Thomas Cook Grafton Street store occupied by the workers

3rdDegree

BroomBurner wrote: »

Why are you so angry about some workers trying to get some more money from their employers? It's not like it's your money they're trying to get.

Also, why would they give a fig what other workers think about them? They're just trying to negotiate the best possible deal for themselves.

You would do the same, and if you wouldn't, you deserve to get only the worst possible option available to you for not being man enough to stand up for yourself and try to get a better deal.

I think 5 weeks is a generous offer. If other companies see the kind of response and bad publisity TC get from such an offer, what is the incentive to give anything above the minimum. They're going to get blasted anyway.

Cheers

irlpic

They made a brave balls of themselves.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

uprising wrote: »

Ok so these protesters are no better than say a person who kicks in your door in the middle of the night?. Is that what your saying?.

No, that's what you're saying that I'm saying. Big difference.

It must have been a long week for you ikky while I was banned, but dont worry I'm back for now, and by the way I didnt re-reg lastweek after I was banned as you seemed to suggest.

Been a long month since Degsy disappeared. And you, my firend, are no Degsy.

uprising wrote: »

How did I shoot myself in the foot?, wheather its against the law or not I'd drag the cunnts out of my house.

... just as the guards dragged the cuunts out of someone else's house/

shamwari

el tonto wrote: »

Dell and Intel got six weeks and they're far bigger companies than Thomas Cook. Holding out for eight weeks is a little unrealistic in the current climate.

I disagree somewhat because as some have previously mentioned already in this thread, Thomas Cook have made a lot of money and are quite profitable.

Read here: http://www.traveldailynews.com/pages/show_page/28262-Thomas-Cook:-50%25-rise-in-operating-profits

At the end of last year, TC are projecting profits of up to £480m for the current financial year, yet they can't increase their redundancy payments by a miserable two weeks per head.

I sincerely hope that the mooted talks between TSSA and TC management yield some results as quite frankly, it is galling that a profitable (and British)company should display arguably the worst Thatcherite tactics ever witnessed in this country. And I'm not someone with a socialist axe to grind.

dotsman

mike kelly wrote: »

The case in the High Court against the workers protest is a civil case, not a criminal one so it is not right to call them criminals. People have a right to protest in a civil society.

They were arrested for "contempt of court". As soon as they refused to obey the court ruling and vacate the premises, they became criminals.

mike kelly wrote: »

People should save their outrage for 80 guards needlessly claiming night shift allowance. They could easily have done this with 5 guards (one to boil the water, one to get the cups, one to get the teabags, one to supervise them and one to evict the protesters) during the daytime.

I am outraged that these criminals were there in the first place. That number of guards were required because it was unknown how many laws the criminals were intending to break. The guards had to put up with a lot of unwarranted verbal abuse. Had there been only a handful of them, the criminals might have gotten physically abusive and the scene would get completely out of hand.

I think, at the very least, the criminals should be fined enough to cover the costs to the taxpayer.

nlgbbbblth

holyjoe wrote: »

You wont mind if me and 27 of my mates take over your house next week for a few days so. excellent.

sure its not as if we would be breaking the law and its not as if you can call the guards as you dont want to be accused of assisting the flute holding! :P

There's a world of a difference between occupying a PRIVATE HOUSE and a WORKPLACE.

Your post (not you, the poster) is f*cking moronic.

Up the workers.

Fair play to them for standing up for what they believed in.

orourkeda

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

There's a world of a difference between occupying a PRIVATE HOUSE and a WORKPLACE.

Your post (not you, the poster) is f*cking moronic.

Up the workers.

Fair play to them for standing up for what they believed in.

Just because you believe in something doesnt make it right. They should get over themselves. They havent got a leg to stand on, They are being offered two and a half times the current legal minimum.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

There's a world of a difference between occupying a PRIVATE HOUSE and a WORKPLACE.

Your post (not you, the poster) is f*cking moronic.

Up the workers.

Fair play to them for standing up for what they believed in.

Ah, but Thomas Cook is no longer a workplace.

orourkeda

mike kelly wrote: »

The case in the High Court against the workers protest is a civil case, not a criminal one so it is not right to call them criminals. People have a right to protest in a civil society.
People should save their outrage for 80 guards needlessly claiming night shift allowance. They could easily have done this with 5 guards (one to boil the water, one to get the cups, one to get the teabags, one to supervise them and one to evict the protesters) during the daytime.

People have a right to protest within the law. There was a court injunction in place. The law cant be ignored for 2 or 3 weeks extra redundancy money.

orourkeda

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, but Thomas Cook is no longer a workplace.

Makes no difference. They werent entitled to be there. Thats what the injunction was there for.

sdanseo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, but Thomas Cook is no longer a workplace.

Please tell me there's a law against insufferable pedants...what were they going to do, burn it down? Hardly.

What were the company going to do? Let it rot till they found a tenant which was hardly forthcoming in this climate, even on Grafton Street. They were a pile of workers sticking up for themselves, and I for one reckon the judge made the right call. He made a nice example of them by commanding they leave and when ignore, requiring the Gardaí to haul them out like children. But that was done for ignoring him and not nessecarily for their occupation in the first place, although it served fitting punishment for both, I think.

He was fair to let them go; it was hardly in the public interest to charge them. Think of the cost of 45 prosecutions!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

orourkeda wrote: »

Makes no difference. They werent entitled to be there. Thats what the injunction was there for.

sdonn wrote: »

Please tell me there's a law against insufferable pedants...what were they going to do, burn it down? Hardly.

What were the company going to do? Let it rot till they found a tenant which was hardly forthcoming in this climate, even on Grafton Street. They were a pile of workers sticking up for themselves, and I for one reckon the judge made the right call. He made a nice example of them by commanding they leave and when ignore, requiring the Gardaí to haul them out like children. But that was done for ignoring him and not nessecarily for their occupation in the first place, although it served fitting punishment for both, I think.

He was fair to let them go; it was hardly in the public interest to charge them. Think of the cost of 45 prosecutions!

Please read the post I was replying to, both of you. The building is no longer a place of business or employment and was therefore effectively being squatted.

And exactly what right were they stadning up to? The right to two weeks redundacny per year? I agree with you about the charges being dropped, though.

sdanseo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Please read the post I was replying to, both of you. The building is no longer a place of business or employment and was therefore effectively being squatted.

And exactly what right were they stadning up to? The right to two weeks redundacny per year? I agree with you about the charges being dropped, though.

They were standing up against what I can only interpret as a pile of abcolute cúnts in upper management, tbh. The wage packet could have been acceptable to them if they were treated right, but they should certainly be entitled to more if they're going to be - as I said before - lined up like a firing squad and sacked on the spot, as was reported.

Chips Lovell

shamwari wrote: »

Read here: http://www.traveldailynews.com/pages/show_page/28262-Thomas-Cook:-50%25-rise-in-operating-profits

At the end of last year, TC are projecting profits of up to £480m for the current financial year, yet they can't increase their redundancy payments by a miserable two weeks per head.

That article refers to operating profit, not net profit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sdonn wrote: »

They were standing up against what I can only interpret as a pile of abcolute cúnts in upper management, tbh. The wage packet could have been acceptable to them if they were treated right, but they should certainly be entitled to more if they're going to be - as I said before - lined up like a firing squad and sacked on the spot, as was reported.

You still haven't asnwered my question: what right(s) was/were infringed? While I agree that the manner of the announcement was terrible, I don't see why they should be entitled to more money on top of what is an extremly generous redundancy package.

sdanseo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You still haven't asnwered my question: what right(s) was/were infringed? While I agree that the manner of the announcement was terrible, I don't see why they should be entitled to more money on top of what is an extremly generous redundancy package.

Maybe not a right as such; but a fair expectation that a company would behave sypathetically, responsibly and reasonably which it failed to do on so many levels, it seems.

We have a different idea of generous tbh; I'd say that package was very fair, but not very generous. That was before the weekend's fiasco, though.

It's my opinion redundancy packages should be scaled so that people with less experience get a better deal - someone in Thomas cook 20 years will receive 100 week's pay or 2 year's salary - likely around €60,000 - while someone there a year will get just €6,000 and probably find it harder to get a new job. If I was a union rep (some fat chance; I'd end up in court) I'd be angling for a more even system based on merit and decency which gives the new worker a fighting chance at keeping themselves and possible family above the breadline while they look for a new job.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sdonn wrote: »

Maybe not a right as such; but a fair expectation that a company would behave sypathetically, responsibly and reasonably which it failed to do on so many levels, it seems.

Exactly: not a right. I wish others were as fair to acknowldege that as you were. Expecting a company to behave reasonably is a dream, I agree, but in fairness, Thomas Cook were offering a better deal than the vast majority of companies in their position would offer.

We have a different idea of generous tbh; I'd say that package was very fair, but not very generous. That was before the weekend's fiasco, though.

It's my opinion redundancy packages should be scaled so that people with less experience get a better deal - someone in Thomas cook 20 years will receive 100 week's pay or 2 year's salary - likely around €60,000 - while someone there a year will get just €6,000 and probably find it harder to get a new job. If I was a union rep (some fat chance; I'd end up in court) I'd be angling for a more even system based on merit and decency which gives the new worker a fighting chance at keeping themselves and possible family above the breadline while they look for a new job.

We defiintely differ on definition of the word generous. I would say their offer IS generous, considering they're pulling out of the country altoghether and not simply laying off a few people to minimise costs.

I accept what you say about the short-term staff, but if what you suggest were to be a reality (and I'm NOT saying it's a bad idea) there would be even more uproar from long-term staff who thinking that they are entitled to more.

sdanseo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Exactly: not a right. I wish others were as fair to acknowldege that as you were. Expecting a company to behave reasonably is a dream, I agree, but in fairness, Thomas Cook were offering a better deal than the vast majority of companies in their position would offer.

You're missing my point now, this particular company behaved more deplorably than most and as such it is only reasonable to protest.

Just because something is not provided for in law does not and should not mean it is not provided at all.

MagicMarker

What did they not provide?

mikemac

sdonn wrote: »

while someone there a year will get just €6,000 and probably find it harder to get a new job.

You have to be there two years to get redundancy.
Many companies waive this and pay redundancy anyway to new staff

But they certainly don't have to

sdanseo

MagicMarker wrote: »

What did they not provide?

A resonable, fair and symathetic approach as opposed to their blazé style of sacking everyone.

mikemac wrote: »

You have to be there two years to get redundancy.
Many companies waive this and pay redundancy anyway to new staff

But they certainly don't have to

Oh, granted. My suggestion is a pipe dream. Shouldn't be though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sdonn wrote: »

You're missing my point now, this particular company behaved more deplorably than most and as such it is only reasonable to protest.

Just because something is not provided for in law does not and should not mean it is not provided at all.

No, I didn't: it's not a right, their financial rights were not abused in any way. Whether the law is fair or not is a different issue.

sdonn wrote: »

A resonable, fair and symathetic approach as opposed to their blazé style of sacking everyone.

Oh, granted. My suggestion is a pipe dream. Shouldn't be though.

I'm not arguing about the way in which it was handled - I've already commented on this and it's pretty much in agreement with you.

livingtargets

They seem to have had a peaceful occupation of their workplace because they weren`t happy with the deal they had been offered.

That sounds fair enough.

By the way some people are going you could swear they were rampaging around the place robbing the bosses with stripey black and white jumpers,black eyemasks and bags with "$" and "LOOT" written on them!

The gardai who dragged them out of the building would be better served
arresting the drugdealers and mobsters who run rampant in Dublin and Limerick
who are actually ruining people`s lives.

Still,at least now we can sleep easy now that the big bad travel agents are out of Thomas Cooks!

Knee Grow Plz

3 weeks + 2 statutory was not a bad deal.

miju

Knee Grow Plz wrote: »

3 weeks + 2 statutory was not a bad deal.

I'm open to correction but Im fairly sure it was actually 5 weeks + 2 statutory

Knee Grow Plz

miju wrote: »

I'm open to correction but Im fairly sure it was actually 5 weeks + 2 statutory

I am open to correction too but I think I heard on Newstalk that they only got 5 weeks. 3 + the 2 statutory.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0801/thomascook.html

Mention of 5 weeks.

Knee Grow Plz

sdonn wrote: »

Maybe not a right as such; but a fair expectation that a company would behave sypathetically, responsibly and reasonably which it failed to do on so many levels, it seems.

We have a different idea of generous tbh; I'd say that package was very fair, but not very generous. That was before the weekend's fiasco, though.

It's my opinion redundancy packages should be scaled so that people with less experience get a better deal - someone in Thomas cook 20 years will receive 100 week's pay or 2 year's salary - likely around €60,000 - while someone there a year will get just €6,000 and probably find it harder to get a new job. If I was a union rep (some fat chance; I'd end up in court) I'd be angling for a more even system based on merit and decency which gives the new worker a fighting chance at keeping themselves and possible family above the breadline while they look for a new job.

Less experience get a better deal? So 20 years of loyalty is the same as 3 years?

Damn right you would end up in court!

What you smoking by the way? PM me. :pac:

panda100

livingtargets wrote: »

The gardai who dragged them out of the building would be better served
arresting the drugdealers and mobsters who run rampant in Dublin and Limerick
who are actually ruining people`s lives.

Still,at least now we can sleep easy now that the big bad travel agents are out of Thomas Cooks!

I though it was a typo when I read that over 150 gardai were present to forceably remove those occupying Thomas Cook!
What an absolute smack in the face for all those communities ravaged by drugs, attacks, murders, robberies and crime who are told that extra gardai can't be deployed due to cutbacks and scant resources. Yet 150 gardai can easily turn up under short notice to arrest those who are only trying to protect and fight for a better future for themselves and their familys.
Same thing applys to the extortinate and unproportional gardai presence in Rossport.

Its quite clear who the state takes priority in protecting, big buisness and millionaires not Communities and the ordinary Irish people who make up those communities.

Though I will say this for the gardai, they are great at directing traffic on match days!

MagicMarker

FFS, wtf is wrong with people blaming the Garda?

There would be NO garda involvement had the thomas cook (ex) employees fúcked off when they were told to. It's because of THEM that garda time was wasted. Blaming the garda for actually doing their job is beyond retarded.

the groutch

I am very unhappy to see they got 6 weeks now, because TC have effectively condoned the sit-in, and have opened a flood-gate for anyone to do the same, regardless of what they are being offered