What's the desired result for Vita Cortex workers?

According to the Irish Times they want
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0102/1224309715839.html

"Workers are seeking a €1.2 million redundancy package – 2.9 weeks per year of service for each worker"

Sounds reasonable.

What they are getting:

€1,500 each, along with two weeks’ wages.

vs
It says they want

2.9 weeks per year of service for each worker

In short the maths below are my generic guess at the potential differences.
Example 1:
Work 30 years at a current salary of 60,000 Euro. That's 60,000 / 52 weeks = 1153 x 2.9 weeks = 3346 x 30 years = 100,384 Euro

Example 2:
6 years service @ salary 35,000 = 11,711 Euro

Example 1 is being offered 3806 Euro. Difference could be 96,578 Euro.
Example 2 is being offered 2846 Euro. Difference could be 8,865 Euro.

From what I have heard this is a company that was set up in the fifties with many long-service employees (ie higher payouts). The owner is claiming that the money is in another of his companies bank accounts, but that NAMA is witholding the payments as it is being held as collateral against bad investments. I am sure the owner knew this would be the case.

The way I see it, the workers got their statutory redundancies and are now pressuring the government to release NAMA (ie taxpayer) funds. Also the ex-employer is guilty of nothing other than being quite mean-spirited and then disowning his actions.

I oppose any taxpayer money being redirected to pay more than statutory redundancy payments.
Sorry Vita Cortex ex-employees.

workers got their statutory redundancies

I stand corrected after further reading.

Dob74 wrote: »

Statutory Redundancy is paid at a maximum of 600 per week, 2 weeks per year of service and one week top up.
60% is paid out of PRSI, which is a socail insurance fund paid into by the workers. 104 weeks minimum employment with the same employer and all prsi paid.

Cant understand why the managment of the company isnt before the courts. We send people to jail for not paying there tv linsence and minor fines. Not paying people the money owed to them seems alot more of a crime to me. Why dont people value labour in this country?

Quite right. Except that since Jan 1 2012 the relief is only 15% rather than 60%.
Inability to pay is still a defence I guess. Now it's up to the courts, employees, government etc to disprove that. The LRC is hovering in the background but has no mandate to intervene.
I still strongly oppose the taxpayer picking up the bill directly.
O
I would very much like to read the detailed statement the owner released a few days ago that the press quoted snippets from.
The full story I feel is not being told, as is often the case in disputes. Right now I feel we are hearing the version that is being shouted the loudest.

So I guess my question for this thread is not what the workers want, but rather how do they expect to get it?

fluffer wrote: »

I stand corrected after further reading.


Quite right. Except that since Jan 1 2012 the relief is only 15% rather than 60%.
Inability to pay is still a defence I guess. Now it's up to the courts, employees, government etc to disprove that. The LRC is hovering in the background but has no mandate to intervene.
I still strongly oppose the taxpayer picking up the bill directly.
O
I would very much like to read the detailed statement the owner released a few days ago that the press quoted snippets from.
The full story I feel is not being told, as is often the case in disputes. Right now I feel we are hearing the version that is being shouted the loudest.

So I guess my question for this thread is not what the workers want, but rather how do they expect to get it?

Inability is a defence but until the gov crack down on rogue employers, making them prove there inability to pay before the courts we will have case after case like this.
If this employer cant pay the taxpayer will have have to pay. That's why we need proper corperate enforcement not the neo-liberal let the free market sort it out BS we have now. Think of all the decent employers struggling right now paying there staff and than these cowboys being left of the hook.

So it seems that the LRC talks have broken down... despite the company meeting its obligations (albeit late in the day) and willing to pay 2 weeks statutory redundancy per year of service.

These are not good times... I know of many folk laid off from companies who only got statutory redundancy terms and were very grateful with this alone...

If Vita Cortex workers now want redundancy payouts over and above the statutory entitlements, I reckon they'll quickly and deservedly lose any public support they had.

The statutory redundancy in my view is like minimum wage in this country - there is an obligation of employers to offer it as a minimum, but no obligation whatsoever to offer anything over and above this. When people talk about how some of the Vita Cortex workers have given a lifetime to the company, they seem to forget the fact that the company has similarly given a lifetime of paid employment to the workers.

thebman wrote: »

Well the company also tired to get out of its legal obligations initially so I think it isn't beyond reason the employer should have to pay extra for wasting everyones time and the stress and costs to workers in trying to get their legal entitlement.

True, at least if media reports are correct, that the company may have tried to dodge paying the 'statutory' redundancy, but that should have been a matter dealt with between the appropriate government division and the company from the start. Legislation should exist that should punish the company directly via fines etc. But I think it's a bit rich to expect the workers to be paid 50% more redundancy because of what happened. Looks to me like the unions are trying to justify their existence to a certain extent.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

News of a settlement:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/end-in-sight-for-vita-cortex-dispute-as-workers-accept-proposals-549974.html

The big shock is "The package has been agreed between the company, its shareholders and worker representatives and its details are strictly confidential to the parties involved."

This is a cop out, you cannot attract and canvass public support as they have and then make the settlement confidential.

I want to know if Jack Ronan had to pay from his lavish assets? And how much?

Not good from the workers if true!

I'll bet they didn't get the 0.9 weeks that they 'claimed' (no evidence or written documentation to back it up) to have had an agreement in relation to!!!