Clare Daly compares loss of Aer Lingus perks to a man beating his wife

Little CuChulainn

“It’s like a fella agreeing to go to relationship counselling and then kicking his wife around the kitchen the night before,”

http://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-strike-3-1499916-Jun2014/

I think it was a very poor choice of words on her part. Blatant sexism aside, it really belittles the problems of domestic abuse by comparing beatings to a lost discount. I've dealt with many victims of domestic abuse and I can honestly say they have it worse than Aer Lingus cabin crew. Or maybe I'm just reading to much into it.

For Forks Sake

Lest anyone forget, that's former Aer Lingus shop steward Claire Daly. Wonder what perks she retained after she left.....

Karl Stein

“It’s like a fella agreeing to go to relationship counselling and then kicking his wife around the kitchen the night before,”

The most annoying thing about this is that it's chronological nonsense.

Wibbs

Par for the course. After all what would you expect from a pig but a grunt?

Menas

People before profit.

Aer lingus employees before profit more like.

Heroditas

Trigger Happy wrote: »

People before profit.

Aer lingus employees before profit more like.

Perks Before Profit

Hermy

That's not very parliamentary language Wibbs.

Frank Lee Midere

Ah we're back on workers getting pissed off with other workers once again.

God love y'er simplicity.

Menas

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Ah we're back on workers getting pissed off with other workers once again.

God love y'er simplicity.

Perhaps we are customers and taxpayers getting pissed off with state owned national airline that the unions think is their own to run at a detriment to providing a service and maintaining the viability of said airline?

porsche959

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Perhaps we are customers and taxpayers getting pissed off with state owned national airline that the unions think is their own to run at a detriment to providing a service and maintaining the viability of said airline?

Are you opposed to workers rights to join a union?

Menas

porsche959 wrote: »

Are you opposed to workers rights to join a union?

Where did I say that?

Wibbs

Hermy wrote: »

That's not very parliamentary language Wibbs.

Given the quality - and in using that word I feel itchy - of what passes for the vast majority of Dail debate it's probably too erudite for such company.

I am pie

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Perhaps we are customers and taxpayers getting pissed off with state owned national airline that the unions think is their own to run at a detriment to providing a service and maintaining the viability of said airline?

Govt owns 25% of Aer Lingus. Ryanair own more of AL than that.

whupdedo

What I can't understand is how her husband can restrain himself from kicking her around the kitchen every night

Menas

I am pie wrote: »

Govt owns 25% of Aer Lingus. Ryanair own more of AL than that.

Much less dramatic effect to say that it is Ryan air owned.

And the shareholding of 25% is actually tiny compared to the money the govt has pumped in to AL over the years...but there you go, when did the tax payer ever get value for money?

everlast75

whupdedo wrote: »

What I can't understand is how her husband can restrain himself from kicking her around the kitchen every night

In fairness I'd say she does the kicking in that house...

Little CuChulainn

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Ah we're back on workers getting pissed off with other workers once again.

God love y'er simplicity.

Actually there is another thread devoted to that. This one was supposed to be about Daly's statement.

I am pie

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Much less dramatic effect to say that it is Ryan air owned.

And the shareholding of 25% is actually tiny compared to the money the govt has pumped in to AL over the years...but there you go, when did the tax payer ever get value for money?

I suppose it depends what the purpose of state ownership is?

Provide a service or make profit. I'd say the former with the important caveat that costs should be subject to extremely rigourous control.

Given AL is now a private business they no longer have obligations to the tax holder given that they now turn a profit. If thats not sufficiently attractive ti the govt I assume they can liquidate their position.

porsche959

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Where did I say that?

You didn't, I was just trying to clarify your point of view.

Dravokivich

Wibbs wrote: »

Given the quality - and in using that word I feel itchy - of what passes for the vast majority of Dail debate it's probably too erudite for such company.

Thats some thesaurus spine cracking commentary there man.

Menas

porsche959 wrote: »

You didn't, I was just trying to clarify your point of view.

Not sure what part of my post is confusing you.

Perhaps we are customers and taxpayers getting pissed off with state owned national airline that the unions think is their own to run at a detriment to providing a service and maintaining the viability of said airline?

Arthur Beesley

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Donkey Oaty

Wibbs wrote: »

Given the quality - and in using that word I feel itchy - of what passes for the vast majority of Dail debate it's probably too erudite for such company.

Interestingly, "Pig" is unparliamentary in Canada, but not in Ireland.

There's a fascinating Wiki list of banned phrases in parliaments around the world here.

New Zealand has my favourite banned phrase: "scuttles for his political funk hole".

Edit: actually, sorry - that last one is an example of one that is NOT banned. But "Bad Man" in India is.

porsche959

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Not sure what part of my post is confusing you.

Interesting that you didn't answer my question.

Menas

porsche959 wrote: »

Interesting that you didn't answer my question.

Because it is a ridiculous question.
Who in their right mind would not agree to the right of employees to join a union?
Who in their right mind would agree to unions costing a troubled company revenue and reputation losses thru striking over rostering for air stewards?

porsche959

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Who in their right mind would not agree to the right of employees to join a union?

Ronald Reagan, for one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_%281968%29

Menas

porsche959 wrote: »

Ronald Reagan, for one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_%281968%29

As I said, who in their right mind?

curioser

whupdedo wrote: »

What I can't understand is how her husband can restrain himself from kicking her around the kitchen every night

Probably cos he'd have to answer to her good pal and adjacent back bench colleague Mick Wallace if he did.

Lou.m

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-strike-3-1499916-Jun2014/

I think it was a very poor choice of words on her part. Blatant sexism aside, it really belittles the problems of domestic abuse by comparing beatings to a lost discount. I've dealt with many victims of domestic abuse and I can honestly say they have it worse than Aer Lingus cabin crew. Or maybe I'm just reading to much into it.

I don't think she was making a comparison or an analogy I think it was a turn of phrase.

The loaded question fallacy ' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" using this to expose a fallacy in the question "have you stopped biting your nails?" is not comparing the two.

She is not comparing the two at all. In fact I cannot see how any intelligent adult could take a figure of speech used like that to be a comparison.

You are misleadingly using a turn of phrase that has more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.

She was not giving moral equivocation to both acts this should be clear.

She was expressing poetically the disingenuous tactics of the company in acting towards it's employees through an analogy.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.

She was expressing when one side agrees to a certain standard of conduct and mediator ship to communicate through and then acts on other ways indirectly to hurt the other side without technically breaking the agreement but violates the spirit of it and behaves immorally. She expressed this through an analogy.


Using the example of the loaded question fallacy 'have you stopped beating your wife?' does not mean I am giving equivocation of an act of violence to someone who asks me a loaded question. It means I am pointing out the unreasonableness of the question and the questioner.

She is not saying the acts of beating your wife and what the airline has done are equal at all.

I can't take the suggestion that someone might think she is saying that seriously.

She is saying it is a disingenuous tactic in negotiations and illustrates that the airline should not be trusted. Whether or not you agree wit the airline or not I don't know but that was the point she was obviously making.

I am not a fan of Claire Daly and I don't like her by the way.

gandalf

I could just imagine her reaction if a male TD said something like that!!!

As a TD the woman is a waste of oxygen.

Lou.m

gandalf wrote: »

I could just imagine her reaction if a male TD said something like that!!!

As a TD the woman is a waste of oxygen.

Agreed. But she was not making a comparison but an analogy.

It is really annoying me that people are not getting this now.:mad:

Dozen Wicked Words

Lou.m wrote: »

Agreed. But she was not making a comparison but an analogy.

It is really annoying me that people are not getting this now.:mad:

They are getting it, it's just a handy different approach to the same tired argument and they get a free pop at an outspoken leftwing TD at the same time.

I am pie

Lou.m wrote: »

Agreed. But she was not making a comparison but an analogy.

It is really annoying me that people are not getting this now.:mad:

It's fairly annoying that you can't understand that certain imagery should be off limits to an elected politician.

Certain phrases were used by Daly to create the imagery of victim and abuser. It was far from coincidental. Not only is it clumsy in terms of people who, wrongly or not, might take offence but it is misrepresentative of the actual dispute.

Aer Lingus as the villainous brute, senselessly attacking the poor defenceless working. As an analogy it is extremely inappropriate.

Are you not getting that?

whupdedo

Lou.m wrote: »

Agreed. But she was not making a comparison but an analogy.

It is really annoying me that people are not getting this now.:mad:

I am pie wrote: »

It's fairly annoying that you can't understand that certain imagery should be off limits to an elected politician.

Certain phrases were used by Daly to create the imagery of victim and abuser. It was far from coincidental. Not only is it clumsy in terms of people who, wrongly or not, might take offence but it is misrepresentative of the actual dispute.

Aer Lingus as the villainous brute, senselessly attacking the poor defenceless working. As an analogy it is extremely inappropriate.

Are you not getting that?

What he/she said ▲▲▲▲▲▲

Donkey Oaty

It's all a bit like Nelson Mandela standing up to Hitler over Bloody Sunday, while the priests and dole scroungers drink with Jimmy Savile in the Galway Races tent.

With a Ryanair trumpet sounding a sad, lonely tune in the background.

Or something.

Meanwhile, Aer Lingus have updated their website.

Arthur Beesley

Lou.m wrote: »

I don't think she was making a comparison or an analogy I think it was a turn of phrase.

The loaded question fallacy ' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" using this to expose a fallacy in the question "have you stopped biting your nails?" is not comparing the two.

She is not comparing the two at all. In fact I cannot see how any intelligent adult could take a figure of speech used like that to be a comparison.

You are misleadingly using a turn of phrase that has more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.

She was not giving moral equivocation to both acts this should be clear.

She was expressing poetically the disingenuous tactics of the company in acting towards it's employees through an analogy.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.

She was expressing when one side agrees to a certain standard of conduct and mediator ship to communicate through and then acts on other ways indirectly to hurt the other side without technically breaking the agreement but violates the spirit of it and behaves immorally. She expressed this through an analogy.


Using the example of the loaded question fallacy 'have you stopped beating your wife?' does not mean I am giving equivocation of an act of violence to someone who asks me a loaded question. It means I am pointing out the unreasonableness of the question and the questioner.

She is not saying the acts of beating your wife and what the airline has done are equal at all.

I can't take the suggestion that someone might think she is saying that seriously.

She is saying it is a disingenuous tactic in negotiations and illustrates that the airline should not be trusted. Whether or not you agree wit the airline or not I don't know but that was the point she was obviously making.

I am not a fan of Claire Daly and I don't like her by the way.

Is this post a pisstake? Please tell me it is.

padd b1975

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Lest anyone forget, that's former Aer Lingus shop steward Claire Daly. Wonder what perks she retained after she left.....

Free parking for one, a perk she also believed applied to her mate Wallace.

tritium

Its, at best, a pretty clumsy analogy that plays on fairly sexist stereotypes. As someone else pointed out if she wasn't a) a woman and b) a left winger there would be certain groups in this country calling for her head by now. Then again hypocrisy in this sphere shouldn't really surprise - Harriet Harman in the UK, Ivana Back and Mick Wallace here, we have plenty of examples of mouthpieces who hold themselves to a far lower standard than they hold others.

(To think for my 1000th post I got grumpy on this...)

MadYaker

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Interestingly, "Pig" is unparliamentary in Canada, but not in Ireland.

There's a fascinating Wiki list of banned phrases in parliaments around the world here.

New Zealand has my favourite banned phrase: "scuttles for his political funk hole".

Edit: actually, sorry - that last one is an example of one that is NOT banned. But "Bad Man" in India is.

This possibly deserves a thread of its own! Some of them are brilliant!

Banned in New Zealand:

his brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides

Banned in Canada:

inspired by forty-rod whiskey

Little CuChulainn

Lou.m wrote: »

I don't think she was making a comparison or an analogy I think it was a turn of phrase.

The loaded question fallacy ' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" using this to expose a fallacy in the question "have you stopped biting your nails?" is not comparing the two.

She is not comparing the two at all. In fact I cannot see how any intelligent adult could take a figure of speech used like that to be a comparison.

You are misleadingly using a turn of phrase that has more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.

She was not giving moral equivocation to both acts this should be clear.

She was expressing poetically the disingenuous tactics of the company in acting towards it's employees through an analogy.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.

She was expressing when one side agrees to a certain standard of conduct and mediator ship to communicate through and then acts on other ways indirectly to hurt the other side without technically breaking the agreement but violates the spirit of it and behaves immorally. She expressed this through an analogy.


Using the example of the loaded question fallacy 'have you stopped beating your wife?' does not mean I am giving equivocation of an act of violence to someone who asks me a loaded question. It means I am pointing out the unreasonableness of the question and the questioner.

She is not saying the acts of beating your wife and what the airline has done are equal at all.

I can't take the suggestion that someone might think she is saying that seriously.

She is saying it is a disingenuous tactic in negotiations and illustrates that the airline should not be trusted. Whether or not you agree wit the airline or not I don't know but that was the point she was obviously making.

I am not a fan of Claire Daly and I don't like her by the way.

There are plenty of analogies she could have used. She used domestic abuse to try and enhance the Aer Lingus issue, not to explain it. Domestic violence is a massive issue in this country that creates a lot of misery and she is using imagery of it in an attempt to bring an emotional aspect into a relatively minor issue. This shows disrespect to victims and belittles their experiences by putting them on par with a lost discount.

And you can be sure if any other T.D. had used it she would be up in arms.

joe swanson

Disgraceful comments but do we expect anything else from her. If she had any self respect she would do the honourable thing and resign her position.

mike65

Classic feminist language

David900

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Much less dramatic effect to say that it is Ryan air owned.

And the shareholding of 25% is actually tiny compared to the money the govt has pumped in to AL over the years...but there you go, when did the tax payer ever get value for money?

I'm slightly confused by your point. You know the Government didn't give away the remaining 75% for nothing?

suicide_circus

Dey tuk er perks!

Lou.m

I am pie wrote: »

It's fairly annoying that you can't understand that certain imagery should be off limits to an elected politician.

Certain phrases were used by Daly to create the imagery of victim and abuser. It was far from coincidental. Not only is it clumsy in terms of people who, wrongly or not, might take offence but it is misrepresentative of the actual dispute.

Are you for real?
To one side it is misrepresentative of the dispute.

Aer Lingus as the villainous brute, senselessly attacking the poor defenceless working. As an analogy it is extremely inappropriate.

Are you not getting that?

Freedom of speech and parliamentary privileged make it entirely appropriate for a politician to feel free to voice an opinion and color it with the language they choose.

You are overreacting.

Many politicians do this on both sides.


Are you WITH the airline??

Steppenwolfe

Lou.m wrote: »

Agreed. But she was not making a comparison but an analogy.

It is really annoying me that people are not getting this now.:mad:

They don't want to get it. Don't waste your time on them. Not worth it.

Menas

David900 wrote: »

I'm slightly confused by your point. You know the Government didn't give away the remaining 75% for nothing?

Look at the numbers and when you see how much the government received for the 75% and compare it to what they have 'invested' in to AL over the past few decades you will see my point.
I dont have the numbers to hand but remember seeing them a few years ago....