Migrant Workers

by wawapedal, yawn, ribbid, i wonder is the nazi - still online? Wed Jan 11, 2006 20:58

If the german nazi economy had been based on as you claim on "productivity (my correction) of the workforce" then the question of ten million slave labour minimum is just to be forgotten?
If it was as you claim an end to "usury" (read nazi code for jewish finance) then why did the Reich bank offer normal interest loans to those who resettled in the Ukraine and other eastern posessions?
If the reich had no gold, on which to base its currency and resorted to simply "printing money" then why did they go to such lengths to hoard gold mostly in kruggerand form, resulting in the post war concensus to ban such currency?
Or interesting little factoid:
"At the end of the Second World War hoards of gold of the Reichsbank had been stored in the Bavarian castle Neuschwanstein. In the last days of the war, they were carried off to an unknown place. According to unproven rumours, they were plunged in a lake, e.g. in the Alat Lake of southern Germany. Furthermore, between May 1945 and March 1947 the Reichsbank was plundered of approximately £2.5 billion through various robberies masterminded by rogue members of the SS. Though these robberies were spaced out and not masterminded by a single source, the Guinness Book of Records currently lists the robbing of the Reichsbank as the largest robbery in history."

So they had no gold?

you apologists seem to forget that the system you think was so great, not only failed morally giving the world the completely unwarranted mass confiscation of property, revoking of citizenship, enforced labour and experimentation resulting in the murder of at least 6 million jews, 2 million slavs, a quarter million gypsies, and over 3,000 initatied members of esoteric lodges masonic or otherwise.
But that it also falied socially and economically. Kickstarting an economy by sending the unemployed to build roads might seem dandy to you, but considering the _cutback_ on international loans to the _peacetime_ reich, it fades to a and exceedingly cosmetic gesture which was truly meaningless in its effect on ordinary Germans' lives. In peacetime it was heap of lies, and in wartime after the Feb 18, 1943
"total war" decision, utterly inept. & thanks be to God they weren't as efficient as they liked to think they were.
Fact is you don't even understand why and how the Mark failed or recovered and how little it had to do with Hitler. And of course you don't want to consider that In 1924 the Reichsbank started to issue the Reichsmark, which it managed until 1948 at the takeover that Sterling area I referred to above. And that in that year when both the Reichsmark and the Reichsbank ceased to exist, dumbarton Oaks really kicked in.
Indeed
Now if you want to learn "international institutes of finance" then you are on the right site. Do you for a moment think that we in the anti-globalisation movement have remained consistent on these matters for almost a decade just "coz we like the posters"?

But no, you don't want to address the IMF or Dumbarton Oaks, or anything "real" you just want "less migrants" on your little street.

by Philo Wed Jan 11, 2006 18:03

I cannot agree the German economy was based on theft. What the currency was based on was productiveness of the workforce,end of usurous speculation, and the state printing the money rather than the market deciding.
Germany had no Gold hence this is the only resource he could base the money system on Labour. So the argument falls that it was a result of liquidation of property , as germany in the mid thirties was having an economic boom while the united states was in a depression. Even Ravosky in "the red symphony" who was a trotskyite agent he was captured by stalin explained the real workings and why they had to destroy the german economic system. Because it was non cyclical and suitable to the modern industrial state. Same as Abraham Lincolns Greenbacks.

by Plato Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:55

I have exposed myself really? So you don't believe there is an international Finance Mechanism?
Try Looking up IMF or maybe World Bank ,
Mein Gott Conspiraciy theories are true?
What about international Drawing Rights? An electronic world currency based on baskets of currencies.
You do not even know what a Nazi is.
I am for equal rights of all races white and black, Green Pink.
I don't follow any line except truth. If the West stopped imposing their Laizes Faire Economic system on the Developing countries we would not have a mass migration problem.
I am for the African or Asian or Pink Man to become prosperous in his own country, to prove his own talents and abilities, without interference from other "democracies". I note my comments were deleted and I will be slandered even though I never advocated Hitlers Policies, yes he was a bastard but Economicaly he took Germany out of International Finance.
Just as Iran and Iraq's leaders tried to do also, and we know the consequences of interfering with the money power.

by Topper Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:22

Sorry Plato, but your attempt to pass yourself off as a "centrist" might be more plausible if you hadn't appeared on another thread, claiming that the Russian revolution was a conspiracy by Jewish bankers. You have exposed yourself as a Nazi. Go back to stormfront where you below. You are a racist not a "centrist"

by wawa pedal Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:19

I agree to differ on real estate and dublin, but I can not let that assertion "why they really hate Hitler" go unchallenged.
Germany did not leave the "international financier's clutches" from 1933 to 1945 as you suggest. & the suggestion is most common in far right revisionist circles. You have confused "jewish financier" with "international financier". The German economy from 1938 onwards was based on the systematic confiscation of private property and assets, a practise which began in Germany and extended to all territory under German control throughout the war. The exact figures for property confiscated are still argued over, but in Austria alone there are still 19,000 outstanding claims. From the invasion of the Sudetenland onwards, the german approach to economy remained the same. All resources were liquidated in conquered territory. First jewish, then other ethnic groups and idealogical groups had their property confiscated, then all luxury items were pillaged. That is why so much high art went missing. The sale of german war bonds from 1942 onwards to the collapse of the Reich central bank in 1945 clearly demonstrate that the economy was based on theft and needed constant expansion. By 1944 Hitler's own economists knew that if they won the war, they were facing a peacetime bubble. Consideration of these problems by the victorious allies led to the creation of a Sterling area for occupied Germany and liberated Norway, Denmark, and post war Sweden and Ireland in the pre-Democratic constitution of Western Germany period which then underscored the need for Marshall Aid 1947 and the Soviet rejection of that and the parallel implementation of the geo-economic policy suggestions made at Dumbarton Oaks in 1944. In fact the theft of European property by the Nazi regime has never been properly addressed and continuing issues arising from it still affect European expansion and integration.


Now I agree to differ about the houses and migrants in Dublin.

by glow stick Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:30

You have now referred to Incas, Baltics, North American indians, Spartans and Keynes in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you have made a mistake.

Migration to Dublin is not related to the Irish real estate bubble. The place of Ireland in the EU and the new found "wealth" based on unprecedented borrowing is the cause of the real estate bubble. Naturally villages in the baltics can be bought cheaply now, as only 20 years ago you couldn't buy or sell them at all.

I am a classicist, I can read about Sparta in the original language, I am not a marxist, & I work on a part-time basis for a Swiss private bank helping to advise exceedingly wealthy investors on medium to high risk long term projects presently dominated by real estate in the east of Europe, and when I come home I'm a European housing activist. I reckon I know what I'm talking about. Expelling 200,000 "foreigners" will not bring down the price of housing in Dublin, it will simply mean less tenants, and thus less mortgages paid. What needs to be done, and needed to be done long ago- was the provision of housing, and control on empty properties.

Now I'm bored of this, its a bad trip. :-) lets agree to differ, I suppose.

by Glittery Nail Remover Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:19

Indeed I very much understand Economics and the "European Project" and who it really benefit.
I understand the standardisation of currency.
May I suggest you read a book called the "th babylonian woe" its on the internet.
It explains the origin of the illusionary speculative money sytem we live in today.
Why do you think Sparta was attacked?
Because they would not bow to the international financier.
Mass immigration is the same as Pro-Globalisation, you guys are working for the system destroying the old order- They consider socialism and any materialistic Ideology as useful idiots.
Money should be the servant of the state and the state should not be the servant of money.
In a real egalitarian society money should be distributed based upon labour-hours available not upon speculation and parasitic ursury.
EU integration just means EU standardisation, standardisation of Money system, legal system, social system.
We are living in a sophisticated slavery in which rather than the master beat us we feed and clothe ourselves and take the LUAS to do our masters bidding.
"sometimes simplicity cuts through rhetoric like a knife in butter".

by glittery nail polish Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:10

over 10 years in a state which 10 years ago did not have an anglo-saxon neo-liberal compatible free real estate market?

= utter shite. You not only misunderstand economics you also misunderstand the mechanisms of European integration or EU expansion.

by Plato Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:03

I am talking Utter shite aye?
You never even commented on my fractional reserve point. In fact house prices are coming down. In fact whole empty villages in Lithuania can be bought at the fraction of the cost 10 years ago.
Your the simplistic person that does not even know what pure economics are.
You are stuck in you keynesian/Victorian struggle of the classes claptrap.
The International Utopian dreamland .
Look Marxism was funded by Wall street, Capitalism Marxism they both benefit the elite.
Mass immigration serves the elite by having cheap labour, all the people fighting against each other, an orwellian politically correct police state.
Immigration is causing increased speculation on property in Dublin and increased hardship on the young working Dublin person.
Im not talking about conemara or marabella Im talking about Dublin. And dont tell me all the houses in dublin are being bought as holiday homes what utter tripe.
The working classes are finally waking up to traditional national based economics for the good of the people not for false leftist agentur theories that imprison the masses for the benefit of the elite.

by kaleidoscope. Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:44

Neither Inca nor Native American economies were comparative to anglo-saxon neo-liberal globalisation. But in your silliness you do point the serious thinker to the precedents of real estate and other investment bubbles, and a quick read through the history books or even the pillars of European literature will show that the bubbles which followed imperial expansion brought down more than one "Mr Darcy".

I repeat and reiterate that migration is not having an effect on the real estate market.
your argument is so simplistic, more people equals higher prices, and for that to be true the converse must also be true - "less people equals lower prices". The facts are obviously to the contrary. Ireland's real estate bubble is led by the choice of an emergent nouveau riche to invest in property but it must be realised not thier own money but borrowed money. Thus in 2004 and 2005 most properties bought in Ireland were 2nd or 3rd homes and the Irish join the list of other wealthier europeans (British, German, Nordics) in buying property in cheaper states of the EU. The result is inflation of property in poorer states. The Irish or other 2nd home owner is not migrating to take up full time residence on the Mediterranean coast just as the Nordics are not migrating to live on the Connemara coast. You have based your nonsensical arguments on the poorest inhabitants, those who rent property. Yet have missed the obvious flaw. If the arrival of a thousand polish or other migrants in dublin effects a rise in property prices, then why are the prices of property in poland not going down?
The value of real estate is not going down in the states of origin of migrants despite there being "less people" so at end you're talking "utter shite".

by Plato Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:05

As you well know the Dollar is a fiat currency in fact , the federal reserve is a "private" corporation next to federal express in the yellow pages.Same as the ECB the Euro in fact is a PLC and private individuals "the Elite" own the shares in the printing of money.
Inflation is caused by too much credit in fact most of the credit in Ireland is checking credit for which actual paper "fiat" money does not actually exist (fractional reserve banking). Booms are created by the increase of credit in th economy hence more borrowing and spending on goods and services, and speculation. Hence Irelands boom is based on more euro being created in credit because of the lack of supply of housing and lack of housing the prices have skyrocketed, mass immigration is perpetuating this problem. As demand increases prices increases need for credit increases supply of money which causes inflation. Bubbbles and busts are simply the saturation and contraction of credit (hence money) respectively.
You will see if you study real economics not the crap you read in college that these are the main "intentional"factors that make or break states.
Was Mass immigration good for the INCA or American Indian Economy?

by lava lamp Wed Jan 11, 2006 14:27

that neither mortgages nor rent would be effected, yes -
For a variety of reasons. One Mortgages are set for terms which vary from 5 to 40 years.
Mortgages provide small business owners with capital, which is used to offset all loans above microcredit. Reduction of Mortgage interests rates is led by central banks after consideration of "economic indicators" the most important of which is not the average value of a mortgage and the least important of which is not "consumer confidence".
Reduction of "demand" for property in Europe is not connected to a reduction in "population". The majority of real estate bought in the EU since the passing of the SEA has been second or third home properties for holiday making purposes. The sale or purchase of these properties has been associated with de-population. Less people more Demand. What has changed the domicile of the buyer.
Reduction of mortgage value and adjusting rates in Dublin (for this hypothetical expulsion grade exodus of foreigners) would not be feasible, at best the only capitalist benefit would be a reduction on "hair cut" charges to the corporate real estate sector instead. Were properties to reduce in value, consumer confidence would be hit, and other liquidity effected. A shock reduction in value of capital, would mean the increase in value of "long money". Very nasty inflation results, jobs are lost, tax goes uncollected, and then the really nasty bit - the bear market cleans up whats left at bargain basement prices.


Your soft maths might be grand, but your economics are shite.

by Plato Wed Jan 11, 2006 14:14

So you mean to tell me Immigrants in Dublin are not reanting houses using available property that could if available lower prices?
Question
If all 200,000 non nationals living in dublin left tommorow would rent come down and as a result Mortgages?
Supply and demand?
I'm sorry you are factually inaccurate and my Math is Kosher.

by strichnine Wed Jan 11, 2006 13:53

Migration within the EU is not uniform or shared fairly between states, and despite your soft maths is not directly connected to real estate speculation. Migrants do not in any economy in Europe intefere in the real estate market or even influence it. By the time they are deemed worthy of a mortgage, they are no longer deemed migrants, but integrated citizens.
If we look at the cities of highest density migrant labour we find housing conditions which are pitiful poor, and the creation of economic and in certain states ethnic ghettos where rented accomodation rather than encouraging speculative sale of capital resources actually maintains black market non capital liquidity.
the target of immigration of 10%-15% per state is realistic and morally justified. Certain states for historical reasons resent immigration. Reasons for their objection vary from historical reliance on emmigration (such as Ireland) and underlying attitudes of racism.
Within the EU the clear and vast majority of migrants are bottlenecked in the border states of Spain, Italy and Greece.
Within the EU one of the most hopeful states for a migrant to settle is Ireland, not because of its dinky music, hundred thousand welcomes but becuase it speaks English and thus offers on a competitive globalised market certain advantages and proximity to the US labour market.
It is scatological to cite migration to a Baltic (former Soviet) state because the conditions which attract labour are not yet present in that state, the climate is not attractive, and the language is obscure and localised.

At end, its the supreme irony that those in Ireland who resent migration, did not do their best to revive as vernacular the Irish language. If Ireland spoke Irish now everyday, precious few people would go there. & indeed precious few multi-.national-corporations would have set up business there.

The shift of global capital medium to high risk investment at the street creditor (high street bank mortgage provider level) in the last 8 years is in no way connected to migrant populations, or even to local national economic governmental decision making.
It is a result of a flight from other sectors of investment and the insecurity felt at higher levels of the economic game in trusting more traditional stock or equity.

Put simply its a bubble.
You go up and go down.
When you come down you'll feel a little strange.
Thats ok. Just don't do anything anyone suggested you did, whilst your were in the bubble.

by Plato Wed Jan 11, 2006 13:37

About time what you most probably understand is that these leftists are politically immature and illogical in their arguments. If they cannot win an argument they resort to calling people racists. I would consider myself centrist and as I have a government job immigrants taking my job does not effect me per se (yet). But still from talking to many family and friends whose own livliehoods are at risk now there is a lot and I mean a lot of resentment.
I agree wholeheartedly that , the scale of immigration now is both socially and economically unviable. Lets look at the riots in paris, despit various "socialist governments" since the 70's France is still on the verge of open civil war.
Secondly when we went to Britain or the US we were only a minute proportion of the population as compared to the American population. Not the 10 - 15% as the CSO states of non-nationals we have living here now. Also the US is almost the size of a continent and has way better land area resources and infrastructure than we will ever have, hence can accommodate more immigrants.
All of continental europe had a wait and see policy towards cheap labour from eastern europe and we didn't? Why did Ireland allow open borders?
IBEC big business you will find the answer.
Thirdly Irish people will just not accept the Politically Correct "faccist themselves "brigade taking over this country just like they did in the UK, scaring anyone out of having their own opinion. Is not a democracy the right of every free citizen to speak freely as long as it is not a threat to society? How is saying we need to protect our economy, society raccist? Its completely ridiculous!
Anyone is entitled to their opinion and racist slurs just don't wash anymore people are sick of this crap, look what they branded mary o'rourke and her campaigning for immigrants.
In fact my last Girlfriend was asian so I must be a closet raccist.
Indeed immigration should be based not on "Economic maximisation" but on "economic optimisation" the good of the country.
Obviously if you have high immigration more jobs need to be created to house feed and clothe these people. Its an endless cycle that leads to Chaos.
What is needed is immigration quotas. And proper salary stability.
Why can the left not see the correlation particularily in dublin between High House prices, and immigration. 120,000 people came here last year but only 70,000 new units were built. Anyone with a pass math in the leaving cert can figure out whats causing the structural problem.
Is immigration really good for latvia with a population of barely three million where all the young skilled people are leaving and just old people and the poor are being left behind? Is this really good for this countries future?
Why are the left not so quick to defend the hundreds of thousands of young people who cannot buy a home? Or the thousands homeless? The effect of all this added infrastructuare house building "to accomodate immigration" on the environment.
So about time, you and I and 95% of ordinairy Joes in this country are all thinking the same.
Immigration will be a huge issue the coming election, in fact maybe the only issue as a lot of Irish workers are really cheesed off.

by Topper Tue Jan 10, 2006 16:20

"It's about time the Labour party in this country woke up and remembered that they are the Labour party in this country and not a pan European labour party. Their concern should be with Irish workers, not foreign workers (who seem to have no end of advocacy groups to defend them)."

What you said was crystal clear. You made no mention of foreign workers being screwed over (although you did refer to them as "scabs"). You are back peddling now that you have been caught out. But your agenda is perfectly clear from the above quote. You believe that foreign workers have "no end of advocacy groups" to stand up for them, so they can be safely forgotten about.

The reality, of course, is that foreign workers are treated far worse than Irish workers, because they don't have many people willing to fight their corner (although Joe Higgins has done some decent work - unlike SIPTU who did nothing about the Gama situation until they had to).

You have made it clear that you believe the Labour party should not bother about migrant workers, even though they have to endure far worse treatment than Irish workers. Therefore you have a racist attitude. End of story.

The fact that you feel the need to call me an idiot merely shows that you don't like having your hypocritical arguments exposed. The Irish left can do without the advice of people like you, who will simply lead it up a dead end of narrow-minded bigotry.

by About time Tue Jan 10, 2006 09:35

But of course I'd be happy to revise my opinion of him if he could quote where I said I thought 'that foreign workers are better off than Irish ones'. Oh that's right, that doesn't actually appear anywhere I'm my original statment at all. Just to clarify (since you don't seem to understand English too well), I happen to believe that both set of workers are being screwed on a daily basis. I also believe that the primary concern of the Irish Labour Party should be with Irish labour.
Sorry to break it to you Topper (and to borrow a phrase from you) but it's the attitudes of people like you that have strangled the left in this country and we've ended up with two terms of FF/PD. Equating having an immigration policy with being racist is the reason nobody listens to 'people like you' and all the dogma ('this is the statement of a racist. End of story') in the world won't make them. No doubt you're to young to remember anything but economic boom in this country.
Oh and to the 'editor' that removed the insult in the title of my previous comment, I'd be curious as to why it's a problem to call somebody an idiot but not to call them a racist (which would probably be considered just as libelous).
Tom Joad, it is an unfortunate fact that to get into government in this country, Labour will be in coalation with either FF/FG (take your pick as there's precious little between them). The alternative is for them to refuse to go into coalition with either party and end up sitting on the opposition benchs doing no bloody good whatsoever. You might also want to consider wht IBEC and ISME's attitude to the proposal we're discussing was.

by Tom Joad Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:44

Does labour leader Pat Rabitte have "the welfare of workers in mind?"

If so, why is he intent on going into coalition with a rightwing anti-working class party that is made up of and supports the interests of people in Ibec

by Topper Mon Jan 09, 2006 17:21

I am quite willing to generalise about the "attitudes of people like you", when I read ludicrous claims that foreign workers are better off than Irish ones, because they have more than enough people to stand up for them, and it's time for the Labour party to defend Irish workers. Whether you like to admit it or not, this is the statement of a racist. End of story.

by About time Mon Jan 09, 2006 09:13

What aspect of the phrase, 'This is the first glimmer of hope for the future of the party that I've seen for a while', suggested a general level of satisfaction with Labour's performance? Still I did at least mention them, which is more than I did Siptu or the trade union movement at all. Interestingly, you seem to be able to deduce my opinions on all matters from a couple of paragraphs.
Oh and in terms of a statement like, 'promote racism and division - which is probably your intention', my experience is that bigotry is more the province of those who use expressions like, 'the attitudes of people like you', in regard to those they've never met. Insult removed from title - imc editor

by Topper Fri Jan 06, 2006 18:18

It's good to see people like you exposing yourself. You pretend to believe that Irish workers are worse off than foreign workers, who have "no end of advocacy groups" to look after them. Well, that will be news for the Gama workers, and all the other migrant workers who have been trod on because they had nobody to fight their corner (until, that is, Joe Higgins took up their cause in the Dail - I didn't see Labour rushing to support him, funnily enough).

I don't see you demanding that the Labour party and the trade union leadership do a better job of defending Irish workers by confronting IBEC and the government with real determination. I don't see you condemning the SIPTU leadership for accepting a deal that allowed Irish Ferries to reflag and slash wages.

You are trying to divert attention away from the people who are actually responsible for driving down wages and conditions and scapegoat foreign workers. Irish workers in Britain have suffered because of the attitudes of people like you for many years. Your agenda will harm Irish workers and foreign workers alike. Its only "success" will be to promote racism and division - which is probably your intention

by About time Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:14

It's about time the Labour party in this country woke up and remembered that they are the Labour party in this country and not a pan European labour party. Their concern should be with Irish workers, not foreign workers (who seem to have no end of advocacy groups to defend them). This is the first glimmer of hope for the future of the party that I've seen for a while.
The fact is that workers doing other workers out of jobs by undercutting their wages are no different from scabs.
People might also want to cast their minds back to the entry of the accession states into the EU when our wonderful government took the highly unusual step of allowing unrestricted migration. Most of the other EU nations had more sense because it was a bloody stupid idea. Now, when somebody stands up and says, 'That was a bloody stupid idea' and suggests that we try to rectify the situation, the usual suspects pipe up and try to pillory him. Before Joe Higgins or anybody else says anything on the subject they should probably consider the company that it puts them in, since a lot of the criticism directed at Pat Rabbitte has come from employers groups who most certainly can not be considered to have the welfare of workers in mind.

by pat c Thu Jan 05, 2006 15:39

whatever your subjective reasoning, the objective reality is that you are setting irish workers against immigrant workers . this divide and conquer tactic has been used by employers since time immemorial. it was used against the Irish, they were the cheap labour that was undermining US & British workers conditions. the answer to this was unionisation and the Irish were always in the lead in this.

it is in irish workers interests that all workers be unionised and achieve TU rates of pay and working conditions.

by redjade Thu Jan 05, 2006 15:23

Foreign delivery men 'being attacked by racists in Dublin'

A Labour Party councillor in Dublin has said non-nationals working as delivery men for take-aways are being deliberately targeted by racists in the city.

Aodhán O'Riordan said he knew of instances where such workers were called out to bogus addresses and then attacked by groups lying in wait for them.

He said the victims were often too scared to go gardaí because they may not have full legal status.

read the rest at the
Irish Examiner:
http://tinyurl.com/axdnl

by observer Thu Jan 05, 2006 15:10

How do you know what my "purpose" is? If I have one in the context of this debate it is to try and focus on the real issues surrounding migrant workers which is that their presence here is due to one factor and one factor only. The need for Irish employers to have a large pool of cheap unorganised labour. If their interests lie there, then it doesn't take a fking genius to work out that the interests of Irish workers lie in the opposite direction. That is, imposing controls on the numbers of immigrants who come here.

As for the racist attacks, I fully agree they are reprehensible and the scum responsible should be dealt with. However, these are the same scum who are responsible for drug dealing, muggings, joyriding and other anti-social behaviour. Migrants are just another easy victim group. Nothing political involved.

by pat c Thu Jan 05, 2006 14:58

they are immigrant workers thats why the article is relevant to this discussion. they are being attacked beacause of the fact they are migrants just as the Irish faced the same situation quite often in the US and Britain when they had to migrate. Its not so long since the "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" notices hung in boarding house windows in Britain.

Your only purpose is to sow division. Well the interests of Irish workers and Immigrant workers coincide: the protection of TU rates of pay and working conditions. Anyone who tries to divide workers along racial lines is doing the work of the bosses.

by observer Thu Jan 05, 2006 14:48

What have racist attacks by scum who spend the rest of their time attacking their Irish neighbours got to do with a debate on immigrat workers? By the same logic someone could say that they wouldn't be attacked if they weren't here. What's your point?

by pat c Thu Jan 05, 2006 14:48

An interesting development in Wales. In the past Anti Fascist Action have
distributed leaflets pointing out that immigrants do not recieve more
welfare benefits than Irish claimants. In fact immigrants are in a worse
position as they are disbarred from claiming most Benefits unless they have
a 2 year work record in Ireland.

Perhaps the SP could raise this on Fingal and South Dublin County Councils proposing that these councils issue similar leaflets, They would have the support of SF and the Greens and most LP Councillors. Joan Collins might raise it on Dublin City Council.

Pat


*********************************
"Support for town migrant workers

Wrexham residents are set to receive a "myth-buster" leaflet about the
rights of migrant workers living in the town. The fact-sheet aims to dispel
rumours surrounding the European workers and help them to integrate locally.

It was one of a number of initiatives discussed by councillors on Wednesday
when they met to talk about how to improve "social cohesion".

Full story at link.

It is estimated that between 2-4,000 people, mainly eastern European, have
moved to the county."

by pat c Thu Jan 05, 2006 14:32

I wish Pat Rabbitt would follow the example of Labour Party councillor Aodhan O’Riordain and concentrate on the discrimination and violence that immigrant workers face rather than stirring up division.

The Immigrant Workers are our allies just as the Irish bosses are our sworn enemies.

"Foreign delivery men subjected to racist beatings

By Michael Brennan
TAKE-AWAY delivery men are being called out to false addresses and subjected to racist beatings, it emerged yesterday.

There have been more than a half dozen such attacks in Dublin over the Christmas period, according to Labour Party councillor Aodhan O’Riordain.

“What they’re doing is ringing up, giving false addresses, realising the delivery men are going to be non-nationals and then giving them a hiding,” he said.

“It doesn’t even seem to be money-orientated, it’s just a sick way of getting their kicks,” he added. "

Full article at link.

by Observer Thu Jan 05, 2006 14:24

One of the things that organised workers have achieved (socialism being a conspicious absentee) is the right through union organisation AND democratic politics to prevent the employers doing whatever they wish. In this case the employers wish to have a large pool of cheap migrant labout unrestricted by any domestic union regulation or for that matter domestic law. That is where the fight is at, and that involves having controls put on the numbers of immigrant workers coming into the state. NOT in letting everyone who wants to come here and then talk about "uniting them all in common struggle".

by Topper Thu Jan 05, 2006 14:09

Uniting to take on their employers and fight for better wages and conditions is the way workers have achieved everything worthwhile, ever since the earliest days of the industrial revolution. It is the ONLY realistic way forward. Stop trying to divert people's anger away from the people who are responsible for driving down wages and into racist channels.

by observer Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:34

People whose jobs are under threat and whose wages and conditions are being undermined do not want to hear diaper marxist fantasies about uniting to overthrow capitalism. Ain't going to happen my friends. What they are interested in is practical measures, and these must include immigration controls and strict regulation of the use of migrant workers.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jan 05, 2006 05:47

I won't go into political parties here, other than to say that they could all spontaneously combust for all I care.

On the exploitation of workers, foreign and domestic, I have lots of views.

To remove exploitation, you must remove that which is the root facilitator. In this case it is employment agencies.

These parasites reduce Irish law to a joke. Irish law says that middle men (employment agencies) may not take from an employee's wages. They circumvent this by charging the employer a finders fee. They then bind the employee with a contract. The contract normally stipulates that the employee, should he or she leave the "embrace" of the employment agency, that they will not be allowed to work for the employer, that the agency supplied, for at least six months. This contract or rather its nullification, is for sale to the employer, should the employee prove valuable enough.

This practice, amongst other things facilitates a practice whereby the employee is shuffled around various employers, therefore always keeping the term, "temporary" and subsequent low wages. Eventhough they are in full time employment. Our justice system has not tackled this issue, in that any employee in the grips of one of these agencies, should see the agency as their employer, and thus not be considered temporary after a certain ammount of time has passed, irregardless to this shuffling mechanism.

Ok, that's the Irish worker's lot, when he or she is ensnared by one of these parasites.

The foreign worker has a lot more to contend with.

Usually a foreign employee has to :

Live in an accomodation provided by the employment agency, and pay rent to them.

Still be subject to very low wages.

Some foreign workers have complained that they have had to surrender their passports and other essentials to these employment agencies.

This is only the very tip of the iceberg.

Now for the funny part.

Most employment agencies are not Irish.

They are a part of the picture that constitutes foreign investment. And most can probably be tied back to the others who invest in our country, ie the very same employers that these parasites supposedly provide a service for.

So their very existence promotes the exploitation of workers, in that most companies may now disband their human resources departments, and may distance themselves from any rights or benefits that an employer would normally and under Irish law owe to their employees.

So.

Don't go down the road, whereby you squeeze a problem to make it conform, it will bulge elsewhere.

Make employment agencies a thing of the past.

Make employers responsible for the sourcing of their employees, and the maintenance of their rights.

And enforce Irish law.

Every employee should have a copy of the written terms and conditions of their employment, currently this law is treated as a joke too.

Sláinte,

Seán Ryan

by Labour watch Wed Jan 04, 2006 20:39

When you boil it down the Labour Party are essentially putting the blame for the driving down of wages and conditions on the migrant workers themselves and not the bosses. His language in that interview portrayed IBEC and the capitalist class as a neutral force not the enemy. This is a disgusting position that will breed racism and fascism especially when unemployment increases.

Labour should not be supported by left wingers and anti racists, they are a capitalist party that will when in government continue deportations, scapegoating of refugees and will launch attacks on all workers. It is the capitalists and their system that is responsible for driving down wages not immigrants. The unions should organise not to whip up national chauvenism but to unite workers af all nationalities against the capitalists attacks.

by Jonah Wed Jan 04, 2006 18:44

Sinn Féin TD for Louth and spokesperson on Enterprise and Employment, Arthur Morgan, has described the latest comments of Labour Party leader Pat Rabbitte in relation to taxation and migrant workers as "bizarre and disturbing". Deputy Morgan made his comments following yesterdays interview with Mr Rabbitte in the Irish Times.

He said, "Either Pat Rabbitte was still feeling the hangover effects of the festive season or the Labour Party leader has completely lost the plot in terms of his political platform. Some would argue that that is nothing new as Mr. Rabbitte has been in more political parties, especially parties with diametrically opposing views, than anybody else on this island. Perhaps his latest comments indicate that he is ready to take the final plunge and join the Progressive Democrats.

"His patronising comments about people on the Left being "misguided" in relation to their demand for the super-rich to pay their fair share of tax is bizarre. They could have been words spoken by Charlie McCreevy or Mary Harney.

"Genuine 'people of the Left' know only too well of the need for a fairer tax system, a progressive tax regime underpinned by a key goal of wealth redistribution -- and they know that this will only come about when the myriad of tax avoidance and evasion schemes that the super wealthy have greedily exploited for years are ended and when people pay tax on the basis that those who have more pay more and those who have less pay less.

"Just as disturbing was the Labour leaders comments on migrants and workers rights. Whether by design or accident, and its hard to tell the difference, he has managed in one fell swoop to shift the blame for the Irish Ferries debacle and the continuing problems of worker displacement, away from the policies of the Government and the employers and on to the heads of migrant workers from both within and outside the EU. This is a disgraceful and retrograde step for any leader of a so-called left wing party and smacks of political opportunism and of appealing the basest of instincts.

"What we need to do is address the reasons why employers seek to displace Irish workers and replace them with migrant workers. We need to concentrate on legislation and regulating standards (including pay and working conditions) of employment and enforcing these standards to prevent the exploitation of workers for profit. We need to ensure that Irish and migrant workers have the exact same pay and conditions of employment and therefore ensure that there is no financial benefit for unscrupulous employers of displacing their existing workforce. I am surprised that the Labour party is not concentrating on the issue of equal pay and rights for all workers and the promotion of solidarity between Irish and migrant workers which is key to preventing the current drive towards lower wages and diminished work conditions.

"As far as the Labour Party is concerned they seem to have lost the argument both internally and externally on a wide range of issues as Pat Rabbitte seeks to exorcise any vestige of James Connolly's socialism from the Party in his vain bid to secure a cabinet seat to the right of Enda Kenny." ENDS

by barra Wed Jan 04, 2006 18:27

If cheap greedy labour employers are not rooted out now there are going to be a lot of future anti social problems stemming from our learders(?) lack of ability and vision.

Look to other countries where the exploitation of workers/ peasants (yep we like peasants don't control our polictical future) has reached more advanced stages than us.