The Pat Kenny Show

my daughter worked for Dunnes stores for a few months last year..... She was told explicitely she would get up to 30 hours a week..... she never got more than 15 and they were spread over 4-5 days. As a result she couldn't get any supplementary payment from SW.

She had the last laugh....she got a job with British Airways and is living in London and cant believe the difference in her life!! I feel very sorry for Dunnes staff....and Dunnes are not the only ones using zero hours contracts.

serfboard

touts wrote: »

Dunnes warned they would have to let people go if the staff went on strike. The Union told their members to ignore that and go on strike. I don't know why he is shocked that he got let go. The Union gave him very bad advice knowing that they would be pretty much untouchable (you can bet there would be war if it was a shop steward who was let go). Now he is on his own. The union leaders are playing a large strategic game with employers and individuals get caught in the crossfire.

Can you clarify - was this guy let go because he went on strike?

If so, where is the solidarity of his fellow workers? Mé-féinery, is it?

First they came for those who went on strike ...

touts

serfboard wrote: »

Can you clarify - was this guy let go because he went on strike?

If so, where is the solidarity of his fellow workers? Mé-féinery, is it?

First they came for those who went on strike ...

He says he was. He had a review earlier in the year and all was fine. He manned the picket line last week and the next day he was called in and told because business was down they were letting him go. Then one of his colleagues told him he was being moved to fill the vacant slot in "fruit & veg" because they were short staffed in that section. So he claims he was left go because of the strike. Dunnes probably have a different story.

As for solidarity of his fellow workers it seems the Union aren't doing a whole pile to help him but he is "talking" to them about it. They certainly weren't picketing the store in defence of their member's rights or anything remotely like that. But then again I suppose as he is no longer employed he is now an ex-member....

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

.and Dunnes are not the only ones using zero hours contracts.

The worse thing is that they aren't even using zero hour contracts - they're 15 hour contracts, meaning you realistically can't look for any secondary employment. Zero hour contracts are pretty much as bad but generally employers with them know that you may have other employment(s) and have to give you suitable notice of work.

serfboard

touts wrote: »

They certainly weren't picketing the store in defence of their member's rights or anything remotely like that.

Well if they weren't then WTF are they for?

Or, is there another side to this story? (Something along the lines of the union won't go to bat for him because ... )

Whatever about Dunnes being asked for their side of the story, the union should be asked for their side and specifically "Why won't you defend a member of your union who went out on strike on your advice, and who has now been sacked because of it?"

Might make interesting listening.

mickydoomsux

Ruth Coppinger is having an utterly bizarre interview with Pat at the moment.

Apparently she's one of those feminists who is "triggered" by literally everything that is said to/about women.

ThisRegard

She's a nut. Best thing we ever did in Dublin West was to vote her into the Dail for all to see and so that we don't have to put up with her as a local councillor.

serfboard

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger is having an utterly bizarre interview with Pat at the moment.

Apparently she's one of those feminists who is "triggered" by literally everything that is said to/about women.

That interview is well worth listening back to. You can tell by the end that Pat gets tired of her taking offence to everything ...

She went on about the portrayal of women in ads. Nothing about the ads where men are portrayed to be right dopes altogether (the most recent Vodafone radio ad being the best example) ...

I think she's a bit likes Pat's Newstalk colleague Dil - anyone who doesn't agree with everything she says is a sexist, racist homophobe.

michael999999

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!

#Siteserv

DOBs best boy!

two wheels good

michael999999 wrote: »

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!

#Siteserv

DOBs best boy!

Email your TDs. http://www.whoismytd.com/
Tell them an enquiry is necessary.
I've just heard M Noonan blathering on in response to a question on the topic. My impression is he thinks he doesn't have to be publically accountable for his actions in responding to the financial crises. Noonan always knows best.
Well done Catherine Murphy for pursuing this matter persistently.

BTW Very interesting interview on teenage drinking with US prof. working with US Dept of Health on:
- benefits of raising the driinking age to 21
- the effectiveness of alcohol advertising, incl sports sponsorship, in targetting young drinkers.

CountyHurler

It's now "Jess" so is it? I must have missed that memo...

jimmyw

That by election candidate talking irish is giving us a history lesson but fails to tell us why we should vote for him:-/.............. Feck off with this rubbish and stop withering on :-(.

Another candidate is not even living in the constituency and maybe emigrating,but still wants us to vote for him???

Bloody clowns

BuilderPlumber

two wheels good wrote: »

BTW Very interesting interview on teenage drinking with US prof. working with US Dept of Health on:
- benefits of raising the driinking age to 21
- the effectiveness of alcohol advertising, incl sports sponsorship, in targetting young drinkers.

This whole issue on sports sponsorship and alcohol is imo a very dangerous development and just shows how people without a clue when it comes to business are pushing a dangerous agenda.

First off, I agree 100% that alcohol in the wrong hands is dangerous and also that we as a nation have to control anti social drinking behaviour such as violence, rowdiness and urinating in public. But in a way which DOES NOT kill off business or deprive responsible drinkers.

I am sick of being told that drinking 3 pints in one sitting is 'binge drinking' while the real binge drinkers continue their all day drink and drugs mega sessions and then go out and do wrong. The response to this is dearer drink, advertising restrictions and worst of all stopping sponsorship for sports and music events. All grand if we had the sponsorship from elsewhere but we don't! Simple as. We kill off employment and career promoting events while the anti social drinking continues on and on! Smart move by people with no clue of business.

I warn that the next fascist dictatorship form could well be the healthocracy where alcohol, certain foods and certain ways to dress are banned in the name of health rather than in the past religion or nationalism. Healthocratic fascism is a vile as 'Christian', 'nationalistic' or 'Islamic' fascism and we need to recognise it before it is too late.

I for one will hail all developments to control violence and other negatives from poor control of drinking among mostly youths. But not in a way that kills events, employment, the bit of craic in venues and the furthering of careers. Do we really want a society where going to dance halls listening to Mike Denver and other paddywhackery while sipping orange is about as exciting as it gets. While the violent drinkers pay no attention!!

zoobizoo

Having done some research recently about the effect of alcohol sponsorship and advertising on teenage drinking, it surprises me that the politicians don't heed the research out there which proves that teenagers and children exposed to both will start drinking earlier and will drink more often. Many research papers have stated this.

I have worked in advertising and know exactly what the drinks industry do...

As for having sponsorship from no other source... ridiculous. Businesses are ready and willing to sponsor sports and entertainment events that match their brand. For example, Smithwicks/Murphys/Bulmers pulled out of comedy sponsorship and were replaced with SKY and vodafone. If Guinness stopped sponsoring rugby, another company would happily step in.

Look at Formula 1.. . it survived the ban on cigarette sponsorship.

While I would be an expert in marketing and promotions, I am not an expert in the medical field but if the experts say that binge drinking is three or four pints in a sitting ,then medically, that is the case regardless of what non experts believe.

Bits_n_Bobs

Jonathan and usual levels of faux outrage over internet photo of crap food in hospital shocker...I would like to believe PK would nix this in the editorial meeting, maybe I'm being naive however...

Ol' Donie

Turned off when I heard Jonathan was hosting.

Used to like him but, Christ almighty, the outrage just tires me out.

CountyHurler

Sickening, as usual, to hear Mary Hanafin on the radio.... talking about hard things are for the Irish people.. and her on her 140k a year pension for her contribution as a Minister in the Cabinet that is in a large part to blame for why things being hard so hard for Irish people..... Is nobody in the media prepared to ask her any tough questions at all... They've certainly plenty of opportunity to ask her anything they want, I mean she gets more air time than most sitting TDs.

CountyHurler

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Used to like him but, Christ almighty, the outrage just tires me out.

I was just about to post exactly the same, Donie... I used to really like him presenting when he first started... But soon enough he got indoctrinated with the usual NT left wing agenda... And then got a few lessons in "how to be a smug, facetious smart ar5e from Sean Moncrieff"

BuilderPlumber

zoobizoo wrote: »

Having done some research recently about the effect of alcohol sponsorship and advertising on teenage drinking, it surprises me that the politicians don't heed the research out there which proves that teenagers and children exposed to both will start drinking earlier and will drink more often. Many research papers have stated this.

I have worked in advertising and know exactly what the drinks industry do...

As for having sponsorship from no other source... ridiculous. Businesses are ready and willing to sponsor sports and entertainment events that match their brand. For example, Smithwicks/Murphys/Bulmers pulled out of comedy sponsorship and were replaced with SKY and vodafone. If Guinness stopped sponsoring rugby, another company would happily step in.

Look at Formula 1.. . it survived the ban on cigarette sponsorship.

While I would be an expert in marketing and promotions, I am not an expert in the medical field but if the experts say that binge drinking is three or four pints in a sitting ,then medically, that is the case regardless of what non experts believe.

Personally, I think all sponsorship of events should be encouraged. It is as wrong for the alcohol industry to contract themselves to be the SOLE sponsor of events thus keeping other industries out for others to try and curb the alcohol sponsorship. I don't care who sponsors events as long as they get sponsored to the max.

Academic papers should never be treated as gospel for a wide variety of reasons. They often are the viewpoint of a certain university, IoT or private college and/or organisation/profession, and they can be very biased so as to make a certain point to back up a certain theory.

Politicians do not follow a lot of this because for once they KNOW taking an extreme view of these things and implementing extreme laws about these sort of things would only create many new problems without solving what it is supposed to.

The medical profession are not infallible either. Everyone knows that drinking of excess is bad for one's health and/or causes violence or recklessness in some individuals. But what gets to me is all the agenda driven rubbish. Drinking three pints in one sitting is hardly anyone's idea of binge drinking (incl. 4 medical doctors who I know!!) apart from someone totally opposed to drink! Everyone out for a night tonight or tomorrow are all binge drinkers in this definition!! Likewise, all this agenda about carbs (formerly known as carbohydrates), sugar, tea, coffee, salt, fat, etc. being bad or good for you is more of same! A lot of it is based on some fact, then embellished and then spouted to back up some agenda.

It is much the same as those who use religion to try and change fundamental cultural norms. When that fails, it is health, economics, etc. that replaces it. 'Health' is being used as a weapon of fear in order for fascists to change our way of life without firing a single shot. So, a strong anti-drink media campaign rather than 50 lashes with a whip is tried first. If that does not work, then there's always the former option. But I say this to any fascist: alcohol is not bad for you in moderation, 3 pints in one sitting is not binge drinking, and no religion bans it either. Fascism hiding behind health, religion, or whatever can go to hell where it belongs.

hotmail.com

CountyHurler wrote: »

I was just about to post exactly the same, Donie... I used to really like him presenting when he first started... But soon enough he got indoctrinated with the usual NT left wing agenda... And then got a few lessons in "how to be a smug, facetious smart ar5e from Sean Moncrieff"

Newstalk has a left wing agenda?

That would be news to most people.

johnny osbourne

uncle pat says uncle dennis should be allowed to run free and buy all the utilities, and i agree with him

alaimacerc

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

But I say this to any fascist: alcohol is not bad for you in moderation, 3 pints in one sitting is not binge drinking, and no religion bans it either. Fascism hiding behind health, religion, or whatever can go to hell where it belongs.

Two points:

1) Several religions do in fact "ban" it.
2) You have a funny ol' idea of what constitutes "fascism". The talk over on another thread of a hyperbole tax springs to mind...

johnny osbourne

alaimacerc wrote: »

Two points:

1) Several religions do in fact "ban" it.
2) You have a funny ol' idea of what constitutes "fascism". The talk over on another thread of a hyperbole tax springs to mind...

word from the wise buddy,

don't bring psuedo-religion to the beer table

cheers pal

alaimacerc

johnny osbourne wrote: »

word from the wise buddy,

Oh? Who was the wise person sent you?

don't bring psuedo-religion to the beer table

Not sure I follow. Precisely which are the "pseudo-"religions?

johnny osbourne

Oh? Who was the wise person sent you?

my granny


Not sure I follow. Precisely which are the "pseudo-"religions

anyone who disagrees with me :mad:

alaimacerc

johnny osbourne wrote: »

Not sure I follow. Precisely which are the "pseudo-"religions

anyone who disagrees with me :mad:

Ah! And the One True Osbourne Religion is...?

johnny osbourne

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah! And the One True Osbourne Religion is...?

fender stratocaster, 1974

BuilderPlumber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Two points:

1) Several religions do in fact "ban" it.
2) You have a funny ol' idea of what constitutes "fascism". The talk over on another thread of a hyperbole tax springs to mind...

1: I am well aware of dubious dictatorships banning alcohol for the poor and lower middle class in the name of religion. But both Islam and Christianity in its teachings do not ban it. Of course, they do ban drunkenness that leads to evil. And that's a different matter.

2: Fascism does not start with the gas chambers, 9/11, invading Iraq, the Taliban, ISIS, Nazis, neo-Nazis, etc. ALL of the named fascists here actually started off looking good (compared to what was going on in their country before) and went from there. Listen to Christy Moore's Yellow Triangle song and you see. First, punish the criminals and the regime is loved. Give the people what they want. Then, the drunk and disorderly types and go further. Then, travellers, then non-nationals, then gay people, then unemployed people ..... and eventually 'they come for me'. One can approve all they like as a fascist regime takes down seemingly all those hyped up 'enemies' of the people until in the end you are the target.

alaimacerc

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

1: I am well aware of dubious dictatorships banning alcohol for the poor and lower middle class in the name of religion.

Entirely off-point.

But both Islam and Christianity in its teachings do not ban it. Of course, they do ban drunkenness that leads to evil. And that's a different matter.

Some Christian denominations certainly do. And your take on Islam in this regard is so hilariously wrong as to be difficult to take seriously as even a good-faith blunder.

Then, travellers, then non-nationals, then gay people, then unemployed people ..... and eventually 'they come for me'. One can approve all they like as a fascist regime takes down seemingly all those hyped up 'enemies' of the people until in the end you are the target.

Thank you, Pastor Niemoeller. So basically any sequence of "things you don't like" is fascism, on the basis it'll mysteriously lead to other, clearly worse things, and whee, Godwin! Starting with "take it handy with those pints, lad". Perhaps we should just ask you for your list of things that aren't fascism -- sounds like it'll be a lot shorter.

Most ridiculous thing I've heard on boards.ie for quite a while. And I'm here hotfoot from the Water Charges and Sinn Fein threads!

BuilderPlumber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Entirely off-point.


Some Christian denominations certainly do. And your take on Islam in this regard is so hilariously wrong as to be difficult to take seriously as even a good-faith blunder.


Thank you, Pastor Niemoeller. So basically any sequence of "things you don't like" is fascism, on the basis it'll mysteriously lead to other, clearly worse things, and whee, Godwin! Starting with "take it handy with those pints, lad". Perhaps we should just ask you for your list of things that aren't fascism -- sounds like it'll be a lot shorter.

Most ridiculous thing I've heard on boards.ie for quite a while. And I'm here hotfoot from the Water Charges and Sinn Fein threads!

I think you are deliberately continuing this for the sake of argument and out of spite!! Now, downing another's opinion and calling it 'ridiculous' is certainly fascism and insulting. I have never called others' opinions 'ridiculous' and have argued my point here without getting personal. My definition of fascism is an ideology which does not tolerate others. And it just does NOT come in one go, it take years to form. I can see the amount of agendas out there, each of which is not at present fascist because it wields no power as of yet. But it could well become the start of a more repressive system if adopted by a government. People laugh it off as 'nanny state' but repression is repression.

I am WELL AWARE of Islam and its history. Back in the days when the Moors ruled Spain, the Islamic Caliphate was much more enlightened and liberal than the crazy Catholic dictatorship that followed! The anti-Islam brigade like to paint it as a black, repressive cult: instead, Islam comes in both enlightened and repressive forms just like Christianity and all other creeds. So, give me a break.

As regards the quote from the Koran: it all depends on how one interprets it. What it actually says is to avoid intoxicants among other things in order to be successful. Intoxicants = drink, food that makes one drunk or stoned. It does not ban them or does not mention if one drinks alcohol and does not get drunk and is responsible. In today's world, we can mean this is all about reckless drunkenness. Religious text can be wide open to moderate or fascist interpretation. The Taliban, ISIS, al Qaeda, etc. don't seem to find anything wrong with other intoxicants like heroin/opium, cocaine and hash by the way when it comes to funding their 'cause'.