The Reality of Working for a Supermarket in 2009/Return to Victorian Britain

Altarf

lostinrates wrote: »

One of the isues of British high street is opening hours.

Which is why all the local small shops (butcher, baker, etc) have closed. They were not open at 7am when I (any many others are off to work) and are long closed by the time I return. In fact if you ever went into a baker after lunchtime to buy a loaf of bread, they would look at you as if you had two heads.

So is it any wonder that the supermarkets with their early/late opening, stock on the shelves, easy parking, etc have slaughtered to local retailer.

Could the local small shopkeeper have fixed it on their own. No. It works on the continent because everyone knows that shop type x doesn't open until 11am, but stays open late, shop type y opens early and stay open late, but closes from 12 to 2. Here you would just get confused and angry people.

chucknorris

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I've always thought that.
Often in France the fishmonger is open until 7pm (having closed say 1pm-4pm).
How many people cook in this country though ?

I like cooking. I usually shop online now as Sainsburys delivers for free on Tues/Wed/Thurs as long as you order over £100. Plus they have a wider choice online than the smaller supermarket in our town (Dorking). Which reminds me I have to book next weeks order now to make sure I get a convenient time slot.

Shakethedisease

I read that Gordon Brown is going to give temp workers the same right as permanent staff. What does this acutally mean?

In Spain for example, if after two years you are still a temp worker the company you work for has to make you permanent

Not a lot I suspect. When I worked in factories you were taken on as temp staff, then the day before they had to offer you a permanent contract you were 'paid off' officially.. but in reality were asked to take a weeks 'holiday' and taken back on again on a brand new shiny TEMPORARY contract. And so it continued.. I can't remember any of the guys and girls I worked with every gaining permanent status.

Haven't they closed this loophole yet ?

Paulgonnabedebtfree

bendix wrote: »

And how have supermarkets killed the highstreet? That is palpable nonsense. They have CHANGED the highstreet, and the last time I walked down my high street I saw a wide range of shops including (from memory) a supermarket and a supermarket metro store, numerous newsagencies, two bakers, a fish shop, a variety of clothes stores, several coffee shops and restaurants, two household goods stores (independent), a whole line of fruit and vegetable sellers on stalls, several specialist snack retailers like cinnabon etc, a record store, a bookshop, two florists, a greeting card store etc etc. Oh, and a post office and the usual run of banks and building societies.

If that is a high street that has been killed, then I'm a banana.

Curiously everything that could be bought in the small stores is pretty much available in the supermarket too, and yet the two exist side by side, each offering something different to shoppers with different needs and wants.

.and then you got back in your Tardis to come back to the present day .
Seriously though, I don't think anyone is complaining too much about minimum wage. It is low but, in a recession, many pay rates would be a lot worse without it. If I had no debt, as a single person without entitlement to benefits, I would take home maybe £200 a week. It would vary a bit depending on the exact length of the working week of course. Let's call that take pay home about £867 per calendar month. In the not particularly plush area where I live, the rent for a tiny flat would be £500+ a month (that's a conservative amount). The council tax on such a place would be at least £75 a month. So that's £575 a month from £867 leaving £292 for getting to work and back, eating, and gas/electric and anything else that may need doing like dentistry, prescriptions, glasses if needed. It is doable and with careful management there would be no need to starve or freeze. Not much of a life though.
However, the main issue seems to be the way the workers are treated. I know that if I got a job at a place like that with !!!!!! timing a toilet break etc etc, I would possibly be giving a fair bit of abuse on my way out of the door. I've been self-employed a long time so I'm probably unemployable anyway.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but there does seem to be a flavour (from some - not all) on this thread that as it's "only" a bunch of immigrants then the conditions don't really matter. I would dispute this. Firstly because they are human beings too and deserve the reasonable respect afforded to everyone else until such time as they show themselves to be not deserving of it. Secondly, as the economy tightens up, maybe some of the indigenous population will want those jobs. To OK the treatment of the current workforce in such a dump is to potentially OK such conditions for all of us IMO.
Yes we do want cheap food. Of course we do. I believe that paying a little bit more for food is the cheaper cost in the longer term though.
BTW. In case anyone is wondering I am a white English person who has lived in England all my life and as far as I'm aware, I have no relatives from other nations. This isn't totally traceable as my father was adopted in the 1920s and his father is unknown but it is probably true.

lostinrates

Altarf wrote: »

. It works on the continent because everyone knows that shop type x doesn't open until 11am, but stays open late, shop type y opens early and stay open late, but closes from 12 to 2. Here you would just get confused and angry people.

actually, part of the reason it works is that there have been controls on what supermarkets in some EU ontries ould sell. These were hanging as I lived in Italy, with supermarkets coming in from Frane and Germany, and it will be interesting to see how that hanges the shape of shoppig in italy (where supermakets are still small and often on high streets). In frnace I think geography is part of it. Its a very ling time since I lived in France as a child, but the drives to the wonderful hypermarket seemed .....never ending. Thats why people bought closer to home for fresh goods. and of ourse quality of produce

chopperharris

Altarf wrote: »

Which is why all the local small shops (butcher, baker, etc) have closed. They were not open at 7am when I (any many others are off to work) and are long closed by the time I return. In fact if you ever went into a baker after lunchtime to buy a loaf of bread, they would look at you as if you had two heads.

So is it any wonder that the supermarkets with their early/late opening, stock on the shelves, easy parking, etc have slaughtered to local retailer.

Could the local small shopkeeper have fixed it on their own. No. It works on the continent because everyone knows that shop type x doesn't open until 11am, but stays open late, shop type y opens early and stay open late, but closes from 12 to 2. Here you would just get confused and angry people.

This was exactly the problem , if they had adapted they would still have short term but evetuallly been destroyed though...they simply cannot get stock at the same price , and therefore compete at the same levels.

Then councils take away parking on the high street.Anywhere else you would be asking if your govt or council is in their pockets.

The grocer smelled the free trade columbian coffee , and sold their shops off to imigrants laughing all the way.They only survive by being co-ops and not having wages but merley working to live.

Our high streets are now all pound and card shops , the supermarket has eyes on the chemist , banks and opticians are next ....there wont be much more left after that.

bendix

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

.Seriously though, I don't think anyone is complaining too much about minimum wage. It is low but, in a recession, many pay rates would be a lot worse without it. If I had no debt, as a single person without entitlement to benefits, I would take home maybe £200 a week. It would vary a bit depending on the exact length of the working week of course. Let's call that take pay home about £867 per calendar month. In the not particularly plush area where I live, the rent for a tiny flat would be £500+ a month (that's a conservative amount). The council tax on such a place would be at least £75 a month. So that's £575 a month from £867 leaving £292 for getting to work and back, eating, and gas/electric and anything else that may need doing like dentistry, prescriptions, glasses if needed. It is doable and with careful management there would be no need to starve or freeze. Not much of a life though..

There seems to be this assumption today that EVERYONE is entitled to some kind of red rose, white picketfence home and garden type existence, irrespective of their economic circumstances.

Let's be blunt. These type of roles are low value and low skill. Pretty much anyone can do them - that is why they are low paid. They are NOT a passport to a middle-class lifestyle.

In the past, such roles would have been done by trainees straight out of school, or students keen to earn some beer money, or bored unskilled housewives who wanted to get out of the home for a while. They are not careers. The type of people in them usually flatted or had other people to support them - they have never been intended to support a family or generate an income to afford running two cars and two holidays.

So why agonise over it?

The change, now, is that most of these roles seem to be filled by economic migrants (because us Brits are too busy spending our welfare cheques and too lazy to work) who have aspirations to support families on these jobs. It's just not going to happen, and neither should it.

Another comment. Someone earlier mentioned the rise of the domestic staff again. Come on . . get real. They only people employed as nannies, cleaners and domestics these days are economic migrants too.

Altarf

I think the local council is in a difficult position, not helped by the attitudes of most councillors.

My town (a medium size market town) has the usual problems of traffic, lack of parking, retail closures, etc. However the councillors seem polarised over what should be done. You have the car is evil brigade, who want to make life as difficult as possible for anyone to drive in (despite the fact there are three supermarkets actually in the town centre). And then at the opposite end, those who want to make the car parks free to attract more cars. In the meantime chaos reigns.

Central government (and that is both parties) are the main cause, by allowing the retailers to develop the out of town supermarkets, without suffering the issues that the small shopkeeper has. For example parking. A supermarket can build a shop with a massive car park, and pay very favourable tax rates on the parking. If the supermarkets had been forced to pay in tax per space the same amount that a space in the nearest town centre car park had made in income for the council, would they have taken the same decision to build?

Paulgonnabedebtfree

bendix wrote: »

There seems to be this assumption today that EVERYONE is entitled to some kind of red rose, white picketfence home and garden type existence, irrespective of their economic circumstances.

Let's be blunt. These type of roles are low value and low skill. Pretty much anyone can do them - that is why they are low paid. They are NOT a passport to a middle-class lifestyle.

In the past, such roles would have been done by trainees straight out of school, or students keen to earn some beer money, or bored unskilled housewives who wanted to get out of the home for a while. They are not careers. The type of people in them usually flatted or had other people to support them - they have never been intended to support a family or generate an income to afford running two cars and two holidays.

So why agonise over it?

The change, now, is that most of these roles seem to be filled by economic migrants (because us Brits are too busy spending our welfare cheques and too lazy to work) who have aspirations to support families on these jobs. It's just not going to happen, and neither should it.

Another comment. Someone earlier mentioned the rise of the domestic staff again. Come on . . get real. They only people employed as nannies, cleaners and domestics these days are economic migrants too.

I don't think anyone seriously expects a glittering lifestyle from the income such a job would bring. Having a holiday of any sort would only be possible if you had a free or very cheap place to stay (e.g. visiting relatives back home). Certainly even running just one banger would be too expensive.
The main beef however is that there is no need to treat people with such disrespect on top of paying a low wage. Zero hour contracts and timing toilet breaks are just not on IMO. Someone usually uses a proportion of their wage to gewt to work. To be sent home and be able to earn no money after taking the time, effort, and possible expense (while earning a low wage) to get there is abuse. If someone treated me like that I would probably offer to reduce the toilet time by peeing in front of them (wouldn't actually do it of course). I wouldn't last two minutes in a place like that and, I regret to say, would probably react to such abuse with some abuse of my own.

andygb

I agree Paul, it all comes down to treating people decently, and this employer (aided by the agencies), are not doing that. There are as you have pointed out, many types of people who will do this kind of work, but they will be desperate, badly educated or maybe an immigrant.
I have worked for agencies, and they are always trying to lower the candidates hourly rate, in order to maximise their commission and fight off other competition from the client. Unfortunately this has all gone too far. We often hear the expression "Lazy British worker", as if simply saying this, helps salve the conscience of employers and politicians. What it does, is to show a green light to employers who wish to exploit their staff. When I was temping for around six years, I never once received any sick pay, the additional "holiday" pay was factored in, so that my actual hourly rate did not in fact go up. Agency workers have virtually no rights, unlike a member who has been employed by a company for more than a year.
Why are many jobs considered to be "minimum wage", who decides how much one person is worth? One person on here in particular was very vocal in rubbishing people as lazy, but I wonder where he/she was employed. Who decided if they were worth it?
Like Paul, I have been in situations where I have simply answered back when someone has insulted me, and it has resulted in a parting of the ways. My view is, that as long as you continue to allow people to mistreat you or others, then things will not change for the better. The whole point of trade unions was to stand up for workers rights, unfortunately things changed in the seventies and eighties, and as a result employees are facing an unfair challenge in the work place.