Support the Tesco 1,000

Mint Aero

In my day we the lay people would bycott the likes of Tesco until staff had their dispute resolved. That would deliver a swift jab to the nuts. Also why aren't the post 96 workers striking for better pay and conditions like the teachers are. No difference between a Tesco employee and a teacher in this dispute. That would send a left uppercut square in the ball sack.

Also very few people use commas when writing 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 and so on.

nullzero

Every little helps.

redlead

Mint Aero wrote: »

In my day we the lay people would bycott the likes of Tesco until staff had their dispute resolved. That would deliver a swift jab to the nuts. Also why aren't the post 96 workers striking for better pay and conditions like the teachers are. No difference between a Tesco employee and a teacher in this dispute. That would send a left uppercut square in the ball sack.

Also very few people use commas when writing 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 and so on.

1. There is a difference between most Tesco workers and teachers; mainly a degree as well as a HDip and/or a masters degree. The job itself is also more involved. I'm by no means a fan of teachers often crazy demands but those are the facts.

2. The strike itself seems elitist. If I was an average Tesco worker I'd be walking past the picket line. Why should I be on strike so some workers can continue to earn more than me for doing the same job. The 1,000 workers didn't give toss about everyone else for the last 20 years.

3. Maybe they don't want to go on strike because they feel that they are earning a fair wage for the work they are doing. People have been so misled in this country by Union's.

Mint Aero

redlead wrote: »

1. There is a difference between most Tesco workers and teachers; mainly a degree as well as a HDip and/or a masters degree. The job itself is also more involved. I'm by no means a fan of teachers often crazy demands but those are the facts.

As I said no difference between the two in terms of the dispute. What's degrees got to do with it. That's elitest.

redlead wrote: »

. The strike itself seems elitist. If I was an average Tesco worker I'd be walking past the picket line. Why should I be on strike so some workers can continue to earn more than me for the doing the same job..

That's the question I was asking. They should be on strike too for equality.

redlead wrote: »

Maybe they don't want to go on strike because they feel that they are earning a fair wage for the work they are doing. People have been so misled in this country by Union's.

They don't. You know that. I know that. The dog on the street knows that.

mansize

What's with the obsession with attacking male reproductive organs???

Dravokivich

So, if we aren't supposed to go to Dunnes over zero hours and can't go to Tesco because of some legacy contracts, where can we go? Surely there's a scandal in the midst with Supervalu...

Mint Aero

Dravokivich wrote: »

So, if we aren't supposed to go to Dunnes over zero hours and can't go to Tesco because of some legacy contracts, where can we go? Surely there's a scandal in the midst with Supervalu...

Lidl are good and responsible employers I hear.

redlead

If you are a communist and believe that all workers should be paid equal irrespective of what jobs they preform then fair enough. I'm presuming you aren't though so to suggest that someone packing shelves or sitting at a checkout should be treated the same as teachers is lunacy. This is the same path the luas driver have been led up God love them.

I think the main reason most people don't boycott strikes anymore is that they usually don't see them as just causes. The vast majority in this country are paid fairly for what they do.

freshpopcorn

Dravokivich wrote: »

So, if we aren't supposed to go to Dunnes over zero hours and can't go to Tesco because of some legacy contracts, where can we go? Surely there's a scandal in the midst with Supervalu...

Supervalu uses job bridge.

http://www.thejournal.ie/jobbridge-report-2732754-Apr2016/

kneemos

What became of the Dunnes workers dispute?
Haven't heard an utterance since the strike.

racso1975

kneemos wrote: »

What became of the Dunnes workers dispute?
Haven't heard an utterance since the strike.

Its been taken care of .........and if you know whats good for ya you'll stop asking questions!!!!!!!

ThisRegard

Mandate have been pretty slow in coming out to tell the public how many pre 96 wurkers have already accepted redundancy, some with over €100,000 in their pockets.

The rest just want to keep the same cushy number they have for being completely inflexible.

Richard Hillman

Mint Aero wrote: »

Lidl are good and responsible employers I hear.

They pay well. They treat their staff badly apparently. Especially low-mid management.

ShaneU

redlead wrote: »

2. The strike itself seems elitist. If I was an average Tesco worker I'd be walking past the picket line. Why should I be on strike so some workers can continue to earn more than me for doing the same job. The 1,000 workers didn't give toss about everyone else for the last 20 years.
.

Simple, because if Tesco are allowed to change the contracts of their highest earners on a whim, then the second highest are next, and so on. This has nothing to do with inflexible hours, it's all about money. As long as there are jobs to be done in a supermarket between 8-5 (and there always will be) then that argument makes no sense.

seamus

Mint Aero wrote: »

In my day we the lay people would bycott the likes of Tesco until staff had their dispute resolved. That would deliver a swift jab to the nuts.

Supporting all striking workers regardless of the details of the strike is just as bad as ignoring a valid strike.
There was a day when people would do this, but thankfully we've moved on. Your use of the word "lay" demonstrates your belief in an "us -v- them" mentality, as if the management of Tesco are part of some elitist ruling class oppressing the proletariat.

Also why aren't the post 96 workers striking for better pay and conditions like the teachers are.

Because they're probably satisfied that they're being fairly paid.

Our employment laws are such at this stage that for the most part if you're being treated unfairly it's because your employer is breaking the law and you don't know how to go about enforcing your rights.

Zero-hour and similar exploitative contracts are something of an abberation that emerged when workers were plentiful and jobs were short. As the economy continues to recover, the likes of Dunnes won't continue to get away with it because people will just go work for someone else. And hopefully someone will have the foresight to outlaw them.

The details of this issue are:

Tesco has said previously that 70 per cent of staff employed before 1996 had agreed to accept a recent offer of voluntary redundancy.

This involved payment of 5 weeks per year of service uncapped. For pre-1996 staff who did not opt for redundancy, Tesco said it would pay compensation equal to 2.5 times the annual loss of income experienced by moving to the new contract.

So basically they had the option of taking a redundancy payment of at least two years' pay, or getting the balance of their wages up to the end of 2018 paid to them upfront.

The company itself is in serious turmoil, it's going to be moving into closing down stores and laying off staff in the next 5-10 years as it fights to keep up with the competition from Lidl and Aldi. Sounds to me like the unions have quite badly misled these workers into thinking they're losing out by not accepting Tesco's offers.

Superhorse

Support on Boards.ie for workers? You must be aving a larf.

magma69

Superhorse wrote: »

Support on Boards.ie for workers? You must be aving a larf.

If it's not me benefiting from it, they can shag off. That's the response from your average Boardsie.

ThisRegard

ShaneU wrote: »

This has nothing to do with inflexible hours, it's all about money.

It's about both, pre 96ers are extremely inflexible and cost the company in both money and adaptability.

I'll give you the examples of butchers, how many Tesco stores haven't had butcher counters since they took over certain stores? Lots, and many still employ butchers who stil arrive into work long before the store opens for preparation time for the meat.

It's madness for both the employees and the union to argue over this. There's many more such nonsense practices, any company would want to end this either by buying the employees out, which they have done with hundreds already accepting redundancy, or change those practices.

Eugene Norman

redlead wrote: »

If you are a communist and believe that all workers should be paid equal irrespective of what jobs they preform then fair enough. I'm presuming you aren't though so to suggest that someone packing shelves or sitting at a checkout should be treated the same as teachers is lunacy. This is the same path the luas driver have been led up God love them.

I think the main reason most people don't boycott strikes anymore is that they usually don't see them as just causes. The vast majority in this country are paid fairly for what they do.

Teachers are, funnily enough, living in a communist system within a capitalist one. Unfireable, everybody paid the same over their lifetime despite huge differences in ability.

If these workers have a contract they have a contract. Contacts are not just binding for the rich.

As for fairly paid, that's a meaningless statement (are zero hour contracts fair). The market isn't fair, the distortion between capital and labour is pretty high.

Eugene Norman

magma69 wrote: »

If it's not me benefiting from it, they can shag off. That's the response from your average Boardsie.

They'd defend a contract for a hedge fund manager earning billions all the same, if it were grandfathered in.

Wanderer78

redlead wrote:

I think the main reason most people don't boycott strikes anymore is that they usually don't see them as just causes. The vast majority in this country are paid fairly for what they do.

The vast majority of workers in this country use the vast majority of their income in serving their debts. An unsustainable economic model

seamus

Superhorse wrote: »

Support on Boards.ie for workers? You must be aving a larf.

The same aul crap that the PBP come out with about "workers". Trying to pretend that there's some kind of downtrodden underclass that does all the work while everyone else lives the high life.

Everyone who's in a job is a "worker".

I'll support any person's strike where it looks like the employer is treating them unfairly.

ShaneU

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's about both, pre 96ers are extremely inflexible and cost the company in both money and adaptability.

I'll give you the examples of butchers, how many Tesco stores haven't had butcher counters since they took over certain stores? Lots, and many still employ butchers who stil arrive into work long before the store opens for preparation time for the meat.
.

Then move those staff to a department that doesn't need staff before the store opens. Again, this inflexible hours argument makes no sense to me.

Xterminator

The principle of not allowing an employer to unilaterally change a contract of employment without agreement is one worth fighting for.
Go to the labour court and submit to binding arbitration.

Oi Tesco ... NOOOO!

thats the message that needs to be sent.

MooShop

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's about both, pre 96ers are extremely inflexible and cost the company in both money and adaptability.

Agree with this. I worked in a Tesco store for 4 years, so have seen this first hand.

The pre-96ers (in my store anyway) were nothing but childish bullies who would throw their toys out of the pram if they didn't get their own way. The majority of them were so lazy and barely covered their duties, if at all, and got paid exorbitant amounts for the privilege.

Also these would never work a Sunday, of course until it was a bank holiday and they were getting triple time! :eek: And then when they were in on those days, did even less and the store was in more of a mess, putting us regular staff under more pressure because there wasn't enough budget to bring in people who would actually work!

They were always a clique onto to themselves, them vs us (regular staff/mgmt vs pre-96), and that divide was solely created by them!

Bit of a rant but had to put up with a lot of their s**t over the years I worked there.

CosmicSmash

redlead wrote: »

1. There is a difference between most Tesco workers and teachers; mainly a degree as well as a HDip and/or a masters degree. The job itself is also more involved. I'm by no means a fan of teachers often crazy demands but those are the facts.

2. The strike itself seems elitist. If I was an average Tesco worker I'd be walking past the picket line. Why should I be on strike so some workers can continue to earn more than me for doing the same job. The 1,000 workers didn't give toss about everyone else for the last 20 years.

3. Maybe they don't want to go on strike because they feel that they are earning a fair wage for the work they are doing. People have been so misled in this country by Union's.

So you would be okay if you had your own contract changed to match new entrants down the road?

ThisRegard

ShaneU wrote: »

Then move those staff to a department that doesn't need staff before the store opens. Again, this inflexible hours argument makes no sense to me.

They don't make sense? Only a mad man would think that. And you think that Tesco haven't tried that over the years, what do you think got them to this point?

Starting looking at things analytically for yourself instead of swallowing all the union and socialist ordinary wurkers claptrap.

Wanderer78

seamus wrote:

The same aul crap that the PBP come out with about "workers". Trying to pretend that there's some kind of downtrodden underclass that does all the work while everyone else lives the high life.

You obviously don't be mixing with the multi-billionaire classes!

Eugene Norman

redlead wrote: »

1. There is a difference between most Tesco workers and teachers; mainly a degree as well as a HDip and/or a masters degree. The job itself is also more involved. I'm by no means a fan of teachers often crazy demands but those are the facts.

Degrees have nothing to do with pay. You don't get better pay for doing Russian literature. You get paid more for a skill useful to employers. The whole idea that going to university is guaranteed a better job should be done away with. Teachers actually get what they get because of unions, as they clearly realise themselves.

2. The strike itself seems elitist. If I was an average Tesco worker I'd be walking past the picket line. Why should I be on strike so some workers can continue to earn more than me for doing the same job. The 1,000 workers didn't give toss about everyone else for the last 20 years.

Because the older workers negotiated better contracts. Also it's a bit odd to get upset with the differences in pay between workers and not, say, management and workers.

3. Maybe they don't want to go on strike because they feel that they are earning a fair wage for the work they are doing. People have been so misled in this country by Union's.

I can understand why they don't care, but the younger workers might be better off with better unions.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

The same aul crap that the PBP come out with about "workers". Trying to pretend that there's some kind of downtrodden underclass that does all the work while everyone else lives the high life.

Everyone who's in a job is a "worker".

I'll support any person's strike where it looks like the employer is treating them unfairly.

You've gone on a bit of a rant against strawmen there. Not sure anybody said anything related to those sentences. We're talking about workers here not the underclass.

cowboyBuilder

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Supervalu uses job bridge.

http://www.thejournal.ie/jobbridge-report-2732754-Apr2016/

Not surprised, it was one of the worst places I ever worked in when I was a teenager.

God awful place.

stoplooklisten

I distinctly remember crossing a tesco picket line in 1999, I knew then they were up to no good.

To Elland Back

Superhorse wrote: »

Support on Boards.ie for workers? You must be aving a larf.

I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes

stoplooklisten

To Elland Back wrote: »

I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes

Now, that's a cause I'll row in behind!

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We're talking about workers here not the underclass.

So all of us, right?

Yet apparently people on boards don't support workers. But they are workers.

I'm so conflicted...oh, no, wait, that's not me.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

So all of us, right?

Yet apparently people on boards don't support workers. But they are workers.

I'm so conflicted...oh, no, wait, that's not me.

Saying people don't support workers isn't saying they are not themselves workers.

Ireland is the home of the tuppence happenny looking down on tuppence characters.

You can see that in the Luas arguments. Those workers don't deserve a raise. They don't have edjuchasen.

Eugene Norman

kneemos wrote: »

Rich people generally don't leave money laying around.
Unlikely that half a million of the population have 94 billion on deposit.

Ok so it's poor people who have it. Ireland doesn't have a very mature brokerage sector. Middle income earners saving for a house probably do keep it on deposit. Pensioners with lump savings too.

It would be ~30k per deposit account. I doubt if the median is more than 10k. And it doesn't actually seem that high.

Carawaystick

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's about both, pre 96ers are extremely inflexible and cost the company in both money and adaptability.

It's such a pity when tescos bought quinnsworth that they missed this little detail. If only they could have paid some hawkeyed legal eagle to check this little things, but alas they couldn't afford it... Or thought they'd get away with screwing the staff.

Another thing that cost tescos money, was people shopping in Dunnes in Newry. They were quick to drop their prices in shops near the border then.

kneemos

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Ok so it's poor people who have it. Ireland doesn't have a very mature brokerage sector. Middle income earners saving for a house probably do keep it on deposit. Pensioners with lump savings too.

It would be ~30k per deposit account. I doubt if the median is more than 10k. And it doesn't actually seem that high.

Obviously not.

ThisRegard

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's such a pity when tescos bought quinnsworth that they missed this little detail. If only they could have paid some hawkeyed legal eagle to check this little things, but alas they couldn't afford it... Or thought they'd get away with screwing the staff.

They didn't miss it. I assume it was probably part of the TUPE or whatever the equivalent was at the time. And being offered 5 weeks per year of service, uncapped, when the least amount a person will get is 100 weeks pay is a pretty good pay off in my books should you wish for it. Managers in there are walking out with multiples of €100,000. (or are store managers not seen as workers?)

If you turn up for work every day for a role that no longer exists, and refuse to do anything else outside of what your did 20 or 30 years ago, it's not the company that's screwing you.

Ken.

Mod-Off topic posts removed. Try to keep this about Tesco please and thank you.

Superhorse

To Elland Back wrote: »

I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes

I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.

Red_Wake

Superhorse wrote: »

I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.

What do you consider a decent wage?

seamus

"Race to the bottom". Another overused and unproven piece of hyperbole from the AAA/PBP brigade.

ThisRegard

Superhorse wrote: »

I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.

What are they racing to the bottom of?

And if you read the Luas thread you'll see the majority of posters arguing the opposite to what you're claiming regarding degrees.

Little CuChulainn

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Saying people don't support workers isn't saying they are not themselves workers.

Ireland is the home of the tuppence happenny looking down on tuppence characters.

You can see that in the Luas arguments. Those workers don't deserve a raise. They don't have edjuchasen.

Nothing to do with them not having an education and you know it. It's a simple job and the majority of people don't think it merits a raise. In the case of Tesco, people don't think a group of workers should be able to hold their employer hostage without good reason. Keeping a completely unworkable and outdated contract is not a good reason.

foggy_lad

They're bringin back the "yellow packs" Joe.

oppenheimer1

seamus wrote: »

The company itself is in serious turmoil, it's going to be moving into closing down stores and laying off staff in the next 5-10 years as it fights to keep up with the competition from Lidl and Aldi. Sounds to me like the unions have quite badly misled these workers into thinking they're losing out by not accepting Tesco's offers.

Not in Ireland, where the operation is rumoured to be its most profitable location. Not that we'll ever know because it doesn't break down its irish results individually in its published accounts.

uck51js9zml2yt

Why the 1000 in the title?
According to my reading its more like 300.:)

redlead

CosmicSmash wrote: »

So you would be okay if you had your own contract changed to match new entrants down the road?

It has in the past due to the economic downturn. I had a 20% pay cut. I certainly wasn't happy but I can see why they did it.

seamus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not in Ireland, where the operation is rumoured to be its most profitable location. Not that we'll ever know because it doesn't break down its irish results individually in its published accounts.

Rumoured. Though apparently the Irish arm returned a profit last year for the first time since 2012. So I'm not sure how much credence I'd lend to those rumours.

In any case, since the Irish arm is absolute small fry in the overall agenda, profits in Ireland are going to have little consequence when the group is making losses in the billions.

The same is true for costs - in that savings made by the Irish branch will make little consequence overall. But the Irish executive team will need to be seen doing something they can present at the next management summit. And trimming the fat in the form of the most expensive workers is one of the easiest and most common ways to do that.

If I was one of these Tesco workers, the parent company's dramatic downturn from a 2.5bn profit to a 5.8bn loss in the space of a year would give me serious cause for concern. If the choice was between the generous package on offer or fighting to hold onto a job that might be gone in a couple of years, gimme the package.