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

bendix

ninky wrote: »

OH suggested putting plastic grapes up in the kitchen as a decorative feature. he equally cringes at the british middle class love of victorian fireplaces, especially when filled with candles of pine cones.

.

Funny you should say that. My OH - also from another culture - has tried to buy plastic fruit and flowers as decorative items also. I thought it was just her - I'm delighted to hear she's not a freak.

lemonjelly

bendix wrote: »

Is he being paid minimum wage or not? If yes, then what's the issue? If no, take it up with the local authorities.

And secondly, are his employers breaking other employment laws? Yes or no? If yes, take it up with the authorities. If no, what's the issue?

Other points made in your post may have some relevance, but just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right.

MP's expenses claims were legal, weren't they?

tesuhoha

bendix wrote: »

Being emotional doesnt help. Your argument is not strengthened by suggesting he has to work at 200%, and the emotional tone of your post suggests this guy is probably your bf.

But i digress.

I'm with carolt. There are only a couple of salient points here. Is he being paid minimum wage or not? If yes, then what's the issue? If no, take it up with the local authorities.

And secondly, are his employers breaking other employment laws? Yes or no? If yes, take it up with the authorities. If no, what's the issue?

Where does this guy come from? It's a bit bloody rich complaining about working conditions, if he is an economic migrant. He has a choice. Like it or lump it. What are the conditions like in his home country? And - by your own admission - he is sending money back home to his family, or at least trying to.

Also you seem to be saying that because he's an economic migrant then he shouldn't expect to be treated any better than this. Under European Law he has as much right to work here as any of us.

bendix

tesuhoha wrote: »

You are wrong; he is not my bf. Also I did not coin the phrase 200%. He met someone who was sacked from there because they were only working at 120%. That was the reason they gave him why he was sacked, so its Tesco's phrase not mine. His choices I have already mentioned in my previous post, unemployment in his home country. I don't know if they are breaking employment laws by sacking people for the least reason, but if they were employed by the company directly then they would all certainly be able to complain about unfair conditions/unfair dismissal. He is not complaining but is very fearful of losing the job because although he is athletic and fit he cannot keep up with the 200% that they say they expect. I have already said twice that they have sacked 1000+ people this year and the only ones that can keep up the gruelling regime are on steroids. It is me that thinks it unfair that someone who wants to work is being pushed impossibly hard and they stand to lose their job because of these impossible expectations. If that makes me emotional then yes I suppose I am because I dont believe in slavery. I think if you work hard then you should expect to be kept on at a job.

A lot of this sounds like hearsay and exaggeration to me. Tesco's are not stupid. They would not breach employment laws willynilly, and when i hear phrases like 'you're fired for only working 120%' or that they have dismissed 1000+ people it just sounds like nonsense.

There is only one key employment law point here though. Is he employed by Tesco's or the agency, because - frankly - if he is agency staff he is not employed by Tescos at all. He will be deemed to be a private contractor and Tesco's can cancel his work at anytime they see fit, for whatever reason. It is a business relationship, not an employer / employee relationship.

bendix

tesuhoha wrote: »

Also you seem to be saying that because he's an economic migrant then he shouldn't expect to be treated any better than this. Under European Law he has as much right to work here as any of us.

Noone has a RIGHT to work;not him, not you and not me. Otherwise, why would there be 2.5 million unemployed and another 2.5m on incapacity benefit?

It is something which has to be earned, by having skills or experience which are wanted by an employer.

He does, of course, have a right to seek work here, and noone begrudges him that. He also has the right to turn down work that doesnt meet his requirements. But if he doesnt have the skills people want (and you mentioned his English is not great), that is noone's fault really, is it? Except his own, of course.

tesuhoha

bendix wrote: »

A lot of this sounds like hearsay and exaggeration to me. Tesco's are not stupid. They would not breach employment laws willynilly, and when i hear phrases like 'you're fired for only working 120%' or that they have dismissed 1000+ people it just sounds like nonsense.

There is only one key employment law point here though. Is he employed by Tesco's or the agency, because - frankly - if he is agency staff he is not employed by Tescos at all. He will be deemed to be a private contractor and Tesco's can cancel his work at anytime they see fit, for whatever reason. It is a business relationship, not an employer / employee relationship.

Then perhaps as well as the Government, Tesco and companies like it can be blamed for undermining the workforce in this country. This does not just affect migrant workers. It affects anyone who wants a job with a supermarket and it is helping to drive down the wages of people who have to pay mortgages and support families. Dare I say it, its helping to increase the gap between rich and poor.

People find it easy to blame the migrant workers for this but they are just doing what they can to survive like anyone else. Tesco is taking the advantage of having an unlimited labour supply to call upon and their profits are increasing. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with this and you won't until the day a member of your family is affected by it. Maybe that day will never come, who knows.

tesuhoha

bendix wrote: »

Noone has a RIGHT to work;not him, not you and not me. Otherwise, why would there be 2.5 million unemployed and another 2.5m on incapacity benefit?

It is something which has to be earned, by having skills or experience which are wanted by an employer.

He does, of course, have a right to seek work here, and noone begrudges him that. He also has the right to turn down work that doesnt meet his requirements. But if he doesnt have the skills people want (and you mentioned his English is not great), that is noone's fault really, is it? Except his own, of course.

His English is almost fluent, more than adequate for a picker in a warehouse. He has a degree in aeronautic engineering but you are right, he has no skills or experience which are wanted by an employer.

tesuhoha

I don't think by the way that the person would lie about the reason they were sacked from the warehouse. What would be the point in that?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Noone has a RIGHT to work;not him, not you and not me. Otherwise, why would there be 2.5 million unemployed and another 2.5m on incapacity benefit?

.

and here's the problem with our current free market system. it gives no one the right to work but does give the right to charge for access to natural resources (food, land, water....give half a chance they'll put a charge on oxygen too) that really we all have a right to access for free.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

and here's the problem with our current free market system. it gives no one the right to work but does give the right to charge for access to natural resources (food, land, water....give half a chance they'll put a charge on oxygen too) that really we all have a right to access for free.

Yes, I sort of agree. although food we charge for has cost us to provide. But, yes, though its possible to eat alot by forgaing it get harder. Of course, it gets harder till the more heavy the population fighting for the smae resorces.