* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
21-05-19, 04:16AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 57059
  • Total Topics: 1008
  • Online Today: 116
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online
Users: 1
Guests: 86
Total: 87

Author Topic: The 2005 multi-skilling deal  (Read 6898 times)

sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« 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.

Redshoes

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #1 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.

sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #2 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.
« Last Edit: 22-06-18, 12:41PM by sfsorrow »

Mr Grumpy

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees ..
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #3 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.




sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #4 on: 22-06-18, 12:57PM »
That name is definitely familiar, thank you.

Mr Grumpy

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees ..
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #5 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.   


sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #6 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.

strebor

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #7 on: 22-06-18, 01:10PM »
They don't communicate even if you are a member

londoner83

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 871
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #8 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.

Hammer10

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #9 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.

Walker

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 186
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #10 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.

sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #11 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.

sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #12 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.

londoner83

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 871
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #13 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).


sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #14 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.

T.C.1

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #15 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!!

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 404
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #16 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!

OvaSees

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #17 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

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.

Mark calloway

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 160
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #18 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

Malekith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #19 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.

Equalizer87

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2063
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #20 on: 23-06-18, 10:39AM »
And to top it off, the Union did give a damn, as usual.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Redshoes

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #21 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.

daveyp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #22 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.

Mark calloway

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 160
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #23 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.

sfsorrow

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 60
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #24 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 :)