Thomas Cook Industrial Dispute

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

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

Thank you - although a more neutral source would have been nice.

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.

Which, presumably, would increase their profits, which is the purpose for which a company exists.

By the way, were you planning to withdraw your accusation of corruption against a member of the judiciary?

It's the throw enough mud school of debating.

Slip in some outrageous claim. By the time challenge is made, hope things have moved on, and tip toe away from it.

sovtek

Wheely wrote: »

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.

Now I'm no solicitor, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be coming to lock me or anyone from boards up about my statement. From what I can tell what you are refering to applies to journalist...not a private citizen giving their opinion.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

Now I'm no solicitor, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be coming to lock me or anyone from boards up about my statement. From what I can tell what you are refering to applies to journalist...not a private citizen giving their opinion.

I'll take that as a refusal to withdraw the allegation. You're banned from this forum until you do so.

sovtek

sovtek wrote: »

Now I'm no solicitor, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be coming to lock me or anyone from boards up about my statement.

:D

I wish they were the rules. You can say what you like, as long as it is not likely that anyone will be locked up as a result!!!

Wheely

Jip wrote: »

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.

Conceded. I did not. I shouldn't have said it and I'll be the first to put my hand up and say it. I read it somewhere and repeated it without checking the source.

I don't think that single misrepresentation rubbishes the substantive points I was trying to make however.

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone's getting more and more annoyed.



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.

I was being sarcastic saying that I get hysterical when confronted with lawful removal of people from property.

My whole point was that next to the light touch way in which other flagrant breaches of tha law have been treated in this country, especially with respect to banking/corporate law, the way in which developers are being mollycoddled by the banks and the courts, THIS looks disgracefully hypocritical. It's a valid point. It's not irrelevant.

Wheely

sovtek wrote: »

Now I'm no solicitor, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be coming to lock me or anyone from boards up about my statement. From what I can tell what you are refering to applies to journalist...not a private citizen giving their opinion.

Surprisingly, from what you can tell, you're wrong again.

No requirement that you have to be a journalist, it's defined as "wild and baseless allegations of corruption made against the court"-so basically exactly what you did.

I said it once, I'll say it again, learn something about the law before you give us "From what I can tell what you are refering to applies to journalist...not a private citizen giving their opinion". It looks like you're just making it up.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Thomas Cook are a profit maximising company and can do what they like, close down whatever they want and are not and shouldn't be answerable to anyone, especially not some trade union leeches. The sense of entitlement of Irish workers sickens me sometimes.

I saw photos of the Thomas Cook employees and know exactly the type they are, lazy, gossipping women who are probably delighted to be on the dole now but just want to extract the best 'package' they can get before they go.

oscarBravo

georgiecasey wrote: »

I saw photos of the Thomas Cook employees and know exactly the type they are, lazy, gossipping women who are probably delighted to be on the dole now but just want to extract the best 'package' they can get before they go.

You can tell that from a photo? Wow.

Wheely

georgiecasey wrote: »

I saw photos of the Thomas Cook employees and know exactly the type they are, lazy, gossipping women who are probably delighted to be on the dole now but just want to extract the best 'package' they can get before they go.

God you must have a keen eye and an ability to read people that's second to none.:rolleyes:

ALso "package"? What cos it's not a package? What is it?

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Just giving my opinion, I know the type only far too well.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can tell that from a photo? Wow.

I tell you, I just needed to glance at their pictures to be able to tell you that they were trouble! You'd have to keep an eye on them now or they'd lead you down the garden path, if you know what I mean.

jonsnow

georgiecasey wrote: »

just want to extract the best 'package' they can get before they go.

Doesn,t everybody!!!

AlekSmart

Has Georgiecasey sent a CV to NAMA? ..with those picture reading skills I reckon he`s a shoo-in for the CX post !!!!

Nodin

georgiecasey wrote: »

Thomas Cook are a profit maximising company and can do what they like, close down whatever they want and are not and shouldn't be answerable to anyone,
.

Jaysus, sure why should people with vast wealth be answerable to anyone? That'd be a MAD idea.....

georgiecasey wrote: »

I saw photos of the Thomas Cook employees and know exactly the type they are, lazy, gossipping women who are probably delighted to be on the dole now but just want to extract the best 'package' they can get before they go.

Thomas Cook are known as an extremely target driven company within the travel trade, known for the high standards they expect from staff. If you last there , its acknowledged you're damn good at what you're doing, and able to take pressure.

FlutterinBantam

Last I heard a private company is ok to do what it likes within the law.:rolleyes: