Scabs?

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

LOL sure once DeVos makes all her grubby little changes you will I'm sure be quite content to send them off? heh

Another wild stab in the dark... Rand on the reading list? or maybe that's the entire list wha?

Lux23

I would never pass a picket unless I really didn't have a choice. When it comes to grocery stores I have ample choice so there really is no need for me to go into Tesco unless of course I am prat who just wants to thumb my nose at the strikers. I remember in the 90s when Dunnes were on strike (think 1995) and I was listening to my Mum ask the strikers if anyone was breaking it, they said very few did apart from the odd wagon who went in bought a pair of tights and then waved them in their face shouting "get back to work". Just pointless behaviour.

Havockk

Shenshen wrote: »

Maybe it would help if you could tell us what the root cause is, in your opinion?

How noble, are you the Lancelot to PB's Guinevere?

How about I asked first.

knipex

Havockk wrote: »

I'm not saying that doesn't happen. I'm pointing the finger and asking why we are not talking about the root cause of such an issue and how we can change it. Let us not forget that response came in opposition to the question of wealth distribution.

The poster offered literally nothing other than to say 'it happens.' And given his ideological persuasions I'm not taking an insane leap of logic with the suggestion that a MORE laissez-faire approach with FEWER regulations is in any way going to help.

It is my sincere hope that this clears it up for you.

Lets accept 1 simple fact. Everyone is not 100% "equal". everyone is not "as good" as everyone else.

My brother is far better at sports than I am.

I am better at math that most people yet I have another brother who leaves me in the dust.

John who sits across from me in the office is far better at forecasting then I am, Mary is far better at writing a technical brief.

Paul is just a lazy f***** and will probably be unemployed by the end of the quarter..

As the ability to write a top notch technical brief is more important to the company (and more profitable) than the ability to forecast Mary gets paid more than John and John gets paid more than Paul..

Fintan is in a field with very very few peers. He spent 8 years completing his primary degree and his doctorate, has since completed another doctorate and is approached at least once a month with offers of alternative employment. He is a a hugely profitable asset to the company and his works is responsible for probably 55% of our revenue.

I am not sure of exact figures but I would be confident he earns more than John and Mary combined and probably Paul as well..

Shenshen

Havockk wrote: »

How noble, are you the Lancelot to PB's Guinevere?

How about I asked first.

Sure, go ahead, ask.

Havockk

knipex wrote: »

Lets accept 1 simple fact. Everyone is not 100% "equal". everyone is not "as good" as everyone else.

My brother is far better at sports than I am.

I am better at math that most people yet I have another brother who leaves me in the dust.

John who sits across from me in the office is far better at forecasting then I am, Mary is far better at writing a technical brief.

Paul is just a lazy f***** and will probably be unemployed by the end of the quarter..

As the ability to write a top notch technical brief is more important to the company (and more profitable) than the ability to forecast Mary gets paid more than John and John gets paid more than Paul..

Fintan is in a field with very very few peers. He spent 8 years completing his primary degree and his doctorate, has since completed another doctorate and is approached at least once a month with offers of alternative employment. He is a a hugely profitable asset to the company and his works is responsible for probably 55% of our revenue.

I am not sure of exact figures but I would be confident he earns more than John and Mary combined and probably Paul as well..

That's all well and good, and nothing disagreeable. However it still does nothing to answer the problem. Could a better, reformed education help? How could we change it to combat those issues? Can we create a fairer system? And it's not a case on making everyone equal and exactly the same, I have no issues with a meritocracy.

Havockk

Shenshen wrote: »

Sure, go ahead, ask.

Ahh, the old semantics game... how boring.

knipex

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not sure how old the studies are but I can assure you that's not true in my kids school. But then again it depends on how you define religious education. They had a day last week where they looked at a number of religions their beliefs and traditions.

Impressed me when they got home as they were relating stuff I didn't know and other stuff I was in my 30's before I learnt.

The Irish education system isn't perfect and needs reform but it has transformed from what it was in the 80's and is far better than many alternatives.. Including many areas of the US.....

Creationism would not be taught as science in an Irish school.

Butters1979

Havockk wrote: »

People are stupid and thus deserve to be poor. Jesus. Not sure Ive seen anything that drips with this much entitlement since Milton Friedman walked and talked.

If it's not obvious by now, even by your own standards there that something is very wrong with the capitalist system that would accept a statistic like you just quoted then there is no convincing you.

By the way, it's an argument for a better education, free and for everyone.

If someone wins the lotto and still ends up bankrupt, then yes they are stupid and deserve to lose their money. Very stupid. Blaming the education system is a cop out.

Socialists won't be happy until everyone is poor.

Havockk

Butters1979 wrote: »

If someone wins the lotto and still ends up bankrupt, then yes they are stupid and deserve to lose their money. Very stupid. Blaming the education system is a cop out.

Socialists won't be happy until everyone is poor.

Butters, I'll give you this, at least your honest.

knipex

Havockk wrote: »

That's all well and good, and nothing disagreeable. However it still does nothing to answer the problem. Could a better, reformed education help? How could we change it to combat those issues? Can we create a fairer system? And it's not a case on making everyone equal and exactly the same, I have no issues with a meritocracy.

Not sure how a reformed education system would make me better at sports or more inclined to the liberal arts or transform my interest in physics..

Havockk

knipex wrote: »

Not sure how a reformed education system would make me better at sports or more inclined to the liberal arts or transform my interest in physics..

It's poverty that's to be defeated first and foremost. I'd argue that sporting ability and interest in just about anything can be improved, be it with something as simple as time and practice to teaching methods. Will that be enough to take anyone and make them an Olympic medalist? No, but that's not the point.

I do fear we have gone way too much off topic here and perhaps someone would be kind enough to start a thread. I'm eager to get at each others throats.

Butters1979

Havockk wrote: »

That's all well and good, and nothing disagreeable. However it still does nothing to answer the problem. Could a better, reformed education help? How could we change it to combat those issues? Can we create a fairer system? And it's not a case on making everyone equal and exactly the same, I have no issues with a meritocracy.

I'm open to the discussion on a reformed education system, but even the slightest attempt at change is blocked by the unions. it's near impossible as long as we accept unions rights,

Havockk wrote: »

Butters, I'll give you this, at least your honest.

It's what usually gets me in trouble.

VinLieger

Deffinitely going to be taking a trip to one of the picketed stores tonight, got some small bits to pick up

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah mon frere you take it wrong. The root cause is of course capitalism, I mean just how clear did I have to make that? I thought you said you were really smart, and stuff?

end of the road

Butters1979 wrote: »

Or they're the ones who have to pick up the slack of the guys on 20 year old contracts who work less and get paid more than them and are not only not with the strikers but are actually complete against them.

no it would be that they aren't effected and don't have a mandate to strike. i'm sure they are against the striking workers because they are jealous of the fact they couldn't get what those workers have but those workers on strike worked damn hard for what they have.

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

no it would be that they aren't effected and don't have a mandate to strike. i'm sure they are against the striking workers because they are jealous of the fact they couldn't get what those workers have but those workers on strike worked damn hard for what they have.

Or have stayed exactly where they were for the last 20 years without progressing, but yeah that's the same thing

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

Or have stayed exactly where they were for the last 20 years without progressing, but yeah that's the same thing

so what? maybe they enjoy the job. people don't all have to be college graduates or go into big shot/high brow jobs.

Arghus

VinLieger wrote: »

Or have stayed exactly where they were for the last 20 years without progressing, but yeah that's the same thing

You can work damn hard in the same job for decades.

Wanderer78

Havockk wrote:

Ah mon frere you take it wrong. The root cause is of course capitalism, I mean just how clear did I have to make that? I thought you said you were really smart, and stuff?

It's a lot more complicated than that, capitalism does have some positive attributes, but there is something fundamentally wrong with neoliberalism

Havockk

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's a lot more complicated than that, capitalism does have some positive attributes, but there is something fundamentally wrong with neoliberalism

Yes, I'd agree, unrestrained capitalism in the mould of neoliberalism is just horrific and no doubt to blame for the inequality we face today.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

You can work damn hard in the same job for decades.

The point is they haven't worked hard for what they have if what they have is simply due to when they started in the company.

Arghus

VinLieger wrote: »

The point is they haven't worked hard for what they have if what they have is simply due to when they started in the company.

Why not? Length of service usually counts for something in most lines of work.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

Why not? Length of service usually counts for something in most lines of work.

So again what they have is directly linked to when they started it has nothing to do with how hard they did or didnt work.

Im just pointing out a fallacy in the argument "they worked hard for what they have" when what they have actually has nothing to do with how hard they worked

FTA69

Anyone deliberately setting out to breach a picket in order to side with a multi millionaire company against the workers that they're sh*tting on is a low tramp.

Arghus

VinLieger wrote: »

So again what they have is directly linked to when they started it has nothing to do with how hard they did or didnt work.

Im just pointing out a fallacy in the logic "they worked hard for what they have" when what they have actually has nothing to do with how hard they worked

Yes, but if a job demands something of you - as most jobs do - to keep doing it for a long period implies that you've put time and effort into it i.e you have worked hard at it. Certainly more than someone who may have only been at it for a matter of months. I think to have that reflected in someones rate of pay isn't too unreasonable.

eeguy

FTA69 wrote: »

Anyone deliberately setting out to breach a picket in order to side with a multi millionaire company against the workers that they're sh*tting on is a low tramp.

I think it's the height of hypocrisy that people are proudly stating they'll shop in Dunnes, despite Dunnes atrocious record of staff treatment, zero hour contracts and dismissal of striking workers.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, but if a job demands something of you - as most jobs do - to keep doing it for a long period implies that you've put time and effort into it i.e you have worked hard at it. Certainly more than someone who may have only been at it for a matter of months. I think to have that reflected in someones rate of pay isn't too unreasonable.

No its not at all but again that's not whats happening here, their specific contracts are directly linked to when they started working for Tesco and not to do with how long they have been working for tesco. Theres a difference

__Alex__

eeguy wrote: »

I think it's the height of hypocrisy that people are proudly stating they'll shop in Dunnes, despite Dunnes atrocious record of staff treatment, zero hour contracts and dismissal of striking workers.

Absolutely. Tesco are not some moustache-twirling evil corporation compared with the other supermarkets. They're all the same.

Arghus

VinLieger wrote: »

No its not at all but again that's not whats happening here, their specific contracts are directly linked to when they started working for Tesco and not to do with how long they have been working for tesco. Theres a difference

So their contracts are linked to when they started working for Tesco, but not to do with how long they have been working for Tesco? What?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

So their contracts are linked to when they started working for Tesco, but not to do with how long they have been working for Tesco? What?

How is this that hard to understand? Their contracts are to do with them being pre 1996 contracts they have nothing to do with them working there for a specific length of time. Example: anyone who started working there in 1997 isn't gonna get the same benefits as the striking workers now they are also working there 20 years.

eeguy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's no point arguing with these champagne socialists. They'll point out every flaw in the current system, and reference all the usual suspects, yet when you ask for a viable alternative you get a "sure I don't know. I'm not an economist" response :rolleyes:

Arghus

VinLieger wrote: »

How is this that hard to understand? Their contracts are to do with them being pre 1996 contracts they have nothing to do with them working there for a specific length of time. Example: anyone who started working there in 1997 isn't gonna get the same benefits as the striking workers now they are also working there 20 years.

The two things are co-related. The longer you work the better your contract in this situation. People who started work in 97 have better terms than those who started in 99, those who started work in 99 have better contract conditions than those who started in 2003.The longer you work for Tesco the better the terms of your contract, which is a byproduct of how long you have worked there - which is best judged, as with everything, by taking into account when you started.

Havockk

eeguy wrote: »

There's no point arguing with these champagne socialists. They'll point out every flaw in the current system, and reference all the usual suspects, yet when you ask for a viable alternative you get a "sure I don't know. I'm not an economist" response :rolleyes:

Champagne socialist? All the old slurs getting rolled out now, like a cheap carpet.

Yes, I'm reasonably successful, but I'd love to know how or even why this should determine that I cannot be a socialist? Should all political affiliations be based on relative wealth? LOL not even children would buy that nonsense.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

The two things are co-related. The longer you work the better your contract in this situation. People who started work in 97 have better terms than those who started in 99, those who started work in 99 have better contract conditions than those who started in 2003.The longer you work for Tesco the better the terms of your contract, which is a byproduct of how long you have worked there - which is best judged, as with everything, by taking into account when you started.

Not in this case everyone who signed a contract after 96 by all accounts is on very similar terms that are vastly different to the ones signed pre 96 which is why tesco are trying to move them onto the same contracts as everyone else.

They didnt accrue better benefits due to how much longer they worked they have had better benefits since they signed their original contracts therefore its nothing to do with how hard they worked over a period of time but when the started working.

Also its becoming more and more evident as you try to argue this very simple to grasp point that you have no idea about the specifics surrounding this

Arghus

VinLieger wrote: »

Also its becoming more and more evident as you try to argue this very simple to grasp point that you have no idea about the specifics surrounding this

I work for Tesco.

Arghus

"VinLieger wrote: »

They didnt accrue better benefits due to how much longer they worked they have had better benefits since they signed their original contracts therefore its nothing to do with how hard they worked over a period of time but when the started working.

You've completely contradicted yourself in this paragraph. Read it aloud.

Discodog

I used to live in the UK & I can remember when Tesco were recognised as a good employer. The employees even got shares based on the company profit.

I used to do business with Tesco & the senior directors were very socially conscious. It stemmed for the foundation of the business & those men wouldn't be happy with the way that staff are being treated today.

Tesco will say that it's about economics but the John Lewis Partnership are extremely successful & they treat their staff exceptionally well. If you are looked after & given the incentive of shares etc, you will be a much better employee.

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

The point is they haven't worked hard for what they have if what they have is simply due to when they started in the company.

they work hard and serve the company well.

Ray Palmer

end of the road wrote: »

they work hard and serve the company well.

You know the 250 personally? Like any company some are lazy others coast and others work hard to bring up the average. I love it when people go on about workers all being one thing or another. What about civil servants they all barely work according to most? There is nothing new under the sun

suicide_circus

Arghus wrote: »

The two things are co-related. The longer you work the better your contract in this situation. People who started work in 97 have better terms than those who started in 99, those who started work in 99 have better contract conditions than those who started in 2003.The longer you work for Tesco the better the terms of your contract, which is a byproduct of how long you have worked there - which is best judged, as with everything, by taking into account when you started.

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

Arghus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

Absolutely, I totally agree.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

suicide_circus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK maybe the shareholders haven't been doing so well with the arrival of the German discounters but my point stands in terms of Ts and Cs steadily degrading over time.

Ray Palmer

suicide_circus wrote: »

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

It can be seen that way but you also have consider that people pay a lot less for their food. It is incredible cheap at the moment. The reality is the contracts were signed when competing on opening hour wasn't a thing. Opening on a Sunday was a huge event and they paid double time for it because there were also increased sales as it was something special. Twenty years on it is just a normal shopping day.
Terms and conditions have changed for everyone and getting double time was always something some people got. If you worked in an office and you were needed to work late or work weekends you didn't get it and in many case not even paid extra. I am slightly mixed on support because of it. They still have better terms on pay than me now just at a different rate.

To a certain extent they are being treated like most people so it is much fairer to say it is a race to equilibrium. I couldn't do the job myself then many people couldn't do my job because of the stress.

suicide_circus

As I said previously, if tesco were on its knees I'd say yeah look savings have to be made or everyone loses their job but that's not the case here. look at the current bus eireann unrest.

Wanderer78

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It can be seen that way but you also have consider that people pay a lot less for their food. It is incredible cheap at the moment. The reality is the contracts were signed when competing on opening hour wasn't a thing. Opening on a Sunday was a huge event and they paid double time for it because there were also increased sales as it was something special. Twenty years on it is just a normal shopping day.
Terms and conditions have changed for everyone and getting double time was always something some people got. If you worked in an office and you were needed to work late or work weekends you didn't get it and in many case not even paid extra. I am slightly mixed on support because of it. They still have better terms on pay than me now just at a different rate.

To a certain extent they are being treated like most people so it is much fairer to say it is a race to equilibrium. I couldn't do the job myself then many people couldn't do my job because of the stress.

id have to agree with deirdre mccloskey when speaking about the benefits of our free market system, i.e. customers most certainly have benefited by having the availability of more products, cheaper and of better quality(arguable) etc, but the disadvantages of this system or what i call 'the baggage' is now becoming an extremely serious problem. one of the most serious problems of this system is the increasing levels of 'worker insecurity', and as far as i can see, nobody really knows what to do about this.

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

id have to agree with deirdre mccloskey when speaking about the benefits of our free market system, i.e. customers most certainly have benefited by having the availability of more products, cheaper and of better quality(arguable) etc, but the disadvantages of this system or what i call 'the baggage' is now becoming an extremely serious problem. one of the most serious problems of this system is the increasing levels of 'worker insecurity', and as far as i can see, nobody really knows what to do about this.

As far as I'm concerned, Deirdre McCloskey has completely discredited herself by showing she has no idea whatsoever what a free market system actually is.