Skip to main content

Ageism or a genuine question? – Are we too non-discriminatory?

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Ageism or a genuine question? – Are we too non-discriminatory?

If you are looking for a boy-friend/girl-friend/husband/wife/partner or a person for ANY other role in your life (e.g. baby sitter, chauffeur, pool boy ;-), cleaner, butler etc), you have a certain type of person in mind. You might have an idea if that person should be male or female, you know what skills that person should have and without a doubt you also think about that person’s age.

It is extremely unlikely that you will select a male baby-sitter that is 80 years of age if he applied for the job and if you are looking for a life-partner you DEFINITELY have an ideal age range and lots of other “parameters” in mind.

This is normal and everyone would agree that it makes sense. However, if a company is looking for an employee, they are NOT allowed to make a decision based on age. EVEN if the applicant is 64 and the other 20 people in your company are all under 25 you are NOT allowed to rule someone out because of age. Do you have to employ the 64 year old who will retire in one year? No! But if the reason for not hiring him is age, it could cost you a LOT. So what do you do? You INVENT reasons for rejecting him or you lie about your reasons. So making things up is ok, but being honest is not? Yep, that’s the world we live in.

The background of the story is this: The State’s further education and training organisation “Solas” was looking for an Assistant Manager for its Limerick Training Centre in 2013. Someone who was an employee in Solas already applied for the job and he was coincidentally 60 years of age. If that person had the skills and all other pre-requisites then the age shouldn’t be much of a problem, but Solas doesn’t allow you to work after 65, so in this case the employee only had 5 years left and maybe the company would have liked to get some more years out of this appointment.

A question was asked that referred to the age of the applicant. The applicant claims he was asked “Do you not think at this stage that you should be taking it easier?” and Solas claims they asked “What motivates you to take on this role at this stage in your career?”. No matter what the wording was (and we will never find out!), the question was about the age.

The poor applicant felt that an assumption was made about his ability to do the job based on his age and he couldn’t sleep that night because he felt unfairly treated. So he sued Solas and the Labour Court (officially: Workplace Relations Commission) sentenced Solas to pay him 20,000 Euro. Not because he should have got the job and didn’t. Not because he was fired, because he wasn’t. No, just because the FELT that injustice was done to him.

We don’t know if he got the job, but what is your guess: Would he have sued Solas if they had given him the job? I’d say he would have happily taken it and suddenly would have much less unfairly treated.

And do we think that age was the only problem? Well, if he was supremely suitable and another candidate was less suitable but was younger. It would be odd if the employer chose the less suitable candidate. And if two candidates were exactly evenly suitable, but there is only one job than SOME criteria has to be found to make a decision. And should it then not be permissible to use ANY criteria?

Sure, we will all feel a little miffed when we get older an start feeling pushed out of the areas in life that we would like to be in. But who do you sue if you are 65 and the 20 year old man or woman that you adore doesn’t want to marry you because you are too old? Ageism? Nonsense!

There is NO justification in awarding someone 20k because in an interview a question about his age was asked. Political correctness or non-discrimination is definitely gone mad!!

Oh and by the way, do you think that the 20k punishment will stop the employer next time to make a decision based on age? Not in the slightest, they will just not ask the question anymore and will instead PRETEND that the decision was based on skills/aptitude/attitude etc. Result: The 60 year old applicant will still not get the job, but he will never find out why. Well, that is a a good improvement, dear Workplace Relations Commission.

 

Irish, Odd, Society, , , , , ,

Are we booming or busting? – The confusion about the “current financial climate”

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Are we booming or busting? – The confusion about the “current financial climate”

A friend posted a notice from a small business in Dublin on Facebook. The business (the name or sector is not relevant for this post) closed its doors on 31 January and the explanation for the closure started with “due to the current financial climate”. Interestingly, that business was in the same part of Dublin where a 3-bed apartment on Daft.ie has a rental price tag of EUR 3,800 per month and it was not a million miles away from a number of areas in Dublin, where the pubs are booming like mad.

If we talked about a place far away from our world, we would wonder what is going on, we would be puzzled!! Why are there these type of significant contradictions happening: One business closes due to “the current financial climate” and other businesses are booming and house and apartment prices are higher than they were before. But it is just around the corner from us, in the middle of our life and neighbour hood. So are we booming or busting?

The answer is most likely that we are BOTH in a boom and at the same time still in trouble. There are some companies who are (still) in trouble, some because they were not made or managed to be ever successful and others because the people running them are still in the mindset of “trouble”. But other areas are just ignoring that and it seems to work for them.

The “current financial climate” is still in the head of people while at the same time they are prepared to spend like there is no tomorrow. It also seems that we have a new split in society with one part being still – at least partially – in the bad financial climate, while the other part is riding the crest again. Nearly all formerly bankrupt or at least “NAMA-treated” developers seem to be back in buying mode! :-O

Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a weird and eerie twilight zone of a “boom-bust”, where the emotions about the economic situation might influence us more than the actual facts.

It’s a pity about that small business, because without a doubt dreams and hopes were dashed, replaced by disillusionment and despair.But I would also guess that that small business had made it through harder times a few years ago. Maybe they just reached the point were they couldn’t take it any longer?

Dublin, Economy, Society, , , ,

One more silly rule is gone: Alcohol on Good Friday

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
One more silly rule is gone: Alcohol on Good Friday

On Thursday the Dail approved a change to the Intoxicating Liquor Act, that will remove the ban that stopped pubs, restaurants and off licenses from selling alcohol on Good Friday. It was an outdated law from 1927, from a time when Ireland was still VERY catholic, but it is a clear example where the Catholic Church still had a bigger impact on the state than it should have. This is the one and only reason why – in my opinion – this law change is a good change.

We don’t need a nanny state that tells us what to do based on church rules! No, I am NOT suggesting that now you should have alcohol on Good Friday! You should drink or not drink based on YOUR preferences, not based on a state or church rule (but if you prefer not to drink because of a church rule that is important to you, that is also 100% fine!).

Yes, too much alcohol is consumed in the Irish society, but a ban on Good Friday will not solve that problem and picking on that one day doesn’t make sense. I am totally in favour of strategies that reduce the consummation of alcohol through education, but not through a nonsensical Good Friday ban.

There is now only one other day left when the selling of alcohol is forbidden and that is Christmas Day. Some think if the selling of alcohol was allowed on that day, then suddenly pubs and restaurants wouldn’t give their staff a day off anymore. But if that is the driver. then we should have a law that regulates if pubs, restaurants and off-licenses are allowed to open or not, not a regulation “through the backdoor” via an alcohol selling ban.

I will continue to stay away from alcohol on Good Friday (not for religious reasons, but just because I don’t drink much anyway), but I am 100% in favour of a lifting of the ban. Is it this time me who is odd!?!?! :-)

Irish, Odd, Politics, Society, Tourism, , , ,

Supermacs announce six new outlets – A foreigner asks WHY? ;-)

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Supermacs announce six new outlets – A foreigner asks WHY? ;-)

As you know, I didn’t grow up in Ireland and never lived in the countryside, maybe that is the reason why I don’t get Supermacs?

They announced the creation of 400 jobs (Great!) and the opening of six (!) more outlets, which will bring the number of outlets in Ireland to a whopping 114! That is a great achievement, but I just don’t get how and why. Now I have to admit that I only once ate in Supermacs, so what is it that gets people excited about them?

To me, they seem like an odd mush-up of McDonalds, KFC, Subway and your local (Italian) chipper and I then wonder if it is a “Jack of all trades and master of none” scenario or if their food is better than the one from the mentioned competitors.Why would you go to Supermacs and not go to the others?

Three (!!) stores will open in Cork, and the others are in Balbriggan Co Dublin, Donegal town and Naas, Co Kildare. So maybe only country (especially from Cork) people get it? ;-)

Irish, Odd, Society,

The Tide has turned: Eighth Amendment!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
The Tide has turned: Eighth Amendment!

The Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution from 1983 puts the right to life of the unborn on an equal standing with the mother’s right to life and is a hard fought over legal clause. The opponents are mainly the “Pro Choice” campaigners and the group that fights for the keeping of this clause are on the Anti-Abortion side. Interestingly though, that clause doesn’t mention abortion at all and its removal would not automatically mean that abortion is legalised, but as long as it is in the constitution it indirectly makes abortion illegal.

For that reason – and this is the only point the two groups agree on – the Anti-Abortion campaigners are convinced that a change of the Eighth Amendment will open the doors for abortion, something they are determined to fight as hard as possible. The Pro-Choice side also is of the opinion that the change (or removal) of the Eighth Amendment will legalise abortion.

In April 2017, the Citizen Assembly, a group of 99 Irish citizens who had the job to decide about what to do with this clause in the constitution because the political parties were too cowardly to make a decision, voted that the clause should be replaced or amended, but not removed. They further decided that abortion should be regulated in the normal body of law and NOT in the constitution. This was a very sensible approach many think. It is not at all an automatic legalisation of abortion, but removes a clause from the constitution that shouldn’t have never been put in there, because constitutions should be a lot more on a foundation level and not get into details.

The public opinion is very much divided about abortion in general and the two sides are so deeply opposed that no compromise will ever be possible.

A referendum will have to decide what happens with the Eighth Amendment and that referendum will happen in the summer as it seems. Most importantly it will NOT be a referendum about abortion, but only about the future of that clause in the constitution.

Until now it was very unclear what the outcome of the referendum might be. Opinion polls seem to indicate a majority for a form of repeal of the clause, but opinion polls can be very unreliable and since the main politicians hadn’t declared their opinion about it, there were still a LOT of question marks over the decision of their party followers.

It seems however that the tide has turned now! Michael Martin, the leader of Fianna Fail, has changed his opinion and is now in favour of removing the clause and Leo Varadkar, the leader of Fine Gael and Taoiseach, has indicated that he also supports the removal of the clause. The opinion of the two party leaders doesn’t mean that the referendum is now more or less decided. The opinions in the public don’t usually swing with the political leaders and they both have made clear that they will not tell their parliamentarians how to decide, but will allow a free vote. On the other hand, though, the clear declaration by both in favour of removing the clause from the constitution is a significant event in the process.

It should be noted for people that are not fully aware of the “Irish solution” to the abortion problem, that the clause never stopped abortion! Instead, women who felt that an an abortion was their only option, travelled to the UK for it. So it was a totally ineffective clause in the constitution!

Please note that the above description focuses on the Eighth Amendment and does NOT discuss the pros and cons of abortion AT ALL, I am also intentionally not taking any sides on abortion it is a MUCH to complex issue for this publication and this section. But I realised in the last six months through questions that people who only came to Ireland in recent years asked me, that the confusion about the Eighth Referendum is HUGE and since it has always been an oddity to me that the constitution covers this one singled out topic while while other very relevant aspect are not considered there, I decided to write about it.

If you asked me, I would be happy to state that it is my opinion that the Eighth Amendment should be removed because I think the laws of a country should deal with all legal issues and abortion belongs in this category.

You disagree? I 100% respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. The good news for you – if you disagree – is, that I won’t be allowed to vote in the referendum. So don’t worry about me or my opinion. :-)

You can send me your opinion if you feel like it, but don’t expect an answer from me. I am not interested in discussing the pros or cons of abortion!

Irish, Justice, Politics, Society, Taoiseach, , , , , , ,
 
Malcare WordPress Security