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

13-08-20, 09:17AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 6608
  • Latest: numbnut
Stats
  • Total Posts: 47868
  • Total Topics: 957
  • Online Today: 93
  • Online Ever: 525
  • (11-07-20, 04:47PM)
Users Online

Poll

Is company trying to circumvent redundancy laws.

Yes
102 (82.3%)
No
11 (8.9%)
Sometimes
11 (8.9%)

Total Members Voted: 124

Author Topic: Redundancy laws.  (Read 4285 times)

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6745
  • Who dares, wins.
Redundancy laws.
« on: 26-07-20, 12:58PM »
Is company trying to circumvent redundancy laws either through the laws ambiguity or by MM bullying ?
« Last Edit: 27-07-20, 04:59PM by Nomad »
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

NightAndDay

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #1 on: 26-07-20, 02:52PM »
Yes they are, this isn't always with malicious intent though, a lot of SMs haven't had the training for the redundancy process, while consultants (a position at Tesco which will have a degree requirement, not the type of position which unqualified people can ascend to just because the manager likes their gumption or other nepotism based practices, mainly because of the risk of professional negligence lawsuits) will guide the SM/TM through the process and advise those meeting the criteria, The SM/TM will still have scope to act illegally whether intentional or not.

There's also General Counsel which will research legal loooholes etc, CSR has only ever been important to Tesco for its PR relations, its core business model is money > people.
« Last Edit: 26-07-20, 02:54PM by NightAndDay »

miriam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #2 on: 26-07-20, 06:12PM »
They have a master's in victomising

I would like to know how they get away with the things they practice


Munchkin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #3 on: 26-07-20, 07:27PM »
They get away with a lot of things they practice because of people's apathy life is not about what's right and wrong anymore it's about what you can get away with because the paths of recourse and justice are beyond many peoples reach due to lack of knowledge resources and means so people take their beatings and carry on working even harder the morals of business and society have been eroded to create an every man for himself world its all about keeping the people suppressed

Redshoes

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 769
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #4 on: 27-07-20, 10:34AM »
I think that when you look at the changes that have taken place in Express and Metro stores in recent years and e fact that for years now we have not had our Depts on our badges the law will not support people not wanting to move roles. The days of us coming to work and knowing what we will be doing with our day may be over. The days of coming in and finding we have been redeployed into another area to cover for sick etc are already here.
The Express and Metro stores are now facing the fact that cleaners have been removed. Compare that with someone on the desk finding out that they need to cover a sickness on checkouts. Then compare that again with the fact that someone from stock control might have to move to PI as stock control is over hours but PI is under.
The days of not wanting to work weekends, not wanting to work evenings are over. We have to function as stores and not liking the change and not wanting the change is totally different from not being able to work newly offered hours. We work in retail and if you don't want the retail hours you need to go as you just add pressure to the rest of us. You not wanting the change will just force someone else into changing. The move just goes to someone else.
Moves that affect pay and hours you are unable to do are different. You have the right to protected pay and you can't be forced into starting at 5am when the first bus is at 6am for example.
Someone with health issues should not automatically end up on checkouts. They end up with a higher percentage of colleagues with health issues and therefore more people who go off sick. Checkout colleagues should be recruited on people skills not health. The however is that if you can no longer work on dot.com as a driver lifting trays you should not be offered a job at the back door and have to tip a waggon.
To my mind, if you have a colleague who can no longer do the role they are in due to health issues they do need support to find them another role. There is a line though and if it comes to making a job for them, this is wrong. You can always say that checkouts will always need overtime so therefore can run over hours but with less overtime. The reality is they end up with higher sick, as previously mentioned but then the hours are also in the wrong place and they can't get overtime as over hours.
If you work for one of the discounters you work in all areas of the store. You can even be sent to other stores with very short notice. Many people can't cope with the conditions and the turn over is high so they offer more money.
Changes to the way things are done are stressful and worrying but we have a whole legal team in head office. They may push boundaries but they don't want tribunals so will stay this side of it. They may decide it's worth the cost of a tribunal at times, I don't know that as I'm not part of that legal team. When we have had redundancies they pay more than they legally have to. I suspect it will go as far as looking at individual cases and if it gets as far as redundancy it won't be the big package we have had it will be the minimum they can get away with.
In conclusion I tend to think that a whole legal team in head office know more than someone on the shop floor researching online.  Head office may push the boundaries but someone on the shop floor may do that too fighting back.

dotnochance

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #5 on: 27-07-20, 11:36AM »
Administrator Comment Sorry, rephrase you comment.
« Last Edit: 27-07-20, 12:24PM by Nomad »

NightAndDay

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #6 on: 27-07-20, 03:06PM »
I think that when you look at the changes that have taken place in Express and Metro stores in recent years and e fact that for years now we have not had our Depts on our badges the law will not support people not wanting to move roles. The days of us coming to work and knowing what we will be doing with our day may be over. The days of coming in and finding we have been redeployed into another area to cover for sick etc are already here.
The Express and Metro stores are now facing the fact that cleaners have been removed. Compare that with someone on the desk finding out that they need to cover a sickness on checkouts. Then compare that again with the fact that someone from stock control might have to move to PI as stock control is over hours but PI is under.
The days of not wanting to work weekends, not wanting to work evenings are over. We have to function as stores and not liking the change and not wanting the change is totally different from not being able to work newly offered hours. We work in retail and if you don't want the retail hours you need to go as you just add pressure to the rest of us. You not wanting the change will just force someone else into changing. The move just goes to someone else.
Moves that affect pay and hours you are unable to do are different. You have the right to protected pay and you can't be forced into starting at 5am when the first bus is at 6am for example.
Someone with health issues should not automatically end up on checkouts. They end up with a higher percentage of colleagues with health issues and therefore more people who go off sick. Checkout colleagues should be recruited on people skills not health. The however is that if you can no longer work on dot.com as a driver lifting trays you should not be offered a job at the back door and have to tip a waggon.
To my mind, if you have a colleague who can no longer do the role they are in due to health issues they do need support to find them another role. There is a line though and if it comes to making a job for them, this is wrong. You can always say that checkouts will always need overtime so therefore can run over hours but with less overtime. The reality is they end up with higher sick, as previously mentioned but then the hours are also in the wrong place and they can't get overtime as over hours.
If you work for one of the discounters you work in all areas of the store. You can even be sent to other stores with very short notice. Many people can't cope with the conditions and the turn over is high so they offer more money.
Changes to the way things are done are stressful and worrying but we have a whole legal team in head office. They may push boundaries but they don't want tribunals so will stay this side of it. They may decide it's worth the cost of a tribunal at times, I don't know that as I'm not part of that legal team. When we have had redundancies they pay more than they legally have to. I suspect it will go as far as looking at individual cases and if it gets as far as redundancy it won't be the big package we have had it will be the minimum they can get away with.
In conclusion I tend to think that a whole legal team in head office know more than someone on the shop floor researching online.  Head office may push the boundaries but someone on the shop floor may do that too fighting back.

The vote is about Tescos adherance to redundancy laws and its perceived activity of actively trying to find and use legal loopholes, for the most part of what you say about moving people around, yes, there, there is no provisio in the law that says an employee in an unskilled role can't be moved to another unskilled role as long as pay is the same (which it will be for Tesco) and the reasonability test is in order, this is also true for employees in semi-skilled or skilled roles moving to an unskilled role under the condition their base  pay is not adversely effected (i e, protected pay isn't used) and that it passes the reasonability test (the new role doesn't effect existing medical conditions and hours of work aren't unreasonably adjusted) and the location of the new role is no further for travel than their current location.

Tesco using terms like soft structure change and informal consultations doesn't help with the perception that they're trying to pinch every penny and avoid paying out redundancy where they can. Of course it's in the businesses interests to avoid such costs, but there's a right way and wrong way of doing it and as the forum shows, their main way of doing it depends on lack of knowledge of redundancy and employment laws by the employee and they achieve this by either cajouling or bullying them out of the company.


Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6745
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #7 on: 27-07-20, 04:57PM »
The problem with a skilled person moving to an unskilled role is that their skill will not be kept up to date and/or refreshed either regularly or periodically.  They can accept the move if they wish but skilled to unskilled should not be classed as a reasonable alternative.

The remuneration package is not the be all and end all of all jobs, pride in ones skill can be just as important.

https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/suitable-alternative-employment
« Last Edit: 27-07-20, 05:04PM by Nomad »
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

King1999

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #8 on: 27-07-20, 05:28PM »
I think that when you look at the changes that have taken place in Express and Metro stores in recent years and e fact that for years now we have not had our Depts on our badges the law will not support people not wanting to move roles. The days of us coming to work and knowing what we will be doing with our day may be over. The days of coming in and finding we have been redeployed into another area to cover for sick etc are already here.
The Express and Metro stores are now facing the fact that cleaners have been removed. Compare that with someone on the desk finding out that they need to cover a sickness on checkouts. Then compare that again with the fact that someone from stock control might have to move to PI as stock control is over hours but PI is under.
The days of not wanting to work weekends, not wanting to work evenings are over. We have to function as stores and not liking the change and not wanting the change is totally different from not being able to work newly offered hours. We work in retail and if you don't want the retail hours you need to go as you just add pressure to the rest of us. You not wanting the change will just force someone else into changing. The move just goes to someone else.
Moves that affect pay and hours you are unable to do are different. You have the right to protected pay and you can't be forced into starting at 5am when the first bus is at 6am for example.
Someone with health issues should not automatically end up on checkouts. They end up with a higher percentage of colleagues with health issues and therefore more people who go off sick. Checkout colleagues should be recruited on people skills not health. The however is that if you can no longer work on dot.com as a driver lifting trays you should not be offered a job at the back door and have to tip a waggon.
To my mind, if you have a colleague who can no longer do the role they are in due to health issues they do need support to find them another role. There is a line though and if it comes to making a job for them, this is wrong. You can always say that checkouts will always need overtime so therefore can run over hours but with less overtime. The reality is they end up with higher sick, as previously mentioned but then the hours are also in the wrong place and they can't get overtime as over hours.
If you work for one of the discounters you work in all areas of the store. You can even be sent to other stores with very short notice. Many people can't cope with the conditions and the turn over is high so they offer more money.
Changes to the way things are done are stressful and worrying but we have a whole legal team in head office. They may push boundaries but they don't want tribunals so will stay this side of it. They may decide it's worth the cost of a tribunal at times, I don't know that as I'm not part of that legal team. When we have had redundancies they pay more than they legally have to. I suspect it will go as far as looking at individual cases and if it gets as far as redundancy it won't be the big package we have had it will be the minimum they can get away with.
In conclusion I tend to think that a whole legal team in head office know more than someone on the shop floor researching online.  Head office may push the boundaries but someone on the shop floor may do that too fighting back.
Agree and disagree they shouldn't as with me come to me about stock control........after the purge last year I was the only one left.Makes me sick.

LucyJ

  • VLH Supporter
  • Jr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 69
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #9 on: 28-07-20, 07:01PM »
Why does no one go to the papers on them and they way they do things?

notsofunny

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #10 on: 28-07-20, 11:36PM »
Since Tesco plan things out before they do things not a lot papers can do ,

Then the papers also depend on income from Those that advertise in the papers ,

Or it just could be that most papers are owned by those that think in the same way in that its all about profits and not jobs ,

After all if Unions dont do anything then why will anyone else ,,

Batmanjo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #11 on: 11-08-20, 11:47AM »
I think that when you look at the changes that have taken place in Express and Metro stores in recent years and e fact that for years now we have not had our Depts on our badges the law will not support people not wanting to move roles. The days of us coming to work and knowing what we will be doing with our day may be over. The days of coming in and finding we have been redeployed into another area to cover for sick etc are already here.
The Express and Metro stores are now facing the fact that cleaners have been removed. Compare that with someone on the desk finding out that they need to cover a sickness on checkouts. Then compare that again with the fact that someone from stock control might have to move to PI as stock control is over hours but PI is under.
The days of not wanting to work weekends, not wanting to work evenings are over. We have to function as stores and not liking the change and not wanting the change is totally different from not being able to work newly offered hours. We work in retail and if you don't want the retail hours you need to go as you just add pressure to the rest of us. You not wanting the change will just force someone else into changing. The move just goes to someone else.
Moves that affect pay and hours you are unable to do are different. You have the right to protected pay and you can't be forced into starting at 5am when the first bus is at 6am for example.
Someone with health issues should not automatically end up on checkouts. They end up with a higher percentage of colleagues with health issues and therefore more people who go off sick. Checkout colleagues should be recruited on people skills not health. The however is that if you can no longer work on dot.com as a driver lifting trays you should not be offered a job at the back door and have to tip a waggon.
To my mind, if you have a colleague who can no longer do the role they are in due to health issues they do need support to find them another role. There is a line though and if it comes to making a job for them, this is wrong. You can always say that checkouts will always need overtime so therefore can run over hours but with less overtime. The reality is they end up with higher sick, as previously mentioned but then the hours are also in the wrong place and they can't get overtime as over hours.
If you work for one of the discounters you work in all areas of the store. You can even be sent to other stores with very short notice. Many people can't cope with the conditions and the turn over is high so they offer more money.
Changes to the way things are done are stressful and worrying but we have a whole legal team in head office. They may push boundaries but they don't want tribunals so will stay this side of it. They may decide it's worth the cost of a tribunal at times, I don't know that as I'm not part of that legal team. When we have had redundancies they pay more than they legally have to. I suspect it will go as far as looking at individual cases and if it gets as far as redundancy it won't be the big package we have had it will be the minimum they can get away with.
In conclusion I tend to think that a whole legal team in head office know more than someone on the shop floor researching online.  Head office may push the boundaries but someone on the shop floor may do that too fighting back.

OMG just fell off my chair in fits of laughter at this comment, employees do not have to except what "the management" claim is the gospel !! if they did we would all end up as sheep just to dis one of the many comments anyone who was in the business prior to 2005 does not have to go on checkouts full stop,and are not required to explain anything except for the Union agreement. But management seem to think they can bully employees into the checkouts..... I refused and still refuse and guess what when they were told to back off or the would face legal action they did.Now they are trying other avenues and guess what I,m still laughing Occ Health was one option my answer after occ health I don't wish to let you see the report so you can't more wasted time and money.......

Shells379

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #12 on: 11-08-20, 04:51PM »
When the unions won’t even back you, and agree with Tesco on the “no redundancies, as a job is better than being made redundant in the present circumstances“ what hope is there? This does not take into account people’s personal circumstances.
Just a job change would be a consideration but when only hours offered are absolutely nothing like now and still no choice, it’s beyond belief to me how they can get away with everything.
Essential workers - yeah right! Until you’re not!


NightAndDay

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #13 on: 11-08-20, 05:12PM »
The unions stance shows how inept they are and that they're not fit for purpose and should be liquidated,  “no redundancies, as a job is better than being made redundant in the present circumstances“ would be laughed out by the courts, redundancy laws do exist, has been linked from the government website and rules over any mickey mouse unions opinions.

chris9997

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 386
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #14 on: 11-08-20, 05:41PM »
when the counters started closing last year everyone in most stores were offered redundency when in fact this in most cases could of resulted in staff being blended into other store roles.
 i think that at the end of the day when the store heat map is sent down with departments over hours and some departments under  hours the target would only be the over hours and just moving people around does nothing to the payrole , however redundency can slash pay role costs.

King1999

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #15 on: 11-08-20, 09:47PM »
The unions stance shows how inept they are and that they're not fit for purpose and should be liquidated,  “no redundancies, as a job is better than being made redundant in the present circumstances“ would be laughed out by the courts, redundancy laws do exist, has been linked from the government website and rules over any mickey mouse unions opinions.
It was ok to make the bakery staff redundant though.Totally agree union unfit for purpose and has been for along time......and what kind of a job does the union think people want with this company and how it treats its people now.

Redshoes

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 769
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #16 on: 12-08-20, 08:53AM »
Unions can only do so much. The union works by United people power so with a lower sign up it will lose power. People coming out because union not fighting the battles but it's a downward spiral. The alternative is just the few who are able to fight own battles doing so but that still leaves limited Union impact of structure changes. When you fight your own corner as an individual the best you can hope for is to ensure policy is followed.

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #17 on: 12-08-20, 11:00AM »
They were useless even with large membership , that's why people left .

Nomad

  • Administrator
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 6745
  • Who dares, wins.
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #18 on: 12-08-20, 11:24AM »
Exactly Welshie, if a union lets its members down then the members will depart.  That's the start of a downward spiral  :'( but they (union)  are to wrapped up in themselves to see that  >:(
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

NightAndDay

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #19 on: 12-08-20, 03:00PM »
Lack of legislation over impartialty and how unions must conduct themselves is also a major issue, it's no secret that Tesco paid off the union when union membership was at an all time low, the partnership agreement is also evidence of where their loyalties lie, it's high time some Social Tesco Warrior started a petition to replace USDAW with something akin to the RMT union that the transport industry have.

kaled78

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #20 on: 12-08-20, 03:16PM »
lot's of people were told it's compulsary to be in the Union,when they got the job,what a load of tosh,I and many others in my store have been with the company 30 years+ and never been in the union,we worked out once that between us we had saved enough money by not paying union fees for all those years to buy a new car!

chris9997

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 386
Re: Redundancy laws.
« Reply #21 on: 12-08-20, 06:51PM »
What I can’t understand with usdaw over the years they must have lost considerable revenue with the demise of bhs woolworth comet littlewoods stores but to name a few , however I looked at the accounts for the last period published and there does not appear much movement ,
What I did notice is the MASSIVE wage bill I think it was somewhere around the £9m mark.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk