FixdePitchmark wrote: » These are people who are willing and need the 40 hours - the company is extraordinarily profitable , it is basically slave labour. Or bypassing the spirit min wage.
CelticRambler wrote: » This is the same argument that the French are using at the moment to crush the proposed reforms of the Code du travail here (labour law). It's nonsensical. First of all, it doesn't matter how profitable or otherwise the company is: there's no legal or moral obligation on anyone to give work to "the poor". Sure, as a kind soul, I might offer a tenner to some lad to do a job that doesn't really need to be done because he needs a tenner, but that's a one-off. No-one has a right to paid employment. Secondly, there is no "spirit of minimum wage". It's an imaginary figure that makes westerners feel good about themselves while happily exploiting other people working for 20-50cents an hour in the Middle and Far East. When I say "westerners" I'm not referring to the likes of M&S, Dunnes, Tesco, McDonald's, Apple, etc - I'm talking about the vast majority of the public who go shopping in those places and buy the stuff those far-away workers were exploited to produce. Go work in India or Bangladesh or some back-alley factory in China for a couple of months, then come back and complain about Employment Conditions in Ireland/Europe. :mad:
FixdePitchmark wrote: » You get no break. This enables large companies to remove any paid break from a large group of staff. Beside just being horrendously mean - it basically reduces the hours of regular life time staff members for casual labour. It places regular staff on a 17 hour week - travel to and from work must be at least 1 hour per shift - this shift is over 4 days - you are working for 17 hour no break , travelling for 4 hours and paid about 170 euro a week. Seriously. The casual labour are only doing the job in a casual way - so their employment at a reduced rate , remove a basic right, entitlement of an employment right that was established over decades - you are actually entitled to a paid break - imagine that :eek: Shock horror - a break , a real job, a permanent job.
KomradeBishop wrote: » Good thread OP - I'm curious, why do people in the thread affected by this, not seem to have more of an interest in being politically active about it? That's one thing that I find very confusing - a lot of people being severely negatively affected directly/personally, with some very obvious/blatant injustices occurring, but people don't seem to be very politically active in the face of that - yet that needs to happen if it is to ever change.
MarkAnthony wrote: » You two carry on but the reason most people aren't politically active is it's a complete non-issue. Most people are relatively happy and the ones that aren't have two options. (i) change the country, (ii) find a better job. Option (ii) seems to be the easier option.
FortySeven wrote: » Rubbish. People feel powerless. Watching the well off getting bailed out by the worst off during the recession made sure we know our place. We can't even get the fexkers in power out. See Labour for an example.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Not sure this the right Topic for this - but at the same time ,great to get a wide range of views outside of the political classes. Also , here we will get a wider range of experiences in employment. There is a debate going on at present about the conditions of employment of new staff entering various jobs in the private and public sector. This was going on in the background in UK due to the zero hour contract debate and job bridge issue in Ireland. The Luas The Garda The Teachers The Nurses Have all added to this debate. But this evening I was told about some of the extraordinary management coups the likes of Dunnes Stores - Marks and Spencers have puled off in the last few years. In particular a practice where you have a 4 hour shift so you have no break :eek: - then you are sent home for a casual labour type. I'm sure this is only 1 example. But to ask the question. Will this generation make a labour movement to reclaim workers rights ? What on earth were the Labour party at, not making these more serious issues number 1 on their policies - they delivered water charges :eek: Are this generation just not bothered and go with the no break 17 hour a week contract with no actual long term meaningful contract ? What on earth is going on in employment.
mariaalice wrote: » My point is that such conditions are common enough in a lot of sectors no one ever hears about. Insurance is very well rewarded once you get to a cretin level or enter at a cretin level.
esforum wrote: » Mary would disagree
mariaalice wrote: » On average how much are Actuaries and the like paid, head of finance etc, paid in insurance or financial companies. I am not talking about customer services.
MarkAnthony wrote: » Cretin level eh? :pac:
MarkAnthony wrote: » Even CS level jobs are grand, company dependant. Healthcare, reasonable salary, small Xmas bonus, pension etc.
gandalf wrote: » In this day and age zero hour contracts are disgusting and really should be banned. Whats the best way to achieve this, by targeting the companies that indulge in work practices like this and educating the consumer. I avoid using Dunnes because of these work practices. I wasn't aware M&S were up to it so I will avoid using them as well. I don't shop in Tesco any more because their fruit and veg goes off too quickly after getting it home but this gives me another reason to avoid using them. Consumer awareness and power will change these companies. If they see their bottom line being effected then they will change. It also gives the companies that don't practice these tainted HR policies the ability to show that they are progressive employers who care about their staff being able to make ends meat!
mariaalice wrote: » That is way I don't get the obsession with the public service, teaching, nursing, as a bell weather for good conditions of employment, you really would thing that half the employment in Ireland consisted of being sent down a salt mine to work as a slave and the other half consisted of lottery type salaries and condition's. The world of work is very diverse.
MarkAnthony wrote: » Maybe I'm biased, I dunno. I picked a career that involves paying for the privilege of turning up to work for at least the first few years!
PMBC wrote: » That's a new one on me! Can you enlarge without disclosing too much? Perhaps (?)mariaice is correct and the problem is only on a small scale. But if it effects most of the big retailers then its a reasonably big number, I think.
Greenmachine wrote: » Interviewed for a few jobs the last while that would require 2 buses or a bus and a luas way to get to. Most to them were 4*4 hour shifts at minimum wage. so 16*9.15 = 146 - 27.50 minimum transport. I would be down about €70, and would have no time to find more worth while work with all the travel etc.
MarkAnthony wrote: » I was in retail for many years and decided that swanning about in a cape was going to be much more fun so am in the process of becoming a barrister. I've taken the bar route to the bar, i.e. most of my time is spent in bars.Payroll is the biggest bill in retail hence they always try and cut corners. 70% of retail staff are only there as it was easy employment, it's not a career for the vast majority. The ones that want to make it a career can do if they wish and full time, quite well paid, work is there for people that want it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/19a7a778b727ad07a3bbcea8101c61b3.svg)
