Sainsbury's refusing applications if living more than 20 miles away

mountainofdebt

regardless of the rights and wrongs of Sainsbury's policy, I would be mortified if my OH took it upon himself to get as involved with my job search as the OP is.

marybelle01

mountainofdebt wrote: »

regardless of the rights and wrongs of Sainsbury's policy, I would be mortified if my OH took it upon himself to get as involved with my job search as the OP is.

Excellent point. Especiallly since it was the OP who lost his job and not the wife! One can only hope he has time to fit in his own job search whilst rectifying the faults of his wife's potemtial employers.

MusicalLawyer

Basic wage isn't bad for the job you do at Sainsburys - it's more than minimum wage. (Though Tesco do pay every so slightly more!)


When Sainsbury's recruit people they ask you live within X miles for most of the stores - not all of them have this policy. But it's different if you already work for the company and take a transfer etc, as this doesn't apply.

Sainsbury's have specific corporate values - which this policy contributes to. Mostly the carbon footprint and so forth.

That isn't the closes store to OP - as he stated that the nearest role was 26 miles away - if there was a position in a closer store, OP's OH would have a chance. How would OP feel if your nearest store gave the position to someone who lived 30 / 40 miles away rather than your OH who could live like 5 miles away?

Southend1

Emmzi wrote: »

not all discrimination is illegal discrimination.

for example I discriminate on grounds of "ability to do the job" or we'd all be in a mess!

Rightly so. And that is the only acceptable form of discrimination in recruitment! I used to work in retail and always used to ask whether candidates were able to get to the store by a certain time including on public holidays etc but it wouldn't have mattered where they lived as long as they could get there!

Emmzi

Southend1 wrote: »

Rightly so. And that is the only acceptable form of discrimination in recruitment!

In your opinion.

The law says different.

Southend1

Emmzi wrote: »

In your opinion.

The law says different.

True. But as a manager I always felt I had an obligation to the company to hire the best person for the job, not the person who was tallest/prettiest/lived closest/had the sharpest suit etc. Just as being black/white/gay/straight/Muslim/Hindu etc is completely irrelevant too.

MrSnuggles

Southend1 wrote: »

True. But as a manager I always felt I had an obligation to the company to hire the best person for the job, not the person who was tallest/prettiest/lived closest/had the sharpest suit etc. Just as being black/white/gay/straight/Muslim/Hindu etc is completely irrelevant too.

How close a person lives by and how presentable s/he is is also part of being the best person for the job in most cases. It's naive to claim looks don't matter because I'm sure customers prefer being in the presence of aesthetically pleasing people, just like the building's layout and products packaging.

Simple solution really. OP, relocate.

MrSnuggles

gringo69 wrote: »

It's discriminating on basis of location.
26.8 miles is not a long distance to commute and anybody has a legal right to apply for a job to earn a living. We don't have another Sainsbury's close to us.
They surely cannot promote this discrimination. If they want to allow the application and then put it in the bin as internally they have decided the distance is a concern then fair enough but to not even allow the application in the first place surely is not allowed.

It takes approx 5-6hrs to walk 26.8 miles. That's a long time to get to work. If you read the other thread you'd see someone refused to travel to work because his car broke down. Public transport isn't an option if you need to be at work at 7am for example. And what if public transport is on strike/road works preventing the use of public transport? There's plenty of reasons you can't get to work if you rely on public transport or your car, but none outside of health problems if you are within walking distance.

marybelle01

Southend1 wrote: »

True. But as a manager I always felt I had an obligation to the company to hire the best person for the job, not the person who was tallest/prettiest/lived closest/had the sharpest suit etc. Just as being black/white/gay/straight/Muslim/Hindu etc is completely irrelevant too.

And that may work incredibly well for your business needs, but it doesn't work for all employers. The military have height restrictions for some jobs. The RAF say you are unsuitable for any job if you have a history of headaches / migraines - even though a few headaches is hardly a terrible illness and there are lots of jobs that wouldn't be a risk if someone got a headache. Models aren't selected for their short statuture and plain looks. You may not care about the sharpest suit - but would a T-shirt and jeans be ok? The "best person" for the job depends on the job and the employers requirements and it can't be a fixed thing. Even the laws on discrimination recognise this because they make exceptions in some circumstances. As several people have pointed out already the employer may have some excellent business reasons for wanting staff relatively close by where they work. And local jobs for local people may be one of them because its good for customer relations to be seen to be employing local people in a store where most of their customers will come from the same area as their staff.

Catherine_Johnson_2

gringo69 wrote: »

I found out last week that I lost my job.
My Wife decided to look at working for Sainsbury's........ .

Given what you've written here, shouldn't it have been you who was applying for the job at Sainsbury?