between the social classes.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

With regard to your point about exploiting working class Dublin an argument can be made that this was done by the Larkin to build up the ITGWU as a means of promoting syndicalism.

Please explain what you are arguing here - it appears to be that you are arguing that Larkin manipulated the situation in order to further his own agenda. I suggest that you need to produce evidence for what you appear to be implying in this statement as it bears no relationship to the truth.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant wouldn't be happy until we are all surrounded by Rashers Tierney types as we sit and enjoy our bowl of coddle provided by the Anarchist Workers Collective (Joshua Nkomo Division)

I am not an anarchist and I have no desire to live in poverty. If the government / EU / IMF have their way the Irish working class will be driven back to the conditions of 1913.

Nitochris

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the decendants of those who fought in the Lockout are still working class people. Irish society is one of the countries that has the least social mobility between the social classes.

I agree with you but you have to remember that not only do the middle class co-opt everything but a fairly large segment of the upper working class have convinced themselves that they are middle class. With the lockout specifically this comes from the 1916 Rising with the decidedly middle class leadership and demands alongside the ICA, because the lockout through commemoration is turned into the lead up to 1916 it gets taken in to the primarily middle class nationalist myth. That's not to say that at some level the lockout on the striker's side did not include those at other societal levels, Jack White who co-founded the ICA being an obvious example, but the drive the energy the lockout was the working class.
In other words it should be a working class commemoration but it isn't as the middle classes have already co-opted it and are making it safe for national memory.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am not an anarchist and I have no desire to live in poverty. If the government / EU / IMF have their way the Irish working class will be driven back to the conditions of 1913.

I am an anarchist (anarcho-communist in the Kropotkinite tradition) and I also have no desire to live in poverty.

Nitochris

Biruni wrote: »

Okay, so I recently saw that the magazine Business Plus
was doing an article entitled: "Crushing Larkin: The Tycoon who saved Dublin from Anarchy". I haven't read the article myself, but I'm curious about it. I heard it was written by some historian claiming that William Martin Murphy was the hero of the lockout, which is kind of what I'd expect from the title.

Now, to me, this sounds like complete nonsense. It goes against everything I ever learned about history throughout school and college. I also realise that a business magazine isn't exactly the place to be looking for serious history writing. Nevertheless, since my knee-jerk instinct was to dismiss it entirely, that's exactly what I'm not going to do.

I've decided to ask this forum if there is in fact a serious case to be made for this view of the lockout. Have any eminent Irish historians written book or papers which present William Martin Murphy in a more positive light than Jim Larkin? If so, how strong do you think their arguments are, and where can I find them?

The writer of the magazine article you mention is himself an economic historian and was one of the writers of An Economic History of Ireland. (I have the magazine haven't read the article yet)

Santa Cruz

What is this obsession with the label working class. I know many sons and daughters of people who were in ordinary jobs, factory workers, county council labourers etc. who have been able to avail of third level education and are now in good employment, living in good standard accommodation and have a good lifestyle.
I admit that it may have been a financial struggle but it can be done.

They are not "traitors to their class" They just used their ability and with family support did well for themselves.
Check the background of many successful people in this country and you will see they came from fairly ordinary backgrounds. They didn't get a hang up about class. Some people use class as a means of doing nothing to improve their lives

Nitochris

Santa Cruz wrote: »

What is this obsession with the label working class. I know many sons and daughters of people who were in ordinary jobs, factory workers, county council labourers etc. who have been able to avail of third level education and are now in good employment, living in good standard accommodation and have a good lifestyle.
I admit that it may have been a financial struggle but it can be done.

None of which excludes them from being working class, I have two degrees and am finishing my third and I am still working class.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

They are not "traitors to their class" They just used their ability and with family support did well for themselves.
Check the background of many successful people in this country and you will see they came from fairly ordinary backgrounds. They didn't get a hang up about class. Some people use class as a means of doing nothing to improve their lives

Who is saying anyone is a traitor to their class? We would have to class Countess Markievicz, Jack White, Oscar Wilde, Pyotr Kropotkin, Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone etc. as class traitors if we went down that route and I doubt the left would go down that route.

jonniebgood1

Nitochris wrote: »

None of which excludes them from being working class, I have two degrees and am finishing my third and I am still working class.

Education is used by many as being a means of determining class. Your education suggests that you are not what most people would classify as 'working class' despite your own assertion that you are. To me working class is not a state of mind but rather a situation. Although of course there are exceptions to the rule but for the sake of argument some assumptions are made. For example by the centre for working class studies suggests

One way of defining the difference between the middle class and the working class is level of education. College graduates are more likely to be middle class. http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/who-is-working-class/

A narrower definition is one who earns an income doing manual work. In any case the point I made previously was that the 1913 lockout is commemorated by people of all classes as our history is not mutually exclusive nor divided on a class basis.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It absolutely is a working class commemoration. The Lockout was a class struggle between labour and capital in a class war initiated by the capitalist class (in the same way that the current class war by the ruling elites in Ireland was instigated by them to foist the cost of the gambling debts on the Irish working class). Labour history has been buried for decades - relegated to the sidelines as the ruling elites dictated the history that should be acknowledged. Any attempts by the likes of Gilmore to claim the heritage of the Lockout must be resisted.

The lockout is commemorated by much more than people classified as working class. Reference the many discussions on RTE as proof that this is the case. You may prefer they did not commemorate it but that is a separate matter.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the improvement in living conditions came about because of some 'benevolence' of the bosses in this country. If the William Martin Murphy's of this country had their way the working class would still be living in slums and suffering abject poverty. The reason why conditions have improved is precisely because of the battles fought in 1913 and in subsequent years. It was because of the fighting spirit of the Irish working class that improvements in housing, wages, and public services were made.

It is you that mentions benevolence in reference to W M Murphy. The reality is that the lockout failed and it took many years for conditions to improve. The improvements were not based on one class acting on its own. To believe so is naïve.

donaghs

Qualitymark wrote: »

It's a moot point whether employers like William Martin Murphy - a magnate who owned and controlled the gigantic tram system, the Independent newspaper, prosperous city hotels, etc - were good employers when they barred all union membership.

Murphy did recognize the craft unions and apaprently had good relations with them. His print and tram workers were well paid by the standards of the time.

It would seem that his objection was to organizing unskilled workers, and a fear and loathing of Larkin in general.

While I would disagree with Murphy's stance on the lockout, its still important to understand the complexities and shades of grey. The Lockout has most definitely been painted in black and white colours. While I think the Lockout a far more significant issue, I think a lot of the venom from opinion formers derived from the tiff with intellectuals like WB Yeats over the Hugh Lane galleries/paintings.

Someone on this forum once described Murphy as a Unionist. He was in fact an Irish Nationalist, and at one point an MP for the Home Rule party. He fell out with John Redmond, over Redmond's willingness to make concessions to the Union in order to get Home Rule.

As a Catholic Nationalist, to reach the top of the Dublin business community was impressive, considering how much of it was still Protestant-dominated (e.g the Banks) until the 1960s.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The lockout is commemorated by much more than people classified as working class. Reference the many discussions on RTE as proof that this is the case. You may prefer they did not commemorate it but that is a separate matter.

It is you that mentions benevolence in reference to W M Murphy. The reality is that the lockout failed and it took many years for conditions to improve. The improvements were not based on one class acting on its own. To believe so is naïve.

I've read that conditions for working people and unions improved soon after due to World War One. People got sucked into the Armed Forces and those who remained got better pay and conditions. The UK government also gave greater recognition to unions in order to avoid industrial unrest and keep war industries going.

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Lockout was a class struggle between labour and capital in a class war initiated by the capitalist class (in the same way that the current class war by the ruling elites in Ireland was instigated by them to foist the cost of the gambling debts on the Irish working class). Labour history has been buried for decades - relegated to the sidelines as the ruling elites dictated the history that should be acknowledged. Any attempts by the likes of Gilmore to claim the heritage of the Lockout must be resisted.
...........If the William Martin Murphy's of this country had their way the working class would still be living in slums and suffering abject poverty. The reason why conditions have improved is precisely because of the battles fought in 1913 and in subsequent years. It was because of the fighting spirit of the Irish working class that improvements in housing, wages, and public services were made.................Irish society is one of the countries that has the least social mobility between the social classes.

If the government / EU / IMF have their way the Irish working class will be driven back to the conditions of 1913.

Yet another example of a biased, cliché-ridden diatribe which can easily be construed as revisionism with its emotive redactional comments.

William Martin Murphy actually is a very good example of social mobility in Ireland. He came from small farmer stock, his father Denis William Murphy started out as a stonemason in Castletownbere before opening a store/building business in Bantry. He became a successful contractor and sent William to lodge with friends in Dublin while he attended Belvedere (supposedly the fees at Clongowes were too much).

Murphy senior died when doing some work for Lord Dunraven, William aged just 19 and fresh out of Belvedere took over the family business, finished the work and so impressed Dunraven that he gave young Murphy more work. The patronage and support of Dunraven led Murphy back to Dublin, where in 1870 aged 25 he became involved in the development of tramways, later expanding into railways. He was self-made, one of Ireland's biggest exporters and a nationalist..

What this country needs are more people like him, who get off their arses and do things (like work and create employment) and less of those who rant and rave about ruling elites, the working class and its struggles.

As for social mobility, (Viscount) Brendan Bracken’s father also started as a stonemason. Tony Ryan who founded Ryanair was the son of a stationmaster and grandson of a train driver. Pat Kenny’s father was a zoo keeper, and even RTE’ s high earner Joe Duffy is from the tenements of Mountjoy square.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The lockout is commemorated by much more than people classified as working class. Reference the many discussions on RTE as proof that this is the case. You may prefer they did not commemorate it but that is a separate matter.

Like they have done since the establishment of the state, the ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class in 1913 to bury the real history of the labour movement. It is not a case of whether I prefer things one way of the other - it is the responsibility of historians and activists who do not accept the hegemony of the Irish establishment to resist the current efforts to portray the lockout as some precursor to 1916 and to tell the story from a working class perspective.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is you that mentions benevolence in reference to W M Murphy.

I didn't actually - Santa Cruz rasied it in post #3

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Murphy was a businessman, often benevolent,

and

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reality is that the lockout failed and it took many years for conditions to improve. The improvements were not based on one class acting on its own. To believe so is naïve.

I don't know what you mean by the 'lockout failed' - The employers locked out the workers for trying to join the ITGWU. The workers movement was defeated in the lockout but the employers failed in their objective of smashing the trade union movement in general and the ITGWU in particular. It resulted in the utter exposure of the naked class aggression of the Irish nationalist employer class and thought the Irish working class the ultimate lesson of class struggle.

As for the 'improvements' - by 1918 (five years after the lockout) the ITGWU had begun to flourish and wrestle substantial pay increases and improvements in working conditions from employers. Improvements in social services began in the 1930s again under pressure from the working class.

The ruling class only ever consents to improvements under pressure from the working class and at the first opportunity attempts to take back any concessions that have been wrestled from them. This is what is happening in the present day - in order to pay for a crisis they created, the ruling elites are engaged in a slash and burn approach that has and is destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs, slashing wages, increasing working hours, worsening working conditions and destroying welfare and public services. Since the crisis began the richest 10% of the population have seen their incomes and wealth increase year on year while the remaining 90% of the population (the working class) have seen their incomes slashed.

There is a constant class warfare going on - often under the surface of society - but occasionally breaking out into naked class conflict. This is inevitable in a society based on competition and the struggle for resources and wealth. It is naive to believe that society has some sort of benevolent or paternal rich father figures who 'look after' the poor. Since the day in neolithic times when someone put a fence around a field and declared it his property - this class conflict has been unending.

Jolly Red Giant

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

William Martin Murphy actually is a very good example of social mobility in Ireland. He came from small farmer stock, his father Denis William Murphy started out as a stonemason in Castletownbere before opening a store/building business in Bantry. He became a successful contractor and sent William to lodge with friends in Dublin while he attended Belvedere (supposedly the fees at Clongowes were too much).

Murphy senior died when doing some work for Lord Dunraven, William aged just 19 and fresh out of Belvedere took over the family business, finished the work and so impressed Dunraven that he gave young Murphy more work. The patronage and support of Dunraven led Murphy back to Dublin, where in 1870 aged 25 he became involved in the development of tramways, later expanding into railways. He was self-made, one of Ireland's biggest exporters and a nationalist..

What this country needs are more people like him, who get off their arses and do things (like work and create employment) and less of those who rant and rave about ruling elites, the working class and its struggles.

As for social mobility, (Viscount) Brendan Bracken’s father also started as a stonemason. Tony Ryan who founded Ryanair was the son of a stationmaster and grandson of a train driver. Pat Kenny’s father was a zoo keeper, and even RTE’ s high earner Joe Duffy is from the tenements of Mountjoy square.

Wow - I'm impressed - you have done well - you have managed to name five (5) people over 90 years that have managed to claw their way out of poverty.

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Wow - I'm impressed - you have done well - you have managed to name five (5) people over 90 years that have managed to claw their way out of poverty.

Another inane post. I sometimes wonder if you are a creation of Boards.ie and exist solely to drive traffic on this site.:rolleyes:

Jolly Red Giant

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Another inane post. I sometimes wonder if you are a creation of Boards.ie and exist solely to drive traffic on this site.:rolleyes:

Have you got any more little anecdotes to amuse us?

Santa Cruz

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Wow - I'm impressed - you have done well - you have managed to name five (5) people over 90 years that have managed to claw their way out of poverty.

This comment shows your ignorance and arrogance to anyone who may hold a different opinion to you and is typical of the blind stupidity of those who push this facile argument of the class struggle.
Do you want the posters to name every person in this country who came from humble backgrounds and improved the living standards just to keep you happy?
While there were many who progressed well in the early days of this State since the introduction of free secondary education in the late 60s the door to higher level has opened for all who have the ability to enter same. I am not saying that it is financially easy but with hard work it is possible.
I come from a town where there were a number of long established industries related to the agricultural sector. The sons and daughters of many of the ordinary industries workers have been able to avail of third level education be it university of Institutes of technology. This has resulted in them achieving a higher standard of living for themselves and their offspring. Their increased income opportunities have mean money has gone back in to the economy. Of course there will always be a small minority of people who actually believe this class struggle rubbish. They are happy to be lectured to by people who have availed of the thirds level opportunities themselves but still see a need to keep the majority of the proletariat down.

Jolly Red Giant

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Do you want the posters to name every person in this country who came from humble backgrounds and improved the living standards just to keep you happy?

No - what I want people to do is use factual - not anecdotal - evidence. I argued that social mobility is restricted in Ireland. The evidence exists to back this up -

The Republic of Ireland provides an excellent example of a situation in which social change does offer substantial opportunities for advancement, as reflected in absolute mobility rates, while the privileged classes respond to such change in a manner that leaves their relative advantages intact.

(Christopher Whelan, Social Mobility in Ireland in the 1990s, The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 30, No.2, April 1990, p.156)

Santa Cruz wrote: »

While there were many who progressed well in the early days of this State since the introduction of free secondary education in the late 60s the door to higher level has opened for all who have the ability to enter same. I am not saying that it is financially easy but with hard work it is possible.

Social mobility is not related to educational attainment. Many jobs that could be secured in the 1970s by having a Leaving Certificate now require a Masters Degree. Wage rates have patterned the norms of previous decades.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

I come from a town where there were a number of long established industries related to the agricultural sector. The sons and daughters of many of the ordinary industries workers have been able to avail of third level education be it university of Institutes of technology. This has resulted in them achieving a higher standard of living for themselves and their offspring. Their increased income opportunities have mean money has gone back in to the economy.

More anecdotal evidence.

I come originally from a small town in the west of Ireland. One winter's evening when we had nothing better to do myself and my father sat down and went through all the businesses in the town, who owned them and how they got to own them. Of the 140 businesses (shops, pubs, etc) 138 of them were inherited from family members. Only two people in the town had successfully established new businesses. Now - again - this is anecdotal evidence - it does not disprove social mobility no more than your anecdotal evidence proves it.

The reality is that Irish society has a very small (golden) circle of very wealthy individuals (no more than 3,000-4,000) - the overwhelming majority of whom inherited their wealth. The social mobility that does exist in Ireland primarily comes from shifts within a very small range among working class people - e.g. from unskilled to semi-skilled, skilled or professional workers. Old social barriers in terms of employment have broken down primarily because of the continued demise of the agricultural sector (in particular with the undermining of family farms and the development of ranch farms) and (as you suggested) improved educational opportunities - but again this breakdown of social barriers operates within a very small range. There has been a proletarianisation of sections of the old middle class where the likes of the teaching profession etc have shifted from middle class to working class.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Of course there will always be a small minority of people who actually believe this class struggle rubbish. They are happy to be lectured to by people who have availed of the thirds level opportunities themselves but still see a need to keep the majority of the proletariat down.

Again - produce evidence for your assertion - you own prejudices do not count.

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No - what I want people to do is use factual - not anecdotal - evidence. I argued that social mobility is restricted in Ireland. The evidence exists to back this up -

(Christopher Whelan, Social Mobility in Ireland in the 1990s, The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 30, No.2, April 1990, p.156)
..........................Social mobility is not related to educational attainment. Many jobs that could be secured in the 1970s by having a Leaving Certificate now require a Masters Degree. Wage rates have patterned the norms of previous decades.

I’m glad you found Whelan. However, it is a pity that you did not study more of his work; had you done so, (for example his co-authored paper* in ESR Vol. 30 N0. 3 (page 2) you would have read

In the past thirty years absolute opportunities for educational and class mobility have never been higher and it is not our intention to deny the significance of such change. (Whelan, 1999).

The simple fact of the matter is that some people prefer to sit on their arses (as I said earlier), growing obese in front of their TVs watching match of the day and coronation street. They blame everybody but themselves, from 'fat cat bosses' to McDonalds.
You really need to broaden your research horizons and look at life though untinted glasses.


*Class Inequalities in Educational Attainment among the Adult Population in the Republic of IrelandCHRISTOPHER T. WHELAN and DAMIAN F. HANNAN
The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by the 'lockout failed' - The employers locked out the workers for trying to join the ITGWU. The workers movement was defeated in the lockout but the employers failed in their objective of smashing the trade union movement in general and the ITGWU in particular. It resulted in the utter exposure of the naked class aggression of the Irish nationalist employer class and thought the Irish working class the ultimate lesson of class struggle.

I mean the workers went back to work. It did not expose anything in the manner you describe. This sounds like fantasy and you are forgetting later strikes which happened despite the overwhelming nationalistic nature of post WWI Ireland.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As for the 'improvements' - by 1918 (five years after the lockout) the ITGWU had begun to flourish and wrestle substantial pay increases and improvements in working conditions from employers. Improvements in social services began in the 1930s again under pressure from the working class.

I think you may have forgotten another significant event over 'by 1918' WWI was a far more significant event in terms of improving working conditions in Ireland and wider afield.

Jolly Red Giant

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I’m glad you found Whelan. However, it is a pity that you did not study more of his work; had you done so, (for example his co-authored paper* in ESR Vol. 30 N0. 3 (page 2) you would have read

However - the problem is that you completely missed the point. The issue is not that more 'opportunities' have been created (any growing industrialised economy will generate more 'opportunities') - the key is that fact that, as Whelan has outlined, the privileged classes respond to such change in a manner that leaves their relative advantages intact.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

However - the problem is that you completely missed the point. The issue is not that more 'opportunities' have been created (any growing industrialised economy will generate more 'opportunities') - the key is that fact that, as Whelan has outlined, the privileged classes respond to such change in a manner that leaves their relative advantages intact.

We are going off topic here but would working classes not seek to retain their relative gains as opportunity gives.

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

However - the problem is that you completely missed the point. The issue is not that more 'opportunities' have been created (any growing industrialised economy will generate more 'opportunities')

You continue to interpret social data in a biased manner, ignoring that which is not in accord with your perspective. Whelan said

In the past thirty years absolute opportunities for educational and class mobility have never been higher and it is not our intention to deny the significance of such change.

Do you not understand what the word ‘absolute’ means in that sentence?
The simple fact remains - there were/are opportunities, they were/are open to all, some took/take them, others chose not to. A painter does not need capital to set up a business, nor does a carpenter. Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees. Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups. Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletariat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.

Santa Cruz

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You continue to interpret social data in a biased manner, ignoring that which is not in accord with your perspective. Whelan said Do you not understand what the word ‘absolute’ means in that sentence?
The simple fact remains - there were/are opportunities, they were/are open to all, some took/take them, others chose not to. A painter does not need capital to set up a business, nor does a carpenter. Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees. Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups. Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletariat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.

You are 100% correct here. The privileged "useful idiots" of the Left will spend their time spouting rubbish and trying to back it up with "research" published by their "useful idiot" friends who have never created a job in their life because profit is a dirty word. At the same time instead of equality they will portray themselves as the intelligentsia of the left while employing Filipino au pairs and East Europeans as their cut price cleaners and looking down at the great unwashed proletariat.
Thankfully the Irish people are not fooled by this class struggle rhetoric and we have the minority of clowns who actually believe this rubbish

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I mean the workers went back to work. It did not expose anything in the manner you describe.

And your evidence for this assertion?

From 1800-1912 Irish nationalism had a relatively unifying force of demanding the repeal of the union. This did not mean that class conflict didn't exist - it did and was on occasion vicious and violent - but it generally was subservient to nationalism. In 1912 the Irish capitalist class had Home Rule within their grasp and moved to assert their dominance in Irish society by crushing the emerging radical trade unions of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This was the background of the lockout. For the first time the Irish capitalist class exposed their naked class interests and it was a lesson well learned by the Irish working class.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This sounds like fantasy and you are forgetting later strikes which happened despite the overwhelming nationalistic nature of post WWI Ireland.

As I have argued on here is the past (and produced evidence to back it up) - the situation was far more complex - a major class struggle took place from 1917-1922 - and the nationalist leadership themselves recognised the fact that class warfare in 1920 was threatening to tear the nationalist movement asunder.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think you may have forgotten another significant event over 'by 1918' WWI was a far more significant event in terms of improving working conditions in Ireland and wider afield.

There was zero improvement in working conditions during WW1. In fact Irish workers suffered a significant drop in living standards during the war as a result of wartime inflation. A major strike wave began in the second half of 1917 that led to major growth in the ITGWU (120,000 members by June 1920). the winning of major pay increases for workers and leading to major class conflict over the following years.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We are going off topic here but would working classes not seek to retain their relative gains as opportunity gives.

Of course - however when the economy crashes the ruling elites don't put their hands in their own pockets to carry the can for the crisis - they take back the relative gains made during preceeding years. That is what is happening today. Furthermore - advances and retreats are made not on the basis of what economic situation exists (although there is a direct correlation) - but on the balance of class forces in society. During 1917-1921 the balance of class forces were firmly on the side of the working class - post 1921 (really from Jan. 1922 onwards) the balance swung back to the ruling elites as strike movements were defeated and the leadership of the ILPTUC abandoned workers.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You continue to interpret social data in a biased manner, ignoring that which is not in accord with your perspective.

I didn't interpret the data - Whelan did - it was his conclusion.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Whelan said Do you not understand what the word ‘absolute’ means in that sentence?
The simple fact remains - there were/are opportunities, they were/are open to all, some took/take them, others chose not to. A painter does not need capital to set up a business, nor does a carpenter.

No one is denying that from the 1990s onwards opportunities for social mobility increased - however - again - Whelan concluded that while these opportunities existed, but the rich elites used their position in society to limit social mobility so that their position would not be threatened. If you have a problem with this conclusion then take it up with him.

Furthermore - just because a worker sets up a 'business' does not mean he is not a worker. It simply means that instead of receiving a wage for his job he has to compete as a manufacturing/service provider. If you brought your argument to its logical conclusion then (because of C45 sub-contracting) nearly every trademan employed in the construction industry in the 1990s would have been engaged in social mobility - they weren't

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees. Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups. Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletariat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

This is nothing more than a right-wing rant against the unemployed - devoid of any evidence.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.

I hope you got some badly needed relief from this -

Back to the point at hand -

WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.

Gee Bag

First off, I'm not in agreement with Jolly Red giant at all, but I do have issues with this post

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees.

Education in Ireland is not free, at primary and secondary school level books are very expensive, same goes for uniforms. Many schools also seek voluntary contributions from parents.

At third level registration fees now average €2,250 and are set to rise to €3000 by 2016. If a student has to live away from home during the college year then there is additional expense.

That 'back in my day' comment is pure guff. Many students work during the summer and during the college term. I'm pointing out the obvious here, but there is a distinct lack of part-time jobs for students to support themselves.

These are enormous barriers of entry to potential third level students from low income families.

Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups.

I don't get this at all. SMEs are the backbone fo the economy, schemes to support SMEs are vital for getting such enterprises off the ground.

Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletriat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

Long term unemployment is not caused solely by laziness. The relativley high levels of social welfare payments in Ireland obviously lead to a lack of ambition on the part of some, but it is grossly unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.

During the boom there was a massive skills shortage in Ireland especially in the construction industry. This shortfall could never have been made up solely by the Irish unemployed.

What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.

Deluded as they are, the Irish hard left are a tiny minority with little influence. I think the blame rests more with the big parties. Fianna Fail's 'win elections at any cost' budgetary policy in relation to the unemployed was unhelpful to say the least. This is being perpetuated by Joan Burton, whose goal of not wanting to see any reductions in the social welfare budget seems to have more to do with bouying up the Labour Party than the interests of the country.

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Back to the point at hand -

WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.

I’m not sure if your continuous attempts to misquote me, to infer ridiculous interpretations from what I wrote and thus introduce daft assertions are derived from your petty bias, your inability to read a calendar of events or something else.

Murphy senior started as a stonemason, he died as a small builder/building yard owner. (At the time he was building a small summer home for Lord Dunraven on the Kenmare River.) At 17 WMM took over the business, finished Dunraven's house and got another contract - to build the church at Sneem - as a result of Dunraven's influence , being the main benefactor. WMM was a highly successful businessman at the age of 25 when he married and mature beyond his years - even at school his friends were considerably older then he, one being Sullivan who ran the Nation after Gavin Duffy. Murphy worked there while in school, hence his interest that later grew into the Freemans Journal acquisition. There is no doubt that the Lombard connection was a help, but Murphy was very secure financially long before that, illustrated by the fact that the marriage was permitted.

who the fug

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

.



WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.

That name carried on until quiet recently as a Builders Merchants, growing up never associated it with that Murphy nor did any History teachers point it out to us

Jolly Red Giant

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Murphy senior started as a stonemason, he died as a small builder/building yard owner.

Then we disagree over the scale of Murphy Sr's wealth.

Murphy Sr. started out as a farmer and building contractor in Castletownberre but moved to Bantry in 1846 (when WMM was 2 years old) and significantly expanded his business interests.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

(At the time he was building a small summer home for Lord Dunraven on the Kenmare River.)

At the time of his death Murphy Sr was involved in several building contracts including Skibbereen gasworks and the light-house at Galley Head. This would indicate that he was more than a 'small builder' - and was in fact a substantial builder if he was engaged in a number of contracts at the same time.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

At 17 WMM took over the business,

He was 19

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

WMM was a highly successful businessman at the age of 25

He was also noted as a character who exacted revengge against those who he felt slighted him and who ate `... his vengence cold.' against those who slighted him (F. Callanan, T. M. Healy (Cork 1996).

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There is no doubt that the Lombard connection was a help, but Murphy was very secure financially long before that, illustrated by the fact that the marriage was permitted.

yes he was financially secure - including the wealth he inheritied from his father. However, the significant financial resources he secured from the Lombards facilitated a massive expansion of his business empire (including tramways and railways, Cleary's department store and housing development in Drumcondra). To portray WMM as someone from a humble background is utter nonsense.

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Then we disagree over the scale of Murphy Sr's wealth.

Murphy Sr. started out as a farmer and building contractor in Castletownberre but moved to Bantry in 1846 (when WMM was 2 years old) and significantly expanded his business interests.


At the time of his death Murphy Sr was involved in several building contracts including Skibbereen gasworks and the light-house at Galley Head. This would indicate that he was more than a 'small builder' - and was in fact a substantial builder if he was engaged in a number of contracts at the same time.


He was 19


He was also noted as a character who exacted revengge against those who he felt slighted him and who ate `... his vengence cold.' against those who slighted him (F. Callanan, T. M. Healy (Cork 1996).


yes he was financially secure - including the wealth he inheritied from his father. However, the significant financial resources he secured from the Lombards facilitated a massive expansion of his business empire (including tramways and railways, Cleary's department store and housing development in Drumcondra). To portray WMM as someone from a humble background is utter nonsense.

Nonsense - more inaccuracies. The issue really is that your hatred for WMM has got in the way of historical fact. (FWIW, I do not hold his version of capitalism in high regard and would place him in a similar position to my views on Michael O'Leary.)

The Murphys started out poor; through hard work Murphy Snr. developed the business. After his death William M Murphy took it over and grew it substantially. Derrymihan, where Murphy Snr was a small farmer and stonemason was/is hardly the centre of the universe - that is why he moved to Bantry.

You obviously have found Bielenberg's article on him - here - but sadly you have misinterpreted the info. and the content of your post is wrong. Galley Head, for example, was built by Murphy junior during 1873-75, as was the Skibereen Gasworks building. Most of Murphy Jnr's work was as a result of the post-Famine building boom, particularly of churches, much of the funding coming from emigrants sending money home.

I've made my point often and clearly enough; others here can judge what is fact and what is humbug.

pedroeibar1

Gee Bag wrote: »

First off, I'm not in agreement with Jolly Red giant at all, but I do have issues with this post
Education in Ireland is not free, at primary and secondary school level books are very expensive, same goes for uniforms. Many schools also seek voluntary contributions from parents.
At third level registration fees now average €2,250 and are set to rise to €3000 by 2016. If a student has to live away from home during the college year then there is additional expense.
That 'back in my day' comment is pure guff. Many students work during the summer and during the college term. I'm pointing out the obvious here, but there is a distinct lack of part-time jobs for students to support themselves.
These are enormous barriers of entry to potential third level students from low income families.

I accept many of your points to a certain extent, but books and uniforms always were expensive and the latter mainly affect fee-paying school parents. In about 1990 TCD fees were about £1,400 p.a. which, allowing for conversion and inflation, is Euro 4 - 5k in today’s values. (probably more if one factors in the new property & household taxes.) Even at the upper end of €5k that is less than half what all UK students have to pay and a fraction of what is payable in the US, Canada or Australia, where ‘student loans’ facilities are provided. (In France it is ‘free’ at just a few hundred euro.)

Back in the sixties/early 70's there were no student jobs either (or ones that did not pay well) so everyone went to England – I worked in Birds Eye and also in several fish factories in Grimsby, where the overtime was great.

Gee Bag wrote: »

I don't get this at all. SMEs are the backbone for the economy, schemes to support SMEs are vital for getting such enterprises off the ground.

You’ve misinterpreted me, I agree fully – the BTW schemes are a help to get people BTW but it is not sufficient. I believe that anyone who is trying to start a SME should get greater support. Most of the politicos have absolutely no idea of business and sadly now appear to be believing their own propaganda.[/QUOTE]

Gee Bag wrote: »

Long term unemployment is not caused solely by laziness. The relativley high levels of social welfare payments in Ireland obviously lead to a lack of ambition on the part of some, but it is grossly unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.
During the boom there was a massive skills shortage in Ireland especially in the construction industry. This shortfall could never have been made up solely by the Irish unemployed.

I did not tar all - I said ‘some’ - Most of the shortfall (particularly in construction) was in unskilled and to some extent in semi-skilled labour and supplied primarily by Poles (or, for example, Turks for the Gama Construction roads projects).In 2006, unskilled construction workers in Ireland earned an average of €756 per week, which was more than a month’s wage in the new EU- joiner countries, considerably more in some cases. I’m not putting it all down to laziness, or blaming all unemployed, but there was a considerable number of Irish who simply were not prepared to work.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Deluded as they are, the Irish hard left are a tiny minority with little influence. I think the blame rests more with the big parties. Fianna Fail's 'win elections at any cost' budgetary policy in relation to the unemployed was unhelpful to say the least. This is being perpetuated by Joan Burton, whose goal of not wanting to see any reductions in the social welfare budget seems to have more to do with bouying up the Labour Party than the interests of the country.

I agree; but that is more for a political thread/discussion. Look at what the unions did (and were allowed to do) at Aer Lingus, most of the workers living in Bertie's parish. Had it not been for the wake-up call of competition from Ryanair it would have folded years ago.

Jolly Red Giant

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nonsense - more inaccuracies. The issue really is that your hatred for WMM has got in the way of historical fact.

I don't have any particular hatred for WMM - the guy died long beforeIi was born. WMM was a representative of the capitalist class that provoke as major class conflict in 1913.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The Murphys started out poor; through hard work Murphy Snr. developed the business. After his death William M Murphy took it over and grew it substantially. Derrymihan, where Murphy Snr was a small farmer and stonemason was/is hardly the centre of the universe - that is why he moved to Bantry.

I would dispute your implication of Murphy Sr being poor - I will again ask the question - how many 'poor' stonemasons sent their sons' to Belvedere for a private education?

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You obviously have found Bielenberg's article on him - here - but sadly you have misinterpreted the info. and the content of your post is wrong. Galley Head, for example, was built by Murphy junior during 1873-75, as was the Skibereen Gasworks building. Most of Murphy Jnr's work was as a result of the post-Famine building boom, particularly of churches, much of the funding coming from emigrants sending money home.

I did and you are correct - I misinterpreted the information contained in the article. I do not have any problem admitting an error when evidence is produced to demonstrate that I am wrong.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I've made my point often and clearly enough; others here can judge what is fact and what is humbug.

Yes you have and yes they can - and maybe you can produce evidence of the the social composition of those who attended Belvedere in the 1860s.

Your initial contention was that WMM was from a poor background who engage in social mobility by moving from a family of stonemason to owning a major business empire. My contention is that WMM was not from a poor background - his father had enough wealth in the 1860s to send him to a private school for education at a time when the overwhelming majority of the population still were not able to read or write. Furthermore, WMM married into money and then used the wealth of his in-laws to embark on a major expansion of his business interests.