Support the Tesco 1,000

stoplooklisten

I distinctly remember crossing a tesco picket line in 1999, I knew then they were up to no good.

To Elland Back

Superhorse wrote: »

Support on Boards.ie for workers? You must be aving a larf.

I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes

stoplooklisten

To Elland Back wrote: »

I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes

Now, that's a cause I'll row in behind!

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We're talking about workers here not the underclass.

So all of us, right?

Yet apparently people on boards don't support workers. But they are workers.

I'm so conflicted...oh, no, wait, that's not me.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

So all of us, right?

Yet apparently people on boards don't support workers. But they are workers.

I'm so conflicted...oh, no, wait, that's not me.

Saying people don't support workers isn't saying they are not themselves workers.

Ireland is the home of the tuppence happenny looking down on tuppence characters.

You can see that in the Luas arguments. Those workers don't deserve a raise. They don't have edjuchasen.

Eugene Norman

kneemos wrote: »

Rich people generally don't leave money laying around.
Unlikely that half a million of the population have 94 billion on deposit.

Ok so it's poor people who have it. Ireland doesn't have a very mature brokerage sector. Middle income earners saving for a house probably do keep it on deposit. Pensioners with lump savings too.

It would be ~30k per deposit account. I doubt if the median is more than 10k. And it doesn't actually seem that high.

Carawaystick

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's about both, pre 96ers are extremely inflexible and cost the company in both money and adaptability.

It's such a pity when tescos bought quinnsworth that they missed this little detail. If only they could have paid some hawkeyed legal eagle to check this little things, but alas they couldn't afford it... Or thought they'd get away with screwing the staff.

Another thing that cost tescos money, was people shopping in Dunnes in Newry. They were quick to drop their prices in shops near the border then.

kneemos

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Ok so it's poor people who have it. Ireland doesn't have a very mature brokerage sector. Middle income earners saving for a house probably do keep it on deposit. Pensioners with lump savings too.

It would be ~30k per deposit account. I doubt if the median is more than 10k. And it doesn't actually seem that high.

Obviously not.

ThisRegard

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's such a pity when tescos bought quinnsworth that they missed this little detail. If only they could have paid some hawkeyed legal eagle to check this little things, but alas they couldn't afford it... Or thought they'd get away with screwing the staff.

They didn't miss it. I assume it was probably part of the TUPE or whatever the equivalent was at the time. And being offered 5 weeks per year of service, uncapped, when the least amount a person will get is 100 weeks pay is a pretty good pay off in my books should you wish for it. Managers in there are walking out with multiples of €100,000. (or are store managers not seen as workers?)

If you turn up for work every day for a role that no longer exists, and refuse to do anything else outside of what your did 20 or 30 years ago, it's not the company that's screwing you.

Ken.

Mod-Off topic posts removed. Try to keep this about Tesco please and thank you.

Superhorse

To Elland Back wrote: »

I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes

I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.

Red_Wake

Superhorse wrote: »

I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.

What do you consider a decent wage?

seamus

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

ThisRegard

Superhorse wrote: »

I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.

What are they racing to the bottom of?

And if you read the Luas thread you'll see the majority of posters arguing the opposite to what you're claiming regarding degrees.

Little CuChulainn

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Saying people don't support workers isn't saying they are not themselves workers.

Ireland is the home of the tuppence happenny looking down on tuppence characters.

You can see that in the Luas arguments. Those workers don't deserve a raise. They don't have edjuchasen.

Nothing to do with them not having an education and you know it. It's a simple job and the majority of people don't think it merits a raise. In the case of Tesco, people don't think a group of workers should be able to hold their employer hostage without good reason. Keeping a completely unworkable and outdated contract is not a good reason.

foggy_lad

They're bringin back the "yellow packs" Joe.

oppenheimer1

seamus wrote: »

The company itself is in serious turmoil, it's going to be moving into closing down stores and laying off staff in the next 5-10 years as it fights to keep up with the competition from Lidl and Aldi. Sounds to me like the unions have quite badly misled these workers into thinking they're losing out by not accepting Tesco's offers.

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.

uck51js9zml2yt

Why the 1000 in the title?
According to my reading its more like 300.:)

redlead

CosmicSmash wrote: »

So you would be okay if you had your own contract changed to match new entrants down the road?

It has in the past due to the economic downturn. I had a 20% pay cut. I certainly wasn't happy but I can see why they did it.

seamus

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.

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.

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.