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

Take over Clerys building?

jobeenfitz

Should Clerys Staff have taken over the building when informed about closure of shop.

I know the building and the operating company have been separated but it would make the owners sit up and maybe even force them to pay up.

As someone said on the radio this morning said "there is a bad smell about this saga".

There is a building worth millions but no money to pay staff and others what they are owed?

Is there something wrong with our laws that allows these things to happen.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Massimo Cassagrande

inforfun wrote: »

It all depends on the way they **** you out of your job.
What happened here was a very dirty trick.

I have no problem with people making (a lot) of money but it all depends on how they do business. Some of these investors/vultures i wouldnt mind seeing in a lot of pain.

I agree with you there. That was sneaky alright.. I didn't know that was the way they played it. That isn't just ruthless, that's downright dirty.

Rubberchikken

there's no sentementality in business.
clearys lost any gloss that it had years ago. i'll bet the consession people will have their stock returned. whether there's money to pay anyone is another thing.

that shop was tired and worn, and why it was left drag on creating debt for so long is anyone's guess.

what would be so wrong with introducing a whole new concept to the building - new shop, new offices even an hotel? it's the capital's main street and it might just start rejuvenating it.

Menas

Rubberchikken wrote: »

what would be so wrong with introducing a whole new concept to the building - new shop, new offices even an hotel? it's the capital's main street and it might just start rejuvenating it.

It would be great to see O'Connell st rejuvinated. So many ideas bandied around over they years but not too much progress.
Solving the drug dealers problem, and all that that brings to the area would be a decent start though.
The Garda attitude to druggies in the area seems to be that 'at least they are concentrated in one area rather than spread over the whole city'.

Eugene Norman

smash wrote: »

I don't understand this mentality. They going to sit there shouting "How dare you go out of business...." ?

Plenty of sit ins have achieved results. Sit ins. Not just for the rich in dalkey housing anymore.

Eugene Norman

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

The Staff got paid for years. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. How dare you pay me every week for years and then suddenly stop?? Damn you Clerys, damn you to hell...

Sick comment. They actually have legal responsibilities to their staff. Like redundancy, unless bankrupt -- which the parent company isn't.

Massimo Cassagrande

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Sick comment. They actually have legal responsibilities to their staff. Like redundancy, unless bankrupt -- which the parent company isn't.

Yeah - I said what they did was sneaky and ruthless just there ^.

AH poster not knowing the full story then changing mind shocker.

Kermit.de.frog

Did these workers think they had jobs for life?

Time has moved on. Store was outdated and went out of business.

darkpagandeath

Did the company not plan to completely redevelop the site create jobs and so on ? As it stands its a terribly outdated store. Could the staff not apply for jobs in the new development ?

Kermit.de.frog

They said that in the coming months a planning application would be made for a development that will have approx 1,700 jobs AND 1,000 construction jobs.

Looks like a win for the city to me.

[Deleted User]

What they did not letting workers get their stuff and all sounds very mean

Eugene Norman

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

Yeah - I said what they did was sneaky and ruthless just there ^.

AH poster not knowing the full story then changing mind shocker.

Apologies, I didn't read your correction but replied to the original comment.

Eugene Norman

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Did these workers think they had jobs for life?

Time has moved on. Store was outdated and went out of business.

No but they had rights to proper notice and redundancy.

A Primal Nut

What's to stop any company from doing this with any debts that they have? Start a new company, move all the debts there, liquidate it, and then the original company are suddenly debt-free?

I would have thought the creditors would have to agree with the debts being moved.

jobeenfitz

I was reading recently on a Spanish newspaper, that the rich in Spain have become much richer since the big bang of 2008. It sort of mirrors what has happened in Ireland and maybe other countries that have crashed? If you depend on the state for anything you are probably screwed.

I am not saying it was a big evil scheme orchestrated by the bad rich people but the laws, or lack of laws for the mobile and wealthy, are at least contributing to this kind of rip off we have seen at Clery's. If you are wealthy enough or a big company, paying tax is now optional.

The government and Enda are ringing their hands and putting on their serious and sad faces and muttering "down with this sort of thing" whilst doing feck all to stop it. They don't give a sh1t. All they care about is getting wealthy and re-elected.

What have they done with Moriarty tribunal's finding? If Lowry held the balance of power in a hung dail would he be welcome into Enda's arms? We are a nation of "cute hoors"

Life's a big pile of manure unless you are in the circle or very wealthy.

How to fix it?

If life became very hard for the politicians then they would probably do something. How exactly to do this may not be as easy done as said.

One thing for sure we are gona see a pile of pseudo-caring til the votes are cast in the next general election.

BoatMad

A Primal Nut wrote: »

What's to stop any company from doing this with any debts that they have? Start a new company, move all the debts there, liquidate it, and then the original company are suddenly debt-free?

I would have thought the creditors would have to agree with the debts being moved.

There are several provisions in irish company law , that prevent the " Phoenix " syndrome. To restructure a company so that a major asset was moved out , would require that the operating company was Independently solvent at the time. I believe it was

Once a company is liquidated or about to be liquidated , directors cannot be seen to favour repaying any one creditor over another.( or ex-gratuity payments to employees ) After liquidation it's the liquidators role to then establish priority of creditors and this would include the concessionaires legal status.

The staff were entitled to more notice however or to paid fir that notice , so they'll get a bit more then statutory. The government actually pays 60% of the statutory costs.

Ultimately you cannot make a company that has no money pay .

There nothing dodgy about it at all. In fact the parties have applied the letter of company law. Many many companies have sold and leased back their own buildings. It's a very standard approach.

jobeenfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

There are several provisions in irish company law , that prevent the " Phoenix " syndrome. To restructure a company so that a major asset was moved out , would require that the operating company was Independently solvent at the time. I believe it was

Once a company is liquidated or about to be liquidated , directors cannot be seen to favour repaying any one creditor over another.( or ex-gratuity payments to employees ) After liquidation it's the liquidators role to then establish priority of creditors and this would include the concessionaires legal status.

The staff were entitled to more notice however or to paid fir that notice , so they'll get a bit more then statutory. The government actually pays 60% of the statutory costs.

Ultimately you cannot make a company that has no money pay .

There nothing dodgy about it at all. In fact the parties have applied the letter of company law. Many many companies have sold and leased back their own buildings. It's a very standard approach.

Maybe that is the problem, "Its all legal and standard".

BoatMad

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Maybe that is the problem, "Its all legal and standard".

You'd like clerys to act illegally !!!

jobeenfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

You'd like clerys to act illegally !!!

I'm saying some of our laws need to change.

BoatMad

jobeenfitz wrote: »

I'm saying some of our laws need to change.

you cannot make a company that has huge losses , suddenly find money to pay staff above an beyond statutory amounts. That amounts to beneficial creditor situations, i mean shouldn't the sole trader supplying stock on credit be treated equally as other creditors including staff.

jobeenfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

you cannot make a company that has huge losses , suddenly find money to pay staff above an beyond statutory amounts. That amounts to beneficial creditor situations, i mean shouldn't the sole trader supplying stock on credit be treated equally as other creditors including staff.

Look I aint an expert on company law, but it was the way this company was split up, if you don't see a problem then it just mean we look at things very differently. There is a building worth millions that had been separated so that when the shop later closed there could be no call on the building. That is the way I see it.

CH3OH

BoatMad wrote: »

The staff were entitled to more notice however or to paid fir that notice , so they'll get a bit more then statutory. The government actually pays 60% of the statutory costs.

As far as I'm aware, this was changed on the 1st Jan 2013 and there is no longer an entitlement to an employer rebate.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/employerrebate.aspx

"Where the date of dismissal occurs on or after 1 January 2012 but before 1 January 2013 the 15% rebate rate will continue to apply.

The 60% rebate rate will continue to apply in those cases currently on hands in the Department where the date of dismissal occurred on or before 31 December 2011.

For redundancies with a date of dismissal on or after 1 January 2013 no rebate will be payable."

SummerRebel

CH3OH wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, this was changed on the 1st Jan 2013 and there is no longer an entitlement to an employer rebate.

"Where the date of dismissal occurs on or after 1 January 2012 but before 1 January 2013 the 15% rebate rate will continue to apply.

The 60% rebate rate will continue to apply in those cases currently on hands in the Department where the date of dismissal occurred on or before 31 December 2011.

For redundancies with a date of dismissal on or after 1 January 2013 no rebate will be payable."

Yeah it's a bit ridiculous. What's the point in an employer paying 10.75% ER PRSI when they get nothing in return.

Egginacup

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Should Clerys Staff have taken over the building when informed about closure of shop.

I know the building and the operating company have been separated but it would make the owners sit up and maybe even force them to pay up.

As someone said on the radio this morning said "there is a bad smell about this saga".

There is a building worth millions but no money to pay staff and others what they are owed?

Is there something wrong with our laws that allows these things to happen.

This is capitalism. FCUK em and their kids.

jobeenfitz

SummerRebel wrote: »

Yeah it's a bit ridiculous. What's the point in an employer paying 10.75% ER PRSI when they get nothing in return.

PRSI is for old age pension, Jobseekers benefit, illness benefit and more. Employers in this country pay very little PRSI in comparison to other EU countries.

BoatMad

jobeenfitz wrote: »

PRSI is for old age pension, Jobseekers benefit, illness benefit and more. Employers in this country pay very little PRSI in comparison to other EU countries.

PRSI is just a tax, it has long since stopped being anything directly meaningful

BoatMad

Egginacup wrote: »

This is capitalism. FCUK em and their kids.

have you an alternative that makes sense ?

jobeenfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

PRSI is just a tax, it has long since stopped being anything directly meaningful

When you go to collect the old age pension or you are out sick from work you may feel different.

jobeenfitz

Egginacup wrote: »

This is capitalism. FCUK em and their kids.

This makes perfect sense to me. Anyone who lives in this country would have no problem understanding this.

BoatMad

jobeenfitz wrote: »

When you go to collect the old age pension or you are out sick from work you may feel different.

Im self employed, I pay near A1 rates, and I get nothing or virtually nothing in return, not sick opay, redundancy, etc etc

its just a tax

jobeenfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

Im self employed, I pay near A1 rates, and I get nothing or virtually nothing in return, not sick opay, redundancy, etc etc

its just a tax

That's it so, "its just a tax"!