Sir, – Stephen O’Byrnes (Opinion Analysis, August 4th)omits to mention he was previously national press officer and policy director of the Progressive Democrats. This is relevant given that the neo-liberal ideology of his former party is largely to blame for the economic problems in Ireland. Given that unemployment was running at or around 4 per cent only five years ago, it’s fair to assume that most Irish people are not work-shy. As for the “welfare abuser” bogeyman, the percentage of welfare fraud in Ireland is estimated to be 1 per cent to 3 per cent, hardly a high level of fraud.
He makes a simplistic comparison with France and Italy. I’m Irish but have spent a significant amount of time in both countries. Both have significantly higher social protection legislation than in Ireland. Workers in these countries enjoy much better rights in terms of working hours, time off and worker representation. He neglects to mention that although the salary received by the employee may be lower than in Ireland, the social charges levied on the employer are significantly higher. These social charges go towards health insurance, pensions, etc.
The party to which Mr O’Byrnes belonged pursued for many years policies that destroyed the tax base in Ireland, pushed up inequality, favoured the very wealthy over the disadvantaged, made housing unaffordable for a great many people, deregulated everything it could and had no qualms about the creation of a two-tier health system.
He also tells us that the retail and catering sectors pay reasonably well but also speaks of the “poverty trap” if one takes up a job. If working is a poverty trap, then clearly these sectors do not pay reasonably well. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I welcome Stephen O’Byrnes’s article for the critical light it throws on what he calls “the national narrative about unemployment”.
First, he gives an explanation of something that has long puzzled me, namely, the huge predominance of foreign nationals in the retail and hospitality sectors. I had assumed this was because employers had found some way to pay such persons less than they would have to pay Irish nationals. Now it appears that the boot is on the other foot: many Irish people refuse to take such jobs; and the same applies in horticulture and the meat industry.
Second, Mr O’Byrnes shows that the figures normally published for “unemployment” are not to be taken seriously. He writes that while “the Live Register yardstick” gives a figure of 458,000, “the more accurate Quarterly National Household Survey” gives 295,000.
I have often wondered why that absurd term “Live Register” is retained by the CSO to describe the statistics for unemployment. What is its origin? What does it mean? When will the CSO decide to publish a monthly figure for persons who are “without a paid job but available to work” – the dictionary meaning of ‘unemployed’? Yours, etc.
Sir, – Stephen O’Byrnes repeats the myth that Ireland has a very successful indigenous IT sector. According to the Irish Software Association, export sales of indigenous software account for only 5 per cent of the total software sector in revenue terms. Despite huge indigenous potential, the fact is we still rely totally on foreign investment.
One lesson from the crash is that we should not continue myths about our economic prowess. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Stephen O’Byrnes’s article struck me as typically representative of the mantra of those who believe that life on social welfare is a desirable state of affairs for many of those with the misfortune to be unemployed. He notes foreigners have found work in the retail and hospitality, meat packing and nurseries industries and wonders why haven’t “our” unemployed.
He ignores the fact that all these sectors have been shedding jobs, and many of the positions therein demand specific skills and training given by vocational and indeed third-level institutions. Any new vacancies are likely being filled by people who have experience in the sector who have been recently laid off, whether they are Irish or foreign.
Where no special skills or experience would be a prerequisite, an employer would, to my mind, only reluctantly take on an over-qualified individual for a position he or she would intend vacating at the first possible opportunity.
In France and Italy, I have come across many people working in the hospitality industry who are not either French or Italian but who obviously are fluent in that language. Ireland had the big plus of being an English-speaking country, the second language of many, if not most, of those who came to work. Perhaps many Irish did leave the sectors quoted during those good times, facilitating the wave of immigrants, but they did not do so to adopt a social welfare lifestyle.
A rhetorical question for your correspondent: would he feel happy employing an individual in a first-rung position if that person was as, or more, qualified than him? I think not, but he expects others to do so.
Finally, a period of unemployment would do wonders for the mindset of those who begrudge the payment of minimum benefits to those less fortunate than themselves and would remove their propensity to chant the mantra of the most infamous of their ilk, “get on your bike”. – Yours, etc,