Supermacs

All this talk, pages of it. I wonder who is gonna vote with their wallets and not buy from supermacs anymore.

Spoiler: a very small percentage of you dispute what you may say

A lad I know is a clamper in the city and he saw a Merc parked one day parked on a double yellow so he clamped it just as McDonaghs wife was coming out, he's a sound lad and if someone has a genuine excuse he won't do them but he figured she could well afford the cost of getting the clamp removed.

McDonagh is a shrewd businessman but no way would I work for him,

the beer revolu wrote: »

Cool story

Thanks bro

Image what your life must be like if your hero's are:
1. An extremely wealthy fast food merchant who pays their staff a pittance and appears to have no respect for them.
2. An obese, dead alcoholic.

Pintman, I pity you.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

By law I have to provide safety boots and PPE to the lads working on the floor. Yes I do take the cost out of their wages.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Personal_Protective_Equipment_-_PPE/PPE_-FAQs/Personal_Protective_Equipment_FAQ_Responses.html

Section 8 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 places a duty on employers to supply PPE where risks cannot be eliminated or adequately controlled.

Employers cannot pass on to employees any financial costs associated with duties relating to safety, health and welfare at work. An employer may not ask for money to be paid to them by an employee for the provision of PPE whether returnable (e.g. a deposit) or otherwise.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Great that you treat your employees like adopted children but that's fine when you have 6 hippies brewing beer in a shed. When you scale things up the kumbaya stuff doesn't work as well.

You clearly know nothing about my business.
Why do you keep assuming things?

Adyx wrote: »

So if you're not a fcking shinner you can't think McDonagh is a scabby bastard?

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Not when it's part of a work uniform, rather than based on a risk assessment requirement.

Been through that argument many times before and have won.

Rubbish.

The cost of providing uniforms is tax-deductible,in the same fashion as providing vehicles or furniture or computers to your company.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Apologies. I was getting a bit ratty at the potshots people are taking at me.

Aw, poor Paddy.

Let's look at what you've done to deserve this - apart from the obvious - being a self confessed scumbag employer who supports other scumbag employers.

You came out with the following:

The people getting worked up about this clearly aren't business owners. Lots of employees who know how to run a business but strangely haven't decided to do so themselves...strange that .

I told you that I was involved in a business that treats its staff well.

But rather than accept that at face value you decided to undermine the seriousness and worth of my business. Suggesting that we don't operate in the real business world - that we are just hobbyists .

You firstly suggested naivety. And then tried to belittle the sector that I work in while, do doubt, knowing nothing about it.

You then suggested that our business was "6 hippies brewing beer in a shed", and that we operate in a "kumbaya" manner - whatever the fcuk that means.

We are over 5 years old. We pay the wages of approx 10 people. There is oversight of our business by Revenue (in a big way), HSE and HSA and the Department of Agriculture. We compete directly with and supply multinational companies. We have had serious, institutional financial investment. We are a serious, successful and growing company in a competitive industry.

We choose to treat our staff well as a company policy because we are decent people. It's that simple, no matter how you try to twist it.
The bonus is that, in return we get loyalty, respect and dedication.

And, Sherlock, no, we are not a Brewery and we don't make beer.
It's no secret, across boards, which company I am involved with.

So, Paddy, your debating style is as despicable as your employer style.

the beer revolu wrote: »

Aw, poor Paddy.

Let's look at what you've done to deserve this - apart from the obvious - being a self confessed scumbag employer who supports other scumbag employers.

You came out with the following:



I told you that I was involved in a business that treats its staff well.

But rather than accept that at face value you decided to undermine the seriousness and worth of my business. Suggesting that we don't operate in the real business world - that we are just hobbyists .

You firstly suggested naivety. And then tried to belittle the sector that I work in while, do doubt, knowing nothing about it.

You then suggested that our business was "6 hippies brewing beer in a shed", and that we operate in a "kumbaya" manner - whatever the fcuk that means.

We are over 5 years old. We pay the wages of approx 10 people. There is oversight of our business by Revenue (in a big way), HSE and HSA and the Department of Agriculture. We compete directly with and supply multinational companies. We have had serious, institutional financial investment. We are a serious, successful and growing company in a competitive industry.

We choose to treat our staff well as a company policy because we are decent people. It's that simple, no matter how you try to twist it.
The bonus is that, in return we get loyalty, respect and dedication.

And, Sherlock, no, we are not a Brewery and we don't make beer.
It's no secret, across boards, which company I am involved with.

So, Paddy, your debating style is as despicable as your employer style.

If your company is as you say, then your costs are too high.
Your product/service is now vulnerable to competition by ruthless more efficient competitors.

Muahahaha wrote: »

How much are a pair of safety boots anyway? Pretty sure I saw in them in Lidl or Aldi before for 15 euro or so.

Pretty scabby behavoiur for an employer making their employees meet the cost of safety. Not only that it is illegal too going by the link whiskey galore posted back up the thread where it says an employer is not allowed to charge their staff for safety equipment. Yet Paddy is charging them full retail price as he said in his own words "one less pair for me to sell". Holy fcuk, this story belongs in the Stingiest things that stingy people do thread.

If he is for real, he's either one mane cute hoor or bullsh1tting to get a rise. Someone who'd peel an orange in his pocket would be an absolute joy to work for.

"Employees come and go.."
I bet they do that. A lot.

I used to have some regard for McDonough putting it up to Maccas, but now that the true colours have come out, I'll take my custom elsewhere.

whisky_galore wrote: »

If he is for real, he's either one mane cute hoor or bullsh1tting to get a rise. Someone who'd peel an orange in his pocket would be an absolute joy to work for.

"Employees come and go.."
I bet they do that. A lot.

If he is charging employees for safety boots and then claiming it back via his accountant, then he is double-dipping.