MooShop wrote: » Agree with this. I worked in a Tesco store for 4 years, so have seen this first hand. The pre-96ers (in my store anyway) were nothing but childish bullies who would throw their toys out of the pram if they didn't get their own way. The majority of them were so lazy and barely covered their duties, if at all, and got paid exorbitant amounts for the privilege. Also these would never work a Sunday, of course until it was a bank holiday and they were getting triple time! :eek: And then when they were in on those days, did even less and the store was in more of a mess, putting us regular staff under more pressure because there wasn't enough budget to bring in people who would actually work! They were always a clique onto to themselves, them vs us (regular staff/mgmt vs pre-96), and that divide was solely created by them! Bit of a rant but had to put up with a lot of their s**t over the years I worked there.
Eugene Norman wrote: » None of this is relevant to the actual contracts the actual workers have now. (I too would leave by the way) They want to stay on. They want what should be a legally binding contract enforced. They shouldn't even have to strike. The legality and morality of the situation might be clearer to you if you pretended the workers were rich. Say this was an executive or investor with a legally binding contract with tesco that was, admittedly, costing the company money. Or that tesco had a upwards only rent that the management wanted out off. You'd probably suggest they take a running jump if they wanted to renegotiate unilaterally. The fact the workers need to strike is the issue.
ThisRegard wrote: » Some managers have, and have taken it. There's a variety of managers in a store, not just the store manager itself.
mansize wrote: » What's with the obsession with attacking male reproductive organs???
ThisRegard wrote: » Tesco is a big company, Ireland is a small country, it's not hard to know people who work, worked, and are leaving there. I believe anyone that was on a pre-96 contract was offered redundancy, so you can be sure that many of them were managers who stood to pocket a hell of a lot of money by leaving
Eugene Norman wrote: » How do we know what the people who took redundancy worked at?
TallGlass wrote: » Also to add from the store I worked in around 30/40 people have been made redundant and accepted there offers. In the face of what they say it has resulted in job loses as they haven't taken on the same amount of staff.
ThisRegard wrote: » It's a rumour going back years to the Celtic Tiger years, when every retail unit was probably raking it in in Ireland. I doubt it's true these days giving the amount of staff they've either made compulsory redundant or offered voluntary redundancy to, and how much they've had to row back on their expansion plans. The latest round of redundancy alone I would guess would push them into the red for the tax year they occurred in. So you're completely ignoring the staff that have been made redundant, or are they not wurkers because they don't stack shelves?
oppenheimer1 wrote: » Not in Ireland, where the operation is rumoured to be its most profitable location. Not that we'll ever know because it doesn't break down its irish results individually in its published accounts.
oppenheimer1 wrote: » The Irish arm is safe. As are the jobs of the longest serving members of staff.
seamus wrote: » Rumoured. Though apparently the Irish arm returned a profit last year for the first time since 2012. So I'm not sure how much credence I'd lend to those rumours. In any case, since the Irish arm is absolute small fry in the overall agenda, profits in Ireland are going to have little consequence when the group is making losses in the billions. The same is true for costs - in that savings made by the Irish branch will make little consequence overall. But the Irish executive team will need to be seen doing something they can present at the next management summit. And trimming the fat in the form of the most expensive workers is one of the easiest and most common ways to do that. If I was one of these Tesco workers, the parent company's dramatic downturn from a 2.5bn profit to a 5.8bn loss in the space of a year would give me serious cause for concern. If the choice was between the generous package on offer or fighting to hold onto a job that might be gone in a couple of years, gimme the package.
seamus wrote: » "Race to the bottom". Another overused and unproven piece of hyperbole from the AAA/PBP brigade.
CosmicSmash wrote: » So you would be okay if you had your own contract changed to match new entrants down the road?
seamus wrote: » The company itself is in serious turmoil, it's going to be moving into closing down stores and laying off staff in the next 5-10 years as it fights to keep up with the competition from Lidl and Aldi. Sounds to me like the unions have quite badly misled these workers into thinking they're losing out by not accepting Tesco's offers.
Eugene Norman wrote: » Saying people don't support workers isn't saying they are not themselves workers. Ireland is the home of the tuppence happenny looking down on tuppence characters. You can see that in the Luas arguments. Those workers don't deserve a raise. They don't have edjuchasen.
Superhorse wrote: » I'll be supporting them because I'm sick to death of this race to the bottom. If certain sections of society had their way (looking at you IBEC and a percentage of boards posters) anyone without a degree would be earning butter vouchers as payment for work instead of a decent wage.
To Elland Back wrote: » I think it is worth supporting the Tesco workers to show the Luas Drivers that reasonable people support just causes and they are being asswipes
Carawaystick wrote: » It's such a pity when tescos bought quinnsworth that they missed this little detail. If only they could have paid some hawkeyed legal eagle to check this little things, but alas they couldn't afford it... Or thought they'd get away with screwing the staff.
Eugene Norman wrote: » Ok so it's poor people who have it. Ireland doesn't have a very mature brokerage sector. Middle income earners saving for a house probably do keep it on deposit. Pensioners with lump savings too. It would be ~30k per deposit account. I doubt if the median is more than 10k. And it doesn't actually seem that high.
ThisRegard wrote: » It's about both, pre 96ers are extremely inflexible and cost the company in both money and adaptability.
