4Home staff in Mitchelstown stage sitin ala Thomas Cook

carbsy

The staff at the 4Home store in Mitchelstown, Cork have just begun a sitin as a protest at being offered only 2 weeks statutory redundancy after being told the store was to close this Sunday.

News crew should be on the way soon...

Joey the lips

They are lucky they are getting the 2 weeks afik. haveing said that its no harm fighting. However if you were an employer and you seen "Worked in thomas cook grafton street" what would you think of this potential employee.

I think sometimes in striking there has to be a stong conviction as you could be causeing more damage to yourself.

tolosenc

Who's taking bets on whether it'll be the news crews or the socialists with their flyers there first?

All I can say is: "Not this sh1t again..."

If I was dealing with the employer I'd just tell him to turn off the water and electricity, have a letter delivered to them reminding them that criminal damage is an offence, and lock the door behind him. If the store has its own entrance and is not part of a shopping estate, I would tell everty socialist and tv crew to get off private property. And let them there for as long as they want...I can't imagine there is a tenant waiting to get in there for next week.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

jank

4Home management are a company well known for dodgey business practices, some of the stuff they did was shocking. I am not surprised at this action at all but I dont think the staff will get much out of this.

biblio

The staff wouldnt be taking this action if they were not treated so badly by management , this is the latest in a long line of redundancies in the area , and remember that these are mostly former Dairygold and before that Mitchelstown Co op staff, their employment was transferred to 4homes under a Dairygold trading reshuffle a few years back, .
There has been redundancies ongoing at Dairygold and its associate companies Reox, Breeo, 4Home etc since 2003 directly affecting thousands of families, most of the redundancies were forced on staff after the company made weak attempts at restructuring , then usually came out and said that xyz operation was unviable.

Mitchelstown, Mallow and surrounding areas have been decimated by this.
This comes in the same week that staff at Breeo foods dairy plant is to make 30 people redundant in the same town , dont let the names fool you these are all the same company I wouldnt blame the staff for taking a stand, local people feel cheated at the loss of so many jobs in 6 years and this is the culmination of the anger , locals used to be proud of Dairygold and its predecessor Mitchelstown Co op a job in any of its areas was a good one.
and by a strange twist of fate the building the staff are staging the protest in is the same building in which the company was founded in 1919.

BTW I'm not an employee just a local observer

Scien

Scien wrote: »

Hang on a second there Heinrich.
Staff have been offered 2 weeks on the year Redundancy.

Heinrich?

Heinrich?

Is this some sort of 'in' joke? Please share it.

And is this not the statutory redundancy?

Scien wrote: »

4Home have some cheek to try and lock up shop & not expect some sort of fight.

Of course, absolutely, but a fight within what the law permits. If they go outside the law, they should pay dearly for it.

Yet again, I can sense a barrister and solicitor dancing around their offices at the foolishness of people, and those in unions and real left wing parties (of course that does not include Labour) who will cynically egg them on for the photo op knowing the courts have no option but to evict them.

biblio wrote: »

The staff wouldnt be taking this action if they were not treated so badly by management , this is the latest in a long line of redundancies in the area , and remember that these are mostly former Dairygold and before that Mitchelstown Co op staff, their employment was transferred to 4homes under a Dairygold trading reshuffle a few years back, .
There has been redundancies ongoing at Dairygold and its associate companies Reox, Breeo, 4Home etc since 2003 directly affecting thousands of families, most of the redundancies were forced on staff after the company made weak attempts at restructuring , then usually came out and said that xyz operation was unviable...
...
...BTW I'm not an employee just a local observer

I accept everything you say, and one can only feel sympathy for these people and I have no doubt but that the employers are acting badly. But as long as they act legally, sadly, there is little that can be done, and a lock in only benefits lawyers.

carbsy

biblio wrote: »

dont let the names fool you these are all the same company I wouldnt blame the staff for taking a stand,

Breeo is owned by Kerry Group and has absolutely nothing to do with Reox Holdings or 4Home now.Please get your facts correct.

biblio

Breeo is owned by Kerry Group and has absolutely nothing to do with Reox Holdings or 4Home now.Please get your facts correct

Yes it is owned by Kerry now in recent months only, I meant the hundreds of redundancies at Breeo since 2003 before the takeover and the redundancies announced last week at the now Breeo plant within the Dairygold facility , which are still a direct result of Dairygold action .So they do still have quite a bit to do with each other. I did state Breeo was an associate company

carbsy

biblio wrote: »

which are still a direct result of Dairygold action .

Which Dairygold action is this?

The reason that Kerry are making most of the Breeo employees redundanct is that they have their own facilities and only want the Breeo brand names - Galtee, Calvita, Shaws, Sno etc.

biblio

Which Dairygold action is this?

The splitting up of the company as a result of the infamous shareholders meeting in 2003 and the resulting creation of Reox, Breeo , 4Home , Alchemy etc.
Breeo was created to allow the brands to be sold.
The plan was to sell 4Home too but the timing didnt work out.

tolosenc

As the above poster said. Turn off the electricity, heat, water etc. They are breaking the law, they should be brought to justice

Scien wrote: »

Hang on a second there Heinrich.

Listen up, Vladimir.

Scien wrote: »

Staff have been offered 2 weeks on the year Redundancy.

Which is statutory redundancy.

Scien wrote: »

4Home have some cheek to try and lock up shop & not expect some sort of fight.

1) Not really. They did all they had to do.
2) As stated above, such a fight should be within the law, which this isn't.

Scien wrote: »

Some of the workers have been there +30yrs!

So that's 60+ weeks of pay? Presumably that'd be in excess of €50,000.

Scien wrote: »

The redundancy they have been offered is an insult.

In the current climate, any redundancy is a very good thing.

Scien wrote: »

Thomas Cook staff were offered 5 weeks & reluctantly settled on 6 as far as i remember.

They should have all been fired for gross misconduct and given nothing. At very most, they should only have got statutory. 6 weeks per year worked is an insult to all those who got nothing, and only encouraged this illegal behaviour, which is borderline piracy.

thebiglad

They should have all been fired for gross misconduct and given nothing. At very most, they should only have got statutory. 6 weeks per year worked is an insult to all those who got nothing, and only encouraged this illegal behaviour, which is borderline piracy.

Couldn't agree more, if one group gets away with it then all will be in, this is getting ridiculous, will be even more unattractive to conduct business in Ireland at this rate.

What next, follow the french example and kidnap the boss??

If they do not like statutory redundancy amount take it up with their TD's, it is not set by the employer, even if they take advantage of it.

Payment by any other company is not a precedent but a commercial decision and obviously not one every company can afford. I am sure there are more generous offers than those at Thomas Cook too!

obl

obl wrote: »

Which is statutory redundancy.

And which for those between 22 and 41 is twice what it would be in the UK.

Not that the UK payments are ideal though. In fact, between social welfare and redundancy comparisons, one thing that is becoming clear is that anyone should really hate to lose a job in the UK and it's amazing they are so employee unfriendly after years of 'Labour' government.

Nodin

obl wrote:

At very most, they should only have got statutory. 6 weeks per year worked is an insult to all those who got nothing, and only encouraged this illegal behaviour, which is borderline piracy. .

Their chief got a 5 Million stg bonus and a 35% pay rise. What would you call that?

Deleted User wrote: »

In fact, between social welfare and redundancy comparisons, one thing that is becoming clear is that anyone should really hate to lose a job in the UK and it's amazing they are so employee unfriendly after years of 'Labour' government.

If you were more familar with 'New Labour', you wouldn't find it amazing at all......

Red Alert

Why do they've a right to any more? I'm afraid the law's there for everyone, even when employees don't like it.

tolosenc

Nodin wrote: »

Their chief got a 5 Million stg bonus and a 35% pay rise. What would you call that?

1) Source, please.
2) If he merited it, then I'd call it performance related remuneration.

the groutch

this sit-in is justified (given 4 days notice, and only being given statutory), the thomas cook one isnt (given months of notice but just closed a month early which they were paid for, and offered 5 weeks per year)

tolosenc

the groutch wrote: »

this sit-in is justified (given 4 days notice, and only being given statutory), the thomas cook one isnt (given months of notice but just closed a month early which they were paid for, and offered 5 weeks per year)

Afraid not. Both are in breach of trespassing laws.

"only being given statutory" is not a valid reason to protest.

I'm not sure of the laws regarding informing staff of closure. Not much they can do about it though.

Would have thought failure to give statutory notice would be grounds for a complaint to a Rights Commissioner.

Joey the lips

biblio wrote: »

The staff wouldnt be taking this action if they were not treated so badly by management , this is the latest in a long line of redundancies in the area , and remember that these are mostly former Dairygold and before that Mitchelstown Co op staff, their employment was transferred to 4homes under a Dairygold trading reshuffle a few years back, .
There has been redundancies ongoing at Dairygold and its associate companies Reox, Breeo, 4Home etc since 2003 directly affecting thousands of families, most of the redundancies were forced on staff after the company made weak attempts at restructuring , then usually came out and said that xyz operation was unviable.

Mitchelstown, Mallow and surrounding areas have been decimated by this.
This comes in the same week that staff at Breeo foods dairy plant is to make 30 people redundant in the same town , dont let the names fool you these are all the same company I wouldnt blame the staff for taking a stand, local people feel cheated at the loss of so many jobs in 6 years and this is the culmination of the anger , locals used to be proud of Dairygold and its predecessor Mitchelstown Co op a job in any of its areas was a good one.
and by a strange twist of fate the building the staff are staging the protest in is the same building in which the company was founded in 1919.

BTW I'm not an employee just a local observer

I never knew that, I thought 4home was a new franchise. It all changes when you remember what they have gone through

Nodin

obl wrote: »

1) Source, please.
2) If he merited it, then I'd call it performance related remuneration.

Thomas Cook chief executive Manny Fontenla-Novoa has booked a £5m bonus for meeting synergy targets after cutting 2,800 jobs at the tour operator following its 2007 merger with MyTravel.

The bonus pay-out is part of a lucrative remuneration package that saw Mr Fontenla-Novoa's total compensation soar from £2.89m in 2007 to more than £7m last year.
Thomas Cook's remuneration committee has also handed its chief executive a 34pc increase in his base salary for 2009, up from £633,000 to £850,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/4401817/Thomas-Cook-chief-Manny-Fontenla-Novoa-wins-5m-bonus.html

Now, had they just axed half the number of people and tried to run it for another 18 months or so, I doubt there would have been a sit in. But seeing as they're more willing to fork out cash to the chief than plow some it back in the business, its hardly suprising people want a bigger cut of the pie themselves.

nesf

Sit Ins are illegal.

You are not entitled to more than statutory redundancy, any extra is at the employer's whim.


Which part of the two facts do people have trouble understanding? Sure if there was some evidence of 4Home breaking the law here I'd be supporting this but as far as I can see it's all above board.

tolosenc

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/4401817/Thomas-Cook-chief-Manny-Fontenla-Novoa-wins-5m-bonus.html

Now, had they just axed half the number of people and tried to run it for another 18 months or so, I doubt there would have been a sit in. But seeing as they're more willing to fork out cash to the chief than plow some it back in the business, its hardly suprising people want a bigger cut of the pie themselves.

So he got performance related pay. Nothing wrong with that. It in no-one other than his employers decision as to how much he gets paid. If they feel his contribution was worth that much, then so be it. We live in a free society, with a free market. If you don't like that, might I suggest North Korea...

Why would they halve the staff to keep a loss making part of the company going? It was unsustainable, so they got rid of it. Simple. A company has no obligation other than the statutory to it's employees, and no responsibility other than to its shareholders.

Hardly surprising indeed. But wanting a bigger slice doesn't give you the right to break the law.

Nodin

obl wrote: »

So he got performance related pay. Nothing wrong with that. It in no-one other than his employers decision as to how much he gets paid. If they feel his contribution was worth that much, then so be it. We live in a free society, with a free market. If you don't like that, might I suggest North Korea....

I like the way you lay out the reasonable alternatives.

obl wrote: »

Why would they halve the staff to keep a loss making part of the company going? It was unsustainable, so they got rid of it.....

But without giving a decent slice of the pie, in light of how much pie was going.

Toulousain

Toulousain wrote: »

should have all been fired for gross misconduct and given nothing. At very most, they should only have got statutory. 6 weeks per year worked is an insult to all those who got nothing, and only encouraged this illegal behaviour, which is borderline piracy.

Aren't they lucky that you weren't their employer. At the most they should have got was statutory? Would you settle for that if you worked for your company for 30 or 40 years? All those who got nothing? Is everyone working over 2 years not entitled to statutory? I fully support them anyway especially considering some people who were made redundant at the 4HOME headoffice got their 6 weeks redudancy package. <mod snip> Some stores did not even have basic DIY products such as white paint for weeks.

OhNoYouDidn't

Toulousain wrote: »

So he got performance related pay. Nothing wrong with that. It in no-one other than his employers decision as to how much he gets paid. If they feel his contribution was worth that much, then so be it. We live in a free society, with a free market. If you don't like that, might I suggest North Korea...

Why would they halve the staff to keep a loss making part of the company going? It was unsustainable, so they got rid of it. Simple. A company has no obligation other than the statutory to it's employees, and no responsibility other than to its shareholders.

Hardly surprising indeed. But wanting a bigger slice doesn't give you the right to break the law.

So taking a £5m bonus in a loss making company is fine, sitting in a vacated rental property as a symbolic protest against shabby treatment is a criminal offence that should be clamped down on.

Good to see you have your morals straight. Try and show a little compassion for the destroyed lives as a result of these decisions.

People are entitled to fight back. Deal with it.

Mother says

I've no problem with people tring to get whatever they can out of an ex-employer, it's not as if they have anything to lose.

However I think it would be pertinent for people to be aware of how tenuous modern jobs are. It's not as if these people were creating anything of substance like a house or a tractor. They were hawking ****e to people who had nothing better to spend their money on.

The Thomas Cook example is probably the clearest. They were simply organising a bunch of people to go somewhere else for a while and then come back.

I would encourage everyone in the country to think about what they really do for a living and figure out if they are providing a practical or essential service or product. If they are not they should be grateful that they have gotten away with it for so long and start saving their money sensibly. I certainly wish i had.

maymay765

So that's 60+ weeks of pay? Presumably that'd be in excess of €50,000.



do you live in the real world at all? someone who is getting redundancy from one of the 4homes stores wouldnt be getting anything close to 50,000. Even with years of service someone who started of on minimium wage wouldnt walk away with 50,000. Only the managers of the stores would get that for 30+ years of service.

thebman

I don't think anyone is arguing that they should get 50,000. Just that the minimum is taking the piss for a worker that has worked for you for 30 years