Scabs?

VinLieger wrote: »

No its not at all but again that's not whats happening here, their specific contracts are directly linked to when they started working for Tesco and not to do with how long they have been working for tesco. Theres a difference

So their contracts are linked to when they started working for Tesco, but not to do with how long they have been working for Tesco? What?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

So their contracts are linked to when they started working for Tesco, but not to do with how long they have been working for Tesco? What?

How is this that hard to understand? Their contracts are to do with them being pre 1996 contracts they have nothing to do with them working there for a specific length of time. Example: anyone who started working there in 1997 isn't gonna get the same benefits as the striking workers now they are also working there 20 years.

eeguy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's no point arguing with these champagne socialists. They'll point out every flaw in the current system, and reference all the usual suspects, yet when you ask for a viable alternative you get a "sure I don't know. I'm not an economist" response :rolleyes:

VinLieger wrote: »

How is this that hard to understand? Their contracts are to do with them being pre 1996 contracts they have nothing to do with them working there for a specific length of time. Example: anyone who started working there in 1997 isn't gonna get the same benefits as the striking workers now they are also working there 20 years.

The two things are co-related. The longer you work the better your contract in this situation. People who started work in 97 have better terms than those who started in 99, those who started work in 99 have better contract conditions than those who started in 2003.The longer you work for Tesco the better the terms of your contract, which is a byproduct of how long you have worked there - which is best judged, as with everything, by taking into account when you started.

Havockk

eeguy wrote: »

There's no point arguing with these champagne socialists. They'll point out every flaw in the current system, and reference all the usual suspects, yet when you ask for a viable alternative you get a "sure I don't know. I'm not an economist" response :rolleyes:

Champagne socialist?

All the old slurs getting rolled out now, like a cheap carpet.

Yes, I'm reasonably successful, but I'd love to know how or even why this should determine that I cannot be a socialist? Should all political affiliations be based on relative wealth? LOL not even children would buy that nonsense.

VinLieger

Arghus wrote: »

The two things are co-related. The longer you work the better your contract in this situation. People who started work in 97 have better terms than those who started in 99, those who started work in 99 have better contract conditions than those who started in 2003.The longer you work for Tesco the better the terms of your contract, which is a byproduct of how long you have worked there - which is best judged, as with everything, by taking into account when you started.

Not in this case everyone who signed a contract after 96 by all accounts is on very similar terms that are vastly different to the ones signed pre 96 which is why tesco are trying to move them onto the same contracts as everyone else.

They didnt accrue better benefits due to how much longer they worked they have had better benefits since they signed their original contracts therefore its nothing to do with how hard they worked over a period of time but when the started working.

Also its becoming more and more evident as you try to argue this very simple to grasp point that you have no idea about the specifics surrounding this

VinLieger wrote: »

Also its becoming more and more evident as you try to argue this very simple to grasp point that you have no idea about the specifics surrounding this

I work for Tesco.

"VinLieger wrote: »

They didnt accrue better benefits due to how much longer they worked they have had better benefits since they signed their original contracts therefore its nothing to do with how hard they worked over a period of time but when the started working.

You've completely contradicted yourself in this paragraph. Read it aloud.

Discodog

I used to live in the UK & I can remember when Tesco were recognised as a good employer. The employees even got shares based on the company profit.

I used to do business with Tesco & the senior directors were very socially conscious. It stemmed for the foundation of the business & those men wouldn't be happy with the way that staff are being treated today.

Tesco will say that it's about economics but the John Lewis Partnership are extremely successful & they treat their staff exceptionally well. If you are looked after & given the incentive of shares etc, you will be a much better employee.

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

The point is they haven't worked hard for what they have if what they have is simply due to when they started in the company.

they work hard and serve the company well.

Ray Palmer

end of the road wrote: »

they work hard and serve the company well.

You know the 250 personally? Like any company some are lazy others coast and others work hard to bring up the average. I love it when people go on about workers all being one thing or another. What about civil servants they all barely work according to most? There is nothing new under the sun

Arghus wrote: »

The two things are co-related. The longer you work the better your contract in this situation. People who started work in 97 have better terms than those who started in 99, those who started work in 99 have better contract conditions than those who started in 2003.The longer you work for Tesco the better the terms of your contract, which is a byproduct of how long you have worked there - which is best judged, as with everything, by taking into account when you started.

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

Absolutely, I totally agree.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK maybe the shareholders haven't been doing so well with the arrival of the German discounters but my point stands in terms of Ts and Cs steadily degrading over time.

Ray Palmer

suicide_circus wrote: »

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

It can be seen that way but you also have consider that people pay a lot less for their food. It is incredible cheap at the moment. The reality is the contracts were signed when competing on opening hour wasn't a thing. Opening on a Sunday was a huge event and they paid double time for it because there were also increased sales as it was something special. Twenty years on it is just a normal shopping day.
Terms and conditions have changed for everyone and getting double time was always something some people got. If you worked in an office and you were needed to work late or work weekends you didn't get it and in many case not even paid extra. I am slightly mixed on support because of it. They still have better terms on pay than me now just at a different rate.

To a certain extent they are being treated like most people so it is much fairer to say it is a race to equilibrium. I couldn't do the job myself then many people couldn't do my job because of the stress.

As I said previously, if tesco were on its knees I'd say yeah look savings have to be made or everyone loses their job but that's not the case here. look at the current bus eireann unrest.

Wanderer78

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It can be seen that way but you also have consider that people pay a lot less for their food. It is incredible cheap at the moment. The reality is the contracts were signed when competing on opening hour wasn't a thing. Opening on a Sunday was a huge event and they paid double time for it because there were also increased sales as it was something special. Twenty years on it is just a normal shopping day.
Terms and conditions have changed for everyone and getting double time was always something some people got. If you worked in an office and you were needed to work late or work weekends you didn't get it and in many case not even paid extra. I am slightly mixed on support because of it. They still have better terms on pay than me now just at a different rate.

To a certain extent they are being treated like most people so it is much fairer to say it is a race to equilibrium. I couldn't do the job myself then many people couldn't do my job because of the stress.

id have to agree with deirdre mccloskey when speaking about the benefits of our free market system, i.e. customers most certainly have benefited by having the availability of more products, cheaper and of better quality(arguable) etc, but the disadvantages of this system or what i call 'the baggage' is now becoming an extremely serious problem. one of the most serious problems of this system is the increasing levels of 'worker insecurity', and as far as i can see, nobody really knows what to do about this.

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

id have to agree with deirdre mccloskey when speaking about the benefits of our free market system, i.e. customers most certainly have benefited by having the availability of more products, cheaper and of better quality(arguable) etc, but the disadvantages of this system or what i call 'the baggage' is now becoming an extremely serious problem. one of the most serious problems of this system is the increasing levels of 'worker insecurity', and as far as i can see, nobody really knows what to do about this.

As far as I'm concerned, Deirdre McCloskey has completely discredited herself by showing she has no idea whatsoever what a free market system actually is.

Wanderer78

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, Deirdre McCloskey has completely discredited herself by showing she has no idea whatsoever what a free market system actually is.

i actually dont know her work very well, but shes on my list of research. i have seen her a couple of times though on the panel of public debates and theres something very interesting about her. stephen kinsella is a big fan of hers so i ll give her some of my time. does anybody know what a free market system is? does it actually exist at all?

Allinall

FTA69 wrote: »

Anyone deliberately setting out to breach a picket in order to side with a multi millionaire company against the workers that they're sh*tting on is a low tramp.

What's a "multi millionaire company"?

Multi million turnover?
Gross profit?
Net profit?

And by refusing to pass the picket you are harming the company- thus reducing their capacity to pay their employees.

Utterly nonsensical logic.

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i actually dont know her work very well, but shes on my list of research. i have seen her a couple of times though on the panel of public debates and theres something very interesting about her. stephen kinsella is a big fan of hers so i ll give her some of my time. does anybody know what a free market system is? does it actually exist at all?

I have my qualms about the likes of zero-hour contracts and such but we have employment legislation for that along with workers' rights. What we don't have is a market system unhindered by government regulation and interference. I'm not arguing for one here, just pointing out that I shouldn't be more informed on the subject that a so-called Professor of Economics.

[Deleted User]

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not arguing for one here, just pointing out that I shouldn't be more informed on the subject that a so-called Professor of Economics.

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.

Discodog wrote: »

I used to live in the UK & I can remember when Tesco were recognised as a good employer. The employees even got shares based on the company profit.

I used to do business with Tesco & the senior directors were very socially conscious. It stemmed for the foundation of the business & those men wouldn't be happy with the way that staff are being treated today.

Tesco will say that it's about economics but the John Lewis Partnership are extremely successful & they treat their staff exceptionally well. If you are looked after & given the incentive of shares etc, you will be a much better employee.

They still do have an employee share scheme, Ireland included.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Doesn't this in fact prove in a nutshell the concept of the "race to the bottom"?

Terms and conditions get steadily worse while profits to shareholders steadily increase.

Tesco employees are shareholders, the filthy disgrace that they are trying to profit off the backs of the Tesco employees, oh, wait...

So no, it's not the concept in a nutshell.

Arghus wrote: »

Absolutely, I totally agree.

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

suicide_circus wrote: »

look at the current bus eireann unrest.

The one which was arrived at due to employee resistance to outdated work practices and inefficiencies? I wonder what the solution could have been there...

ThisRegard wrote: »

The one which was arrived at due to employee resistance to outdated work practices and inefficiencies? I wonder what the solution could have been there...

The glaringly obvious difference being that BE is making losses. We presume Tesco Ireland is in the black but of course we don't know because they won't tell us.

end of the road

ThisRegard wrote: »

The one which was arrived at due to employee resistance to outdated work practices and inefficiencies?

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)

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)

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.