FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting what you are talking(?) about. You should really read up on something before you comment.
Why should the workers be deprived so other creditors can get more?

Varadkar was wrong. It was pointed out, but ignore that and have a dig at Coppinger sure...

Expect I know very considerably more than you about liquidations and creditor priority. Maybe try a bit of reading yourself. I did no suggest workers should be deprived of anything. The position is the reverse. If workers get money to which they are not entitled to some who is entitled to that money loses. Unless you have a magic Sinn Fein money tree in which case we can all become "community activists" and draw money forever.

Truthvader

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Yawn

Leo stated it was not a tactical liquidation. The company has £95m in its bank account, it assetstripped the Irish online business, it "can't pay" redundancy yet it's not tactical says Leo.

Ah.... OK I get it now. Its the standard Sinn Fein economic theory. Someone else has more money than you so you are obviously entitled to some of their money. In this case someone else has £65 mill so obviously we are all entitled to big chunk of that.

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

Expect I know very considerably more than you about liquidations and creditor priority. Maybe try a bit of reading yourself. I did no suggest workers should be deprived of anything. The position is the reverse. If workers get money to which they are not entitled to some who is entitled to that money loses. Unless you have a magic Sinn Fein money tree in which case we can all become "community activists" and draw money forever.

Except you don't know the details on this.
They are fighting for what they are entitled to. Varadkar was stating, and you were suggesting, that the money wasn't there, it is.
And you end with further ignorance on the matter. Nobody suggested such a thing.
No idea what SF has to do with this, another example of lack of knowledge on your part. Blindly digging out at Coppinger for pointing out Varadkar was wrong and at SF because, sure why not...

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

Except you don't know the details on this.
They are fighting for what they are entitled to. Varadkar was stating, and you were suggesting, that the money wasn't there, it is.
And you end with further ignorance on the matter. Nobody suggested such a thing.
No idea what SF has to do with this, another example of lack of knowledge on your part. Blindly digging out at Coppinger for pointing out Varadkar was wrong and at SF because, sure why not...

OK simple question. The workers want more money. Whose money do you think they should get?

dundalkfc10

https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/1303765776558706688?s=19

No more testing at the meat plants, nothing to see in them

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

OK simple question. The workers want more money. Whose money do you think they should get?

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

blanch152

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/1303765776558706688?s=19

No more testing at the meat plants, nothing to see in them

Matt Carthy wants to keep testing at meat plants where there are no more cases, instead of testing health workers where there are cases.

Have I got it right?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

Ok, who owns the stock? Do you think Debenhams have paid for that stock? Do you want to rob the businesses that supplied the stock and see their workers lose out? Because that is what your suggestion will result in. What’s more, those workers are probably in somewhere like Bangladesh and don’t have access to the €350 a week that the IrIsh taxpayer will give the Debenhams workers, in fact some of them will probably starve to death if their business doesn’t get paid, but you and Ruth don’t care about them, don’t care about what’s correct, only care about scoring political points against Leo, don’t care about what’s right or wrong, and ultimately don’t care about the Debenham workers either, who are just tools in your political nonsense.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, who owns the stock? Do you think Debenhams have paid for that stock? Do you want to rob the businesses that supplied the stock and see their workers lose out? Because that is what your suggestion will result in. What’s more, those workers are probably in somewhere like Bangladesh and don’t have access to the €350 a week that the IrIsh taxpayer will give the Debenhams workers, in fact some of them will probably starve to death if their business doesn’t get paid, but you and Ruth don’t care about them, don’t care about what’s correct, only care about scoring political points against Leo, don’t care about what’s right or wrong, and ultimately don’t care about the Debenham workers either, who are just tools in your political nonsense.

FYI: Leo isn't that important.
Are you suggesting every penny from the stock will go back to the manufacturer and the sweat shop workers will benefit?
Its common knowledge to everyone except those pretending so as to save Varadkar's blushes, the stock is to be sold, so 'now' you know this to be the case has your view changed? Varadkar was wrong, there is money there. The workers are owed too.
Seems to me neither FG or their supporters have the working tax payer in mind. These workers are the very people the party and minister use for spin, people who like to get up early in the morning. Now because these tax payers lost their jobs through no fault of their own they are to be scorned because they may avail of state payments due to them and to be suggested as being selfish all because they want their due. Thats a convenient and shameful stance to take on these workers just to defend the inaction and elitest attitude of FG and idiocy of Varadkar (on this matter).
It's about ethics and belief in fair play, not the team. Just because FG's ethics are for sale doesn't mean the rest of us are as bereft of them as FG, specifically Varadkar, seem to be.

PommieBast

Bowie wrote: »

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

The irony is that as preferential creditors, employees are quite likely the only ones who will get anything at all. Suppliers and customers are completely shafted.

PommieBast

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, who owns the stock? Do you think Debenhams have paid for that stock?

Even if Debenhams do own it, its not going to be liquidated for list price. It will be fire sale.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

FYI: Leo isn't that important.
Are you suggesting every penny from the stock will go back to the manufacturer and the sweat shop workers will benefit?
Its common knowledge to everyone except those pretending so as to save Varadkar's blushes, the stock is to be sold, so 'now' you know this to be the case has your view changed? Varadkar was wrong, there is money there. The workers are owed too.
Seems to me neither FG or their supporters have the working tax payer in mind. These workers are the very people the party and minister use for spin, people who like to get up early in the morning. Now because these tax payers lost their jobs through no fault of their own they are to be scorned because they may avail of state payments due to them and to be suggested as being selfish all because they want their due. Thats a convenient and shameful stance to take on these workers just to defend the inaction and elitest attitude of FG and idiocy of Varadkar (on this matter).
It's about ethics and belief in fair play, not the team. Just because FG's ethics are for sale doesn't mean the rest of us are as bereft of them as FG, specifically Varadkar, seem to be.

Leo isn't that important, huh? Really?

Yet your complete infatuation with Leo leads you to mention him or his party nine further times in the short post about Debenhams workers. It is getting more than a little strange the way you can't discuss a single topic without somehow bringing Leo into it, yet you amazingly start of a post saying he isn't that important. Well, stop talking about him if he isn't that important.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were at home sticking needles into a voodoo doll of Leo.

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

Not correct. They want money they are not "due". They just want more money. The question remains "Whose money do you think they should get? As pointed out below they are already ranked ahead of other creditors

StackSteevens

My thoughts on the current Debenhams situation, provoked by Meehawl's weasel words on Morning Ireland. He had a glorious opportunity to spell out the reality of the situation to the workers, as gently as he liked, but, unlike Leo, he funked it and waffled.

Firstly the standard words of sympathy for the workers - they are unfortunate to be among the many in the retail sector who have lost their jobs in the recent past. But they are no more or no less unfortunate than any of the other retail workers who have lost their jobs.

Furthermore, whether they like it or not, they are not entitled to any form of State-funded special treatment (something that Meehawl, to be fair to him, did point out on RTE.) In short, their legal right (or entitlement) is for statutory redundancy. No more and no less. (Their moral right may be for much more, but that's neither here nor there.) And their demand for a redundancy arrangement that existed five years ago to be reintroduced by an entity that no longer exists (Debenhams Ireland), or by the Liquidator seems completely futile. The money just isn't there and, even it it was, the liquidator can't just spend it in whatever way he wants to.

Next, Mandate had evidently been working very hard with the Liquidator to arrange some sort of a deal which would get the workers a better deal, but as soon as the details emerged, the 'strikers' (can one be "on strike" when one's employer no longer exists?) instantly rejected it out of hand. Naturally, the liquidator immediately withdrew the offer and, after the recent occupations, I doubt that he'll be too keen to bring it back. What delusion (or what advice from faceless string pullers in the background) led the workers to believe that they'll be able to get a better deal than their paid negotiators could achieve?

The main asset available to the liquidator to finance any extra pay for the workers appears to be the stock in the stores. And as this stock ages and deteriorates and as fashions change, the value of this asset is rapidly diminishing, meaning that the pool of funds available to share with the workers is reducing. The workers have blockaded access to this diminishing asset for the past number of months, thereby, for me, shooting themselves in the foot.

I can't see any happy ending to this sorry tale. So who has most to lose?

Well, the liquidator will get his fees so he'll be OK. And the workers will end up with statutory redundancy, which is what they were entitled to from day one, so arguably they haven't lost anything, other than 5 months of their working lives.

The reduction in asset value will mean that the funds available to the liquidator to pay creditors will be much less than would have been the case had the blockade not occurred. I don't know whether at the end of the day the liquidator will end up with sufficient funds to pay off the preferential creditors in full, but if he doesn't then the unfortunate 'ordinary' creditors won't get a single cent. I also don't know whether he'll decide that he needs to injunct anyone, but if he does, then his legal costs will also have to come out of the creditors' pot.

It's very hard to see how the workers can achieve any positive outcome from this scenario.

One other thing that has struck me is the possibility that the workers' actions over the past 5 months will mean that they may have made themselves less employable in the retail sector, where the supply of workers greatly exceeds the demand. If I'm right, this may mean that many of them will never find employment in retail again. Which is sad. Of course, the many left wing politicians who have supported them during this strike - when wiser counsel might have led to a more favourable outcome - will remain safe in their Dáil seats, ready to embark on their next quixotic crusade in support of the workers.

Over and out.

blanch152

StackSteevens wrote: »

My thoughts on the current Debenhams situation, provoked by Meehawl's weasel words on Morning Ireland. He had a glorious opportunity to spell out the reality of the situation to the workers, as gently as he liked, but, unlike Leo, he funked it and waffled.

Firstly the standard words of sympathy for the workers - they are unfortunate to be among the many in the retail sector who have lost their jobs in the recent past. But they are no more or no less unfortunate than any of the other retail workers who have lost their jobs.

Furthermore, whether they like it or not, they are not entitled to any form of State-funded special treatment (something that Meehawl, to be fair to him, did point out on RTE.) In short, their legal right (or entitlement) is for statutory redundancy. No more and no less. (Their moral right may be for much more, but that's neither here nor there.) And their demand for a redundancy arrangement that existed five years ago to be reintroduced by an entity that no longer exists (Debenhams Ireland), or by the Liquidator seems completely futile. The money just isn't there and, even it it was, the liquidator can't just spend it in whatever way he wants to.

Next, Mandate had evidently been working very hard with the Liquidator to arrange some sort of a deal which would get the workers a better deal, but as soon as the details emerged, the 'strikers' (can one be "on strike" when one's employer no longer exists?) instantly rejected it out of hand. Naturally, the liquidator immediately withdrew the offer and, after the recent occupations, I doubt that he'll be too keen to bring it back. What delusion (or what advice from faceless string pullers in the background) led the workers to believe that they'll be able to get a better deal than their paid negotiators could achieve?

The main asset available to the liquidator to finance any extra pay for the workers appears to be the stock in the stores. And as this stock ages and deteriorates and as fashions change, the value of this asset is rapidly diminishing, meaning that the pool of funds available to share with the workers is reducing. The workers have blockaded access to this diminishing asset for the past number of months, thereby, for me, shooting themselves in the foot.

I can't see any happy ending to this sorry tale. So who has most to lose?

Well, the liquidator will get his fees so he'll be OK. And the workers will end up with statutory redundancy, which is what they were entitled to from day one, so arguably they haven't lost anything, other than 5 months of their working lives.

The reduction in asset value will mean that the funds available to the liquidator to pay creditors will be much less than would have been the case had the blockade not occurred. I don't know whether at the end of the day the liquidator will end up with sufficient funds to pay off the preferential creditors in full, but if he doesn't then the unfortunate 'ordinary' creditors won't get a single cent. I also don't know whether he'll decide that he needs to injunct anyone, but if he does, then his legal costs will also have to come out of the creditors' pot.

It's very hard to see how the workers can achieve any positive outcome from this scenario.

One other thing that has struck me is the possibility that the workers' actions over the past 5 months will mean that they may have made themselves less employable in the retail sector, where the supply of workers greatly exceeds the demand. If I'm right, this may mean that many of them will never find employment in retail again. Which is sad. Of course, the many left wing politicians who have supported them during this strike - when wiser counsel might have led to a more favourable outcome - will remain safe in their Dáil seats, ready to embark on their next quixotic crusade in support of the workers.

Over and out.

One of the main agitators behind the scenes was Ruth Coppinger, bitter at losing out in the last general election. Driven by her personal bitterness of exclusion by the electorate, she does not have any interest in the welfare of the staff.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

One of the main agitators behind the scenes was Ruth Coppinger, bitter at losing out in the last general election. Driven by her personal bitterness of exclusion by the electorate, she does not have any interest in the welfare of the staff.

Sure Varadkar is bitter himself with the 5th count humiliation. Maybe that's why he's so angry all the time.

markodaly

StackSteevens wrote: »

One other thing that has struck me is the possibility that the workers' actions over the past 5 months will mean that they may have made themselves less employable in the retail sector, where the supply of workers greatly exceeds the demand. If I'm right, this may mean that many of them will never find employment in retail again. Which is sad. Of course, the many left wing politicians who have supported them during this strike - when wiser counsel might have led to a more favourable outcome - will remain safe in their Dáil seats, ready to embark on their next quixotic crusade in support of the workers.

Over and out.

Irish left wing politics is dominated by a 'scorthed earth' narrative. They usually want all their demands to be met which always ends in failure. See Paul Murphy and RBB as prime examples. Like, what have their every achieved really?

The old Debenham workers were marched up the garden path on this one and will be left hung out to dry by those who uses them as pawns in a bigger game.

StackSteevens

smurgen wrote: »

Sure Varadkar is bitter himself with the 5th count humiliation. Maybe that's why he's so angry all the time.

I'm not as good at the auld sums as you seem to be, but I would have thought that the key objective of running in any election is to be elected, hence, the count at which one achieves that objective isn't all that important.

Whatever way one looks at it, seems to me that we could summarise the grudge match between Varadkar and Coppinger by agreeing that the final score was 1 - 0.

Truthvader

blanch152 wrote: »

One of the main agitators behind the scenes was Ruth Coppinger, bitter at losing out in the last general election. Driven by her personal bitterness of exclusion by the electorate, she does not have any interest in the welfare of the staff.

Agree the workers re being led a merry dance by the likes of Coppinger.

The Liquidator will only care there is enough money to pay himself and creditors of every rank will not cause him 30 seconds concern. His only job is to get the assets in and realise their value. He might be open to a bit of extortion to realise value but expect he could happily throw the file behind a radiator for a couple of months and wait for the blockade to die in the Winter

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

Sure Varadkar is bitter himself with the 5th count humiliation. Maybe that's why he's so angry all the time.

That shows limited short-term thinking.

In Dublin West, FG have identified a young female candidate, Emer Currie, married with kids, working from home, from a good lineage, and the objective of the campaign was to build her profile with a view to eventually taking two seats in a general election or two. That they did to some extent, but not to the lengths that they wished. They have continued since the election, making her a Senator.

If Varadkar had identified the ideal outcome from the last election, it would have been him being the third elected and Currie the fourth, with a fairly evenly spread first preference total between them. That neither you nor many of the other posters who have scorned Varadkar for the fifth count situation understand this vagary of our system of PR says a lot.

dundalkfc10

When asked about testing in the Meath Plants, LV reply was what about the Martin Storey funeral.

Relentless in not answering questions

blanch152

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

When asked about testing in the Meath Plants, LV reply was what about the Martin Storey funeral.

Relentless in not answering questions

Amazing that the Bobby Storey funeral is still making headlines on radio, tv and newspapers months later.

It hasn't gone away you know.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

Amazing that the Martin Storey funeral is still making headlines on radio, tv and newspapers months later.

It hasn't gone away you know.

What has that got to do with, when LV was asked a specific question on why testing was stopped in meat plants, without hesitatating or saying anything else he mentioned the Bobbey Storey funeral in his 1st words in reply.

No its not going away, He will be a hero to many people for generations. Just like SF are not going away.

JohnnyFlash

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

What has that got to do with, when LV was asked a specific question on why testing was stopped in meat plants, without hesitatating or saying anything else he mentioned the Martin Storey funeral in his 1st words in reply.

No its not going away, He will be a hero to many people for generations. Just like SF are not going away.

The dude's name was Bobby. And he was a murderous sociopath. Martin Storey was part of the last Wexford team to win an AI.

smurgen

This aged well.

"What can happen in some hospitals is sometimes, when they have more beds and more resources, that's what kind of slows it down."

When asked why, he replied: "Because they [hospital staff] don't feel as much under pressure.

"When a hospital is very crowded, there will be a real push to make sure people get their x-rays, get their tests and, you know, 'lets get them out in four days.'

With all that pressure now they must be working exceedingly well. A true visionary Leo is.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/more-hospital-beds-can-slow-down-staff-claims-minister-leo-varadkar-34430062.html?__twitter_impression=true

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Leo isn't that important, huh? Really?

Yet your complete infatuation with Leo leads you to mention him or his party nine further times in the short post about Debenhams workers. It is getting more than a little strange the way you can't discuss a single topic without somehow bringing Leo into it, yet you amazingly start of a post saying he isn't that important. Well, stop talking about him if he isn't that important.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were at home sticking needles into a voodoo doll of Leo.

Look, I get you want to deflect entirely from the issue to get back to the obsessed with Violet Leo yarn and that's cool, but I'm not interested.
LV was the one gave the interview which was countered by the article quoted on here, which ignited this discussion. That being LV was wrong.
It followed with an attack on Coppinger for correcting Varadkar and later on Coppinger and myself.
Leo is being raised in context and on topic. You should really try it.
If he wasn't constantly making an arse of himself he wouldn't come up so much.

blanch152 wrote: »

One of the main agitators behind the scenes was Ruth Coppinger, bitter at losing out in the last general election. Driven by her personal bitterness of exclusion by the electorate, she does not have any interest in the welfare of the staff.

The issue is what's important not that LV or Coppinger are players.
Your comments here are childish and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I will make a clarification. Not all FG supporters lack ethics. I know some very decent FG'ers who won't flip on issues depending on which party gaffe or err they might feel obliged to defend.

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

Not correct. They want money they are not "due". They just want more money. The question remains "Whose money do you think they should get? As pointed out below they are already ranked ahead of other creditors

You're slipping and sliding all over the place. I appreciate you are learning as you go but it would be best practice to know the details before wading in.

It's 'whose money' now rather than 'what'. The same money to be derived from the sale of stock.
Why the need to pitch the idea of sides with the workers being the less deserving? Tax paying workers are the blood of the economy. They shouldn't be scorned or discarded when on hard times IMO.

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

This aged well.

"What can happen in some hospitals is sometimes, when they have more beds and more resources, that's what kind of slows it down."

When asked why, he replied: "Because they [hospital staff] don't feel as much under pressure.

"When a hospital is very crowded, there will be a real push to make sure people get their x-rays, get their tests and, you know, 'lets get them out in four days.'

With all that pressure now they must be working exceedingly well. A true visionary Leo is.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/more-hospital-beds-can-slow-down-staff-claims-minister-leo-varadkar-34430062.html?__twitter_impression=true

A very Tory attitude.

smurgen

Bowie wrote: »

A very Tory attitude.

It's nonsense of the highest order. We laugh at trump and johnson as they're obviously moron's but if you pay attention to LV you'll realize that a lot of what he says makes absolutely no sense.

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

You're slipping and sliding all over the place. I appreciate you are learning as you go but it would be best practice to know the details before wading in.

It's 'whose money' now rather than 'what'. The same money to be derived from the sale of stock.
Why the need to pitch the idea of sides with the workers being the less deserving? Tax paying workers are the blood of the economy. They shouldn't be scorned or discarded when on hard times IMO.

Seems no point in pursuing this. Either deliberately or due to some education gap you do not appear to understand the matter. Suffice to say at this stage that stupidly bleating that money will come from "sale of stock" ignores the issue as to who is rightfully entitled to the proceeds of "sale of stock". The "sale of stock" money rightfully belongs to someone else. Workers are not in fact less deserving but already rank in priority as a preferential creditor so are already favoured

Maybe do the bit of reading you foolishly advised me to do before posting nonsense