verylittlehelps.com

Very Little Helps => Stores => Topic started by: Prince of Darkness on 13-03-19, 02:31PM

Title: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Prince of Darkness on 13-03-19, 02:31PM
The SS I work in currently has 160 hours a week (it's a 24 hrs store) security guard cover from an external contractor. Essentailly that means we have one guard (no cover for their breaks) 24/7 except after midnight on Saturday and after closing on Sunday into Monday 0600.

From April 1st that will drop to nil. Nothing. Nada.

I'm a TS on checkouts and I've called the police three times in the past week. Once for a man threatening me and his partner (no, I don't know her) and twice for shoplifters, all incident reported. Our overall shrink is above the new, more challenging target and this is the answer - cut the guards to nothing. I could understand cutting back some hours (0000 to 0800, even 1000, for example) but no cover at all seems just absurd.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: trolleyboy96 on 13-03-19, 02:38PM
Not enough incidents logged by your current guarding team / duty manager, we lost ours 2 years ago was a very painful 9 months....all the known shoplifters just came in packs and walked out knowing the duty manager was solo and wouldn’t put himself at risk.

It took 9 months of logging everything, from memory we had so much trouble one month we had 1-2 managers out every day at court as the cases stacked up. We now have double our original guarding hours and rumours of gaining more as our guards and duty managers where told to log everything, seems to of helped us.

Good luck getting the cover back!
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 13-03-19, 03:24PM
Non of the Agency report anything at our store onto the system because they are not given a login nor are they told anything about it.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: trolleyboy96 on 13-03-19, 03:55PM
Ours do, there a specific login for them securityguard1@(storenumber) the compliance manager used to set them up......

With the hub, we were told incident reporting will move to the security podium so the guards can do it from where they work to speed up the reporting and video and pictures can be added to the incidents, the options you can see on a normal computer, so it’s coming,
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Happy Hitman on 13-03-19, 05:21PM
So security have to take cuts as well as everyone else. Decision made by the clever people above on a computer that says no. Question is....how many colleagues need to get stabbed, a dig in the head and shoplifters backing vans up to the front door before the clever person is given a job in the shop so they can see what it is actually like.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 13-03-19, 05:26PM
I am surprised security have not taken a hit before now to be honest especially Tesco guards, with all agency they can virtually do as they please with them give them targets to meet and change their hours daily if they want couple that with no holiday pay no national insurance to pay no holiday cover to organise and the ability to fine cordent should a guard not turn up for a shift.

As for the reporting from the podium, that would be great you get fed up of getting booted off the computer at checkouts because someone else needs to do something that very nanosecond.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Notorious3 on 13-03-19, 10:12PM
109 hours being lost in our store. I am one of the 3 full timers about to go through a possible redundancy. All colleagues in our store from the top to the bottom have expressed great concern that we will be no more. We logged all our incident away and have a very high detection rate and continuous green shrink. However we have new classes as a “low risk” store. Seems like we are a victim of our own success. Same applies to noir current CCTV system. The core of it is 20+years old but yet all stores around us have been upgraded.

I invite the decision makers in head office to come into store and deal with the groups of teenagers intimating staff, the aggressive drunks being refused drink, the prolific shoplifters, the first point of contact for customers who are distressed from lost children, purse snatch’s, ATM shoulder surfers.

I give it 6 months and security will be back in my store as there is various sheltered accommodations within a stones throw from our front doors who are our frequent fliers. Even the local police force can’t get their head around it.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: londoner83 on 14-03-19, 09:27AM
Can't wait to see the negative press coverage that will no doubt come our way when something kicks off in a large store and they discover we have no security other than a camera.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 14-03-19, 03:22PM


I invite the decision makers in head office to come into store and deal with the groups of teenagers intimating staff, the aggressive drunks being refused drink, the prolific shoplifters, the first point of contact for customers who are distressed from lost children, purse snatch’s, ATM shoulder surfers.



The thing is non of that is your job as security it is all the province of managers or customer services. If you read policy it states quite clearly as a guard you are there for nothing more than a deterrent and should anything happen you are supposed to inform the duty manager so they can deal with it.

Now what you do or dont do is down to you and your store but remember if anything happens to you while doing something you are told not to then Tesco will not accept and responsibility and will hang you out to dry, Dont believe me ask the guard who was stabbed by a hypodermic needle while trying to stop a shoplifter leaving. Tescos response was hard luck you should not have been doing that we told you specifically not to so you can forget any compensation.


As for being classified as low risk its probably because you are green on shrink.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Notorious3 on 14-03-19, 03:51PM
We find it very hard to sit in our hands and let suspects get away, we feel like they are getting one better over us, not Tesco. We have been a self motivated and managed team for such a long time and have been dealing with various incidents without sometimes any influence or input from a duty manager, in the future the managers will find it difficult to deal with any issues.

But in dating that since we have been in for our brief and told we are at risk of redundancy we have took a step back and haven’t actively detected anything, on the off chance we have detected something we inform 2 of 15 managers who will act on our information.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 14-03-19, 05:23PM
I completely understand what you are saying and I feel the same way however, After seeing a colleague get stiffed over for doing just that and having it drilled into us that we are not to get involved as it is not our job i have come to the conclusion that yea fair enough I wont.

We have been informed that its also company wide policy not to detain suspects any more and that is what is practised in our store, we were told the system is now a manager stops the suspect and asks for the item/s back if we get them back the suspect is barred and allowed to go on their way, if the suspect however says no and refuses to hand the item/s back they are allowed to go on their way with said items and we then review cctv and do a shop pack after reporting the theft.

So as I say you do what you feel is right I'm not going to tell you otherwise but please bear in mind you will without a doubt be hung out to dry and should it end up with you having health issues you will not get any kind of help or compensation.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: PowerAisleMan on 16-03-19, 08:23PM
Ours is getting cut to zero aswell. Absolute disgrace.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: lackofinterest on 17-03-19, 02:25AM
looks like DL wants a lot of stock to go missing so the staff can get the blame >:(
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: lucgeo on 17-03-19, 08:31AM
Can't wait to see the negative press coverage that will no doubt come our way when something kicks off in a large store and they discover we have no security other than a camera.

Many retail companies don't have a security presence, but how may of them are 24 hour trading?

So much for USDAW's big banners "freedom from fear" ??? Surely this could be grievanced under " duty of care" for every store that has no security presence past 10 pm. The night shift crews are already easy targets for theiving, and being verbally abused by many of the low life in the area.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NorthWave on 18-03-19, 03:12PM
When do you understand that Tesco's policy is " Dividing to Govern "? When do you understand that while we are worried about our jobs and the indifference from the top to what is going on every day they know that we are busy with something and they keep doing what they are paid to do getting " £ " the most they can to cover the big money!
How dare you confronting your experience with they lack of will to assume reality and honesty?
They are moved by pride (sorry) arrogance not by humanism or intelligence but yes opportunism and sustenance of they position. Do you understand ?
You exist only to keep they status, your voice or experience it is only for they entertainment or pastime.
From the moment they can keep paying the big pays and they pay you are just a piece to move or eliminate. Who cares ?
They appreciate very much your  :-X. 
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: What’snext on 19-03-19, 07:41PM
I work in a critical store and we’ve just had over 100 hours taken away. Why not get rid of the STM and save money that way instead of taking guards away  >:(
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Lost on 19-03-19, 08:02PM
They should just do away with 24 hour opening
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 21-03-19, 05:48PM
Can't wait to see the negative press coverage that will no doubt come our way when something kicks off in a large store and they discover we have no security other than a camera.

Many retail companies don't have a security presence, but how may of them are 24 hour trading?

So much for USDAW's big banners "freedom from fear" ??? Surely this could be grievanced under " duty of care" for every store that has no security presence past 10 pm. The night shift crews are already easy targets for theiving, and being verbally abused by many of the low life in the area.

Where have you got this idea that security is there to safeguard the staff from? That is not part of their job that is the responsibility of the management team security are not bouncers leaping in to get beaten up when someone kicks off and its about time the rest of you realise this securities sole purpose is to be a deterrent to thieves and if they happen spot someone concealing informing management so they can deal with it, same goes for banned people, drunks, junkies and any other undesirables you can name it is for managers to deal with it.

If a security guard does leap in and get themselves hurt they get hung out to dry by Tesco because they are not supposed to be doing that.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: DJL on 21-03-19, 06:33PM
I agree with your point however I would say that it is not my job as a manager to deal with these people, once upon a time I’d have done what I needed to do to stop a shoplifter, not now.  Im not going to get myself involved, nor would I want the security guard involved either. If Tesco must reduce hours in this area and somebody is nicking a tv, then so be.

The cameras can be used to review the footage then call the police to investigate, that’s about it, plus I can’t be doing with the whole going to court thing either!

To be honest, these people probably have more rights than we do, despite what they are up to; so if serious call police.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Rick grimes on 21-03-19, 07:28PM
I agree with your point however I would say that it is not my job as a manager to deal with these people, once upon a time I’d have done what I needed to do to stop a shoplifter, not now.  Im not going to get myself involved, nor would I want the security guard involved either. If Tesco must reduce hours in this area and somebody is nicking a tv, then so be.

The cameras can be used to review the footage then call the police to investigate, that’s about it, plus I can’t be doing with the whole going to court thing either!

To be honest, these people probably have more rights than we do, despite what they are up to; so if serious call police.

So who's job is it to make sure the staff is safe from drunk's and junkies if they kick off instore, surely that must be a managers responsibility to make sure the staff don't get abused.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: DJL on 21-03-19, 07:38PM
Security prevent, managers back up but if it’s that bad then the police need called in!
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Rick grimes on 21-03-19, 07:44PM
Security prevent, managers back up but if it’s that bad then the police need called in!

Forrestgimp said earlier it's not security's job it's the management team responsible for it so who is responsible for staff safety and by the time you wait on the police coming a member of staff could be seriously hurt. So someone is telling porkies.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: DJL on 21-03-19, 07:48PM
And if it gets to that stage then I would like to think everyone available would help out then wait it out for police?!
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Rick grimes on 21-03-19, 07:52PM
By the time that happens someone could be hurt, while the managers are sitting looking at the cameras or in the canteen getting a cuppa.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: DJL on 21-03-19, 07:57PM
Yup, and yourself standing there asking where the managers are! Would you stand back and let a older female manager intervene just because ‘it’s her job’ or help out?

All I’m saying is the job of ‘security’ is for all however if the s*** hits the fan we need to help each other! Should somebody be stopped with a bottle of booze, yeah the manager along with security to stop and take them to other location, but in description above, it needs us all!

God forbid it does happen!!
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: bobbywm on 21-03-19, 08:00PM
When this says,   superstores to lose 160 hours.  Is this all round, or are you just talking about security.?
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Rick grimes on 21-03-19, 08:03PM
Yup that's why managers get paid extra money. I would help a member of staff but as i said where would the managers be.????
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NightAndDay on 21-03-19, 08:05PM
Your job as customer assistants and managers is to replenish, serve customers, store operations, reports and managing the store. It is not in your remit to recover stock outside of asking for the product back, verbally banning the shoplifter and having yourself, or the security guard log it in incident reporting. In cases of repeat shoplifting and flouting the verbal ban, the manager must involve the police to get the necessary information for the group security manager to fill out a written premises ban, when a person has 1 of these, if they enter the premises, they would be committing the crime of trespassing and the police can get involved.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Rick grimes on 21-03-19, 08:12PM
In our store security does the filling not the job they are paid to do but that is not there fault, management tell them while any thief, drunk or junkie just wonders in.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: optout on 21-03-19, 08:28PM
It strikes me as a bit odd, that 9 times out of 10 when ever I read that somebody has been injured in violent confrontations in tesco, it is a security guard. surely if it were supposed to be up to managers to confront any issues of violence or theft (and they were actually doing so) then I would think that it would be managers who are being injured in 9 out of 10 incidents, but that seems to me to not be the case.

(the 9 out of 10 figures are just a wild guess as to what I feel the figures to be of course, i may be wrong, it just seems that way to me).

Also; the title 'security GUARD' seems to me a bit misleading,when they are supposed to just inform management of issues.

Are tesco security guards given any training or instruction in de-escalation techniques (that is not given to general assistants) with regards to handling violent confrontation? If so, why would they need such additional training, if their role is 'supposed' to be just to inform the management of issues?
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NightAndDay on 21-03-19, 08:48PM
Tesco security guards job is to monitor and deter, they have no special rights, no training outside of what they must learn to acquire their SIA license to be able to be a security guard in the first place.

If they stick to their training, violent confrontations shouldn't happen (obviosly Tesco corporates idea of customers are that they are pink and fluffy delights. When reality is that 90% of them are either scumbags or upper class snobs,).
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: optout on 21-03-19, 09:00PM
https://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/17517150.security-guard-who-faced-sword-wielding-robber-says-i-was-just-doing-my-job/ (https://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/17517150.security-guard-who-faced-sword-wielding-robber-says-i-was-just-doing-my-job/)
note the words 'I was just doing my job', this guy is obvously under the impression that it is his job to protect staff, I wonder where he got that impression from?

Maybe he got that impression from his SIA training; check out the paragraph at the bottom of the page re; Diffusing Conflict?
https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/do-you-need-an-sia-licence-to-be-a-supermarket-security-guard (https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/do-you-need-an-sia-licence-to-be-a-supermarket-security-guard)


Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NightAndDay on 21-03-19, 09:07PM
That's why I said "should" lower the risk of violent confrontations, people like the katana wielding robber, though a multiple occurrence is outside the realms of "normal conflict".

If you read the SIA conflict resolution training part, it says the same things as the ca training for conflict resolution, friendly, attentive helpful service is a major deterrent for shoplifters (furthermore a distinction should be made between shoplifter and armed robber, it's not a security guards job to prevent an armed robbery, that's a policeman's job.)
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: optout on 21-03-19, 09:20PM
 :thumbup:
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 22-03-19, 03:26PM
I agree with your point however I would say that it is not my job as a manager to deal with these people, once upon a time I’d have done what I needed to do to stop a shoplifter, not now.  Im not going to get myself involved, nor would I want the security guard involved either. If Tesco must reduce hours in this area and somebody is nicking a tv, then so be.

The cameras can be used to review the footage then call the police to investigate, that’s about it, plus I can’t be doing with the whole going to court thing either!

To be honest, these people probably have more rights than we do, despite what they are up to; so if serious call police.




I suggest you read the policy then it is as a duty manager your responsibility to deal with these people and any other incidents that happen.


Security prevent, managers back up but if it’s that bad then the police need called in!

Forrestgimp said earlier it's not security's job it's the management team responsible for it so who is responsible for staff safety and by the time you wait on the police coming a member of staff could be seriously hurt. So someone is telling porkies.

I suggest you bring up the policy on all of your phones, it is written in black and white what we as security guards are expected to do and what is the province of management it also tells us what not to do.



That's why I said "should" lower the risk of violent confrontations, people like the katana wielding robber, though a multiple occurrence is outside the realms of "normal conflict".

If you read the SIA conflict resolution training part, it says the same things as the ca training for conflict resolution, friendly, attentive helpful service is a major deterrent for shoplifters (furthermore a distinction should be made between shoplifter and armed robber, it's not a security guards job to prevent an armed robbery, that's a policeman's job.)


Are you SIA trained because i'm not and neither is my colleague nor has any of the previous Tesco guards going back 20 years the only people with an SIA license are the agency guards. No what we get by way of training is nothing except shown how to use the cctv.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NightAndDay on 22-03-19, 03:59PM
Global Moderator Comment Please do not quote immediately prior post(s).

Then Tesco are breaking the law, it's the law to be SIA licensed to work in any capacity in front line security.  My brother was SIA licensed working as a Tesco security guard.  As for my position I'm a part time ca, I was a part time shift leader but then got a job working in a position of confidentiality for the government.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Poent on 22-03-19, 06:27PM
We are an extra and we’ve been told by senior team that security will not be tackling shop lifters any more, and that they are purely there for staff and customer safety!  No offence but I certainly wouldn’t trust them with my safety! Most of the time they’re on their mobiles!
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Pushedout on 22-03-19, 07:15PM
Then Tesco are breaking the law, it's the law to be SIA licensed to work in any capacity in front line security.  My brother was SIA licensed working as a Tesco security guard.  As for my position I'm a part time ca, I was a part time shift leader but then got a job working in a position of confidentiality for the government.

What law is this then? It is a requirement for security industry front line operatives to hold an SIA license, this is not the case for in-house security employed directly by Tesco.   The only issue Tesco May have is that the premises license may require an SIA licensed security officer to be on site, but this would only be local agreements (if any exist)
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NightAndDay on 22-03-19, 09:46PM
Supermarket security guards can’t work legally or efficiently without an SIA licence. https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/do-you-need-an-sia-licence-to-be-a-supermarket-security-guard (https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/do-you-need-an-sia-licence-to-be-a-supermarket-security-guard)

And

https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/what-happens-if-you-work-without-an-sia-licence (https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/what-happens-if-you-work-without-an-sia-licence)
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 23-03-19, 08:02PM
Please do not quote immediately prior post(s).

Then Tesco are breaking the law, it's the law to be SIA licensed to work in any capacity in front line security.  My brother was SIA licensed working as a Tesco security guard.  As for my position I'm a part time ca, I was a part time shift leader but then got a job working in a position of confidentiality for the government.

I am sure you are probably right but non of Tesco in house security guards are SIA trained unless they paid for it themselves for some bizarre reason or already had it before taking on the job.


Yup, and yourself standing there asking where the managers are! Would you stand back and let a older female manager intervene just because ‘it’s her job’ or help out?

All I’m saying is the job of ‘security’ is for all however if the s*** hits the fan we need to help each other! Should somebody be stopped with a bottle of booze, yeah the manager along with security to stop and take them to other location, but in description above, it needs us all!

God forbid it does happen!!

Absolutely right I would especially when you consider I will get no help with paying my mortgage if I am away from work longer than I have accrued sick pay for nor will I get help to put food on the table.  You might be willing to sacrifice yourself in a similar vein the lady who jumped on the blue car to stop the alcohol thieves and had her spine broken but I guarantee she is getting nothing from Tesco without a huge fight because policy says let them go not leap on the car and become a human shield.

You think i'm being harsh or whatever but I will pop along and visit you in the hospital when you are at deaths door for playing rambo.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Pushedout on 23-03-19, 10:51PM
There is 100% no legal requirements for “in house” guards to be licensed.  Security industry guards (those employed by a guarding company) must be licensed. 

The role of the guard is to deter theft, primarily by being a visual deterrent.  Many other supermarkets have a lot less guarding than Tesco and no direct link can be drawn between number of guarding hours and amount of recorded stock loss.  Most of the time guards are ineffective and poorly trained anyway.

Guess it shows your morale fibre if you are quite happy to stand by and watch people commit crime, I know I would always try to do my bit, within my abilities and whilst assessing the risk, weather it be at my place of work or out and about.

 
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: lackofinterest on 23-03-19, 11:26PM
i will happily stand aside and leave it to a superhero. at the end of the day, i don't  give a s***!!!
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: lucgeo on 24-03-19, 06:55AM
Thieving......I would never get involved.

Threatening or abusive behaviour toward a colleague or customer..... I'd be straight in.

I'm comfortable with those moral values :thumbup:
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Rick grimes on 24-03-19, 08:08AM
There is 100% no legal requirements for “in house” guards to be licensed.  Security industry guards (those employed by a guarding company) must be licensed. 

The role of the guard is to deter theft, primarily by being a visual deterrent.  Many other supermarkets have a lot less guarding than Tesco and no direct link can be drawn between number of guarding hours and amount of recorded stock loss.  Most of the time guards are ineffective and poorly trained anyway.

Guess it shows your morale fibre if you are quite happy to stand by and watch people commit crime, I know I would always try to do my bit, within my abilities and whilst assessing the risk, weather it be at my place of work or out and about.

Why should the staff get involved when a crime is being commited and before you say it's there job who gives a s**,t, don't forget all the hours being cut and job losses so Mr. Lewis can get his bonus. Why should the staff care when he doesn't and i think you'll find morale left the company through a window years ago.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 24-03-19, 05:11PM
There is 100% no legal requirements for “in house” guards to be licensed.  Security industry guards (those employed by a guarding company) must be licensed. 

The role of the guard is to deter theft, primarily by being a visual deterrent.  Many other supermarkets have a lot less guarding than Tesco and no direct link can be drawn between number of guarding hours and amount of recorded stock loss.  Most of the time guards are ineffective and poorly trained anyway.

Guess it shows your morale fibre if you are quite happy to stand by and watch people commit crime, I know I would always try to do my bit, within my abilities and whilst assessing the risk, weather it be at my place of work or out and about.

You have no right to pass judgement on my moral fibre, look at the company before you tell me I should be doing more or putting myself in danger. Managers know or should know what is expected of them they also get paid in most cases X2 more than me we are told in no uncertain terms we are not to intervene it is made quite plain the ramifications of doing so against company policy and I would expect managers are told not to put themselves in harms way either.

Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 24-03-19, 05:35PM
Yup, and yourself standing there asking where the managers are! Would you stand back and let a older female manager intervene just because ‘it’s her job’ or help out?

All I’m saying is the job of ‘security’ is for all however if the s*** hits the fan we need to help each other! Should somebody be stopped with a bottle of booze, yeah the manager along with security to stop and take them to other location, but in description above, it needs us all!

God forbid it does happen!!

Of course I would not let anyone get a beating without doing all I could to help its ridiculous to suggest otherwise, however my point stands the person responsible is the Duty manager not the poor security guard on 13k take home a year who has had no training other than a read of a book and whos training manual explicitly states will not get involved.

Oh and we were told last week we are losing hours on security so the real people who could not give a monkeys chuff about your welfare is top brass not me and my security brethren  working a thankless task for peanuts.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Nomad on 24-03-19, 06:11PM
Does anybody remember when you were served in a shop, and there was very little or no opportunity to thieve, and therefore no need for CCTV or a security guard.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: optout on 24-03-19, 06:48PM
You're showing your age there. Even I can't remember that far back. And I have to pluck my ear hair.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: just curious on 24-03-19, 07:02PM
Does anybody remember when you were served in a shop, and there was very little or no opportunity to thieve, and therefore no need for CCTV or a security guard.
I recall the days when the store i worked in had two " Store Detectives " in the shop twice or three days a week sometimes catching the shop lifters and calling the police for a prosecution or issuing civil recovery fines on the shop lifters - if they were not in store where i worked they would be in the area in another store , then Tosco in there wisdom to save money made the  " store Detectives " redundant .
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: lucgeo on 24-03-19, 07:05PM
Sorry but I too remember that Nomad era....the grocery store assistants wore a brown coat, the departmental stores, assistants were situated on every glass counter which had individual drawers and the glass was cleaned with meths and buffed with old newspapers every morning.

The toffee adverts on TV showing the confectioner making individual toffee into trays by hand is laughable.....the actress is no older than 30, supposedly recalling her childhood...I could double that age and don't recall that. ???
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Lost on 24-03-19, 07:44PM
If GAs stopped helping guards and managers managed and stopped helping GAs maybe head office would be forced into getting enough hours/budget in the right place. Currently we have a store over contracted hours where few want overtime, the alarm is going regular and stock is piling up despite all the managers constantly filling. Threats of disciplinary and Lets Talk are constant. Out of Date items on shelf for months. While the cracks are papered over by the shop floor the corporate greed will only continue.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Happy Hitman on 26-03-19, 07:18AM
Your job as customer assistants and managers is to replenish, serve customers, store operations, reports and managing the store. It is not in your remit to recover stock outside of asking for the product back, verbally banning the shoplifter and having yourself, or the security guard log it in incident reporting. In cases of repeat shoplifting and flouting the verbal ban, the manager must involve the police to get the necessary information for the group security manager to fill out a written premises ban, when a person has 1 of these, if they enter the premises, they would be committing the crime of trespassing and the police can get involved.

Trespass is not a criminal offence, it is a civil one. When it is coupled with theft it becomes burglary, then you involve the police.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: penguin on 26-03-19, 04:48PM
I can remember not so long ago, security and most managers would remove a shoplifter from the store and something along the lines of f off sunshine your banned would be the standard comment made to the person being ejected, now we need head office involved to ban anyone, and you have security kindly asking people not to walk out with stuff and addressing them as Sir, Madam as appropriate while doing so, we must be a right laughing stock to the shoplifters and junkies etc.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Redshoes on 27-03-19, 07:44AM
Things have changed due to bad publicity. Most people are fine and can use discretion and a bit of common sense. However, dragging someone through the store with them kicking and screaming to the security room. Then spending time waiting with them for the police to arrive and all for a can of coke is not worth the time given by manager and colleagues. Theft if theft but how much time and effort should be given to minor theft when you add in the time it takes to deal with it and possible bad publicity.
As a company we see changes to policy all the time. It can sometimes relate to things going very wrong in some store. There are time when a brief comes down and I think that we should not need to be told this but something must have happened somewhere and we do.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 27-03-19, 05:18PM
If GAs stopped helping guards and managers managed and stopped helping GAs maybe head office would be forced into getting enough hours/budget in the right place. Currently we have a store over contracted hours where few want overtime, the alarm is going regular and stock is piling up despite all the managers constantly filling. Threats of disciplinary and Lets Talk are constant. Out of Date items on shelf for months. While the cracks are papered over by the shop floor the corporate greed will only continue.

When you say helping guards what do you mean? Because I have yet to be helped by any colleague when its been me against some junkie and yet again the duty manager is no where to be seen.
Global Moderator Comment Lost will be unable to reply.



Trespass is not a criminal offence, it is a civil one. When it is coupled with theft it becomes burglary, then you involve the police.


This is so true.

We should be stopped from being called security we are nothing of the sort, back in the day when I started with the company we were called CCTV operatives not sure when it changed up until recently I had security written on my name badge however when it came to getting the pay grade for a security guard we were suddenly cctv again.

Oh well I recon non of us are long for this company, when they get rid of some then a few more it normally means the rest will be gone soon enough.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: StinkyPoo on 29-03-19, 04:37PM
As from next week our 24 hour extra store will have no security from 10pm until 6am. Do you think all stores will start closing overnight now?
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Spaceranger1 on 29-03-19, 08:42PM
Surely it all depends if they are profitable or not :question: In our store they usually take one of the grocery/pi to sit at the lectern.
Totally wrong, as we all know but, that's what happens at the moment.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 31-03-19, 11:39AM
How do you quantify securitys value, If its the amount you stop going through the door by stopping people then its not a lot so do you make some random arbitrary number up. We can make a judgement call on how much has been stolen along with other reasons the stock isnt in the business.

No we do not make the company any money we might save them some but they cant put money saved on the balance books so to money men like DL its an easy way to save.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Prince of Darkness on 31-03-19, 12:08PM
Update:

First week without any guard cover (was 24 hrs bar Sunday closed hours) and what happens?

A pair of thieves that I think I recognise from CCTV footage I've been shown came in one morning at 10.30 and took £1800 of spirits and printer cartridges.

Just waiting for them to come again, and again.  I wonder how long it will take for the penny to drop?
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Omg1 on 31-03-19, 08:34PM
It’s not only the additional theft that happens but the increased risk to staff. Staff injured after an aggressive attack after security removed and then the employee questioned over being off sick.
Thank you Tesco for supporting the welfare and caring for you staff.
Really you don’t care who might get hurt if it saves money.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: NightAndDay on 31-03-19, 09:49PM
How do you quantify securitys value, If its the amount you stop going through the door by stopping people then its not a lot so do you make some random arbitrary number up. We can make a judgement call on how much has been stolen along with other reasons the stock isnt in the business.

No we do not make the company any money we might save them some but they cant put money saved on the balance books so to money men like DL its an easy way to save.

By taking the average amount as a value shoplifted on a weekly basis without a guard, subtract that from how much it costs to have a guard for 1 week (40 hours) and then subtract the amount shoplifted with a guard present, if utilised correctly, a security guard will add value by negating the amount lost via shoplifting.

Also it makes the company look better from a corporate social.responsibility standpoint.
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Notorious3 on 31-03-19, 11:50PM
Quote
At our previous meeting we were asked to consider offering financial support for security guards to obtain
 license.
 o
We recognise that this is a very specialist role and therefore can confirm that we will fund the Licence cost is £220 per colleague. This funding is for impacted colleagues only and cannot be
 extended to other areas. The qualification must be completed by week 52 2019/2020.

That’s ok but what about the course fee? That is almost as much as the license????
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: optout on 01-04-19, 10:21PM
If your an usduur member, contact your National Officer (who is involved in the negotiations) here;
Pauline.Foulkes@usdaw.org.uk
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Stewart132 on 02-04-19, 09:53AM
I emailed this person on Saturday and she replied yesterday with all the minutes from the last 3 collective meetings
There really was not a lot of information to be gained from this but at least I now know what is happening. In my opinion Tesco should be putting this information up in store on notice board as it's important for every body that is affected by the current issues.next joint meeting 8th April
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Riddler99 on 02-04-19, 09:54AM
My store manager does put everyone up in the corridor as soon as it’s on the Comms centre
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: Spaceranger1 on 02-04-19, 10:07AM
You are very lucky as our Store Manager is too interested doing his press-ups and squat thrusts in his orifice to dare interact with the underlings wondering where their next bowl of gruel will come from >:(
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: forrestgimp on 02-04-19, 05:24PM
I emailed this person on Saturday and she replied yesterday with all the minutes from the last 3 collective meetings
There really was not a lot of information to be gained from this but at least I now know what is happening. In my opinion Tesco should be putting this information up in store on notice board as it's important for every body that is affected by the current issues.next joint meeting 8th April

Any chance of posting it up here pls we get told nothing at all.

TIA
Title: Re: Superstore to lose 160 hours security guard cover
Post by: wolfie on 02-04-19, 05:38PM
All the info is on Our Tesco/working at tesco/people changes