Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

19-03-24, 09:27AM

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: 3
Guests: 95
Total: 98

Management Restructure?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Jonthebarsteward

Quote from: Duracell on 19-01-17, 12:03PM
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?

That's right. Those 'lucky' enough to be selected have the choice to accept the role or resign. No redundancy option. I know some managers are considering constructive dismissal cases already

Duracell

I did wonder about that possibility, based on the info I have been told being correct cases of that nature do seem compelling and strong.

It does make you wonder how much discontent, bad publicity and tribunal cases it will take before the Major Share holders realise the Driver is not worth the money they are paying him.
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

Quote from: Duracell on 19-01-17, 11:52PM
I did wonder about that possibility, based on the info I have been told being correct cases of that nature do seem compelling and strong.

It does make you wonder how much discontent, bad publicity and tribunal cases it will take before the Major Share holders realise the Driver is not worth the money they are paying him.

Unfortunately, Duracell, our Driver has been very clever in his approach to "streamlining the business " done it by stealth , and if we just look at the share price, it clearly indicates that shareholders are happy with the route the "bus" is taking .

redders


JL

Is there any update what is happening with the management restructure in express and stores?

Equalizer87

Quote from: Arizonarugby on 20-01-17, 06:39AM
Quote from: Duracell on 19-01-17, 11:52PM
I did wonder about that possibility, based on the info I have been told being correct cases of that nature do seem compelling and strong.

It does make you wonder how much discontent, bad publicity and tribunal cases it will take before the Major Share holders realise the Driver is not worth the money they are paying him.

Unfortunately, Duracell, our Driver has been very clever in his approach to "streamlining the business " done it by stealth , and if we just look at the share price, it clearly indicates that shareholders are happy with the route the "bus" is taking .

The whole restructure is about appeasing the shareholders, if he can make the share price look good, appear to be making profit ( by cutting and subsidising what goes through the till), then he gets his bonuses and disappears in a few years. Tesco would have no comeback if it all collapsed  after that as he fulfilled his contract, by making profit in whatever way he achieved it.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Arizonarugby

He will get his bonus regardless off what happens to the share price . He's been very clever ,in his 1st year he posted losses of £6.4bn and still got a huge bonus. He also wrote off all the surplus land land Tesco owned to £0, but even if it's not worth what they paid for it, it is worth something, so at some point he will liquidise the asset and declare it as profit.

Billy Budd

Right guys....a quick update regarding management redundancies at the Livingston DC.

All 7 shift managers at Livingston have had their one to ones, and 4 are to be made redundant!!!

Team managers have had their 30 Days notice increased to 60 days...The shift manager cull has caused great fear for their own futures.

The personnel manager and personnel staff given 30 days notice

Health & safety manager given 30 days notice

Site services manager and staff given 30 days notice

IT managers given 30 days notice.

Basically 51% of all management at Livingston are going.

Absolute bloodbath!!!


:thumbdown:

Duracell

IT managers ?
Would that be Systems Managers.

Site Services Managers?

Facilities are contractors aren't they?

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

The same situation at my DC

Shift Manager reduced to 3
Team Managers reduced to 15
System Managers reduced to 1
Finance Manager to oversee 2 sites
Personnel Manager to oversee 2 sites
Health and safety Manager and Training Manager role merged
So in short 18 Managers will lose their jobs

Duracell

Not entirely.

I will check the detail and with the rep concerned.

There is a potential error with Billy Budd's post.

Either they have Made it or their GM has.

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.

Billy Budd

Quote from: Duracell on 21-01-17, 11:28AM
Not entirely.

I will check the detail and with the rep concerned.

There is a potential error with Billy Budd's post.

Either they have Made it or their GM has.
My apologies....Systems Managers, not IT Managers

But Livingston does has its own Tesco Site Services Manager and staff.

[admin]Edited. When using the quote function do not put your own text in the quoted section.[/admin]

Jonthebarsteward

Our dc is to be as follows apparently
1 DM
3 SM - one less
18 WSTM - 21 less
18 WSCO - new role
1 Stock and systems - 2 less

24 potential losses
Then there's training manager at
Very messy



Alwaysthevictim

Does anybody know the redundancy package if I'm going ?

Alwaysthevictim

What is the redundancy package as a team mgr in distribution?

Still unsure as I've heard conflicting packages.

Duracell

Quote from: Billy Budd on 21-01-17, 12:28PM
Quote from: Duracell on 21-01-17, 11:28AM
Not entirely.

I will check the detail and with the rep concerned.

There is a potential error with Billy Budd's post.



Either they have Made it or their GM has.


My apologies....Systems Managers, not IT Managers

But Livingston does has its own Tesco Site Services Manager and staff.

So where you say Livingston has its own Site Services staff, you mean Hygiene staff? That role was supposed to have been TUPED out to contractors years ok.
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.

I wish i knew why

I thought site services was maintainece???
 

Duracell

#367
Definitely not those guys, they went through a restructure of sorts in September, they are no longer controlled by Distribution so shouldn't be part of a Distribution Restructure, stranger mistakes have happened though.

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.

optout

#368
Blutopia and ArizonaRugby

I was being sarcastic (although admittedly in a very dry way). In a fair and reasonable world what I said is logical, BUT we are talking about tesco, and I am afraid that your experience is probably the tesco standard. :thumbup:
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

snowyowl

Reading Alwaysthevictim's post, this is exactly what I mean, a Team Manager under threat of redundancy and not knowing what his/her redundancy package will be? Where are the Union? In this life changing environment Alwaysthevictim finds him/herself in, through no fault of their own he/she should know of every penny they are entitled too and how it's calculated. Him/her should also be getting advise from the Union on a life after Tosco.
                What do this Union get paid for?     >:( >:( >:(

Jonthebarsteward

In some sites site services is still controlled locally and has a maintenance manager, although this area is not affected by this structure change.

A manager that is not successful and declines the offer of a warehouse coordinator role will the offer statutory redundancy, additional service payment and possibly a pilon payment. The calculator on here seems to include all aspects.

Duracell

So with Site Services ( Maintenance), as Livingston were part of the former change and they are not part of the Distribution Restructure, I think it is important to find out whether Billy Bud's post is indeed correct and that they have been put on 30 days notice.

With such a big mistake that will have to be reversed it does make you wonder if anymore are being made.
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

I would personally like to thank, the main board of directors, the Distribution Leadership Team, the Senior Team ant my depot and senior organisers at the union for the sleepless nights and weekends that they have inflicted on everyone effected by theses changes - I guess the bus they told us to get on has either broken down or got lost along the route....!!

Jonthebarsteward

Quote from: Arizonarugby on 22-01-17, 11:32AM
- I guess the bus they told us to get on has either broken down or got lost along the route....!!
I've always hated public transport

whiterabbit

#374
site services have been Tesco maintenance for several months,7 shifties now meant to be 4 but 4 have gone
, 32 team managers are being axed ,3 systems team managers going.all training and people managers are leaving even though there is one role avail,7 clerical roles being done away with and new people roles made with the usual reduction of 50%.transport still to come,where does it end.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk