Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Thomas Cook Industrial Dispute

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Jip wrote: »
    They were promised their jobs were safe, for a short time only. Everyone knew the place was closing, they just brought the closure date forward. And the Irish operation was not making money.

    Are you sure about it not making any money or are you just assuming that Thomas Cook are just using good ol business sense here?


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sovtek wrote: »
    Seeing as the rank and file supported them and were amongst the people in front of TC for the holiday weekend why does it bother you?

    So after all the blather and nonsense about smashing the system, and capitalist pigs, and all the futile posturing about the Dublin Lockout, and after Richard seized the moment to get his pic in every paper, let's get down to the brass tacks.

    How much richer are the unions barristers and solicitors anyway? And will they make considerably more than the increase in any workers payoff?

    You gotta laugh at the whole system. The most amuisng are the ones who rail against it while in fact underpinning it. Whatever about the Thomas Cook staff, the Law Society and the Bar Council should thank all those "rank and file" for such a welcome, although obviously nonsensical, action.


  • Options
    #34
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sovtek wrote: »
    Those poor poor businessmen. My heart doth bleed for them. Getting 5 million bonuses on top of their half billion a year profit. Jesus why would anyone want to invest in that?
    How much of that profit came from the Irish operation?


  • Options
    #35
    Jip
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,418 ✭✭✭Jip


    Now now Oscar, don't be silly expecting facts and proper figures to appear in a debate with Sovtek.


  • Options
    #36
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Never mind the In`s and out`s of the redundancy deal,what about the state Thos Cook have left the "High-Profile" Grafton St premises in.....:eek:

    Obviously T Cook,being "In the Travel Business" would be mindful of maintaining some sort of quality of appearance following their departure but that apparantly does not extend to Éire......It`s a bleedin eyesore and directly opposite Trinity too....

    On a brighter note perhaps the good Dr.Quirkey might be persuaded to open a new branch here to mirror his VERY impressive HQ on O Connell St..... :)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How much of that profit came from the Irish operation?

    His bonus IIRC.


  • Options
    #38
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Jip wrote: »
    Now now Oscar, don't be silly expecting facts and proper figures to appear in a debate with Sovtek.

    I'd back off with crap like that considering your figureless and baseless statements here-to-fore.


  • Options
    #39
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    Re posts by Nesf and Irish Bob

    With respect to Nesf and Irish Bob I have been involved in a number of cases for property owners or employers in takeovers or wrongful occupation of premises. WHile I have the relevant trespass proceedings, notice of motion and draft affidavit on the word processor, and can churn thiem out quickly if required I have got better results long term in most cases by negotiation.

    Once an injunction is obtained the usual penalty for breach or non-complinance is a motion to show cause why those in breach should not be committed ( to prison ) for contempt of the court order. At that stage the judge takes over and makes the orders, including a direction to Gardai re bringing people before him/her, and may impose imprisonment until such time as the court order is obeyed. The party seeking the injunction is not in control of the process at that stage, but takes the blame for what developes. This process while within the law leaves a residue of bitterness. E.g Shell went that route in Erris Mayo - they would have been beter off to negotiate with the five objectors there.

    Re post by Sovtek

    Judge Michael Peart is a highly respected lawyer. He practised for many years on Ormond Quay, as did his father before him. He knows central Dublin well. There is a reference in an earlier post to brown envelopes and the Judge. That remark is a contempt of court, and should be deleted from this board.


  • Options
    #40
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    nuac wrote: »
    That remark is a contempt of court, and should be deleted from this board.

    I wonder how I can be in contempt of a court I have never set foot in nor disobeyed an order from?


  • Options
    #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nuac wrote: »
    With respect to Nesf and Irish Bob I have been involved in a number of cases for property owners or employers in takeovers or wrongful occupation of premises. WHile I have the relevant trespass proceedings, notice of motion and draft affidavit on the word processor, and can churn thiem out quickly if required I have got better results long term in most cases by negotiation.

    Suspect that the TC case is very different from the standard 'the tenant won't vacate the building' or 'there are caravans on the local GAA pitch'. In many cases there will be a nuisance value and the plaintiff just has to do a cost benefit analysis, do I need the premises quickly, have I someone else lined up, will I recover costs or what will it cost me, what are the chances of success...and is there a possibility of just buying off the whole headache cheaply, saying to the tenant you'll forego pursuing him for arrears if they get out, or giving the caravan owners a whack of cash to move on and put up concrete bollards after them.

    But when a person is squatting in a building, not for money or for the shelter or the comfort, but because they have a cause, think it gets trickier. Of course negotiations are always relevant and welcome, but think TC would have preferred first to establish very clearly and quickly that the law was on their side, and not to go into negotiations with the occupants thinking they had TC over a barrel. Let them know the law requires them out, then start the talks...which is what I think happened.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    mike kelly wrote: »
    it was a CIVIL case, not a criminal one. Also, laws are broken all the time, just look at the planning laws. People who illegally demolish buildings never end up in court. This should never have gone to court in the first place. The guards should have evicted them and left it at that. Just more easy money for the judiciary.

    The judiciary don't work on a commission basis.


  • Options
    #43
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Mario007 wrote: »
    even if it was a civil case, they still need to be punished for neglecting the law. the law is there to prevent anarchy and must be fully implemented. right now the impression is that you can break the law but as long as you get enough people to protest for your case you'll get away with it. these people deliberately refused to listen to the high court decission which is legaly binding and they should be punished for that.

    What about those who breach the companies acts, or EC competition laws, or planning and development laws, or even those from the AB socioeconomic grouping who are responsible causing infinitely more damage to the economy and the society at large. Why not have a crack at them before going after workers looking for an extra 3 weeks per annum in a redundancy package.


  • Options
    #44
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sovtek wrote: »
    His bonus IIRC.
    Got a source for that?


  • Options
    #45
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In fairness to Judge Peart, and his colleagues in the High Court, he can't don a cape and mask at night and bring bankers to justice.

    He can only deal with cases brought before him.

    And nothing he said was remotely wrong. In fact, if he were to use the opportunity to talk about bankers or the price of the pint or whatever else was wrong with the country but had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case before him, we'd be scratching our heads.

    Yeah in fairness to them they can only deal with the cases brought before them. Doesn't stop the SC kicking Carrol to touch in the hope that someone will save him. But lock up those workers lest anarchy reign. Give me a break.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheely wrote: »
    What about those who breach the companies acts, or EC competition laws, or planning and development laws, or even those from the AB socioeconomic grouping who are responsible causing infinitely more damage to the economy and the society at large. Why not have a crack at them before going after workers looking for an extra 3 weeks per annum in a redundancy package.

    Not sure why Thomas Cook should have a crack at them.

    If you feel they have done you wrong, why don't you start proceedings? The High Court Central Office are a helpful bunch and will help you with filing the papers.

    In the meantime, you're argument is as thin as saying 'in the same week the High Court orders Thomas Cook employees to leave the premises, the killers of Jerry McCabe were relased'. There is no connection between the issues.


  • Options
    #47
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    irish_bob wrote: »
    agreed , if this kind of thing was encouraged or appeased , it would frighten off foreign investment

    Jesus.......

    Yeah, it's the TC workers occupying offices that are frightening off foreign investment. LOL:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheely wrote: »
    Doesn't stop the SC kicking Carrol to touch in the hope that someone will save him.

    Yes because that case and the Thomas Cook case are the exact same. There is no difference between the law of insolvency and the law of trespass, so why DID those cases get treated differently? I'm scratching my head.

    And as well as the garda killers, I see even Ronnie Biggs is getting out. Oh ho, this is an international effort to nail the Thomas Cook workers. There has got to be a conspiracy somewhere.


  • Options
    #49
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    sovtek wrote: »
    I wonder how I can be in contempt of a court I have never set foot in nor disobeyed an order from?

    Scandalising the court it's called. Learn a bit about the law. Maybe then you won't wonder how you can be in breach of it when you are.


  • Options
    #50
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure why Thomas Cook should have a crack at them.

    If you feel they have done you wrong, why don't you start proceedings? The High Court Central Office are a helpful bunch and will help you with filing the papers.

    In the meantime, you're argument is as thin as saying 'in the same week the High Court orders Thomas Cook employees to leave the premises, the killers of Jerry McCabe were relased'. There is no connection between the issues.

    Give me a break. Even you can't be blind enough to see the optics of this farce. High court orders issued at lightning speed, photos of cops dragging pregnant women who've just been laid off out of an office they worked in for nine years at 5 am in the morning. Liam Carrol's examinership kicked to touch again and again, cops mosey in Anglo months after the debacle breaks, where an dog in the street can see the Companies Acts have been breached, for a photo op and then do nothing while Seanie plays golf in SA and eats in Shanahans.

    And don't be a goon, you knew I wasn't suggesting TC go after them. I'm talking about the State machinery, there is a distinct image here of the velvet glove dealing with the bankers, developers etc and the iron fist for the workers. People in this country are angry, they see images like the ones outside TC next to "more time for Liam Carrol" and they wonder why no Donegal Gardai never did a day in prison, or Micheal Lynnes passport wasn't confiscated, or Breifne O Brien's wife has the brass neck to ask for 4000 a week living expenses and so on and so on and so on.

    No connection? Everything is connected!


  • Options
    #51
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes because that case and the Thomas Cook case are the exact same. There is no difference between the law of insolvency and the law of trespass, so why DID those cases get treated differently? I'm scratching my head.

    And as well as the garda killers, I see even Ronnie Biggs is getting out. Oh ho, this is an international effort to nail the Thomas Cook workers. There has got to be a conspiracy somewhere.

    Don't talk to me like I'm some sort of lefty nut marching arm in arm with Richard Boyd Barret into the hellfire. I'm not.

    Never did I mention a global conspiracy to nail workers, I merely pointed out a glaring difference in the way the way the state machinery deal with some people and not others. And I don't mean those party to insolvency proceedings and those party to trespass.

    Trying to make out I'm a conspiracy nut just because they're easier for you to discredit is pathetic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    JonathanAnon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭JonathanAnon


    Trying to be objective about these things, the conditions they were offered (i.e. 5 weeks redundancy for every year worked) were not too bad. The short notice was bad form on the part of the company, but I'm sure that they have to pay everybody for the minimum term's notice anway.

    The actions of the courts and the Guards was nothing short of pathetic, considering they have done nothing to protect people like Roy Collins, Manuela Riedo, those two security guards at James' (who were shot at the same time as this eviction took place) etc etc. Their sense of justice and use of Garda resources is shameful. 30+ guards to move decent Irish people out of that office, when all they wanted to do was make a point. It was only because it was in the media that they did anything.

    On a side note, I think action should be taken against the TSSA as they formally backed an illegal action. I think this year has proven to the Irish people how utterly useless the unions are. Hopefully they will all be disbanded, and the only beard seen on Irish screens in the future is Santa.


  • Options
    #53
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    Trying to be objective about these things, the conditions they were offered (i.e. 5 weeks redundancy for every year worked) were not too bad. The short notice was bad form on the part of the company, but I'm sure that they have to pay everybody for the minimum term's notice anway.

    The actions of the courts and the Guards was nothing short of pathetic, considering they have done nothing to protect people like Roy Collins, Manuela Riedo, those two security guards at James' (who were shot at the same time as this eviction took place) etc etc. Their sense of justice and use of Garda resources is shameful. 30+ guards to move decent Irish people out of that office, when all they wanted to do was make a point. It was only because it was in the media that they did anything.

    On a side note, I think action should be taken against the TSSA as they formally backed an illegal action. I think this year has proven to the Irish people how utterly useless the unions are. Hopefully they will all be disbanded, and the only beard seen on Irish screens in the future is Santa.

    +1


  • Options
    #54
    Jip
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,418 ✭✭✭Jip


    Wheely wrote: »
    photos of cops dragging pregnant women who've just been laid off out of an office they worked in for nine years at 5 am in the morning.

    Links ? Or just the usual hysteria associated with the lawful removal of people from a premises ?


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheely wrote: »
    Don't talk to me like I'm some sort of lefty nut
    Wheely wrote: »
    Trying to make out I'm a conspiracy nut just because they're easier for you to discredit is pathetic.

    :D:D

    The paranoia!

    Wheely, this is the internet. I don't know you. So you can stop playing the victim card.


  • Options
    #56
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    nuac wrote: »
    With respect to Nesf and Irish Bob I have been involved in a number of cases for property owners or employers in takeovers or wrongful occupation of premises. WHile I have the relevant trespass proceedings, notice of motion and draft affidavit on the word processor, and can churn thiem out quickly if required I have got better results long term in most cases by negotiation.

    On the other hand removing them from the premises and then starting negotiations with them is often a better option. It shows that illegal forms of protest are unacceptable while simultaneously offering an olive branch. Also remember this is not a long term problem, once redundancy packages are agreed on Thomas Cook will most likely have little to nothing to do with these people so having an eye on long term relationships with them isn't necessary.


  • Options
    #57
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Jip wrote: »
    Links ? Or just the usual hysteria associated with the lawful removal of people from a premises ?

    No its just my usual hysterics, i can't help it i get really hysterical whenever i witness lawful removal of people from premises.

    You know what I mean, photos of cops out in force for this, entering the offices, reports of prenant women being forcibly removed, etc, when they're percieved to be incredibly easygoing on other things I've mentioned.

    I think the point I'm trying to make is clear enough, why don't you deal with that instead of accusing me of the "usal hysterics".


  • Options
    #58
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Deleted User wrote: »
    :D:D

    The paranoia!

    Wheely, this is the internet. I don't know you. So you can stop playing the victim card.

    HEY!! You win the argument! You grinned. Awesome! It is my paranoia, I'm sorry. You obvs just love to talk about Gerry Mcabes killers and Ronnie Biggs and a conspiracy to nail TC workers cos it's your thing. My apologies. And congrats on knocking down every silly point I made with those grinning smileys. You truly are a debater to rival Cicero. Sorry if my victim complex got on your nerves.


  • Options
    #59
    Jip
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,418 ✭✭✭Jip


    Wheely wrote: »
    reports of prenant women being forcibly removed,

    Ah, so you haven't seen photos of pregnant women being forcibly removed from the premises then, it's just 'reports', which I'm guessing are by people from a 100% biased view point.

    Odd that there were plenty of photos and an albeit poor vid of the garda operation and yet not one of what was 'reported' of the pregnant women being forcibly removed from the premises.

    It's black and white, you either saw photos or you didn't. If you did, post links, if you didn't, which is obviously the case, don't claim that there are or that it happened without proof.


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheely wrote: »
    You truly are a debater to rival Cicero.

    :D

    Someone's getting more and more annoyed.
    Wheely wrote: »
    i can't help it i get really hysterical whenever i witness lawful removal of people from premises.

    I don't follow this. So if it were a banker being led away from AIB hq in handcuffs, will you be leading the protest?

    What is so wrong with asking for respect for the laws of property. Personally I thought TC behaved outrageously. As I said above, no Irish person should ever use them again, and we should be telling this to the world, this is how they treat their staff. I suspect action of that nature would be far more damaging to their business, but the unions and their barristers love a good stand off, a photo opportunity, and a trip to the Courts for a nonsense case - there was no way the High Court could sanction the illegal occupation of a building, comparing other cases involving other areas of law is irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Got a source for that?

    http://www.tssa.org.uk/article-152.php3?id_article=5185
    http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/workplace/217-solidarity-with-the-thomas-cook-occupation.html

    I have yet to see even TC make the claim that they weren't profitable in Ireland. What they stated was that they were closing down the Ireland offices because they wanted to move all business in Ireland to a call centre.


Advertisement