Bad Bobs / Park Inn

Dicky Pride

albert kidd wrote: »

i think you'll find it was both.

No it wasn't.

Hijpo

kilkennycat2004 wrote: »

I hope the staff get what their entitlements, nothing more, nothing less.
However this type of rent a mob to support a hopeless cause does nothing for Waterford.
Tweedy & The Park Inn are now history, The lads need to prepare to get organised alright, organised to get in position A for the upcoming job search!

Im sure thats all the lads are looking for, they are right to expect it and they are right to stay in that premises until they get it too because as soon as they leave there case will be put to the very end of the pile, lets not be naive here.

Since when is a group of peaceful locals standing together in moral support for staff and to highlight the issue a mob?

I suppose 20 people standing around a grotto in support for jesus is also a mob :rolleyes:

And i suppose if the lads left the bar that morning it would have led to several multi national companies banging on the door to start up business's :rolleyes:

Position A for a job search? what? thats not even remotely funny nor does it even make sense :rolleyes:

O Riain

Hijpo wrote: »

Im sure thats all the lads are looking for, they are right to expect it and they are right to stay in that premises until they get it too because as soon as they leave there case will be put to the very end of the pile, lets not be naive here.

Since when is a group of peaceful locals standing together in moral support for staff and to highlight the issue a mob?

I suppose 20 people standing around a grotto in support for jesus is also a mob :rolleyes:

And i suppose if the lads left the bar that morning it would have led to several multi national companies banging on the door to start up business's :rolleyes:

Position A for a job search? what? thats not even remotely funny nor does it even make sense :rolleyes:

People here banging on about Waterford having a bad reputation with militant staff as if sit ins dont happen elsewhere. They happen up and down the country with a very publicized one happening in cork a few years back that lasted a long time.

Dicky Pride

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed in getting.

Dicky Pride

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

Hijpo

Dicky Pride wrote: »

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

There is always a discrepancy with these figures, there has never been accurate figures released about these kinds of events, what makes you think they would be similar this time around?

Why are you annoyed, is it your local boozer and your hanging for a pint?

Bringthethunder

Dicky Pride wrote: »

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

Definitely too much time on your hands.

Dicky Pride

Not quite.

Deise Vu

O Riain wrote: »

People here banging on about Waterford having a bad reputation with militant staff as if sit ins dont happen elsewhere. They happen up and down the country with a very publicized one happening in cork a few years back that lasted a long time.

The Cork situation was completely different. It was a holding company selling up after many years in business and they were only going to pay statutory redundancy. The company was continuing in business elsewhere (in the UK?) and were going to profit hugely from selling the factory and site. The staff felt they deserved more and by occupying the factory they were able to pressurise the company into paying them more.

In short, there was something to gain from their sit-in, there is absolutely nothing for the Park Inn workers to gain. In fact their actions are guaranteed to delay the re-opening of the pub. How does that help them? You would assume the new owner will hire at least some of them in order to keep the customer base happy. By closing down the old business and opening the new one, they are are all guaranteed redundancy (over €30K in some cases according to the service we are reading about) and some, if not all, will get jobs in the new business. In my view the sit-in is just some knee-jerk stupidity.

Hijpo

Deise Vu wrote: »

The Cork situation was completely different. It was a holding company selling up after many years in business and they were only going to pay statutory redundancy. The company was continuing in business elsewhere (in the UK?) and were going to profit hugely from selling the factory and site. The staff felt they deserved more and by occupying the factory they were able to pressurise the company into paying them more.

In short, there was something to gain from their sit-in, there is absolutely nothing for the Park Inn workers to gain. In fact their actions are guaranteed to delay the re-opening of the pub. How does that help them? You would assume the new owner will hire at least some of them in order to keep the customer base happy. By closing down the old business and opening the new one, they are are all guaranteed redundancy (over €30K in some cases according to the service we are reading about) and some, if not all, will get jobs in the new business. In my view the sit-in is just some knee-jerk stupidity.

Someone else who trusts a bank to do the right thing :rolleyes:

It seems the bank rejected the sale because part of the money involved in the deal was to pay redundancies if needed, meaning the bank wouldnt be getting the money. So its looking like the bank want the employees gone so they can resell to the same buyer but get the cash and not garaunteeing any jobs.

Whats binding the new employer to keep the staff on when they now have no obligation to keep them which opens the door to higher staff for less pay. Isnt that how a business works? Cheaper operation, less expenditure, more profit?

The lack of clarity going forward is whats keeping those lads in that pub and there they should stay until some kind of garauntee is made that they either get the money owed to them or they keep there jobs.

Jubo

Pat Kenny is going to be covering this on newstalk this morning

wellboytoo

Jubo wrote: »

Pat Kenny is going to be covering this on newstalk this morning

Lovely more excellent labour coverage for Waterford.

mooseknunkle

Dicky Pride wrote: »

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

Does it really matter if it was 10 or 1000?,the pub has been there for 40 years so im sure a lot of people just want to show support for the workers...its annoying you?,sure god love you...

Deise Vu

Hijpo wrote: »

Someone else who trusts a bank to do the right thing :rolleyes:

It seems the bank rejected the sale because part of the money involved in the deal was to pay redundancies if needed, meaning the bank wouldnt be getting the money. So its looking like the bank want the employees gone so they can resell to the same buyer but get the cash and not garaunteeing any jobs.

Whats binding the new employer to keep the staff on when they now have no obligation to keep them which opens the door to higher staff for less pay. Isnt that how a business works? Cheaper operation, less expenditure, more profit?

The lack of clarity going forward is whats keeping those lads in that pub and there they should stay until some kind of garauntee is made that they either get the money owed to them or they keep there jobs.

Where did I post that banks will do the right thing? If you want ‘bankers are cnuts’ anecdotes I can supply dozens from personal experience.

The simple facts of this situation are that Bob Tweedy put his premises up as security against a loan that has been called in. The bank now own the building. If Tweedy can’t pay redundancy to his staff, that is between him, his staff, and the insolvency fund. The staff will get everything they are entitled to, with the only downside being it will take longer to arrive. It would be totally stupid of the bank to pay claims which are already guaranteed by the state. We might not like that but that is financial reality. There is absolutely no way the bank will pay anything to the staff as, to do so, would set a precedent that would cripple it down the road.

For the same reasons outlined above, the suggestion that a potential buyer was putting up funds that would include redundancy payments for the staff is beyond ludicrous. It would not even come up for discussion. A potential buyer might look at buying the premises as a going concern in which case there are no redundancies but they are taking on the potential liability (which no sane purchaser would do) or they are buying under vacant possession and the old staff are the old owner’s problem.

To repeat myself, there is nothing to gain from the sit-in and there are lots to lose. Every day the pub is closed is a day people are not earning wages from it and the country is losing the taxes generated by it. The staff have made their point, they should really get on with their lives before the circus gets out of hand completely and we are looking at another vacant business premises for years to come (and it was a good one until certain members of the Tweedy family lost the run of themselves).

PS That's looks a fine turnout on a horrible night.

dzilla

What is the expected outcome of the sit in?

wellboytoo

Deise Vu wrote: »

Where did I post that banks will do the right thing? If you want ‘bankers are cnuts’ anecdotes I can supply dozens from personal experience.

The simple facts of this situation are that Bob Tweedy put his premises up as security against a loan that has been called in. The bank now own the building. If Tweedy can’t pay redundancy to his staff, that is between him, his staff, and the insolvency fund. The staff will get everything they are entitled to, with the only downside being it will take longer to arrive. It would be totally stupid of the bank to pay claims which are already guaranteed by the state. We might not like that but that is financial reality. There is absolutely no way the bank will pay anything to the staff as, to do so, would set a precedent that would cripple it down the road.

For the same reasons outlined above, the suggestion that a potential buyer was putting up funds that would include redundancy payments for the staff is beyond ludicrous. It would not even come up for discussion. A potential buyer might look at buying the premises as a going concern in which case there are no redundancies but they are taking on the potential liability (which no sane purchaser would do) or they are buying under vacant possession and the old staff are the old owner’s problem.

To repeat myself, there is nothing to gain from the sit-in and there are lots to lose. Every day the pub is closed is a day people are not earning wages from it and the country is losing the taxes generated by it. The staff have made their point, they should really get on with their lives before the circus gets out of hand completely and we are looking at another vacant business premises for years to come (and it was a good one until certain members of the Tweedy family lost the run of themselves).

PS That's looks a fine turnout on a horrible night.

That is it in a nutshell end of to any sensible person.....
500 more posts will probably follow on someones ill informed Opinion but sure that's free speech I suppose.
Great concise post on the real Politik of business

Hijpo

Deise Vu wrote: »

Where did I post that banks will do the right thing? If you want ‘bankers are cnuts’ anecdotes I can supply dozens from personal experience.

No but the acceptance that if they quit the protest and left the premises they would be left in the lurch and out of pocket for an uncertain amount of time but you can be sure it wont be a short time.

Deise Vu wrote: »

The simple facts of this situation are that Bob Tweedy put his premises up as security against a loan that has been called in. The bank now own the building. If Tweedy can’t pay redundancy to his staff, that is between him, his staff, and the insolvency fund. The staff will get everything they are entitled to, with the only downside being it will take longer to arrive. It would be totally stupid of the bank to pay claims which are already guaranteed by the state. We might not like that but that is financial reality. There is absolutely no way the bank will pay anything to the staff as, to do so, would set a precedent that would cripple it down the road.

The way i read it is, the new buyer suggested a decreased payment to the bank in order to facilitate redundancy payments. This is not the bank paying money to the staff, its a reduced price for the pub. Could it have something to do with tax breaks for the new owner, i dont know but it seems a better deal than sacking employees out right.

Deise Vu wrote: »

For the same reasons outlined above, the suggestion that a potential buyer was putting up funds that would include redundancy payments for the staff is beyond ludicrous. It would not even come up for discussion. A potential buyer might look at buying the premises as a going concern in which case there are no redundancies but they are taking on the potential liability (which no sane purchaser would do) or they are buying under vacant possession and the old staff are the old owner’s problem.

To repeat myself, there is nothing to gain from the sit-in and there are lots to lose. Every day the pub is closed is a day people are not earning wages from it and the country is losing the taxes generated by it. The staff have made their point, they should really get on with their lives before the circus gets out of hand completely and we are looking at another vacant business premises for years to come (and it was a good one until certain members of the Tweedy family lost the run of themselves).

The only thing causing this situation is the banks greed. The sit in was totaly avoidable had the bank just bit the bullet and accepted the offer. Now we have a situation where not only is the premises not open to trade but it also shows they have no problem contributing to the already unacceptable level of unemployment in waterford and add to the strain on the welfare system so there is no point saying "oh were loosing taxes" when the staff will be forced to claim social welfare, which is my eyes is worse.

What the staff have to gain is some assurances and guidence had they not got if they simply left when told to, also they now have national exposure highlighting more ill treatment by banks. Unfortunatly some people will only see the issue smearing waterford instead of it bringing more attention to banks and there greed.

Deise Vu wrote: »

PS That's looks a fine turnout on a horrible night.

Yeah, fair play to those who turned out in support.

mike65

Jubo wrote: »

Pat Kenny is going to be covering this on newstalk this morning

it'll be on in a min or two

edit - after this current item is done.

Dicky Pride

Bringthethunder wrote: »

Definitely too much time on your hands.

It's annoying to me in the sense that I've been through these situations before and as much as I admire the effort and the community spirit up there, they're really just delaying the progression of the situation.

The banks liquidated the business because they didn't want to get stuck with the redundancy bill, that bit is obvious. The government will now have to pay their entitlements. They need to accept this eventuality now. There is a buyer lined up for the bar as far as I know and he would be unwise to let any of the staff go. This week has shown how well liked they all are. The sooner they leave the pub, the sooner the redundancies can be processed, a new owner can come in and they can apply for and probably regain their jobs again. I have family and friends up there, I want the best outcome for them...this throwback to the water rats protest and Waterford glass sit in is helping no one.

Hijpo

Dicky Pride wrote: »

It's annoying to me in the sense that I've been through these situations before and as much as I admire the effort and the community spirit up there, they're really just delaying the progression of the situation.

The banks liquidated the business because they didn't want to get stuck with the redundancy bill, that bit is obvious. The government will now have to pay their entitlements. They need to accept this eventuality now. There is a buyer lined up for the bar as far as I know and he would be unwise to let any of the staff go. This week has shown how well liked they all are. The sooner they leave the pub, the sooner the redundancies can be processed, a new owner can come in and they can apply for and probably regain their jobs again. I have family and friends up there, I want the best outcome for them...this throwback to the water rats protest and Waterford glass sit in is helping no one.

Occupying the premises until they got some form of clarifcation on the matters they have now become a part of, was the correct action to take.

Ill leave it at that.

Dicky Pride

Sure. But what's to gain now?

Hijpo

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Sure. But what's to gain now?

Answers.

have they got the clarification on the situation infront of them?
What happens to there jobs, will they still be employed by the new owner, if there is one? what happens to there payments, statutory or otherwise? how long will they need to wait before payment is sorted out? is tweedys paper work all in order? etc etc

all answers, very important answers for those people, that would be left on the long finger for god knows how long, had they walked out on monday morning.

Dicky Pride

They won't get those answers until they leave the bar.

Hijpo

Dicky Pride wrote: »

They won't get those answers until they leave the bar.

Thats not acceptable at all, in this day and age people are under enough financial strain and pressure to be employed without being expected to simply leave employment straight away into high unemployment rate, with no answers as to what could/will happen and if there are answers they will not know when they will recieve them.

For people to expect that employees should get out and wait for clarity, for an untold amount of time while the big boys secure there money is unacceptable carry on. They are supposedly 1st world people not peasants, they deserve clear answers and in a timely manner not a "hang on, ill get back to ye".

gobo99

Hijpo wrote: »

What happens to there jobs, will they still be employed by the new owner, if there is one?

This remind me of the glass factory workers who turned up at the new crystal centre on the day it opened expecting a job to be handed to them.
Seriously who do you think will give them this kind of reassurance? Anyone who was willing to sink half a million into this pub is probably looking at other options after this circus.

wmpdd3

Yes, but the new owner will hope to count the staff's friends and family as customers, presumably?

Hijpo

gobo99 wrote: »

This remind me of the glass factory workers who turned up at the new crystal centre on the day it opened expecting a job to be handed to them.
Seriously who do you think will give them this kind of reassurance? Anyone who was willing to sink half a million into this pub is probably looking at other options after this circus.

Its not even close, the glass was not wound up in a day and in the manner this has been done.

I never said they should be reassured of anything, i said they should be given answers.

Retention of some jobs was on the table if the bank agreed to the deal proposed in the bid last week so it was achievable at one point, but its the bank that has rejected the opportunity for re-employment. So now there is only one of two ways this can go, they either get re-employed as was origionaly sought or they get left go. if they get left go what are they entitled to just statutory or an actual redundancy, this depends on whether tweedy had his files in order. These are answers that could be given in no time if the people surrounding the issue wanted to.

wellboytoo

I would have gone in at 5 in the morning and changed the locks if I was the bank.
Bad management by the banks again.

Cabaal

wellboytoo wrote: »

I would have gone in at 5 in the morning and changed the locks if I was the bank.
Bad management by the banks again.

Maybe,
But then if the bank did that they'd be outrage from people for the bank doing their job,.

Its like when banks start doing dept collection or restructuring and reducing staff numbers, perfectly normal operations but people complain about them.

Can't win either way if you're a bank I guess

Bringthethunder

Surprised by the amount of pro-Bank comments on this. People seem to forget it was only recently that we the tax payers bailed them out, is a little common courtesy towards workers a bit much to ask in return?