Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Supermacs

Options
1…4567810»

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    80j2lc5y7u6qs9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭80j2lc5y7u6qs9


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    The food is ok, but it's bad eating.
    You wouldn't want to be having it every day of the week or you'll be the size of a house.
    you wouldn't want to have any fast food everyday. I know someone who lives off the chipper. not any in this thread, a local one. I see him going home every evening with his tea in the bag. He is not heavy though. I'd say his cholesterol isnt good. This is someone in their 50's who can't cook anything


  • Options
    #273
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    LuasSimon wrote: »
    A company making millions owned by multi millionaire charging staff to wear crap uniform have to go claiming back tax ??
    Shame on the man . All he’s short of is a whip to make the staff flip burgers quicker ?? ...

    You're missing the point; if you are required to wear a uniform in work,regardless of who paid for it, the Revenue makes an allowance for it in your tax payments. Go on the Revenue website and see for yourself.


  • Options
    #274
    80j2lc5y7u6qs9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭80j2lc5y7u6qs9


    Someone said earlier the cost of 12 euro meal would be aroun 50 cent. There is not that much profit is there.



    I will stick to my avoidance of supermacs too. Its mainly the fish & chips I like. I cannot remember the last time i had a burger in a chipper


  • Options
    #275
    Adyx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Adyx


    Pedro K wrote: »
    My jets are well and truly cool. Your choice of political party absolutely has something to do with it. It's no coincidence that two of the most vociferous defenders of McDonagh in this thread, you and Maryanne, are both FG supporters.

    You can think it's an inevitability all you want, but there will be workers who don't take the supermacs food for a variety of reasons. It is wrong to charge them for it.

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


  • Options
    #276
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


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


    650a79_b6a5284d7c4349aca9a01760e1f70901~mv2.png

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    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.

    Do not feed folks, blatant troll. This is simply not true.


  • Options
    #278
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    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.


  • Options
    #279
    Pedro K
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Pedro K


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

    Not at all. I'm not a shinner. Never mentioned SF, so I don't know why you've made that leap.

    It shouldn't be all that inconceivable that a person's choice of political party might match up with their economic decisions in business and life somewhat. McDonagh is scabby. Two of his backers in this thread are vocal FG cheerleaders. I pointed that out. Nothing to do with SF.


  • Options
    #280
    Sebastian Dangerfield
    Registered Users Posts: 1,794 ✭✭✭Sebastian Dangerfield


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    Cool the jets. My choice of political party has nothing to do with it. We have a differing opinion on this, no need to get worked up about it.

    I think it's inevitable that food workers will take food as they work. A lot seem to be students and probably delighted to get a decent meal for half the price I'd say.

    I suspect this is the issue


  • Options
    #281
    Adyx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Adyx


    Pedro K wrote: »
    Not at all. I'm not a shinner. Never mentioned SF, so I don't know why you've made that leap.

    It shouldn't be all that inconceivable that a person's choice of political party might match up with their economic decisions in business and life somewhat. McDonagh is scabby. Two of his backers in this thread are vocal FG cheerleaders. I pointed that out. Nothing to do with SF.

    You were the first to mention anyone's politics and make the leap that FG supporters back McDonagh and of course you're implication that he is a FG supporter and by extension FG supporters are scabby.

    You didn't say it directly but the implication is obvious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Pedro K
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Pedro K


    Adyx wrote: »
    You were the first to mention anyone's politics and make the leap that FG supporters back McDonagh and of course you're implication that he is a FG supporter and by extension FG supporters are scabby.

    You didn't say it directly but the implication is obvious.

    Backers of fiscal conservatism also backers of fiscally conservative party shocker. I didn't make a leap. The two posters in question are outspoken FG supporters.

    You've made an incredible leap here. I'm not saying FG supporters are scabby. I'm saying I'm not surprised that two McDonagh backers in this thread happen to be outspoken FG supporters.

    I still have absolutely no idea why you brought SF up.

    I'll leave it there anyway. Since we run the risk of derailing the thread with our back and forth.


  • Options
    #283
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,857 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I’ve been working in various jobs for the past 45 years. I’ve found that companies with a canteen charged for a meal, so why not fast food outlets.
    Many companies charge for uniforms, mainly because some new employees decide that they don’t want to work there and leave with the uniform, at a cost to the company.

    If you’ve that many employees who get hired, get issued with uniforms only to leave, that the issue of supplying uniforms is impacting your bottom line.. you need to look more closely at who you are hiring firstly and secondly why your staff turnover is that high.

    Pay people well and fairly, people stick around..

    Treat them well and fairly, the same...


  • Options
    #284
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


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


  • Options
    #285
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    I run a building supply store.

    ...

    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. And yes I take the retail price of the goods...one less pair of boots for me to sell. If they don't like it, they can take a hike.

    Please give us detail of this store, so those of us who purchase such products can run a mile. You do appear to be proud of how you run it, so tell us - you surely have nothing to hide?

    Would also rather like to see a HSA risk assessment of a premise run by such a penny pincher. If you're confident you're legit you have no reason not to tell us.

    Or you're making it all up, of course.
    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    When you scale things up the kumbaya stuff doesn't work as well.

    The USD9Bn a year revenue firm I work for hasn't scaled up yet by your standards then

    Jesus, what builders merchants is this? You could buy out Grafton in the morning and barely notice

    Or you're making it all up, of course.


  • Options
    #286
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    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 ;)

    It would be really easy to never eat in Supermacs again for me personally. I’d imagine for many people, it would be no problem. It’s rare for it to be the only option for food.
    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.

    I doubt that very much.


  • Options
    #287
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    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.

    ...and when you scale things up again, and get into the really senior hurling, which is where McDonagh and Supermacs are - competing with the likes of McDonalds, Burger King et al - you discover that a reputation as a quality employer is worth serious money on a few levels and things like crappy uniforms, boots and what-not are nothing. Less than nothing.


  • Options
    #288
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,790 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    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.


  • Options
    #289
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,615 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    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.


  • Options
    #290
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,070 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    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.


  • Options
    #291
    80j2lc5y7u6qs9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭80j2lc5y7u6qs9


    I got a text from someone who had passed by a super stinge today but did not go in because of macmean and his comments. I didn't even know they were open


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,830 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    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.


  • Options
    #293
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    Jalen Petite Tea wrote: »
    Someone said earlier the cost of 12 euro meal would be aroun 50 cent. There is not that much profit is there.

    That be 50 cent in paying for the raw ingredients and fuel?


  • Options
    #294
    80j2lc5y7u6qs9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭80j2lc5y7u6qs9


    YFlyer wrote: »
    That be 50 cent in paying for the raw ingredients and fuel?
    I think thats what thye meant. Would 50 cent of raw ingredients be 12 euro for a finished meal?


  • Options
    #295
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,615 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Doubt it would be as low as 50 cents but probably about 1-1.50 cost price for a meal. I know the splash coke they use is dirt cheap cost price, about 15-20 cents for a full cup. The burgers are obviously the worst of meat that come from aged dairy cows used to make dog food. So the cheapest of meat is used too.


  • Options
    #296
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    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.


  • Options
    #297
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Doubt it would be as low as 50 cents but probably about 1-1.50 cost price for a meal. I know the splash coke they use is dirt cheap cost price, about 15-20 cents for a full cup. The burgers are obviously the worst of meat that come from aged dairy cows used to make dog food. So the cheapest of meat is used too.

    Maybe horse, seeing the surname?


Advertisement