Scabs?

Crunchy Friends wrote: »

Sorry I meant to say less than half. I believe it is around 30 euro an hour.

That's around €60k a year, assuming a 40 hour week

Lu Tze wrote: »

That's around €60k a year, assuming a 40 hour week

Again, i've only heard this. I don't know any pre-96ers, just what my relative has mentioned having worked with some of them for nearly 12 years.

Crunchy Friends wrote: »

The thing that bothers me about this kind of strike is I wonder if the situation was reversed would they support the rest of the staff?

Obviously not seeing as they didn't care about the people put on the new contracts post 96. Why didn't they strike for them then?

nhunter100 wrote: »

You're on circa 63k a year. Very favourable hours and a contract protecting these conditions why should you give them up. Don't see the benefit to the workers tbh.

Well if conditions change it'll benefit everyone bar the 250 pre 96ers right? From what I understand, they don't have to work weekends or B/Hs, meaning other staff have do it in their place.

Doesn't seem very fair?

I know for a fact what some pre1996 workers were entitled to, because i know one very well who held out for a long time. She was part time, and therefore anytime she worked over four hours she got time on a half. She got double time for a regular four hour shift on a sunday, and i think double time for anything over those four hours. She got treble time or double on a bank holiday no matter how many hours she worked. on bank holidays, she always looked for shifts and was available to work sat, sunday and monday. she earned more for those three days than i did in a week and a half. and i'm on good money.

i know when these hassels started, she said she would never give up her contract, as "when times were bad they made me work a full days work" and "i did it for the company". emm.

in time she demanded 8 hour shifts all the time, |(her children had grown up) as it was by now habit and custom. when i pointed out it was only habit and custom when it suited her, and ALWAYS on a sunday and bank holidays? she was always in work, she took them to the union for not giving her eight hour shifts, although her contract was only for four hours a day. this scenerio was played out for a long time, across a few stores. she used to tell me they would all call each other up etc. and make sure of the schedules.

i know this to be true. i actually think in this day and age, to be paying someone treble time on a bank holiday, and double time on a sunday is something that is just not competitive and "real" in todays world.
and its tesco's fault for not managing these contract workers also, as i couldn't believe a company would pay someone that much money and give them such long hours and expect that the workers would roll over and give up their contracts.
my family friend worked the tills for years. i can't believe her co workers are really supportive of someone who is earning three times what they are for doing the same job, on the same day.
just saying......

Naos wrote: »

Why do you think the pre-96ers didn't go on strike when the post-96ers were signing their contracts, contracts that were deemed worse than theirs?

you would have to ask them but i presume the issue wasn't raised with the union by the workers signing the contracts so therefore no ballot was able to take place.

Naos wrote: »

Well if conditions change it'll benefit everyone bar the 250 pre 96ers right? From what I understand, they don't have to work weekends or B/Hs, meaning other staff have do it in their place.

Doesn't seem very fair?

contracts have to be honoured or they must not be signed. it's not fair others are on lesser terms but it is not the job of those on the better terms to give them up.

Delacent wrote: »

Also ask why the head people in mandate have salary, pension and expense packages in excess of €200,000 - paid for by tesco staff.

because the staff clearly are happy for them to earn such. if the union members are not happy with their representatives earning such money then they won't earn it.

No I didn't see it myself but my dad and a neighbour told me and they don't speak or even know each other.

I worked in Tesco for 13 years. Not all pre96 worked a mon-fri, many worked weekends and hours varied. In my store a few of them ran departments as managers of those departments packed shelf's and rumbled the store every few hours they didn't have to worry about their own department. The manager had the title but the pre96 kept it running doing rosters,ordering stock take etc.

A vote was done months ago to go on strike but was called off with the union and Tesco agreeing to talk but Tesco kept delaying things over and over again. This seemed like a tactic by Tesco to give them more time to get them to take the redundancy and reducing the power of the union going from 1000 to 250 pre96s to drum up support.

When the redundancy was offered they were told take it now this is your only chance putting a time limit, once it was gone that was it these changes were coming in and that's it. They we put under huge pressure to sign, some were happy to take others felt they had no choice as this was their only chance.

Management called in none pre96 and told us they had made their biggest losses ever but that was due to the account scandal and the pulling out of the US. Nothing to do with the Irish business and pre96 staff affecting profit.

I can only speak for the store I worked in but there was far more staff that worked set hours and days plus on the highest wage scale than there was pre96 staff. If they get there way with the pre96 why would they leave it at that.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So you'd support the current ASTI action now ?

Nice straw man there, all I said was the situations are similar in that unions are screwing newer workers in favour of older union hardliners and that its typical of unions to do this.

Do I think teachers should be paid more? Yes, but i do not support unions heavy handed jack booted actions and attitudes of "give us everything we can possibly get and screw the long term consequences for everyone else". I also would have no problem crossing any picket line.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

After further investigation, it has hired siptu goons

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1433306150027293&substory_index=101&id=100000437660357

Those SIPTU workers went to Baggot street to show support following a protest at the nearby department of public expenditure calling for new entrants to the public sector to be paid on a par with their longer term colleagues (scale wise). For almost all of the SIPTU people protesting at the Department they had nothing personally to gain from the protests as they are already on the older PS contracts. It was simply about solidarity. Going around to Tesco afterwards was not hired help, just people showing solidarity against the retrospective changing of contracts by a company which has no pressing financial reason to change those contracts.