Have we lost our Patriotism?
Comments
-
@One eyed Jack wrote: "Without being able to pay immigrants a pittance for their labour, businesses in Ireland can’t sustain themselves, and the local economy loses out, because while immigrants do send their money home (same as the Irish did when we emigrated to other countries), they still generate plenty of money in the economy and that gets spread around, keeping other businesses in operation. Without immigrants we just don’t have the labour required in both unskilled and skilled employment, and employers have a ceiling where they’re not going to go above it because then they can’t afford to stay in business -"
But if a business as you say can only sustain itself by paying immigrants a pittance, what is the point of the business from a social point of view. Yes it is great that the owner makes a profit and gets to live a nice lifestyle, but why should the State support it through liberal immigration policies?
2 -
No, they don't.
Quite apart from the fact that it is both an Irish Constitutional right, and a Fundamental right of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights , I don’t even need to go that far. Seeing as they’re the example I used earlier, I can provide the blurb from SIPTUs website that shows even the unemployed can be members of a trade union:
SIPTU represents workers in both the public and private sector in almost every industry in Ireland and at virtually every level. SIPTU caters for full-time, part-time, permanent, contract and temporary workers, as well as retired and unemployed members.
https://www.siptu.ie/aboutsiptu/structuresandpolicies/representingworkers/
I wasn’t suggesting either that my misguided assumption that they represent the interests of workers in any way diminished or undermined, let alone eliminated their importance. They managed that much all by themselves by being largely ineffective, and I gave the example of how in public sector pay negotiations, they acquiesced to a deal which meant teachers would have to work a week unpaid.
That’s why I cursed whomever was responsible for accepting those terms - not only were they unfavourable, they were a pain in the proverbial in terms of administration. Certainly, it could have been much worse, but by that same token, had the unions (and there are many in teaching) been effective, they should never have acquiesced.
I didn’t have the greatest experience with unions, nor did I have the worst (that dubious distinction must go to temporary workers who had no protections when they were laid off, or public sector workers who were told the union had managed to secure a weeks unpaid work for their employers!), but that wouldn’t have influenced my thinking on unions in principle either way - in principle, great idea; in practice - flaccid.
I don’t imagine all employers are of a similar mindset any more than I know unions are definitely not of a similar mindset with all their various disparate groups making it easier for employers who are willing to engage in the sort of behaviour you’re describing to negotiate favourable terms for themselves, but it was no accident that I mentioned Quakers earlier, I’ve long been a practitioner of their management style which existed long before the modern secular concept of ‘work/life balance’, long before trade unions and even the EU cottoned onto the idea:
https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/rest/bitstreams/38454/retrieve
0 -
it is both an Irish Constitutional right, and a Fundamental right of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Joining a union may be a "Constitutional right", but I can tell you that actually doing so will often draw a negative reaction from the employer all too often. I've been in a situation where staff tried to set up an employee union and they were obstructed at every point until people started to fear for their jobs and went off the idea, so the attempt failed. That's usually the reality when employees try to unionise.
They managed that much all by themselves by being largely ineffective
They can be "ineffective" because they are often obstructed by the employer who will usually hold most, if not all, of the cards. And, again, I'll say that potential situations for workers are far, far, worse in places where unions aren't present to fight on their behalf.
they acquiesced to a deal which meant teachers would have to work a week unpaid.
Try to imagine what the outcome would have been if there was no union involved at all. You're blaming the wrong entity here. Putting the blame on the INTO for that particular outcome is a bit silly. Do you really think the situation would have been better for teachers if the union didn't exist? Think about it.
had the unions (and there are many in teaching) been effective, they should never have acquiesced.
"Effective" is a very nebulous term. Perhaps they were effective enough to get a better deal than the one that was originally proposed, which the teachers would have been railroaded with if there was no union involvement at all.
1 -
@One eyed Jack 'There was a time when unions were effective, but that time has long been superseded by EU employment law which has been far more influential in Irish employment law and employment rights and welfare.'
While the EU has laws in place there can always be arguments over the application of these laws.
Trade unions can have better barristers than a person could afford by themselves. My friend's trade union usually wins at the WRC because they have better barristers than the firm they work for.
A company has corporate advantages because of its huge size and resources. A lone individual can struggle, and some people don't know how to negotiate or don't have the nerve.
Though its true there can be toothless trade unions, and effective ones. I have seen both.
4 -
It’s not unreasonable for an employer to view unions with a great degree of suspicion given that the aim of unions is often to undermine the conditions of employment in favour of arguing for better conditions, for permanent employees at least, using the additional support of temporary employees as leverage. This is the point that continues to be overlooked though - unions, by their nature, are founded on the premise of collective bargaining, and strength in numbers. By having at least three separate unions representing teachers, another representing principals, another representing special needs assistants and so on - each union representing their own interests lacks the strength of their combined efforts. That’s why unions aren’t particularly effective (I’d argue it could be quantified - do they achieve their aims for the people they represent? It doesn’t appear so).
It’s unfair to ask me to imagine the outcome had there been no union involvement at all, when it’s the effectiveness of the union is being evaluated. They would be entirely different circumstances, but if I were to imagine there being no union, I could just as easily suggest that teachers wouldn’t have had it written into a collective bargaining agreement that not only was the unpaid work they were already doing to go unrecognised, but they would now be held to an extra weeks unpaid work as a matter of policy!
Your argument that circumstances could be much worse is rather like the tiny minority of people who claim to be patriots trying to convince anyone that they can protect them from threats conceived by those same patriots. At least 30 years of union membership falling precipitously would tend to suggest otherwise - people aren’t convinced that their protection is either necessary or warranted.
0 -
Advertisement
-
It’s not unreasonable for an employer to view unions with a great degree of suspicion given that the aim of unions is often to undermine the conditions of employment in favour of arguing for better conditions, for permanent employees at least, using the additional support of temporary employees as leverage.
You think it's not "unreasonable" for one party to stymie another because they are interested in looking of better working conditions so employees aren't treated like shit? That's quite an odd take.
Also, the aim of unions is to seek better conditions of employment, not undermine them, which a wholly laudable thing to pursue. They may not get everything the wish, but that's the nature of bargaining.
It’s unfair to ask me to imagine the outcome had there been no union involvement at all, when it’s the effectiveness of the union is being evaluated.
It's not "unfair" at all. It's quite easy to conclude that had their been no negotiations that working conditions for teachers would be worse which would, more than likely, be the outcome.
Also, we don't know what was proposed originally that the INTO had to deal with. I think you are just determined to blame the INTO here, instead of blaming the people who should be blamed.
And, again, I'll state "effectiveness" is a very vague term. Just because the outcome is not entirely favourable to you doesn't mean that the union is completely ineffective. Unions will rarely get everything they ask for so there's inevitably going to be some sort of compromises involved. That's unavoidable in negotiations.
Your all or nothing doesn't attitude apply here and you're approach seems to be unions didn't get everything they wanted so therefore they're useless which, frankly, is a pretty poor assessment.
1 -
There's absolutely no way you're happy that you implied I said something which I absolutely didn't say. Human ego being what it is, I doubt you'll admit it openly. You're better than that. Be better.
0 -
You think it's not "unreasonable" for one party to stymie another because they are interested in looking of better working conditions so employees aren't treated like ****? That's quite an odd take.
Also, the aim of unions is to seek better conditions of employment, not undermine them, which a wholly laudable thing to pursue. They may not get everything the wish, but that's the nature of bargaining.
It’s not an odd take considering the relationship involved - employers who are of the opinion that they already treat their workers fairly are going to be put out by the suggestion that they don’t. That’s what I suggested wasn’t unreasonable. And I know the aim of unions is to seek better conditions of employment, the point being that they are of the opinion that their current conditions need improving. In order to argue that, they need to undermine current working conditions, in order to demonstrate where and how they could be improved.
It's not "unfair" at all. It's quite easy to conclude that had their been no negotiations that working conditions for teachers would be worse which would, more than likely, be the outcome.
Also, we don't know what was proposed originally that the INTO had to deal with. I think you are just determined to blame the INTO here, instead of blaming the people who should be blamed.
And, again, I'll state "effectiveness" is a very vague term. Just because the outcome is not entirely favourable to you doesn't mean that the union is completely ineffective. Unions will rarely get everything they ask for so there's inevitably going to be some sort of compromises involved. That's unavoidable in negotiations.
Your all or nothing doesn't attitude apply here and you're approach seems to be unions didn't get everything they wanted so therefore they're useless which, frankly, is a pretty poor assessment.
It IS unfair, because it’s based as you point out on the premise that without unions, there would be no negotiations. That’s not necessarily true, it could mean that employers would negotiate directly with workers without unions inserting themselves into the proceedings.
I’m certainly not seeking to blame the INTO specifically, I’m just using the teachers unions as an example as they’re the one I’m most familiar with, and to that end we DO know what conditions were like in the time period we’re using here (30 years), and we can quantify whether or not working conditions for teachers have improved in that time. And we can conclude that they haven’t, they’ve only gotten worse. Mine is not an absolutionist position at all, I’m well aware that in any negotiation there are often compromises which must be made, and some things which should never be compromised on. I only picked the Croke Park Hours as an example; there’s quite a list (inclusive, not exhaustive):
Easiest way to measure effectiveness is to compare objectives to achievements, and teachers workload has only been increasing in the last 30 years, with no improvement in their compensation packages and working conditions. I can accept that compromises are necessary and the unions which represent the workers in negotiations with their employers won’t always be able to negotiate a deal which satisfies their demands, but to have achieved none of their demands, and only appear to have made matters worse?
0 -
I was quite happy to imply from what you said that you were referring specifically to your fellow countrymen who participated in the riots, or fellow Irish citizens as you actually did refer to them, when you suggested that it was our patriotic duty to at least find out what caused those fellow Irish citizens to turn violent.
What I wasn’t happy with is your assertion that it is our patriotic duty to do so, because I took it to mean that we had an obligation to entertain them. I disagree, I feel no such compulsion, I don’t care whether they are from shìtty poor areas of the country, or from Timbuktu, whether they are Irish citizens or not.
Rather than admonishing me for what you perceive to be arrogance, I’m not sure it’s because I have offended your middle class sensibilities or otherwise, but I do not make the same associations you do between the rioters and people living in poverty. I don’t make those associations because I have known, worked and lived with people who they claim to represent, people who engage with the resources made available to them in order to improve their lives, people who don’t feel resentment, bitterness or anger towards others regardless of their social status, employment status, immigration status, etc. They don’t imagine those people are depriving them of anything. The tiny minority of people who do, are not defined by class - they simply have none. Case in point being the scumbag from Crumlin who is now a multi-millionaire, portraying himself as a patriot. Back in the day he, and those who were inspired by his rhetoric, would simply have been called a scoundrel -
Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.’ But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest.
0 -
It’s not an odd take considering the relationship involved - employers who are of the opinion that they already treat their workers fairly are going to be put out by the suggestion that they don’t. That’s what I suggested wasn’t unreasonable. And I know the aim of unions is to seek better conditions of employment, the point being that they are of the opinion that their current conditions need improving. In order to argue that, they need to undermine current working conditions, in order to demonstrate where and how they could be improved.
All employers will claim that they treat staff fairly. Even the ones that don't let their staff take a toilet break when they need it. And like your nebulous opinion about the "effectiveness" of unions, "fair" is also a very vague term. What you might consider "fair" could be very different in someone else's eyes.
And, again, seeking better working conditions is about improving conditions for workers. It's doesn't have anything to do with undermining those conditions, which is not what a union seeks to do. If employers feel that their power over workers is being undermined, well that's a different story. But, frankly, I couldn't care less about that. A company only gives a damn about its staff until it doesn't and temporary staff are even lower on the rungs of the ladder.
It IS unfair, because it’s based as you point out on the premise that without unions, there would be no negotiations. That’s not necessarily true, it could mean that employers would negotiate directly with workers without unions inserting themselves into the proceedings.
Without union involvement in the situation you're describing, any kind of "negotiation" between employer and employee would be so heavily lopsided as to be a joke, and even with union involvement the employer will still hold most of the cards. The union is there to act on behalf of the employees in seeking better conditions. Conditions which the employer will have laid down and which may not be wholly agreeable to the employee. Employers are afraid of unionise labour because unionised labour is much, much stronger than staff that are without.
Maybe where you work at the moment there's this happy clappy relationship between the employer and employee, but I can guarantee you that that's not the case for many, many, other people.
I’m certainly not seeking to blame the INTO specifically, I’m just using the teachers unions as an example as they’re the one I’m most familiar with, and to that end we DO know what conditions were like in the time period we’re using here (30 years), and we can quantify whether or not working conditions for teachers have improved in that time. And we can conclude that they haven’t, they’ve only gotten worse.
And, again, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not the unions you should be blaming here. It's the people who brought in the unfavourable conditions for teachers in the first place that need calling out. Unfavourable conditions that had to be negotiated and re-negotiated by the unions, without whom the teachers would have no recourse whatsoever.
I don't know why you seem incapable of understanding that.
Easiest way to measure effectiveness is to compare objectives to achievements
That's not always the case. Effectiveness can also be measured in how much damage was limited and what potentially unfavourable outcomes were mitigated. If you manage to get 4 unfavourable items struck off a list, but are still left with 2, then you've still been relatively effective. Because without any negotiated engagement, you're left with 6.
Employers will always try to bring in working conditions that will be favourable to THEM. Some of those conditions may not be agreeable to the employees. So there has to be negotiations in order to try and seek certain reductions here and there in order to get closer to what the employees are looking for. But just because not everything gets granted, it doesn't mean that the whole endeavour is ineffective.
And, once again, unions will not get everything that seek on behalf of the employees. That is the nature of negotiation.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I understand your sentiment that the people who rioted etc were either or violent scumbags looking for any excuse, or ill informed and easily led etc. it's quite easy and fair to look down the nose at them, most of us do. But I'd agree with Duderino, there can't be a riot in our city centre and we put it down to "scumbags be scumbags", we have to learn what the hell is going on that they can be so twisted.
Alot of these people come from areas that are increasingly adopting this rhetoric and belief. Many decent people believe this stuff about migrant rape gangs, terrorists coming in here, Irish being replaced.
However unfounded those fears are, the fears are real, and the fear in the community emboldens these pricks to believe absolutely that it is their patriotic duty to stop this happening. I have friends who believe this stuff, nice people in other ways, educated, but are still buying into it , it is crazy. Others buy into COVID vaccine stuff, believing primary schools are teaching kids to be gay or get sex changes (I kid you not).
Rather than sneer at them, we need to find out how they are being taken in by this stuff, or what makes them so disillusioned that this horseshit seems like viable and rational positions to take.
0 -
I get what you're saying but there is an intergenerational underclass present in Dublin (Other cities too) who cause trouble always did. Even in 1916 some took the opportunity to loot the shops in O'Connell street.
0 -
Ah yea, I'm not really talking about the looters. There will always be people who will take advantage in these situations.
It's moreso this undercurrent of bullshit and fear that is taking hold that is sucking in a lot of people, and does make some genuinely feel like it is their right and duty to defend the nation, which emboldens the scumbags. There are people who are protesting outside migrant centres, violently attacking and abusing people who have fled war, setting fire to places that are rumoured will be housing migrants etc. it is the opposite of the kindness I see in people and is going on far more than is reported.
A shocking incident of a mentally ill man committing what was a horrendous crime caused the worst riots since the formation of the state not because of the crime, but because the man was foreign.
They believe that this is all a plan by some unknown entity or group to replace us/ make us an islamic state / bring in rape gangs and murderers / make us subservient or whatever. Despite the fact that it makes no sense, and that they cant find a shred of evidence this is happening, they believe it is true and that they are doing the right thing.
Burying our head on the sand won't make this go away.
3 -
The reasons for people for looting in 1916 are, more than likely, vastly different than the reasons for people rioting/looting in Dublin a few weeks ago.
I don't think they're even remotely similar situations. In Dublin, recently, you had mostly "luxury" items being pinched by people who enjoy a level of living that far outweighs the average person 107 years ago.
During 1916, looted goods were everything from a bar of chocolate to a fur coat to sell on the black market. The first looters in 1916 were women, too, looking to grab something that they could put to use for their own.
While looting is looting. The reasons for the looting are varied, to say the least. It's harder to condemn someone for stealing food, because they don't know where their next meal is coming from than it is to condemn someone nicking a pair of Nikes because he wants to replace the pair he bought a couple of months ago.
1 -
How can you possibly debate with these people who believe this crazy stuff? They're basically gone complete conspiracy theory, and yes some of my own, (I thought) intelligent, normal friends are buying into it.
There is no reasoning with them. Some Karen on Facebook knows way more about things then any experts or organisations.
1 -
In the short term, not much I would reckon. I have tried to talk to people I know about how ridiculous it is, had arguments even, but they are entrenched and think I am nieve.
You would have to think much of this is driven by inequality and lack of education, though some educated people can be sucked in.
There are large portions of the population locked out of Irelands prosperity, many who have full time jobs can't afford housing (wither buying or renting) etc. The health system is in a jock, many of us will know people who got v sick or died due it's dysfunction, even when you have health insurance (which many people can't afford and are dependant on an even more dysfunctional public system).
There are large deprived areas of Ireland that have been ravaged by drink and drug addiction, criminal behaviour, casual violence and poverty. The schools cannot educate properly because some of the kids come from and go home to sometimes disgraceful environments. There went many people fighting in government for people in these areas.
I wonder how our social care and mental health funding stacks up against more equal countries?
Disillusionment, driven by inequality, I would think provides fertile ground for this stuff to grow.
3 -
Rather than sneer at them, we need to find out how they are being taken in by this stuff, or what makes them so disillusioned that this horseshit seems like viable and rational positions to take.
We know already how they’re being taken in by this stuff - a victim mentality through which everything gets processed, whether it’s books, music, social media or just their world view where they’ll go out of their way to seek out ways in which they’re always the victim.
I don’t think anyone should be obligated to engage with them as it only legitimises their beliefs - anyone would only be wasting their time. If they go off the deep end, they’re the authorities problem, not the general public.
0 -
The Irish people apologised for their women's soccer team singing about the IRA, the very men who helped form the state. I know you may say they were singing about the newer IRA's but that is not the point. The people would still have apologised even if they were 100% sure they were singing about the 1920s IRA.
The British are rarely afraid of offending the Irish during remembrance season. They proudly donate money to men who killed Irish Catholics. The problem with the Irish is that they are too concerned with being liked. Also the British have a statue of Cromwell outside Westminster and you apologise for an IRA song.
3 -
And what does any of that got to do with patriotism? That is of course unless you think it involves deliberately going out of your way to encourage violence and hatred.
All this thread shows is how little people understand about patriotism as they happily confuse it with everything from jingoism to social and economic justice. As for the men and women of 1919 - 1920, of the ones I knew personally I can’t recall any that expressed hatred of the English race, they hated the way people in Ireland were treated and the acts of the government and crown forces, but not the race. Of the others perhaps Dev and Cathleen Clarke, but then she strikes me as a bitter piece of nasty that I have little regard for.
1 -
Very few people in Ireland support the IRA today. It's not the 1920s. The IRA are not active from what I can see but they would be a huge impediment to the peace process and eventual reunification of Ireland if they had support. People have moved past that.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm sure some people are like that, but not all. Many are easily led and have an inherent fear of outsiders (a part of the human condition), and a distrust in people in power (a definite part of the Irish condition).
And as you bury your head in the sand so as not to legitimise these beliefs - what if they become "legitimate" in the sense that people who epouse them are elected, or even gain power in the country?
Arguments that aren't legitimate can nevertheless become legitimate concerns for all of us- the lunatics have taken over the asylum (and judiciary) in plenty of other countries.
1
