How come its networking in London and cronyism in Ireland.

mariaalice

Had a very interesting discussion with someone about this recently.

When anyone looks for advice about emigrating to the London one of the first thing people will advise is to join a GAA club in London because the networking will help you get a job.. fair enough you might think.

but

If someone dose the same thing in Ireland its cronysim and jobs for the boys, its not what you know its who you know etc.

Why the difference?

stephendevlin

It's always who u know,...

enda1

When you get a job its networking.

When someone else does its cronyism.

ejmaztec

mariaalice wrote: »

Had a very interesting discussion with someone about this recently.

When anyone looks for advice about emigrating to the London one of the first thing people will advise is to join a GAA club in London because the networking will help you get a job.. fair enough you might think.

but

If someone dose the same thing in Ireland its cronysim and jobs for the boys, its not what you know its who you know etc.

Why the difference?

There isn't any difference.

Sykk

It's an Irish sport, so when you play it there it's a big deal and you become part of a tight knit community. When you play it here you're like the average joe soap, it's no big swing.

Typical social outlook.

Donal Og O Baelach

For the same reason you can wear shamrock in London on Paddy's day and be proud of yourself - but if you do it here you just look like a tit.

Wompa1

Who goes to London without a job? It's not a very cheap place to loaf about!

ejmaztec

There's probably no point trying to find a job through a GAA connection in the UK, as you'd probably end up with an Irish boss. Most of the people that I know, who've worked for Irish bosses in the UK, didn't like being stitched up one bit, and only improved their situation by getting a job with anyone but.

orourkeda

Whats in a name?

Rabble Rabble

The whole of English Society is based on Networking.

Cronyism - when done by the lower middle classes.
Networking - the rich and public school classes.

Rabble Rabble

BTW, getting a leg up in the job market as an immigrant within your own immigrant group is common, and has little to say about the real power of elite networking.

Fremen

mariaalice wrote: »

Had a very interesting discussion with someone about this recently.

When anyone looks for advice about emigrating to the London one of the first thing people will advise is to join a GAA club in London because the networking will help you get a job.. fair enough you might think.

but

If someone dose the same thing in Ireland its cronysim and jobs for the boys, its not what you know its who you know etc.

Why the difference?

There's a difference between getting a job in a pub through networking and getting a ministerial position through networking. Or a thirty billion euro bailout, for that matter.

Rabble Rabble

Fremen wrote: »

There's a difference between getting a job in a pub through networking and getting a ministerial position through networking. Or a thirty billion euro bailout, for that matter.

Quite. Worrying about working class immigrant "networking" is nonsensical.

As for the Irish rich networkers, no need for them to immigrate.

pickarooney

I got a job in London once through a friend, as a cronyism engineer.

Boolean(0) story.

rainbowdrop

Why have I never heard the word 'cronyism' before?

Lumen

rainbowdrop wrote: »

Why have I never heard the word 'cronyism' before?

Are you congenitally deaf?

That would explain it.

stovelid

Because the builder mate of your dad that gets you a start on a buidling site isn't an elected representative that saddles every other fucker and their childrens with billions of euro of debt as a result of helping you out.

strobe

Well first you have to ask yourself OP why the people that use the word 'networking' do so.

This is why.

It is because cringe inducing arse lickers do not like to admit to being brown nosing testicle ticklers as they realise that being a pretentious toe sucking worm is a pathetic and detestable thing to be.

This is why this vile, stomach churning, five dollar crack whore like behaviour which is lacking even the facade of self respect is referred to as 'networking' by the scampering, scuttling little bottom feeding gee weasels.

squod

rainbowdrop wrote: »

Why have I never heard the word 'cronyism' before?

Welcome to Ireland. Presume you're a tourist, if so please spend freely.

humanji

I'd have thought the two terms don't mean the same.

Networking is getting contacts. Cronyism is abusing your relationship with a contact in order to secure position or advantage for yourself that you would not have otherwise obtained.

Rabble Rabble

humanji wrote: »

I'd have thought the two terms don't mean the same.

Networking is getting contacts. Cronyism is abusing your relationship with a contact in order to secure position or advantage for yourself that you would not have otherwise obtained.

Very little difference. If we accept that networking gets you a job because you know someone, or because you wouldnt otherwise have got the job, then it is the same as cronyism.

humanji

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Very little difference. If we accept that networking gets you a job because you know someone, or because you wouldnt otherwise have got the job, then it is the same as cronyism.

But networking is just getting contacts. Networking doesn't guarantee you a job. It just opens up a possibility to you. Cronyism guarantees you a job because of the strong relationship you have with those offering it.

For example, say joining the GAA club in London. You get to meet people, some of whom may be in the same line of work as you. They may even be able to give you names or introduce you to other people. This is networking. You now have a list of contacts and no relationship with them.

Cronyism begins when you form relationships with these contacts and it's because of that relationship, and only because of it, that you get a job etc.

That's how I'd define them, anyway.

Cool Mo D

humanji wrote: »

But networking is just getting contacts. Networking doesn't guarantee you a job. It just opens up a possibility to you. Cronyism guarantees you a job because of the strong relationship you have with those offering it.

For example, say joining the GAA club in London. You get to meet people, some of whom may be in the same line of work as you. They may even be able to give you names or introduce you to other people. This is networking. You now have a list of contacts and no relationship with them.

Cronyism begins when you form relationships with these contacts and it's because of that relationship, and only because of it, that you get a job etc.

That's how I'd define them, anyway.

Can you explain what the point of networking is, if you can't use the relationship to help get a job?

As far as I can see it, cronyism is giving your friend a job despite knowing that they are either not suited or qualified for it, or so that you can get them to give you another favour back in future.

If you appoint a friend to the job, because you like them, and know that they are capable, and you don't want to take a chance on an unknown stranger, that is not cronyism. Since people are much more likely to give a job to someone they like and know, rather than take a chance on a stranger, you should try and meet as many people you can who might give you a job.

That logic works for interviews too, if you are the interviewers favourite candidate, you will probably get the job over someone with a better CV.

Donal Og O Baelach

Lumen wrote: »

Are you congenitally deaf?

Is congenitally deaf when you can't hear people talking bollox?

humanji

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Can you explain what the point of networking is, if you can't use the relationship to help get a job?

Well, networking is the act of gaining contacts. It, in and of itself, has nothing to do with getting a job. It's just meeting people. Cronyism is when you gain something simply because of who you know, and only that (just like you described, ie ability means nothing).

The two are different actions. One is meeting people and the other is promotion due to relationships. That's not to say networking can't lead to cronyism, it's just not guaranteed to.

prinz

IMO networking is down to making contacts etc and gaining an audience to showcase your talents/merits. Perhaps nothing comes of it.

Cronyism is gaining and audience and benefitting because of who you are/who you know not what you know.

Millicent

humanji wrote: »

I'd have thought the two terms don't mean the same.

Networking is getting contacts. Cronyism is abusing your relationship with a contact in order to secure position or advantage for yourself that you would not have otherwise obtained.

Exactly. The job I want in the future isn't known for opening its doors to anyone interested. Consequently, I will have to network, much as I hate to do it. Hopefully, someone will remember me and I will be notified of jobs where I can be hired on my merits.

Cronyism doesn't involve getting ahead on your merits, buoyed by having contacts who can inform you of job developments. Cronyism means looking after people who may be under-qualified, simply because you're in an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" sort of relationship.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

Exactly. The job I want in the future isn't known for opening its doors to anyone interested. Consequently, I will have to network, much as I hate to do it. Hopefully, someone will remember me and I will be notified of jobs where I can be hired on my merits.

Cronyism doesn't involve getting ahead on your merits, buoyed by having contacts who can inform you of job developments. Cronyism means looking after people who may be under-qualified, simply because you're in an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" sort of relationship.

No necessarily. The back does not have to re-scratched.

In any case I would say that i still think that cronyism is generally applied as a pejorative to the apirational lower middles and not to the top. All nepotism is a form of cronyism, yet is generally understood as normal. Picking people based on the old school tie, and other biases, is a sort of cronyism. Which is why despite the rhethoric I think England to be cronyist.

Interesting map from wiki on this very subject. Ireland is clean as a whistle.

nosey rosie

Political power isn't handed down through families in London, the way it is in Ireland. Brian Lenihan ( son of a famous political father ) was my lecturer in Evidence Law back in the nineties. He didn't show up half the time; beyond doubt, the worst lecturer I had in four years at T.C.D. Too busy earning a fortune as a barrister to fulfill his commitments to paying students. The last person, with his attendance record, you'd expect to be running the country in future...

Yet years later there he is, and the brother too, both competing for the leadership. Its not what you know but who you know in Ireland :mad:

Cool Mo D

humanji wrote: »

Well, networking is the act of gaining contacts. It, in and of itself, has nothing to do with getting a job. It's just meeting people. Cronyism is when you gain something simply because of who you know, and only that (just like you described, ie ability means nothing).

The two are different actions. One is meeting people and the other is promotion due to relationships. That's not to say networking can't lead to cronyism, it's just not guaranteed to.

So what exactly is the point of getting these contacts if you will never use them for anything? Getting a job because you know someone is not cronyism. Getting a job only because you know someone is.

pigeonbutler

nosey rosie wrote: »

Political power isn't handed down through families in London, the way it is in Ireland. Brian Lenihan ( son of a famous political father ) was my lecturer in Evidence Law back in the nineties. He didn't show up half the time; beyond doubt, the worst lecturer I had in four years at T.C.D. Too busy earning a fortune as a barrister to fulfill his commitments to paying students. The last person, with his attendance record, you'd expect to be running the country in future...
:mad:[/QUOTE

Cronyism can't get someone into the Dáil. He was elected in 1996, 1997, 2002 and 2007 by the people of Dublin West. It's an insult to them to suggest they voted that way only because of his surname.
Yet years later there he is, and the brother too, both competing for the leadership. Its not what you know but who you know in Ireland]

nosey rosie

pigeonbutler wrote: »

nosey rosie wrote: »

Political power isn't handed down through families in London, the way it is in Ireland. Brian Lenihan ( son of a famous political father ) was my lecturer in Evidence Law back in the nineties. He didn't show up half the time; beyond doubt, the worst lecturer I had in four years at T.C.D. Too busy earning a fortune as a barrister to fulfill his commitments to paying students. The last person, with his attendance record, you'd expect to be running the country in future...
:mad:[/QUOTE

Cronyism can't get someone into the Dáil. He was elected in 1996, 1997, 2002 and 2007 by the people of Dublin West. It's an insult to them to suggest they voted that way only because of his surname.
Yet years later there he is, and the brother too, both competing for the leadership. Its not what you know but who you know in Ireland]

So its mere co-incidence? You haven't noticed how power/ T.D.ships run through families in Ireland? The surname is almost a brand...
Achhh, I can't take you seriously, jog on...

Biggins

mariaalice wrote: »

Had a very interesting discussion with someone about this recently.
When anyone looks for advice about emigrating to the London one of the first thing people will advise is to join a GAA club in London because the networking will help you get a job.. fair enough you might think.
but
If someone dose the same thing in Ireland its cronysim and jobs for the boys, its not what you know its who you know etc.
Why the difference?

Joining a GAA org doesn't automatically ensure you get a job or go up a corporate ladder by just enrolling - whereas cromyism is that your already attached to an organisation, and(or) know of each others existence in a friend/acquaintance relationship - or in business with them/it and by EQUAL back-scratching, favour for possible favour (in the past or possibly in the future) one IS assured that one will be gain reward by co-existing in a unofficial relationship of promise or beholden to one another.

Joining a GAA org (and we only use the GAA for use of example reasons ONLY) does not mean you will succeed, it means that you might succeed at some stage further down the line, in most cases with equal hope and possible success in the future - as with every other person in such an org who might stand same chance.

* One method is an opened door to chance of future possibilities, by an individual under his/her own steam.
* The other is a person getting into a relationship with another/org' that is akin to a sure-bet, in an automatic assumed premise that there will be bi-cooperation in looking after ones other business and backs - for favour, reward, etc!

One is trying open doors and try avail of future opportunities as with the rest already there - the other is a person walking in knowing they will be called to return said duty towards others by possible implied duty to do so - by a number of alternative methods when called upon.

K-9

nosey rosie wrote: »

Political power isn't handed down through families in London, the way it is in Ireland. Brian Lenihan ( son of a famous political father ) was my lecturer in Evidence Law back in the nineties. He didn't show up half the time; beyond doubt, the worst lecturer I had in four years at T.C.D. Too busy earning a fortune as a barrister to fulfill his commitments to paying students. The last person, with his attendance record, you'd expect to be running the country in future...

Yet years later there he is, and the brother too, both competing for the leadership. Its not what you know but who you know in Ireland :mad:

England has the public school thing, Clegg and Cameron being a good example with the Lib Dems and Tories.

nosey rosie

K-9 wrote: »

England has the public school thing, Clegg and Cameron being a good example with the Lib Dems and Tories.

Not to the same extent as Ireland though... and this U.K Toff phenomenon... aren't they are farely rare? Remember John Major and Thatcher...who preceded Cameron as Tory P.M.s... they were self-made.
I think Power hands down - from generation - or cliques in Ireland. England, for its faults, is somewhat free of it.

Fulton Crown

rainbowdrop wrote: »

Why have I never heard the word 'cronyism' before?

Is it very hot in Uranus ?

Rabble Rabble

nosey rosie wrote: »

pigeonbutler wrote: »

So its mere co-incidence? You haven't noticed how power/ T.D.ships run through families in Ireland? The surname is almost a brand...
Achhh, I can't take you seriously, jog on...

If people elect someone thats up to them. Mostly people born to politicains are more interested in that others, so it goes.

England has this. Italy has this. American has this ( Kennedys) although to a lesser extent.

In any case "who you know" is not limited to Politics. In general who you know is far more important in the UK, thats the point of the public schools.

Rabble Rabble

nosey rosie wrote: »

Not to the same extent as Ireland though... and this U.K Toff phenomenon... aren't they are farely rare? Remember John Major and Thatcher...who preceded Cameron as Tory P.M.s... they were self-made.
I think Power hands down - from generation - or cliques in Ireland. England, for its faults, is somewhat free of it.

You really have no idea. Two public schools ( i.e. secondary schools) are responsible for about 40% of the cabinet and shadow cabinet. Two universities - generally taking their input from those schools and a few other public ( i.e. private) schools are responsible for about 80% of the parliament, and cabinet and shadow cabinet. This wasnt the case in the 80's. It got worse.

As for the BBC. 60% Oxbridge. Pop music. 60% Oxbridge. Famous comedians - 60% Oxbridge ( a good percentage from a play company called the footlights in Oxford). The City - 80% Oxbridge.

Basically, if you know where someone is born in England you have a good chance of telling what they cant be. The bottom 90% cant be in parliament, journalists, bankers, BBC managers, and more.



( Oxbridge means a combination of Oxford and Cambridge).

humanji

Cool Mo D wrote: »

So what exactly is the point of getting these contacts if you will never use them for anything? Getting a job because you know someone is not cronyism. Getting a job only because you know someone is.

Is making friends the same as getting married? You will marry someone you are friends with, but you won't marry all your friends. See? One can happen because of the other, but it isn't certain to happen.

Networking increases the chances of getting a job. Cronyism guarantees a job.

Fremen

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

You really have no idea. Two public schools ( i.e. secondary schools) are responsible for about 40% of the cabinet and shadow cabinet. Two universities - generally taking their input from those schools and a few other public ( i.e. private) schools are responsible for about 80% of the parliament, and cabinet and shadow cabinet. This wasnt the case in the 80's. It got worse.

As for the BBC. 60% Oxbridge. Pop music. 60% Oxbridge. Famous comedians - 60% Oxbridge ( a good percentage from a play company called the footlights in Oxford). The City - 80% Oxbridge.

Basically, if you know where someone is born in England you have a good chance of telling what they cant be. The bottom 90% cant be in parliament, journalists, bankers, BBC managers, and more.



( Oxbridge means a combination of Oxford and Cambridge).

The fact that someone goes to Oxford or Cambridge doesn't necessarily mean they come from a privileged background. It does mean they worked their ass off in school though. Oxford and Cambridge are no more expensive than anywhere else to attend - it's not like the US where you have to drop thirty five grand a year to go to Harvard. IIRC it's about five grand a year to go to an Oxbridge university.

Students at the likes of Eton are expected to work like mad bastards, whereas joe bloggs at your average comprehensive school is given the choice, and typically chooses not to.

K-9

Fremen wrote: »

The fact that someone goes to Oxford or Cambridge doesn't necessarily mean they come from a privileged background. It does mean they worked their ass off in school though. Oxford and Cambridge are no more expensive than anywhere else to attend - it's not like the US where you have to drop thirty five grand a year to go to Harvard. IIRC it's about five grand a year to go to an Oxbridge university.

Students at the likes of Eton are expected to work like mad bastards, whereas joe bloggs at your average comprehensive school is given the choice, and typically chooses not to.

I think his point was that while some people not from a privileged background can and do break through, if you come from a certain family or class or area, you have more chance of it, less barriers as such.

It's a bit like FF. Being part of a family dynasty definitely helps and the electorate are as bad as the parties in that regard, but there are exceptions like Michael Martin.

whydoibother?

I think the difference between legitimate networking and cronyism is whether you get the job on merit or not. Basically, if you got talk to someone, work with them, impress them etc. and they then give you further opportunities that's a legitimate contact you've made yourself. I'd call it networking. On the other hand, if Daddy gets you a job in his friends company, and you have it for no other reason than you're your parents child, that's cronyism. It's not based on merit. This extends to giving someone a job because of their political persuasion, what social groups they're part of, or any other illegitimate reason.

Rabble Rabble

Fremen wrote: »

The fact that someone goes to Oxford or Cambridge doesn't necessarily mean they come from a privileged background. It does mean they worked their ass off in school though. Oxford and Cambridge are no more expensive than anywhere else to attend - it's not like the US where you have to drop thirty five grand a year to go to Harvard. IIRC it's about five grand a year to go to an Oxbridge university.

Students at the likes of Eton are expected to work like mad bastards, whereas joe bloggs at your average comprehensive school is given the choice, and typically chooses not to.

The fact that someone is the son or daughter of a FF politician does not mean that they will get elected ( Sean Haughey has done little). That also takes work.

The fact that someone gets into the dail does not mean they came from a political background ( just, it helps).

FF candidates are expected to work hard at getting elected.

LordSutch

ejmaztec wrote: »

There's probably no point trying to find a job through a GAA connection in the UK, as you'd probably end up with an Irish boss. Most of the people that I know, who've worked for Irish bosses in the UK, didn't like being stitched up one bit, and only improved their situation by getting a job with anyone but.

London is one thing, but the UK . . . . . . .

SOooo many different regions, including the North!

marzic

Biggins wrote: »

Joining a GAA org doesn't automatically ensure you get a job or go up a corporate ladder by just enrolling - whereas cromyism is that your already attached to an organisation, and(or) know of each others existence in a friend/acquaintance relationship - or in business with them/it and by EQUAL back-scratching, favour for possible favour (in the past or possibly in the future) one IS assured that one will be gain reward by co-existing in a unofficial relationship of promise or beholden to one another.

Joining a GAA org (and we only use the GAA for use of example reasons ONLY) does not mean you will succeed, it means that you might succeed at some stage further down the line, in most cases with equal hope and possible success in the future - as with every other person in such an org who might stand same chance.

* One method is an opened door to chance of future possibilities, by an individual under his/her own steam.
* The other is a person getting into a relationship with another/org' that is akin to a sure-bet, in an automatic assumed premise that there will be bi-cooperation in looking after ones other business and backs - for favour, reward, etc!

One is trying open doors and try avail of future opportunities as with the rest already there - the other is a person walking in knowing they will be called to return said duty towards others by possible implied duty to do so - by a number of alternative methods when called upon.

Yea-I-know!