FF/FG/Green Next Government

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

And are getting the legal amount of redundancy payment.

Which they dispute.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which they dispute.

Why? Because they’re greedy. They’re doing themselves a disservice by continuing their action. Who would employ them after this?

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm all for businesses coming and going Truth, but not if they are trampling on people with the connivance of those in power.

Your scaremongering 'the state will collapse' protection racket is as bad as political connivance with big business. Calm down lad or lassie.

Who is being trampled on? Debenhams went bust. Everyone lost. Workers do better than anyone else as preferential creditors (with the added guarantee of the insolvency fund)

Problem seems to be that as with many populist idealogues you are frantically trying to sell the idea that some chosen group (the workers" in this case) are entitled to money but with no conception of where this money is to come from or who it belongs to.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? Because they’re greedy. They’re doing themselves a disservice by continuing their action. Who would employ them after this?

Truthvader wrote: »

Who is being trampled on? Debenhams went bust. Everyone lost. Workers do better than anyone else as preferential creditors (with the added guarantee of the insolvency fund)

Problem seems to be that as with many populist idealogues you are frantically trying to sell the idea that some chosen group (the workers" in this case) are entitled to money but with no conception of where this money is to come from or who it belongs to.

Debenham's who are 'broke' apparently, found another million to offer. Two things strike me about that...are they really 'broke' and why would you offer another Million if you are right?

I am happy to allow the workers protest here and see how it plays out.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Debenham's who are 'broke' apparently, found another million to offer. Two things strike me about that...are they really 'broke' and why would you offer another Million if you are right?

I am happy to allow the workers protest here and see how it plays out.

Debenhams found money at someone else’s expense. BTW They’re not workers. They’ve been made redundant.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Debenhams found money at someone else’s expense. BTW They’re not workers. They’ve been made redundant.

How do you know/trust this info...have you a link verifying it?

Debenham's saying it isn't 'verification' btw.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Debenham's who are 'broke' apparently, found another million to offer. Two things strike me about that...are they really 'broke' and why would you offer another Million if you are right?

I am happy to allow the workers protest here and see how it plays out.

This is approaching Bowie levels of wilful incomprehension. No-one "found" another million. That is not how the process works. There is a finite amount of money and a liquidator will try to realise the maximum return from the wreckage. And may even give into a bit of extortion in the overall interest of a greater return

Fact remains that the workers are "emtitled" to nothing more than they have already secured. Anything extra comes fro money due to some other creditor in the liquidation. If you feel the workers deserve more why dont you pop down to Jervis Street and give them a couple of hundred Euro. Or is it the case, as ever, that they are entitled to some one elses money. Not yours.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

This is approaching Bowie levels of wilful incomprehension. No-one "found" another million. That is not how the process works. There is a finite amount of money and a liquidator will try to realise the maximum return from the wreckage. And may even give into a bit of extortion in the overall interest of a greater return

Fact remains that the workers are "emtitled" to nothing more than they have already secured. Anything extra comes fro money due to some other creditor in the liquidation. If you feel the workers deserve more why dont you pop down to Jervis Street and give them a couple of hundred Euro. Or is it the case, as ever, that they are entitled to some one elses money. Not yours.

I don't 'feel' anything other than they have a right to protest their grievance. Nobody is stopping KPMG taking this into a court.


We'll see.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't 'feel' anything other than they have a right to protest their grievance. Nobody is stopping KPMG taking this into a court.


We'll see.

Hurray! Think we finally agree. KPMG wont go near Court. Firstly they simply dont care about any of the creditors. They're only concern will be their own fees. They know if the go near Court they will just attract attention and aggro from the likes of Bowie, Boyd Barrett and Sinn Fein "activists". Why expose yourself to that? My guess is that they will throw the file under a radiator for 6 months leave " the workers" standing around in the rain for the Winter, write off the value of the stock or sell it at a big discount to a purchaser willing to litigate access or force their way in, pay themselves and distribute any crumbs remaining to whoever is entitled

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Hurray! Think we finally agree. KPMG wont go near Court. Firstly they simply dont care about any of the creditors. They're only concern will be their own fees. They know if the go near Court they will just attract attention and aggro from the likes of Bowie, Boyd Barrett and Sinn Fein "activists". Why expose yourself to that? My guess is that they will throw the file under a radiator for 6 months leave " the workers" standing around in the rain for the Winter, write off the value of the stock or sell it at a big discount to a purchaser willing to litigate access or force their way in, pay themselves and distribute any crumbs remaining to whoever is entitled

Finally 'agree'? How do you figure that?

Are you completely unaware in your ranting about the shinners under your bed that the Taoiseach also thinks these workers have been treated badly?

Try informing yourself about what is actually happening.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Finally 'agree'? How do you figure that?

Are you completely unaware in your ranting about the shinners under your bed that the Taoiseach also thinks these workers have been treated badly?

Try informing yourself about what is actually happening.

There’s no doubt that, morally, they were treated pretty shabbily. But, financially, they ARE getting their rights.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s no doubt that, morally, they were treated pretty shabbily. But, financially, they ARE getting their rights.

So, when people are treated shabbily do you normally side with those who did the shabby treatment? Morally, are they right to protest?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, when people are treated shabbily do you normally side with those who did the shabby treatment? Morally, are they right to protest?

They’re on a hiding to nothing. Their jobs are gone. The business is gone. The fact remains that they are getting their monetary rights. Wages, holiday pay and statutory redundancy.

antimatterx

FF on 4% in the latest polls.

https://twitter.com/theharrymcc/status/1305131184700096512?s=21

Yurt2

antimatterx wrote: »

FF on 4% in the latest polls.

https://twitter.com/theharrymcc/status/1305131184700096512?s=21

4% in Dublin only it should be said. But still, that's absolutely extraordinary. Depending on the timing of the election, it could kill off the party for good. No talent coming through; party and public don't know what they're about; can't shake a toxic image from the economic collapse; listless and completely at sea.

FrancieBrady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They’re on a hiding to nothing. Their jobs are gone. The business is gone. The fact remains that they are getting their monetary rights. Wages, holiday pay and statutory redundancy.

The fact remains they dispute that.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fact remains they dispute that.

Are you suggesting that they are not getting their wages, holiday pay AND 2 weeks redundancy pay? There was me thinking that they are getting all that but want more?

Muahahaha

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Unsurprisingly FG are the most popular party in the country. A ringing endorsement.

Some people have very short memories, FG topped the polls 3 weeks out from the last election and then on polling day they ended up with their second worst election result in their history.

FrancieBrady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they are not getting their wages, holiday pay AND 2 weeks redundancy pay? There was me thinking that they are getting all that but want more?

They had a deal which the company walked away from.
That is why the Taoiseach thinks they have been badly treated.
Yourself and Truth seem to ignore this.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had a deal which the company walked away from.
That is why the Taoiseach thinks they have been badly treated.
Yourself and Truth seem to ignore this.

What deal? The company only owes them wages, holiday pay and statutory redundancy. This is what they are getting.

They were treated badly in that the company announced its closure during the Covid lockdown.

Edgware

Yurt! wrote: »

4% in Dublin only it should be said. But still, that's absolutely extraordinary. Depending on the timing of the election, it could kill off the party for good. No talent coming through; party and public don't know what they're about; can't shake a toxic image from the economic collapse; listless and completely at sea.

Come back in 4 years time when we have an election

L1011

The weird thing with FF in 2011 was that they never really went below 10% even in Dublin - they got 10-15% (and no transfers after that of course) in Dublin

Their core vote in Dublin has left (or died, being honest) basically. They're now reliant on swing votes like everyone else.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had a deal which the company walked away from.
That is why the Taoiseach thinks they have been badly treated.
Yourself and Truth seem to ignore this.

This is simply untrue. Regardless of whatever yourself and Leo think they have already been offered what they are entitled to . Their employer is not their Mammy. Actually Declan de Lacy (experienced Liquidator) was on Radio one yesterday morning explaining it all. Maybe check out the podcast and educate yourself before posting foolishness. I cant seem to penetrate whatever barrier you have erected to reality

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

This is simply untrue. Regardless of whatever yourself and Leo think they have already been offered what they are entitled to . Their employer is not their Mammy. Actually Declan de Lacy (experienced Liquidator) was on Radio one yesterday morning explaining it all. Maybe check out the podcast and educate yourself before posting foolishness. I cant seem to penetrate whatever barrier you have erected to reality

I never said they hadn't been offered the statutory terms.
You need to stop taking the liquidators word as gospel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40047692.html%3ftype=amp

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said they hadn't been offered the statutory terms.
You need to stop taking the liquidators word as gospel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40047692.html%3ftype=amp

OK I give up you too. You can take your information from Pearse Doherty or Angus O'Snodaigh or whatever flake takes your fancy who will obviously know so much more than me or an experienced liquidator. Good luck with that.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said they hadn't been offered the statutory terms.
You need to stop taking the liquidators word as gospel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40047692.html%3ftype=amp

Then WHY are they protesting? WHY are they ruining their chances of future employment? WHY are they trying to deprive other creditors of a fair payment?

I wonder how many former employees are actually protesting? Reference has been made to their “Supporters”. Mainly Trades Union and Socialist party members.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Then WHY are they protesting? WHY are they ruining their chances of future employment? WHY are they trying to deprive other creditors of a fair payment?

I wonder how many former employees are actually protesting? Reference has been made to their “Supporters”. Mainly Trades Union and Socialist party members.

And the Taoiseach, who thinks they were treated badly.

Kinda ruins the 'themuns' rant a little doesn't it?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the Taoiseach, who thinks they were treated badly.

Kinda ruins the 'themuns' rant a little doesn't it?

I’m sure that we all think that they were treated shi**y by closing the business during lockdown. Not in their redundancy settlement.

Don’t understand “themuns”?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the Taoiseach, who thinks they were treated badly.

Kinda ruins the 'themuns' rant a little doesn't it?

Again, you completely misunderstand reality.

The workers are getting what they are entitled to.

That is the bare minimum. Anyone is entitled to hold the view that an employer like Debenhams giving the bare minimum is treating them badly. However, that doesn't mean they are "entitled" to more. You are the second poster on here who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word entitlement.

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

As before either Bowie doesn't understand the process or else he is following the standard Sinn Fein strategy of championing "the workers" regardless of truth or facts as part of the sleazy populist strategy to con thickos into voting for them on the "free houses and money for everyone" promise. They certainly will "break the free state" if let. And the big losers will be the very "workers" who vote for them when they find that all the jobs are gone because investors no longer want to risk their money in a trick shop failed state

I've no idea what SF's stance is. I'm not any party's blind shill. I'd actually read a piece by Joan Collins on it. You need broaden your scope it might inform you better and you could take a break from SF being behind everything anyone does or says that you don't understand so don't like.
Championing the workers is a great thing. You have this theme of looking down on workers, tax payers. Do you not find that counter productive societally speaking?
Now you're off on a 'poor working people bad' rant.