Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

26-09-20, 07:33AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 6884
  • Latest: pfslad
Stats
  • Total Posts: 48370
  • Total Topics: 973
  • Online Today: 77
  • Online Ever: 525
  • (11-07-20, 04:47PM)
Users Online
Users: 4
Guests: 61
Total: 65

Author Topic: Think 25 and facemasks  (Read 8979 times)

Morris999

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #50 on: 30-08-20, 10:48PM »
As the legislation on face coverings was only recently implemented, I very much doubt Tesco has updated their training on the think 25 policy with this addendum, the think 25 policy would be mandatory legal elearning training that the Store Manager would have to get everyone to do, if the OP didn't do the training with the updates on the face mask legislation, they can't be disciplined as they haven't received training on it.

Training doesn’t need updating as the legislation hasn’t changed, it was a temporary measure that has now ended, so normal Think 25 training is in effect, so if the colleague cannot assess the age of the customer due to a face covering, whether that be a crash helmet, religious covering or face mask then they are to ask the customer to remove it temporarily, if the customer refuses then the colleague is to refuse the sale.
That’s how it was before March and how it is now.

@barafear so in your own words you thought she looked under 25 but served her anyway, well in that case you failed to follow the Think 25 policy.
Regardless of your reasoning about the expense bottle of alcohol, you still served her even after you assessed her to look under 25.

@Nomad I don’t know if you missed the point completely or just decided to ignore it.
We both know that if the Police or Trading Standards did a test purchase it would be someone under 18, and if the colleague asked for ID, none was presented and the colleague still authorised the sale, then yes they would potentially be facing a criminal record and lose of job, does that make it clearer for you.

whatajoke2019

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 86
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #51 on: 30-08-20, 11:12PM »
I won't go into detail as it'll make me personally identifiable but there was on occasion I was at work and an ex-colleague of mine failed to 'Think 25'. Couldn't work on the till for the rest of their shift, had to go through all of the training again and had the disciplinary put on file.

Some people are very lucky with their genetics; I once served a girl and asked her for ID. She was nearly 30 but looking at her you wouldn't have known it.


lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2570
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #52 on: 31-08-20, 09:20AM »
You can't TRAIN anybody to correctly asses a person's age...it's down to that individual's ability to be able to gauge whether the customer is of legal age, and that is the point here...LEGAL AGE. In the eyes of the law, the legal age is 18, so colleagues who have served a customer of legal age, have not committed any offence, yet Tesco managers feel justified in disciplining a NON wrongdoing, to the point of threatening a person's job security and livelihood!

There are many different examples of individual's personal perception. Some see the coloured dots...some don't...some see the face, others see the vase...the two coloured trainer...I see pink and white, other half sees green and grey...Who's right ???

Who decided that the mystery shopper looked younger than 25? That person's perception of age recognition and the colleagues cannot be compared, nor the colleague disciplined for having a different perspective. All the training manuals in the world can't dictate a right or wrong in personal perception, only the selling of goods to underage customers becomes a disciplinary matter, as it's illegal, and this is where it all comes into play...Tesco and the SM fear losing their liquor licence!

Until training, states that ALL customers should be asked for ID for age restricted sales, and put in every contract for each colleague to sign in agreement, then no disciplinary can be decided on a perception. It is clearly a case of Conduct V's Capability.
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

Redshoes

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #53 on: 31-08-20, 10:24AM »
The main points are that colleague asked, no ID was produced but sale was allowed. Colleague asked for ID so knew it was required. The mask part is irrelevant. At no point in the training does it ask us to ask a persons date of birth and then allow sale.
Checkouts have had enough training, briefs on how to deal with masks. The 17 years experience goes against the colleague rather than for them. After 17 years they should know the what is allowed. They have done the refresher training twice a year for 17 years. If they had been a new start and had only done induction there might be a margin of error as nobody remembers everything from training.
Of all the test purchases it is the least serious to fail an internal mystery shopper.
It's not easy with masks, I grant that. Mistakes can happen as we are human, I get that  I'm just saying that saying experienced colleague won't help.

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6790
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #54 on: 31-08-20, 10:35AM »
The mystery shoppers they send in for test purchases while over 18 years old will look young, and will definitely not look over 25!

Morris999, failure on your part to explain who "they" referred to, plus the declaration that the mystery shopper will be over 18 assisted the confusion.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #55 on: 31-08-20, 03:15PM »
As the legislation on face coverings was only recently implemented, I very much doubt Tesco has updated their training on the think 25 policy with this addendum, the think 25 policy would be mandatory legal elearning training that the Store Manager would have to get everyone to do, if the OP didn't do the training with the updates on the face mask legislation, they can't be disciplined as they haven't received training on it.

Training doesn’t need updating as the legislation hasn’t changed, it was a temporary measure that has now ended, so normal Think 25 training is in effect, so if the colleague cannot assess the age of the customer due to a face covering, whether that be a crash helmet, religious covering or face mask then they are to ask the customer to remove it temporarily, if the customer refuses then the colleague is to refuse the sale.
That’s how it was before March and how it is now.

@barafear so in your own words you thought she looked under 25 but served her anyway, well in that case you failed to follow the Think 25 policy.
Regardless of your reasoning about the expense bottle of alcohol, you still served her even after you assessed her to look under 25.

@Nomad I don’t know if you missed the point completely or just decided to ignore it.
We both know that if the Police or Trading Standards did a test purchase it would be someone under 18, and if the colleague asked for ID, none was presented and the colleague still authorised the sale, then yes they would potentially be facing a criminal record and lose of job, does that make it clearer for you.

Legislation is still in place that a facemask should be worn in a retail environment, just because it isn't enforced (policy at the moment is to get the police to enforce the law) doesn't mean it's not the law, and as such makes a material change to the process of determining the age of the customer. Training needs to incorporate the process to ask customers to remove face mask coverings in light of the covid pandemic and should not be covered by current policies on religious headwear and face coverings as they're mutually exclusive and it's a reasonable assumption that asking customers to remove their facemask could be against the law (at the very least can confuse the employee) . If it isn't incorporated, employees can't be classed as "trained" on how to deal with the now common place scenario and as such can't be disciplined.

For more info https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own



« Last Edit: 31-08-20, 03:21PM by NightAndDay »

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #56 on: 31-08-20, 04:21PM »
You chat some utter s**t at times.

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6790
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #57 on: 31-08-20, 09:31PM »
Unless exempt for a medical reason customers are required by law to wear a face mask while in retail premises, as there appears to be no mention in the law of circumstances which allow temporary removal for any purpose asking somebody to do so is incitement to break the law.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #58 on: 31-08-20, 10:43PM »
Thank you Nomad

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #59 on: 31-08-20, 10:45PM »
"if asked to do so by shop staff or relevant employees for identification, for assessing health recommendations (e.g. by a pharmacist), or for age identification purposes including when buying age restricted products such as alcohol"

penguin

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1382
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #60 on: 31-08-20, 11:03PM »
Unless exempt for a medical reason customers are required by law to wear a face mask while in retail premises, as there appears to be no mention in the law of circumstances which allow temporary removal for any purpose asking somebody to do so is incitement to break the law.

A fair point, but then the law also says someone operating a till has to ensure nobody buys an item when underage, short of refusing to sell anything with an age restriction one is going to be either breaking the law on restricted sales or face coverings, set up to fail springs to mind.

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6790
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #61 on: 01-09-20, 10:27AM »
alf, where is that quote from ? link if possible please.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #62 on: 01-09-20, 10:53AM »
You can't TRAIN anybody to correctly asses a person's age...it's down to that individual's ability to be able to gauge whether the customer is of legal age, and that is the point here...LEGAL AGE. In the eyes of the law, the legal age is 18, so colleagues who have served a customer of legal age, have not committed any offence, yet Tesco managers feel justified in disciplining a NON wrongdoing, to the point of threatening a person's job security and livelihood!

There are many different examples of individual's personal perception. Some see the coloured dots...some don't...some see the face, others see the vase...the two coloured trainer...I see pink and white, other half sees green and grey...Who's right ???

Who decided that the mystery shopper looked younger than 25? That person's perception of age recognition and the colleagues cannot be compared, nor the colleague disciplined for having a different perspective. All the training manuals in the world can't dictate a right or wrong in personal perception, only the selling of goods to underage customers becomes a disciplinary matter, as it's illegal, and this is where it all comes into play...Tesco and the SM fear losing their liquor licence!

Until training, states that ALL customers should be asked for ID for age restricted sales, and put in every contract for each colleague to sign in agreement, then no disciplinary can be decided on a perception. It is clearly a case of Conduct V's Capability.

While you can't train anybody for this, there is a legal think 25 training that all employees have to complete, regardless of its inefficacy in improving age perception , if the training hasn't been completed then an employee can't be disciplined for failing the think 25 test purchase as they haven't been trained which would be evident by the employees E-learning module status.

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #63 on: 01-09-20, 11:57AM »
alf, where is that quote from ? link if possible please.

From the link night and day posted, which I find pretty hilarious.

NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #64 on: 01-09-20, 12:39PM »
The point is it has to be in Tescos think 25 training as well in order for colleagues to be able to be disciplined for that scenario, if it isn't then it's unreasonable to discipline because they wouldn't know the process.

My link was to refute the statement that legislation hasn't changed since March and that it was a temporary measure. The link shows this to be categorically false.
« Last Edit: 01-09-20, 12:43PM by NightAndDay »

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #65 on: 01-09-20, 01:01PM »
That why you thanked nomad and after he made a incorrect statement ayeeee.

Save your verysmart routine for some other time, but maybe actually read the s*** you post before waffling.


NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #66 on: 01-09-20, 01:10PM »
Shut your corporate ..............................................

Administrator Comment Out of order. Do not repeat. Nomad
« Last Edit: 01-09-20, 05:59PM by Nomad »

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #67 on: 01-09-20, 01:15PM »
But regardless of all this waffling, it’s very simple.

Employees are to think 25, and carry out the age restricted sales training they received (the stop access etc) Where needed.

If it cannot be conducted due to a face covering, either the sale does not continue or the covering is removed the steps are followed accordingly.

The change in legalisation makes no difference as the link nightandday kindly posted, highlights the exemption for age restricted sales and similar.

In short in terms of age restricted sales, nothing has changed.


alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #68 on: 01-09-20, 01:16PM »
Shut your corporate ..........................................................................

Brilliant, made my f****ng day that.
« Last Edit: 01-09-20, 05:59PM by Nomad »

NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #69 on: 01-09-20, 01:37PM »
Except the introduction of the legislation does change the process,  due to the simple fact that asking them to remove their face mask to the unknowing employee could cause them to think they are breaking the law regarding the new legislation. The training would need to address this.

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #70 on: 01-09-20, 02:03PM »
f*** you sprout some nonsense, training doesn’t need to address every possible incorrect  thought a employee could have.


If a employee takes it upon themselves to not follow provided training, because they think They know better, the consequences are on them.


NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #71 on: 01-09-20, 02:09PM »
It is now the norm to serve customers who wear facemasks in a retail setting because of the covid pandemic and legislation, I would actually think it common sense to have covid legislation awareness put in to the existing think 25 training saying that it is still policy and allowed by law to ask customers to remove their facemasks in order to verify their age, at the end of the day however, it is the judge who decides whether the training given is reasonable enough that the employee should know better, most sensible people would see no mentioning of the new normal in the training as not being sufficient.
« Last Edit: 01-09-20, 02:14PM by NightAndDay »

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #72 on: 01-09-20, 02:47PM »
This is all utter nonsense, training doesn’t need to be updated where no change has occurred.

But by all means continue the baseless speculation. Better yet, anyone reading this, ignore the training and process as many age restricted Sales as possible where the customer is wearing a face mask.

And when you’re eventually sacked, take Tesco through the employee tribunal and get that 6 figure payout this donut alluded to.



NightAndDay

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #73 on: 01-09-20, 03:17PM »
I would humbly suggest that change has indeed occurred, namely, the vast majority of customers now wear facemasks due to legislative changes compared with the pre-covid times, previous think 25 face mask training didn't take into account the new legislation, it only took into account religion and casual wear as well as the fact that it only applied to the vast minority of cases unlike today.
« Last Edit: 01-09-20, 03:19PM by NightAndDay »

alf

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 480
Re: Think 25 and facemasks
« Reply #74 on: 01-09-20, 03:45PM »
The occurrence of face coverings is of no concern, I’m also fairly sure training does not even mention face coverings religious or otherwise, not 100% sure on that though.

The training is more encompassing it doesn’t focus on specific occurrences. you stop and access (think 25), ask for ID If they appear under 25, and follow the standard guidance and either process or refuse.

A point people are missing, even if for some reason an employee thought they couldn’t ask a customer to remove their covering, the default action is too then refuse the sale, not to process it.

If you feel any disciplinary action resulting from the employee ignoring their training is  unreasonable for whatever reason, cultural changes included, that is your prerogative.



 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk