Scabs?

georgewickstaff

Jawgap wrote: »

I'll happily accept correction on this - but is it just not the pre-1996 contracts that they are looking to vary? And were those changes not being compensated for?

And I'd say there are very few, if any, surviving retail food businesses still using the same model as they were over 20 years ago?

Plus, I'm not even sure what striking will achieve - if my local Tesco went out I wouldn't cross the picket line - I'd drive a few minutes in the opposite direction to the Dunne's. If I find the offering better I may well stick with them once the strike ends (or until the propsed Aldi opens )

So yes, they have a fundamental right to strike but in their sector I'd question the wisdom of using it.

Yes it is just the Pre-96 contracts. I'm also unsure what is the relevance of the 20 year old business model? The staff have contracts and Tesco do not want to honour them. Do you think staff who remain in a company should be 'punished' because of loyalty?

And just in relation to the WRC recommendation - it is not a 'verdict'. The idea of the WRC is to thrash out a mutually acceptable situation. There will be give and take. However, given that the pre-96 contracts Tesco issued were presumably designed by their HR department at the time and issued in good faith to the employees, why on earth should the employees accept a short term compensation formula? Why should they volunteer to make their personal situation worse and Tesco (yes Tesco's) situation better? These staff have shown their commitment to staying in a job for 20+ years. These people are not chancing their arm.

paddyirishman07

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why not cut 1 million from the CEO, Why not stop throwing out perfectly good stock, Why not stop local management at store level sitting down in offices all day on the phone, why not make sure the stock we need is on the shelves(what everyone has seen)why not put the products on sale that customers are looking for instead of telling them it's out of stock because they need the stock for the big visit tomorrow (actually happens) Why cut the little man?

Why not ask tesco to produce it's books for tesco Ireland ltd(never been done) because paddy was making all the money for them for a long time.

Tesco lost a lot of its money from bad choices e.g fresh and easy in america, having buildings included in their books as money. That's where most the money was lost.

Why the little man on average 30k a year

Wanderer78

VinLieger wrote:

Please give examples of non bias(ie. not julien mercille, rory hearne etc) and respected economic commentators that are saying there's a race to the bottom.

Tons out people out there explaining in incredible detail of the failure of our economic systems/theories/models etc. Some have been writing about these matters for many years, even decades. Sadly most of our political leaders don't truly understand the complexity of these issues, therefore are unable to do much about it. Most of our political leaders have been indoctrinated it what I and others believe are fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles, it's deeply imbedded in their mind set. we're in desperate need of new thinking and fast, or I suspect, we 're quickly heading back to a major war. The working classes have had enough, and rightfully so, but their voting is going rogue, watch out world!

ThisRegard

georgewickstaff wrote: »

If it is cost neutral for management to change these contracts why are they doing it? The workers do not want more, they simply want to carry on as is.

And that's the problem. No company wants an employee working for them who won't work Sundays, outside of hours they weren't originally contracted for 20+ years ago, particularly in retail. If a store say has 40 employees, 10 of who are in pre-96 contracts, who do you think has to work all the irregular hours?

georgewickstaff

ThisRegard wrote: »

And that's the problem. No company wants an employee working for them who won't work Sundays, outside of hours they weren't originally contracted for 20+ years ago, particularly in retail. If a store say has 40 employees, 10 of who are in pre-96 contracts, who do you think has to work all the irregular hours?

They werent originally contracted for 20 years? So why were they not given fixed term contracts and let go on expiration? Is it the staff members fault they were not? Or do you think the law should be changed so that permanency or contracts of indefinite duration should be torn up or not applicable once management spot that they can take on alternative staff who work longer for less when they are told to assist the 'new' business plan?

I understand what you are saying but to a certain degree but it seems quite clear that Tesco are taken aback that these staff are still there after 20 years and its not something they want. Of course they want casualisation / zero hours / staff on lower pay.

TallGlass

If my maths is also correct, you'd have to seriously question what Tesco has up there selve, if they get there way. These workers make up 1.6% of the total workforce if the total workforce is 15,000 workers. Why not just call this off? Seems like a lot of hassle for 1.6% of the work force.

Butters1979

If there are plenty of other jobs out there why don't they leave tesco's and take them so? Problem solved

If the employees were worth any more than they are paid they would be paid more, either by tesco's or someone else. The fact of the matter is they are not. If you want more money qualify for a better job. This strike is more self entitled money grabbing from unions.

I will go out of my way to shop in tesco's this week.

Glenster

I walked past the line in bray.

If you went in there you saw that all the people working were the young lads and lasses who do the actual work in the shop anyway.

I didn't see any of the 'legacy' staff going on strike when they brought in young lads on lower pay.

As someone under 30 I feel as though the unions would never go on strike to improve my conditions, only to protect the conditions of lazier and more entitled older staff, that is why I don't have a problem crossing the picket line.

And the reason the Bray car park was empty is because some slimy prick dressed up as a lollipop man was walking out in front of cars trying to get in and not letting them in.

knipex

Thargor wrote: »

Ive been all over Wicklow and Dublin today and I saw several Tesco protests. The only really empty carpark was Bray, the rest of them looked pretty busy tbh, some like Glenageary outright packed.

Tbh whatever you think of unions and whatnot I dont think any Tesco employee is living the highlife and the company could generally be described as a scummy operation especially the stories you hear about their attitude to suppliers, I doubt their attitute to staff is much better.

Its kind of shocking so many people would just drive past a picket like that, Im not from any union family and Im not in one myself but Id never cross a picket like that especially for a bit of Sunday shopping, felt a bit disappointing tbh. Do people just not give a fcuk?

A very small percentage of the workforce (outside the public sector or companies where it is part of the employment contract) are members of trade unions.

Its tiny..

Many don't trust trade unions and have had bad experiences in the past (myself included).

A union picket wouldn't even enter my decision making process (or that of the vast majority of people I know) when deciding where to shop.

However if I felt particular employees or suppliers were being particularly hard done by and had a case then that would impact on my decision making process.

LordSutch

rachb wrote: »

No I won't. I've already crossed it and will continue to do as I do my shopping weekly in Tesco. I was already thanked in store by a worker for shopping this week even with the strike.
The workers "looking out for themselves" have been offered a fair package for their basically unskilled jobs, that they have been doing since pre 96, so I won't feel any remorse for doing so.

Me too, I crossed it yeaterday. Actually I drove through it on my way to shop in Tesco. Admittedly it was very quiet inside, but I bought the essentials and left. Why should (a minority of 250 disgruntled employees) hold the rest of us to ransom?

georgewickstaff

Butters1979 wrote: »

If there are plenty of other jobs out there why don't they leave tesco's and take them so? Problem solved

If the employees were worth any more than they are paid they would be paid more, either by tesco's or someone else. The fact of the matter is they are not. If you want more money qualify for a better job. This strike is more self entitled money grabbing from unions.

I will go out of my way to shop in tesco's this week.

Best post on this thread. Said no one ever.

Arghus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ireland is a small country, Tesco relatively large, so you need to remember that a lot of people are bound to know staff there at all levels so have already a fair idea of what is and isn't happening.

The union busting thing is of particular nonsense.

Far from nonsense.Tesco have definitely engaged in a policy over the last couple of years of trying to undermine the union presence and influence in their stores, they'd never state this publicly of course! But look at the situation - Mandate used to be allowed to ballot workers in anything related to disputes inside the stores, not any more. The union used to have permission to print and display literature related to day to day union business, not any more. Mandate representatives used to be allowed to enter the stores, not any more. There's quite a few other examples illustrative of the change in the nature of the relationship between the union and the company.

Tesco would never admit to engaging in union "busting", but a lot of the older staff that have been moved on in the last 18 months or so, would have been the most union orientated amongst the workforce, and highly aware of their rights as employees, and their terms and conditions under contract. In their place have come, in the main, lots of younger people who are far less likely to fight for themselves regarding unfair working terms and conditions - if they should arise, as they often do - or in many cases to even be aware that they even have certain rights as employees: this is the true meaning behind such euphemisms as "flexability to the needs of the business". Which is an ideal situation for a company such as Tesco - they want to pay a more docile, transient, and expendable work force less than they do now.

Tesco have gradually, but definitely, marginalised the union in their stores: they've denied it space to operate in the workplace; they've cut down on it's scope to communicate; they've removed a lot of people who make up the bulk of its active members in stores; they've taken an adversial position to it in the media and to the worforce; and have recently being reminding people that they don't have to be in the union and they don't have to pay a contribution to out of their paycheck every week, sure they're such nice guys, they'll even help you out with that... They may not be proclaiming themselves as Union busters, but it would definitely suit the company if, going forward, the union gets bust.

They've successfully managed to reframe this issue as one of a tiny amount of workers holding out, when in actuality it's about a retail giant trying to cut costs, despite massive profitability, in the easiest way possible: by cutting wages of long standing staff. And going forward what happens here will have many knock on effects, not just for the current Tesco workers feeling the heat, but for all employees in this retail sector.

TallGlass

Butters1979 wrote: »

If there are plenty of other jobs out there why don't they leave tesco's and take them so? Problem solved

If the employees were worth any more than they are paid they would be paid more, either by tesco's or someone else. The fact of the matter is they are not. If you want more money qualify for a better job. This strike is more self entitled money grabbing from unions.

I will go out of my way to shop in tesco's this week.

Do you even know what this strike is about? It's nothing to do with money.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

They've successfully managed to reframe this issue as one of a tiny amount of workers holding out, when in actuality it's about a retail giant trying to cut costs, despite massive profitability, in the easiest way possible: by cutting wages of long standing staff. And going forward what happens here will have many knock on effects, not just for the current Tesco workers feeling the heat, but for all employees in this retail sector.

Emm..... they've been posting consistent losses for a few years now and the irish arm specifically has been one of the biggest drops

VinLieger

TallGlass wrote: »

Do you even know what this strike is about? It's nothing to do with money.

Yeah its about "legacy contracts" but really its about money for them and the unions, people saying Tesco is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes but the unions and workers are just as guilty by pretending they are part of some larger fight where in reality as usual its all about me, me, me.

TallGlass

LordSutch wrote: »

Me too, I crossed it yeaterday. Actually I drove through it on my way to shop in Tesco. Admittedly it was very quiet inside, but I bought the essentials and left. Why should (a minority of 250 disgruntled employees) hold the rest of us to ransom?

Nobody is holding anyone to ransom at all. Nobody is stopping anyone from shopping in there shops, as you pointed out, you done your shop no problems. In fact you could go to another store and do the same there. That's your right, just like the rights of the workers in the stores striking to keep the terms and conditions of there employment in check and as they signed it all them years ago. Instead Tesco are trying to walk all over it.

So just as your right is to go and shop in there, have a little consideration for these '250' workers holding you to 'ransom', over there rights to uphold the terms and conditions of there employment.

It really is simple for this to be ended, back off the workers and that's the end of it. Simple solution.

TallGlass

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah its about "legacy contracts" but really its about money for them and the unions, people saying Tesco is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes but the unions and workers are just as guilty by pretending they are part of some larger fight where in reality as usual its all about me, me, me.

No it's nothing at all to do with money. Can you point me in the direction that says otherwise?

These workers where offered pay-outs, trust me they knew it was the max they'll be offered, as I said this this is going on years with offers made yearly, which started out at ridiculous levels. They choose to stay for various reasons and want to keep the conditions of there contract, that's all they want nothing else.

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

one who has any bit of decentsy does not cross a picket whether they agree or disagree with a strike.

That's just absolute closed-minded horse**** I'm afraid EOTR.

It's not the 1850s where all employers are cartoonist Dickensian slave drivers and the working man must stand up to him at all costs. The rights of workers are very strong in current times. Unions should be fighting to enforce the existing rights that exist and to root out and expose employers who are breaking the law and exploiting naive and uneducated workers.

Unfortunately there isn't much money in that for David Begg and his buddies, so instead they prefer to defend the stance of employees who already have relatively strong positions like these workers and the Luas strikers.

With every passing generation unions become less relevant and more obviously self-serving. Irish unions are an absolute joke.

pilly

My take on this is that there's more behind it than meets the eye. It's such a small amount of staff why don't Tesco just honour their contracts? They obviously have more cuts and worse working conditions in mind for the future that they want to get out of these contracts for.

If it's true that none of these staff will lose money then why are Tesco doing it?

I certainly wouldn't pass a picket and in fact deliberately avoided any Tesco this week.

No skin off my nose, plenty of other shops out there.

TallGlass

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah its about "legacy contracts" but really its about money for them and the unions, people saying Tesco is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes but the unions and workers are just as guilty by pretending they are part of some larger fight where in reality as usual its all about me, me, me.

And just as an FYI, in my ten years of working there, I never had a problem with what I was paid. They paid me well and always gave more than the minimum, I finished there on close to 12€ an hour. They got a 2% pay rise last year also. Nobody has an issue with pay.

ThisRegard

TallGlass wrote: »

If my maths is also correct, you'd have to seriously question what Tesco has up there selve, if they get there way. These workers make up 1.6% of the total workforce if the total workforce is 15,000 workers. Why not just call this off? Seems like a lot of hassle for 1.6% of the work force.

pilly wrote: »

It's such a small amount of staff why don't Tesco just honour their contracts? ........

Because in the older stores that were originally Crazy Prices for example, a decent sized proportion of the staff are made up these employees. I'm sure stores have a finite budget for staffing so they find it difficult to organise cover throughout the week when there's a fair amount of people you simply can't roster.

It's not like there's 1 or 2 such contracts in every store around the country, many of them won't have any pre96 employees.

pilly wrote: »

If it's true that none of these staff will lose money then why are Tesco doing it?

It was explained a number of times already in this thread.

VinLieger

TallGlass wrote: »

No it's nothing at all to do with money. Can you point me in the direction that says otherwise?

These workers where offered pay-outs, trust me they knew it was the max they'll be offered, as I said this this is going on years with offers made yearly, which started out at ridiculous levels. They choose to stay for various reasons and want to keep the conditions of there contract, that's all they want nothing else.

Well going off reports the new contracts would equal 3 euro less per hour so that's money right there. Unless Tesco was offering them payouts to the equivalent losses in hourly rate, can you prove that's what was happening?

TallGlass

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because in the older stores that were originally Crazy Prices for example, a decent sized proportion of the staff are made up these employees. I'm sure stores have a finite budget for staffing so they find it difficult to organise cover throughout the week when there's a fair amount of people you simply can't roster.

It's not like there's 1 or 2 such contracts in every store around the country, many of them won't have any pre96 employees.

I worked in one of these stores. Yes a good chunk where made up of these staff members, not anymore. What you have now is alot more pre 99 staff, which is a much bigger chunk for the company, if they win this battle they'll be next. Most of the staff now are newer contracts.

Tesco have made this situation themselves, as a worker in there, if you give an inch they will take a mile. This is why you've workers pre 96/99 religiously sticking to there contracts. Plus these staff members can see how the newer staff are treated by management, zero hours, moved from section to section like no tomorrow, they don't take any feedback from staff at all. Shops made to look great on visits, when in reality the place is in a heap.

ThisRegard

TallGlass wrote: »

I worked in one of these stores. Yes a good chunk where made up of these staff members, not anymore. What you have now is alot more pre 99 staff, which is a much bigger chunk for the company, if they win this battle they'll be next. Most of the staff now are newer contracts.

Tesco have made this situation themselves, as a worker in there, if you give an inch they will take a mile. This is why you've workers pre 96/99 religiously sticking to there contracts. Plus these staff members can see how the newer staff are treated by management, zero hours, moved from section to section like no tomorrow, they don't take any feedback from staff at all. Shops made to look great on visits, when in reality the place is in a heap.

You said yourself they were good to work for, the other guy this morning saying he was on the picket said he was working for them for 16 years or something, pre96'ers are obviously working for them over 20 years.

Does any of this indicate that they're a bad company to work for and are out to 'get' the workers?

And as you say you worked there, you'll know the visits aren't announced, either by the state organisations or your own auditors.

Annasopra

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agressive cost cutting?

Is that the bit where it agressively cuts its workers pay and conditions?

How about they agressively cost cut the CEOs 4.6 million wage bill too?

Walter H Price

Don't drive , Tesco is closest , to be busy to be arsed going elsewhere , crossed the picket and didn't feel a shred of guilt over it at the weekend.

TallGlass

VinLieger wrote: »

Well going off reports the new contracts would equal 3 euro less per hour so that's money right there. Unless Tesco was offering them payouts to the equivalent losses in hourly rate, can you prove that's what was happening?

Ok, so again to point out. This strike is about keeping there original contracts and payments. No-one is looking for any type of pay rise and I don't think anyone wants to go into minus figures.

The workers don't want to go plus or minus in there wages, they want them left as is. This includes pay, so if Tesco leave them and there contracts alone then there's no worry about pay.

I also mentioned, a lot of these workers, don't want payouts they are afraid they won't get another job for whatever reason and have mortgages and kids, they don't want to be without a job, nor want the payoff. They want to be left alone, it really is that simple. The way to do that is Tesco back-off and leave them as is.

ThisRegard

TallGlass wrote: »

They want to be left alone, it really is that simple. The way to do that is Tesco back-off and leave them as is.

But that's just ridiculous, for any organisation.

Annasopra

VinLieger wrote: »

Emm..... they've been posting consistent losses for a few years now and the irish arm specifically has been one of the biggest drops

When did Tesco publish its Irish accounts?

Butters1979

TallGlass wrote: »

Do you even know what this strike is about? It's nothing to do with money.

I was responding to a specific post, it's more about strikes in general and what people call fair wages, I should have been more specific.