Search results

The drivers are amazing … perhaps they, along with suppliers and customers, are also being price “impacted” by Woolworths greed.

Agree! AND CorporateS NEVER authentically OFFER anything… THEY are simply the Machiavelli to the SUPPLIER whose profits theyve SCREWED!

SNEAKY … sums Woolworths business model up in one word …. Although GREEDY is equally apt!

Woolworths continues to default and discriminate against its Direct to Boot AND Online shoppers;Many of whom are elderly, immune compromised, families etc; by NOT fulfilling is contracted agreement (for which we PAY!!) to offer monthly 10% off OR rewards points . WHERE IS THE CORPORATE WATCHDOG...

Unsure about its store status, however Woolworths at Ulladulla on a busy Monday afternoon had just two checkouts open ( long lineup of large trolley loads !!) , a huge bank of self serves … and NO fast checkout at all .

The question is; did Coles & Woolworths actually absorb the price change… or… did they, again, impose the cost upon hardworking SUPPLIERS??

It is beyond “time” the sleepy watchdog ACCC ceased warning the corporates, and implemented charges for the actions of gouging suppliers and negating contracts based on technicalities, often rendering any *profits for suppliers in jeopardy ( *especially those in the precarious business of farming )

Discrimination against we loyal elders, physically and immunocompromised is a greedy and insightless corporate error; Woolworths initially had an edge ( and a community conscience) in offering the same benefits to instore and online clients. Apparently and unfortunately, their board and...

PAID memberships have become something of a disappointing rort, if not initial false advertising, since Woolworths decided to discriminate againstDirect to Boot customers by removing points awards for this convenience to elder, immunocompromised clients. 😡

Samsung customer service division is frustratingly difficult to contact and subsequently dismissive, apparently have difficulty “understanding” the issue and endeavour to delay a positive response … 3 weeks and too many contacts later, without the intervention of the equally frustrated retailer...

I have noticed that Small business owners ( liquor stores and petrol stations) are bearing the brunt of some anger over cost of living issues; little do complainants realise that government *gouging (*hidden excise duties) equates to a VERY large percentage of every dollar spent. More...

Long, very long wait times for My Aged Care also. Very often hang ups. Illinformed staff giving completely incorrect and misleading information. Rural Elders may not be able to simply “ Go into an office”, and if they do they vulnerably sit for too long amongst coughs and colds and often vulgar...

Regardless of judgement and attitude to the book/s there is an can NEVER be ANY excuse for supposed “adults” abusing staff. Hopefully those immature adults seek help for their abusive traits before even thinking about breeding and influencing their innocent young ?

How generous and selfless is Georgia to share this idea 🙏🩷!

If you have, or have access to power, influence and money in Australian….then ye shall have interpretive “justice” from the judiciary… if not ?……..then ye shall have the full force of the law from the judiciary 😡

The issue here is that people actually PAID for a program which Woolworths PROMOTED. Response from respectful communications with Woolworths … “ We have received your email”…. NOTHING further. A typical corporate dismissal.

Whingeing and profits are NOT the issue here. Betrayal, misleading advertising and subsequent discrimination against the immune compromised, elderly, disabled and in fact anyone who signed up to, and paid for a Woolworths OFFER or subscription in good faith, IS.

“Food” retailers as opposed to *supermarket giants, where *their profit margins (clearly the enticement and responsibility to shareholders ) are enhanced by shelf space and other “costs” demanded of suppliers. However the issue here is discriminatory and misleading practices, NOT their profit...

The SUBSCRIPTION was ANNUAL ….. is there not then, misleading advertising in this case ?