Target MD says "Revenue to blame for job losses"

[DrMoriarty]

Factious / facetious are rather different things...

fac·tious   [fak-shuhs]
adjective
1. given to faction; dissentious: A factious group was trying to undermine the government.
2. pertaining to or proceeding from faction: factious quarrels.

fa·ce·tious   [fuh-see-shuhs]
adjective
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

I would suspect that there is a lot in this case that we are not hearing about.

I don't think we're getting the full story here at all.

+1

 

[DerKaiser]

Factious / facetious are rather different things...

I reckon 'flippant' was what gillarosa intended

 

[Spear]

Brendan,
I'm not sure I agree with this, as it assumes that the competitors are operating at full capacity, which in these times is doubtful. Even if they were, not all of the current employees are "out on the road". Would a competitor need to add the same number of HR staff, for example, should they get the extra business? I doubt it as economies of scale would be at play. So, IMO the additional staff hired by competitors would only be a fraction of 290. How many exactly is anyone's guess. If there are a large number of competitors each getting a slice of the pie then only a tiny fraction of that 290 would be employed.

Overall, I would expect, in the short term, that the competitors would hire some extra staff to mee their increased demand, on a temporary basis. I would also expect a natural increase in the prices charged as supply has contracted. In the longer term, I would expect a new entrant to enter the market in order to chase these profits.

I agree with this, and the loss of 290 jobs may indeed be true.

It would be a massive leap to assume that all, or even a majortiy of those 290 jobs were transferred elsewhere, as there is no way all competitors are operating all trucks at 100% capacity all of the time, plus there would be no need to duplicate the back office/ support jobs.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It would be a massive leap to assume that all, or even a majortiy of those 290 jobs were transferred elsewhere, as there is no way all competitors are operating all trucks at 100% capacity all of the time, plus there would be no need to duplicate the back office/ support jobs.

OK, so the closure of this loss making, capital starved, mismanaged company improves the efficiency and maintains the job security of the other companies.


But the general point is that this is not the same as an Irish exporter closing down where there is a total loss to Ireland.

Brendan

 

[Spear]

OK, so the closure of this loss making, capital starved, mismanaged company improves the efficiency and maintains the job security of the other companies.


But the general point is that this is not the same as an Irish exporter closing down where there is a total loss to Ireland.

Brendan

Yes - you could easily argue it's a good thing, as it makes the country more productive. I can't see the newspapers spinning it that way though