Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dell Closes Ireland Plant; 2nd Largest Employer

Posted by kdawson on Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:11 AM
from the raining-under-this-tree-too dept.
Wide Angle writes in with a PBS report on tough economic news from Ireland: Dell announced that it will relocate its manufacturing plant in Limerick, Ireland to Lodz, Poland. "Dell's announcement... is a severe blow to the Irish economy, which has been hit hard and fast by the global economic crisis. Dell is Ireland's second-largest corporate employer and the country's largest exporter. Nineteen hundred shift workers will lose their jobs. ...Dell's closing is not a result of the economic downturn, but of a pattern all too familiar in the United States — corporations' perennial search for cheaper labor. Since 2000 several companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Intel, Gateway, and NEC Electronics, have moved manufacturing jobs from Ireland to China, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. When Poland joined the European Union in 2004, it became an attractive place for companies to set up manufacturing plants. ... However, Ireland has managed to maintain and attract... 'knowledge-intensive jobs.' Google's European headquarters are based in Dublin, and Facebook announced late last year that they would locate their international headquarters there. But the overall economic picture for Ireland is bleak."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Foldarn (1152051) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:11AM (#26387439)
    There once was a man from Nantucket...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Being from Nantucket, I don't get the joke. I even read the article (imagine that) to see if there was some reference. In fact, being a native of Nantucket allows me to charge you 50 cents for each use of the word "Nantucket" (it's actually $3000, but we divide the royalties up amongst the entire population -- 50 cents is just my cut). However, if you can pull some strings to get us our own statehood (which we've tried for before) or our own nuclear missile base (from "Boston Legal"), I'll let my 50 cent

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Originally it was an innocent joke. Now it's just a really vulgar limerick! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_once_was_a_man_from_Nantucket [wikipedia.org]
        • by hierophanta (1345511) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:53AM (#26388099)
          There once was a man from Nantucket
          Whose dick was so long he could suck it.
          While wiping his chin,
          He said with a grin,
          "If my ear were a cunt, I could fuck it."


          --- and here is the extended version of the original ---

          There once was a man from Nantucket
          Who kept all his cash in a bucket.
          But his daughter, named Nan,
          Ran away with a man
          And as for the bucket, Nantucket.


          part 2:

          But he followed the pair to Pawtucket,
          The man and the girl with the bucket;
          And he said to the man,
          He was welcome to Nan,
          But as for the bucket, Pawtucket.


          part 3:

          Then the pair followed Pa to Manhasset,
          Where he still held the cash as an asset,
          But Nan and the man
          Stole the money and ran,
          And as for the bucket, Manhasset.
      • Re:There once was... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Trapick (1163389) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:46PM (#26388955)
        The town's name is "Limerick". Most common limerick? You guessed it, man from Nantucket. It wasn't all that funny, but that's the joke.
    • by gnick (1211984) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:36AM (#26387833) Homepage

      There once was a company called Dell,
      Who saw their costs starting to swell,
      Labor in Lodz
      Attracted their jobs,
      So they told the Irish, "Go to hell".

      • by CopaceticOpus (965603) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:23PM (#26388591)

        Dell, as they moved away, laughed,
        "To pay your wages we'd be daft."
        On pink slips they wrote
        A rude little note
        "Dude, you're getting the shaft!"

      • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Friday January 09 2009, @12:35PM (#26388757) Homepage

        And when the Lodzians wanted their pay,
        Dell ran numbers and told them 'no way'.
        They moved to Myanmar --
        like all industry stars --
        where the workers get eight cents a day.

        But labor still cost too much wealth.
        (For some workers were older than twelve!)
        Dell's great business plan,
        could not involve man:
        They were modeled on magical elves.

        So Dell finally settled in Congo.
        Every PC they now make, as you know,
        is constructed on skimp
        by two apes and a chimp.
        (And the chimp's job security is low.)

  • by bugs2squash (1132591) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:15AM (#26387499)
    Perhaps Eire should have factored in that companies agile and willing enough to relocate once to Ireland would likely be sufficiently agile and willing to move to follow the sun again.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2009, @11:20AM (#26387573)

      Everyone in Eire with half a brain knew this was coming anyway...
      Those relatively low tech manufacturing jobs were only ever going to be useful as a means of bootstrapping ourselves into a properly high tech economy.
      Not sure the government knew this, but everyone smart working in tech did.

        • by Skrynesaver (994435) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:04PM (#26388275) Homepage

          Not to spawn a pointless off-topic flame war or anything, but at least we have a constitution and so the population gets to vote on it. If the Lisbon treaty, which isn't a constitution, were put to a plebiscite throughout Europe Ireland wouldn't be the only ones rejecting it, in fact support for the European project is probably higher in Ireland than anywhere else in Europe.

          Anyway, back on topic, it's a shame for the people in Limerick where the plant was sited, however the jobs going are the assembly line jobs, Dells European planning and management structures remain in Ireland for now.

          • by Klaus_1250 (987230) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:09PM (#26388385)

            Agreed. The Dutch voted against the constitution the first time (which was a surprise to the government, especially since they invested million in a semi-propaganda campaign) and weren't given a vote for the revised treaty because the government feared a rejection again.

            Democracy 2.0. Give people a vote if you think they'll agree with you, take the vote away when you fear disagreement.

    • This is what happens when capital and goods can freely cross borders but people can't. Capital will simply chase poverty in a never ending circle around the globe. When one poor, desperate country starts to get wealthy, corporations will simply move to the next one, and let the first slip back into poverty.

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:48AM (#26387993) Journal

        This is what happens when capital and goods can freely cross borders but people can't. Capital will simply chase poverty in a never ending circle around the globe. When one poor, desperate country starts to get wealthy, corporations will simply move to the next one, and let the first slip back into poverty.

        So what's the solution? If you get rid of the restrictions on people moving you destroy national sovereignty and identity. If you get rid of free trade/adopt protectionism you drag the economy down a few pegs and probably destroy at least as many jobs as you save.

        I hate what we've become but I'm at a loss for how to fix it. Ideas?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2009, @11:54AM (#26388113)

          You say "destroy national sovereignty" (and all of the restrictions therein) like it's a bad thing.

          • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:05PM (#26388301) Journal

            You say "destroy national sovereignty" (and all of the restrictions therein) like it's a bad thing.

            You see restrictions where I see freedoms. Globalization has already created a race to the bottom for labor and environmental standards. Will our freedoms and rights be next in line? Will the United States be forced to adopt European restrictions on free speech [computerworld.com]? Will Europe be forced to adopt Islamic restrictions on free speech [outsidethebeltway.com]? Will the United States, Finland, Switzerland and Norway be forced to adopt stricter gun control laws?

            • by causality (777677) on Friday January 09 2009, @01:41PM (#26389773)

              You say "destroy national sovereignty" (and all of the restrictions therein) like it's a bad thing.

              You see restrictions where I see freedoms. Globalization has already created a race to the bottom for labor and environmental standards. Will our freedoms and rights be next in line? Will the United States be forced to adopt European restrictions on free speech [computerworld.com]? Will Europe be forced to adopt Islamic restrictions on free speech [outsidethebeltway.com]? Will the United States, Finland, Switzerland and Norway be forced to adopt stricter gun control laws?

              What really bothers me about governments and large organizations in general is that they fail to understand the saying, "no matter how far down the wrong path you have travelled, turn back." Governments almost never say "this sounded like a good idea at the time but it's just not working, things are getting worse, time to abandon this idea and try something else." If they do say that, it's over the course of decades or sometimes centuries even though the knowledge of better solutions (or at least that this solution isn't working) has been around for a long time.

              I wish there were some type of initiative/referendum that citizens could use to challenge laws, not because they are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid, but because they have failed to deliver the results that were promised. If there were a way to get rid of otherwise legally valid laws that can be objectively proven to be counterproductive, not because enough voters put enough pressure on the legislators to repeal the law, but because at least one citizen can rigorously prove that it has failed, this would represent real progress.

        • by Idiomatick (976696) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:17PM (#26388523)

          Well they are both part of the EU so gp is wrong you can move from ireland->poland for free.
          Secondly, It is a GOOD thing that business' chase poverty! Something shitty happens to a country and big countries move in which will act to save their asses. Ireland will not become poorer than Poland because of this, as the summary says they are retaining higher paying post-secondary jobs. This could be rewritten to show how ireland is moving up in the world. Now they don't NEED the Dell jobs (atleast not as much as Poland does). This if left unfettered causes an equalization of wealth. Which is a fair thing, a good thing unless you happen to currently live at the top.
           
          We on /. like to bitch about India stealing our jobs but really they need them more than we do. Think of it like global charity except they have to earn the money.... and it is involuntary. Try to see some of the good :/

          • by Bertie (87778) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:41PM (#26388859)

            Actually Limerick's at least as much of a poverty-stricken dump as many places in Poland, and stuff like this will only make it worse.

            Ireland has seen a lot of development and increased prosperity over the last while, but things like this show how transient that can be if you're too dependent on outside sugardaddies providing that prosperity. It's easy come, easy go for the organisations providing the jobs - if somebody else turns up with a bigger development grant and a workforce with lower wages, moving won't cost them a thought.

            The trick is to take the inward investment and use it to build up your skills base so that ultimately you can stand on your own two feet, but that's a whole lot easier said than done. Places like Taiwan have done it rather beautifully, and Estonia, financial troubles apart, seems to be on the right track, but it's tough.

              • by CohibaVancouver (864662) on Friday January 09 2009, @02:50PM (#26390825)
                Correct, but keep in mind this paradigm does not just apply to unskilled labour. "Skilled" jobs such as programming, tech support, design etc. also naturally seek jurisdictions were labour costs are lower.
              • by ultranova (717540) on Saturday January 10 2009, @02:05PM (#26400335)

                Life's a bitch. Thanks for playing...better luck next reincarnation.

                So let's have the government hold a gun to your head, take the fruits of your labour and distribute them to unskilled labourers. That should be okay, since life's a bitch and you might have better luck next reincarnation, right ?

                Or we could try to make the life a little less of a bitch to everyone, including those unskilled labourers.

                The fair consequence of never developing skills is subsistence living.

                The fair consequence of being an arrogant jerk is to get whatever fate you callously wished upon those you considered lesser beings.

        • The basic problem (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Moryath (553296) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:57PM (#26389123)

          The basic problem is that "free trade" never is.

          "Free trade" concerning commodities that are easily made (or grown) in an area, like tropical fruit towards northern climates, is one thing.

          "Free trade" based on paying workers shit wages, or based on the fact that one country (*coughmexshitcocough*) has absolutely crappy evironmental protection laws while their neighbors don't, doesn't - it temporarily drives down "costs" while ensuring that the environment gets ruined and poverty is taken advantage of.

          The solution is "fair trade" instead - place tariffs on any and all imported goods from countries whose labor protection and environmental laws are inferior to our own, such that the cost to produce them there and them import is the same (or better yet, slightly more expensive) as doing the production either here, or in a country with proper worker and environmental protection standards. If the USA/Canada/European countries would do that, then the countries with shit worker protection and environmental laws will have to fall in line and we can actually get things addressed.

          • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:59AM (#26388207) Journal

            I don't see how dropping restrictions on people moving will necessarily destroy national sovereignty or identity.

            If you tell a Government that they can't control how many people cross their border is that not by it's very definition a restriction on national sovereignty?

            How would it help anyway? How many Americans would really want to move to India when their job gets outsourced? How many Irish would want to move to Poland? Leaving aside the lower standard of living (compared to the US) in most places where jobs are outsourced what about language and cultural barriers?

              •     [in a heavy Indian accent]

                    CSR: Thank you for calling [company] technical support, my name is "Bob", and how may I service you this fine morning.

                    Customer: What?

                    CSR: Good morning, and how can I be helping you.

                    Customer: Morning? It's 9pm. Where the hell are you?

                    CSR: We are in ... uhhh ... New Jersey.

                    Customer: I'm in New York, and it's 9pm here.

                    CSR: Oh, I am begging of your forgiveness for my incorrectness in that statement, we are in the other New Jersey.

                    Customer: What?

                    CSR: We are in New Jersey, India.

                    Customer: {sigh} Ok, I'm having a problem with my some-computer 5100.

                    CSR: I am very sorry that you are having discomfort with your "some-computer 500", how may I help you resolve this issue.

                    Customer: No, a some-computer 5100, not a 500.

                    CSR: Oh, I am begging your forgiveness [balls up some paper by the handset] there must be line noise. So you have 50 some-computer 100 that are not working. I will have to transfer you to large business support, please hold [hold music]

                    Customer: WAIT!!

                    Ok, that sounds funny and all, but I swear I've had so many variations of that call, ONLY with off-shore call centers. It's not a matter that they're in India, it's that the people I always end up get have poor training, terrible phone skills, and an equal American in the position should be fired. Since the companies farm out the work to the cheapest places, they're hiring the cheapest employees too. Now, the American call centers seem to be reserved for the highest level technical folks, who have years of experience, and know what they're doing. It's just a nice added advantage that they speak English well. :)

          • by rgviza (1303161) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:37PM (#26388781)

            Oh like citigroup buying a spanish highway construction company with 7bn euros in bailout money from our taxes?

            http://www.thestreet.com/story/10450514/1/citi-to-buy-spanish-highway-operator.html?puc=_tscrss [thestreet.com]

            Here's the day they got our bailout check. Note the dates:

            http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2636427520081126 [reuters.com]

            Yeap we paid for it. Be pissed, very pissed.

            I can't believe regulators aren't all over them for this. What are we paying them for? What good is all this bailout money doing if they are just using it to buy foriegn companies instead of saving the jobs of the people that effing paid for the bailout? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. That bailout money did NOT come from Europe.

            Here's the layoff announcement of the US employees:
            http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/154130/citigroup_layoff_could_decimate_it_jobs.html [pcworld.com]

            grrr

            -Viz

          • by EastCoastSurfer (310758) on Friday January 09 2009, @01:48PM (#26389887)

            eems like by preventing jobs from leaving the country, the company itself may not earn as much, but you've saved jobs within your own country. That's in my eyes, and anyone who is not a shareholder in said company and selfish, more important. Assuming that the company is going to use the money it saves to reinvest in your home country is not a sure thing to me.

            Here's the problem. Assume a company employes 50 people making widget X. It costs the company Y$ so they sell it for Y$ + % profit. Widget X is used by the whole country.

            Now, it's suddenly cheaper to make widget X in another country, so the company moves its operations. By doing this the 50 people lose their jobs, but now the entire country gains the use of widget X for a lower price than before. For a short time it sucks for those 50 people, but in aggregate society is paying less for an item which frees up more money for investing that one hopes would lead to jobs that would hire back those 50 people + more.

            If you don't let the making of widget X move (or tax it so it's like it didn't move) you continue to support an inefficiency. The entire economy now supports this inefficiency for the perceived benefit of 50 people, when in the long run it's better for the whole economy and probably for those 50 people to lower the price of widget X.

            It can be argued that this cycle is not one that can go on indefinitely, but it's a cycle that has risen the standard of living around the world for quite a long time.

          • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday January 09 2009, @01:12PM (#26389337) Journal

            The sooner we get rid of the petty tribal "us vs them" mentality we get from all the imaginary lines we've drawn on our globe, the better.

            Those imaginary lines are a lot more important than you think. My country guarantees me several freedoms that other countries (or even the UN Declaration of Human Rights) don't provide for. You'll have a hard time convincing me of the wisdom of getting rid of those "imaginary" lines.

      • by Eunuchswear (210685) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:56AM (#26388143) Journal

        This is what happens when capital and goods can freely cross borders but people can't.

        Both Eire and Poland are in the EU, free movement of people is guaranteed. If the Dell workers want to keep their jobs they can just move to Lodz.

      • by lee1026 (876806) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:04PM (#26388283)

        Problem is, the number of poor countries that are stable enough to invest in is not large, and once a country becomes a wealthy, it rarely slides downwards very far. Thus, this should end relatively soon, as soon as corporations run out of countries.

  • Shorter commute (Score:3, Interesting)

    by motek (179836) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:18AM (#26387539) Homepage

    I suppose it is only reasonable. Now all these Poles who already work there will have much a much shorter commute. Good for them.

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:22AM (#26387589)

    We the consumer, demand cheaper priced products, why should we be surprised when manufacturers look for methods of reducing their costs? You don't exactly see them firing up manufacturing plants in Tokyo or Manhattan.

    It's a Global Economy, get used to it.

    • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:33AM (#26387751)

      We the consumer, demand cheaper priced products, why should we be surprised when manufacturers look for methods of reducing their costs? You don't exactly see them firing up manufacturing plants in Tokyo or Manhattan.

      Corporations also demand more profit. Reducing costs helps that bottom line. Whether moving manufactoring locations ends up positive on that bottom line or not isn't always clear at the outset.

      It's a Global Economy, get used to it.

      It's been a global economy for decades. That's not the change.

  • Good for Poland (Score:5, Insightful)

    by exhilaration (587191) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:23AM (#26387605)
    Poland has very high unemployment rate [boston.com], one of the highest in Europe, and is also one of the poorest countries in Europe [propertywisebulgaria.com].

    I realize that this sucks for Ireland but Poland is in far worse shape and needs the jobs just as badly if not more.

  • Make 'em pay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:26AM (#26387645)
    The fact is, since China has the unfair advantage of near-slave labor, the rest of the world as a whole needs to have stiff import tariffs to equalize this imbalance.

    This really shouldn't be completely about the "world economy" and if it can be done cheaper in China, "why not"? It is completely fair to take into account other factors such as China's complete disregard for workers rights and environmental issues, not to mention truth in labeling with regards to all the poisons they put in food products.

    Make 'em pay, it's the only way to get their attention.
  • by 0racle (667029) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:34AM (#26387771)
    Scares them, doesn't it. But they didn't learn; you don't put all your potatoes in one basket.
  • Less taxes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by diskis (221264) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:35AM (#26387805)
    The 10 year discount is up. That's why they are moving, and Dell isn't the only corporation doing this. Ireland has a low corporate tax, and discounts it even further for the first 10 years a corporation operates there.
  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:36AM (#26387811)
    There once was an old man of Esser,
    Whose employment prospects grew lesser and lesser,
    It at last grew so small
    He had no job skills at all,
    And now he's a college professor.
  • Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PinkyDead (862370) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:44PM (#26388909) Journal

    Ok, maybe that's a little blase, but there are two points that have to be considered here:

    1. Ireland is not nor never has been a manufacturing country. Sure there have be some manufacturing companies such as Dell, but essentially Ireland is a combination of a strong agricultural and tourism in rural areas with technological and financial bias in the urban areas. Dell is nice to have, and I feel sorry for those that have lost their jobs in Limerick - but it is not a core industry, even if it is a core employer.

    2. Ireland has been growing at an incredible rate over the past 10 years, far faster than anyone could possibly hope to adapt to. Looking at the government's actions over this period, they have acted like lottery winners, squandering the growth to create an ever-burgeoning public sector. Coincidentally, the National Competitiveness Council in Ireland established that our competitiveness has deteriorated by 32% over this period. This loss as well as others is a good wake up call - and an opportunity to regroup and establish a firmer foundation for the future.

    It is also important to note that Dell is not leaving Ireland - they are closing their manufacturing plant. Ireland's corporate tax rate is still extremely attractive to US companies.

    • That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chrisq (894406) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:22AM (#26387591)
      That's fine as long as you have a job to pay for it. If all the manufacturing and knowledge based jobs end up in the cheaper locations then can the Western Economies keep going. I know that many economists say that it is the beginning of the service economy, and we can all be rich in the west by buying and providing services for each other but I am rather skeptical. If a whole country consists of PR teams, lawyers, restaurant owners and so on can they really "generate" enough money to be able to buy their "real" things from cheap overseas sources?
      • Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Joey Vegetables (686525) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:42AM (#26387903) Journal

        The distinction between "manufacturing" and "service" jobs is somewhat artificial. Every step in the manufacturing process is a service. Finding raw materials is a service. Getting them out of the ground is a service. Refining them is a service. Transporting them from place to place is a service. Assembling them together into a finished product is a service. Making the machines to do so is a service. All of these are services; "manufacturing" is simply a convenient shorthand to describe those services whose end result is an assembled physical product, as opposed to the many other services whose end result is not.

        Thus, the fact that we have a service-based economy is not in and of itself a problem, provided that our services are sufficiently valued in world markets to purchase the manufactured goods we need as well as the other necessities and wants of life. It is a problem ONLY if our skills, or the products that are created using those skills, are no longer sufficiently valuable to earn us the kind of living we want, in which case, the obvious remedy (which scales up) is to learn new skills.

      • Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bugs2squash (1132591) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:48AM (#26387997)
        I guess one of the criticisms leveled at geeks is that they think they know everything...

        So in that spirit, here's my "expert" analysis of world economic matters !

        Isn't manufacturing computers just a service ? If you were Martha Stuart, you'd just get up early and grind-up the sand from the beach yourself to make your own CPU.

        To my mind there's scant economic difference between a janatorial service and a manufacturing "service".

        Furthermore; a janitor's job has to remain local and the janitor must be retained to keep the place sparkly, as opposed to a one-time manufacturing process for a durable item.

        Janitors are an extremely high-value service, that's why so many of us have a personal computer built for us but don't have our houses cleaned for us.
    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:28AM (#26387675) Journal

      Having spent over an hour and a half on the phone with Dell Canada on Monday just to get a quote (and a quote for twenty computers I might add), I'd say there is such a thing as "too cheap".

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:49AM (#26388027) Journal

        I can't wait to see what happens when our economy takes such a nosedive, and unemployment becomes rampant that companies start moving jobs here since our labor is so much cheaper than china, india, taiwain, etc...

        Actually our economy won't get that bad but a lot of economists were talking about what $200-$300/bbl oil would do to free trade. At a certain point it will become more expensive to ship goods than to just produce them here at home. The various economists and talking heads all disagreed as to what that point was but all agreed that it would happen sooner or later if oil prices had kept skyrocketing.

        Of course the economic meltdown has dragged oil down but how long is that really going to last?

    • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday January 09 2009, @11:24AM (#26387609)

      The population of Ireland is somewhere around 6 million - what does every *else* do there?

      Farm potatoes and brew Guinness.

      • Re:Numbers seem odd (Score:5, Informative)

        by MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) on Friday January 09 2009, @12:12PM (#26388441)

        Actually they're not the second-largest corporate employer. That seems to be an incorrect inference on the part of the Washington Post, because the Dell Ireland website claims they're the second-largest *corporation*.. and the metric for that could easily be something other than employees, i.e. revenue. Of course, 1900 people isn't their entire Irish workforce either.

        There are _definitely_ larger employers in Ireland. 1900 people at a single factory is enough to sustain a mid sized factory town of about 30,000 people (1/3 of Limerick). I know because I've lived in one. And I'm certain Ireland has a handful of towns that size and larger.

        But just to grab some random Irish companies out of a hat and look them up: Eircom has 6,500 employees. Bank of Ireland has 16,026.