[Glipseagrilia]

I think you like Lidl because it makes you hope people will die.

[Sertvfdnhgjk]

Right, and they sell domestic products in here as well. But they still have created markets for themselves from 0 in fast pace. We need this business in here.

I mean I love it because people feel disgusted going there and buying 'foreign crap'. I mean, to me, that's just funny

[xLQLRcXh]

to many people, any brand that they don't recognise = foreign crap.

it's hard to change peoples shopping habits I guess

[tigoCeree]

VetLegion, dude it'll be fun. You're seeing the panic now we had few years back. It almost got brutal, total smearing campagns ... but they have what people want, low prices. That speaks for itself, go on and do dirty tricks because they got the best trick, cheap prices.

[PypeDeft]

hahahaha... it seems where ever they go, this happens. But it's not because Lidl sucks, it's because they are afraid they are going to lose markets.. which they are, but not considerably so.. there's always room for Lidl, because when it's all said and done, they are pretty small, like the smallest shops anyway. So the tax money is still rolling in, but citizens also get to choose and have more options, I think that pretty much sums up an ideal situation.

[whimpykid]

BTW., I don't know if you folks know this, but there is this thing in economics called "price discrimination".

Basically, companies don't want to charge everyone the same price, since then that price has to be rather high and they miss out on those who would buy for less. But they don't want to charge less because in that case they lose out on those who are willing to pay more. So what they do is market the same product under different strategies. In effect, you can for example find expensive brand name food which is pricey, and food that is deliberately packaged so that it looks cheap (and makes you think "jeez, this must be poison since the package is a white bag with only the store name on it, can't they afford a better package!?") but is of same quality of the expensive stuff, and maybe even the same thing.

In other words: low price doesn't have to mean "poison", and ugly packaging is often deliberately that way.

See this article for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5274352.stm

[Zs3ZASpA]

VetLegion, sure, and there are tons of other reasons why it is cheaper. They have a whole different business strategy, which allows them to set prices so low.

[Nutpoode]

I mean the whole way how this works is funny.

Owners keep creating these threats, that if consumer wants stuff cheaper, it means that they are driven out of business (so what?), and that's a bad thing because it lowers our domestic productivity, and also it lowers our tax money too, because most who can drive with volume are foreign businesses.

It is as if it is our fault that they do bad business and can't handle competition. It is as if the customer will lose at the end, if they have options and competition. Weird logic but I know my kid isn't going to be admitted to that school where these things are taught.

It is as if economy works exactly how someone says if their own interests are facing competition. It's basically threats without back up.

Just like the farmers do, they need subsidies worth of .. it's useless to say how many millions, we should talk about shares of budget here. In the whole EU as well. First, we need to support developing nations so that they can compete with us, help their business, and hope that they enter our markets and make money. After that, we give HUGE subsidies to our own producers, because they are all *****ing how they don't have a chance now and are drive out. This makes no sense to me. SO that's giving hand-outs to all parties, and the status remains exactly the same, even if we just didn't give any money at all. That's money wasted in my world.

And farmers say that ooh, if we can't dominate, which is different that 'we can't compete', which should be THEIR problem to work out, customers will lose. How do we lose? Because we can't be guaranteed safe food? And they guarantee that safe food exactly how? They poison the stuff even more, the only thing they can do is provide the most expensive tomatoes. Is that like an achievement?

Then they sell them forward, make a small profit, everyone wants to cut them a small slice, and we slap in taxes after every single act, it's no wonder the owners are like ****, how come this people come with their weird accents and can lower their prices so low??

They never had to worry about it, because everyone used the same way of doing business, but now when someone actually takes charge, they are all crying and trying to keep the prices high.

People of lower income will benefit getting necessities cheaper. We might lose some tax money, but hey, it gives us more consuming power, us lower income folks, so if they can consume more, they will consume more. It's not like they're going to sit on the extra 10 euros.

The overall problem is that lower to middle income households are not spending and/or investing. It's too risky, they'd rather sit on it. Keep the money on bank and we can guarantee there won't be much development anyway. And there are not many investors around, that's quite obvious. If people have more consuming power, they might be able to buy services, that will create more markets for service industry, which now is totally beyond ****ed, because there's not enough consuming power.

And what do we do? We blame the rich, because they sit on the money so we can't get it. No... the rich are actually owning stuff, they are investing, they're keeping it coming in, that's not sitting on it. Sure, they can afford to lose some, and poor people can't afford it so they are too afraid to even try out. But that's because everything goes to necessities, that are priced high.

So, why is it bad that few fat bastards are turned belly up because they can't do business with the rest of them? The way I see it, since if I put on a business and can't compete, I won't get subsidies, why should they? That's right, they shouldn't and they should die for it.

We'll make a bet.. I promise to be sad and taught a lesson if I like the situation less if we just let these bastards rot. And I lose. I'm willing to accept the risk. But if the situation has no effect on us, or it benefits us, they not only promise to die, we get to kill them.

[Aizutox]

Mein Gott!!

POWER POWER POWER!

[dwestemesse]

Also, Lidl is hardly Wal-Mart. I don't know if Wal-Mart is doing a service to the people or hurting more.

But Lidl is definitely no Wal-Mart. Besides, Lidl can't even truly challenge the local shops here. Wal-Mart dominates. I don't want Lidl to dominate either. I want options to choose from.

Also Wal-Mart pretty much sells everything. Lidl generally just food.

[shemadagaswer]

They have good choclad. But I don't like the hurry one must be in to clear the cashier.

[TypeTeasiaDer]

Aivo, I see nothing weird in any of those, except monitoring the scanning rate. It has to work fast there, but I don't know if monitoring is necessary, if the queue moves, it's fast enough I guess.

About what your friend had to endure in Turku, well, I don't know about that so I can't give any comments. Could have been unfair firing, those happens every day. Not that it's OK, just saying it's not Lidl-trademark.

[DoniandaCoado]

I never said that sounded like cool practices. I said it does not sound weird as in doesn't surprise me.

Hardly any of those things are illegal. Is it moral and right? Maybe not. But what some supervisors enforce and play is hardly the fault of Lidl. Unless it comes from the higher managerial level that yes, we must give crap to our employees.

And, what of those Aivo mentioned constitues as extremely bad working condition?

[fectsnanteemy]

Nice spinning. Being a cashier does not take lots of skills. SUre it must be tough as any other tough job is, however, as long as laws are abided, I see no problems personally. OF COURSE practices can be legal but still stupid and kind of inhumane, however, that is a problem of managment and their competency is at stake.

But if you want high salary, nice little office and flexible working hours, being a cashier just won't cut it. That's just a simple fact, and if I was the employer, I expect full cooperation within the agreement we have made, in which I agree to pay certain amount of salary and provide certain conditions (it's the law), and employee agrees to work within the range we agreed upon. Cashier is expected to work fast. Do you think it's the only place where you have to work fast all day long? it isn't, and there's lots of shitty jobs like that.

But as long as there is probationary time, temps etc, I would, as an employer, find the suitable people. Of course within reason. Attitude problems? Out the door the same second if no excuse for a bad day. Can't work with the same pace everybody else can and because of that we are too slow? Sorry, we have to let you go or find something else to do in here that requires other kinds of attributes.

That said... as an employer, I would also do my best to meet the requirements of the employees as people, including their pay, working conditions etc. You can't replace qualified people who are happy to work for you.

I'm not too far off what you're saying, I'm just saying I'm on both sides, employee and employer, depends on the situation. I don't think anyone has permanent attachment to job if they themselves start breaking the agreement. That's what the contract is all meant for.

And no, I don't think employees should be treated like robots. But I understand fast working is required in some places. But fast is fast enough if it gets the work done on time. So in this case, there can be also 'work faster' when it doesn't do any good, that might be unnecessary.

And let's face it, these kind of jobs are not meant for everyone. In fact only few are suitable for it. But if it's permanent solution for someone who had other chances, I don't feel sorry for them at all. If they had bad luck and ended up their, it's a different story.

[wallyfindme]

look kids, a corporation can not afford to do charity, it's job is usually to maximise it's own profits. It's the job of the government to make laws which ensure that workers make a decent living out of their jobs. This is the way how middle class was created at the start of the 20th century out of the proles living in slums of the just industrialized Europe of the late-19th century.

if aivo would really give two shits about rights of the workers, he would vote a party which makes laws resulting in more rights for them. but he doesn't -- last elections, he voted for SDP, the party which has concentrated on lowering the taxes of their ultra-rich buddies and raising their own wages 5% annum while taking votes from morons by talking how they should rule

a government-ruling party talking about what they would do if they'd win elections

[DonnyKong]

And I'm all for workers rights, it's usually a question of good leadership anyway.

So, when an individual becomes difficult to manage, they should go somewhere else. So there's both ways here. And yes we have incompetent managers and incompetent subordinates. We always have and always will. And yes, managers rarely get fired from mistakes that don't effect to the results. I'm all for letting them go as well.

And supervisors are supposed to have several qualities, like communicating with the other workers and keeping them happy with the tools he has, which usually means great social skills. A way to push them to do the job correctly and fast enough, but still keep them alive and happy. And a good supervisor will keep the managers up to date and request for everything that is needed to improve the conditions into satisfactory level. BUt they do get fired also pretty easily. And it should be so.

But hardly do I blame a big business if they have bad supervisor or two, everyone has them. Everyone has cases of workers rights abuse as long as they are human also.

[Madjostok]

Spiffor, sure, they can never be fast enough to wipe my crocodile tear..

Aivo, Ok. As you should know, I wasn't talking about your buddies.. I don't know them or the cases. Most likely they were right anyway so.. mostly in general.

[dasneycomrov]

My house was nearly underneath the biggest Lidl warehouse in the UK, if not Europe. All because the local town council refused to tell them about the industrial estate that was just down the road.

Since none of the houses on my mini-estate are council houses, they refuse to admit we exist.

That said, Lidl are great for bulk Lemonade & Cola (Freeway ), and bulk Fruit Juices (Apfelsaft & Orangensaft ). Also random furniture. I find that Lidl's stores are 50% random foreign crap, and 50% giant bargain bin.

Personally I can't stand Asda (UK store owned by... Wal-Mart ).

[nitivearchit]

No. The main issue at hand is that VJ is a MoFo

[swissloveone]

Ohhh