LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI think the state would need to be very wary of going down the route of jailing these workers - it could provoke a significant backlash from the workers and trade unions around the country.
I think the state would need to be very wary of going down the route of jailing these workers - it could provoke a significant backlash from the workers and trade unions around the country.
I hope these people stay put and the coppers are forced to move in.
It won't be the State, in a large sense. If Thomas Cook continue to press their application then it will be a matter for the High Court judge to decide.Originally Posted by JollyRedGiant
Does anyone know the full story? All I know is that they are demanding 8 weeks redundancy for every year worked. Is there more to it than that i.e has the management treated them like ********************t?
passed by this demonstration yesterday. Some of the bandwagon brigade outside seemed to have no idea what the basis of the protest was?
I asked 2 questions:
1. What were the redundancy terms offered by Thomas Cook?
2. What did they want?
Neither questions were answered clearly.
Its only a chat, we ain't the world council.
In 2000 the Women's Institute in Britain gave Tony Blair the slow hand clap to demonstrate their contempt.
It was dignified, restrained and effective.Doesn't Bertie deserve the same scorn. No shouting, no abuse, no agression just a relentless slow clap whenever he speaks in public would be enough to end that man's presidential fantasy.
If you agree copy the signature in to yours and lets get the whole country slow clapping Bertie
But they're not protesting to protect their jobs, they're protesting about getting 5 weeks pay per year of service instead of 8. And the statutory minimum is only 2 weeks per year.
And there is no absolute right to conduct a sit-in on someone else's property, dodgy bankers or no dodgy bankers. And while I've sympathy with anyone who loses their job, a redundancy payment of €109,000 as offered to one member of staff there (according to their own union official) doesn't sound too bad.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
The courts are the state - there to protect private property at the expense of jobs and livelihoods.
Given equipment held within the offices is worth bugger all then all Thomas Cook has to do is shut down all connections incl power, surrender the lease to leaseholder with penalty clause, pay workers into bank account what they are offering and fold up the entity, remove signs and its end of story.
Statutory minimum is two weeks per year of service. They were offered five. They want eight.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
So you expect the High Court to order Thomas Cook not to close do you? Thats the most ridiculous thing I have read on here for ages and, additionally, a massive generalisation.
Reply With Quote