Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

19-03-24, 09:15AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 37,969
  • Total Topics: 622
  • Online today: 117
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 5
Guests: 97
Total: 102

Management Restructure?

Started by Tsportyhead, 13-09-16, 09:36AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kurious1234

I dont think tesco failing in USA was our downturn although it did cost us money. That was just one stupid decision. Phill clarkes idea of buying up home stores , coffee shops , bakeries and other stuff was the cherry on the cake. A waste of money. None of them made any money

Arizonarugby

May be not but it was the start of the decline in the business, the powers that be lost focus and concentrated more in loss making ventures as opposed to concentrating on the core uk business.

However, the point I was trying to make is that the people at the bottom of the pile are paying for the mistakes made by those at the top - many who have left the company with multimillion pound pension pots

kurious1234

True. Thats always the case with any business. The fat cats will look after themselves and we pay the price for it. Hopefully karma will come around to bite them

redders

Arizonarugby & kurious1234  :thumbup:

baileymead

I think restructure is good if it means getting rid of the rude vile bullying people they call managers.  Why in all the tesco stores are they all like this, maybe there training (cough) is all wrong, maybe they are all like this  NOT.  TESCO stop thinking about changes to management and start thinking about your staff, we are all human beings not cattle for  you to herd around.  Actually talk to staff and HEAR there problems, work with them see the problems for yourself.  Also Sick days are sick days for most people only a few abuse it so don't tar us all with the same brush, drop your percentage rubbish and be understanding.

Instead  of worrying what the HQ have to say invite them to see for themselves.  Just remember no staff no Tesco  8-)

Arizonarugby

Unfortunately Baileynead the Managers you are describing are more than like to be the ones that survive - why ,because they are the ones that toe the Tesco line , follow rigidly the polices and procedures

lackofinterest

brainwashed jobsworth twats you mean :-X

Arizonarugby

Maybe so , but point I was trying make is that the managers who cared about and looked after their people will be gone..... those that treat you like t@@ts will still be there but with twice as must power and influence.

lackofinterest

influence my arse!! who do they influence?

Arizonarugby

The people that will score them high on ERRIC which means they get to keep their jobs

Jonthebarsteward

The biggest disappointment with this whole situation is that there are no voluntary redundancies. In my dc you either meet their criteria, which is dependant on the ERRIC score as well as other aspects, take a coordinator role at a much lower wage, or compulsory redundancy.

I agree with what was said earlier, if the powers that be want to adopt the structures of the discounters the pay structure should match as well.

lackofinterest

if they don't want a night shift they should open 8.00 till 22.00 hours like the discounters. having to work till midnight without unsociable hours allowance is an absolute disgrace >:(

CoffeeGate

Honestly I can understand the reasoning behind no voluntary redundancies from Tesco's point of view.  In any business why would you let people go who you like and keep those you don't, also at the risk of losing the few who are good at their jobs, because of this I can see why . Saying that it doesn't mean I agree with the way they are doing it.

psychokilla

I disagree.   I think voluntary redundancies should be 100% considered.   In my DC, we have a fair few management that would like to take redundancy but are unlikely to be able to.   If it was my/your company, why would you keep someone there that doesn't actually want to be there, and get rid of people that are passionate about doing a good job that want to stay?

in my opinion, it makes no sence

optout

I am sure that those who are good at their jobs will be the ones who choose to stay. After all those who are good at their jobs (and go the extra mile) are obviously going to be the ones who are respected and valued by their managers and happy in their work.

I can't see a logical reason for not allowing voluntary redundancies across the board if we want to keep the best staff.
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

Jonthebarsteward

There are many at my dc that want to go, the new roles are not what they signed up for and to be forced into them with no choice other than take it or resign is just ridiculous.
Although this could potentially a nice cost saving measure for those that would cost a lot on redundancy, either take it, resign, or we'll manage you out when you can't do the new role.

blutopia

That sounds reasonable enough, optout.  However, I would like to think I'm good at my job and I'm on good terms with my current manager so you would expect me to want to stay, wouldn't you?  But I don't!

I am planning a career change (after all, no career prospects any more at Tesco) but I'm also hanging on in the hope of a nice big redundancy as reward for putting up with this garbage company for so long.  If only Drastic would just get on with what he's planning so I know how soon to escape!  My current manager may be OK, but as we all know, that can change at the drop of a hat and the next one is likely to be one of the idiots.  I could write a book about the frustrations that cause me to feel this way, but many examples have already been posted by myself and others on this site so I think most people would understand without me having to add any more!

Arizonarugby

You are (in my opinion) absolutely correct johntjenarsteward, the new roles are significantly different to the old ones and some of the managers won't want to do
them , but will forced to and end up
leaving.

Optout I disagree when you say those that are good at their jobs, go the extra mile etc. the ones that stay will be the one that are buddies with the person who scores them on ERRIC and about those fighting for the dual role position ?

snowyowl

Does anybody really believe that "ERRIC" is the guiding tool in deciding who goes and who stays. This is simply a cost cutting exercise, nothing else.  :-\

Jonthebarsteward

Quote from: snowyowl on 19-01-17, 08:45AM
Does anybody really believe that "ERRIC" is the guiding tool in deciding who goes and who stays. This is simply a cost cutting exercise, nothing else.  :-\

It is the only part that senior management can have influence on. It will be a case of if your face fits unfortunately, and how valuable you are to them, read that as how much of a 'yes' man are you. Hopefully there will be an appeals procedure put in place if you do not agree with your score, dependant on the outcome you want.

snowyowl

That's interesting,

QuoteIt is the only part that senior management can have influence on.

If that's the case what would happen in a case where a Senior Manager didn't acquire enough points?

Arizonarugby

Quote from: snowyowl on 19-01-17, 08:45AM
Does anybody really believe that "ERRIC" is the guiding tool in deciding who goes and who stays. This is simply a cost cutting exercise, nothing else.  :-\
Perhaps if ERRIC was conducted objectively, them it may be useful , but unfortunately it is being judge (subjectively )based on the opinion of of how the senior team think you measure against each of the criteria.

This clearly is wrong and immoral , and without even looking at ERRIC I know the managers that will definitely staying and those that won't , purely based on their relationship wish the decision makers

Arizonarugby

Quote from: snowyowl on 19-01-17, 10:09AM
That's interesting,

QuoteIt is the only part that senior management can have influence on.

If that's the case what would happen in a case where a Senior Manager didn't acquire enough points?
The scoring mechanism is being used in this way the number of roles are being reduced i.e. 4 shift Mangers reduced to 3.

The with the 3 with highest scores would stay, the 1 with the lowest score would "be under threat (made redundant)"

Duracell

#348
It has been mentioned to me that those That are being categorised as at Risk are not suitable for the New Roles.

Those that are suitable are not in an at risk redundancy position so only have New role or leave on their own accord.

If Suitable people leave because they don't wish to have a "newly defined role" and the company don't have enough suitable candidates for the number of positions then the at risk individuals won't necessarily be able stay in the newly defined role as they have been categorised as at risk/ not suitable, is this correct?

As ultimately suitable people may leave reluctantly of their own accord, unsuitable people made redundant and then New people that are not even part of this process will be employed to the Newly defined roles, who ? Signed off options candidates?

I don't understand how it would be possible that those who are suitable to the Newly defined Manager role should not have a redundancy package because they are suitable and not in the at risk category.

The company can't have it both ways surely, if they deem the new roles as significantly different from the current role that some doing the current role can be deemed as not suitable and therefore at risk then the new roles are significantly different enough for the current role as it is now to be redundant and therefore all in that current role are eligible for redundancy because their current role will no longer exist.

By saying to a manager you're not apt for the newly defined position and the old doesn't exist so Redundant.
Even if the suitable managers are apt for the newer defined role but don't want it they to should have redundancy because the company are defining the roles  as significantly different enough to deny people the new different roles so even the suitable category should be able to refuse the new position and take redundancy because their current position will no longer exist, redundant.

Is the above correct are suitable managers who do not wish to take on the new role being denied redundancy?
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Arizonarugby

this is the problem, firstly Tesco are saying there are no fundamental changes to the role - clearly there are. The scoring system is pure based on whether you meet the certain aspects of ERRIC and not on the ability to do the job, there are people who Would score low on the criteria if it was done objectively, but because they are drinking or golf buddies with the person who will score their ERRIC they will get to keep their jobs.....!

If ERRIC was applied scientifically, then there would be some surprises on those keeping their jobs ..... I guarantee that there will be no surprises at my depot.,,, !!!

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk