FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Is there anything illegal in that?

Is that your benchmark for behavior? ****ting your pants ain't illegal either btw.

smurgen wrote: »

Not a normal government.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1326642237032312832?s=19

I find that very odd and somewhat disturbing. When did that monitoring start? Was it just for Covid?

is_that_so

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I find that very odd and somewhat disturbing. When did that monitoring start? Was it just for Covid?

Given the speed of information dissemination through it I'd call it keeping up to date and making sure they don't get caught out. Many of us "monitor" social media feeds too!

smurgen wrote: »

I’d be asking what payments were made back to the parent company in the last five years and what the Irish subsidiary financial statements looked like. If it was continually being ran at a loss you’d have to challenge the going concern basis in the audit. You could hardly blame workers that have been there for years being annoyed. They again you probably could.

A subsidiary that is continually making losses but covered by a guarantee from the parent that it will cover the outgoings for the following year will be certified as a going concern.

It is how the concept of a loss leader can be reconciled with accounting regulations. Debenhams may well have been happy to run its Irish subsidiary at a loss for a decade with a view to gaining market share and profit in the long-term. Guaranteeing the losses does not stretch to guaranteeing more than statutory redundancy for the employees.

Fairly simple concept for anyone familiar with business to understand.

There was no money for the workers. Vardakar didn't lie. Posters on here are fantasising about pots of money.

smurgen wrote: »

Not a normal government.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1326642237032312832?s=19

In another scandal this morning, a civil servant read the Irish Times and told the Minister what was in it.

Seriously? This is more than barrel-scraping, it is the Life of Brian type mob with pitchforks stuff.

blanch152 wrote: »

A subsidiary that is continually making losses but covered by a guarantee from the parent that it will cover the outgoings for the following year will be certified as a going concern.

It is how the concept of a loss leader can be reconciled with accounting regulations. Debenhams may well have been happy to run its Irish subsidiary at a loss for a decade with a view to gaining market share and profit in the long-term. Guaranteeing the losses does not stretch to guaranteeing more than statutory redundancy for the employees.

Fairly simple concept for anyone familiar with business to understand.

There was no money for the workers. Vardakar didn't lie. Posters on here are fantasising about pots of money.

But when they signed their contracts was more than the statutory redundancy promised?

Nevin Parsnipp

Bowie wrote: »

What do you see when you are out that gives you a window into the private lives of people? Your comment was cliché and anecdotal, which is fine up until people start thinking it's factual. Likely is with some small element but as with all such discussions nobody can every post verified numbers on them that don't want to work. Blanch might've chimed in around now with that report on the numbers of unemployed per household which as we know doesn't answer the query but helps to add to the fudge.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/councils-owed-over-400m-in-unpaid-rents-loans-and-rates-36765225.html

It's more what you hear than what you see Dude ...if your blind to it of course you won't see or hear it.

But if you are socially active and of reasonable intelligence it is very evident .

smurgen wrote: »

But when they signed their contracts was more than the statutory redundancy promised?

Bowie wrote: »

What do you see when you are out that gives you a window into the private lives of people? Your comment was cliché and anecdotal, which is fine up until people start thinking it's factual. Likely is with some small element but as with all such discussions nobody can every post verified numbers on them that don't want to work. Blanch might've chimed in around now with that report on the numbers of unemployed per household which as we know doesn't answer the query but helps to add to the fudge.

Yes I produce actual data from verified reports to back up my opinions, thanks for acknowledging that.

It does answer the query, by the way, as do the reports on the levels of disability claimants in Ireland.

Anecdotes or personal experiences or personal opinions don't stand up when the facts as presented in official verified reports disagree.

blanch152 wrote: »

No

Link? Do you have one of the contracts?

blanch152 wrote: »

In another scandal this morning, a civil servant read the Irish Times and told the Minister what was in it.

Seriously? This is more than barrel-scraping, it is the Life of Brian type mob with pitchforks stuff.

Really? Of no concern? https://twitter.com/aoifegracemoore/status/1326815760799461377?s=19

s1ippy

blanch152 wrote: »

In another scandal this morning, a civil servant read the Irish Times and told the Minister what was in it.

Seriously? This is more than barrel-scraping, it is the Life of Brian type mob with pitchforks stuff.

That's an interesting take. It was a FOI request so they would have had documentation on it. It was someone's job to do this surveillance.

But SINN FÉIN are to blame wasting €25k while Larry Goodman accidentally gets an extra €10m rent they can't retrieve.

smurgen wrote: »

Link? Do you have one of the contracts?

No standard contract of employment ever commits to enhanced redundancy.

If you have followed the story, you will know that in 2016 the union negotiated a voluntary redundancy package for a certain amount of staff, but that this agreement only applied then, and didn't apply to the more recent redundancies.

I am not on any other social media except WhatsApp. I deactivated FB years ago. I am not happy that my taxes are finding public servants and government advisers to trawl through social media accounts all day long. Vicky Phelan? They treated her badly enough already.

s1ippy wrote: »

That's an interesting take. It was a FOI request so they would have had documentation on it. It was someone's job to do this surveillance.

But SINN FÉIN are to blame wasting €25k while Larry Goodman accidentally gets an extra €10m rent they can't retrieve.

Yes, and when working in the public service, I often saw press digests or press clippings of relevant news stories. That a more modern public service has extended that to social media is no surprise and no news, not even remotely a scandal.

FrancieBrady

smurgen wrote: »

Really? Of no concern? https://twitter.com/aoifegracemoore/status/1326815760799461377?s=19

That is extremely disturbing if you couple it with Leo's slip about 'regulating' publications he doesn't like.

Hope this journalist follows it up fully. The Irish press corp need to stand up here and be counted as the Village made clear yesterday, whatever they think of what the Village exposed.

It doesn't matter what Debenhams have, the staff paid a substantial amount of money to a company to look after their interests with Debenhams. If they wanted the government to act as a union they should have paid the government that money.

The union has to do it jobs now, end of story. If it can't then it should hand back all the money it has taken off the employees over the years.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is extremely disturbing if you couple it with Leo's slip about 'regulating' publications he doesn't like.

Hope this journalist follows it up fully. The Irish press corp need to stand up here and be counted as the Village made clear yesterday, whatever they think of what the Village exposed.

Why is it disturbing? unless you are living in a bubble every country and company in the World is monitoring social media. Bit naive to think they are not

Ever hear of Cambridge Analytica?

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is extremely disturbing if you couple it with Leo's slip about 'regulating' publications he doesn't like.

Hope this journalist follows it up fully. The Irish press corp need to stand up here and be counted as the Village made clear yesterday, whatever they think of what the Village exposed.

Follows up what?

This is normal practice in almost every civilized country.

The Irish press corps has descended to sitting at their desks waiting for information to be piped through from insiders in various organisations.

Then trying to sensationalize mundane cut and thrust events and happenings to epic proportions.

Using the old mantra, the more mud you fling the more will eventually stick rightly or wrongly.

Intelligent and observant folk can see through that charade and won’t be fooled.

Floppybits

I dont think there is much the government can do here unless they bring in legislation that when a company issues mandatory redundancies that they must have a minimum number of weeks in the offer. I maybe wrong on this but at the moment companies don't need to give you anything in a redundancy and what they do give is solely at their discretion, which i can understand as it would be based on what money is available.

Asking the taxman to for go its share it madness, not often i agree with Martin but he is correct here, and would set a bad precedent for future situations such as this when companies stop trading. It is unfortunate on the workers and I sympathise with them as I went through a redundancy earlier this year. Luckily mine was voluntary at the time but would have been mandatory a couple of months later and those staying on were not guaranteed the same offer as those who left voluntarily as is the way when these types of redundancy. Also if there are further redundancies those people are not guaranteed to get the same package as me either they could get worse or could get better depending on the finances at the time.

blanch152 wrote: »

No standard contract of employment ever commits to enhanced redundancy.

I have not been following this story but this statement is not true. I have seen many employment contracts with ex-gratia redundancy terms e.g. statutory + 4 weeks. It will often happen during acquisitions or at senior management levels.

[Deleted User]

smurgen wrote: »

But when they signed their contracts was more than the statutory redundancy promised?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/explainer-why-are-former-debenhams-workers-picketing-1020881.html

This explains it all. In an earlier round of redundancies in 2016, an offer of 2 weeks per year on top of the statutory 2 weeks was offered. That was then. The strikers want that same deal, even though the business is gone and there’s no money.

FrancieBrady

If you needed evidence that SF are under the beds and in the headspace of FG, this is it. Bizarre.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-research-candidates-asked-how-to-attack-sinn-fein-39736985.html

Floppybits

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I have not been following this story but this statement is not true. I have seen many employment contracts with ex-gratia redundancy terms e.g. statutory + 4 weeks. It will often happen during acquisitions or at senior management levels.

I know it happens in Tupee as well where when an employee is transferred from one company to another then under the agreement for a certain amount of time if an employee that got transferred is being made redundant within that period then they get the same offer they would have got in the original company.

Redundancy agreements are always only available for that particular offer or round of redundancies. It all depends on what funds the company makes available, some companies are quite generous, others not so much and others may just be broke and can't offer anything. This is why I took voluntary redundancy because if you hang on and are then made mandatory redundant you only get what is left in the pot.

Floppybits wrote: »

I know it happens in Tupee as well where when an employee is transferred from one company to another then under the agreement for a certain amount of time if an employee that got transferred is being made redundant within that period then they get the same offer they would have got in the original company.

Redundancy agreements are always only available for that particular offer or round of redundancies. It all depends on what funds the company makes available, some companies are quite generous, others not so much and others may just be broke and can't offer anything. This is why I took voluntary redundancy because if you hang on and are then made mandatory redundant you only get what is left in the pot.

That's TUPE, but yes you are correct.

Floppybits

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

That's TUPE, but yes you are correct.

I will be getting like Blanch and the government boys soon and will always be correct, even when I am wrong I will be correct.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you needed evidence that SF are under the beds and in the headspace of FG, this is it. Bizarre.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-research-candidates-asked-how-to-attack-sinn-fein-39736985.html

How is it bizarre? every party attacks other parties in opposition.