Eishtec to create 250 jobs!!!!

token101 · 18-12-2012 04:25PM

K3lso wrote: »

If the government deregulated, 250 jobs would be nothing.

Deregulated what? Which industry should they deregulate?

SEPT 23 1989 · 18-12-2012 04:26PM

Why don't RTE report the fact that 10 businesses a day are closing?

recovery:rolleyes:

SEPT 23 1989 · 18-12-2012 04:26PM

token101 wrote: »

Deregulated what? Which industry should they deregulate?

The Hooker Industry

K3lso · 18-12-2012 04:26PM

token101 wrote: »

Deregulated what? Which industry should they deregulate?

All of them.

token101 · 18-12-2012 04:30PM

K3lso wrote: »

All of them.

So Michael O'Leary takes over Bus Eireann, do you really think that will solve the problem of unemployment? Or will it add to it exponentially by having someone ruthless come in and cut 1000s of staff? Deregulation might be a good idea for consumers, but saying it will solve unemployment is laughable really.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Hooker Industry

If anything they should start regulating the hooker business and the drugs industry. At least that way we'd get some money out of it.

K3lso · 18-12-2012 04:33PM

token101 wrote: »

So Michael O'Leary takes over Bus Eireann, do you really think that will solve the problem of unemployment? Or will it add to it exponentially by having someone ruthless come in and cut 1000s of staff? Deregulation might be a good idea for consumers, but saying it will solve unemployment is laughable really.

I'll have whatever you're smoking.

18-12-2012 04:34PM

represent wrote: »

Maybe it is because BBC reports to a population of over M. Ireland has a population of 4.M. What seems like small things in the UK are big things here.

That is true but my point is the BBC will have an analysis of employment policies and it will be presented with a European/world view, at the end of the news there will a quick regionally report where more local issue will get a mention and that is the way it should be done in my opinion.

Government ministers should be directing policy which will aid job creation they should not be seen as responsible for individual job Creation, its the same old clientism politics that we have alway had, jobs are not in the gift of individual ministers, the media could play part in changing this by refusing to get involved in it.

reprazant · 18-12-2012 04:39PM

K3lso wrote: »

I'll have whatever you're smoking.

Could you explain how deregulation of all industries will solve the unemployment problem please?

SEPT 23 1989 · 18-12-2012 04:42PM

reprazant wrote: »

Could you explain how deregulation of all industries will solve the unemployment problem please?

Lower wages,expansion,more employment

K3lso · 18-12-2012 04:51PM

reprazant wrote: »

Could you explain how deregulation of all industries will solve the unemployment problem please?

It's common sense for crying out loud, can you not see it?

Capitalism has been with us since history was recorded, it's human nature; to trade, to better ourselves. Where you under the impression that government were needed to create a vibrant marketplace? And without government, a market could not be possible? What could be more absurd!? Absolute rubbish.

With that being said, every piece of legislation serves to KILL job opportunities and NOT create them. It has always been like this, it can't, logically, be any other way. Legislation kills jobs. For example, let's take for instance an office building. Say the people in these offices require tea and sandwiches every day. What is to stop anybody from seeing an opportunity and delivering tea and sandwiches to these office people for a small price. They are at liberty to do so because no regulation exists and of course taking into account human nature and human action (praxeology) both the seller and buyer both betters their position. One has money, the other, food. Now, you go ahead an legislate in this area. What do you think will happen?

First of all, you'll distort the market. You'll drive people out of business because the sandwiches will have to be made a certain way with a certain filling, the tea will need to be at a specific temperature etc etc. Government kill competition. A vibrant market consisting of every individual in the country is hampered by government regulation. What is to stop you if you were unemployed from going out, buying a minivan and doing trips into town and back for a couple of Euro? Of yeah, regulation. What is to stop you from minding your neighbours kids while they're at work? Oh yeah, regulation. What is to stop you from engaging in pretty much anything you wish to engage in to earn money? Oh yeah, regulation!

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, Regulation.

Regulation kills jobs, it doesn't create them!

This is bloody basic stuff. It's not economics, it's common sense.

barney 20v · 18-12-2012 04:58PM

I am delighted to hear this good news for the county.

As someone who luckily obtained employment with The Coca Cola Company three years ago after a period on the dole i know the difference it can make to family life for those who get the jobs.

Hopefully local people will be employed ,Any news such as this HAS to be welcomed.
Best of luck to any local people who apply for these roles.;)

reprazant · 18-12-2012 04:58PM

So the usual guff. Anyone can be a childminder! What happens when you child comes home injured or sick or worse? Who pays the hospital bills? Anyone can be a taxidriver! Ignoring the current issues the taxi drivers are facing, you'd have no problem with any person, in any type of car, being a taxi driver? Anyone can sell some food and sandwiches! What happens when people get sick from rotten food or food prepared in unhygienic conditions?

There is certainly an argument that there is too much regulation but for the most case, the regulation that is there is a necessary evil.

18-12-2012 05:02PM

K3lso wrote: »

It's common sense for crying out loud, can you not see it?

Capitalism has been with us since history was recorded, it's human nature; to trade, to better ourselves. Where you under the impression that government were needed to create a vibrant marketplace? And without government, a market could not be possible? What could be more absurd!? Absolute rubbish.

With that being said, every piece of legislation serves to KILL job opportunities and NOT create them. It has always been like this, it can't, logically, be any other way. Legislation kills jobs. For example, let's take for instance an office building. Say the people in these offices require tea and sandwiches every day. What is to stop anybody from seeing an opportunity and delivering tea and sandwiches to these office people for a small price. They are at liberty to do so because no regulation exists and of course taking into account human nature and human action (praxeology) both the seller and buyer both betters their position. One has money, the other, food. Now, you go ahead an legislate in this area. What do you think will happen?

First of all, you'll distort the market. You'll drive people out of business because the sandwiches will have to be made a certain way with a certain filling, the tea will need to be at a specific temperature etc etc. Government kill competition. A vibrant market consisting of every individual in the country is hampered by government regulation. What is to stop you if you were unemployed from going out, buying a minivan and doing trips into town and back for a couple of Euro? Of yeah, regulation. What is to stop you from minding your neighbours kids while they're at work? Oh yeah, regulation. What is to stop you from engaging in pretty much anything you wish to engage in to earn money? Oh yeah, regulation!

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, Regulation.

Regulation kills jobs, it doesn't create them!

This is bloody basic stuff. It's not economics, it's common sense.

This is way off topic, however take food for example should there be no regulation on how it is produced non what so ever, meat producer could produce the product any way they like and the consume could take there chances on the meat being T.B free etc is that how it would work?

The Aul Switcharoo · 18-12-2012 05:09PM

This is probably the most ridiculous thread in a while. I lurk AH for some buzz/to pass the time and don't take much heed to it but OP you are clueless.

It's 250 jobs in a region that is on its knees. 250 people who will not be on the dole saving the government minimum 2.5m a year. They spend their extra wages and bring more tax in. Also min wage is very livable off down this part of the country. Most workers are in their early 20's and are willing to work for 10 or 11e per hour - 40 hours = 400e per week gross

Not everyone wants to be on their couch scratching their hole every week

K3lso · 18-12-2012 05:10PM

reprazant wrote: »

So the usual guff. Anyone can be a childminder! What happens when you child comes home injured or sick or worse? Who pays the hospital bills? Anyone can be a taxidriver! Ignoring the current issues the taxi drivers are facing, you'd have no problem with any person, in any type of car, being a taxi driver? Anyone can sell some food and sandwiches! What happens when people get sick from rotten food or food prepared in unhygienic conditions?

There is certainly an argument that there is too much regulation but for the most case, the regulation that is there is a necessary evil.

Regulation already exists, it's called the market. We don't need more in the form of government legislation. You think government legislation protects you? You really think that? You're very naive. Government can say food must be hygienic, but what do you think happens when food falls on the floor in restaurants or take-aways etc? It's put back on the plate for serving, sorry but it's true. It's not the government that protects you, it's the good business owners that don't approve of such behaviour.

Do you return to a take-away or a restaurant because you know government have regulated it? Or do you return because their service is fantastic as well as their great product?! And you're wrong, a childminder cannot set up a business. Regulation won't allow it. He/She has to go fill out dozens of forms, pay taxes, and meet certain regulatory requirements wrote up by a bureaucratic agency. In the end, no jobs are created, and the parents must now pay hugh sums of money to the playschools/childminders actually able to reach the regulatory requirements killing competition.

The same with taxi's. I don't know if you're too young to remember, but there was a time believe it or not when there was only a handful of taxi's on the road in Ireland. If you managed to pull one over, the first thing he would ask you is where you were going..all fair enough stuff up to this. But then something strange happened. If he didn't like the sound of the place you were traveling to or if he just didn't fancy going there at all...he wouldn't take you, he'd drive off. And you'd be buggered! But then something marvelous happened, deregulation! Now, in 2012...there are more taxis on Irish roads than ever before and the service from a consumer standpoint couldn't be better. Why? Because of competition. Now, the older guys that remember the good old days don't much like all this competition. They prefer the monopoly they once enjoyed but those days are long gone.

However, it's not deregulated enough so to answer your question, no....not everyone can be a taxi man. Prices, miles, licenses are regulated. And even though deregulation has brought amazing service....it still has the potential to bring even more. Deregulation would make this economy soar! Right now, the government are engaged in micro-management and this simply doesn't work.

reprazant · 18-12-2012 05:19PM

I like the way you are being extremely smug and condescending but completely missed the point I was saying about anyone can be child minder.

In fact, that post is so smug and condescending it is hilarious.

token101 · 18-12-2012 06:00PM

K3lso wrote: »

It's common sense for crying out loud, can you not see it?

Capitalism has been with us since history was recorded, it's human nature; to trade, to better ourselves. Where you under the impression that government were needed to create a vibrant marketplace? And without government, a market could not be possible? What could be more absurd!? Absolute rubbish.

With that being said, every piece of legislation serves to KILL job opportunities and NOT create them. It has always been like this, it can't, logically, be any other way. Legislation kills jobs. For example, let's take for instance an office building. Say the people in these offices require tea and sandwiches every day. What is to stop anybody from seeing an opportunity and delivering tea and sandwiches to these office people for a small price. They are at liberty to do so because no regulation exists and of course taking into account human nature and human action (praxeology) both the seller and buyer both betters their position. One has money, the other, food. Now, you go ahead an legislate in this area. What do you think will happen?

First of all, you'll distort the market. You'll drive people out of business because the sandwiches will have to be made a certain way with a certain filling, the tea will need to be at a specific temperature etc etc. Government kill competition. A vibrant market consisting of every individual in the country is hampered by government regulation. What is to stop you if you were unemployed from going out, buying a minivan and doing trips into town and back for a couple of Euro? Of yeah, regulation. What is to stop you from minding your neighbours kids while they're at work? Oh yeah, regulation. What is to stop you from engaging in pretty much anything you wish to engage in to earn money? Oh yeah, regulation!

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, Regulation.

Regulation kills jobs, it doesn't create them!

This is bloody basic stuff. It's not economics, it's common sense.

It's also killed our economy though, a lack of regulation is what created this economic mess in the first place! Deregulation has its benefits, but it has negatives as well, which you've nicely failed to outline. There's a difference between regulation and over regulation. That guy you've mentioned, nothing's stopping him getting a taxi plate. It costs him more, but it would mean that he has to prove he's not driving some death trap and prove he's a capable and safe driver, but that's good for consumers. Same for your sandwich making example, I'd much rather pay extra for my sandwiches and know that it's less likely I'm going to be poisoned. Maybe that industry is over regulated, I have no idea if it is or not, but I want some rules that say someone can't just sell me any old **** and I'll know better next time. The old 'well, you'll just go somewhere else next time because Mary is out of business' argument doesn't really cut it all the time. Deregulation also means state run companies will shed 1000s of workers, that would be a disaster for Ireland right now. Sure you'll have a more efficiently run organisation, but what will that mean for the SW bill? Would it really justify increasing the SW bill by 50 or 60 million a year? Doubtful.

longhalloween · 18-12-2012 06:18PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Lower wages,expansion,more employment

Yes lower wages. That's the ticket. Sure why sit at home for 150 a week when you can work for it. Genius thinking!

K3lso · 18-12-2012 06:52PM

token101 wrote: »

It's also killed our economy though, a lack of regulation is what created this economic mess in the first place! Deregulation has its benefits, but it has negatives as well, which you've nicely failed to outline. There's a difference between regulation and over regulation. That guy you've mentioned, nothing's stopping him getting a taxi plate. It costs him more, but it would mean that he has to prove he's not driving some death trap and prove he's a capable and safe driver, but that's good for consumers. Same for your sandwich making example, I'd much rather pay extra for my sandwiches and know that it's less likely I'm going to be poisoned. Maybe that industry is over regulated, I have no idea if it is or not, but I want some rules that say someone can't just sell me any old **** and I'll know better next time. The old 'well, you'll just go somewhere else next time because Mary is out of business' argument doesn't really cut it all the time. Deregulation also means state run companies will shed 1000s of workers, that would be a disaster for Ireland right now. Sure you'll have a more efficiently run organisation, but what will that mean for the SW bill? Would it really justify increasing the SW bill by 50 or 60 million a year? Doubtful.

Deregulation has not killed our economy and it most certainly has not got us into this mess we are now in. Please don't buy into the media propaganda orchestrated to direct attention away from political and economic ignorance. The fact of the matter is that the banking sector is heavily regulated; it has always been heavily regulated. It is, was and has always been one of the most regulated areas. So I can't understand where this argument that banks need more regulation is coming from...but I'd assume it comes from fat cats looking for even more regulation to kill competition and enhance their position and financial aspects further. They're not the type of people I'd be supportive of in granting a government guaranteed monopoly, however it seems a majority of people have been brainwashed into serving as cannon fodder for these special interests.

Let me explain exactly how we ended up here.

First of all, the root of all financial evil and the source of our woes is the European Central Bank and the European Union. When you walk into a shop to buy chocolate, you can expect many different options and many different products - Cadburys, Lindt, Butlers, Nestle etc. Why don't you have the same range of options when it comes to your money? Because there is no market in banking. The European Central Bank, indeed, all central banks are an affront to the system of capitalism. They have a monetary monopoly and have been granted authority by a secretive, undemocratic, unaccountable EU to go and counterfeit money debasing and devaluing the value of the Euro you hold in your pocket.

Besides the evils that come with inflation, France and Germany were happy to set interest rates applicable to their economies but which were hugely damaging to Irelands. Interest rates must be left to the market, but the ECB believes they must possess (for what reason only God knows) the authority to lower and higher interest rates themselves artificially. In effect, this allows them to "manage the economy" or play god so to speak by being able to start and stop economic growth at the push of a button.

You can see how damaging this becomes when you take into consideration quantitative easing, i.e - the printing of money. If you or I printed money in our homes, we would be thrown in jail but when the government does it to spend billions nobody objects. Why is this? Printing money is a tax. It's a tax on everyone because everyone pays the price for higher prices and devaluing of your personal wealth. But politicians don't seem to mind. Because the more they spend, the more people vote for them and of course, a politicians ambition is only a short term goal. They know they'll need to leave office one day but in the meantime, they'll spend spend spend with no care for the indebted nation they're leaving behind. Let future generations pick up the tab while they set off into the sunset with a massive pension in hand.

Printing money doesn't stimulate the economy. The massive credit expansion in the Eurozone was textbook. The artificially set interest rates lured the people into investing in areas that were not profitable. These are malinvestments. And it's that malinvestment that lead to the property bubble which burst like all bubbles do. Economics is about the allocation of limited resources. There are only a finite amount of resources in this world and we have to put them to use most effectively. That's why when a business fails, it should be allowed to fail. The only way out of this mess is to liquidate all the bad malinvestment in our economy. Will it be hard, yes of course but it's an inevitable outcome of a failed monetary system and we need to change it.

So when you bail out banks, we don't put our finite resources to their most effective use. In short, we subsidies and reward mismanagement, incompetence and failure. Bankruptcy is a good thing, not a bad thing. It cleanses, like a cancer patient, the disease out of their body or rather, the failure out of our economy. The good companies succeed, employ the people from the failing company in areas more effectively and grow. We grow, technology improves, we advance and evolve. But our government are artificially keeping these zombie banks alive. So how can we fix this mess. For one, we could have a free market banking system. Banks with 100% reserves as opposed to fractional reserve banking and this monetising of debt.

There is a lot of things we can do to avoid such disasters in the future but deregulation most certainly DID NOT cause this mess we're in now.

cartell_best · 18-12-2012 07:15PM

Why do some people post and just knock, what is in effect, job creation? Some people seem to be thinking that minimum wage in a job is something that is seen as abuse of resources, etc.. How many people in Wexford will get a job as a result of the announcement by Eishtec, before Christmas? How many people before the announcement probably felt a complete sense of hopelessness? But will now go to an interview and get a job, hopefully offered before the 25/12. What a brilliant way to go into 2013, new job, new hope! Me personally? It sounds like one of the best gifts one human being can give to another.

token101 · 18-12-2012 08:22PM

K3lso wrote: »

The European Central Bank, indeed, all central banks are an affront to the system of capitalism. They have a monetary monopoly and have been granted authority by a secretive, undemocratic, unaccountable EU to go and counterfeit money debasing and devaluing the value of the Euro you hold in your pocket.

Besides the evils that come with inflation, France and Germany were happy to set interest rates applicable to their economies but which were hugely damaging to Irelands. Interest rates must be left to the market, but the ECB believes they must possess (for what reason only God knows) the authority to lower and higher interest rates themselves artificially. In effect, this allows them to "manage the economy" or play god so to speak by being able to start and stop economic growth at the push of a button.

You can see how damaging this becomes when you take into consideration quantitative easing, i.e - the printing of money. If you or I printed money in our homes, we would be thrown in jail but when the government does it to spend billions nobody objects. Why is this? Printing money is a tax. It's a tax on everyone because everyone pays the price for higher prices and devaluing of your personal wealth. But politicians don't seem to mind. Because the more they spend, the more people vote for them and of course, a politicians ambition is only a short term goal. They know they'll need to leave office one day but in the meantime, they'll spend spend spend with no care for the indebted nation they're leaving behind. Let future generations pick up the tab while they set off into the sunset with a massive pension in hand.

Printing money doesn't stimulate the economy. The massive credit expansion in the Eurozone was textbook. The artificially set interest rates lured the people into investing in areas that were not profitable. These are malinvestments. And it's that malinvestment that lead to the property bubble which burst like all bubbles do. Economics is about the allocation of limited resources. There are only a finite amount of resources in this world and we have to put them to use most effectively. That's why when a business fails, it should be allowed to fail. The only way out of this mess is to liquidate all the bad malinvestment in our economy. Will it be hard, yes of course but it's an inevitable outcome of a failed monetary system and we need to change it.

So when you bail out banks, we don't put our finite resources to their most effective use. In short, we subsidies and reward mismanagement, incompetence and failure. Bankruptcy is a good thing, not a bad thing. It cleanses, like a cancer patient, the disease out of their body or rather, the failure out of our economy. The good companies succeed, employ the people from the failing company in areas more effectively and grow. We grow, technology improves, we advance and evolve. But our government are artificially keeping these zombie banks alive. So how can we fix this mess. For one, we could have a free market banking system. Banks with 100% reserves as opposed to fractional reserve banking and this monetising of debt.

Thanks for the 'explanation' and the Ron Paul-esque rant, you never threw in 'keynesianism', that's a nice buzzword amongst the deregulation fanatics. I don't know where you're going with the politicians rant, they took more flack for this than anyone and I'd guess they lost a hell of a lot of personal wealth in this mess as well! What you've failed to think about here is the reason all of these banks got into trouble was because they were allowed to hold only fractional reserves, they weren't regulated enough. Easy credit was only possible because of that, if they were required to hold more reserves they wouldn't have been able to issue easy credit to anyone, other banks or consumers. Think that won't happen again without regulation? With better regulations banks would be required to hold X amount of reserves, and there wouldn't be a need for another bailout on that scale. If AIB or BOI failed entirely this time around, where does that leave me and my personal savings? Do I go bankrupt too because they've decided to gamble my money away without my consent? What do you say to the customer then? 'Trust the markets, and you'll know better next time'? Or do you just stop it happening by enforcing strict controls on banks over reaching next time? I'd take the latter option.

K3lso wrote: »

Deregulation has not killed our economy and it most certainly has not got us into this mess we are now in. Please don't buy into the media propaganda orchestrated to direct attention away from political and economic ignorance...but I'd assume it comes from fat cats looking for even more regulation to kill competition and enhance their position and financial aspects further. They're not the type of people I'd be supportive of in granting a government guaranteed monopoly, however it seems a majority of people have been brainwashed into serving as cannon fodder for these special interests.

I'd sooner buy into what leading economists say here and here than the media. No 'fatcats', just experts who don't have any obvious vested interests. Anyway, it's way off topic, I'm going to leave it there.

L.Jenkins · 18-12-2012 08:47PM

Answering the OP. For a young couple unmarried, where one is working and the other isn't, a minimum wage job for the unemployed parter would help the couple quite a lot. While I'm on 720 a week and my Fiancee is on 188 a week, where she can't claim for rent allowance and other associated benefits, I can assure you the extra 190 a week she'd earn would help an awful lot.

otto_26 · 18-12-2012 10:14PM

For all those you didn't quite understand my post or should I say get it:

My problem is not with the creation of unskilled minimum wage jobs I'm delighted for the region and for the people who will get jobs from it. My problem is:

It's the RTE news trumpeting about new jobs in Wexford.. The RTE news try's to give the impression these are top quality jobs for the region... not unskilled minimum wage jobs.
Eishtec will not provide any career development for staff within the company. i.e further education allowance... So when the company closes shop in 10 years the people will still be unskilled and go straight back on the dole unless another minimum wage call centre opens in the area.
If staff find it difficult to sell on the phones they will be just let go no questions asked....

But my main problem is the RTE News trying to make people falsely believe that these are high quality jobs for the region that's my point why did I need to sit for 15 minutes and listen to rubbish indicating top quality jobs when they are nothing of the sort.... Not once was minimum wage or unskilled used in the 15 minutes.

I have no problem with the RTE news announcing this positive news just as long as they announce it truthfully that's all.

token101 · 18-12-2012 10:54PM

otto_26 wrote: »

For all those you didn't quite understand my post or should I say get it:

My problem is not with the creation of unskilled minimum wage jobs I'm delighted for the region and for the people who will get jobs from it. My problem is:

It's the RTE news trumpeting about new jobs in Wexford.. The RTE news try's to give the impression these are top quality jobs for the region... not unskilled minimum wage jobs.

Eishtec will not provide any career development for staff within the company. i.e further education allowance... So when the company closes shop in 10 years the people will still be unskilled and go straight back on the dole unless another minimum wage call centre opens in the area.

If staff find it difficult to sell on the phones they will be just let go no questions asked....

But my main problem is the RTE News trying to make people falsely believe that these are high quality jobs for the region that's my point why did I need to sit for 15 minutes and listen to rubbish indicating top quality jobs when they are nothing of the sort.... Not once was minimum wage or unskilled used in the 15 minutes.

I have no problem with the RTE news announcing this positive news just as long as they announce it truthfully that's all.

They called it a call centre? What do you want them to say? They never said they were 'high quality' jobs, not from what I can see from the videos on the RTE website anyway, I don't know what was said on the radio. Talk Talk has closed in the area and the people that have been let go now have another job. It is good news, how could it not be? What kind of high quality jobs are people expecting? The major job announcements, ie 250 or so jobs, are the only ones that RTE cover because of the numbers. 'Quality' jobs are mostly going to be in SMEs, where they're only likely to advertise 1 or 2 roles at a time.

Dave! · 18-12-2012 11:04PM

A good percentage of people who go on to work in IT will have started in call centre jobs like this. If it ends up being 250 recent graduates staying in Ireland, getting experience and paying taxes rather than emigrating, then that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Please amend the OP.

.Henry Sellers. · 18-12-2012 11:07PM

Eishtec? I've been calling them Age Tech! Aw I've been making an idiot out of myself.

LETS BE AVN IT · 18-12-2012 11:13PM

These people will more than likely not get paid for the first month as its training thats what they did in Waterford city. Sad day when RTE were going on about the jobs like they were the best thing ever I wonder If India's main news station gets that excited over a new call center opening.

token101 · 18-12-2012 11:21PM

LETS BE AVN IT wrote: »

These people will more than likely not get paid for the first month as its training thats what they did in Waterford city. Sad day when RTE were going on about the jobs like they were the best thing ever I wonder If India's main news station gets that excited over a new call center opening.

Nonsense, most firms pay for training. For someone on the dole in the Wexford looking for a job and willing to work rather than sit on their hole, it is a very good thing. Call centre work looks better on a CV rather fancy terms like 'exploring new opportunities'.

Lenin Skynard · 18-12-2012 11:23PM

I'd much prefer to see RTE using the time to report on some world news or news from Europe. They give very little on RTE compared to other stations, it's supposed to be a national broadcaster rather than a regional one.

A few months ago when there were huge protests in Spain for instance, this was on the American news networks whereas there was very little of it here. Instead we get a report every time a handful of private industry jobs are created.

LETS BE AVN IT · 18-12-2012 11:53PM

token101 wrote: »

Nonsense, most firms pay for training. For someone on the dole in the Wexford looking for a job and willing to work rather than sit on their hole, it is a very good thing. Call centre work looks better on a CV rather fancy terms like 'exploring new opportunities'.

This company won't be paying for training , they will take people from the dole and they will continue to get there dole for the first month of training as arranged with social welfare than after successful completion of training will be offered employment.

Eishtec to create 250 jobs!!!!

Comments