Sainsburys Job?

[Deleted User]

Davy_Jones_II wrote: »

I don’t agree. When someone is posting things which are wrong then it’s a good idea to point it out.

They're not saying the posts are incorrect - they are saying the posts are irrelevant. So guess what?...there's an ignore button you can easily use.

Blatchford

[Deleted User] wrote:

That's usually you.

Those that have an issue with keepcalm's posts should use their ignore button, instead of going for the annoying judgemental comments when keepcalm posts.

Do try not to rip a few words out of context and then respond as though I have said something entirely different.

It is not unusual for irrelevant information to also be entirely wrong. So how I respond to that is really my business and not yours. So perhaps you could take your own advice, since so much of your entire posting history appears to involve stalking and criticising me - use the ignore button and then you won't have to read it.

benbay001

Having had a (VERY) quick look, it seems Sainsbury has been been profitable for the last 4 years and is expecting to continue to be in the future.

Why is it being compared to Thomas Cook?

https://www.markets.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/shares-centre/sharedealing/details/?csid=10079

Les79

benbay001 wrote: »

Having had a (VERY) quick look, it seems Sainsbury has been been profitable for the last 4 years and is expecting to continue to be in the future.

Why is it being compared to Thomas Cook?

https://www.markets.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/shares-centre/sharedealing/details/?csid=10079

Be careful, making sensible posts like this doesn't always go down well on the forum.

TC was brought up as a way for Blatchford to contradict my advice on here. That's it. I'd take the time to explain to them that TC isn't strictly indicative of how other companies in different industries will perform, and provide links like you've done, but it would be a pointless exercise.

Exodi

I don't think Sainsburys is in trouble? They absorbed a load of one-off costs in a period and as a direct result, turned a lower profit this year - I'm not sure why they made headlines for it to be completely honest. It wasn't that long ago they were trying to buy Asda, they can't be doing that badly!

I have to say, I don't agree with the position of 'just ignore them' in relation to Deleted User frequent random, irrelevant and made-up posts. It's not so bad for the people who are aware that they routinely flout nonsense but I do have concerns over the rhetoric influenced on new posters - especially as one of the themes they frequently adopt seems to be that of 'employers are out to get you'.

If it's not addressed each time, at least to some extent, then I worry newer posters may infer a dangerous point of view when dealing with their various issues, or come to the conclusion that MSE is full of looneys.

Plus, being frank here, it would make much more sense for one certain person to be PPR'd than request daily that hundreds of people put the same person on ignore.

Undervalued

Exodi wrote: »

I have to say, I don't agree with the position of 'just ignore them' in relation to Deleted User frequent random, irrelevant and made-up posts. It's not so bad for the people who are aware that they routinely flout nonsense but I do have concerns over the rhetoric influenced on new posters - especially as one of the themes they frequently adopt seems to be that of 'employers are out to get you'.

If it's not addressed each time, at least to some extent, then I worry newer posters may infer a dangerous point of view when dealing with their various issues, or come to the conclusion that MSE is full of looneys.

Plus, being frank here, it would make much more sense for one certain person to be PPR'd than request daily that hundreds of people put the same person on ignore.

I totally agree. If you invest significant time and energy in helping people on a forum like this, putting someone who regularly posts bad advice on ignore is not a good move as you don't get to see what misinformation they give to the person wanting advice!

This is why I am also strongly opposed to people offering advice by PM. There is no way of checking their credentials but at least if they post on the forum anybody who disagrees with their "advice" can say why they feel it is wrong.

lexington013

Worked for them for 20 years, started off as a Trainee Manager. Very good company, good benefits, generally pretty secure job with the chance to be promoted. I would say go for it!

Blatchford

Les79 wrote: »

TC was brought up as a way for Blatchford to contradict my advice on here.

Regrettably, you are incorrect again, and I don't consider you that important. The reason it was brought up was because nobody can predict company performance or how safe jobs/ the future will be. Which was the point of the posters question. Even at the very last moments, despite their performance, everyone said that Thomas Cook would not go under. Same was said about Mothercare. Equally, having a profitable or strong performance company does not mean jobs are secure.

Les79

Blatchford wrote: »

Regrettably, you are incorrect again, and I don't consider you that important. The reason it was brought up was because nobody can predict company performance or how safe jobs/ the future will be. Which was the point of the posters question. Even at the very last moments, despite their performance, everyone said that Thomas Cook would not go under. Same was said about Mothercare. Equally, having a profitable or strong performance company does not mean jobs are secure.

You are correct about nobody being able to tell how well a company will perform in the future.. Maybe sainsbury will go bust in the near future.

But TC and Mothercare were stale relics and that's why they went bust. Well, I assume it was the case with Mothercare, but with TC it is fairly well documented that they had been struggling for years and that they didn't streamline their front line services (ie scale back their physical shops) and didn't compete as strongly as they could have online (hiring more technical employees). They were sitting ducks...

In that respect, I am more sure than not that this opportunity represents a scaling back in one area and scaling up in another to adapt to the changing market climate.

That is my opinion, which I am entitled to express even if it ultimately turns out to be false. It is based on my own personal experience which is pretty much what happened in my workplace.

Pretty much the only reason I dislike you is because you seem to have no capacity to respect other people's opinion. I genuinely love a debate, and I take on board what others say, but these back and forths are more tiring than anything.

Exodi

Les79 wrote: »

You are correct about nobody being able to tell how well a company will perform in the future.. Maybe sainsbury will go bust in the near future.

But TC and Mothercare were stale relics and that's why they went bust. Well, I assume it was the case with Mothercare, but with TC it is fairly well documented that they had been struggling for years and that they didn't streamline their front line services (ie scale back their physical shops) and didn't compete as strongly as they could have online (hiring more technical employees). They were sitting ducks..

I think this is why I side with Blatchford point of view here. What you've mentioned is easy to say in hindsight. Being honest, before Thomas Cook and Mothercare hit the headlines this year, did you know they were in trouble? I'm sure you'll say you did but I certainly didn't. If I was going to apply for an entry level or mid tier job with either of these companies a year or two ago, I certainly wouldn't have analysed their company financials to such an extent that I'd be aware of any difficulty - I don't think it's reasonable to think that anyone would do this before an interview unless they're applying for senior or top level management.

I think his point of not being able to predict what will happen works both ways. You could ask about it in the interview, but it's likely, as shown in the TC case, that the store managers wouldn't be aware of any impending disaster.