shop workers protest piece

What does it say about us that shop workers protested in Dublin this week over rudeness and aggression directed at them by customers?

The shop workers would, I expect, rather have been in their warm shops or, if off not on duty, at home toasting their toes in front of a fire.

Instead the Mandate members were out on a cold street on a bleak day, without so much as a full Irish breakfast to sustain them, to ask us to have a bit of manners.

This is not only an Irish phenomenon. Just over a week ago a shop worker in Valley Stream, New York, was trampled to death when 2,000 people smashed down the doors of a Wal-Mart store at five o'clock in the morning in search of bargains. Other workers were injured in the incident. Some customers, asked to clear the store due to the death of the employee, kept on shopping.

This week's protesting shop workers were not talking about anything as extreme as this but still, the behavior they described reflected no credit on us shoppers.

Here are some of the things they've been complaining about:

- A woman returned a football to a sports store but the ball, which she had bought for her son, was soiled and had obviously had been used. When the woman was refused a refund, her husband beat up the assitant.
- Some shop workers walk away crying following a torrent of abuse from a customer. One woman told the Irish Independent that a shop worker whose husband had been diagnosed with cancer and who had begin to walk away under a storm of abuse was told by a customer, 'You stay, and I'll tell you when you can go away.'
- After the plastic bag charges were introduced, one shop worker had a plastic bag rolled up and flung in her face by an irate customer.

Mandate says almost ten per cent of members surveyed have been 'used as punchbags.'

It also says three out of ten have been threatened in the past year.

Needless to say, it's a two-way street. Shop assistants who chat among themselves and who leave the customer waiting are legendary.

Yet I cannot say I have encountered this to any great extent. Most of the shop workers I meet - and they are generally from Eastern Europe - are polite.

Once upon a time, both customers and shop workers saw politeness as an essential part of their relationship with each other.

Perhaps that was at a time when our sense of entitlement was not so high as it is now. Now we expect everything we want to be available at this moment. If it is not available we seek someone to blame.

The marketeers have sold us on the lie that satisfaction is available instantly if only we will buy this product or that service.

And during the Celtic Tiger years we became quite used to the idea of being able to buy products and services regardless of whether we had the money in our pockets.

But is there something more to it, even, than this? Mandate's national campaigns co-ordinator, Brian Forbes, complained about customers who are "completely out of the control of the employee."

In other words, the customer throws a tantrum even though there is nothing at all that the employee can do about his or her complaint.

Is that is, then? Are we essentially turning into a bunch of two year olds who kick and scream when we don't get what we want?

Is that what the prosperity that has only lately departed has meant?

If that is so, we might reflect that there is a busy shopping season coming up, for Christmas and the January sales.

We will face many tired and foot-weary shop workers.

Let's grasp the opportunity to do better.

copy 15 oct over 70s

A key principle of politics is that taking way what people already have is a dangerous business - and perhaps the Cabinet should have remembered that in its dealings with the over-70s.

Back in 2001 the Government, in a move which nobody had looked for and which had been dreamt up by Minister for Finance Charley McCreevy, extended the medical card without a means test to everyone over 70.

Seven years later it has done a U-turn.

Before 2001, the means test for people in the over-70 age group was already far more generous than for anyone else. Those who did not already have a medical card were fairly well-off. Had McCreevy left well enough alone, nobody would have noticed.

So why not just take it away from the better off over-70s again? First because of that principle that it's easier not to give someone something in the first place than it is to take it away when they already have it.

But secondly because there was another way to cut the cost of the scheme without taking away the automatic entitlement.

The extension of the medical card to the over 70s turned into a financial fiasco for two reasons. One is that the Department of Finance at the time underestimated the cost.

But the second was is that an extraordinary deal was given to GPs for treating people on the medical card who had previously paid fees.

The Irish Medical Organisations had strongly opposed the deal. The money should be spent on low wage earners and not on comfortable retirees, it argued. For a time it looked as though doctors would set themselves alight in Merrion Square in protest, so impassioned were they.

So the Government offered them more than ten times their usual fee for treating these patients. That right. Ten times. GPs got an annual capitation fee of €462 (€670 for patients resident in nursing homes) for their "new" over-70s patients. This contrasted with the normal fees of €36 to €171 for ordinary Joe Soaps and Mary Soaps over 70.

The IMO's objections melted away - and to be fair, most of us would manage to bury our principles for ten times our usual fee.

It seems pretty clear then that if the Government wanted to cut the cost of the scheme for the over-70s it could have started by renegotiating the fee downwards. Instead it has taken the easy way out.

What a mess, what a fiasco.

And how will the people who lose the medical card like paying the €100 Accident and Emergency fee? If you're unlucky you can spend a lot of time in A&E departments in old age.

The Government might have remembered too that the older people affected by this move have families who will be unimpressed and angry.

The negotiation of that golden deal the IMO in 2001 was not a good day's work. But neither was yesterday's decision to use a blunt instrument on the patients who benefited from deal.

noise herald 28th august

Three cheers forJohn Gormley – but not too late at night please – for his bid to do something about noise pollution.

Pollution , I might add, is not exactly the world most of us are inclined to use about noisy neighbours or about alarms that go on for hours and hours or maybe even days.

In issuing a consultation document on the scourge of unwanted noise, Gormley is recognising that small nuisances, the sort that rarely get to a Cabinet table, can make life hell for us.

Indeed, I wish his colleagues in Government would follow his example by, for instance, giving the Gardaí powers and resources to deal with intimidation from neighbours. Such intimidation goes on in far too many housing estates and apartment blocks.

The consultation paper suggests that Gardaí might be given the authority to break into homes and workplaces where alarms have been going off for a long time. Their purpose in breaking in would be to switch off the alarms.

Great. Unfortunately, Gormley has flagged, there may be a Constitutional problem about this. A referendum may be needed and he really doesn’t want to go down that road, wise man. Me, I’m a supporter of the Constitution. It’s a great document. But at four in the morning when an alarm has been going off for an hour, I’m prepared to tweak the Constitution. I could see myself voting for an amendment which allowed the boys and girls in blue to invade someone else’s empty space to switch off their endless alarm.

At the very least – if the Constitution prevents the Gardaí from barging in – could we have a system of warning and fines for householders and business people who ignore their problem alarms? There aren’t very many of them any more but let’s teach a lesson to persistent offenders.

The question of Gardaí breaking in to switch off offending alarms caught the public eye yesterday. More important, perhaps, is doing something about who couldn’t care less about disturbing other residents with parties or loud music.

These are the neighbours whose parties go on all night every weekend, with music turned up to the full and conversation gong on loudly in gardens, on the street in front of the house, on apartment balconies and so on. Or perhaps they don’t have parties: perhaps they just play their music very, very loud in the early hours.

If they stop doing it when asked to do so, that’s one thing. But if they take a request for peace and quiet as a cue to go right on doing what they’re doing or even to make still more noise, then there is not a lot the victim can do about it.

You could get yourself a solicitor and a barrister and take them to court. But who needs the hassle of taking a neighbour to court over noise, and with an uncertain outcome?

Giving the Gardaí power to intervene, for instance with on the spot fines as suggested in the consultation document, might help to sort out some of the couldn’t-care-less brigade.

Here’s the problem, though: there are families who, if they even suspect that a neighbour called the Gardaí on them, will make that neighbour’s life hell. And the Gardaí don’t seem to be able to do very much, if anything, about this low-level intimidation. For John Gormley’s welcome ideas to work, we may need legislative or other changes to enable Gardaí to confront, in an effective way, aggression which can wreck lives if left unchecked.

So the issues are more complicated than they might look on the surface. They are worth tackling, though, because they are the issues of ordinary people. And we ordinary people are entitled to enjoy the refuge of our own homes without having our peace wrecked by those who don’t care tuppence for anybody but themselves.

attraction

If you are a woman setting off in search of a mate this weekend, it’s as well to know that your choice of which lucky chap you favour could depend on whether you are on the pill.

This is because new research from the Universities of Liverpool and Newcastle suggests that the contraceptive pill changes women’s sense of smell.

What has smell got to do with it in this soaped and perfumed age? Everything, as it happens. Nature likes us to mix our genes with people whose genetic structure is quite different to our own – it’s good for the species. One of the ways it does this is through our sense of smell.

We may not realise it, since we go to such lengths to remove it, but body odour plays a major role in whether we are attracted to or repelled by particular members of the opposite sex.

We are attracted, at an unconscious level, by the body odour of people who are genetically different to ourselves. The odour of people who are genetically similar puts us off. Scientists suggest this is why we are not attracted to family members.

What all this means is that when you are out on the pull body odour plays a big role in who you fancy.

But the contraceptive pill changes a woman’s sense of smell when it comes to body odour. It increases the chances that she will find a man attractive who is genetically similar to herself – and that’s the opposite to what nature intended.

The researchers took samples of body odours from 97 men. Then they got women to sniff the odours and to say which they found most attractive.

Before they started on the pill, the women chose body odours which indicated that their owners were genetically different to them.

After they went on the pill they were given another sniffing session. Their preferences changed. Now they were more likely than before to prefer the body odour of men who were genetically similar to themselves.

But mating with genetically similar men makes it harder to conceive, the researchers pointed out. And children born to genetically similar partners are more susceptible to disease.

And there’s more. Nobody stays on the pill for life and the researchers speculate that when the woman goes off the pill, a genetically similar mate could lose his attraction for her. Suddenly his body odour puts her off. Oh dear.

The findings underline the extent to which our choices are influenced by factors of which we are unaware.

For instance, men find women most attractive when they are at the most fertile stage of their cycle. Many men and women, if they knew this at the time, might take evasive action. But nature wants babies and keeps them in the dark.

It’s all terribly unromantic. It might be more accurate to say, though, that romance is a tool used by nature to keep the species going.

Generations of audiences have found the story of Romeo and Juliet immensely romantic – two young people from familes at war with each other die for love. But it is precisely because the Montagues and Capulets had traditionally been at war that Romeo and Juliet were likely to be genetically very different – hence the strong attraction. If only Juliet had been on the pill, she might not have found Romeo so attractive and their lives would have been very different – but the world would have lost a great story.

So what’s a girl to do? I guess you could stay off the pill and confine your attention to unwashed men. And I’m told they’re not hard to find. At least you’ll know your getting a good genetic mix for your kids.

You can always scrub and perfume him later.

Leaving

For 57,000 students, this year’s Leaving Cert exam – the huge test towards which they struggled for years – is past, but what next?

For some the answer is already clear. They have their hearts set on a particular third level or Further Education course and they reckon they’ve got what they need for it. Others are looking at a repeat of the Leaving Cert next year.

But for many, the emotional rollercoaster of the Leaving Cert is replaced by uncertainty about the direction they should now take.

What’s the right career and what’s the right college?

Actually, this may not be quite the life and death matter they think it is. Every year, students abandon third level courses in subjects that they have discovered are not for them.

Usually, I think, they are right to do this. Trapping themselves in careers they don’t want is bad for the people concerned and for those who have dealings with them.

Better, if necessary, to change horses in mid-stream if doing so brings them closer to work they can enjoy.

So picking the ‘wrong’ course is not the end of the world for students who are willing to learn from their mistake and change.

And those who pick the ‘right’ course need to be aware that the career it takes them into may not be the career in which they will complete their working days.

Not too long ago, people left school and went into a ‘job for life.’ There they stayed until they got their last pay cheque and retired. It was a good system if you liked what you were doing and if your employer stayed in business – but not so good if you were trapped in the wrong career.

Today the job for life is gone. With it is gone the concept of doing the same sort of work for an entire career.

Not only do people now have a series of jobs – they have a series of careers. Straight off I can think of a barman who became a taxi driver, a Garda who became a counsellor, a doctor who became a pilot, a journalist who became a barrister and so on.

All of these people changed career without waiting to be pushed. The jobs they found themselves in had lost their attraction and so they trained to do something else.

The writer Charles Handy talks about people having a ‘portfolio’ of careers. This, of course, is partly driven by globalisation which sees companies moving facilities between countries to benefit from lower wage costs and regardless of the quality of the work done by those who are left behind.

But it is also partly driven by individuals who don’t see why they should be tied down for the rest of their lives doing the same thing decade after decade. They replace the staleness of a career of which they have grown tired with the exhilaration of a new venture – and many consider this worth doing even if the new venture carries less security with it than the old job.

So if you have just got your Leaving Cert results and you’re wondering what to do next it’s important to know that the choice you make won’t be the only choice you’re ever going to make about a career.

And if you’re a parent it’s important to remember the same thing. We ask post-Leaving Cert students what they’re going to “be” or what they’re going to “do” as if their future will be fixed from the moment they accept a CAO offer or sign up for a Further Education course.

Actually they’re going to be and do a lot of things – and it’s very likely that the next stage will be the first of many. So relax.

Evening Herald copy Alzheimers

Gambling that healthy living in the future will cancel out unhealthy living today is a common human trait - but new research on social isolation and Alzheimer's Disease suggests that the gamble can be a dangerous one.

The long-term research by Swedish scientists has found a link between social isolation in middle age and the risk of developing Alzheimer's later on.

To describe living alone as 'unhealthy' might seem - and might even be - a step too far. But many studies have shown a link between mental health issues such as dementia and social isolation.

In our individualised era, it is too easy to imagine we can get by fine without other people. But these studies suggest that isn't true and their lessons need to be taken to heart by people who are still young or middle aged.

The Swedish study found that people who divorced and stayed single trebled their risk of dementia including Alzheimer's. People who were widowed when young but who never remarried were six times more likely to suffer dementia in old age.

Does this mean that if you are alone, you need to hitch up with someone? Not necessarily. An earlier Swedish study found that what made a difference was having a good social network. That, in turn, meant having a lot of contact with people but it didn't necessarily mean seeing them every day.

US research suggests that people with hypertension in middle age are more susceptible to demential later on. It may be that involvement with other people helps to reduce stress because you can get your problems off your chest, so to speak, and others may be able to help you find solutions.

But how do you begin to build up a network of friends and acquaintances in middle age if you've neglected to do so until then? It isn't easy and it's hard work but this research shows it's well worth it. Clearly, people who put a value on relationships at a younger age and who maintain those relationships are in an even stronger position.

And that's important given the ease with which we can be gradually seduced into living lives of alone-ness with electronic toys for company - until it's too late.

Once upon a time, involvement with people was built into the fabric of society. You watched the only TV in the house with the rest of the family in the living room - rather like the Royle family.It was taken for granted that you ate you meals with other people. You knew the neighbours. You knew the people behind the counter in the shop.

It wasn't always a pleasant experience and sometimes it was downright uncomfortable - I think I'd last about twenty minutes in the Royle family living room before I threw myself into the Mersey. So the market was ready and waiting for the individualised version of these experiences: TV in every room or even on your computer or even - before long if it hasn't happened already - on your mobile phone; a meal in a cardboard box delivered by the pizza man; streets and apartment blocks in which we don't know our neighbours; and no necessity to go near a shop at all - just log on and have it delivered.

But we'd better watch out. Hell, it has been said, is other people and that's true more often than we'd like it to be.

But it looks like we need contact with other people whether we like it or not and that without contact we can face serious consequences for our mental health.

So don't be too hard on that annoying family member or spouse or co-worker: infuriating as it may be, he or she just might be keeping you healthy.

copy 25 july

When the drinks industry suggests we adopt the term 'extreme drinking' instead of 'binge drinking' you have to sit up and take notice, though not necessarily for very long.

The idea comes in a book published by the International Centre for Alcohol Policies. The Centre´s mission in life is to promote the understanding of the role of alcohol in society and to reduce the abuse of alcohol worldwide through dialogue and partnership with everyone under the sun. Among its senior consultants and advisors it lists Professor Joyce O´Connor, former president of the National College of Ireland and a very heavy hitter in the academic world.

It´s financed by the big, international drinks companies including Diageo.

The Centre´s new publication called, Swimming with Crocodiles, makes the argument that the term binge drinking is vague and ill-defined and I wouldn´t dispute that.

To some, binge drinking means drinking until you fall down. To others it means drinking more than the recommended number of units in a day - which may be naughty but certainly doesn´t conform to my notions of a binge, let alone of a good night out.

Instead, the authors suggest the new term, 'extreme drinking.' The defining characteristic of 'extreme drinking' is, they suggest that you want to lose control but you want to do it in a controlled way. And you want to get home safely at the end of it. So if you set out for an evening´s boozing with the intention of getting 'out of your head' and of being delivered home safely by a taxi at the end of it, then you would fit the definitial of indulging in 'extreme drinking.'

And it´s not all bad, the book argues. "Indeed, a key aspect of extreme drinking is that it can have both positive and negative outcomes;
clearly, for the drinker, extreme drinking and its outcomes may be desirable and viewed as positive on a subjective level."

OK, not a view that would be shared by many public health experts I suspect but at least it´s better than listening to the drinks industry wittering on about 'responsible' drinking.

In fairness, the book also acknowledges that "extreme drinking may have a negative impact on finances, personal relationships,and productivity in work or studies, and will increase the risk for acute health outcomes as a result of accidents and injuries, as well as raise the risk of involvement in crime as both offenders and victims." They even include academic references to where you can find this proven in case you don't believe them.

The trouble with the concept of swappìng binge drinking for extreme drinking is that it seems - judging by the information so far published about the book - to recognise only two forms of drinking. One is normal drinking and the other is extreme drinking. This leaves out a whole area of 'drinking too much' which isn´t extreme but can still be a source of damage to health. Drinking too much also contributes mightily to the profits of the drinks companies.

The other problem with the concept is that this change of name just simply isn't going to happen. We are too fond of the term ´binge drinking' and 'going on a binge'. It´s a great word - you can nearly smell it.

Interestingly, the press release for the book mentions the term 'rapid drinking'. Now there´s a term that says what it means. It even fits into the way we talk. "Ah, it was really rapah" you could say in Dublinese of a night on the tiles.

I'll tell you what though: why don´t we just leave things alone and not be using up valuable energy re-naming the deck chairs on the Titanic? Would that be alright? I´ll have ice with that, so.