Clare Daly - she's bloody intolerable

Benny_Cake

CDfm wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Agreed - both working-class and middle-class are phrases which seem to shift in meaning depending on who you listen to.

So what do you intend them to mean and in Clare Daly's case where is her support coming from ?
,I
I ask the same question about other politicians too. At the moment , Eamonn Gilmore as an example is having a public service worker love-in, so do they fit and where would Clare Daly place them.

Personally,I'd say most employees would be working class.It's completely subjective and doesn't really matter a whole lot - I just find it strange that upper-class and working-class don't seem to exist any more,everyone considers themselves middle class.

Is Eamonn Gilmore having a love in with public sector workers?As a civil servant I'm afraid his feelings are unrequited

Edit: As far as I know Marx considered government employees to be "petit-bourgeois" and not members of the proletariat.Why,I do not know - maybe a Marxist here does.

Duke Leonal Felmet

MungBean wrote: »

People who would be described as working class would predominantly be people who sell their labour though. Nowadays thats still the case but it seems to have changed to describe people who work/sell their labour for on or below the average industrial wage. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

And the definition of the means of production has shifted a bit since then in references to working class people but its still pretty relevant.

Victorian industry wasnt much different in relation to the working class in that context as the modern day. People sell their labour to companies in exchange for money. The amount of money depends on the value of the individual to the company. To own the company is to own the means of production and to sell your labour to a company for below the average wage is to be working class.

I do agree its all a bit dated in describing a section of society though but not to be discounted for that, plenty of people still identify with the term middle class and its those people who Daly/ULA seem to get support from. So if their voters identify with the term "working class" and Daly/ULA says they represent "working class" then whats the problem ?

But as I said, anyone with a basic PC can set up some kind of business. The barriers to entry have hugely decreased since Marx's day, where to open a business required capital and investment, only then available to the privledged. Now, anyone can get a bank account, anyone can pitch a business to an investor. You don't need to be super wealthy anymore.

Sorry, things have changed drastically since Marx's time.

MungBean

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

But as I said, anyone with a basic PC can set up some kind of business. The barriers to entry have hugely decreased since Marx's day, where to open a business required capital and investment, only then available to the privledged. Now, anyone can get a bank account, anyone can pitch a business to an investor. You don't need to be super wealthy anymore.

Sorry, things have changed drastically since Marx's time.

Not every business is viable and the majority of people in the world work for other people. Anyone can create a business but few can compete when there's already an established business in competition. Just because the barriers have changed doesnt mean its that much different. Theres a lot of people in the world and although some do start business its not always possible or practice for everyone to do so.

You'd be lucky to get a loan to buy a computer in today’s climate let alone get a loan or investment in a business idea that you havent already proven is lucrative. To do that you need money to get it off the ground.

The vast vast majority of people in this country and throughout the world will never work for themselves and always be workers, selling their labour/ideas/time to other companies/people. Trying to say its irrelevant because they could start a business doesnt make any sense.

Duke Leonal Felmet

MungBean wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

But as I said, anyone with a basic PC can set up some kind of business. The barriers to entry have hugely decreased since Marx's day, where to open a business required capital and investment, only then available to the privledged. Now, anyone can get a bank account, anyone can pitch a business to an investor. You don't need to be super wealthy anymore.

Sorry, things have changed drastically since Marx's time.

Not every business is viable and the majority of people in the world work for other people. Anyone can create a business but few can compete when there's already an established business in competition. Just because the barriers have changed doesnt mean its that much different. Theres a lot of people in the world and although some do start business its not always possible or practice for everyone to do so.

You'd be lucky to get a loan to buy a computer in today’s climate let alone get a loan or investment in a business idea that you havent already proven is lucrative. To do that you need money to get it off the ground.

The vast vast majority of people in this country and throughout the world will never work for themselves and always be workers, selling their labour/ideas/time to other companies/people. Trying to say its irrelevant because they could start a business doesnt make any sense.

No, it does make sense when you don't live in dogma. Ultimately, Marx's point was about barriers to entry. These barriers have obviously greatly dissolved, and your attempt to use the current crisis to back your point is either incredibly disingenuous or wilfully ignorant. My point holds in 2011, as in 2001, as in 1991. Almost any person in Ireland could have bought a pc in 2001, got a loan and set up a small internet business. That same person could buy shares and other investments. Thus, the proles now can control the means of production. Stop hiding behind the current economic depression and have the courage to back your dogma.

CDfm

MungBean wrote: »

People who would be described as working class would predominantly be people who sell their labour though. Nowadays thats still the case but it seems to have changed to describe people who work/sell their labour for on or below the average industrial wage. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

And the definition of the means of production has shifted a bit since then in references to working class people but its still pretty relevant.

Excellent - so it is a moving target

To own the company is to own the means of production and to sell your labour to a company for below the average wage is to be working class.

Now days we compete internationally and there is competition.

I do agree its all a bit dated in describing a section of society though but not to be discounted for that, plenty of people still identify with the term middle class and its those people who Daly/ULA seem to get support from. So if their voters identify with the term "working class" and Daly/ULA says they represent "working class" then whats the problem ?

It does matter.

When Marx was writing tax & the welfare state did not exist and the redistribution he talked about is not what we have now.

Did Marx assume that people would all work ?

How do they look at housing.

Say you have 2 families same incomes and one buy a house and the other is in public authority housing.

How do they look on housing as a commodity and the funding of mortgages for the unemployed ?

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Personally,I'd say most employees would be working class.It's completely subjective and doesn't really matter a whole lot - I just find it strange that upper-class and working-class don't seem to exist any more,everyone considers themselves middle class.

Is Eamonn Gilmore having a love in with public sector workers?As a civil servant I'm afraid his feelings are unrequited

Edit: As far as I know Marx considered government employees to be "petit-bourgeois" and not members of the proletariat.Why,I do not know - maybe a Marxist here does.

Ha Ha , I shall quote you elsewhere.

MungBean

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, it does make sense when you don't live in dogma. Ultimately, Marx's point was about barriers to entry. These barriers have obviously greatly dissolved, and your attempt to use the current crisis to back your point is either incredibly disingenuous or wilfully ignorant. My point holds in 2011, as in 2001, as in 1991. Almost any person in Ireland could have bought a pc in 2001, got a loan and set up a small internet business. That same person could buy shares and other investments. Thus, the proles now can control the means of production. Stop hiding behind the current economic depression and have the courage to back your dogma.

The point was about defining the "working class" something you forgot about in your haste to attack your nemesis the ULA. Regardless of the barriers and regardless of what someone could hypothetically do the fact is the the vast vast majority of people work for other people. Just as relevant now as it was then.

If you start a business, employ people and pay them for their labour guess what. Your no longer working class but they are, just because you redefined yourself doesnt mean anyone else does. What ifs count for nothing in defining what someone is based on their current circumstances. And those circumstances are still the same, people are employed by companies and other people because it is impossible for everyone to own their own means of production and to use that to provide for themselves. If we all started these magical computer business what would happen ? We'd have no electricity to run the computers as everyone would be at home starting their own business.

Workers are always necessary and the vast majority of people will only ever profit from their own labour because society cant function without a working class population to do the necessary jobs to keep it functioning. You can harp on about people can be this and people can do that all you want but its all irrelevant when your talking about a class of society who are defined by the fact that are not what they could have been and did not do what they could have done.

James Jones

CDfm wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

She was interviewed in Hot Press recently:

She then followed through as follows:
Hospital Services
School Enrolments
Gender Discrimination
Human Rights Issues
Equality Issues
Equality Issues
Health Services

There are other (male) TD's who simply won't ask these questions.

Has she actually done or said anything on this issue ?

What is her record ?

I thought the links would provide a record of what she has done on the issue.

MungBean

CDfm wrote: »

Excellent - so it is a moving target

Its a term that probably changes over time to some degree depending on unemployment rates and whatnot. A lot of people are unemployed now while they were tax payers a few years ago. Same people different view of them. Your not planning on hunting them are you ?

Now days we compete internationally and there is competition.

What does that change ?

It does matter.

When Marx was writing tax & the welfare state did not exist and the redistribution he talked about is not what we have now.

Did Marx assume that people would all work ?

How do they look at housing.

Say you have 2 families same incomes and one buy a house and the other is in public authority housing.

How do they look on housing as a commodity and the funding of mortgages for the unemployed ?

I'm not a member of the ULA I dont know if they apply Marxist logic to everything. I'm only discussing what I see as the working class which in Marx day was essentially the same as it is now. People who sell their labour for wages and dont own the means of production. Most people do sell their labour/time or whatever for wages without owning the means of production.

I dont think Marx assumed everyone would work he just defined the working class as the mainstay of society. A subset of working class would have been the unemployed and destitute. Now its all lumped together. Regardless of how he foresaw a welfare state it doesnt change how he saw the working class is how it generally is today. A huge chunk of society selling their labour to perform the necessary functions of that society.

CDfm

James Jones wrote: »

I thought the links would provide a record of what she has done on the issue.

Dail questions, I would expect that, where be she on fathers rights and what links if any does she have to rights groups and where has she spoken/campaigned on the issue ?

hatrickpatrick

Can someone provide any source or specific examples of things she says or positions she holds which are "insufferable", for those who don't know that much about her?

CDfm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can someone provide any source or specific examples of things she says or positions she holds which are "insufferable", for those who don't know that much about her?

+1

hatrickpatrick

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

It's just that adopting stances which nobody believes and everyone knows is not true, does nobody any good.

You mean like the stance that repaying speculators for their own stupidity at the expense of the taxpayer is a good idea, or the stance that the EU isn't falling apart as we speak, or the stance that as long as we remain the good boy in the class we'll get a gold star?

I'm pretty sure nobody believes these either, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows they're not true. And in my view, they don't do anybody any good either.

By all means attack Clare Daly if she's daft, I don't know anything about her to be honest so I can't comment, but let's have some perspective here - the whole feckin' LOT of them are daft, it's just a question now of which ones are slightly more daft than others.

James Jones

CDfm wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

I thought the links would provide a record of what she has done on the issue.

Dail questions, I would expect that, where be she on fathers rights and what links if any does she have to rights groups and where has she spoken/campaigned on the issue ?

Sorry. Can't say I've seen anything other than the questions posted.

CDfm

James Jones wrote: »

Sorry. Can't say I've seen anything other than the questions posted.

Thats ok.

She has seemed to build her swords support at the airport or so i have heard .

Any thoughts ?

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

But wasn't the upshot of this that the Turkish workers lost their jobs ?

If I remember rightly the Turkish workers were also paid tax free outside Ireland.

Hardly a successful outcome .

They lost their jobs!!!!

They were being paid €2.20 an hour instead of the €12+ they were entitled to.

The rest they were being robbed of, which amounted millions every month which was going into bank accounts in their names in holland they knew nothing about.

Their families were being called back home in turkey saying their sons, brothers, fathers were involved with terrorist gangs here in ireland, and for them to call them to call off their strike & they wouldnt be prosecuted when they got back to turkey.

They were receiving letters telling them they would not be pursued for financial loss back in turkey if they called off the strike now.

They were being supplied food from the company which amounted to at some points, a slice of bread, two slices of cheese & a couple of grapes for dinner.

They were working an 80 hour week rain, hail, snow or highwater, the money in holland was only their flat week wages that was stolen & they never tracked down or received their overtime.

They got back in all approx €25 million owed to the workers, the overall money with overtime that GAMA filtered out of the country was estimated to be €100 million, €75 million of which has never been recovered.

Do you think you would be heart broken to no longer work for a company that really did treat you like a slave!!

80 hours a week!
€2.20 an hour!
War rations for meals!
Stealing your money!
Threatening letters with lies to your family!

neris wrote: »

Didnt they try that socialist thing that daly and higgins bang on about for a few years there in Russia. Didnt really work out to well for them or their neighbours and Cubas not exactly a workers paradise either

Well without getting into the specifics of the ideologies, Russia was stalinist & the ULA are mostly Trotskyist, diametrically opposed on the Socialist scale.

But it is worth remebering that the turnover of the USSR economy in 1980 was 9.1 Trillion dollar equivilant, estimated to be approx 12 Trillion in 1991 when it collapsed while americas turnover in 1991 was est. 15 trillion.

Putin only said recently on trying to form a new political & economic bloc with former soviet countries, (Oct. 4th 2011)

"We received a big legacy from the Soviet Union – infrastructure, current industrial specialisation, and a common linguistic, scientific and cultural space. To use this resource together for our development is in our common interest."

The Soviet union was not in the end a success, but you cannot in one internet post label the entire existence of the USSR a failure. Take a look around you at the moment, capitalism is hardly a roaring success now, it has come to a point as the USSR did where its economics have hit a wall, if you come back and say that this is not true capitalism, then i can equally say that the authoritarian stalinist USSR was not true Socialism either.

CDfm

Is mise le key wrote: »

They lost their jobs!!!!

They were being paid €2.20 an hour instead of the €12+ they were entitled to.

The rest they were being robbed of, which amounted millions every month which was going into bank accounts in their names in holland they knew nothing about..

I only know what I picked up from the radio at the time either Eamonn Dunphy or George Hook.

AFAIK, their work permits were related to their employment in a particular job which is quite standard and internationally.

Do you have any references for this and it would seem very odd that the Dutch Authorities would allow their banks to operate like this.

I know Holland and opening up a bank account is very difficult and they are a sophisticated country.

So I would expect to see references and prosecutions for this as arguments from emotion don't do anyone any favour's and I would like to think everything worked properly.

From what I hazily recollect they were being paid abroad and looking to be paid twice and were not paying or did not intend to pay tax here??.

So they really didn't want to pay tax here and probably didn't.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

I only know what I picked up from the radio at the time either Eamonn Dunphy or George Hook.

AFAIK, their work permits were related to their employment in a particular job which is quite standard.

Do you have any references for this and it would seem very odd that the Dutch Authorities would allow their banks to operate like this.

I know Holland and opening up a bank account is very difficult and they are a sophisticated country.

So I would expect to see references and prosecutions.

Are you serious?

The bank was Finansbank holland, have you watched the documentary?

The lads signed documents in english upon arriving in ireland at the airport, none of them had english & were recruited that way, it gave GAMA permission to open the accounts in their names.

They never received payslips for their weeks work, they were entitled to the ERA rates for construction which was being paid to GAMA by the state on state infrastructural projects, they got €2.20 an hour while GAMA sent the rest of the state paid money to the secret accounts in holland.

Lads had left the company never having received any of the money in them accounts, no one knew about the accounts except GAMA & the lads from the Socialist party together with some of the GAMA workers travelled to holland & confirmed all of the accounts with the managment of the bank who said that the accounts were opened under the name 'Ryder holdings'.

Seriously, watch the doc., it really was a modern day slavery uncovered, it was all brought out in the dail chamber with all the names being given to the FF/PD government.

This is all during the 'boom years'.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

From what I hazily recollect they were being paid abroad and looking to be paid twice and were not paying or did not intend to pay tax here??.

So they really didn't want to pay tax here and probably didn't.

Holy jesus!

Will you please watch the doc.

What transpired was that the government afforded GAMA the right to pay the workers back in turkey, thereby avoiding having to pay any income tax or PRSI for the workers.

This was the way GAMA had it set up with the government & had done the deal with mary harney, they then recruited non english speaking workers to come to ireland, kept them on site in company 'accomodation', supplied their food, controlled their passports & paid them €2.20 an hour for an 80 hour week!

Sure only in sept of this year it was referenced on business breakfast on newstalk as a benchmark of where employers unmonitored & unchecked can go with exploitation of their workforce.

CDfm

I am not saying I do not believe you , but, documentaries and Prime Time investigates type programmes are a bit discredited ATM.

I am just saying that I haven't seen any prosecutions and I would expect to see some and there have been various versions in the media.

Boom years really are irrelevant to prosecutions of practices like this and a bank can get prosecuted for operating accounts that way too.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying I do not believe you , but, documentaries and Prime Time investigates type programmes are a bit discredited ATM.

I am just saying that I haven't seen any prosecutions and I would expect to see some and there have been various versions in the media.

Boom years really are irrelevant to prosecutions of practices like this and a bank can get prosecuted for operating accounts that way too.

Right, but they havnt been prosecuted, as to why, i cant tell you 100%, but from the evidence of what occurred at the time they covered a lot of legal loopholes so as to not leave them open to prosecution.

Documents were signed, government permissions gained etc.

Master frauud always seems to have the law on its side would you not agree?

To what level there was government corruption is not know either, but it is enough to know that bertie was at the helm at the time.

What it boils down to is that €12+ an hour was being paid by the state, €2.20 an hour was going to the lads, no income tax or PRSI was being paid, the lads were doing 80 hour weeks, rations for food, threatening calls & letter to them & their families & it took one sole opposition TD to expose it & get some of the State paid money back to the men.

Bertie & Co are all crooks of the highest order & really should be put away for years along with GAMA.

Crazy Horse 6

Boards.ie in anti socialist shocker :rolleyes:

CDfm

Is mise le key wrote: »

Right, but they havnt been prosecuted, as to why, i cant tell you 100%, but from the evidence of what occurred at the time they covered a lot of legal loopholes so as to not leave them open to prosecution.
...................................................................
Bertie & Co are all crooks of the highest order & really should be put away for years along with GAMA.

Probably the reason they haven't been prosecuted is because things are not as clear cut as all that.

And, I have no doubt that there were a lot of shenanigans I am not so sure you can be so clear about who did what.

I do not share your point of view on Bertie being involved though and it does not do your point any justice to bring that up irrespective of your feelings about Mr Ahern and his former colleagues however much one might feel about them.

Their mismanagement of the economy included excessive spending on things such as public sector pay and capital projects.

They and others that served on state boards , including David Begg of ICTU at the Central Bank were less than vigilant.

Some people, me included, feel that the public service had a huge role to play in this. I would not differentiate between those in the social partners and the politicians and they are all the same in my book.

Cardinal Richelieu

CDfm wrote: »

Thats ok.

She has seemed to build her swords support at the airport or so i have heard .

Any thoughts ?

Thats about right, made her name at the Airport then built up a supporter base in Swords. Over the last two runs at the Dail she has tried to branch off into Donabate, Lusk, Rush, Skerries areas by supporting any local issue campaigns such as objections to Local Area Plans. Feedback to her involvement in Donabate LAP here . She seems to work better at objecting to schemes rather than doing anything constructive. That said unlike other local TDs like James Reilly she still continues to raise questions in the Dail about the Eirgrid East-West Interconnector while Mr Reilly continues to fudge remarks he made concerning moving the route of the cable in a pre-election promise. He backtracked on leaving cabinet over Metro North in another pre-election promise will only drive more voters to other candidates such as Daly in the next election.

Is mise le key

Ye, those Socialist party TD's, off the wall they are, in Cloud cuckoo land

CDfm

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ye, those Socialist party TD's, off the wall they are, in Cloud cuckoo land

You can't ignore them as they were elected so deserve to be discussed seriously.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

You can't ignore them as they were elected so deserve to be discussed seriously.

Apologies for being so sarcastic, just astounded me today when reading that, you have to admit though, Leo really plays a blinder when it comes to not being in touch with reality.

CDfm

Is mise le key wrote: »

Apologies for being so sarcastic, just astounded me today when reading that, you have to admit though, Leo really plays a blinder when it comes to not being in touch with reality.

I think the guy who built the Henge in Achill disagrees with Leo.

Whatever your politics , you gotta admit that it is a neat piece of civil engineering and the logistics, skill etc showed what he & his mates can do and there is no work or paychecks for them.

No economists or public servants were injured by the lack of banking regulation but builders have gone bankrupt and their workers and those of their suppliers are unemployed.

Achillhenge is a statement .

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

I think the guy who built the Henge in Achill disagrees with Leo.

Whatever your politics , you gotta admit that it is a neat piece of civil engineering and the logistics, skill etc showed what he & his mates can do and there is no work or paychecks for them.

No economists or public servants were injured by the lack of banking regulation but builders have gone bankrupt and their workers and those of their suppliers are unemployed.

Achillhenge is a statement .

I agree 100%, i think the achill henge should be granted retrospective planning permission & allowed to remain as a reminder in 50 - 100 years of what not to allow your country/public reps do.

It should stand as a testament against unregulated neo liberal policies that encourage no sustainable way of living or security for the people of the states they are enforced in.

dsmythy

She's ruining my enjoyment of watching Joe Costello squirm on Vinny B :mad:

Cardinal Richelieu

dsmythy wrote: »

She's ruining my enjoyment of watching Joe Costello squirm on Vinny B :mad:

Where has her fake north co dublin accent gone? She already slipped in a yeay tonight, no one says that here. Is she the only Dublin North TD to appear on the show since the election?

COYW

Politically, I am at the opposite end of the spectrum to Clare but I do think that she is sincere in her views. Breaking out with a smile now and again would do her no harm but I certainly wouldn't categorise her as embarrassing.

For me Joan Collins is utterly embarrassing. Along with her partner, who she hired as her assistant, they take home €120K before expenses and what do we get in return? A politician who has little or no understanding of what is going on. Her grasp, or lack there of, of economic matters is shockingly bad.

Is mise le key

COYW wrote: »

Politically, I am at the opposite end of the spectrum to Clare but I do think that she is sincere in her views. Breaking out with a smile now and again would do her no harm but I certainly wouldn't categorise her as embarrassing.

For me Joan Collins is utterly embarrassing. Along with her partner, who she hired as her assistant, they take home €120K before expenses and what do we get in return? A politician who has little or no understanding of what is going on. Her grasp, or lack there of, of economic matters is shockingly bad.

And who was in the papers this week telling us we will all be able to take a holiday in the new year as the budget wont be all that bad??

I'll give you a clue, he was also on the vincent brown show saying he didnt understand how a rise in VAT would effect the poorest in Society.

She may not articulate herself in the manner you are used to hearing from seasoned parlimentarians, but you would be very naive to think she doesnt understand the economic matters of her constituents.

Unless of course you are saying that all members of all parties should be experts on the macro economics we have unfolding (or collapsing to be more accurate) before us? But that would be just plain silly.

COYW

Is mise le key wrote: »

Unless of course you are saying that all members of all parties should be experts on the macro economics we have unfolding (or collapsing to be more accurate) before us? But that would be just plain silly.

Well as an elected public representative who only ever appears on TV (from what I see) speaking, or attempting to, about economics I would expect her to have a respectable level of knowledge on the subject, wouldn't you?

Is mise le key

COYW wrote: »

Well as an elected public representative who only ever appears on TV (from what I see) speaking, or attempting to, about economics I would expect her to have a respectable level of knowledge on the subject, wouldn't you?

To go back to the point i made, she is part of a wider organisation, other elected reps within said organisation would be more knowledgable on economics & would be noted as being the 'finance spokesperson' from that party/organisation.

The other point i made was in comparison to little leo she has a better grasp on the economics that effect her constituents & ordinary people.

So we could say that we can leave the macro economics to be spoken on behalf of the ULA from say RBB or Joe higgins & in FG Noonan.

So you see what i am getting at really is she may not be as up to speed on macro economics, but does she need to be as part of a larger organisation? She can focus on her constituents & do a damn good job of it, no?

Is mise le key

For anyone who wants this its here as we discussed the GAMA strike earlier in the thread, CDfm it worth a read, Cllr Mick Muurphys account from the time of how events unfolded,

Diary of the GAMA Struggle

CDfm

Is mise le key wrote: »

For anyone who wants this its here as we discussed the GAMA strike earlier in the thread, CDfm it worth a read, Cllr Mick Muurphys account from the time of how events unfolded,

Diary of the GAMA Struggle

An interesting read and the visit to Holland showed the guys there had substantial funds in their accounts.

I don't want to rely on it as it may be a biased account though my knowledge of the building industry is that collective agreements wages and payslips go hand in hand and the rates are fixed.

GAMA should have expected a reaction if they tried to buck the system.

The building industry has a history of being lax with tax compliance and its C2 and registered contractor system is there to ensure it.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

An interesting read and the visit to Holland showed the guys there had substantial funds in their accounts.

I don't want to rely on it as it may be a biased account though my knowledge of the building industry is that collective agreements wages and payslips go hand in hand and the rates are fixed.

GAMA should have expected a reaction if they tried to buck the system.

The building industry has a history of being lax with tax compliance and its C2 and registered contractor system is there to ensure it.

You can take the account as accurate.

GAMA thought they would get away with it because they had the backing of Mary Harney and the government.

Yes collective agreements existed, yes payslips are a legal requirement - if you know the law. None of the workers employed by GAMA could speak English, none of them knew anything about the collective agreements or the wage rates. The reason why the workers contacted members of the Socialist Party was because the Socialist Party printed leaflets in Turkish outlining the wage rates and the legal entitlements of the workers.

Even with this they were absolutely terrified to talk to anyone. Myself and a number of other Socialist Party members met with a couple of GAMA workers from one of their compounds to discuss their situation (we had a Turkish translator). The workers wouldn't meet us any where in public, we met them at the back of an abandoned building and they posted a lookout to make sure they weren't found out.

We eventually managed to organise a larger meeting of the workers. Again they wouldn't meet anywhere in public and we managed to persuade a guesthouse to rent us the use of one of their rooms to hold the meeting. 120 people crowded into a room that measure 15X15. We were there for over four hours as the workers went through how they were treated. Labourers were paid €2.20 per hour for 80 hours. They should have been paid €14 per hour for a 40 hour week and then overtime rates. Engineers and quantity surveyors were paid €3.20 per hour. No one ever received a payslip - the payslips were keep to show Labour Inspectors.

The government claimed there was nothing wrong, the Dept of Labour claiemd there was nothing wrong, SIPTU claimed there was nothing wrong (GAMA was paying union subs for the workers). Yet the Socialist Party managed to expose the biggest employment scandal since the disgraceful treatment of the workers building the Ardnacrusha power station in the 1920's.

The end result was €40million in hidden funds. GAMA were forced to pay the wages owed but much more that was owed in overtime was not paid as no records were kept by GAMA in relation to the actual time workers for each worker (GAMA claimed that the workers only worked a 40 hour week).

mystic86

I see Clare Daly is part of the 9 TD's who are saying they won'y pay the household charge (of course she is)

I also note the potential for these TD's to end up in jail for non conformance.....

JonathanAnon

mystic86 wrote: »

I see Clare Daly is part of the 9 TD's who are saying they won'y pay the household charge (of course she is)

She's on Prime Time now.. she must be the biggest whinge bag ever to have walked through the doors of Leinster House..... Expects dole and benefits to be kept at current levels, free health, free education etc... and for her supporters to pay nothing ... Just have the "rich" pay for it all....

Pete_Cavan

And shes at it again;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/daly-attacks-slobbering-over-obamas-1.1435094

“We’ve had separate and special news bulletins by the State broadcaster to tell us what Michelle Obama and her daughters had for lunch in Dublin, but very little questioning of the fact that she was having lunch with Mr Tax Exile himself,” she said in reference to U2’s Bono.

She said, with her best friend and convicted tax evader Mick Wallace sitting beside her.

.jacksparrow.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And shes at it again;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/daly-attacks-slobbering-over-obamas-1.1435094
She said, with her best friend and convicted tax evader Mick Wallace sitting beside her.

She said more than that, and it all made sense.

Alias G

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And shes at it again;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/daly-attacks-slobbering-over-obamas-1.1435094
She said, with her best friend and convicted tax evader Mick Wallace sitting beside her.

I think she is spot on here. The media fawning over Michelle Obama was nauseating. And it would be more than welcome if Boner paid some tax here although he is entitled to use whatever legal loop-hole to avoid paying tax that he likes.

COYW

Alias G wrote: »

The media fawning over Michelle Obama was nauseating.

It really annoyed me, I have to admit. Way too much made of the whole thing. Michelle should have spent time in N.I. where the summit was. The children were bored silly according to the news in the USA. Her rushing down here is a slap in the face to the people of N.I. They put a lot into that summit and she should have visited the tourist attractions up there.

Clare made a very good point imo in relation to the visit. However, the tax exile remark from Clare was a bad mistake and is ridiculous considering the history of her closest ally.

TheSB

Nobody should be fawning over the Obama's. This is the guy who has a file on YOU with all your internet history and telephone records; what you searched online, what emails you wrote, what you bought on Amazon, what type of porn you watch. He should have been told to fock off out of this country.

TOMASJ

She was a breath of freash air on the radio today, well worth listening to if her speech is available online,
Wish some of the men in the Dail had as much balls

Good loser

TOMASJ wrote: »

She was a breath of freash air on the radio today, well worth listening to if her speech is available online,
Wish some of the men in the Dail had as much balls

Dunno. Was it not predictable (from her) and pointless posturing? Narrow, parochial opinions. Did she pick it up from VB last night? Why not Putin; he is a much more menacing figure than Obama. And kills far more.

To me it seems she has no idea how big power politics works. If she was speaking to the US Senate would she have made the same speech?

bmaxi

I have to agree with Clare Daly. There is something humiliating in watching a foreign politician trotting out a hastily learned and soon forgotten "cupla focal" to an ecstatic crowd of simpering idiots, most of whom don't even know what they mean anyway. It's an indication of the lack of self confidence endemic in the Irish people, a craving for praise from the top table.
As for the Wallace/Bono thing, it's possible that Daly sees a distinction here, Wallace having got to his position by default whereas Bono got there by design.

RandomName2

COYW wrote: »

Clare made a very good point imo in relation to the visit. However, the tax exile remark from Clare was a bad mistake and is ridiculous considering the history of her closest ally.

Maybe in relation to her, but surely the point still stands?

Floppybits

Fair play to Claire Daly on what she said, its good to see a TD actually stand up in the house and be honest for once and talk straight. Something that the government parties cant seem to do, they can talk alright but it is usually a load of nonsense and they never answer a question and I think the public are going to start turning on this government unless the government can change their behaviour. For me FG are as bad if not worse that FF and it makes me sick to my stomach to say that.

As for Claire Daly, if I was in her constitunency I would be giving her my first preference vote in the next election and I base that on the good work that she did on highlighting what was going on with Penalty Points being written off. It is unfortunate though that this work is being undermined by the behaviour of Wallace and Ming Flanagan. I hope Claire keeps on ruffling feathers in the Dail, long may it continue and lets hope some more politicians grow a pair and stand up in the Dail and tell this government whats what. Its about time we get some straight talking and straight answers in the Dail.

Pete_Cavan

She may have raised a valid point in relation to Syria, but only following a quite broad, irrelevant rant before she finally got around to the question. The question related to the governments position on the arms embargo in Syria, although she already knew the answer as she mentioned Gilmores comments on the issue. In response to Kenny, she says the side she is on is that of Oxfam, which is basically the Irish governments position (that arms should not be supplied to the rebels). She also only mentioned Obama in the rant, no mention of anyone else, not even Putin who is arming al-Assad. This is more an anti-American agenda than humanitarian concern.

As for "prostituting ourselves in return for a pat on the head”, the UK hosted the summit north of the boarder, although some delegations stayed in the south, Michelle Obama and the Japanese Prime Minister were the only ones to come south on official visits. She also nominated Obama for the "hypocrite of the century award" while she gets digs in about Bonos (perfectly legal, although questionable ethically) tax affairs yet refused to criticise Wallace over his totally illegal actions. As for "very little questioning" of the fact that Mrs Obama had lunch with Bono, what questions are there to be asked about them having lunch? Most of this was irrelevant to Leaders Question Time and she just threw in these things to appeal to those who like to get angry over everything.