verylittlehelps.com

Very Little Helps => Stores => Topic started by: sfsorrow on 21-06-18, 08:01PM

Title: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 21-06-18, 08:01PM
Does anyone have a copy of the Tesco/USDAW pay deal that shows that staff employed before 2005 can't be forced into till training? Fortunately I left Tesco many years ago but a friend needs it and I have a feeling I've found it here before.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Redshoes on 22-06-18, 10:30AM
I have never been able to understand why anyone who works in retail thinks it's acceptable not to serve customers, same with the whole not working wknds thing too.  Why would you think that it's ok not to work the busiest time of the wk or to opt out of serving the people who pay our wages.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 22-06-18, 12:39PM
He does serve customers. He does so by putting products on shelves and advising them on their purchases. I write HR policy for a living and I can assure you that he is far more flexible than he needs to be at his age and state of health. If I had my way he'd be pushing for several reasonable adjustments, but he never will.

But there's no need for him to justify his position on this anyway. The employer made a binding agreement with him and his pre-2005 colleagues through USDAW and needs to stick to it.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Mr Grumpy on 22-06-18, 12:56PM
If memory serves me correctly, it was a letter from Pauline Foulkes that stated the exemption of pre 2005 July pay deal staff from checkouts.



Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 22-06-18, 12:57PM
That name is definitely familiar, thank you.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Mr Grumpy on 22-06-18, 01:04PM
Any shop steward in that store should be able to easily obtain a back copy from the union, or from the union directly.

It is very common in stores to try and ignore this very exemption under the guise of a reasonable request.   

Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 22-06-18, 01:08PM
Indeed, I remember the pressure when I worked there. I foolishly agreed to train in order to do overtime on tills and regretted it every shift afterwards.

Apparently his shop steward has been a bit useless over it. I've contacted USDAW separately but I don't know if they'll be willing to communicate with me about it, given that I haven't been a member in over a decade.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: strebor on 22-06-18, 01:10PM
They don't communicate even if you are a member
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: londoner83 on 22-06-18, 08:29PM
The question i have is to what extent a agreement made 15 years ago is relevant in today's massively different retail environment?

As a company we now at induction till train every new colleague thus showing the importance we as a business place on serving the public.

15 years ago managers didn't carry mobile phones would you back a manager refusing to do so today coz when they started in 1980 they didn't have to?

Yes there will always be individuals who for health/disability grounds etc should never be made to operate a till but many others are perfectly capable of doing so and should give it a go. They may even enjoy it.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Hammer10 on 22-06-18, 08:41PM
Did not seem to matter to the tribunal court when we went to court over losing our double time.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Walker on 22-06-18, 09:04PM
Honestly it's a non-issue for most stores. So few people remain from that period who haven't been trained it's not going to affect much AND it's possible to reasonably request they get trained on self-service or SAYS and go to the relevant section on an amber or red call to free up checkout staff.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 22-06-18, 09:22PM
The question i have is to what extent a agreement made 15 years ago is relevant in today's massively different retail environment?

I think you'd have to ask Tesco why they agreed with USDAW that pre-2005 shop floor staff could never be forced onto tills as part of a binding pay deal. Perhaps turnover is such that they realised that it would be a very minor issue a few years down the line? I think my mate may even be the only person left in the store in this situation. I don't think there's an army of pre-2005 people out there ruining the business by refusing to get on a till.

Quote
15 years ago managers didn't carry mobile phones would you back a manager refusing to do so today coz when they started in 1980 they didn't have to?

If they had accepted a pay deal on the specific assurance that they would never have to carry a phone, then of course I would. If there was no deal, when why would I? 

Quote
Yes there will always be individuals who for health/disability grounds etc should never be made to operate a till but many others are perfectly capable of doing so and should give it a go. They may even enjoy it.

Well there's your problem - "should give it a go". I think my mate probably would have a go and be willing to help in emergencies. But the reality is that once you're trained, you've given up the deal and asking you to "quickly jump on" becomes a "reasonable request". If he trains, then he can never reasonably decline. If there was a bit of recognition that he was willing to occasionally turn a blind eye to an agreement for the sake of helping out, then that's a different ball game. People don't get that - I remember it myself. I was pre-2005 and therefore couldn't be forced, but I trained for the sake of doing some overtime. When I then fell ill and working on the till became increasingly difficult, I was repeatedly hauled into offices with different managers to discuss the reasonable adjustment that I had agreed with my manager and the PM - ie, I would not be expected to work on a till. The times when I did agree to help out were only thrown back in my face as evidence that I was perfectly capable of going on the till all the time*.

*As a mildly amusing aside - the reason this behaviour eventually stopped is that I asked my GP to write a letter. The cost for this service was £15, but he felt it unreasonable to ask me to foot the bill, so he wrote a letter to my store and enclosed an invoice requesting that Tesco pay the £15.

Quote
As a company we now at induction till train every new colleague thus showing the importance we as a business place on serving the public.

I think that's reasonable enough. The people you're training have no agreement with the company that they will never be forced to work on the till. What I would take issue with is this belief that you only serve the public by working on a till. Somebody needs to work in the warehouse, somebody needs to drive the goods to the store and somebody needs to put them onto the shelves. If my mate's terms - ie, that he can't be forced onto the till - make him unsuitable for current business needs, then make him redundant, accept the associated costs, and hire somebody on the new terms.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 22-06-18, 09:25PM
Honestly it's a non-issue for most stores. So few people remain from that period who haven't been trained it's not going to affect much AND it's possible to reasonably request they get trained on self-service or SAYS and go to the relevant section on an amber or red call to free up checkout staff.

Excellent - you've made a point that I was just typing out as you posted. He's one of very few who can still invoke this rule. The impact is minimal.

I'm not sure how he'd feel about self service. But I think you're right that asking him to train on it would be a reasonable request. I'd say they'd need to be open-minded on the outcome though.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: londoner83 on 22-06-18, 09:38PM
Yes everyone's job involves some element of service however a key company pledge is I don't queue. Rightly or wrongly by invoking some ancient pay agreement your friend is harming the companies ability to serve it's customers a little better everyday.

As I said if there are genuine skill issues as to why he can't be till trained I would fully back his right to stay off tills. If his argument is merely he doesn't want to is retail in 2018 right for them?

Don't forget when the pay agreement was made (c grade) cashiers were better paid than (b grade) shopfloor staff. There was therefore reals reasons why a b grade staff wouldmt perform a c grade job (much like todays issue on skills pay).

Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 22-06-18, 10:17PM

As I said if there are genuine skill issues as to why he can't be till trained I would fully back his right to stay off tills. If his argument is merely he doesn't want to is retail in 2018 right for them?


As I mentioned above, the problem is that there's no going back. Once he's torn the deal up, he could potentially be performance managed out if it turns out that he's not suited to working a till. If he's got the right not to accept that risk, why should he accept it?

If retail in 2018 isn't right for him the onus is on the company to take the required action. He accepted a different job and is still doing that job. He has had to adapt to lots of changes - not least the ridiculous changes to his hours that I'm convinced have had a negative effect on his health - but he simply doesn't have to adapt to this one because the company decided when they made the agreement that he would not have to. If the job he does cannot exist any more then he should be made redundant.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: T.C.1 on 22-06-18, 10:28PM
But a huge amount of pressure on the tills are managers in stores not having rhrp in place plus knowing the rota inside out from week to week as for the 2005 aggrement stick to your guns and say no because in the space of three years double time down to time and quatar not knowing which department next to be least out by another company who care then!!
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Welshie on 22-06-18, 10:37PM
Staff need to stick to their guns or there'll be no staff left on shop floor, they'll all be answering red service calls!
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: OvaSees on 23-06-18, 09:04AM
The question i have is to what extent a agreement made 15 years ago is relevant in today's massively different retail environment?

15 years ago managers didn't carry mobile phones would you back a manager refusing to do so today coz when they started in 1980 they didn't have to?
Self-contradictory to the point. 15 years ago self service checkouts and Scan As You Shop were nowhere near as prevalent as they are now. Today's massively different retail environment as you put it has much less of a reliance of people working on a checkout, which underlines the relevance of not needing to go on one - surely, after 15 years, Tesco should be less reliant on multi-skilled cashiers yet it seems to be they are clamouring for more of them?

Let's just be honest about it instead of dancing around the issue - multi-skilling at Tesco has never been used for anything other than payroll cost cutting. The benefits of cost cutting have never been seen or realised by customers, they've been realised in proft. If, despite the increased prevalence of self service technologies and online shoping we are still heavily reliant on needing multi-skillers then the reality is that we have too few people.

Yes everyone's job involves some element of service however a key company pledge is I don't queue.
A key company pledge, yes. Ability and willingness to deliver it is another issue, and as intimated above has less to do with peoples willingness or ability to multi-skill and more to do with penny pinching, poor training and management incompetence - as I explained at http://www.verylittlehelps.com/index.php?topic=16133.msg202380#msg202380 (http://www.verylittlehelps.com/index.php?topic=16133.msg202380#msg202380)

As long as Tesco maintains a key company pledge of IDQ whilst simultanesouly underfunding payroll by tasking stores above 100 PI - therefore increasing the reliance on multi-skillers - then it is nothing more than a hypocrite that does not take service seriously insetad abdicating that pledge onto beleagured stores.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Mark calloway on 23-06-18, 09:42AM
Im on nights and I'd like to train on self service just to cover breaks but it's fallen on deaf ears
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Malekith on 23-06-18, 10:37AM
The union has agreed that while the 2005 deal exists, it only stated checkouts. Self service and scan as you shop didn’t exist at the time, and are not covered by this exemption as they are separate from checkouts, and so it is a reasonable request to ask a colleague from pre 2005 to be trained in these areas. So stick to your guns if you like, but they can still make you get trained in those areas with union backing. And I know most people would rather sit on a till than handle 4-8 self serve tills and do scan as you shop service checks.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Equalizer87 on 23-06-18, 10:39AM
And to top it off, the Union did give a damn, as usual.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Redshoes on 23-06-18, 10:43AM
If you look online there is a long list of policies for our people, there is also a long list of changes/updates to policies. I can't find anything to say this policy is still in place but I seem to remember it was updated at the same time or near to the removal of team leaders. I seem to remember that as it affected a very small percentage of colleagues it was deemed to be no longer needed.
As for the supporting on self service, as this is about experience as much as knowledge I can't see how it can work. My store also has scan as you shop going through self service and main bank tills. Most customers go though self service so this requires dealing with the random checks. It's required on main bank too but much more so on self service. I think if someone says they can do self service but not main bank they are doing so not fully understanding the level of knowledge and experience required. It's much easier to go on a till. The tills are so easy now, requires a lesser level of training.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: daveyp on 23-06-18, 11:53AM
wasn't this policy scrapped a few years ago in another pay deal in the small print?

Plus anyway it is absolutely stupid that someone refuses to get till trained now.  The world has changed a lot in 15 years.  Sounds like your friends needs to man up, get on with it a pull his weight like the rest of us.  The union should not support people to are trying to shirk doing anything they do not want to.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Mark calloway on 23-06-18, 11:54AM
I'd only cover half hour break at 4am. No other till is open then and you only get 3 or 4 customers in.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 23-06-18, 12:53PM
Wow, amazing how many would rather stand up for Tesco trying to ignore a binding agreement than a colleague trying to hold them to it. No wonder staff get walked all over all the time. Maybe sometimes you get the union you deserve :)
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: gomezz on 23-06-18, 01:39PM
The union has agreed that while the 2005 deal exists, it only stated checkouts. Self service and scan as you shop didn’t exist at the time, and are not covered by this exemption as they are separate from checkouts
That is one interpretation. Another one is that they are all types of checkout and so are all covered by the exemption.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 23-06-18, 02:41PM
We'll see what happens. I think he'd probably be willing to give the self scan a go but I'm not convinced he'd be good at it. I will update the forum when he tells me what the upshot of his conversation with management is.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Mark calloway on 23-06-18, 04:31PM
Seems that some who genuinely wish to help,like your friend,will get pushed to do even more. That doesn't seem fair. Best of luck to him.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: AlexM on 23-06-18, 04:40PM
In the shop I used to work in the replen manager had told all his staff to come up with some medical reason why the couldn't use checkouts so his staff were never pulled to answer red calls (allergic to cash, anyone?!).

Kinda bit him in the ass when they made him checkout manager tho.
One guy pretended to have particularly bad dyslexia. Everytime they attempted to till train him his till was out by loads of money & every customer coming back for a double difference refund. He had no trouble completing the annual legal training or WMTY survey tho.....
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: lucgeo on 23-06-18, 05:50PM
I'm with gomezz here....the term is "checkout" which is the act of "checking out" your purchases.

Be it self serve, self scan or till....it's the act of checking out, and therefore should be interpreted as such. Why was the agreement made, if it wasn't important?? Why are some so keen to override this agreement?? Those not contracted to the front end, should be supported by their colleagues not berated for not being a team player. They are in RHRP for their departments, to complete their tasks, and most of those departments are under hours as we all know HO rarely give the budget to cover those hours.

The pressure put on shopfloor colleagues is unfair. Their dept hours don't allow for answering service calls and rumble, but both is expected of them....then the knock on effect of their dept load building up for the next shift etc....etc....

How come checkout operators aren't expected to train to multiskill on other depts...so they can go support??....why don't they rumble?? All seems a bit one sided to me ??? ???
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: flowerpower on 23-06-18, 06:24PM
Lucgeo
I agree with you there check out sit there for ages talking amongst themselves if shop floor where seen talking for that long a manager would soon be over and find them something to do
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Argonaut on 23-06-18, 07:27PM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is it with Tesco people ," I cant fill that I don't know the aisle" …. however find things when they're shopping or giving 'Service' helping a Customer  …. I mean products are grouped together FGS   … …" I  cant go on a till … I get nervous handling money "  or have some condition... or someone in a service based industry agreed I don't have to serve a customer at a till just on the shop floor …. " I cant work past five or before nine as my husband need his tea and the kids need breakfast"  ….. look at what the discounters are doing and how they operate ….

you can attempt to rollout WSS in the hope it replicates the said discounters structure however its never gonna work with such an inflexible and stuck in their ways workforce ….


glad I'm out of it  >:(
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 23-06-18, 07:31PM
What is it with Tesco people expecting the company to stick to a binding agreement? Honestly, people these days.

Which of your other T&Cs are you happy to apply a bit of flexibility to? Shall we start with your annual leave? After all, Tesco would be in a much better position to take on the discounters if its staff would work a few extra days a year.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Argonaut on 23-06-18, 07:40PM
what are you going on about quoting 'Your'
I'm not Tesco ?!

Things change , agreements are just agreements … you can state 'binding' however that's your choice of terminology ….that's how businesses succeed by evolving and adapting
wake up and smell the tiger bread
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 23-06-18, 07:55PM
It's funny how at Tesco "adapting" always seems to involve hacking away at the T&Cs of its staff.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Argonaut on 23-06-18, 08:05PM
maybe..... however perhaps its a delusional workforce who just "Don't Like Change"
Terms and conditions …… makes me actually giggle … these people know they work in a public place, serving the public, don't they ….
I'm out of it , as are you however surely when you take a job you expect to tow the line with expectations from who PAYS you ….
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 23-06-18, 08:33PM
I expect to work in line with the agreement I've made with the employer?
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: m360 on 23-06-18, 10:07PM
I'm with gomezz here....the term is "checkout" which is the act of "checking out" your purchases.

Be it self serve, self scan or till....it's the act of checking out, and therefore should be interpreted as such. Why was the agreement made, if it wasn't important?? Why are some so keen to override this agreement?? Those not contracted to the front end, should be supported by their colleagues not berated for not being a team player. They are in RHRP for their departments, to complete their tasks, and most of those departments are under hours as we all know HO rarely give the budget to cover those hours.

The pressure put on shopfloor colleagues is unfair. Their dept hours don't allow for answering service calls and rumble, but both is expected of them....then the knock on effect of their dept load building up for the next shift etc....etc....

How come checkout operators aren't expected to train to multiskill on other depts...so they can go support??....why don't they rumble?? All seems a bit one sided to me ??? ???

Their department hours do allow for rumble.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: OvaSees on 23-06-18, 10:54PM
The union has agreed that while the 2005 deal exists, it only stated checkouts. Self service and scan as you shop didn’t exist at the time, and are not covered by this exemption as they are separate from checkouts, and so it is a reasonable request to ask a colleague from pre 2005 to be trained in these areas. So stick to your guns if you like, but they can still make you get trained in those areas with union backing. And I know most people would rather sit on a till than handle 4-8 self serve tills and do scan as you shop service checks.
If people were needed on those areas, the roles could and should have been filled by those whose jobs were eliminated by the introduction of them, since they were no longer needed on a manned checkout which was removed as a result. So again, the issue is a shortage of people - or very, very poor scheduling - and not willingness to multi-skill.

maybe..... however perhaps its a delusional workforce who just "Don't Like Change"
Or perhaps it's a beleagured workforce that's had enough of being trampled over under the guise of 'change'? After having premiums, hours, pensions, shares and even jobs hacked, I can hardly blame them. If I signed a contract in 2004 that stated I did not have to be multi-skilled on checkouts then I accepted the job on that basis and it is not - in law or otherwise - unreasonable to expect my employer to stick to it. If you want to point the finger of blame, point it at Tesco who were short sighted enough to (i) agree to it and (ii) not to forsee the coming change - they have always claimed, after all, to 'know our customers better than anyone'. Shame they don't have a clue about their staff.

m360 - does that allowance for Rumble apply to checkouts too? I never realised that.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: tescopleb on 23-06-18, 11:27PM
The 2005 pay agreement created pay parity between the shop floor staff and the cashiers, who up to then had been paid a higher rate. The agreement recognised that the shop floor role was a job of equal worth - in other words it wasn't dependant on being till trained.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: m360 on 24-06-18, 07:57AM
Checkouts don’t have any hours allowance for rumble.

All the replenishment departments have hours designated for rumble.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: lucgeo on 24-06-18, 08:33AM
And yet every replenishment dept in our store is under hours, excuse being that they are not sufficient hours to employ another person on a low hour contract ??? Checkout support is not recognised, and the service calls are constant. So someone somewhere is fudging the books ??? Service calls in my store start from early morning, every day, so it's not just holiday or sickness cover ???
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: lackofinterest on 24-06-18, 09:53AM
The question i have is to what extent a agreement made 15 years ago is relevant in today's massively different retail environment?

As a company we now at induction till train every new colleague thus showing the importance we as a business place on serving the public.

15 years ago managers didn't carry mobile phones would you back a manager refusing to do so today coz when they started in 1980 they didn't have to?

Yes there will always be individuals who for health/disability grounds etc should never be made to operate a till but many others are perfectly capable of doing so and should give it a go. They may even enjoy it.
may enjoy it  :D :D :D
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Walker on 24-06-18, 12:38PM
How come checkout operators aren't expected to train to multiskill on other depts...so they can go support??....why don't they rumble?? All seems a bit one sided to me ??? ???

Checkout staff can be required to train on other departments... In last two weeks I've helped out on the fresh food counters, grocery, and the fresh delivery, and the trolleys. And I've even Rumbled.

Really, though, the reality is many checkout operators are unsuitable for shop floor work... Lots of them have various illnesses / disabilities. Further, as a rule, checkout staff levels are kept lower than necessary to achieve IDQ which is the entire reason for multiskilling.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Mark calloway on 24-06-18, 01:51PM
The question i have is to what extent a agreement made 15 years ago is relevant in today's massively different retail environment?

As a company we now at induction till train every new colleague thus showing the importance we as a business place on serving the public.

15 years ago managers didn't carry mobile phones would you back a manager refusing to do so today coz when they started in 1980 they didn't have to?

Yes there will always be individuals who for health/disability grounds etc should never be made to operate a till but many others are perfectly capable of doing so and should give it a go. They may even enjoy enjoy it.
I agree. Some just don't want step out of their comfort zone. I'd love to train on other departments but my manager blocked it
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: lucgeo on 24-06-18, 02:11PM
Walker, was that a typo error?? "Checkout levels are kept lower than necessary to achieve IDQ" ??? ??? Doesn't that defeat the object  ???
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Walker on 24-06-18, 02:46PM
Walker, was that a typo error?? "Checkout levels are kept lower than necessary to achieve IDQ" ??? ??? Doesn't that defeat the object  ???

No, absolutely not.

Staffing levels on tills are always set below the level needed to achieve IDQ consistently.  ( except at periods like Christmas).

It's because of business volatility. In essence you can't predict how many items will be scanned per hour. If a timeslot varies between 7,000 items an hour and 15,000 in an ideal world the store will have 7 members of staff employed on the till.

The other members of staff needed to comply with IDQ will be employed on the shop floor, and will be called on when trading is busy.

Obviously it's not an ideal world.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: GreenGrocer on 24-06-18, 07:33PM
Staffing  ;D compliance  :D
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: lucgeo on 24-06-18, 09:45PM
So if I'm understanding this right....the checkout team are deliberately under manned, and any shortfall should be covered by the shopfloor staff, who are also undermanned, to complete their dept tasks and expected to answer service calls, whenever....for as long as needed.. ??? ???.....the bloody lunatics are running the asylum   :o :o
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: OvaSees on 25-06-18, 03:26PM
^ no, the accountants are, and that’s why we’re in a perpetual operational quagmire.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: londoner83 on 25-06-18, 08:39PM
.....because it's not profitable to run the risk of having bums on seats with no customers to serve.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: penguin on 25-06-18, 08:50PM
Who else remembers the days of all checkouts being manned constantly during opening hours, it was not just Tesco either, it was a fairly standard practice until about 15 years ago.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Welshie on 25-06-18, 09:19PM
Before 24hr opening or even being open 6-midnight.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: forrestgimp on 26-06-18, 11:27AM
I have never been able to understand why anyone who works in retail thinks it's acceptable not to serve customers, same with the whole not working wknds thing too.  Why would you think that it's ok not to work the busiest time of the wk or to opt out of serving the people who pay our wages.

No one is asking for your understanding or opinion the guy was asking about a policy that is in place.

So regardless of your personal feelings they have every right to ask for and receive help.

Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Argonaut on 26-06-18, 09:00PM
Personal feelings and the right to ask for help  ?

Yeah 100% agree to be fair with that...………………. however I think Chocjac2412 is just expressing their opinion which is what this forum is all about … and to be frank I agree with what was said.

Lets face it the question was asked to find reason for a loophole in policy .... is that what the Customer deserves ... isn't that why we are here in a service based industry , If not surely question your career choice ?


 
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: lackofinterest on 26-06-18, 11:28PM
career ??? :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: sfsorrow on 27-06-18, 12:27AM
I didn't ask for a "reason for a loophole in policy". I asked for a record of the agreement Tesco made with USDAW. It's not a loophole; it's a conscious decision made by Tesco to offer assurance to people in my mate's position that they would not be forced onto a till.

As for "career", my mate had a very good career in his chosen trade, up until said trade all but disappeared. What he now has is a job. This job has a description, as recognised by the agreement that I have requested a copy of, and said description does not require him to work on a till.

I have to say, I am enjoying this polyester-suited fantasy where most of the staff in a supermarket are there because they desperately wanted to work in retail, and not simply because they have bills to pay.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: Ford Torino on 27-06-18, 04:06AM
There was a dotcom picker in my store who was asked to become a driver. He immediately said no, saying it wasn't the work, rather the responsibility he couldn't face. A "gentlemen's agreement" was made, saying he was simply needed to manoeuvre the vans around the yard. The day after training, he was ordered to go out delivering. After about half an hour of refusal and pressuring, this poor nervous wreck took a van out. Then they asked him the day after that, and the day after that and so on - and simply couldn't be bothered to argue any more. And it all went well for Tesco until his van was snapped doing 35 in a 30 zone and the law wanted their pound of flesh in the form of a speed awareness course. When it all came out to senior levels and grievances were finally threatened, the general attitude was "we're very sorry, we clearly got it wrong, but you signed the book and there's nothing we can do to help." Apparently this guy didn't even get paid drivers' wages. He was just expected to do their work and take on their penalties.

What does all this have to do with checkouts? Well I'm not checkout trained but how many times have I have to fill in a "legal refresher" talking about the possibility that I the checkout operator could face hefty consequences if I sold, even unknowingly to an underaged person? Think 25? I'm hopeless with people's ages! Knowing how Tesco treat their multiskilled staff - even the ones who have said from the beginning they felt uncomfortable being multiskilled - why would I put myself in that position if it's not even in my job description to start with?
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: OvaSees on 27-06-18, 12:29PM
I have to say, I am enjoying this polyester-suited fantasy where most of the staff in a supermarket are there because they desperately wanted to work in retail, and not simply because they have bills to pay.
Brilliant! You just won the Interwebz :D
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: forrestgimp on 27-06-18, 07:39PM
Personal feelings and the right to ask for help  ?

Yeah 100% agree to be fair with that...………………. however I think Chocjac2412 is just expressing their opinion which is what this forum is all about … and to be frank I agree with what was said.

Lets face it the question was asked to find reason for a loophole in policy .... is that what the Customer deserves ... isn't that why we are here in a service based industry , If not surely question your career choice ?

Absolutely but in another thread. The OP simply asked for help regarding the policy that is in place not a diatribe about the rights or wrongs of it.

I happen to agree and don't really get the reluctance even though I didn't have to train, fact remains though that they don't.
Title: Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
Post by: notsofunny on 27-06-18, 08:02PM
I have never been able to understand why anyone who works in retail thinks it's acceptable not to serve customers, same with the whole not working wknds thing too.  Why would you think that it's ok not to work the busiest time of the wk or to opt out of serving the people who pay our wages.

I cant understand why you would want to force someone to work hours or do jobs they did not sign up for, after all a contract is a 2 way thing, and if that is what is in your contract then its what you should be getting.

After all why would you want to give up something both sides have agreed on ? and why would you want them to when it does not effect you ?  could it be that you don't have it so you don't want them to have it  ???