Bad Bobs / Park Inn

Up2NoGood

CLOSING

From what I hear from one of the ex-bartenders, there was a deal in place for the bar to be sold, then the banks discovered what the staff were being paid and nixed the deal.

The lads are now staging a sit in and always looking for support, get the word out!

wmpdd3

That makes no sense, how would the staff costs kill a deal?

Deise Vu

Up2NoGood wrote: »

CLOSING

From what I hear from one of the ex-bartenders, there was a deal in place for the bar to be sold, then the banks discovered what the staff were being paid and nixed the deal.

The lads are now staging a sit in and always looking for support, get the word out!

Sorry but your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why would the bank stop a sale because of staff pay? That would be the new owners problem and, in any case, the new owners would not be obliged to take on the old staff. The only thing the staff will achieve from a sit-in is that they will scare off buyers. I would have thought any new buyer would retain some or all of the old staff for the sake of continuity but this scenario wouldn't exactly endear the staff to a potential buyer.

If the issue is unpaid wages / redundancy there are legal remedies that should be pursued first.

dzilla

Well said.

Up2NoGood

I am aware the original post doesn't make much sense, I am repeating what the lad has posted on FB, I was more or less posting to see if anyone else knew anything....Can you ^^ contribute or are you correcting papers?

mozattack

The problem usually is that the bank wants the purchaser to retain the staff and with that comes the inherent later costs or redunancy which I believer were high up there with staff being there a long time.

Also it is hard for the new owner to come in and replace the staff without being hit with unfair dismissal cases so they quite rightly sometimes back out of the deal because these factors are too difficult to overcome.

That's Ireland for you.

PropJoe10

There's a gathering organised at the Park Inn tonight at 6pm for people to show support for the lads. If you can come along, please do!

Smiley Burnett

who owes the staff the money etc??? some clarity required!!

kryogen

They are trying to get a statutory payment. No notice given, just told the jobs are gone, place is closed. Thats what the sit in is about.

kryogen

http://www.waterford-news.ie/2014/02/26/park-inn-sit-enters-second-day/

gobo99

And people wonder why business don't set up in waterford.

wellboytoo

The staff are entitled and will get statutory redundancy whether the present owner pays it or the state, there is no need for a sit in, as regards a sale they will never sell it as a going concern with the time in service the staff have it would be too expensive. The call has been made to close it and sell with no liabilities, harsh but they are the stark realities of commercial life.

christy02

If it is not viable as a business then it should close. Harsh realities. Sit in will achieve nothing except put Waterford in a bad light again. Statutory payments will be made by the state. Perhaps if staff weren't on such high wages it may have been a viable business and would not be closing. Bar work is bar work and should be paid as such.

PropJoe10

According to that article, the buyer involved was willing to take over the pub along with at least some of the staff, but this was vetoed by the bank, meaning everyone is out of work. Thats why people are upset about it.

mozattack

Good two comments directly above.

Some people need to look at the big picture, sometimes staff rights are over the top - so much so that useless staff are kept because they cant be let go due to over the top labour rules

2SWEET

For all those saying the staff will still get statutory redundancy from the state, well it's not that simple if the employer hasn't issued RP50 form to them they will have a long road ahead even trying to get a social welfare payment won't be straight forward and as for redundancy payment that will take up to 14 months and a tribunal to be resolved. And yes I have been there and it's not a nice place to be.

sparkling sea

2SWEET wrote: »

For all those saying the staff will still get statutory redundancy from the state, well it's not that simple if the employer hasn't issued RP50 form to them they will have a long road ahead even trying to get a social welfare payment won't be straight forward and as for redundancy payment that will take up to 14 months and a tribunal to be resolved. And yes I have been there and it's not a nice place to be.

Is the employer refusing to pay redundancy or issue a RP50?

wellboytoo

sparkling sea wrote: »

Is the employer refusing to pay redundancy or issue a RP50?

I'd say "who is the employer now" is a more pertinent question?

cookie.monster

the banks prob did this deliberate to sell on without the staff and gain a higher value for the premises, would'nt surprise me in the slightest

Hijpo

Cop on lads, how is having a sit in to try and protect yourelf from being out of a job with no payment putting waterford in a bad light? (apparently they have gone a few weeks without pay already, it doesnt sound right but thats what iv been told).

Anytime anyone stands up for themselves against the ill treatment inflicted on them by business's they are instantly accused of putting waterford in a bad light, and its not acceptable. Should people really be expected to accept this kind of treatment in this day and age?? honestly??

I could see your point if they were holding a company to ransom for extra pay but the premises is not even trading, i would also side with you of they were causing damage to the premises etc but they are not, Its a peaceful sit in.

They have been evicted from work with no notice and being left to sort out the problems being imposed on them due to this situation with out any guidence or measures put in place to ensure the stress caused by they're transition to immediate unemployment is as limited as possible.

Have some bloody courtesy for the people, some with families, that are being expelled from employment that they have serviced for years in a completely unacceptable and uncivil manner.

Dicky Pride

Not meaning to be inciteful here but what is the difference between the staff of the park inn and say the staff of T&H's or the grand hotel or somewhere like that? The staff of T&H's were told it was closing five minutes before it actually closed.

This sit in seems like a fruitless endeavour to me. I feel for them but I'm
not sure what they're expecting to happen.

PropJoe10

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Not meaning to be inciteful here but what is the difference between the staff of the park inn and say the staff of T&H's or the grand hotel or somewhere like that? The staff of T&H's were told it was closing five minutes before it actually closed.

This sit in seems like a fruitless endeavour to me. I feel for them but I'm
not sure what they're expecting to happen.

They are protesting because there was a deal in place to sell the pub and keep most of the staff on, but this was vetoed by the bank. They were then told with no notice period that the pub was closing and they were all gone. Considering some of them have been there upwards of 15 years, I think they're well within their rights to try to make sure they get the payoff they are entitled to. If the staff in T&H's didnt take a stand, thats their own decision. Doesnt mean the lads in the Park shouldnt.

sparkling sea

PropJoe10 wrote: »

They are protesting because there was a deal in place to sell the pub and keep most of the staff on, but this was vetoed by the bank. They were then told with no notice period that the pub was closing and they were all gone. Considering some of them have been there upwards of 15 years, I think they're well within their rights to try to make sure they get the payoff they are entitled to. If the staff in T&H's didnt take a stand, thats their own decision. Doesnt mean the lads in the Park shouldnt.

From WLR FM - Hundreds of people have gathered outside a Waterford City pub in solidarity with staff members who are engaging in a sit in at the premises.Yesterday the workers at the Park Inn on Paddy Brown's Road were informed that the pub was closing with immediate effect. It's was built by Robert Tweedy Senior 40 years ago and was put on the market last May with a 650 thousand euro asking price. Mr Tweedy's attorney issued a statement this afternoon saying it was with regret that he had to inform staff of the closure. Gerry Halley says all efforts made to resolve the problems with the bank have failed and because there is no money they were left with no other option but to close. He says the staff have been paid up to date and that they are assisting the staff, as requested by them, with their Application for Redundancy.

I'm a bit lost on this one, the above seems to imply that the staff will recieve all that is due to them. Are the staff protesting because the banks won't agree to Mr Tweedys proposal ?

Dicky Pride

So...they are all paid up to date...and they will get redundancies...

It's funny, in all of this I haven't heard anyone thanking Bob Tweedy Sr for providing so much employment in the area for 40 years.

PropJoe10

sparkling sea wrote: »

From WLR FM - Hundreds of people have gathered outside a Waterford City pub in solidarity with staff members who are engaging in a sit in at the premises.Yesterday the workers at the Park Inn on Paddy Brown's Road were informed that the pub was closing with immediate effect. It's was built by Robert Tweedy Senior 40 years ago and was put on the market last May with a 650 thousand euro asking price. Mr Tweedy's attorney issued a statement this afternoon saying it was with regret that he had to inform staff of the closure. Gerry Halley says all efforts made to resolve the problems with the bank have failed and because there is no money they were left with no other option but to close. He says the staff have been paid up to date and that they are assisting the staff, as requested by them, with their Application for Redundancy.

I'm a bit lost on this one, the above seems to imply that the staff will recieve all that is due to them. Are the staff protesting because the banks won't agree to Mr Tweedys proposal ?

It said completely different in the Waterford News & Star yesterday. I've no idea to be honest.

Bringthethunder

Dicky Pride wrote: »

So...they are all paid up to date...and they will get redundancies...

It's funny, in all of this I haven't heard anyone thanking Bob Tweedy Sr for providing so much employment in the area for 40 years.

Sorry about that. Thanks Bob Tweedy! Better now?

albert kidd

Dicky Pride wrote: »

So...they are all paid up to date...and they will get redundancies...

It's funny, in all of this I haven't heard anyone thanking Bob Tweedy Sr for providing so much employment in the area for 40 years.

or thanking him for the countless small buisnesses in waterford that never got paid due to the money he owed when things went tits up with him.

wellboytoo

K 3 alive and well

wellboytoo

albert kidd wrote: »

or thanking him for the countless small buisnesses in waterford that never got paid due to the money he owed when things went tits up with him.

I'll think you'll find that was his son Bob junior but no point in letting the truth get in the way like most of this thread of ill informed hearsay and downright stupidity.

albert kidd

wellboytoo wrote: »

I'll think you'll find that was his son Bob junior but no point in letting the truth get in the way like most of this thread of ill informed hearsay and downright stupidity.

i think you'll find it was both.

kilkennycat2004

I hope the staff get what their entitlements, nothing more, nothing less.
However this type of rent a mob to support a hopeless cause does nothing for Waterford.
Tweedy & The Park Inn are now history, The lads need to prepare to get organised alright, organised to get in position A for the upcoming job search!

Dicky Pride

albert kidd wrote: »

i think you'll find it was both.

No it wasn't.

Hijpo

kilkennycat2004 wrote: »

I hope the staff get what their entitlements, nothing more, nothing less.
However this type of rent a mob to support a hopeless cause does nothing for Waterford.
Tweedy & The Park Inn are now history, The lads need to prepare to get organised alright, organised to get in position A for the upcoming job search!

Im sure thats all the lads are looking for, they are right to expect it and they are right to stay in that premises until they get it too because as soon as they leave there case will be put to the very end of the pile, lets not be naive here.

Since when is a group of peaceful locals standing together in moral support for staff and to highlight the issue a mob?

I suppose 20 people standing around a grotto in support for jesus is also a mob :rolleyes:

And i suppose if the lads left the bar that morning it would have led to several multi national companies banging on the door to start up business's :rolleyes:

Position A for a job search? what? thats not even remotely funny nor does it even make sense :rolleyes:

O Riain

Hijpo wrote: »

Im sure thats all the lads are looking for, they are right to expect it and they are right to stay in that premises until they get it too because as soon as they leave there case will be put to the very end of the pile, lets not be naive here.

Since when is a group of peaceful locals standing together in moral support for staff and to highlight the issue a mob?

I suppose 20 people standing around a grotto in support for jesus is also a mob :rolleyes:

And i suppose if the lads left the bar that morning it would have led to several multi national companies banging on the door to start up business's :rolleyes:

Position A for a job search? what? thats not even remotely funny nor does it even make sense :rolleyes:

People here banging on about Waterford having a bad reputation with militant staff as if sit ins dont happen elsewhere. They happen up and down the country with a very publicized one happening in cork a few years back that lasted a long time.

Dicky Pride

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed in getting.

Dicky Pride

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

Hijpo

Dicky Pride wrote: »

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

There is always a discrepancy with these figures, there has never been accurate figures released about these kinds of events, what makes you think they would be similar this time around?

Why are you annoyed, is it your local boozer and your hanging for a pint?

Bringthethunder

Dicky Pride wrote: »

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

Definitely too much time on your hands.

Dicky Pride

Not quite.

Deise Vu

O Riain wrote: »

People here banging on about Waterford having a bad reputation with militant staff as if sit ins dont happen elsewhere. They happen up and down the country with a very publicized one happening in cork a few years back that lasted a long time.

The Cork situation was completely different. It was a holding company selling up after many years in business and they were only going to pay statutory redundancy. The company was continuing in business elsewhere (in the UK?) and were going to profit hugely from selling the factory and site. The staff felt they deserved more and by occupying the factory they were able to pressurise the company into paying them more.

In short, there was something to gain from their sit-in, there is absolutely nothing for the Park Inn workers to gain. In fact their actions are guaranteed to delay the re-opening of the pub. How does that help them? You would assume the new owner will hire at least some of them in order to keep the customer base happy. By closing down the old business and opening the new one, they are are all guaranteed redundancy (over €30K in some cases according to the service we are reading about) and some, if not all, will get jobs in the new business. In my view the sit-in is just some knee-jerk stupidity.

Hijpo

Deise Vu wrote: »

The Cork situation was completely different. It was a holding company selling up after many years in business and they were only going to pay statutory redundancy. The company was continuing in business elsewhere (in the UK?) and were going to profit hugely from selling the factory and site. The staff felt they deserved more and by occupying the factory they were able to pressurise the company into paying them more.

In short, there was something to gain from their sit-in, there is absolutely nothing for the Park Inn workers to gain. In fact their actions are guaranteed to delay the re-opening of the pub. How does that help them? You would assume the new owner will hire at least some of them in order to keep the customer base happy. By closing down the old business and opening the new one, they are are all guaranteed redundancy (over €30K in some cases according to the service we are reading about) and some, if not all, will get jobs in the new business. In my view the sit-in is just some knee-jerk stupidity.

Someone else who trusts a bank to do the right thing :rolleyes:

It seems the bank rejected the sale because part of the money involved in the deal was to pay redundancies if needed, meaning the bank wouldnt be getting the money. So its looking like the bank want the employees gone so they can resell to the same buyer but get the cash and not garaunteeing any jobs.

Whats binding the new employer to keep the staff on when they now have no obligation to keep them which opens the door to higher staff for less pay. Isnt that how a business works? Cheaper operation, less expenditure, more profit?

The lack of clarity going forward is whats keeping those lads in that pub and there they should stay until some kind of garauntee is made that they either get the money owed to them or they keep there jobs.

Jubo

Pat Kenny is going to be covering this on newstalk this morning

wellboytoo

Jubo wrote: »

Pat Kenny is going to be covering this on newstalk this morning

Lovely more excellent labour coverage for Waterford.

mooseknunkle

Dicky Pride wrote: »

WLR say there were 300 there last night. John Hearne and Co say there were 800.

Bit of a difference there. The longer this goes on the more annoyed im getting.

Does it really matter if it was 10 or 1000?,the pub has been there for 40 years so im sure a lot of people just want to show support for the workers...its annoying you?,sure god love you...

Deise Vu

Hijpo wrote: »

Someone else who trusts a bank to do the right thing :rolleyes:

It seems the bank rejected the sale because part of the money involved in the deal was to pay redundancies if needed, meaning the bank wouldnt be getting the money. So its looking like the bank want the employees gone so they can resell to the same buyer but get the cash and not garaunteeing any jobs.

Whats binding the new employer to keep the staff on when they now have no obligation to keep them which opens the door to higher staff for less pay. Isnt that how a business works? Cheaper operation, less expenditure, more profit?

The lack of clarity going forward is whats keeping those lads in that pub and there they should stay until some kind of garauntee is made that they either get the money owed to them or they keep there jobs.

Where did I post that banks will do the right thing? If you want ‘bankers are cnuts’ anecdotes I can supply dozens from personal experience.

The simple facts of this situation are that Bob Tweedy put his premises up as security against a loan that has been called in. The bank now own the building. If Tweedy can’t pay redundancy to his staff, that is between him, his staff, and the insolvency fund. The staff will get everything they are entitled to, with the only downside being it will take longer to arrive. It would be totally stupid of the bank to pay claims which are already guaranteed by the state. We might not like that but that is financial reality. There is absolutely no way the bank will pay anything to the staff as, to do so, would set a precedent that would cripple it down the road.

For the same reasons outlined above, the suggestion that a potential buyer was putting up funds that would include redundancy payments for the staff is beyond ludicrous. It would not even come up for discussion. A potential buyer might look at buying the premises as a going concern in which case there are no redundancies but they are taking on the potential liability (which no sane purchaser would do) or they are buying under vacant possession and the old staff are the old owner’s problem.

To repeat myself, there is nothing to gain from the sit-in and there are lots to lose. Every day the pub is closed is a day people are not earning wages from it and the country is losing the taxes generated by it. The staff have made their point, they should really get on with their lives before the circus gets out of hand completely and we are looking at another vacant business premises for years to come (and it was a good one until certain members of the Tweedy family lost the run of themselves).

PS That's looks a fine turnout on a horrible night.

dzilla

What is the expected outcome of the sit in?

wellboytoo

Deise Vu wrote: »

Where did I post that banks will do the right thing? If you want ‘bankers are cnuts’ anecdotes I can supply dozens from personal experience.

The simple facts of this situation are that Bob Tweedy put his premises up as security against a loan that has been called in. The bank now own the building. If Tweedy can’t pay redundancy to his staff, that is between him, his staff, and the insolvency fund. The staff will get everything they are entitled to, with the only downside being it will take longer to arrive. It would be totally stupid of the bank to pay claims which are already guaranteed by the state. We might not like that but that is financial reality. There is absolutely no way the bank will pay anything to the staff as, to do so, would set a precedent that would cripple it down the road.

For the same reasons outlined above, the suggestion that a potential buyer was putting up funds that would include redundancy payments for the staff is beyond ludicrous. It would not even come up for discussion. A potential buyer might look at buying the premises as a going concern in which case there are no redundancies but they are taking on the potential liability (which no sane purchaser would do) or they are buying under vacant possession and the old staff are the old owner’s problem.

To repeat myself, there is nothing to gain from the sit-in and there are lots to lose. Every day the pub is closed is a day people are not earning wages from it and the country is losing the taxes generated by it. The staff have made their point, they should really get on with their lives before the circus gets out of hand completely and we are looking at another vacant business premises for years to come (and it was a good one until certain members of the Tweedy family lost the run of themselves).

PS That's looks a fine turnout on a horrible night.

That is it in a nutshell end of to any sensible person.....
500 more posts will probably follow on someones ill informed Opinion but sure that's free speech I suppose.
Great concise post on the real Politik of business

Hijpo

Deise Vu wrote: »

Where did I post that banks will do the right thing? If you want ‘bankers are cnuts’ anecdotes I can supply dozens from personal experience.

No but the acceptance that if they quit the protest and left the premises they would be left in the lurch and out of pocket for an uncertain amount of time but you can be sure it wont be a short time.

Deise Vu wrote: »

The simple facts of this situation are that Bob Tweedy put his premises up as security against a loan that has been called in. The bank now own the building. If Tweedy can’t pay redundancy to his staff, that is between him, his staff, and the insolvency fund. The staff will get everything they are entitled to, with the only downside being it will take longer to arrive. It would be totally stupid of the bank to pay claims which are already guaranteed by the state. We might not like that but that is financial reality. There is absolutely no way the bank will pay anything to the staff as, to do so, would set a precedent that would cripple it down the road.

The way i read it is, the new buyer suggested a decreased payment to the bank in order to facilitate redundancy payments. This is not the bank paying money to the staff, its a reduced price for the pub. Could it have something to do with tax breaks for the new owner, i dont know but it seems a better deal than sacking employees out right.

Deise Vu wrote: »

For the same reasons outlined above, the suggestion that a potential buyer was putting up funds that would include redundancy payments for the staff is beyond ludicrous. It would not even come up for discussion. A potential buyer might look at buying the premises as a going concern in which case there are no redundancies but they are taking on the potential liability (which no sane purchaser would do) or they are buying under vacant possession and the old staff are the old owner’s problem.

To repeat myself, there is nothing to gain from the sit-in and there are lots to lose. Every day the pub is closed is a day people are not earning wages from it and the country is losing the taxes generated by it. The staff have made their point, they should really get on with their lives before the circus gets out of hand completely and we are looking at another vacant business premises for years to come (and it was a good one until certain members of the Tweedy family lost the run of themselves).

The only thing causing this situation is the banks greed. The sit in was totaly avoidable had the bank just bit the bullet and accepted the offer. Now we have a situation where not only is the premises not open to trade but it also shows they have no problem contributing to the already unacceptable level of unemployment in waterford and add to the strain on the welfare system so there is no point saying "oh were loosing taxes" when the staff will be forced to claim social welfare, which is my eyes is worse.

What the staff have to gain is some assurances and guidence had they not got if they simply left when told to, also they now have national exposure highlighting more ill treatment by banks. Unfortunatly some people will only see the issue smearing waterford instead of it bringing more attention to banks and there greed.

Deise Vu wrote: »

PS That's looks a fine turnout on a horrible night.

Yeah, fair play to those who turned out in support.

mike65

Jubo wrote: »

Pat Kenny is going to be covering this on newstalk this morning

it'll be on in a min or two

edit - after this current item is done.

Dicky Pride

Bringthethunder wrote: »

Definitely too much time on your hands.

It's annoying to me in the sense that I've been through these situations before and as much as I admire the effort and the community spirit up there, they're really just delaying the progression of the situation.

The banks liquidated the business because they didn't want to get stuck with the redundancy bill, that bit is obvious. The government will now have to pay their entitlements. They need to accept this eventuality now. There is a buyer lined up for the bar as far as I know and he would be unwise to let any of the staff go. This week has shown how well liked they all are. The sooner they leave the pub, the sooner the redundancies can be processed, a new owner can come in and they can apply for and probably regain their jobs again. I have family and friends up there, I want the best outcome for them...this throwback to the water rats protest and Waterford glass sit in is helping no one.

Hijpo

Dicky Pride wrote: »

It's annoying to me in the sense that I've been through these situations before and as much as I admire the effort and the community spirit up there, they're really just delaying the progression of the situation.

The banks liquidated the business because they didn't want to get stuck with the redundancy bill, that bit is obvious. The government will now have to pay their entitlements. They need to accept this eventuality now. There is a buyer lined up for the bar as far as I know and he would be unwise to let any of the staff go. This week has shown how well liked they all are. The sooner they leave the pub, the sooner the redundancies can be processed, a new owner can come in and they can apply for and probably regain their jobs again. I have family and friends up there, I want the best outcome for them...this throwback to the water rats protest and Waterford glass sit in is helping no one.

Occupying the premises until they got some form of clarifcation on the matters they have now become a part of, was the correct action to take.

Ill leave it at that.