nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scabs?

Thargor

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

El Tarangu

Arghus wrote: »

[Tesco] trying to undermine the union presence and influence in their stores [...] 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.

Whatever about the ins and outs of this particular dispute, the purpose of unions (to get the most money possible for a given amount of work) can be seen as being diametrically opposed to the function of management (to get a given amount of work done for as little money as possible), so I can kind of understand management not wanting to effectively subsidise unions in accommodating their day to day activities...

Butters1979

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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?

Because the CEO will just leave and get a higher paying job elsewhere. Then their business would suffer. You pay for what you need, not what people think they are entitled to.

Arghus

ThisRegard wrote: »

But that's just ridiculous, for any organisation.

But why? Tesco themselves agreed to those terms and conditions. It doesn't suit them now so they'll try to railroad people into changing. I think employees are entitled to feel aggreviated at that. Also, do you really think it's only about 250 workers? Tesco are really putting up a hell of a fight to a miniscule proportion of their workforce, there's more at stake than just that.

TallGlass

ThisRegard wrote: »

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.

They where good to work for but not easy to work for. I seen what was coming down the line and decided to leave. From talking to friends that still work there, the entire situation changed and it has just gotten progressively worse since I left. So, you might get a different option from someone else.

To be honest with you, things in Tesco IRL went down hill once Tony Keohane left as CEO.

The thing about the visits is they know, they are coming just not when, as if someone is in store A that's 5 mins from store B you can be sure, they are on the way, so the store manager goes into freak out mode. Again poor management at the top.

State visits are not announced and are random from what I know. The store I worked in was clean anyway so wasn't an issue around audits.

ThisRegard

Arghus wrote: »

Also, do you really think it's only about 250 workers? Tesco are really putting up a hell of a fight to a miniscule proportion of their workforce, there's more at stake than just that.

Yes, it is only that many workers. And the reason behind why it's an issue has been explained a number of times already.

TallGlass

El Tarangu wrote: »

Whatever about the ins and outs of this particular dispute, the purpose of unions (to get the most money possible for a given amount of work) can be seen as being diametrically opposed to the function of management (to get a given amount of work done for as little money as possible), so I can kind of understand management not wanting to effectively subsidise unions in accommodating their day to day activities...

My dealings with the Mandate union are that they are useless and powerless to be honest. I tried to leave them, but it's a nightmare to leave so just stuck with them. If they could have they would have done nothing about this, but the workers would have took a stand union or no union.

madanall

Phoebas wrote:

Not at the entrance to the Tesco inside the centre, but at the entrance to the whole shopping centre - which has another 15 retail businesses, all of whom aren't anything to do with the dispute, but will have been effected by the picket. Its a bad show by the Tesco strikers to be damaging the livelihoods of people not party to the dispute.

Tesco have banned picketing staff members from all their Property. They can only picket on the perimeter of it. Extra security staff have been employed to monitor it. Picketing staff are not allowed to use the facilities of any other store within centres either .

madanall

rachb wrote:

Rate of pay is protected (90% of affected colleagues will see an increase in their rate of pay) Premiums paid in line with everyone else Pay increases implemented (now at 4%) as part of the Recommendation, as lump sum or rate increase 5pc share bonus has been protected 2/3 guaranteed overtime is protected Sundays continue to be voluntary Partial flexibility 2 days out of 5 on 5/6 In event of loss of income, compensation paid at 2 times or 2.5 times annual loss depending on option Goodwill gesture of â‚¬2,000 or â‚¬3,000 depending on option to all affected colleagues OR Voluntary redundancy 5 weeks per year uncapped (average pay out to date is â‚¬105,000)

Every other member of staff got 4% payrise last year. It was witheld from Pre 96 staff, illegally as it is part of an increase applicable to all staff. The average redundancy of 105k is complete media spin on behalf of the company.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

Butters1979 wrote: »

Because the CEO will just leave and get a higher paying job elsewhere. Then their business would suffer. You pay for what you need, not what people think they are entitled to.

So basically: Fūck the workers so that top management can be paid millions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ThisRegard

madanall wrote: »

The average redundancy of 105k is complete media spin on behalf of the company.

Explain how, as the other poster to claim this wasn't able to.

TallGlass

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't disagree about the CEO been paid well it's a hard job no doubts there, he is a hatchet man from what I heard from his time at Uni-Lever. Regardless, are you saying that if a company has losses that it's fine to go in and do anything you want with your work force, tear up contracts and bring in anything you want to suit yourself?

And by the way, I as a worker didn't cause the mess that Tesco managed to put themselves in, nor did store management. It was purely management at the top that made massive blunders on a wide range of operational things from acquiring land to squandering balances on books.

oppenheimer1

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

We don't actually know how profitable or not the Irish arm of the business is as Tesco don't break the Irish operation out separately in their accounts. The Irish market was once referred to as treasure Ireland, so forgive me if I don't feel sorry for the company. Expensive goods to the consumer, and suppliers put under constant pressure - where did the money go?

The reason Tesco is not profitable is not down to 250 staff and the few million per annum it costs to keep these contracts. The sum in question is piffling in terms of Tesco's business, a rounding error.

Tesco's problems are entirely the fault of senior management in the UK and that's where the axe should be falling... But I suppose that's too much to ask.

Butters1979

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically: Fūck the workers so that top management can be paid millions.

No, basically pay people what their value is, not on their ability to hold your business to ransom. If Tesco's wasn't managed well, then lot's of those workers wouldn't even have jobs.

Arghus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yes, it is only that many workers. And the reason behind why it's an issue has been explained a number of times already.

Explain it to me again, so I understand where you are coming from.

ThisRegard

TallGlass wrote: »

And by the way, I as a worker didn't cause the mess that Tesco managed to put themselves in, nor did store management. It was purely management at the top that made massive blunders on a wide range of operational things from acquiring land to squandering balances on books.

And yet the argument that the company is massively profitable is often used as a reason as to why the staff should get paid more.

ThisRegard

Arghus wrote: »

Explain it to me again, so I understand where you are coming from.

You're the one claiming it's lies, the onus is on you to prove this.

TallGlass

ThisRegard wrote: »

And yet the argument that the company is massively profitable is often used as a reason as to why the staff should get paid more.

I honestly have no idea what it is your trying to get at here? No body is asking for pay rise.

And yes, Tesco the supermarket operation is profitable in Ireland, very much so.

robindch

Thargor wrote: »

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?

In all fairness, I wouldn't ever engage the public in supporting any fight between myself and my employer, and I don't like being expected to take one side automatically in somebody else's fight either.

I've been working for long enough on both sides of the fence to know that by the time that things get to a strike, it's virtually certain that neither side is blameless.

If there's a dustup between Tesco workers and Tesco management - well, leave them sort it out. And don't call me a scab or a strikebreaker if I drop into the local Tesco for dinner for my kid.

madanall

ThisRegard wrote:

Explain how, as the other poster to claim this wasn't able to.

I worked for the company from Jan 88 to April 2016 and received less than 70% of that so called average figure for 28+ years service.

ThisRegard

TallGlass wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what it is your trying to get at here? No body is asking for pay rise.
.

I never said they were, I'm pointing out that when a company is doing well staff want a cut out of it, when it's performing poorly it's all hey, that's nothing to do with us.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pilly

ThisRegard wrote: »

Explain how, as the other poster to claim this wasn't able to.

To get 105k you'd need to be working there over 38 years, so how could it be the average? They'd want a few that were working there 50 years to bring that up to the average. It's not rocket science.

It has to be exaggerated.

TallGlass

Butters1979 wrote: »

No, basically pay people what their value is, not on their ability to hold your business to ransom. If Tesco's wasn't managed well, then lot's of those workers wouldn't even have jobs.

250 workers are not holding Tesco to ransom! There are a few stores on strike, the entire operational status of Tesco Ireland to be would be operational. As some posters have mentioned, they have crossed the picket line and completed a shop in Tesco. If it was been held at ransom, this would be happening at all.

The problem is Tesco isn't managed well at all, they wouldn't be in a loss if it was. Workers haven't lost there jobs because the ones who left where not replaced. I remember my store had nearly 250 staff and I think when I left it was closer to 120. As someone mentioned, upper management in the UK made a balls of things, your average store manager and management done the best they could with heckling area managers, some of which where total lunatics, who more than likely never packed a shelves yet knew everything as they had some fancy degree. I didn't envy there job at all. You really don't know the lengths Tesco will go to.

Butters1979

robindch wrote: »

In all fairness, I wouldn't ever engage the public in supporting any fight between myself and my employer, and I don't like being expected to take one side automatically in somebody else's fight either.

I've been working for long enough on both sides of the fence to know that by the time that things get to a strike, it's virtually certain that neither side is blameless.

If there's a dustup between Tesco workers and Tesco management - well, leave them sort it out. And don't call me a scab or a strikebreaker if I drop into the local Tesco for dinner for my kid.

This is it really, if you support the strikes fine. The idea that we all must support them regardless of reasoning or we are a scab or whatever is insane.

TallGlass wrote: »

250 workers are not holding Tesco to ransom! .

They're trying to, and if enough people agreed with some of this bizzare don't cross a picket line no matter what attitude, it would be seriously affecting the business.

ThisRegard

madanall wrote: »

I worked for the company from Jan 88 to April 2016 and received less than 70% of that so called average figure for 28+ years service.

Were you full time?

Someone working for the company 28 years only had to be earning a little over €35,000 or so a year to get a €100,000 payout.

It's also an average figure, there would have been plenty earning either a lot more than that, or been there longer.

TallGlass

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Unless there is something about pay at the moment that I am unaware of them I cannot comment on that. But, I disagree with asking workers to bare brunt to there choices. Workers at the time, made comment on some decisions as a lot of the pre 96/99 staff are shareholders in the company. But it fell on deaf ears.

There are also a number of operational changes that could be made that would tighten up there purse without looking to dishonor contracts. As I said, this is not just about 250 workers, they wouldn't bother with it if it was, it's about getting an opening on destroying contracts with staff so that it suits themselves.

Arghus

El Tarangu wrote: »

Whatever about the ins and outs of this particular dispute, the purpose of unions (to get the most money possible for a given amount of work) can be seen as being diametrically opposed to the function of management (to get a given amount of work done for as little money as possible), so I can kind of understand management not wanting to effectively subsidise unions in accommodating their day to day activities...

I think you are simplifying the role of unions there somewhat. Speaking generally, not just in the case,of Mandate v Tesco. It isn't just to simply to ensure more pay for less work, it's also about protecting workers rights i.e. protecting them for things such as unfair dismissal, unsafe working conditions, harassment from others in the workplace - which can be fellow workers aswell as the higher up a lot of the time. Ensuring rates of pay is really just a part of what they do.

I wouldn't have classed the relationship between Mandate and Tesco as particularly toxic up until a few years ago, it is now, of course, and I don't think if a company treats its workforce relatively well it need be always be at loggerheads with them and the union, oftentimes it suits everyone to work together.

ThisRegard

pilly wrote: »

To get 105k you'd need to be working there over 38 years, so how could it be the average? They'd want a few that were working there 50 years to bring that up to the average. It's not rocket science.

It has to be exaggerated.

No, it's much simpler than that, it's primary level maths.

How are you getting your numbers?