Bulgarian workers/Keelings - read OP (threadbans listed)

Scotty #

weldoninhio wrote: »

You have no idea if that is an employee of someone bored sitting at home in their basement. It’s an anonymous person on the internet.

I think most people here are smart enough to know that. They can choose to believe it or disregard it. I believe he is a genuine ex-employee. Thank you yet another beneficial post to the thread though!

Scotty #

1874 wrote: »

Great link, DID YOU EVEN READ THAT???
Because there is zero in that payslip that shows minimum wage or any deduction

The payslip was merely evidence that he was a genuine employee after he was asked to verify.

If you read the thread you'll find where he says even those that can't reach the target are still paid min wage.

You too are like a lot of posters here.. "I have no idea what they're paid but I know it's less than minimum".

Scotty #

1874 wrote: »

Whats the solution? childcare is a rip off, compare us to more enlightened countries, like Denmark and Sweden and even Germany,
Govt/and in this case the State has farmed it out to private ownership (to some extent that might be good, if there was standards across the board that were applied), and at the sametime these businesses are in the main getting paid quite well for something in my opinion should be a state run effort (just like the State has farmed out housing, which is not a comprehensive or healthy system either), needless to say, costs somewhere need to come down for businesses in certain areas (without them just hoovering up the excess as profits in a good time), I would say tackle head on the Insurance industry, look at Countries where it works better, standardise payments for claims, bring in a mixture of repsonsibility for a safe environment but also personal responsibility, plus the reality that certain things will happen in certain situations, re childcare, kids will get bumps, knocks etc, Im not talking about serious institutional failures or defending that, so it will ultimately mean tackling head on the Legal system an healthcare in this country all at the same time, I dont believe ther eis the political ability or will to do this, just not interest despite what people want and need.

I agree with much of this. I think the first step to reducing child care is means test children's allowance and put that money elsewhere. This is for another thread though.

Scotty #

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Just seen this.

I'd like to be able to confirm definitely that Keelings use an agency to recruit in eastern Europe but there really is no other way they could do it, is there?

Steyr, the author of that page is incorrect, some might even call it fake news!

Workers in any EU country are covered by the labour laws of the host country.

I believe the Bulgarians are signed up by an agency. The fee is €300 and includes their flights.

Scotty #

Rows Grower wrote: »

Some lads still hanging around seeking validation, trying to provoke responses instead of engaging in reasonable discussion.

At least Scotty hashtag made an effort at refuting others points, he's the kind of guy you'd want on your side in an honest debate because if he had the moral high ground he would be like a wounded rhino and crush all before him.

The other little lap dogs have exposed themselves badly in this thread.

Jeez Rows Grower, I'm almost blushing

weldoninhio

Scotty # wrote: »

I think most people here are smart enough to know that. They can choose to believe it or disregard it. I believe he is a genuine ex-employee. Thank you yet another beneficial post to the thread though!

Of course you do. Prob still living in Termonfeckin, eh? The ICA are obviously lying and their apartments are hidden underground.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Scotty # wrote: »

Steyr, the author of that page is incorrect, some might even call it fake news!

Workers in any EU country are covered by the labour laws of the host country.

I believe the Bulgarians are signed up by an agency. The fee is €300 and includes their flights.

That link returns an error (404) for me Scotty, but I've had a look myself and can confirm it seems to be true, here:

Europa.eu wrote:

minimum wage - allowances specific to the posting (such as daily allowances) are considered to be part of the minimum wage unless you pay these allowances in reimbursement of costs actually incurred by your posted staff (such as accommodation and travel and meal expenses)

Posting rules also apply if the person is hired through an agency providing temporary staff and is coming to work for you from a different EU country than that where your business is registered or is operating. In this case, an employment relationship must exist between the worker and the temporary or placement agency you use.

However, I saw this and it made me wonder because it seems to conflict:

Europa.eu wrote:

Your employer may also pay your travel costs, boarding, and lodging in the EU country where you are posted if this is foreseen in your home country's legislation. These allowances have to be paid in addition to the minimum rate of pay.

I guess it's not the case in Bulgaria or Romania that they have legislation that the employer must pay for the workers flights and lodging because you wouldn't have Keelings charging 95 euro a room then.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

If it's such nonsense then it should be easy to debunk, instead of flailing around with accusations of Communism and Nazism combined.

Its easy to debunk by the mere fact your 'wish-list is not a reality, or anywhere near it. But do you know one place that is going down your road? Brexit UK.
That is essentially what you are arguing for.

Scotty #

weldoninhio wrote: »

Of course you do. Prob still living in Termonfeckin, eh? The ICA are obviously lying and their apartments are hidden underground.

As has been explained to you already... I don't know where they are being accommodated.

What lead me to believe they were in An Gianán was the news reports on LMFM and the fact that several Termoncfekin residents on Twitter were giving witness accounts of seeing them.

The statement from the ICA is not exactly definitive...

ICA wrote:

Our information is that none of the 189 workers on the flight in question are being accommodated in the Horticulture College at An Grianan.

It's the "Our information is..." that sounds a little suspect. A bit of a get out of jail card. It's like "well we rented it to someone, we just don't know that it's them"

Again, I don't know where they are. But I do know, according to numerous accounts on Twitter, that a large group of people moved into An Grianán last week and are currently residing there. I wonder who they are.

TheChizler

Steyr 556 wrote: »

I guess it's not the case in Bulgaria or Romania that they have legislation that the employer must pay for the workers flights and lodging because you wouldn't have Keelings charging 95 euro a room then.

That reddit payslip indicated they were direct employees of Keelings Ireland so unlikely to be posted workers

jimmycrackcorm

weldoninhio wrote: »

You have no idea if that is an employee of someone bored sitting at home in their basement. It’s an anonymous person on the internet.

Probably more genuine though, than the witch-hunting outraged keyboard SJWs that many on here are.

They will be so haunted, looking at a pack of strawberries in Centra, perplexed trying to figure out if they are from keelings.

1874

Scotty # wrote: »

The payslip was merely evidence that he was a genuine employee after he was asked to verify.

If you read the thread you'll find where he says even those that can't reach the target are still paid min wage.

You too are like a lot of posters here.. "I have no idea what they're paid but I know it's less than minimum".

For a start, you are replying to me, putting something in quotation marks suggests I said that word for word,

Nothing has really been verified though, We dont know if the person is genuine or not, its possible they are, or arent, and by that same token, (something written online by someone unverified isn't verification of anything).


The thing is, if keelings want to avoid the association of them with not paying minimum wage and doing the right thing as is stated they are doing, they could easily release the pay and terms and conditions, but they actually have declined to do that, they are after all, allegedly advertising the positions, it would be reasonable to think they would at some point reveal what the pay is, someone doesnt get hired and find out later what the rate is.
So either they arent paying minimum wage or they have a back a$$ed attitude or understanding of how to deal with these kind of things (probably as they have ridden roughshod over employees usually) or both.
It would make sense to correct this if its wrong as there has been a huge backlash, with a lot of people saying they wont buy their products here.


I have read that a Union was following up complaints previously ( I recal it was UNITE) in regard to pay and conditions, the Reddit post says they have to pay for accomodation, that makes it seem very much like they have little option (it seems like if they knew someone living down the road, they'd be obliged to pay for accommodation anyway)

TheChizler wrote: »

That reddit payslip indicated they were direct employees of Keelings Ireland so unlikely to be posted workers

Thats not sufficient, no one knows if its been edited, doctored or what,
without the deductions, you cant tell what they are getting, and Im not fully convinced Keelings name on their means they are a direct employee, certainly there is nothing to say the staff are getting minimum wage or that they have a set max hours



Regardless of any of that


It keeps getting sidetracked, why does this exclude them from complying with provisions to limit a pandemic spread The CMO wasnt satisfied it was the correct thing to do for workers to be shipped in, is it better to have strawberries on the table than not spread Covid19? are strawberries or apples that essential to our survivial, we are not going to starve to death over strawberries, or is it just their survival? I dont want to see a business go under, but it doesnt seem like that would be the case or that they made much effort to source workers here and it would seem ideal on a temporary basis for residents here (Irish, resident, even if they got support from the state and facilitated people waiting on asylum applications to get extra work) , (the Govt has already allowed them to bring employees here from virtually as far as they could go in the EU, there can only be one reason for that).


If I thought keelings was open and were going to have to impose a lockdown on the workers and organise getting them essentials/shopping etc for them, Id be more inclined to think what they were doing is acceptable (they arent)
If I thought they made a genuine effort to source employees here, mainly because of COVID19, Id think they have limited or no options so they had to,

They had FG onside for this, then why couldnt they even make it so anyone here could be allowed take up the work on a temporary basis and not affect other payments? at no cost to themselves


Something isnt right, or they wouldnt essentially be in hiding, they are just hoping it will blow over, or they'd come out and clear it up.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

Its easy to debunk by the mere fact your 'wish-list is not a reality, or anywhere near it. But do you know one place that is going down your road? Brexit UK.
That is essentially what you are arguing for.

I've already shown the precedence with Germany's labour market protections. I've even shown the EU treaty provisions, which I argue let us do that within the EU.

Did you miss that Freedom of Movement is presently suspended almost completely? Do you think that means the entirety of the EU should now 'exit'?

Bass Reeves

Divine new season

blackwhite

KyussB wrote: »

I've already shown the precedence with Germany's labour market protections. I've even shown the EU treaty provisions, which I argue let us do that within the EU.

Did you miss that Freedom of Movement is presently suspended almost completely? Do you think that means the entirety of the EU should now 'exit'?

And you’ve repeatedly ignored the fact that Germany’s protections were based on pre-existing laws, and that the judgement allowing them hinged on the fact that there was no change to the pre-existing laws.

But of course, because it doesn’t suit the narrative you want to push, that inconvenient piece of the judgement gets ignored, over and over again.

There is zero precedent for allowing increased restrictions on the freedom of movement of labour, and zero precedent for forcing companies to increase pay above the normal industry rates just to reserve those jobs for natives who think they’re above working minimum wage, or close to minimum wage jobs

BMurr

It is easy to get sidetracked on tbe labour/pay issue. Putting that aside, the Covid19 issue is most disconcerting as it does seem as though Keelings make up the rules to suit their needs. Their answers to RTE stated that they had 3/4/5 bedroom accommodation with two to a room forming a "household" of about 10. I'd say a lot of small building firms and other non essential businesses who are currently suffering would like to have had the option to make up a "household" too like this. Thing is that this new household of ten could have had five or more each in their household in Bulgaria so bringing the virus of 50 people into one place. And whose to say that those individuals have to stay with keelings f I r next few months and that they can't go from farm to farm and country to country. We do seem a bit lax in terms of border restrictions as there still appears to be individuals making their way here with vehicles on ferries.

KyussB

blackwhite wrote: »

And you’ve repeatedly ignored the fact that Germany’s protections were based on pre-existing laws, and that the judgement allowing them hinged on the fact that there was no change to the pre-existing laws.

But of course, because it doesn’t suit the narrative you want to push, that inconvenient piece of the judgement gets ignored, over and over again.

There is zero precedent for allowing increased restrictions on the freedom of movement of labour, and zero precedent for forcing companies to increase pay above the normal industry rates just to reserve those jobs for natives who think they’re above working minimum wage, or close to minimum wage jobs

The protections in Germany are precedent of the types of policies I propose, even without discussing their legal basis - the poster was claiming the UK was the only other example, and that is wrong.

I have been arguing that we can attempt to use Article 46d TFEU, even without the same legal basis as Germany. You disagree, fine - but you can't invalidate that argument either - instead of doing so, you launch straight into character attacks.

Nobody in the thread has argued that companies should be forced to do anything with wages.

Scotty #

1874 wrote: »

For a start, you are replying to me, putting something in quotation marks suggests I said that word for word,

My apologies if it appears like that. I thought was an obvious generalisation and that was my intention.

1874 wrote: »

Nothing has really been verified though, We dont know if the person is genuine or not, its possible they are, or arent,

Everyone can decide for themselves it's authenticity. I believe it's genuine. He doesn't paint Keelings in a particularly good light or a bad one. If it were a bogus account I would imagine it would go one way or the other.

1874 wrote: »

Regardless of any of that


It keeps getting sidetracked, why does this exclude them from complying with provisions to limit a pandemic spread The CMO wasnt satisfied it was the correct thing to do for workers to be shipped in, is it better to have strawberries on the table than not spread Covid19? are strawberries or apples that essential to our survivial, we are not going to starve to death over strawberries, or is it just their survival?

This pandemic could go on for a very long time, possibly years. Of course we can do without strawberries. But we don't rely in migrant workers just for strawberries, there's also apples, peppers, onions, lettuce, etc. Where do we draw the line?

If we take all of the above out of the food chain it must be replaced by other foods. Do we have sufficient levels of other foods to cover the shortfall? Will this cause food inflation, yes! Will it cause on over run on other foods, yes. Could it lead to rationing, yes. Worst case scenarios but all possible.

Remember the run on toilet rolls? There was no shortage of toilet rolls but it didn't stop people going mad and clearing shelves. We've already seen reports of fish shortages. Flour shortages. The UN has warned of 'biblical' famine if food sources are not maintained. As the toilet rolls have shown, a belief in the public that something will run out is enough to cause that product to run out. What if all this loss of harvest causes a belief in the public that there's food shortages?

It's a very dangerous game to threaten our food supply.

plodder

Irish Times: Government has failed Keelings and its workers

Company unfairly dragged through a ditch in court of public opinion

If Taoiseach Leo Varadkar really places as much importance on fairness and humility as his calm demeanour suggests, he should consider apologising to Keelings for his Government’s role in exposing the family-owned business to such an intense publicity shellacking.

Why? Because senior State officials, including Varadkar and his Minister for Health Simon Harris gave succour to the company’s ill-informed critics by incorrectly hinting that Keelings had done something bad.

Spot on. You expect this sort of nonsense on the Internet but Varadkar and Harris have no excuse. They know full well that temporary agricultural workers were specifically allowed to travel around the EU. They didn't object when the EU council made the decision.

Graham

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Probably more genuine though, than the witch-hunting outraged keyboard SJWs that many on here are.

They will be so haunted, looking at a pack of strawberries in Centra, perplexed trying to figure out if they are from keelings.

Imagine the dilemma for the poor unfortunates.

Do they go for fruit grown and picked in Ireland potentially picked by migrant fruit pickers or do they go for the Spanish strawberries which are usually picked by Moroccans.

It's going to be such a conundrum they'll have to pick up their assembled-in-china-by-dormitory-dwellers mobile phone and ask a friend.

Scotty #

KyussB wrote: »

The protections in Germany are precedent of the types of policies I propose, even without discussing their legal basis - the poster was claiming the UK was the only other example, and that is wrong.

I have been arguing that we can attempt to use Article 46d TFEU, even without the same legal basis as Germany. You disagree, fine - but you can't invalidate that argument either - instead of doing so, you launch straight into character attacks.

Nobody in the thread has argued that companies should be forced to do anything with wages.

Kyuss I don't doubt that you know more about this subject than I do but your stance on 'local workers first' is contradicted by the very first paragraph of the relevant page on the official EU website where it states:

Any EU citizen has the same right to work in another EU country as nationals of that country:

• under the same conditions and
• without having to apply for a work permit.

No restrictions – quantitative limits or discriminatory recruitment criteria – can be placed on the recruitment of nationals of other EU countries.

Is the EU website information wrong?

Graham

Scotty # wrote: »

This pandemic could go on for a very long time, possibly years. Of course we can do without strawberries. But we don't rely in migrant workers just for strawberries, there's also apples, peppers, onions, lettuce, etc. Where do we draw the line?

And woe betide us if the rest of the EU decide to follow suit leaving us collectively with an 800,000+ shortfall of pickers.

blackwhite

KyussB wrote: »

The protections in Germany are precedent of the types of policies I propose, even without discussing their legal basis - the poster was claiming the UK was the only other example, and that is wrong.

I have been arguing that we can attempt to use Article 46d TFEU, even without the same legal basis as Germany. You disagree, fine - but you can't invalidate that argument either - instead of doing so, you launch straight into character attacks.

Nobody in the thread has argued that companies should be forced to do anything with wages.

Pointing to your posting history isn't a character attack - it's there for anyone on this site to see. If you get so upset about people pointing out your posting history then maybe the internet isn't for you?


You've repeatedly claimed that the German case is a precedent that we can follow. When it's pointed out that it isn't a precedent, because we don't have a pre-existing law on our books - the key pillar of why their law was allowed to remain - then you stick your fingers in your ears and just keep claiming "it's a precedent".

You whole M.O. has been to find something that you think supports your political bent, and then ignore anything that contradicts that. Including ignoring when it's pointed out that you've cherry-picked a small element of a case, and are ignoring the fundamental pillar that it rested upon.

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody in the thread has argued that companies should be forced to do anything with wages.

Don't whinge about your name being blackened, and then drop to Trump-esque alternative facts like this.

You started off giving out that Keelings weren't offering enough pay for locals to take the work, and then started proposing that laws should be introduced for force them to keep them the cheap foreigners out and instead pay higher wages for the locals.

You're showing yourself up by resorting to such dishonesty TBH

Scotty #

Graham wrote: »

And woe betide us if the rest of the EU decide to follow suit leaving us collectively with an 800,000+ shortfall of pickers.

France alone are looking for 800,000.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

TheChizler wrote: »

That reddit payslip indicated they were direct employees of Keelings Ireland so unlikely to be posted workers

That’s true. If they were working for an agency, wouldn’t the agency be paying them and not Keelings themselves?

plodder

Scotty # wrote: »

Kyuss I don't doubt that you know more about this subject than I do but your stance on 'local workers first' is contradicted by the very first paragraph of the relevant page on the official EU website where it states:

Any EU citizen has the same right to work in another EU country as nationals of that country:

• under the same conditions and
• without having to apply for a work permit.

No restrictions – quantitative limits or discriminatory recruitment criteria – can be placed on the recruitment of nationals of other EU countries.

Is the EU website information wrong?

Here is the German view on it (sorry if it's been quoted already)

https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/migration/law-on-foreigners/freedom-of-movement/freedom-of-movement-node.html

The limitations that still apply are only in the are of welfare entitlements, which clearly do not apply to temporary workers coming to do a specific job.

Graham

Scotty # wrote: »

France alone are looking for 800,000.

and rallying the natives hasn't been entirely popular.

On social media, some critics compare the government farm drive with China’s traumatic cultural revolution, where millions of young people were sent to work in the countryside. Others suggest it does not square with the nationwide lockdown and other tough health safety measures.

cj maxx

Strawberries, chickens, beef.
Nearly all food producers fly in workers during rush times.

KyussB

Scotty # wrote: »

Kyuss I don't doubt that you know more about this subject than I do but your stance on 'local workers first' is contradicted by the very first paragraph of the relevant page on the official EU website where it states:

Any EU citizen has the same right to work in another EU country as nationals of that country:

• under the same conditions and
• without having to apply for a work permit.

No restrictions – quantitative limits or discriminatory recruitment criteria – can be placed on the recruitment of nationals of other EU countries.

Is the EU website information wrong?

It's a summary of the policies - Freedom of Movement still allows room for limitations in the EU treaties - and we are living through such limitations right now (we don't have Freedom of Movement at the moment).

1o059k7ewrqj3n

cj maxx wrote: »

Strawberries, chickens, beef.
Nearly all food producers fly in workers during rush times.

It's not safe to bring in hundreds of people during a global pandemic. What really riles people is that Keelings know this and pretended to look for workers here, then put on the poor mouth and pointed to 40 applicants in a 2 week window as proof that they had to bring in workers from eastern Europe that they were always going to bring in.

KyussB

blackwhite wrote: »

Pointing to your posting history isn't a character attack - it's there for anyone on this site to see. If you get so upset about people pointing out your posting history then maybe the internet isn't for you?


You've repeatedly claimed that the German case is a precedent that we can follow. When it's pointed out that it isn't a precedent, because we don't have a pre-existing law on our books - the key pillar of why their law was allowed to remain - then you stick your fingers in your ears and just keep claiming "it's a precedent".

You whole M.O. has been to find something that you think supports your political bent, and then ignore anything that contradicts that. Including ignoring when it's pointed out that you've cherry-picked a small element of a case, and are ignoring the fundamental pillar that it rested upon.

You haven't cited anything from my posting history, you've made accusations which you haven't backed up, and claim they represent my posting history - you are lying about my character, saying I argue in bad faith - and you insist on doing that repeatedly. Those are repeated character attacks.

My last post explicitly did not discuss whether Germany provides a legal precedent that we can follow, it used a different legal basis, and you know this:

The protections in Germany are precedent of the types of policies I propose, even without discussing their legal basis - the poster was claiming the UK was the only other example, and that is wrong.

blackwhite wrote: »

Don't whinge about your name being blackened, and then drop to Trump-esque alternative facts like this.

You started off giving out that Keelings weren't offering enough pay for locals to take the work, and then started proposing that laws should be introduced for force them to keep them the cheap foreigners out and instead pay higher wages for the locals.

You're showing yourself up by resorting to such dishonesty TBH

You are claiming that I argued to force companies to accept higher wages - except that is not true, nobody is forcing companies to accept the new market wage when labour protections are put in place.


You are selectively interpreting what you reply to, to favourably paint my post as saying something it did not, and are combining your posts with character attacks - directly lying about my posting history - and demonstrating that you are the dishonest poster, who falls back to character attacks when you can't force your argument through.

If you can't even honestly represent the very post you reply to - then people can see that they can not trust your unbacked accusations/lies about my character, saying I have a bad faith posting history.


Not only that - but this side discussion over your smears, derails discussing anything actually relevant to the topic - leaving me in a position where 1: I either decline to report character attacks, so that I can refute them publicly and back my post, driving the thread off topic, or 2: I have to NOT defend myself from character attacks, so that I can report them (with actioning of stuff like that being very inconsistent - meaning that most of the time if I do this, I have to let lies/smears land).

blinding

Steyr 556 wrote: »

It's not safe to bring in hundreds of people during a global pandemic. What really riles people is that Keelings know this and pretended to look for workers here, then put on the poor mouth and pointed to 40 applicants in a 2 week window as proof that they had to bring in workers from eastern Europe that they were always going to bring in.

You can’t fool all of the People all of the time as Keelings have just found out :eek:

Scotty #

KyussB wrote: »

It's a summary of the policies - Freedom of Movement still allows room for limitations in the EU treaties - and we are living through such limitations right now (we don't have Freedom of Movement at the moment).

Oh, I thought it was EU working rights you were discussing. I haven't really been keeping up to speed with this line of the discussion.

Scotty #

Steyr 556 wrote: »

It's not safe to bring in hundreds of people during a global pandemic. What really riles people is that Keelings know this and pretended to look for workers here, then put on the poor mouth and pointed to 40 applicants in a 2 week window as proof that they had to bring in workers from eastern Europe that they were always going to bring in.

In this case, like many others, necessity trumps safety.

foundation10

Steyr 556 wrote: »

It's not safe to bring in hundreds of people during a global pandemic. What really riles people is that Keelings know this and pretended to look for workers here, then put on the poor mouth and pointed to 40 applicants in a 2 week window as proof that they had to bring in workers from eastern Europe that they were always going to bring in.

I cannot see what Keelings did wrong, 1. perishable product needed to be picked, 2. not enough of workforce available locally which led them to recruit from abroad, 3. They follow the health guidelines on transferring workers to the country, 4. The EU has recognised the need for such workers and approves legislation to facilitate this.

Keelings are being vilifed, and are receiving nothing but bad PR out of this while at the same time abiding the rules and guidelines. SME's are under enough pressure at present without heaping unwarranted bad publicity on such businesses.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

foundation10 wrote: »

I cannot see what Keelings did wrong, 1. perishable product needed to be picked, 2. not enough of workforce available locally which led them to recruit from abroad, 3. They follow the health guidelines on transferring workers to the country, 4. The EU has recognised the need for such workers and approves legislation to facilitate this.

Keelings are vilifed, receiving bad PR and humiliation.

They lied about pretending to conduct an honest recruitment campaign for workers in this state when they already had workers lined up from eastern Europe.

2 weeks to hire hundreds of workers, we are to believe they advertised locally (nobody can find anything but the job spec on the company website, nothing in print media, tv or internet).

To say that hiring workers in eastern Europe was always the practice misses the point. We are not in normal times. We are in a global pandemic and government advice has constantly been isolate and maintain social distancing.

Keelings knew how bad it would look to carry on as normal, that's why they let on to be hiring workers in this state. Nobody takes seriously any company that would need hundreds of workers in this state, give themselves 2 weeks to recruit and hire, zero publicity or advertising and by day 14 have already chartered a flight for 189 people to do the jobs they are advertising for back in Ireland.

People aren't even defending this anymore because it's blatantly transparent what occurred.

Every layer that was peeled back, Keelings looked bad. Packed flight where people cannot socially distance, housed in apartments of 6-8 people.

blackwhite

KyussB wrote: »

You haven't cited anything from my posting history, you've made accusations which you haven't backed up, and claim they represent my posting history - you are lying about my character, saying I argue in bad faith - and you insist on doing that repeatedly. Those are repeated character attacks.

My last post explicitly did not discuss whether Germany provides a legal precedent that we can follow, it used a different legal basis, and you know this:

The protections in Germany are precedent of the types of policies I propose, even without discussing their legal basis - the poster was claiming the UK was the only other example, and that is wrong.

You are claiming that I argued to force companies to accept higher wages - except that is not true, nobody is forcing companies to accept the new market wage when labour protections are put in place.


You are selectively interpreting what you reply to, to favourably paint my post as saying something it did not, and are combining your posts with character attacks - directly lying about my posting history - and demonstrating that you are the dishonest poster, who falls back to character attacks when you can't force your argument through.

If you can't even honestly represent the very post you reply to - then people can see that they can not trust your unbacked accusations/lies about my character, saying I have a bad faith posting history.


Not only that - but this side discussion over your smears, derails discussing anything actually relevant to the topic - leaving me in a position where 1: I either decline to report character attacks, so that I can refute them publicly and back my post, driving the thread off topic, or 2: I have to NOT defend myself from character attacks, so that I can report them (with actioning of stuff like that being very inconsistent - meaning that most of the time if I do this, I have to let lies/smears land).

Post history is there for anyone to read and make their own judgement on.

You've repeatedly claimed - we can do this and held up the ECJ ruling in relation to Germany as evidence that it would be allowed.
When posters point out why the German judgement was grounded in a pre-existing regulation, you now lie and claim otherwise. Bad-faith shifting the goalposts to keep soapboxing the latest hobby-horse.

Unfortunately - that post history that you seem to anxious to have erased from people's memories catches you out again.

KyussB wrote: »

Read the posts. It has been tested in court - and Germany got a ruling upholding their labour market protections, that are very similar to the ones I advocate.

It's a part of the EU treaties, which Germany already make use of - not an afterthought/loophole.

KyussB

blackwhite wrote: »

Post history is there for anyone to read and make their own judgement on.

You've repeatedly claimed - we can do this and held up the ECJ ruling in relation to Germany as evidence that it would be allowed.
When posters point out why the German judgement was grounded in a pre-existing regulation, you now lie and claim otherwise. Bad-faith shifting the goalposts to keep soapboxing the latest hobby-horse.

Unfortunately - that post history that you seem to anxious to have erased from people's memories catches you out again.

You're making claims of historical bad faith posting, to attack my character - it's on you to back up what you're saying - and you can't. Cite these alleged posts from the other subforum - and if you can't, then retract the claim.


I explicitly said - twice now, with this being the third time - that I am not using Germany as a legal precedent now (I did earlier and am not now), that I am using them as an example of the type of policies I am proposing (because another poster said the UK was the only other example of such policies) - and that I am using a different legal basis for the policies I propose.

You can only be wilfully and dishonestly ignoring that. You are only demonstrating yourself as being the dishonest poster - from direct examples in your present replies.

Beasty

KyussB and blackwhite

Do not post in this thread again

Alrigghtythen

Steyr 556 wrote: »

They lied about pretending to conduct an honest recruitment campaign for workers in this state when they already had workers lined up from eastern Europe.

2 weeks to hire hundreds of workers, we are to believe they advertised locally (nobody can find anything but the job spec on the company website, nothing in print media, tv or internet).

To say that hiring workers in eastern Europe was always the practice misses the point. We are not in normal times. We are in a global pandemic and government advice has constantly been isolate and maintain social distancing.

Keelings knew how bad it would look to carry on as normal, that's why they let on to be hiring workers in this state. Nobody takes seriously any company that would need hundreds of workers in this state, give themselves 2 weeks to recruit and hire, zero publicity or advertising and by day 14 have already chartered a flight for 189 people to do the jobs they are advertising for back in Ireland.

People aren't even defending this anymore because it's blatantly transparent what occurred.

Every layer that was peeled back, Keelings looked bad. Packed flight where people cannot socially distance, housed in apartments of 6-8 people.

Is their website not on the internet?

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Is their website not on the internet?

A counter argument as short as it is lazy.

Look at this way. I have a product to sell. I’ll set up a website and display prices (well maybe not pay rates as was the case with Keelings). I won’t advertise the website. I won’t worrying about SEO, visibility etc. Surely the product will sell, after all there’s thousands of potential customers online (in this case, thousand of unemployed workers in this state).

I won’t worry about the possibly thousands not on the Internet, I’m just concentrating on the Internet. Surely the right customers will find me?

If you find yourself nodding away in agreement with this plan so far then I know exactly who you are working for and I’ll tell you right now, you’re stealing a living.

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

wonski

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Is their website not on the internet?

Jobs.ie and the likes he meant obviously.

I doubt anyone is looking at websites of each of hundreds of food companies etc when looking for a job, not to mention that most of them are barely up to date most of the time.

Recruitment agencies and jobs.ie are two main mediums for this type of work.

Alrigghtythen

Steyr 556 wrote: »

A counter argument as short as it is lazy.

Look at this way. I have a product to sell. I’ll set up a website and display prices (well maybe not pay rates as was the case with Keelings). I won’t advertise the website. I won’t worrying about SEO, visibility etc. Surely the product will sell, after all there’s thousands of potential customers online (in this case, thousand of unemployed workers in this state).

I won’t worry about the possibly thousands not on the Internet, I’m just concentrating on the Internet. Surely the right customers will find me?

If you find yourself nodding away in agreement with this plan so far then I know exactly who you are working for and I’ll tell you right now, you’re stealing a living.

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Lol, I'm stealing a living. I'm not the one on the internet full time all week bitching about other people working while collecting my 350 for nought but posting on boards. Lol, the arrogance of some people

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Lol, I'm stealing a living. I'm not the one on the internet full time all week bitching about other people working while collecting my 350 for nought but posting on boards. Lol, the arrogance of some people

Everything you said can be applied to yourself.

Kivaro

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Lol, I'm stealing a living. I'm not the one on the internet full time all week bitching about other people working while collecting my 350 for nought but posting on boards. Lol, the arrogance of some people

You're right.
It's not like you have 261 posts alone on this 8-day-old thread. :pac:

You do realise that there are many, many people on here who believe that the Keeling family were wrong to import workers from Bulgaria in the middle of a deadly pandemic in this country, who are still working and not receiving the Covid payment. It seems you accuse every poster who disagrees with you as either a racist or collecting the Covid payment.
That is a very strange debating tactic, and I'm sure that the Keeling family would be upset with this type of support.

Graham

Kivaro wrote: »

You do realise that there are many, many people on here who believe that the Keeling family were wrong to import workers from Bulgaria in the middle of a deadly pandemic in this country

and there are many, many people that think food production is essential particularly in the middle of a deadly global pandemic.

Bass Reeves

Kivaro wrote: »

You do realise that there are many, many people on here who believe that the Keeling family were wrong to import workers from Bulgaria in the middle of a deadly pandemic in this country, who are still working and not receiving the Covid payment. .

These are essential workers they are going to be picking strawberries for my porridge in a few days.

jluv

Graham wrote: »

and there are many, many people that think food production is essential particularly in the middle of a deadly global pandemic.

And then there are many people who recognise that food production is important but only when conducted in a healthy and safe way.

2u2me

Let's be honest; no-one will starve without strawberries. How is this even essential? Look at societies acted during war and you'll see what's truly essential. Fines were imposed on people found feeding food to animals.

Now to extend that argument and say that it is so essential that we need bulgarian workers is ridiculous.

Truffles are a food; are they also essential?

dockysher

Irish people are lazy when it comes to low paid manual labour.
Bulgarians are needed and strawberries are needed as much as supermacs is