Halligan to visit grumpy Kim?

gw80 · 06-11-2017 11:13pm

Wasn't there some, eh, unpleasantness with waterford whispers and NK a few years back, maybe John should not mention waterford if he actually goes there:)

tomwaterford · 08-11-2017 6:33pm

A potential reason why he wanted to get a ridcolus story out about himself

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/union-describes-junior-minister-john-halligans-marital-interview-question-as-shameful-813277.html

He's the gift that keeps giving!

storker · 08-11-2017 9:06pm

tomwaterford wrote: »

A potential reason why he wanted to get a ridcolus story out about himself

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/union-describes-junior-minister-john-halligans-marital-interview-question-as-shameful-813277.html

He's the gift that keeps giving!

Some are calling for his resignation over this. On the plus side from his point of view, it would free up his calendar for that North Korea trip...

mooseknunkle · 09-11-2017 9:51am

A quick stop off in Thailand on his way?

https://twitter.com/IrlEmbBangkok/status/928437197321093121

Harry Palmr · 09-11-2017 10:47am

Imagine asking a woman if she is a mother (the married bit is irrelevant these days)? I'm shocked! We all know she'll be the one who looks after Ophelia when she has a runny nose.

Deiseen · 09-11-2017 10:52am

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Imagine asking a woman if she is a mother (the married bit is irrelevant these days)? I'm shocked! We all know she'll be the one who looks after Ophelia when she has a runny nose.

I think its actually unbelievable he got pulled up on it. Ya literally can't say anything these days.

He didn't help his case by saying "i probably shouldn't ask you this" that makes everything sound dodgey!

noby · 09-11-2017 11:13am

Deiseen wrote: »

I think its actually unbelievable he got pulled up on it. Ya literally can't say anything these days.

Ya Literally can't say anything that contravenes the Employment Equality act these days *rolls eyes*

People are making it out to be so benign, but historically it is such a loaded question, and that's why the law is there.

Deusexmachina · 09-11-2017 11:20am

Sean Sherlock on RYE radio now calling for Halligan to lose his job over asking a woman if she is married in an interview.

While the question was not correct or legally appropriate - for God's sake - lose his job??

I once met Sherlock - thought he was okay. I was wrong - vindictive little prick

Deiseen · 09-11-2017 11:21am

noby wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

I think its actually unbelievable he got pulled up on it. Ya literally can't say anything these days.

Ya Literally can't say anything that contravenes the Employment Equality act these days *rolls eyes*

People are making it out to be so benign, but historically it is such a loaded question, and that's why the law is there.

Look, I understand it was inappropriate, but on the "inappropriate scale" it is way the pecking order.
He got done for discrimination but surely discrimination would only have occurred if he didn't give her the job based on being married with kids. Have they proven this?

noby · 09-11-2017 11:29am

It's illegal on the "inappropriate scale".

It's not proven that this was a deciding factor (as was said in the judgement), but she was the only one asked this question, and she didn't get the job. That obviously left it open enough for the WRC to find against him.

Look, I'm no expert on employment law, but if I was a junior minister, and was asked to sit in on an interview panel I'd be keeping my mouth shut unless I'm quite sure of what I'm saying. I don't think there was any malice in his question, but it did show naivety from him.

I think calling for his job might be excessive, but it's been a bad week for him, publicity-wise. I think if I was him I would be flying back to Ireland, and paying the fine out of my own pocket.

Max Powers · 09-11-2017 11:35am

He's been absolutely useless for Waterford, he's well intentioned but embarrassing IMO...I like his stance on assisted dying, the 8th, etc and to be fair is a decent person, but more of a liability at this stage possibly.end of day, first point is all that is important and has totally failed to deliver.hopefully voters will learn that the shouters or table bangers are still in nearly all cases useless.on this latest thing it is incredible that anyone would ask a question like that in interview, everyone knows this for decades.

Add....Agree with noby above, especially last point.

Deiseen · 09-11-2017 3:04pm

Max Powers wrote: »

He's been absolutely useless for Waterford, he's well intentioned but embarrassing IMO...I like his stance on assisted dying, the 8th, etc and to be fair is a decent person, but more of a liability at this stage possibly.end of day, first point is all that is important and has totally failed to deliver.hopefully voters will learn that the shouters or table bangers are still in nearly all cases useless.on this latest thing it is incredible that anyone would ask a question like that in interview, everyone knows this for decades.

Add....Agree with noby above, especially last point.

In fairness Max, if john is useless then what are the others? At least John makes a bit of noise, Callinan was more vocal when unelected!

Max Powers · 09-11-2017 4:02pm

Deiseen wrote: »

In fairness Max, if john is useless then what are the others? At least John makes a bit of noise, Callinan was more vocal when unelected!

Agree 100%,cullinane and others aren't in govt or junior ministers though.re:cullinane,I have seen him on the likes of Vincent brown thing and he comes across as politician like, measured and , clear, well spoken and forceful with his opinions.he has gone up in my opinion, he could bang tables when he was a councillor,I think he knows if ever to get in govt, that course not the best and has wizened up.it's that weird situation where I think he's good, not much of a fan of his party for now at least....not that im overly enthused about any party

Wanderer2010 · 09-11-2017 5:10pm

These Independents change their tune so often when they get into the Dail. Halligan had no intention of ever resigning his post over any issue and now he is just the laughing stock of Leo etc. I was actually surprised at how quickly Shane Ross completely turned his back on the electorate, he was a fine and accomplished speaker for opposition but Enda rang him up and gave him 30 shillings to throw the people to the kerb and now he has turned into John Deasy-nowhere to be seen or found even in the middle of a strike!

Then you have that other Independent guy who demanded an enquiry into the StarDust tragedy, banging his fists and now meekly accepting the Judges ruling and not a peep from any of them. Turncoats the lot of them.

Harry Palmr · 09-11-2017 5:17pm

Given his portfolio he could be a good friend to WIT but obviously playing local favourites should be frowned upon eh?

Cabaal · 09-11-2017 5:36pm

Deiseen wrote: »

I think its actually unbelievable he got pulled up on it. Ya literally can't say anything these days.

He didn't help his case by saying "i probably shouldn't ask you this" that makes everything sound dodgey!

Seriously worrying that you see no issue with this being asked during an interview.

A question such as he asked or similar questions like "are you planning to have kids or do you gave kids" or "are you gay or are you married to a man or woman" are bang out of order for any employer to ask during an interview.

It's simply none of their business what goes on in your personal life

mooseknunkle · 09-11-2017 8:31pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously worrying that you see no issue with this being asked during an interview.

You've little to be worrying about if you're seriously worried about this!

Johnboy1951 · 10-11-2017 4:31pm

Is it not common for a person's CV to have a 'Marital Status' entry any more?

...... maybe this is now dispensed with in our rush to political correctness .....

I will add that 'marital status' always had a bearing on whether I employed someone or not.
When looking for stability in an employee it was preferred that he should be married.

Most businesses are employing a 'whole person' and not just a robot or part of a person.
Every aspect of a person's character and life is relevant to the decision.

OK, Halligan should not have asked the question ...... but he probably should have found the information by other means in order to make the best informed decision he could.

zurbfoundation · 10-11-2017 5:26pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is it not common for a person's CV to have a 'Marital Status' entry any more?

not since the 80's -

Cant believe folks think its acceptable to ask questions of this nature in a job interview - where should it stop? Are you married? Kids? Any relatives in jail? any time-consuming hobbies? History of Family illness? etc

Halli should have kept going with the interogation.

He says he is gonna hang in there, but if he was in the UK, he would be out the door.

He better watch what he says in North Korea :pac:

MRnotlob606 · 10-11-2017 8:06pm

Anybody who goes anywhere near North Korea must be rightly out of their mind. They basically killed a student for ripping down a poster...

Wanderer2010 · 10-11-2017 9:17pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is it not common for a person's CV to have a 'Marital Status' entry any more?

...... maybe this is now dispensed with in our rush to political correctness .....

I will add that 'marital status' always had a bearing on whether I employed someone or not.
When looking for stability in an employee it was preferred that he should be married.

Most businesses are employing a 'whole person' and not just a robot or part of a person.
Every aspect of a person's character and life is relevant to the decision.

OK, Halligan should not have asked the question ...... but he probably should have found the information by other means in order to make the best informed decision he could.

Can you please explain the bolded sentences above? I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that a married person is somehow more desirable to hire than a single person? And if so, on what basis are you making that conclusion? I'm trying to see where you are coming from with that statement.

I'm sure you didn't mean that married employees are somehow more stable or superior workers, I just want you to clarify the meaning please, thanks.

Harry Palmr · 10-11-2017 9:23pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Can you please explain the bolded sentences above? I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that a married person is somehow more desirable to hire than a single person? And if so, on what basis are you making that conclusion? I'm trying to see where you are coming from with that statement.

I'm sure you didn't mean that married employees are somehow more stable or superior workers, I just want you to clarify the meaning please, thanks.

I'd say a married/settled person is more likely to stay in a job once they've got it. Single people are more flighty as they can afford to be as a rule.

boardise · 10-11-2017 9:27pm

Pity that Mr. Halligan isn't going to NK to play the cultural exchange card. A coupla blasts of the oul' Riverdance and King John Young woulda bin putty in his hands.

Wanderer78 · 10-11-2017 9:28pm

MRnotlob606 wrote:

Anybody who goes anywhere near North Korea must be rightly out of their mind. They basically killed a student for ripping down a poster...

I would have been once interested in going, but probably not now, it has become too unstable. Henry Rollins went there a few years ago, incredible stories

Johnboy1951 · 10-11-2017 10:00pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Can you please explain the bolded sentences above? I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that a married person is somehow more desirable to hire than a single person? And if so, on what basis are you making that conclusion? I'm trying to see where you are coming from with that statement.

I'm sure you didn't mean that married employees are somehow more stable or superior workers, I just want you to clarify the meaning please, thanks.

If you understand the concept of 'settled' in life, then you get it.
A 'settled' employee was more desirable than one who might up and leave on a whim.

You should also note the tense in which the post was written ..... and you have changed to question in the present tense.

Wanderer2010 · 10-11-2017 10:46pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If you understand the concept of 'settled' in life, then you get it.
A 'settled' employee was more desirable than one who might up and leave on a whim.

You should also note the tense in which the post was written ..... and you have changed to question in the present tense.

I don't see the connection between settled and the calibre of an employee, what am I missing? Your second line is just confusing so I will return to my main query.

Do you think married people with children are more likely to be better employees then, with a superior skill set? That they will stay longer? Staying long in a job is certainly not a sign of a good employee, if you have hired people then you know that plus if you are implying (and you may not be, you haven't really explained yourself so well) that married and "settled" people make for a better employee. I know for a fact that many single people are excellent loyal and trustworthy employees and there are plenty of incompetent and useless married employees as well out there. No link.

Johnboy1951 · 10-11-2017 11:00pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I don't see the connection between settled and the calibre of an employee, what am I missing? Your second line is just confusing so I will return to my main query.

You might query and twist and introduce any concept you like, but I am not about to feed your need.

I have answered, and if you do not understand then that is for you to figure out.

Do you think married people with children are more likely to be better employees then, with a superior skill set? That they will stay longer? Staying long in a job is certainly not a sign of a good employee, if you have hired people then you know that plus if you are implying (and you may not be, you haven't really explained yourself so well) that married and "settled" people make for a better employee. I know for a fact that many single people are excellent loyal and trustworthy employees and there are plenty of incompetent and useless married employees as well out there. No link.

A whole load of stuff that I never mentioned ..... not engaging.

Wanderer2010 · 10-11-2017 11:03pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You might query and twist and introduce any concept you like, but I am not about to feed your need.

I have answered, and if you do not understand then that is for you to figure out.

A whole load of stuff that I never mentioned ..... not engaging.

Well, I wanted to reach out and ask you what you meant about being settled as a preferable status for being employed as per your previous post, but you cant back up your words,shame you couldn't explain or clarify the meaning.

For the record, being "settled" means many things to many people and has little to do with how loyal or competent a worker you are.

Finnbar01 · 23-11-2017 11:22am

John Halligan's peace mission goes a bit awry and he makes a dash for the border.

StringerBell · 23-11-2017 4:27pm

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Anybody who goes anywhere near North Korea must be rightly out of their mind. They basically killed a student for ripping down a poster...

Or if you choose to go to any country in the world you should look to abide by their rules and conduct yourself in a respectful manner?

I don't condone the actions of NK but it isn't like you don't know anything about the place, if you want to go there you better make sure you are on your best behaviour....or don't go.

Halligan to visit grumpy Kim?

Comments