Mary O'Rourke

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?
 
it shouldn't be hard to make money out of this irrespective of how the company is run
Click to expand...

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drop in the numbers of letters being posted, rather from under-investment in technology, dreadful industrial relations, outdated and inflexible work practices etc.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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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...
 
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!
 
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.
 
Had to wait till 50 posts to post this, better late than never...

What a muppet!!!
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Rula Lenska on last night's Celebrity Big Brother (yes, I watched it :eek: ) 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.
 
delgirl said:
Rula Lenska on last night's Celebrity Big Brother (yes, I watched it :eek: ) 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.
Click to expand...

But was the person that was lying actually an Arab (Faria Alam?)? If they were, what's the problem????
 
stuart said:
But it wasn't and an apology should have been made, and not to the workers
Click to expand...

Apologise to whom ?

All people of African ancestry.
The continent of Africa.

Where do you start ?
Where do you stop ?
 
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 :)
 
TarfHead said:
Apologise to whom ?

All people of African ancestry.
The continent of Africa.

Where do you start ?
Where do you stop ?
Click to expand...

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
 
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! :eek:
 
ronan_d_john said:
But was the person that was lying actually an Arab (Faria Alam?)? If they were, what's the problem????
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top