Farmers protest

PhilipMarlowe

Originally posted by Cork
Farmers have a right to protest. They need tractors to carry out the business of farming. I am sure some farmers have 02 tractors are some city dwellers have 03 cars. These vehicles may be on lease or borrowed for.

I know the comment about 02 tractors wasn't yours Cork...

But, do people berate a video-editor person for having a shiney new computer? Or a surgeon for having a new scalpel?
There is a huge difference in having a required tool to do your job and what is mostly a luxury item like a car.
Unless your job is driving for a living, a 10 year old car would do...
You think a farmer spends 100k on a massively depreciating vehicle like a tractor because he thinks it makes his arse look big?

Waylander

Lads, at the end of the day in ANY other industry if the work is not there people are forced to move to a different sector. The farmers have got so used to special treatment that now they think it is a divine right. As regards the 300 tractors, I heard that they were only allowed bring in 300 tractors, not that they were doing this out of the kindness of their own hearts. I do have some sympathy for the farmers plight, but the IT industry is going through a similar downturn now. Should the government start paying out of work IT Consultants exhorbatant salaries now, because that is what they are used to? Double standards p*ss me off.

Originally posted by gurramok
Also as diesel is getting more expensive these days, farmers must have alot of money to travel the length and breadth of country in their '02 tractors !

Actually afaik, the IFA is coughing up for all the diesel, similar to a union giving strike pay.

Regarding 02 tractors, if you go out and look at them, you will see most aren't.
Most are on HP or lease, and as any businessman will tell you , if you don't keep your equipment fairly fresh, you will waste a lot of money on repairs.
Licksy20's comment is very valid:

There is a huge difference in having a required tool to do your job and what is mostly a luxury item like a car.You think a farmer spends 100k on a massively depreciating vehicle like a tractor because he thinks it makes his arse look big?

And regarding, DaveIRL's comment:

What do they actually want done? Their explanation ads in the paper just seem like a list of complaints. They're is no solution outlined.

I'll sum it up for you, a recognition for the work done, to put quality Irish food into the market place.
The Irish farmer is , being kept under a barrel by,the retail multiples.
They cannot strike, if the cows aren't milked, the cows will get sick and if they throw out the milk , they will be in court for the polution fines.
The same multiples are Ripping off the consumer, by profiteering .
For instance, if only two cent of the profit, Tesco makes on the milk was given back to the farmer, he would be fairly happy.
The statistic, is Much worse, for Guinness, with the farmer , getting less than one cent per pint sold , even though he supplies the main ingredient.
I suspect Joe Walsh doesn't want to take on these issues as , it might reduce corporate donations:rolleyes:
It's very simple really, you either want any old un regulated Muck on your table, or food from Europe that is traceable.
Because, the way it is at the moment, as I said before, the return, even to the largest farmers, will not justify them doing the job.
mm

Waylander

So what you are saying is that their problem is with the Retail multiples and not with the Government. Why do they not blocade Margaret Heffernans house. In fact negotiating with the multiples might be a better way for the IFA to resolve this situation then p*ssing everyone else off. That is after all what a union is meant to do, look after its members, not pass the book on to the government at the first available opportunity. If the IFA threaten to cease all supplies and picket individual stores then the multiple will have no choice except to negotiate.

well, they have actually done that, in the past and it doesn't work.
Indeed, many were brought to court by the said multiples and meat factories, and have huge judgements hanging over them still.
The law is on the side of the multiples actually, and protects their Rip off.

You may remember, before Tesco took over, Quinnsworth there were regular yellow pack sales, and Ben Dunne Food sales.
Indeed Maurace Pratt was on TV nearly evry night driving the price, for consumers down.
The farmers were fairly happy as they were getting a decent cut, at the time.
Now all is changed, Tesco and the rest advertise still, but if you take a basket, of their food items, on a monthly basis, you will notice that it is going up in price.
I can assure , you that none of that is being passed on to the farmer.

And this situation is at it's worst in Ireland believe it or not, commodity prices to Farmers , everywhere else, in Europe, even in Britain, are higher than here. the only thing that has helped some farmers here to survive, is that we can produce the food cheaper, due to our climate.
Yet Irish farmers get paid less than the rest of Europe, and the Irish consumer pays more.
Classic rip off, no wonder they are angry, and the public should be angry also, as ultimately, they win as well as the farmer, if the situation is addressed.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by daveirl
But how is the fact that the supermarkets cash in at the expense of both the consumer and the farmer the governments problem.

If we [the consumer] have a problem with it we should buy direct from the farms. The farmers should by-pass the supermarkets if they have a problem with it.

If as many posters say here that the cash in is made at the supermarket, how come the milk I get direct to my door from the Dairy every morning is the same price?

the milk price, is the same, delivered direct , because, they cannot sell it for more or less than at the supermarket, it is a forced situation, as most milk now is sold in shops , and not door to door.
In relation to buying direct from farmers, it would have to be pasturised, most farmers could not afford that kind of plant.
The dairies, however look after that area, and their biggest customer on behalf of the farmer is the multiple.

The irony here is that modern consumer trends have meant that, the purchase of milk , is mainly done at the local shop or supermarket.
That change has allowed a situation to develop, now where by, the multiple calls the shot, on price, rips off the consumer and pays the farmer less.
mm

Cork

I think the farmers are getting a raw deal. The margin that the manufacturers and retailers have with their produce is crazy.

Farmers by and large love their way of life. It is a hard life out there in the elements. They have very legitimate concerns.

That change has allowed a situation to develop, now where by, the multiple calls the shot, on price, rips off the consumer and pays the farmer less.

I think the government should look at this.

Waylander

My point is that surely the whole reason for the existence of the IFA is to give farmers a common voice. Surely this common voice would be better put to use by explaining to the multiple that farmers cannot viably supply any more dairy for the money they are getting. If the farmers do not supply for a few days then the multiples will be out of product and will need to start backing down. The IFA should be attacking the multiples not the government. If the farmers want more money then they should chase it from the appropriate source not attack the government because it has worked in the past. They may take a hit for a couple of weeks till the multiples run out of all Dairy products but in the long term things could only get better. Also I think the public in general would be more then happy to side with the farmers against the likes of Mags Heffernan,

Victor

Originally posted by Man
The statistic, is Much worse, for Guinness, with the farmer , getting less than one cent per pint sold , even though he supplies the main ingredient.

I think you are ignoring (deliberately?) that Guinness are the ones who add the yeast (which makes the alcohol), which brings the added value.

But the thing, is waylander, farmers cannot picket, the multiples, as they would get an injunction and they would be fined out of existance.

The government and more particularily, it's Dep. of agriculture, should bear responsibility, for the profiteering situation that is going on.
Quite frankly, that should be illegal, as well, in the sense that it is endangering local food supplies, by damaging the viability of farmers.

Basically, Europe decided to drive down food prices , by means of subsidy, to the farmers them selves ie cheques in the post.

But actually what happened was, they drove them down for the multiples, and not the consumer, the middlemen benefited hugely.

Originally posted by Victor:
I think you are ignoring (deliberately?) that Guinness are the ones who add the yeast (which makes the alcohol), which brings the added value.

Are you saying guinness could be made with out malting barley??
Or that it's contribution as the main ingredient, to a highly profitable drink should be worth so little to the Farmer?

Because, all I am doing here is outlining the crazy situation and the likely result of it , if not addressed.
mm