* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
16-09-19, 09:56AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 60689
  • Total Topics: 1068
  • Online Today: 150
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: The 2005 multi-skilling deal  (Read 12088 times)

londoner83

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 897
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #50 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.

penguin

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #51 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.
Tesco - the moden day word for workhouse

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 501
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #52 on: 25-06-18, 09:19PM »
Before 24hr opening or even being open 6-midnight.

forrestgimp

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 943
  • Cant wait to retire when I am 110
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #53 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.


Argonaut

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Paese che vai, usanze che trovi
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #54 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 ?


 

lackofinterest

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1137
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #55 on: 26-06-18, 11:28PM »
career ??? :D :D :D :D :D :D

sfsorrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #56 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.
« Last Edit: 27-06-18, 12:35AM by sfsorrow »

Ford Torino

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #57 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?

OvaSees

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #58 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

forrestgimp

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 943
  • Cant wait to retire when I am 110
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #59 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.

notsofunny

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1432
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #60 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  ???

ewan1986

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #61 on: 18-08-19, 08:40PM »
Does the recent restructure affect this in any way?

lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #62 on: 19-08-19, 07:56AM »
Nope
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

arlo

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #63 on: 09-09-19, 12:35PM »
The new metro pack states all staff checkout trained, is that the agreement finished now  :question:

penguin

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #64 on: 09-09-19, 07:47PM »
We got told, I'm in a superstore the few remaining non till trained staff are to be trained on tills by Christmas, only someone who has a medical reason not to use a till is to be exempt, not seen anything official come down to say this its been told to us by the store manager, not sure why he told me as im already till trained so it does not even affect me really.
Tesco - the moden day word for workhouse

Yogurt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #65 on: 09-09-19, 08:11PM »
I was told today that the union no longer stand by this agreement that it is outdated and doesn’t make sense now. It was to previous protect people that were on lower grades so everyone should be fill trained.  With the recent restructuring, all colleagues have to be multi skilled as they are classed as customer assistant only with no specific department.

King1999

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #66 on: 09-09-19, 10:10PM »
In the same respect then I would expect a checkout colleague to take a delivery off ...... no yeah exactly p**s take always will be.

VladPutin

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #67 on: 09-09-19, 10:19PM »
Just use managers as front end support. Till monkey duties are all most of them are good for anyway.

mommydearest

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #68 on: 09-09-19, 11:23PM »
I am on the old contracts and had a disagreement a few years back over this issue. I was advised I needed to be till trained as all staff must be multi skilled. I pointed out that I am trained on grocery and fresh replenishment, price integrity, merchandising, stock control and bakery and therefore I am multi skilled. 

arlo

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #69 on: 10-09-19, 04:28AM »
Any union reps any info on this issue ?

lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #70 on: 10-09-19, 06:09AM »
I was told today that the union no longer stand by this agreement that it is outdated and doesn’t make sense now. It was to previous protect people that were on lower grades so everyone should be fill trained.  With the recent restructuring, all colleagues have to be multi skilled as they are classed as customer assistant only with no specific department.

I take it that it was a manager that told you that? Phone your area USDAW office to enquire if the policy has changed? I doubt it has, as if that was the case, then your manager would be waving the revised agreement under your nose! Tell them you are checking with the union on this matter, and you'll get back to them when you receive clarification. Why are your reps not checking this out?
With regard to the statement that all colleagues are classed as CA's with no specific dept, then why aren't all colleagues being offered voluntary redundancy, in the restructuring, and not just those in certain depts, with individual dept codes??
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

takethemoneyandrun

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 77
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #71 on: 10-09-19, 07:38AM »
We got told, I'm in a superstore the few remaining non till trained staff are to be trained on tills by Christmas, only someone who has a medical reason not to use a till is to be exempt, not seen anything official come down to say this its been told to us by the store manager, not sure why he told me as im already till trained so it does not even affect me really.
No you dont...the Manager is a bully..

Mr Grumpy

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
  • I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees ..
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #72 on: 10-09-19, 08:52AM »
Speak to your rep, ask them to get a copy of the original letter signed by Pauline Foulkes stating the policy from the pay review 2005 and have it posted on the Union notice board.

(would recommend you have many copies as this particular gold nugget tends to go missing from notice boards)

penguin

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #73 on: 10-09-19, 08:52AM »
How on earth is it bullying, it seems totally reasonable to have all staff till trained, I can never understand why we had a situation where people could choose not do checkouts in the first place.
Tesco - the moden day word for workhouse

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: The 2005 multi-skilling deal
« Reply #74 on: 10-09-19, 09:55AM »
It is bullying if deceit is used to persuade people to erroneously give up their rights.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.