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

Generali

bendix wrote: »

Well, your sector is hardly typical is it? It strikes me as ironic though that recriutment practices inthe so called liberal creative arts sector are more closed to those who don't fit in, than the hard-edged legal sector. :rotfl:

But,then again, perhaps it's not surprising. It's always been a bit preachy, yet overlaid with a wonderful layer of NIMBYism, hasn't it?

Maximum wage? How intriguingly meritocratic. And at what level would you set it? Let me hazard a completely wild guess and say it's a bit more than . . . . oh . . . how about £1500 a week?

Generally speaking I would imagine most people would want a mximum wage set at about 30% more than they currently aspire to.

The UK tried a maximum wage in effect in the late 60s and 70s (some marginal tax rates were above 100%).

The result? Maggie Thatcher.

carolt

ninky wrote: »

absolute tosh and complete leftwing immigrant bashing. the reason we don't have jobs with decent pensions etc is because successive governments have seen fit to undermine any legistlation that had been put in place to protect workers. as others have pointed out, tesco are doing nothing illegal (as if only illegal things are morally wrong). this is the problem. the laws of the land allow employers to behave in this way. i think we'd do well to take the fact this person is an immigrant out of the equation and assess whether we think this is a way people should be allowed to employ people or not.

I don't quite get how it's "left-wing immigrant bashing" - I actually agree with you 100%, the fact that the person described in the OP is an immigrant is irrelevant - it was the OP who felt this person's status as an immigrant was somehow relevant, not me.

I see it as relevant only insofar as they have a lot more flexibility than the rest of us - by definition, they are someone who is in a position to travel to other countries to seek work - most of us, by reason of geographical ties, families, schools, lack of knowledge of foreign languages etc are not in that fortunate position, and have to make do with whatever they can find. So it made it even less clear why they felt - graduate and all! - that working in a crap job at Tesco's was their only option!

I didn't get that to start with, and I still don't - nothing that has been written has made it any clearer why they can't just get a better job elsewhere, or why poor Tesco has got it in the neck, rather than say,, the lovely Waitrose, where presumably this poor individual can't get a job at all, for all their lovely employment practices.

I think you've hit the nail on the head ninky, when you said that:

"this is the problem. the laws of the land allow employers to behave in this way" - exactly - Tesco's are only doing what they are allowed to do, as do thousands of other companies.

But what's the alternative? Neither you nor any other poster on here has suggested how we should rectify the situation. It would be lovely to turn the clock back to 1950's style secure jobs-for-life. But, realistically, our competition is global, and we can be pretty sure the Chinese, Indian etc etc companies aren't all going to do that, so we if we are to have any jobs left in the UK at all - or so the argument goes - either we also make labour cheaper and more flexible - or we sink.

Obviously, there are other alternatives. One - that we see a return to some form of communism, as Bendix suggested - is probably a step too far for the great British public to swallow. Personally, as a socialist, I'm not necessarily against that. Or some elements of it. But I think you'd have problems getting the Great British Public to agree to that.

Another alternative is to turn ourselves into a more high-tec or specialised economy like Germany, where we focus on high-end products that the rest of the global low-cost workforce can't compete on.

Whichever, just moaning about one's lot in the meantime will achieve precisely zero. By all means lobby, become a politician, DO something.

But I find all this sitting around whinging, doing nothing the rectify the situation pointless and deeply annoying.

It would be like me going to Poland, say, to work, and then complaining that (even though I don't speak Polish very well) I can't get a decent job. And that some large Polish company ought to give me a nice job. It's just silly.

i8change

The answer is simple - there are only a certain number of jobs available at John Lewis. Once that quote of better paid jobs at a desirable employer is filled, the remaining workers - presumably those that John Lewis and other better employers don't want - will settle down to their natural level and seek to get less desirable jobs at other companies which pay lower wages at such places as Tesco and Currys.

The shopping experience is likely to be better at John Lewis as a result. So be it. That is a commercial risk that Tesco and Currys will take. That Tescos are making huge profits seems to suggest it is one that works for them. Some people will prefer to shop at John Lewis because of the better experience; others will go with cheap and less than cheerful Tesco with its crappy staff.

So be it.

If that isnt market forces at work, then I'm a banana.

So you just state the obvious that market forces exist, but cannot prove that market forces are the driver of Tesco treating staff poorly or John Lewis paying well.
You never will because there is no economic imperative for them to do either. Tesco could choose to pay more and treat staff better and still make a good profit. John Lewis could choose pay less and make a bit more profit. The "market" does n't force their hand either way. You know it and I know it.

Also, your understanding of the economics of the situation (as outlined above) is way out of date and thus in erroneous in part. As I have pointed out on this thread, at these wage levels the actual income for many of the staff (those with kids) is set, ultimately, by Goverment via Tax Credits.
Neither company sets the actual level of financial motivation for those people. Some people at Tesco get more money, and are thus more financially motivated, than others at John Lewis, regardless of a lower actual wage.
Tesco and Currys wage bills are, in effect, subsidised to a larger extent by the Taxpayer than those of John Lewis.
Market labour rates are not a universal reality for individuals, at that level, and have not been for many years.

carolt

The driver is that Tesco want bigger profits. Tesco shareholders want bigger profits. Waitrose and the John Lewis group are run by the workers themselves, as far as I know, which is why of course they're not going to decide to pay themselves less - there are no shareholders demanding higher profits.

The problem is the nature of capitalism, which is based on human greed. It's not nice. You could, if you chose, even describe it as immoral, as one poster did above.

But please suggest a better system.

If it's greater regulation, or some form of socialism, I'd be with you - but I doubt many others would.

Or what is your solution?

i8change

Or what is your solution?

I like my Tax Credit reversal idea in an earlier post on this thread.

But realistically, I only suggest that some may wish to take their custom elsewhere if they are not keen on the way a particular company treats some of it's staff. Nothing more.

Human greed & lazyness; capitalism & regulation, it's a constant balancing act with no exact and universally just solution. I really fear the future effects of globalisation and think it may make the balancing act much harder!
I am feeling old (50 next year) and can still remember the "buy British" campaign, so much has changed in what seems so little time.

fedupfreda

tesuhoha wrote: »

and it seems that the general consensus at that time was that there was a labour shortage in Britain and migrants were being encouraged to come here.

Labour shortage? So why was there still unemployment, even in the so-called boom years then??

The real reason no one wanted to do those jobs was a) they didn't pay a living wage and b) living on benefits offered a better standard of living without having to slog your guts out in a slave driven McJob. Had benefits been lower, we would not have invited migrants over to fill the lower paid jobs -because enough of the current population would have thought work was a better option than struggling on benefits. ( BTW You would still have had highly qualified migrants filling jobs as doctors, dentists etc, because our own have gone elsewhere chasing better opportunities, such is the nature of economics..)

The reality is that these jobs have to be done - and not everyone has a partner with a well paid job, to make up the shortfall between actual income and a living wage. Every penny counts. Sometimes people do these jobs because they have no alternative - they have other responsibilities or it is the only job available in their area/offering the hours they are available for work. I would rather people worked and earned an honest living, whatever the job, rather than sat on their backside all day and accepted the handouts. So you have to make it possible for these jobs to pay in a country where the cost of living is becoming increasingly prohibitive. This is the challenge. Not 'how do we stop immigrants taking our jobs'. The people who were already here - didn't want them. They couldn't afford to take them on. (This last remark is not directed at anyone in particular BTW!)

elfen

lostinrates wrote: »

I have no really strong feelings, other than that I'd see the healthy waste go to the genuinely in need, e.g. the homeless.

Used to live in a hostel that this occured in. However, only certain places would (like M&S) Still had to do a big shop on a Monday (the hostel cook, not me) They did do very nice jellies however.

My Dad works at Tescos Express where I come from. He HATES it when staff from other stores come in as they mess up the system the home store staff have in place (they've been working together since it was a One Stop, at least now it's cheaper) His main job is deliveries, he is basically the Deliveries Manager, though he doesn't get paid for this, but he should. And he's a shareholder, so in effect he IS actually part of the company (I'm sure if there was a major hoohah all the Tescos employees with shares would vote together - that's a LOT of votes)

I think it's more now some people get paid a lot less than they should, mainly due to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and "agencies" , but also due to the fact that there is less being produced in this country - food, clothing and any other goods wise. Nearly every industry that has a factory/employment sector in this country also has one in a different country, where the things can be made more cheaply, but possibly not to the same quality. Privatisation messed many things up, give the people back the ability to make the products, and we'd do a better job - it may cost more, and prices would go up as a result, but we would be a more independent economically and industrially as a country - not to mention, lower unemployment hopefully.

el_gringo_3

This theread is far too long for me to read in its entirity but i'll make a few points:

Firstly its a shame how much you highlight this lads foreign background - there are agancy workers in large companies all over the country of many colours and creeds facing similar issues - I once walked out of an agency call centre job when told i would be timed on a set number of toilet breaks, after three hours. I was lucky, I could fall back on my student loan.

tesuhoha wrote: »

I dont know. I only know they work it out by how much they 'pick'/load per hour.

I worked in a warehouse for a month that distributed for a major chain of 24 hr/convenience type stores. 100% was what one was expected to achieve in terms of time to do one list of picks - or one pallet, cage etc. If you took more time, your score was below 100%, less it was above, and you got a bonus for each % above - 12p or so - up to 120% -they felt that working above 120% would badly affect ones health. I'm told that not long after I left they stopped employing people directly, and moved to agency workers - who were all being paid minimum wage with no bonus, and were expected to hit 105%. We were on about £6.50 basic, £7.50 for nights i think - this was nearly ten years back.

Also somebody very foolishly made a comment that one could become an excutive through hard graft alone working from the bottom in the door to door sales business - I suggest you read all the longest threads on the 'jobs, employment and training' board and re-evaluate this comment.

el_gringo_3

fedupfreda wrote: »

Labour shortage? So why was there still unemployment, even in the so-called boom years then??

Theres a labour shortage now - unfortunately its in many of the industries that young people see as too much hard work for too little recompense - doctors, engineers, physicians and chemists are all in massive demand in virtually every country in the world. However, very few of these jobs offer the chances of important and very well paid positions - much better to do a business degree and join the thousands trying to be 'the apprentice' in marketing and hr positions on large companies graduate schemes, then invest in property and shares at a later date - beats hanging around in a lab or surgery for 50 years, the first 5 or 6 you don't get paid for.

nearlynew

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216429/Checkout-girl-chosen-new-face-Tesco-arrested-illegal-immigrant.html?ITO=1490