Scabs?

Havockk

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're not. You're misinterpreting the meaning of a 'free-market economy', via some impossible, or exaggerated, misinterpretation of that term to refer to some unfettereD, or unrealistically utopian, standard of 'freedom'.

A competitive economy is a core, longstanding guiding principle of European and domestic economic policy, indluding in the retail sector. Anybody in denial of the relative freedom of the market is, well, in denial.

And she's not a so-called professor, no more than the American judge James L. Robart is a 'so-called judge'. She's a Harvard-educated Distinguished (top tenured) Professor of Economics. It isn't a question of some guy's opinion on the internet as to whether or not she is a professor.

Ouch.

suicide_circus

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're an advocate of bolting the door after the horse has bolted?

Do you need to loosen your tie or something? Calm yourself. I'm an advocate of taking things by a case by case basis and I don't believe tesco is anywhere near turning a loss. Remember, this is all about the terms and conditions of 250 staff members - less than 2% of their workforce. If they want to publish their profits and prove me wrong they can go ahead and I'll change my tune.

ThisRegard

As you said yourself, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, some of whom are their employees. The fact that there's only a few affected, which keeps getting trotted out, is irrelevant. A store manager can't run their store as efficiently as possible if some of their staff are stuck in a bygone era.

But you seem to have the notion that such inefficiencies don't need to be tackled until things go into the red for some bizarre reason.

suicide_circus

The 250 is entirely relevant. If they can't run the stores with 98% of the staff on "modern" contracts it's says more about the management than anything else. Also no one believes for a second that they'll stop at the pre 1996 staff.

ThisRegard

suicide_circus wrote: »

The 250 is entirely relevant. If they can't run the stores with 98% of the staff on "modern" contracts it's says more about the management than anything else. Also no one believes for a second that they'll stop at the pre 1996 staff.

You clearly never worked in, or managed at, retail level, or any level for that matter. You have a finite set of resources which you have at your disposal.

And no one believes? Ok so, I take it at face value you've done the research and polls on this.

end of the road

ThisRegard wrote: »

For once try two things for me, firstly, stop lying. Secondly, learn about capitalisation.

Edit, lying is probably a bit harsh. Your tendency is to bluff without actually knowing what you're bluffing about.

i don't lie and i know what i'm talking about. i'm only the messenger and i cannot be responsible for people not liking the message.

ThisRegard wrote: »

As you said yourself, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, some of whom are their employees. The fact that there's only a few affected, which keeps getting trotted out, is irrelevant. A store manager can't run their store as efficiently as possible if some of their staff are stuck in a bygone era.

But you seem to have the notion that such inefficiencies don't need to be tackled until things go into the red for some bizarre reason.

there are no efficientsies to be made with these staff. the staff are running at full efficientsy, the managers are managing at full efficientsy, and the staff are entitled for their contracts to be honoured.

ThisRegard

end of the road wrote: »

i don't lie and i know what i'm talking about. i'm only the messenger and i cannot be responsible for people not liking the message.

You don't. I just used the same pollsters suicide circus used, and nobody believes you. You're a contrarian for the sake of it and never can back up any of your wild claims.

I mean, did you actually keep a straight face when posting the following?

end of the road wrote: »

there are no efficientsies to be made with these staff. the staff are running at full efficientsy, the managers are managing at full efficientsy, and the staff are entitled for their contracts to be honoured.

suicide_circus

ThisRegard wrote: »

You clearly never worked in, or managed at, retail level, or any level for that matter. You have a finite set of resources which you have at your disposal.

And no one believes? Ok so, I take it at face value you've done the research and polls on this.

I know all about retail management, hon

ThisRegard

suicide_circus wrote: »

I know all about retail management, hon

I'm not a member of the legal profession, but I get that my blindingly brilliant arguments and debating style may lead you to believe so.

end of the road

ThisRegard wrote: »

You don't. I just used the same pollsters suicide circus used, and nobody believes you. You're a contrarian for the sake of it and never can back up any of your wild claims.

i do know what i'm talking about and i don't lie. i couldn't give a stuff whether people believe me, it's no skin off my nose whether they do or not. i'm not one bit of a contrarian for the sake of it or a contrarian full stop. i can and do back up my factual claims.

ThisRegard wrote: »

I mean, did you actually keep a straight face when posting the following?

absolutely i did as i believe it to be the case and have saw nothing to convince me otherwise.

suicide_circus

Beware the ideologues. Whichever side they're on.

ThisRegard

end of the road wrote: »

i do know what i'm talking about and i don't lie. i couldn't give a stuff whether people believe me, it's no skin off my nose whether they do or not. i'm not one bit of a contrarian for the sake of it or a contrarian full stop. i can and do back up my factual claims.

There's lads still waiting for you to do so on the Bust Eireann thread, maybe you just forgot about them. People don't believe you because they actually know to the contrary.

Arghus

ThisRegard wrote: »

You do, you claming to be an employee and everything?

I agree with Suicide Circus and his argument that employees conditions have become steadily worse over time: because they have.

I'm not a shareholder myself, many employees are not.

I worked for tesco for years. Have family there yet. A serious cut above their competitors in how they pay, manage and promote/train their staff.

I always had a problem meself with the mandatory union membership thing but cest la vie.

The pre 96 gang were a law unto themselves in our store. Everyone else had to work the ****ty shifts and times to cover them and they couldn't be asked to do anything above and beyond but they were already down the corridor to the union but cest la vie.

Claiming that a 20 year old contract means that nothing can ever change is serious childishness in such a competitive sector, but cest la vie.

And I'd pass a picket for the craic of it. You see people's true colours very quickly when you make your own decisions against the mob and in my experience there's few as vicious as the union rabble-rousers in any organisation.

Give me management that need my skills and need to make a profit any day of the week, if I've to be in bed with anyone. They at least I can understand and reason with.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'd pass a picket for the craic of it. You see people's true colours very quickly when you make your own decisions against the mob and in my experience there's few as vicious as the union rabble-rousers in any organisation.

the fact you would "cross a picket for the crack" knowing the outcome you claim, says that you are the rabble rouser and trouble maker, i'm afraid.

ThisRegard

end of the road wrote: »

the fact you would "cross a picket for the crack" knowing the outcome you claim, says that you are the rabble rouser and trouble maker, i'm afraid.

Give it up ffs.

Bateman

We all like a wind up every now and again but people have to have a look at themselves and see the bigger picture here, if your parents had stable jobs and rared you well, you'd hope you can do the same for your kids, the zero hour culture will eventually destroy society but I suppose it will all have been worth it for a wind up on AH

ThisRegard

Out of 8 stores balloted yesterday, 7 voted to reject striking, only 1 voted for. The support for the position of Mandate and pre96ers is not there.

mcko

Well I have a contract of employment and if my company tried to change it for worse conditions then I would go to the gate as well, I have a fantastic full time job pension health care bonus and share scheme but the future for my children is bleak. Good jobs are starting to disappear and some people see that as a good thing kick the unions , I am a member of a trade union and would hate to work in a non union plant

VinLieger

ThisRegard wrote: »

Out of 8 stores balloted yesterday, 7 voted to reject striking, only 1 voted for. The support for the position of Mandate and pre96ers is not there.

Sounds like the average Tesco worker is a bit fed up of by some accounts their holier than though ivory tower attitude.

Maguined

VinLieger wrote: »

Sounds like the average Tesco worker is a bit fed up of by some accounts their holier than though ivory tower attitude.

I would imagine it must be hard for the young staff in their twenties to believe in solidarity when they are always left working the crap shifts because their fellow 96'er comrades refuse to do so.

I my job we have to have staff in on bank holidays but only reduced numbers so we try to be fair and divide it out as best we can. If some members refused to work bank holidays and expected to have all of them off knowing the other staff would have to cover for them as the business has to service these days there would not be much support or solidarity for them.

Delacent

mcko wrote: »

Well I have a contract of employment and if my company tried to change it for worse conditions then I would go to the gate as well, I have a fantastic full time job pension health care bonus and share scheme but the future for my children is bleak. Good jobs are starting to disappear and some people see that as a good thing kick the unions , I am a member of a trade union and would hate to work in a non union plant

If they unilaterally changed it then yes, but if they NEGOTIATED with you for two years, went to labour court, they adjudictaed on it and the vast majority accepted the new terms which are do not involve ANY reduction in pay then you may have a different thought on it.

If 70% of those affected took a generous redundancy and only THEN after that 70% have left your union takes a vote on it would you not consider your union to be a bit underhand?

Mandate have shown time and time again that their overpaid execs are simply not up to the job of reasonably representing their members and instead pull strike strokes that lead to bad blood between co-workers and management and an eventual outcome that will not differ to current one.

Seems most Tesco workers are noiw realsiing how ridiculous Manadate are.

Funny Mandate would never do a overall vote - its store by store! Why, because they know they'd lose by a massive margin.

Union bosses are overpaid fatcats!

amtc

Tesco Roselawn has the entrances picketed. I parked there to get my hair done and was leafleted. Plus my dad was stopped going into the pub. I didn't go into Tesco but that's at least 15 small shops affected...all still paying full rent.

The pub by the way is owned by o'reilly whose son damian is covering talk show on rte this week and was interviewing Tesco rep.

I had to pass a picket once. And it was horrible. Not least because my mother was striking!

eeguy

VinLieger wrote: »

Sounds like the average Tesco worker is a bit fed up of by some accounts their holier than though ivory tower attitude.

70% of them took redundancy. Few of their colleagues support them. Shops are still open, people are still shopping.
Tells you all you need to know about the validity of their strike. The only thing they'll get is a cold.

Shemale

amtc wrote: »

Tesco Roselawn has the entrances picketed. I parked there to get my hair done and was leafleted. Plus my dad was stopped going into the pub. I didn't go into Tesco but that's at least 15 small shops affected...all still paying full rent.

This is my local shop and the staff could be the most obnoxious bunch of staff going, I have been walked into a number of times by staff not carrying anything and not a sorry out of them.

I was not aware of the strike but walked to the shop with under €10 to do me for lunch for the week, so had no option but to go in. When I walked out there was a number of them roaring at me from the road.

I wouldn't think twice about going in there when there is another strike on after this experience.

sjb25

amtc wrote: »

Tesco Roselawn has the entrances picketed. I parked there to get my hair done and was leafleted. Plus my dad was stopped going into the pub.

That's disgraceful no matter what way they want to paint it intimidateing people going to other business is not on actually intimidateing or shouting abuse at people going to Tesco is not on il just add I wouldn't go to the tesco if the staff are striking but if people want to/need to the should not be abused for it and certainly not stopped or leafleted for going to other business in the same complex I'd of told them to go fcuk themselves if they wanted to continue lets get the guards down deafintaly wouldn't stop me going into another business

Also I'm a trade union memeber not that they do fcuk all for me

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fullstop

end of the road wrote: »

no as there are no such things in the company. they were remove years ago. the problem is bad management, to many management and to much spending on marketing (all though marketing is very important to a company)

You seem to know everything there is to know going on within every company there's a strike at...or is it just that you blindly support every strike 'cause 'solidarity'?

end of the road wrote: »

i can and do back up my factual claims

Funniest think I ever read on boards :D:D

knipex

end of the road wrote: »

absolutely i did as i believe it to be the case and have saw nothing to convince me otherwise.

You made the claim so its up to you to prove it..

end of the road

Maguined wrote: »

I would imagine it must be hard for the young staff in their twenties to believe in solidarity when they are always left working the crap shifts because their fellow 96'er comrades refuse to do so.

except that doesn't happen, the pre-96 comrades don't refuse to do shifts. it's all about jealousy because the young lot don't have the same terms. i completely understand the begrudgery, but they should join the union.

Delacent wrote: »

If they unilaterally changed it then yes, but if they NEGOTIATED with you for two years, went to labour court, they adjudictaed on it and the vast majority accepted the new terms which are do not involve ANY reduction in pay then you may have a different thought on it.

If 70% of those affected took a generous redundancy and only THEN after that 70% have left your union takes a vote on it would you not consider your union to be a bit underhand?

Mandate have shown time and time again that their overpaid execs are simply not up to the job of reasonably representing their members and instead pull strike strokes that lead to bad blood between co-workers and management and an eventual outcome that will not differ to current one.

Seems most Tesco workers are noiw realsiing how ridiculous Manadate are.

Funny Mandate would never do a overall vote - its store by store! Why, because they know they'd lose by a massive margin.

Union bosses are overpaid fatcats!

i don't know about him but i wouldn't have a different thought on it. i signed a contract and i want it honoured. the rest of your post is simply wishful thinking.