Berlusconi given a slap in the head

Aspro

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0417/3616308482FR17ITALY.html

"It was an effective demonstration of the increasingly vocal opposition by Italy's left to the way in which media magnate Mr Berlusconi, Italy's wealthiest businessman, appears to be forcing through legislation favouring above all himself and his business cronies." BBC Rome Correspondent

"Berlusconi was quoted by Reuters news agency as telling a meeting of employers' leaders on the weekend: "The strike will stop part of the country, but it will not stop our determination to modernise the country." CNN News

Of course, by "modernisation" he means attacking hard won workers rights and the pursuit of the world neo-liberal agenda of low paid, contract work cutting down the living standards of ordinary people and making the wealthy elite even wealthier.

He got slapped down yesterday. Fair play to the Italians. They know how to defend themselves.

ReefBreak

Thatcher did the same during the 80s. But is it a bad thing? Britain's Pre-Thatcher economy (during the 70s) was completely dominated by the trade unions - you couldn't move without a strike being called for whatever reason they wanted. She deregulated and modernised the country's labour market. More flexible labour laws made it far easier for a real "enterprising" economy to grow and mature. The result being, of course, that Britain's economy is in a far healthier state now than it was then - more employment, more prosperity.

From what I know about them (i.e. reading the newspapers concerning this whole story), Italy's labour laws are seriously outdated and inflexible - you basically can't be sacked without a very good reason. So if a company expands during a good period, it'll be fúcked when it's revenue starts to fall during a bad period, because you can't make any redundancies to cut costs. The result is that the company simply folds and everyone loses out.

Perhaps the 11 million strikering workers should look to other countries to see the benefits that a more flexible labour market can bring in the long run. But I doubt they will.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
He got slapped down yesterday. Fair play to the Italians. They know how to defend themselves.

Merda.

I'm no great fan of Berlusconi, but as ReefBreak pointed out, Italy's labour laws are seriously outdated and inflexible and only serve those already entrenched (and I use that word on purpose) in a job.

Those without a job have little recourse other than to live with their parents until they're in their mid-thirties, by which time they may finally become 'sistemati' - a term that roughly translates as positioned or sorted. Once someone is sistemato, they're on easy street.

The Gopher

I imagine all this is fuelled by jealousy of his wealth.Its like in the UK where every1 hates Rupert Murdoch because of his wealth.But it dosent stop them pouring their £16-32 a month into his skydigital coffers and buying his papers every day.Hes a businessman-i.e hes not always fair.But he provides these isles with a world pioneering digital service and some high quality papers.
Am i gone off topic?:cool:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by The Gopher
Am i gone off topic?:cool:

It is a bit, in that Murdoch is not an elected representative. But this thread does appear to have been started on the fairly clueless standpoint you've brought up.

[edit]Pointed out rather than you bringing up [/edit]

Aspro

I imagine all this is fuelled by jealousy of his wealth. Its like in the UK where every1 hates Rupert Murdoch because of his wealth.

No. It's because a corrupt fascist bastard is trying to destroy worker's rights to enrich himself and his cronies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,561765,00.html

Murdoch:

But he provides these isles with a world pioneering digital service and some high quality papers.

High quality papers? Gimme a break. If there was any real news in his papers it'd be by accident. He prints rags for riches.

http://pilger.carlton.com/media/cultural30

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
No. It's because a corrupt fascist bastard is trying to destroy worker's rights to enrich himself and his cronies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,561765,00.html

Ooooo... an opinon piece in the Guardian... well then it must be true.

Tell me Aspro, is your viewpoint based upon such articles or do you begin with your viewpoint and then seek out the necessary supporting material?

There's certainly some merit is questioning the motives of il presidente della camera, but it doesn't change the fact that employment laws (the point of this thread) are in desperate need of reform in Italy.

"Corrupt fascist bastard" - LOL, there's a well reasoned argument

Von

The unions will probably have to accept some sort of compromise but it was interesting to see that millions of people were willing to show that they weren't going to pushed around easily. The impression I get is that it's not labour law reform they object to per se but rather that Berlusconi and his gang are the ones pushing for it and they stand to reap the benefits.

Why some say Berlo's a geezer.

Should business be linked with politics?

As for reefbreak's amusing take on Thatcherism; she successfully destroyed british industry, turned whole communities into no-go areas, ruined britain's chances of being a driving force in the EU, prolonged the IRA's campaign, delivered mass unemployment and wrecked her own party. Apart from all that she wasn't too bad.

I dunno. What should we do with this mewling generation of snotty celtic cub sub-yuppies. Vonners sez shove 'em into a time machine and drop 'em in the most depressing part of tory britain with twenty quid in their pocket then pick 'em up a year later or something. Watch out for the street roaming mental patients who've been kicked out of hospital.

Aspro

Tell me Aspro, is your viewpoint based upon such articles or do you begin with your viewpoint and then seek out the necessary supporting material?

I start with the truth. Unless people ahve been living in a cave they would know what sort of person Berlusconi is, and what he represents - the dictionary definition of a corrupt politician - his monopolistic control of the media and his brutal repression of democratic protest in Genoa last year - I'd say that's fairly close to Fascism (Un voce, un duce) - therefore "corrupt, fascist bastard".
As regards my sources, I'd hardly call The Guardian the pinnacle of investigative journalism so I don't base my opinions on their articles. Is there such thing as a free and independent media? I don't think so. Rare journalists like John Pilger and Robert Fisk are the exception to the rule.

The 11 million or so Italian workers struck both in opposition to Berlusconi in general, and to defend their rights. Reefbreak and yourself Corinthian have come out in tandem with the right-wing media and unwittingly are supporting Berlusconi's position. They say Italy's labour laws are arcane and outdated - I say they are the commendable legacy of Italy's strong left-wing tradition. What's wrong with having security - having a job for life? It's far more progressive than our system of social "partnership" - keeping workers wages down while profits go through the roof in boom times and then to protect their pockets the bosses have expendable workers thrown on the scrapheap in recession.

If you want to increase employment one simple measure would be to cut the working week down to 35 or less hours. The taking into public ownership of multinational corporations would stop them from uprooting when they decide they want to relocate to a third world country so as to exploit cheaper labour.

The problem is not secure labour laws. It's the consensus in media and politics that says Thatcherism - the neo-liberal agenda is the dominant doctrine for world economics - that workers should be flexible (i.e. can be hired and fired at will) - that they are no more than mere commodities to be bought and sold and discarded to maximise profits.

Well homey don't play that. I salute the Italian workers.

The Corinthian

I start with the truth.

You begin with your conclusions and work backwards.

Unless people ahve been living in a cave they would know what sort of person Berlusconi is, and what he represents - the dictionary definition of a corrupt politician - his monopolistic control of the media and his brutal repression of democratic protest in Genoa last year - I'd say that's fairly close to Fascism (Un voce, un duce) - therefore "corrupt, fascist bastard".

Who was defending Berlusconi. I didn’t even vote for him. As for:

Corrupt - probably.

Fascist - Depends on how you define Fascism. “Monopolistic control of the media and his brutal repression of democratic protest” tends to describe Castro rather well. Is Castro a Fascist?

Bastard – I don’t know, but I think his parents were married.

As regards my sources, I'd hardly call The Guardian the pinnacle of investigative journalism so I don't base my opinions on their articles.

That’s all right, we’ve already established that you base your opinions on your presumptive definition of truth and work backwards.

They say Italy's labour laws are arcane and outdated - I say they are the commendable legacy of Italy's strong left-wing tradition.

/me has an image of Aspro waving his little indignant fist, crying “power to the people” with tears in his eyes

If you want to increase employment one simple measure would be to cut the working week down to 35 or less hours. The taking into public ownership of multinational corporations would stop them from uprooting when they decide they want to relocate to a third world country so as to exploit cheaper labour.

That would be nice. Pity it’s about as economically viable as Boo.com was.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

On a related note; Von’s assessment (before he went into his obligatory left wing rant) was a fair one of the situation, IMHO.

bonkey

Originally posted by Aspro
They say Italy's labour laws are arcane and outdated - I say they are the commendable legacy of Italy's strong left-wing tradition. What's wrong with having security - having a job for life?

I know of at least one strike which ocurred in Ireland, where the underlying reason was that workers were striking having been offered more money for fewer hours.

So what the hell were they striking for? Because they were seriously worried they would be asked to actually work for those hours - which would actually involve doing more work than they were doing before the shorter week was supposed to be implemented.

A "job for life" is great, if you have people who will work for life. Too many of them are "employed for life - work costs extra". I mean, after all, if you cant be fired, what impetus is there to work?

jc

Bateman

He is simply a manipulative, evil man. There are plenty of maiipulative people out there, you may need these skills to survive in politics, but he is evil, and his power is dangerous.
Its no harm for him to know that the people will bring him down to earth once in a while.
I mean, this strike is a nice gesture of solidarity, but at the end of the day, his labour reforms will be pushed through, albeit a little watered down, and there's not really much the workers are going to be able to do about it.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Von


As for reefbreak's amusing take on Thatcherism; she successfully destroyed british industry, turned whole communities into no-go areas, ruined britain's chances of being a driving force in the EU, prolonged the IRA's campaign, delivered mass unemployment and wrecked her own party. Apart from all that she wasn't too bad.

If you are talking about the coal industry, yes, she destroyed it - but it was dying anyway. As for the rest: well, it was on it's knees long before she arrived. But, she took a stand against the left-wing idealogies that was keeping British industry like that in the first place. Make no mistake, the deregulation of the labour laws and the promotion of so-called "centre-right" thinking (as also used by New Labour) was one of the things that have paved the way for low unemployment in Britain AND in Ireland today...

As for prolonging the IRA's campaign, well, she probably didn't help, but I don't blame anyone but the 'RA for the death and destruciton they caused.

Originally posted by Von


I dunno. What should we do with this mewling generation of snotty celtic cub sub-yuppies. Vonners sez shove 'em into a time machine and drop 'em in the most depressing part of tory britain with twenty quid in their pocket then pick 'em up a year later or something. Watch out for the street roaming mental patients who've been kicked out of hospital.

Is this the same Tory Britain that provided work for thousands of Irish people that couldn't get a sniff of a job back home? And why was there no work in Ireland? A militant union-dominated business culture? Not to mention high taxes - the major disincentive to work and invest...

Meanwhile, Aspro is still living in a fantasy-land talking about " public ownership of multinational corporations", cutting "the working week down to 35 or less hours" and believing that left-wing ideas are "far more progressive than our system of social "partnership"".

Perhaps the people that need the time-warp-lessons are Von and Aspro with a trip to Ireland in the 80s...

Aspro

Originally posted by The Corinthian
“Monopolistic control of the media and his brutal repression of democratic protest” tends to describe Castro rather well. Is Castro a Fascist?

No. Castro is a Stalinist dictator (bonapartist if you want to get technical). Cuba is an undemocratic deformed worker's state. Though I detest Castro he can't be defined as fascist because Cuba is not capitalist (although slowly moving in that direction). Fascism relies on the support of big business and the destruction of the working class and trade unions - "capitalism with it's teethbared" as Trotsky called it. Therefore fascism can only exist as an extension of capitalism.

That’s all right, we’ve already established that you base your opinions on your presumptive definition of truth and work backwards.

And you don't? If the media was truly free then we could base our opinions on an analysis of what they say and make an informed opinion. But when the media is owned by people like Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi and Tony O'Reilly who have their own agendas I rely on my own dialectical analysis.

That would be nice. Pity it’s about as economically viable as Boo.com was. Wake up and smell the coffee

11 million Italians smelled the coffee. The point is to understand who owns the coffee and how to take control of it for the benefit of society:p

On a related note; Von’s assessment (before he went into his obligatory left wing rant) was a fair one of the situation, IMHO.

I agree. But Von is accepting what is generally true of unions when faced with the neo-liberal rottweilers - capitulation. I don't think there should be any compromise with the likes of Berlusconi. As for his left wing "rant" - I think that was a fair summary of the Thatcher years.

Originally posted by bonkey
I mean, after all, if you cant be fired, what impetus is there to work?

!!!Eh, satisfaction that you are using your talents and education to their best ability, learning, interacting with workmates and having a decent standard of living.

The problem within capitalism is that people become dehumanised within a job seeing as their only function is to make money for someone else; therefore I can see where you're coming from (if I can't be fired, why would I work if I know I'll get paid anyway) - well I could turn that around and say if I knew my work and talents were depended on by my workmates, by my community and by my society would I not work all the harder to do the best I could? I know I would.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
And you don't? If the media was truly free then we could base our opinions on an analysis of what they say and make an informed opinion.

No I don’t. Whether the information I get is imperfect or not (an we can at least adjust for biased media by viewing it with suspicion), I will always deduce my conclusions.

To begin with a conclusion and induce its proof, on the other hand, is a matter of either arrogance or delusion. Such reasoning is generally only reasonable to zealots, be they political or spiritual.

Sand

Italys labour laws are in need of reform, but of course its not in the unions interests to liberalise them because this would hurt its members interests despite the fact it would help society as a whole by getting people into jobs (You cant have employment rights unless youve got employment) - the funny thing is the unions are thinking in their own interests, not the interests of society as a whole, much as any monopoly will.

11 million Italians smelled the coffee. The point is to understand who owns the coffee and how to take control of it for the benefit of society

Or we could think about what benefits the individual, the building block of society. Therefore we could let the person who can make the coffee best (competition), for cheapest (free trade and related to Italy flexiable labour, amongst other costs) own and control the coffee for the benefit of individuals, and thus society by exstension - As the soviets found out this excludes state ownership as a viable option in *most* cases.

!!!Eh, satisfaction that you are using your talents and education to their best ability, learning, interacting with workmates and having a decent standard of living.

Given a choice between working for 5 euros and 20 euros an hour what will you choose? Assuming the 5 Euro job is more *fun* youd still have more fun doing the 20 euro job because then when you go out to have fun ( life is what occurs outside of work imo) youll have more money to have fun, as opposed to the 5 euro job when youll have just enough to rent a video maybe and a bag of chips on a friday night. The point is people dont go to work to enjoy themselves and have a good time (theyre extremely disturbed if they find work enjoyable- surely youd have to pay them to *stop* working in that case) - there are pubs, clubs, resteraunts, cinemas, shops etc for that - they go to make money. I know Ive hated any job Ive done, interacting with workmates took up a large portion of it (otherwise known as dossing) and I was one of the harder working guys!

well I could turn that around and say if I knew my work and talents were depended on by my workmates, by my community and by my society would I not work all the harder to do the best I could? I know I would.

You seem to think people work for the greater good and their brother and sister "comrades"- they dont. The vast majority of people are primarily concerned with themselves, not some nebulous "society" - the goal of government should simply be to make sure they have the opportunity to do as they wish where ever possible. The individual should be more important in government planning than the state/society (the relegation of the individual is a characteristic of historical fascism along with communism).

In Italys case the Unions are a monopoly on labour acting in the interests of their members, and thus encouraging unemployment - liberalising the employment laws will encourage employment and thus a better standard of living for people.

As for that 35 hour week there cant be much problem with that (working of first impressions here- not aware of any impact studies) - so long as workers arent *forced* to work less than 35 hours (some people want the money) Im sure people would be in favour of something that would allow them to spend more time with their friends and family (the actually having a life part of our exsistence) and a 4 day week becomes viable - employers would continue to pay the same wage per hour so the only costs to them would be training/turnover costs and that weighs heaviest on firms where the training is relatively minor - i.e. non-professional jobs such as shelf stacking, janitorial work etc etc. Given that firms would simply hire more workers to cover "lost" hours , boosting employment and the standard of livng- it seems to be win, win tbh- but again Im working of first impressions only.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I don't think there is any doubt that Italy's labor laws are in need of reform, and badly. The tricky part about our friend Silvio trying to bring about this reform is that he is in many ways what Italian workers see as the face of big business. He owns AC Milan and a number of broadcasting houses- a media mogul who owns a football club and has reaped the benefits of big business would naturally arouse more than a little suspicion when trying to bring about radical labor reform.

Suspicion aside- the reform is needed purely because of the stagnant state of the Italian job market at the moment. There is little or no insurance trading on the Italian stock market because such insurance is secured in a weekly pay-check almost impossible to deny. A multi-warning system coupled with an injuction-led system to fire a single worker would put any job market back in the doldrums. In order to compete in the wider and more open European market, Italy must, repeat must curtail these ridiculous regulations enshrined in Article 18 if it is to stand a chance with wage competition.

If you gave most workers from out of town the choice of average pay with job security or of a better salary with bonuses for hard work and the sack for slacking...most management workers would take the latter choice. After all, risk and initiative + enterprise is what competitive business is built on- not merely having to turn up and not screw up (tm). With the latter standard, where will all the most competitve managers go? Why abroad of course- look across most financial and construction firms in southwest Europe- I challenge you to find me one without an Italian in middle management- they've fled to greener pastures. Enticing them to stay hinges on repealing that retarded piece of legislation. The average blue-collar union worker gains nothing from an increase in risk without corresponding reward, businesses are unwilling to give such reward without the guaranteed ability to fire people if they show no promise in this direction.

To conclude- yes Berlusconi will have his own agenda, what politician doesn't? But the changes his government proposes will benefit Italy's economy. And contrary to the popular beliefs of both pure capitalism and communism, the individual workers rights/freedoms don't matter in the grand scale of economic success- only the freedom and rights of the consumer and employer in the wider economy lead to a truly successful system. Productivity is a by-word used by many, but reward dictates output and success. Without risk association( a term managers love to bandy but rarely know the meaning of), there will be no progress towards a freer and more open European market. So yes, unionists will be pissed off, but in the long run it is they who stand to gain in the way of higher standards of living. They should capitulate, accept the inevitable, and marvel in a decade's time as their momentary economic hardship (momentary on a true economic timescale) translates into better business and greater prosperity for all.

Occy

Bateman

>They should capitulate, accept the inevitable

---

I think thats exactly what they will do, what most Unions do eventually.
However, I would be very sceptical of economic improvement in Italy with Berlusconi at the helm, I don't particularly think he has economic development in mind.;)

Von

Originally posted by ReefBreak
And why was there no work in Ireland? A militant union-dominated business culture? Not to mention high taxes - the major disincentive to work and invest...

I blame Dev (Eamonn De Valera not Devore), the rain and alcoholism amongst other factors.

Perhaps the people that need the time-warp-lessons are Von and Aspro with a trip to Ireland in the 80s...

Vonners was there. Man. Tayto's were five pence.

I heard that berlusconi is demanding that 2 journalists and a comedian be sacked from the public broadcaster. What a tit.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
I blame Dev (Eamonn De Valera not Devore), the rain and alcoholism amongst other factors.

I think it missleading to blaim De Valera, any more than the unions. Both have played their parts in retarding Irish economic growth.

Vonners was there. Man. Tayto's were five pence.

So was I and it was crap. There was a low standard of living across the board and frankly the only ones who benifited were on the dole.

As late as 1995, on the eve of the Celtic Tiger, unemployment benifit and rent allowence would get you £85 or so - ignoring your medical card and that you could always do nixers. If you worked full time, on the other hand, you could bring home as little as £125 a week in many jobs.

At least now there's incentive to work.

I heard that berlusconi is demanding that 2 journalists and a comedian be sacked from the public broadcaster. What a tit.

Perhaps his demands are unmerited, but RAI is hardly unbiased. Each of the three RAI stations has always been under the control of the various political parties, and have as a result always promoted a political agenda.

Von

Who was defending Berlusconi. I didn’t even vote for him. As for:
Fascist - Depends on how you define Fascism. “Monopolistic control of the media and his brutal repression of democratic protest” tends to describe Castro rather well. Is Castro a Fascist?

“Fascism” is one of those terms that has transcended its original definition and now has a broader meaning. These days it can be said to be a byword for authoritarianism or totalitarianism. In a totalitarian regime there’s two ways to control what people think: abolish the free media or buy as much of it as is necessary to control the thoughts and opinions of enough people.

If you are talking about the coal industry, yes, she destroyed it - but it was dying anyway.

If it was “dying anyway” then why bother going to all the trouble of mobilising the full resources of the state to break the strike? Because the broader agenda was to dismantle britain’s democratic structures and castrate the unions of inefficient anti-free market types like teachers and nurses.

Unions are more than capable of being as monolithic and self-serving as the forces they’re supposed to act as counterweights to, but they’re still necessary. I suggest you have a look at 19th century Irish history.

Make no mistake, the deregulation of the labour laws and the promotion of so-called "centre-right" thinking (as also used by New Labour) was one of the things that have paved the way for low unemployment in Britain AND in Ireland today...

Nah that’s bollocks. Thatcher centralised political and financial power, ignored the importance of education and ranted about “Victorian values” and the like. Ireland at least put money into education and began the process of casting off the influence and power of the church. ESF funded RTC’s and other 3rd level initiatives were hugely important to the development of the economy imo. How can a country’s economy be competitive when its schools are churning out illiterates and turning communities into ghettos?

As for prolonging the IRA's campaign, well, she probably didn't help, but I don't blame anyone but the 'RA for the death and destruciton they caused.

Rather than do anything remotely useful to resolve the conflict and save lives Thatcher preferred to exploit northern ireland to enhance her own “iron lady” image among Sun readers and the british establishment who like nothing better than sending brave tommies off to have “a crack at the mick.”

Is this the same Tory Britain that provided work for thousands of Irish people that couldn't get a sniff of a job back home? And why was there no work in Ireland? A militant union-dominated business culture? Not to mention high taxes - the major disincentive to work and invest...

I’d add that Irish people who went to work in Britain worked in low paid and/or extremely anti-social jobs which were just not economically viable for british people. For instance the last job I did in London, I worked 80 hours a week just to keep a roof over my head. 60 hours in a euston station warehouse - 6pm to 6 or 7am – and then 20 hours over the weekend in a king’s cross pub in exchange for a room and (bad) food. Irish people with a leaving cert or a couple of years of 3rd level were also better educated and therefore more employable.

Italys labour laws are in need of reform, but of course its not in the unions interests to liberalise them because this would hurt its members interests despite the fact it would help society as a whole by getting people into jobs (You cant have employment rights unless youve got employment) - the funny thing is the unions are thinking in their own interests, not the interests of society as a whole, much as any monopoly will.

Ehh, the unions would probably argue that they’re representative of society. They are composed of workers after all.

You seem to think people work for the greater good and their brother and sister "comrades"- they dont. The vast majority of people are primarily concerned with themselves, not some nebulous "society" - the goal of government should simply be to make sure they have the opportunity to do as they wish where ever possible.

This completely contradicts your point above that the unions and the striking workers should do what’s best for “society” and allow themselves to be sacked at the drop of a hat. Now you’re saying they should look after themselves and have no regard for anyone else. (?) Anyway some people do work for the benefit of society and communities and feel that passing on skills helps in the long run. I know plenty of them. Some are involved in these boards. They’re mugs and get taken for granted but there you go.

The individual should be more important in government planning than the state/society (the relegation of the individual is a characteristic of historical fascism along with communism).

An atomized society driven by greed and selfishness actually facilitates the rise of totalitarianism. As does surrendering individuality to some ill defined "common good."

So yes, unionists will be pissed off, but in the long run it is they who stand to gain in the way of higher standards of living. They should capitulate, accept the inevitable, and marvel in a decade's time as their momentary economic hardship (momentary on a true economic timescale) translates into better business and greater prosperity for all.

They’d be crazy to capitulate right now. I expect that they’ll negotiate and accept watered down versions of the proposals. As I understand Article 18, it’s designed to apply to companies with over 15 employees, help the south, and bring companies in from the black economy. The unions need to respond to the changing nature of work in the post-industrial west. If they don’t, they can expect a full-on assault on their power that uses every dirty trick in the book. It's already begun.

Effects Of Thatcherism On Mining Communities.

Accounts Of The Strike From Miners And Families.

Sand

This completely contradicts your point above that the unions and the striking workers should do what’s best for “society” and allow themselves to be sacked at the drop of a hat. Now you’re saying they should look after themselves and have no regard for anyone else. (?) Anyway some people do work for the benefit of society and communities and feel that passing on skills helps in the long run. I know plenty of them. Some are involved in these boards. They’re mugs and get taken for granted but there you go.

Actually you misunderstand - I never said the unions should agree to liberalising the labour laws - I said it wasnt in their interests and the unions were acting as any monopolists would, they shouldnt as anyone who already has a job (Union members) benefits from the way they are now, and who gives a toss about anyone else as far as the unions are concerned. As for those who do community work etc theyre the type of people who get a payoff from doing a "good deed for the day" whilst others get a higher payoff from going to the pub, watching TV etc etc- not knocking it , like you said they get taken for granted.