# Mary O'Rourke



## CGorman (8 Jan 2006)

Mary O'Rourke has just got the FF nomination in Longford/Westmeath by a very narrow margin. I personally can't stand the women, but this time she really stunned me... she's after getting nominated by such a slim margin, head's up to do her speech and said "worked _like blacks_ to...." 

This women really knows how to shoot herself in the foot!


----------



## royrogers (9 Jan 2006)

Explain 'work like blacks'  not sure what you mean by that phrase??


----------



## daithi (9 Jan 2006)

..in fairness to her, she probably didn't expect to win the nomination and was high as a kite-and it was actually meant as a compliment!   d


----------



## demoivre (9 Jan 2006)

I'm sure kebab Connor is very proud of his aunt !


----------



## icantbelieve (9 Jan 2006)

Well I hope Connor is proud of his aunt, someone who has done far more work for immigrant rights in this country than those who like to jump on verbal slipups. The kebab remark was a crap attempt at humour not a racial slur, you may as well complain about the Simpsons referring to drinking and fighting on St. Patricks Day.
I'd rather have politicians like Mary O'Rourke or Michael McDowell who say what they believe rather than the mealy mouthed td's trying to please all of the people all of the time epitomised by our great socialist leader. I'd rather know what people stand for, that way you know what you're getting and can vote against if you disagree and we might just end up with a dail that reflects the views of the nation.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jan 2006)

In my opinion both comments were more stupid/ill judged than motivated by any sort of deep seated racism. In both cases an apology should suffice and everybody should move on. However I suspect that some people will make a mountain out of this particular molehill and thus undermine efforts to weed out real racism and prejudice in this country.


----------



## Darth Vader (9 Jan 2006)

I absolutely agree with Clubman. I dont think for an instant that she meant anything insulting by what she said. She said it without thinking. The term is an old one and one that used to be used quite commonly in Ireland. A simple apology should suffice and let's leave it at that.


----------



## legend99 (9 Jan 2006)

I recall Ron Atkinson saying something along the same lines. calling Desaily a "black bastard" when he thought his mike was off. 
Even though everyone agreed that the big man wasn't a racist he still had to resign his cushy job. And I would have thought that the standards applied to our public representatives should be higher and they should pay a similar price. 
Just because you didn't mean something to happen doesn't mean you can ignore the consequences of that event happening.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jan 2006)

There's a big difference between calling somebody a "black bastard" and using the phrase "working like blacks" in my opinion. Both may be offensive, the former more than the latter, but in this particular case I don't think that anything more than an acknowledgement that this is the case and an apology is necessary. I'm sure that others might have a different opinion and want a head to roll though.


----------



## icantbelieve (9 Jan 2006)

Legendd99, surely that's the kind of attitude that sees us having media friendly politicians who can only spout soundbites without actually doing anything. 
Football commentators are two a penny but politicians who actually do things seem to be too rare an entity to have them ditched just because they say something that can be wrongly construed. 
In fact, did Atkinson not use the 'n' word which, although I felt was meant to simply add malice to the insult not because he is a racist, did justify his dismissal to me. Was Atkinson not simply using an extreme insult to describe someone he clearly didn't like. I know that I've used insults based on people's features (height, weight, skin condition) in the past (and will in the future) without it meaning that I am prejudiced against people who are tall/short/fat/spotty. Either way, why is it wrong to append black/jewish/arab to an insult, if someone called me a white/irish/catholic/dublin w***er it would be the w***er bit that would actually insult me.


----------



## Bamhan (9 Jan 2006)

She seemed genuinley shocked when her attention was drawn to the remark after her speech.


----------



## Humpback (9 Jan 2006)

Unfortunately, I have to admit that about 5 years ago, I made exactly the same comment as Mary O'Rourke in a conversation amongst black people. I learned a very had lesson then, and am still learning it now.

I can tell you that all the attempts to brush this comment off, to try to lessen what was said, and to try to assail those who pick up on the comment as being over the top politically correct, is extremely unfortunate and is enormously damaging to any credibility we as an Irish nation may be trying to build as being a multi-cultural nation.

It doesn't matter where the comment originates within our Irish psyche, or what state of mind a future government minister was in when she said it, it is an absolutely racist comment and should have no place in Irish society of today.

I lost 3 very good friends (1 black and 2 white) because of my comments. They didn't care how or why I came to make the comment, only that it was wrong, and racist, and showed a lack of awareness at the time on my part in how I was thinking.

Mary O'Rourke should not be allowed get away with making this comment. An apology is not enough. She must stand down because of it, and as a nation we should be showing our displeasure of a potential leader making such comments by calling for her to stand down at every possible opportunity, and not excusing the comments as people are doing here.


----------



## demoivre (9 Jan 2006)

For the record my comment above was made in jest  and I totally agree with Clubmans comments - I don't believe for a minute that O Rourke or Lenihan are in any way racist. I have often heard older people in particular ( including my mother ) make the same reference to people who have worked hard - it's was used as more of an expression than anything else, the " black" word had no significance in itself. Ron Atkinson on the other hand referred to Desailly as a ""a f***ing lazy n*****". Personally I would view that comment a lot differently than either Lenihans or O Rourkes and to want /expect O Rourke to stand down because of it is farcical imo.


----------



## Vanilla (9 Jan 2006)

Slightly off topic, but where I'm from in Kerry referring to someone as black means they are unforgiving and set in their ways. So one of my grandfathers was always referred to as black, or as a 'black bastard'. My father still uses it in connection with one of my brothers, who is of a similar disposition- i.e., you know Joe, he's black.

I wonder what Mary O'Rourke meant by her remark, and what the connotations are. Is it a reference to indentured slavery?


----------



## icantbelieve (9 Jan 2006)

Some friends you had there ronan, it sounds like the usual story, tolerance is expected on the side of the Irish indigenous population but none is forthcoming on the other side. 
Its like those who complain about Christian symbolism at Christmas and demand that cribs be removed from hospitals. my opinion is that being multi cultural should be about mutual understanding on both sides and the inclusion of all. Don't remove cribs, but do display Hanukkah candlesticks, do teach our children about christian religion, but if there are other denominations (or even if there aren't) teach them about passover, ramadan etc.
What's next should we stop having a parade to celebrate the patron  christian saint of Ireland.
It'll take time for us to come to grips with new societal influences stemming from immigration and young people probably wouldn't use a phrase like "work like a black" but lack of tolerance on both sides on ingrains differences.


----------



## Humpback (9 Jan 2006)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Some friends you had there ronan, it sounds like the usual story, tolerance is expected on the side of the Irish indigenous population but none is forthcoming on the other side.


 
Not really. And this wasn't in Ireland. It was in a country that none of us were actually from, and all were just working as peers and ex-pats.

It did works both way. As was said elsewhere, if comments were made regarding my race/colour/religion, I'd have been equally disturbed by such comments. Thing was, they didn't make any comments about me. I was in the wrong and let myself and my country down. Just like Mary O'Rourke has.



			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Its like those who complain about Christian symbolism at Christmas and demand that cribs be removed from hospitals.


 
I don't think these situations are alike. 

The whole religious symbols thing is a "live and let live" situation, and asking people to change how they live is one thing, and not acceptable.

Making improper comments regarding the race/culture of others isn't acceptable on anyones part.


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Jan 2006)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> I wonder what Mary O'Rourke meant by her remark, and what the connotations are. Is it a reference to indentured slavery?


Useless piece of information #4788234:
The expression 'trabajar como un negro' - 'work like a black' dates back to the Atlantic slave trade, which flourished under the reign of Philip II of Spain, in the late C16.

_(Curiously, in French, the equivalent expression is 'travailler comme un turc' — not too far removed from 'work like a __Trojan__', geographically speaking, but probably more to do with the waves of Turkish migrant workers of the 1960s/1970s than with their Homeric forebears...)_

I agree that Mary O'Rourke is guilty of no more than letting slip a common expression from less politically correct times, one which — while racist in origin — long ago came simply to mean 'to work very hard and/or for little reward'. But someone as smart as her should apologise quickly. There'd be uproar if an English politician (or any other) talked about Micks or Paddies...


----------



## Humpback (9 Jan 2006)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> There'd be uproar if an English politician (or any other) talked about Micks or Paddies...


 
If it was an English politician, making comments such as this about any race, they'd have resigned by now. 

We let our politicians (or potential politician in this case) away with far too much.


----------



## Vanilla (9 Jan 2006)

Given that it is a reference therefore to slavery, which is part of the history of black people, is it in fact an insult? Don't want to stir it up now, I am genuinely wondering. I suppose its an insult because it is in the present tense rather than the past tense. Would it be like saying as hungry as the Irish?


----------



## legend99 (9 Jan 2006)

if say a President of a Students Union in a third level college had said it they'd have been made resign either way by now. Bear in mind that this comment was made not by an election canidate, but by the leader of the the Higher House of Representatives of this state.
Can you honestly imagine the leader of the british house of lords (upon which the seanad is losely based) being allowed to get away with a comment along the lines of "jaysus, fair play, ye worked as hard as those irish paddies"
Let her stand for election by all means....but let her not represent me as the leader of the higher house of this country.


----------



## Lauren (9 Jan 2006)

I'm with Ronan & Legend. I am astounded by the stupidity of the remark. She needs to resign.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jan 2006)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Its like those who complain about Christian symbolism at Christmas and demand that cribs be removed from hospitals.


 Actually that would include me. I strongly feel that state funded/owned institutions should be secular institutions. However I admit that I am probably in a minority when it comes to this.


			
				legend99 said:
			
		

> Can you honestly imagine the leader of the british house of lords (upon which the seanad is losely based) being allowed to get away with a comment along the lines of "jaysus, fair play, ye worked as hard as those irish paddies"
> Let her stand for election by all means....but let her not represent me as the leader of the higher house of this country.


 Imagine if the _UK _had a monarchy which had sectarian rules specifically banning the marriage of _Catholics _into the family? Er, hang on a minute... That's the sort of instituionalised sectariansm/prejudice that is more dangerous and important to deal with than ill judged off the cuff remarks which are potentially objectionable. Calling for heads to roll for such comments trivialises these matters and loses sight of the bigger picture in terms of dealing with racism and prejudice.


----------



## Trustmeh (9 Jan 2006)

It looks like she has decided not to apologize (from rte news):

"Ms O'Rourke said she would not be apologising for using the phrase 'working like a black' because she meant it in a complimentary sense about her party workers. 
She also said three people she was referring to had accepted it in that manner."

It isnt the party workers that are offended!

I am disapointed that people are running to the "pc gone mad" defense of this.... PC isn't always a BAD thing - society needs rules for people to live by. I would agreee that PC can be used wrongly (like removing cribs from hospitals) but not in this case.

If she doesnt realise she needs to apologise then maybe she does need to resign.  A gaff is a gaff - but this comment is undefendable.


----------



## icantbelieve (9 Jan 2006)

There's no way she should resign, for what, for using a phrase that is still relatively comonplace and therefore representative of this country. Also the effort to compare what would be done in England is laughable, suddenly the Lords are fair minded, culturally unbiased libertarians. 
My point also holds up in comparison with England, we are relative newcomers to dealing with the changes required to assimilate significant numbers of immigrants whereas the English have had decades to learn.
If Mary O'Rourke apologises to any black people who have been offended and assures them that she did not mean any offence then that's enough. I think she should ignore the (non-black) pc correct brigade who jump on any opportunity to take offence on behalf of others and cry racist at any opportunity.

I'm stunned irrespective of which country you were in Ronan that you think people who react to one slip and allow it to override what they know of you through experience as friends. If I'd been living abroad and knew English people who I considered friends based on how they interacted with me and my family, I wouldn't ditch them just because they called someone a fenian bastard. Nobody is purer than pure and in given situations people say things that don't reflect how they live their lives. You could for example hold the view that there shouldn't be immigration in this country (and then be called a racist) but be equally of the opinion that immigrants who are in this country shouldn't be discriminated against or hounded out.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jan 2006)

yankinlk said:
			
		

> I am disapointed that people are running to the "pc gone mad" defense of this.... PC isn't always a BAD thing - society needs rules for people to live by. I would agreee that PC can be used wrongly (like removing cribs from hospitals) but not in this case.


 Nobody has criticised political correctness (gone mad or otherwise) or dismissed it as a bad thing in this thread so far as I can see.

It might be worth noting that _President McAleese _didn't resign over [broken link removed] about some _NI Protestants _a while ago - comments that I would consider much more serious and harmful than _O'Rourke's_ ill judged comment above:



> ... some Protestants taught their children to hate Catholics rather like the Nazis taught their kids to hate the Jews.


----------



## Trustmeh (9 Jan 2006)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> There's no way she should resign, for what, for using a phrase that is still relatively comonplace and therefore representative of this country. .


 
Her coment is not representative of Ireland - or is it? Do you want it to be?



			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> I think she should ignore the (non-black) pc correct brigade who jump on any opportunity to take offence on behalf of others and cry racist at any opportunity.


 
Not every opportunity, just those that present themselves.



			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> If Mary O'Rourke apologises to any black people who have been offended and assures them that she did not mean any offence then that's enough.


 
And if she doesnt apologize should she resign?


----------



## Humpback (9 Jan 2006)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> There's no way she should resign, for what, for using a phrase that is still relatively comonplace and therefore representative of this country.


 
Drunk driving is relatively common place in Ireland. Doesn't mean it's alright either. Cost Dr.McDaid his job. 

Just because something is commonplace doesn't make it acceptable and representative of a country.


----------



## icantbelieve (9 Jan 2006)

Do I wish we could still use terms that are interpreted the way they're meant and not just used as a stick to beat people with, then yes? Or are we still a nation that complains whenever a derogatory Paddy comment is made, personally if its a funny one I laugh but if I think the person making the remark believes it then I laugh at them.
"Not every opportunity, just those that present themselves" surely that is every opportunity or are there opportunities that don't present themselves?
If any member of a community that could be remotely included in the term "black" as used by Mary O'Rourke speaks up and says that they were offended then yes she should apologise and if she doesn't she should resign. I believe eskimo is now a derogatory term but if used in public should an apology be given because all the non-indiginous-alaskans in this country scream racist (I'm assuming for this example that there are no indiginous-alaskans living in this country).
To be honest the only reason I'd look for an apology for Mary O'Rourke would be to show me that she has manners and is not a fool, her actions in the past have already shown me that she's no racist.

Ronan, you've made me smile with the extremity you've gone to to make an argument, common place or not drink driving is against the law and that's why McDaid lost his job, to compare the two, wow!! Surely if something is commonplace then it doesn't have to be acceptable for it to be representative and judging from the reaction to the criticism of Mary O'Rourke I'd have to say that its seems what she said is considered acceptable by most and thankfully its the majority of a society that decides on these things.


----------



## jem (9 Jan 2006)

this is geting out of hand PC gone mad. how exctly did she insult and who did she insult. 
did she say that a section of ireland are lazy and do nothing- no it was work hard.
is it an insult to be called black - no.
so what is the problem?
the same saying is used down here but slightly differently with the n word as opposed to the b word.


----------



## Gabriel (9 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I have to admit that about 5 years ago, I made exactly the same comment as Mary O'Rourke in a conversation amongst black people. I learned a very had lesson then, and am still learning it now.
> 
> I can tell you that all the attempts to brush this comment off, to try to lessen what was said, and to try to assail those who pick up on the comment as being over the top politically correct, is extremely unfortunate and is enormously damaging to any credibility we as an Irish nation may be trying to build as being a multi-cultural nation.
> 
> ...




Ah come off it!

Firstly...to lose three (so called) friends because you used some mildly racist terminology (completely innocently) just means that *a)* they weren't really your friends and *b)* they weren't that smart to not be able to recognise that you didn't really mean it and it was a mistake.

It seems to me you didn't do anything that bad and these three people COMPLETELY overreacted!

I have no great opinion of O'Rourke but I doubt she meant anything by it. She made a mistake. A simple apology should suffice. Everyone who mentioned those who make a real difference as opposed to those who make the 'right' soundbites is absolutely spot on.

For f**k sake. Give us all a break. Can people not see the woods from the trees? There's far more important issues going on in this country rather than some off-hand remark made in error by a reasonably well regarded politician. 
If you really have to then apply some logic to the situation. The term 'working like a black' is a very old one. O'Rourke used it as it would have been something she grew up with. It might be a racist terminology but there was no racism intended. Modern, multi-cultural Ireland will be judged by its actions towards ethnic communities...not by slips of the tongue from the odd politician.


----------



## shnaek (9 Jan 2006)

Here here. I agree with Jem and Gabriel. This is lunacy. Representative of the Ireland we now live in which is obsessed with perception and style rather than substance. Was the insult intended? I can't see how anyone could argue that it was. If we keep going this way we'll end up with a bunch of drones as politicians, telling us what we want to hear and doing nothing at all for risk of offending someone.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jan 2006)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> Ah come off it!
> 
> ...
> 
> For f**k sake. Give us all a break.


Please keep the discussion civil as per  or else face deletion and/or banning.


----------



## legend99 (9 Jan 2006)

bottom line. You expect the highest standards from an elected public representative. And that comment is not the highest standard with all due respect. Its nothing to do with PC. Its to do with respect.

"It might be a racist terminology but there was no racism intended"
I knew someone who drove home once drunk. There was no harm intended. Does that mean it was right?


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jan 2006)

_Mary O'Rourke _is not an elected public representative. She is currently a senator appointed to the _Seanad _by the current Government.


----------



## Humpback (9 Jan 2006)

jem said:
			
		

> this is geting out of hand PC gone mad. how exctly did she insult and who did she insult.
> did she say that a section of ireland are lazy and do nothing- no it was work hard.
> is it an insult to be called black - no.
> so what is the problem?
> the same saying is used down here but slightly differently with the n word as opposed to the b word.


 
If there's nothing wrong with anything that she said, why are you only typing "n word" and "b word" instead of typing out nigger and black?????  If there's nothing wrong with these words, then use them. What's the problem?


----------



## legend99 (9 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> _Mary O'Rourke _is not an elected public representative. She is currently a senator appointed to the _Seanad _by the current Government.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad

With all due respects, she's a pseudo elected representative. She is appointed by a Taoiseach who is elected by the people. She only gets elected as a result of his election. Her term of office is directly linked to the term of Dail Eireann. She answers to the people and is expected to answer to the same standards as a member of Dail Eireann. And as I said, in my opinion her comments do not refelct the high standards I would expect.

[As a matter of interest, how would you refer to a County Councillor who wasn't directly elected but who had been co-opted onto the council....would you refer to him/her as an elected public rep. or as a 'co-opted councilor'??]


----------



## shnaek (9 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> If there's nothing wrong with anything that she said, why are you only typing "n word" and "b word" instead of typing out nigger and black?????  If there's nothing wrong with these words, then use them. What's the problem?



Perhaps we would be better to use them, and use them over and over and over until they loose their power. 
Besides, the issue is not what she said but the intent behind it. We cannot condemn people for unintenional slips of the toungue. We can be adults and realise the spirit of the speech rather than concentrate on the words.


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Jan 2006)

legend99 said:
			
		

> [As a matter of interest, how would you refer to a County Councillor who wasn't directly elected but who had been co-opted onto the council....would you refer to him/her as an elected public rep. or as a 'co-opted councilor'??]


I suppose it would depend on whether (s)he worked like a.... very hard-working person?


----------



## daithi (9 Jan 2006)

no doubt  Pat Rabbitte and Michael D will be apopleptic with rage at the gaffe..I am suprised that Mary o Rourke hasn't apologised though..that surely would be the best way end the whole saga..theres al ot more serious matters to occupy our time, and that of our elected politicians imho    d


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Jan 2006)

In fairness to Michael D, the Indo reports:





> Even her sharpest critics conceded that she would not have intended any offence. They said she had most likely used a phrase which was in common usage in a different decade.
> [...]
> Labour's Michael D Higgins said: "I don't think she had any insulting intention at all." But he added: "People have moved on and there is a language that we used before when people were not so well informed."


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jan 2006)

Do you remember when there was a problem with a big race in England - probably the Grand National? Some English horse trainer said something to the effect "This wouldn't happen in a point-to-point in Ireland". 

A tiny minority of Irish people got upset. The rest of us just laughed at the ill judged comment made in the heat of the moment. 

Politics needs a bit of spontaneity and if that results in an occasionally inappropriate use of words, it's well worth it.  

If the words used indicate a deep seated racism or other unacceptable point of view, then the person should be disciplined. 

Brendan


----------



## Lemurz (9 Jan 2006)

I can't belive Mary has the "balls" to go back into politics after the whole Eircom debacle she presided over.  Irish people must have short memories!


----------



## Trustmeh (10 Jan 2006)

Thats the reason the opposition and her "harshest" critics arent making a big deal of it...they WANT her to stand in the next election.  If she lost last time, surely she will this time.  She has refused to apologize, so she is a fool.  

Anyone catch the last word last night?  Matt Cooper basically baited her along and allowed her to put her foot in it.

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."


----------



## daithi (10 Jan 2006)

re Michael D, he's right and I'm wrong   d


----------



## irishpancake (10 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Nobody has criticised political correctness (gone mad or otherwise) or dismissed it as a bad thing in this thread so far as I can see.
> 
> It might be worth noting that _President McAleese _didn't resign over [broken link removed] about some _NI Protestants _a while ago - comments that I would consider much more serious and harmful than _O'Rourke's_ ill judged comment above:



Yes, but at least President  McAleese had the good grace to recognize the hurt her remarks caused, and publically apologised, as reported here

Mary should do the decent thing, and quit diggin. Most people recognioze that she was not intending to be racially abusive, but she should recognize that people in public lfe have a duty to be vigilant, and never to give offence, whether intended or not.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2006)

I agree that it would probably be best for _O'Rourke _to acknowledge that her comments were at best ill judged, apologise and move on.


----------



## CCOVICH (10 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> I agree that it would probably be best for _O'Rourke _to acknowledge that her comments were at best ill judged, apologise and move on.


 
Likewise. She should have taken the opportunity to do so as soon as it was presented to her.


----------



## Sherman (10 Jan 2006)

> I can't belive Mary has the "balls" to go back into politics after the whole Eircom debacle she presided over. Irish people must have short memories!


 
What debacle? I sold very soon after flotation, and made a very tasty profit. Why should people who held on to their shares out of greed, ignorance, or the sheep mentality bleat about Mary O'Rourke, the government, or anyone else? They have only themselves to blame.


----------



## jem (10 Jan 2006)

Sherman said:
			
		

> What debacle? I sold very soon after flotation, and made a very tasty profit. Why should people who held on to their shares out of greed, ignorance, or the sheep mentality bleat about Mary O'Rourke, the government, or anyone else? They have only themselves to blame.


so did I and made over 1k, I wasn't gready. if you gamble and lose tough luck.


----------



## shnaek (10 Jan 2006)

irishpancake said:
			
		

> but she should recognize that people in public lfe have a duty to be vigilant, and never to give offence, whether intended or not.



People in public life have a duty never to give offence? That is nonsense to be honest. People in public life have a duty to do the job they've been elected to do, to do that job well and to provide the taxpayer with value for money spent. They are bound to offend someone sometime, as anyone is when they are constantly in the public eye.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2006)

jem said:
			
		

> if you gamble and lose tough luck.


 I did and have nobody to blame but myself. And maybe the ineffectual board of eircom at the time. But certainly not the Government/minister at the time.


----------



## Humpback (10 Jan 2006)

Sherman said:
			
		

> What debacle? I sold very soon after flotation, and made a very tasty profit. Why should people who held on to their shares out of greed, ignorance, or the sheep mentality bleat about Mary O'Rourke, the government, or anyone else? They have only themselves to blame.


 
Unless you subscribe to the belief that, because of the greed you mention above, Mrs. O'Rourke and her cabinet colleagues agreed to set the flotation price at an unrealistically high price in the first place. Or was this because of ignorance?


----------



## demoivre (10 Jan 2006)

Regardless of what the flotation price was the point is the market price went substantially above this price for your average Joe Bloggs investor to make a decent killing. In any event a lower flotation price would not have  presented as a de facto price floor - enough selling pressure in any market will result in a fall in price, the flotation price won't save it regardless of what that price  was originally.


----------



## Sherman (10 Jan 2006)

> Unless you subscribe to the belief that, because of the greed you mention above, Mrs. O'Rourke and her cabinet colleagues agreed to set the flotation price at an unrealistically high price in the first place. Or was this because of ignorance?


 
Why was the price unrealistically high? What would have been a more realistic price in your opinion?

As myself and others have pointed out, the price was obviously not set too high, as it went quite a bit higher after flotation, enabling many people to sell at a substantial profit.


----------



## Humpback (10 Jan 2006)

Sherman said:
			
		

> Why was the price unrealistically high? What would have been a more realistic price in your opinion?


 
I don't know. I didn't say I was of the belief. I know that others, including some experts (ABN AMRO?) were of the opinion that the company was overvalued at the time of flotation



			
				Sherman said:
			
		

> As myself and others have pointed out, the price was obviously not set too high, as it went quite a bit higher after flotation, enabling many people to sell at a substantial profit.


 
This happens in most cases as most companys when floated are undervalued when floated, so that they will rise on floatation and then settle back to the true value of the share (around about, or just over, the flotation price).

So, Eircom started at its floatation price, then it did spike on floatation as is natural, and the downside was substantially below the floatation price, which would indicates an overvalued flotation price.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> So, Eircom started at its floatation price, then it did spike on floatation as is natural, and the downside was substantially below the floatation price, which would indicates an overvalued flotation price.


 So in most or all other cases any immediate post _IPO _rise is due to undervaluation of the company but in _eircom's _case it was just a kneejerk reaction by the market? Er ... right... People really should get over this idea that they were somehow ripped-off by the Government in relation to the flotation of _eircom_.


----------



## icantbelieve (10 Jan 2006)

I don't think its fair to say that greed was behind most people's decision to hold their stock, a lot of investors viewed eircom as a long term buy and the only way selling would have made sense would have been if they felt the stock would fall back where they could buy back in after having taken a profit. Even when things had been going badly for some time people still felt that as a long term investment they were still ok, they were simply unlucky that they were forced to take their hit and not allow to convert their shares into the new company's stock.
Of course that is not to say that a siginificant amount of people didn't take a good profit out of greed. I know several people who had borrowed significantly to buy eircom stock and intended to sell after a month or so but got greedy and got stung badly. But older people like my parents viewed it as a secure long term investment and they were generally the age group who were hit the worst.


----------



## Ham Slicer (10 Jan 2006)

Agree with Clubman.  I also lost a few quid on eircom, but could have made a killing if I wasn't so greedy.

I'm not sure if the flotation price was too high or not, but as the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language fell out of the telecom sector soon after, I can't see how Mary O'Rourke, Governemnt or maybe even the BOD can be blamed for the losses suffered by people.


----------



## Humpback (10 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> So in most or all other cases any immediate post _IPO _rise is due to undervaluation of the company but in _eircom's _case it was just a kneejerk reaction by the market? Er ... right... People really should get over this idea that they were somehow ripped-off by the Government in relation to the flotation of _eircom_.


 
Clubman. I did not say that eircom shareholders after flotation were ripped off. Anyone who lost money on this has to take the blame themselves for whatever reason. Others here implied the rip-off.

Nor did I make any differentiation between the spike after the IPO by eircom and spikes by any other floated company. I said that this was a normal occurrance for all IPOs.

I did differentiate between where the share prices ended up once the initial IPO fever had died down. The fact that the eircom share price dipped below the flotation price and stayed there, I indicated was due to an overpriced flotation.


----------



## MugsGame (10 Jan 2006)

I agree with icantbelieve. Inertia was also a factor -- even the selling procedure was daunting for a first-time shareholder.

The initial post-flotation spike was demand driven. If all the shareholders had tried to sell, the stock would have plummeted. So I don't buy the line that everyone could have got out in time to avoid a loss.

For the record, I lost money on eircom by holding. But I didn't hold out of greed, and I don't blame the Minister or the Government.  I'm not sure if eircom was overvalued. Line rental is a cash-cow and eircom had significant real estate assets. If I had to blame anyone it would be the management that did such a poor job of extracting value from the assets that it became a very attractive takeover target for Valentia.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> The fact that the eircom share price dipped below the flotation price and stayed there, I indicated was due to an overpriced flotation.


 This is not necessarily the case. The market decides the "right" price for a share at any point in time. Initially the market drove the price up. Thereafter it decided that it was worth less. This has no bearing on the _IPO _price.


----------



## shnaek (10 Jan 2006)

Eircom was my first venture into the market, and my idea was a long term hold. I was a bit niave, but I don't blame the government. However it has opened my eyes to state company flotation. The staff had a huge say in what was done with the company after flotation, and that is not necessarily in the interest of shareholders. 

But the main reason that eircom leaves a sour taste for me is that we were ripped off for years with high charges, then the only phone network in the country was sold off. Many of us made losses. Then we were forced to sell so certain big business people and staff could make a killing. Now we have no competition on the local loop so we are still being ripped off by a privately controlled monopoly, and we have bloody atrocious broadband service.

So for me it has to be wireless broadband (if I can get it!) and skype/blueface etc. as long as I don't have to pay line rental.


----------



## Murt10 (10 Jan 2006)

Eircom was floated with a greenshoe option. This means that the people floating the company could buy or sell shares in the company that they had held back for a specified period after the float and were therfore legally allowed to manipulating the price.

There was no way the the Government was going to allow the share price to fall below the issue price in the first couple of weeks. Once you appreciated this, the best thing was to apply for as many shares as you could, using borrowing if necessary, and then getting to hell out of there as fast as you could. 

Moneybags in The Pheonix crunched the numbers on Eircom before the float. He reckoned that the company was totally overstaffed compared to its peers and also over unionised whose unions also happened to be major shareholders in the company. As this was the first of many floats proposed by the government, he recommended burrowing money, applying for as many shares as possible and then getting out quickly (stagging).

Unfortunately for me, around the same time, First Active was being looked at by Anglo and it seemed as if they were going to make a bid. Moneybags  recommended getting into FA. I went in at 3.40 with all my profit from Eircom, plus money I had borrowed to buy those shares. I decided to cut my losses when they hit 2.60, having lost the big fat profit I had made in Eircom. 

FA still had a lot further to fall, but in the end they came good when they were taken out at a much higher price. 


Murt


----------



## Humpback (10 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> This is not necessarily the case. The market decides the "right" price for a share at any point in time.


 
Yes, the "market" does - however, the determination of the flotation prices is supposed to be determined by combination of the "market" at the time of the flotation, the value of the company, and the capital requirements of the owners of the company being floated.

If the "market" value of the shares after the flotation are significantly lower than the flotation price, it must have been one of the other two factors that causes the higher flotation price.

Therefore, either the value of the company is overestimated causing the higher flotation price (which is unlikely unlikely in eircoms situation) or the capital requirements of the owners, i.e. the Government caused the higher flotation price.



			
				Murt10 said:
			
		

> Eircom was floated with a greenshoe option. This means that the people floating the company could buy or sell shares in the company that they had held back for a specified period after the float and were therfore legally allowed to manipulating the price.


 
You make a greenshoe option in an IPO sound like it's something shady and underhanded. Please explain how a greenshoe is, in your opinion a form of price manipulation.

There is research in Germany, if my memory serves me correctly, which actually states that the use of a Greenshoe option is actually designed to support overpriced IPOs in some situations.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Therefore, either the value of the company is overestimated causing the higher flotation price (which is unlikely unlikely in eircoms situation) or the capital requirements of the owners, i.e. the Government caused the higher flotation price.


 You are ignoring the fact that the markets are dynamic so circumstantial changes, such as _IT_/telecoms stocks in general going out of favour with investors, are also relevant here and could just as easily be the cause of lower share prices in the post _IPO _period.


----------



## Murt10 (10 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> You make a greenshoe option in an IPO sound like it's something shady and underhanded. Please explain how a greenshoe is, in your opinion a form of price manipulation.
> .






			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> There is research in Germany, if my memory serves me correctly, which actually states that the use of a Greenshoe option is actually designed to support overpriced IPOs in some situations. .



I think you have answered your own question there. In whose best interest is it to support overpriced IPOs. Certainly not the investor coming in off the street.  The whole dotcom bubble was based on overpriced IPOs and a lot  of  people got very badly burned as a result

Murt


----------



## RainyDay (10 Jan 2006)

shnaek said:
			
		

> Then we were forced to sell so certain big business people and staff could make a killing.


'forced to sell' is being melodramatic. Over 80% of shareholders accepted the offer price. The only people 'forced' to sell against there will were the minority who rejected the offer. These are the standard takeover rules, and if you don't like the rules, you shouldn't be in the market.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2006)

I don't like Mary O'Rourke. I find her didactic and get the impression that she doesn’t quite know what she is talking about. I think she did a terrible job in transport and has a history of doing very little in any major department she ran. That said I think an apology was/is all that is needed to put the current pseudo-controversy to bed.
As for the Eircom IPO, she did a great job. She sold at the highest price possible and raised as much money as she could for the people of Ireland. The fact that some of that money was raised from the people of Ireland is irrelevant. Everyone knew the risks and if they didn’t they were fools. 
A friend of mine who worked in Nortel at the time gave me an evening worth of advice as to why telecom shares in general were bad news so I never bought Eircom shares but I have been burned in the past with other shares and I am sure I will be burned in the future. The Eircom share price fell in an environment where most (if not all) telecom shares fell, hardly Ms O’Rourke’s fault.


----------



## shnaek (11 Jan 2006)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> 'forced to sell' is being melodramatic. Over 80% of shareholders accepted the offer price. The only people 'forced' to sell against there will were the minority who rejected the offer. These are the standard takeover rules, and if you don't like the rules, you shouldn't be in the market.



I had a good which I wished to keep, but I was unable to do so, due to the 'rules' of which you speak. Therefore I was 'forced' to sell. I may have been in the minority, but I feel that many of the small shareholders (the public) would have preferred hold on to their shares if given a yes or no choice. I don't make this argument to put blame on anyone else. I fully accept that I took a risk and got burned. I now have the experience to know never to trust an Irish government floatation. There are always going to be vested interests involved.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Jan 2006)

shnaek said:
			
		

> I had a good which I wished to keep, but I was unable to do so, due to the 'rules' of which you speak. Therefore I was 'forced' to sell. I may have been in the minority, but I feel that many of the small shareholders (the public) would have preferred hold on to their shares if given a yes or no choice.


 As _RainyDay _says, under the normal takeover rules that apply to all public companies, a majority of shareholders agreed to the takeover so those who did not were the only ones forced to sell. I can't see any legitimate complaint about this.


> I now have the experience to know never to trust an Irish government floatation.


 I don't see how this follows, especially in the context of the _eircom _sell off?


----------



## shnaek (11 Jan 2006)

I am not making a complaint about market rules, just emphasising a point.  

"I now have the experience to know never to trust an Irish government floatation. "

It follows in the context of the eircom sell off in that eircom staff got enough of a share in the company to make them a decisive block. They went with Tony over Dennis because Tony offered them more. Not for the good of the company.

All that is fair enough. It is simply the way the market works. But my thoughts are that the government will placate the Unions in the flotation of all state companies and thus the interests of the unions will take precedent over that of the public (potential shareholders). Thus one would be foolish to think they will get long term value from a state floatation.


----------



## Sherman (11 Jan 2006)

> thus the interests of the unions will take precedent over that of the public


 
Surely giving the workers/unions a significant shareholding is _precisely_ the way to ensure that their interests and those of the shareholding public become more closely aligned?


----------



## MugsGame (11 Jan 2006)

> Over 80% of shareholders accepted the offer price.



Or more accurately, shareholders representing more than 80% of the voting share capital accepted the offer. Institutions and large shareholders (such as agents for Valentia and Unions) made up the bulk of this. Due to the large proportion of small shareholders in eircom, I'd be surprised if an actual majority of shareholders (in the strictest sense) accepted the offer.

I was a small shareholder who was forced to sell -- I view it as a cheap lesson in the way the market works.


----------



## icantbelieve (11 Jan 2006)

I'm stunned, a statement that giving workers/unions a significant shareholding equates to the interests of the public being met, I thought this kind of socialism had been proven to be a surefire way to economic disaster.


----------



## Humpback (11 Jan 2006)

Sherman said:
			
		

> Surely giving the workers/unions a significant shareholding is _precisely_ the way to ensure that their interests and those of the shareholding public become more closely aligned?


 
Well, if you consider that the workers/unions are the only people to make any consistent money out of the eircom flotation while the actual service provided by eircom to the shareholding public, and the public at large, has consistently suffered since the flotation, it pretty much puts a hole in your arguement.

Many eircom employees are still getting cheques in the post after the flotation deal, and at this stage, most of them don't even know why their getting them.

Don't see where this has benefitted the shareholding public?????


----------



## Sherman (11 Jan 2006)

> Well, if you consider that the workers/unions are the only people to make any consistent money out of the eircom flotation while the actual service provided by eircom to the shareholding public, and the public at large, has consistently suffered since the flotation, it pretty much puts a hole in your arguement


 
Not so. The very fact that the unions/employees made such impressive money would indicate that from the pov of shareholders, they're doing a wonderful job. Their interest as shareholders is not necessarily the provision of a spiffing service to customers, rather it is the maximisation of profit, and therefore dividends.

Given that the general public no longer holds shares in Eircom, I would agree that the interests of shareholding employees and the general public have diverged again somewhat - as shown by your unhappiness with their service. However this only goes to prove my original point. As for serving their own interests in their capacity as shareholders however, they seem to be doing a very good job indeed.


----------



## icantbelieve (11 Jan 2006)

Now that's what I call spurious, the unions/employees made impressive money because the were given, for nothing, (no performance improvements) a large shareholding in the company. Then when the second sale came along they again benefitted due to the size of their shareholding and of course over both disputes were the possibility of strike action being taken if they weren't given their own way. It's not the dividends that the employees are laughing all the way to the bank with.


----------



## Sherman (11 Jan 2006)

The point remains that they have an incentive not to run the company into the ground with idiotic work practices a la An Post - the Eircom shareholder employees have a vested interest in ensuring the company remains a viable enterprise which produces healthy profits, otherwise the value of their shareholding becomes worthless.


----------



## icantbelieve (11 Jan 2006)

Right, so eircom as a company still exists because its well run rather than the fact that we're a more electricity dependent society and they have a major headstart on any competition due to their years of being a monopoly. An Post on the other hand are in trouble due to poor work practices rather than fewer letters being posted, competition that can establish themselves very easily and workers who like those in eircom are paid disproportionately in excess and threaten strike action whenever their cosy little number is confronted.
Is it just me or is there still a hint of old school socialism here whereby the workers are good and misunderstood but management are incompentant and heartless.


----------



## CCOVICH (11 Jan 2006)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Right, so eircom as a company still exists because its well run rather than the fact that we're a more electricity dependent society and they have a major headstart on any competition due to their years of being a monopoly.



??  

Are you confusing Eircom with ESB?


----------



## icantbelieve (11 Jan 2006)

No, just not being clear (as well as confusing electricity lines with phone lines), what's meant is that we use our phone lines for much more these days than we did before so it shouldn't be hard to make money out of this irrespective of how the company is run. 
does electricity come down phone lines as well and is this how standard phones work during a power outage?


----------



## Sherman (11 Jan 2006)

> it shouldn't be hard to make money out of this irrespective of how the company is run


 
I'm pretty sure shareholders of Marconi, Lucent, Nortel, and millions of other telcos would disagree...

The problems with An Post stem not from a massive drop in the numbers of letters being posted, rather from under-investment in technology, dreadful industrial relations, outdated and inflexible work practices etc. 

My fundamental point remains - Eircom worker/shareholders have an incentive not to wreck what for them has been a very good thing - they are a lot less likely to strike etc. knowing that it will hit their shareholding hard.

How many strikes have there been in Eircom since they were privatised? Compare that with during the Telecom Eireann/P&T days.


----------



## icantbelieve (11 Jan 2006)

Whereas, to name but only a small a few, esatbt, euphony, smart, irishbroadband, ntl, chorus, sky, broadbandrus, icantbelieveitsnotbroadband are all making money out of telephone lines and as my main point proved eircom still operates at an advantage given by its former monopoly and the reluctance of people to change operator.
Yeah you're right it was a flawed agrument, eircom's money making is obviously only down to underpaid conscientious hard working staff who are highly productive, don't have restrictive work practices enforced by union threats, and constantly agree to new more efficient work practices.


----------



## Sherman (12 Jan 2006)

Argh. You obviously have some axe to grind about Eircom. For starters, Smart and NTL are haemorraging money, BT Ireland has only just broken even, what have SKY got to do with telephony?

Look, it's basic human nature - you incentivise someone, they're going to work hard to achieve the reward based on the incentive, or at the very least not wreck that which they have been given. Basic common sense.

I never in any of my posts said Eircom's success was based solely on hard work and efficiency of the workforce. Of course it is also based on their dominant position in the market.

Leaving Eircom aside, can you not agree with my basic point that by giving workers a shareholding in a company, the company is aligning workers' interests more closely with those of the shareholders generally? Anyway, enough. I get bored banging my head off a brick wall after a while.


----------



## darag (12 Jan 2006)

> Eircom worker/shareholders have an incentive not to wreck what for them has been a very good thing - they are a lot less likely to strike etc. knowing that it will hit their shareholding hard.


That's not quite the same thing as claiming that giving the workers a large shareholding is beneficial for all shareholders though, is it?  In Eircom's case, the workers/unions used their large holding to vet the groups trying to takeover Eircom.  Basically they conducted a "side deal" which guaranteed benefits to themselves (including increased ownership of the company and presumably guarantees regarding work practices) at the expense of smaller general shareholders.  This obviously demonstrates that the interests of the workers/unions were not aligned with those of the shareholder.

I think 15% is way too much to give the works.  5% or so should be the max if we want to avoid what happened with Eircom happening with future privitisations.  This would ensure that the workers/unions are not in a position to leverage their power at the expense of other shareholders while still rewarding them for the performance of the company as a whole.


----------



## Purple (13 Jan 2006)

> can you not agree with my basic point that by giving workers a shareholding in a company, the company is aligning workers' interests more closely with those of the shareholders generally?


US and other multinationals do the same thing by offering share options. They don't hand over 15% of the company for free. I agree with your general point but I think the people of Ireland were shafted when the employees of Eircom's ESOP was set at 15%. I'm not sure if the blame for that should rest with the unions of the government though the unions were just doing their job...


----------



## shnaek (13 Jan 2006)

Blame definitely lies with the government. The unions are simply looking after their members interests. The government is elected to run the country and to look after the interests of the people of Ireland. Or that is how it's supposed to be on paper anyway!


----------



## TarfHead (13 Jan 2006)

Kevin Myers Irishman's Diary in today's Irish Times.

"_Instead, we get angry - almost every week - about non-issues, the primary purpose of which is to apparently satisfy our own demented desire to win a morality race in which we are the only competitors"._

Not sure how to say this but .. I think I agree with the thrust of his argument.


----------



## NOAH (18 Jan 2006)

lets hope she does not get elected because if she does.... 

noah


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2006)

> lets hope she does not get elected because if she does....


 What, she'll work like a black?


----------



## Itchy (19 Jan 2006)

Had to wait till 50 posts to post this, better late than never...

What a muppet!!!


----------



## stuart (19 Jan 2006)

If it was Prince Philip, people would laugh it off as stupid ignorant man

[broken link removed]

But it wasn't and an apology should have been made, and not to the workers
Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, if you see it as that, but passing it off as being OK and everyone else being overly PC is absurd



> _the primary purpose of which is to apparently satisfy our own demented desire to win a morality race _


 
Someone earlier made reference to being called a paddy(or fenian) and not taking offence
I wouldn't either in Ireland, but trying living in London when there are bombs/bombscares and see how fun it is being Irish and how you would like to be referred to

stuart@buyingtolet.ie


----------



## delgirl (19 Jan 2006)

Rula Lenska on last night's Celebrity Big Brother (yes, I watched it   ) called someone a 'lying Arab' and then slapped her had over her mouth, realising what she had just said!

It's easily done, but Mary should have apologised.


----------



## Humpback (19 Jan 2006)

delgirl said:
			
		

> Rula Lenska on last night's Celebrity Big Brother (yes, I watched it  ) called someone a 'lying Arab' and then slapped her had over her mouth, realising what she had just said!
> 
> It's easily done, but Mary should have apologised.


 
But was the person that was lying actually an Arab (Faria Alam?)? If they were, what's the problem????


----------



## TarfHead (19 Jan 2006)

stuart said:
			
		

> But it wasn't and an apology should have been made, and not to the workers


 
Apologise to whom ?

All people of African ancestry.
The continent of Africa.

Where do you start ?
Where do you stop ?


----------



## shnaek (19 Jan 2006)

Perhaps if there was a solemn oath public servants would take at some stage to declare an apology for all past, present and future unintional offence caused they could get on with the business of running the country


----------



## stuart (19 Jan 2006)

TarfHead said:
			
		

> Apologise to whom ?
> 
> All people of African ancestry.
> The continent of Africa.
> ...


 
I am not asking her to apologise to each person indvidually, but an acknowledgment that her phrase was inappropriate would be about as far as I would see it

stuart@buyingtolet.ie


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2006)

According to some media reports she explained matters by saying that her campaign team were not offended by the comment. She then went on to call them "her slaves". Give that woman a spade!


----------



## delgirl (19 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> But was the person that was lying actually an Arab (Faria Alam?)? If they were, what's the problem????


 
Faria Alam is Bangladeshi and the comment wasn't directed towards her as she had already left the house.



			
				stuart said:
			
		

> I am not asking her to apologise to each person indvidually, but an acknowledgment that her phrase was inappropriate would be about as far as I would see it.


 
Agree with Stuart, she should have just said a general 'sorry if it offended anyone, it wasn't intended' and it would have been over and done with.


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Jan 2006)

'Sorry' doesn't seem to be in the FF ministerial dictionary...


----------



## TarfHead (19 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> .. Give that woman a spade!



If you did at least she would call it a spade .. which is where this started.


----------



## NOAH (21 Jan 2006)

I thought she used the word "like"

noah


----------

