Support the Tesco 1,000

KomradeBishop

Tesco is forcing a unilateral change in the employment contract - contracts must be negotiated, not unilaterally changed - so these workers have every right, to use every means at their disposal, to force Tesco to the negotiating table.

Tesco keeps its accounting almost entirely secret, and a large part of their 'losses' are from accounting trickery, in revaluing their stores/capital - not from changes in turnover - they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt, when it comes to claims about their accounting, when there is such a lack of transparency.

Tesco have already had a major accounting scandal recently, which shows their claims are completely untrustworthy.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

"Race to the bottom". Another overused and unproven piece of hyperbole from the AAA/PBP brigade.

That's

1) not a proof that there isn't a race to the bottom
2) an ad hominem (at least by your worldview).

Try better arguments.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

Rumoured. Though apparently the Irish arm returned a profit last year for the first time since 2012. So I'm not sure how much credence I'd lend to those rumours.

In any case, since the Irish arm is absolute small fry in the overall agenda, profits in Ireland are going to have little consequence when the group is making losses in the billions.

The same is true for costs - in that savings made by the Irish branch will make little consequence overall. But the Irish executive team will need to be seen doing something they can present at the next management summit. And trimming the fat in the form of the most expensive workers is one of the easiest and most common ways to do that.

If I was one of these Tesco workers, the parent company's dramatic downturn from a 2.5bn profit to a 5.8bn loss in the space of a year would give me serious cause for concern. If the choice was between the generous package on offer or fighting to hold onto a job that might be gone in a couple of years, gimme the package.

None of this is relevant to the actual contracts the actual workers have now. (I too would leave by the way)

They want to stay on. They want what should be a legally binding contract enforced. They shouldn't even have to strike.

The legality and morality of the situation might be clearer to you if you pretended the workers were rich. Say this was an executive or investor with a legally binding contract with tesco that was, admittedly, costing the company money. Or that tesco had a upwards only rent that the management wanted out off. You'd probably suggest they take a running jump if they wanted to renegotiate unilaterally.

The fact the workers need to strike is the issue.

oppenheimer1

seamus wrote: »

Rumoured. Though apparently the Irish arm returned a profit last year for the first time since 2012. So I'm not sure how much credence I'd lend to those rumours.

In any case, since the Irish arm is absolute small fry in the overall agenda, profits in Ireland are going to have little consequence when the group is making losses in the billions.

The same is true for costs - in that savings made by the Irish branch will make little consequence overall. But the Irish executive team will need to be seen doing something they can present at the next management summit. And trimming the fat in the form of the most expensive workers is one of the easiest and most common ways to do that.

If I was one of these Tesco workers, the parent company's dramatic downturn from a 2.5bn profit to a 5.8bn loss in the space of a year would give me serious cause for concern. If the choice was between the generous package on offer or fighting to hold onto a job that might be gone in a couple of years, gimme the package.

The Irish arm is safe. As are the jobs of the longest serving members of staff. Unless the individual staff members are close to retirement, there is nothing really to be gained by accepting the offer. A 100k upfront buy-off payment doesn't look that good when you've been working for Tesco for the last 20 years but really have no other choice but to continue working for tesco (for another 20 years). It doesn't make financial sense for the workers.

ThisRegard

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not in Ireland, where the operation is rumoured to be its most profitable location. Not that we'll ever know because it doesn't break down its irish results individually in its published accounts.

It's a rumour going back years to the Celtic Tiger years, when every retail unit was probably raking it in in Ireland.

I doubt it's true these days giving the amount of staff they've either made compulsory redundant or offered voluntary redundancy to, and how much they've had to row back on their expansion plans. The latest round of redundancy alone I would guess would push them into the red for the tax year they occurred in.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The Irish arm is safe. As are the jobs of the longest serving members of staff.

So you're completely ignoring the staff that have been made redundant, or are they not wurkers because they don't stack shelves?

Eugene Norman

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's a rumour going back years to the Celtic Tiger years, when every retail unit was probably raking it in in Ireland.

I doubt it's true these days giving the amount of staff they've either made compulsory redundant or offered voluntary redundancy to, and how much they've had to row back on their expansion plans. The latest round of redundancy alone I would guess would push them into the red for the tax year they occurred in.



So you're completely ignoring the staff that have been made redundant, or are they not wurkers because they don't stack shelves?

How do we know what the people who took redundancy worked at?

TallGlass

Having worked for Tesco. They could say millions each years in many many many other ways from the day to day running of the stores themselves. They buy in way way way to much stock and waste a serious amount of food. No point targeting workers if it's there own systems that are seriously not fit for the size of there operations.

This was clearly coming from when the guy from Lenor took charge, he was know as an axe man.

My guess, Tesco will go down the Woolworths path if operations are not looked at. Wouldn't worry about staff, given a moral boost Tesco have some of the best staff IMO.

TallGlass

Also to add from the store I worked in around 30/40 people have been made redundant and accepted there offers.

In the face of what they say it has resulted in job loses as they haven't taken on the same amount of staff.

ThisRegard

Eugene Norman wrote: »

How do we know what the people who took redundancy worked at?

Tesco is a big company, Ireland is a small country, it's not hard to know people who work, worked, and are leaving there. I believe anyone that was on a pre-96 contract was offered redundancy, so you can be sure that many of them were managers who stood to pocket a hell of a lot of money by leaving.

TallGlass wrote: »

Also to add from the store I worked in around 30/40 people have been made redundant and accepted there offers.

In the face of what they say it has resulted in job loses as they haven't taken on the same amount of staff.

I would say it has, some stores, the olders ones mostly, would be down staff now as a result of so many of the employees taking up the offer.

Arghus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Tesco is a big company, Ireland is a small country, it's not hard to know people who work, worked, and are leaving there. I believe anyone that was on a pre-96 contract was offered redundancy, so you can be sure that many of them were managers who stood to pocket a hell of a lot of money by leaving

Managers are on a different contract to regular workers, they haven't been offered redundancy and didn't take part in the vote for strikes and aren't going to be picketing any time soon.

Strike postponed for more gamesmanship next week.

ThisRegard

Some managers have, and have taken it. There's a variety of managers in a store, not just the store manager itself.

drunkmonkey

mansize wrote: »

What's with the obsession with attacking male reproductive organs???

Ass last years, boobs this year, it'll be balls all the way next year.

Arghus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Some managers have, and have taken it. There's a variety of managers in a store, not just the store manager itself.

Mid level management were offered voluntary redundancy about eighteen months or so. That was the first wave of voluntary redundancies. It's not connected to what's happening now; there was no threat of a change to their terms and conditions.

Staff on pre 2005 contracts were offered voluntary redundancies, back during the Autumn, capped at four weeks salary per year worked. There was no talk of people having their contract terms changed if they didn't take the offer, just that the offer was there if people wanted it. This also had nothing to do with the current dispute.

The crux of the issue for people now is that people are being forced to accept new terms and conditions or redundancy; there's no option to stay as you are.

oppenheimer1

Eugene Norman wrote: »

None of this is relevant to the actual contracts the actual workers have now. (I too would leave by the way)

They want to stay on. They want what should be a legally binding contract enforced. They shouldn't even have to strike.

The legality and morality of the situation might be clearer to you if you pretended the workers were rich. Say this was an executive or investor with a legally binding contract with tesco that was, admittedly, costing the company money. Or that tesco had a upwards only rent that the management wanted out off. You'd probably suggest they take a running jump if they wanted to renegotiate unilaterally.

The fact the workers need to strike is the issue.

I'd liken it to the banks trying to unilaterally change people's tracker mortgages.

If Tesco wants to improve its profitability, I suggest they look to their supply chain management, abandoning the bullshit offers and promotions, merry go round pricing and focus on quality rather than strong arming a small subset of their staff.

saralou2011

Strikes back on for this Thursday (26th)

mikeym

MooShop wrote: »

Agree with this. I worked in a Tesco store for 4 years, so have seen this first hand.

The pre-96ers (in my store anyway) were nothing but childish bullies who would throw their toys out of the pram if they didn't get their own way. The majority of them were so lazy and barely covered their duties, if at all, and got paid exorbitant amounts for the privilege.

Also these would never work a Sunday, of course until it was a bank holiday and they were getting triple time! :eek: And then when they were in on those days, did even less and the store was in more of a mess, putting us regular staff under more pressure because there wasn't enough budget to bring in people who would actually work!

They were always a clique onto to themselves, them vs us (regular staff/mgmt vs pre-96), and that divide was solely created by them!

Bit of a rant but had to put up with a lot of their s**t over the years I worked there.

I wouldnt be supporting those on the old contracts if I was on the newer crappy contract because the old contract people wouldnt support me.

The same happened in Dunnes but in reverse, those on newer contracts went on strike and those on older better contracts went to work.

I presume these people were working for Quinnsworth when they joined up?