Offensive Customer Services at Tesco and 19 Months out of date food.

davie24

There is a new uniform being rolled out across the country.

The new uniform,has new badges which state your first name,your department and the year you joined the company.This date does not mean the date you joined that particular store it refers to your start date in the company.

andyrules

I understand totally what the op is saying - it isn't difficult.

And yes, complaints do get things changed - as taxiphil has illustrated. In this case, clearly the situation shouldn't be arising - selling out of date grub really should be a big no-no and the store needs to buck up.

In general, a business might not be aware of any blip unless someone points it out. In such a case, they then have the opportunity to improve service, thus increasing favourable customer perception and ultimately business- isn't that what they want?

oldone_2

Even if selling out of date food may not be a danger to the consumer,it does show a lack of stock control which may indicate more serious deficiencies in for example food hygiene.

Running a large supermarket is not easy, and I would expect most managers would welcome customer feedback so that they can improve their service.

luridhue

uktim29 wrote: »

Hold on, you went there on holiday & you seem to know exactly how long two of the staff worked there? Why would you have noted that seeing it had nothing to do with your complaint?

Hmmm.



A little bit of digging shows Tescos only owned that store since 2005. Thats 3 years ago, you stated the staff had been there for 12 and 19 years. The property previously had been a Woolworths, none of the original staff had been employed due to competition and merging laws.

Are you sure you've got your facts right? (about all of this)

Hmmmm.

It does not specify the store merely how long they have been a member of the 'tesco team'. Considering you have said you don't shop there I am not surprised you haven't seen the badges. Also, are you so naive to believe that all the staff would have been newly recruited? Another point, I am not bothered about the turnaround of the people lower down the organisation, I am talking about turnaround of the managers and those that are able to effect changes. (Considering the lengths I have mentioned they clearly stay for a long time).

uktim29 wrote: »

I'm not bringing this up Phil without reason but for the sole purpose you've gone and mentioned it. I know for a fact I'm in the top 1% of the population as far as intelligence goes. Yes I know you'll do your falling over laughing thing. I just thought it might want to consider because you don't agree with someone it's not a real measure of being able to tell how intelligent they are. Doesn't take much brain to work that one out!

You really are one of the most staggeringly arrogant people on here. If you were in the top '1% of the population as far as intelligence goes' then why are your arguments so childish and why do you feel the need to call others liars if you are struggling to get your point across. You're a real know-it-all but you quite clearly do not know much and what you do 'know' is fabricated. (Have you considered joining Mensa to start to prove this point? If you manage to scrape through then I may see you at the AGM.)

I still do not understand why you have spent your time on this thread calling me a liar and generally annoying myself and others, I was not asking for some debate, my OP was asking for contact details. If you do not believe me then I honestly couldn't care less, the only people I am concerned about are Tesco and Environmental Health and I have all the evidence necessary to prove my point.

I suggest that instead of calling others liars and trying to prove a point (I do not as yet understand what you point has been) you could assist those that ask for help, as I did or perhaps if you do not have the means to help then stay quiet and allow others to assist without you feeling the need to make others aware you are there.

luridhue

I also suggest you get your facts right before trying to tell others they are wrong (the badges for instance,) it doesn't make you sound clever it merely proves how stupid your comments are.

uktim29

luridhue wrote: »

I also suggest you get your facts right before trying to tell others they are wrong (the badges for instance,) it doesn't make you sound clever it merely proves how stupid your comments are.

For one talking about facts you've stated I said I don't shop at Tescos. I'd love to see where you've got this idea from.

I go to several Tescos and they do not wear badges with lengths of service on them or year joined etc.

I've proved there staff turnover as was stated. Management turnover will be even higher, staff may stay in jobs for convenience, managers want a career, they are more likely to move/change to get what they want. I know the industry, it's no good trying to tell me I don't. You obviously don't as you were aware of any facts/statistic off the top of your head like I do.

As for childish arguments it seems whenever someone is upset on here that someone doesn't agree with them they then go round accusing them of being childish, trolls, etc. Which is far more childish.

Finally as I mentioned in that part of the posts I had no wish to talk about intelligence, it was only Phils theories he likes to come up with that I thought I'd have my say on. You also seem to have come up with bizarre analogy of intelligence vs whether someone agrees with what your saying or not which is fine if you want to carry on believing that.

Lacrimosa

uktim29 wrote: »

People must know what they're talking about before saying things like "simple as that".

Quite. Anyone can make a mistake, but most intelligent people will have the grace to concede when they are, or might be, wrong. I've yet to catch even a whiff of this from you, uktim29. This latest furore over the name badges is a point in case: davie24 has already mentioned that "there is a new uniform being rolled out across the country". Whether these have reached your local area yet is neither here nor there, except that you still seem to be insisting that they don't exist because you haven't seen them. Weird! Are you a flat-earther too?

uktim29 wrote: »

I'm not the one has constantly has to start calling people trolls because I rarely if ever agree with them.

Yes, and therein lays your problem, Tim. Someone who always disagrees will inevitably lack much credibility, not least when they're routinely having to pad out their arguments with ridicule and insults. Patting people like Sssssss on the back for their silly inflammatory comments only goes to weaken your position further. Sorry, but if you can't grasp this, you do still have an awful lot of growing up to do.

Few people here, I think, would object to hearing an alternative point of view if intelligently and sensitively put, but we've now heard yours several times over, Tim, and still don't think much of it. Please give it a rest.

To be honest, though, I didn't join either this thread or this forum to talk about uktim29, so this is me signing off and dropping out. Bye folks!

uktim29

Lacrimosa wrote: »

Tim. Someone who always disagrees will inevitably lack much credibility, not least when they're routinely having to pad out their arguments with ridicule and insults. Patting people like Sssssss on the back for their silly inflammatory comments only goes to weaken your position further. Sorry, but if you can't grasp this, you do still have an awful lot of growing up to do.

Complete hypocrisy. Just read it again Lacrimosa and see if you can work out why.

Lacrimosa wrote: »

Sorry, but if you can't grasp this

It would be nice if you'd practice what you preach.

uktim29

Lacrimosa wrote: »

Patting people like Sssssss on the back for their silly inflammatory comments only goes to weaken your position further.

It's almost pointless writing that. Only to people who disagree but not with those who do. It weakened my position in your mind and those who disagree. But then they don't agree with me, I don't agree with them, of course we're not going to think each others right.

Bamber19

oldone wrote: »

Even if selling out of date food may not be a danger to the consumer,it does show a lack of stock control which may indicate more serious deficiencies in for example food hygiene.

Someone said this earlier in the thread aswell, may have been you again but it's nonsense. A lack of stock control does not infer a single thing about hygiene or any other serious deficiency other than a lack of stock control.