Boots have a ridiculous rule for applying...

mynameistallulah

wantsajob wrote: »

Boots may be breaching their obligation under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments, if they will only consider a fully completed on line application.

They only need to make RAs if they are aware that an applicant needs them.

wantsajob wrote: »

And how much skill, ability, and effort do you think it takes to stack shelves, operate a till, be friendly to customers, and so on? We're not talking brain surgery here. Pretty much anyone can do such work, as the Workfare scheme so adequately proves when employers aren't too fussy if they're getting an employee for £0 an hour.

Really poor attitude - why would an employer want someone that thinks anyone can do the job? Indeed, the OP has proven that Boots do not believe that anyone can do it.

Hiccups_2

LadyMissA wrote: »

One question was about if a customer asks you for a t shirt in a different size, what would your response be.

Mine was to check the store room, check on the shop floor then call the merchandise office to see if I can sourse another from another shop and get one transfered in.

This is good customer service but obviously not what Primark wanted as all my answers were similar and they probably do not want people wasting time doing all this when they are only interested in getting ££ in the till.

That's really interesting. Personally speaking, I find it slightly annoying when a shop assistant automatically replies, "No, just what we have out here on the shelves", when you ask if they have stuff in stock. There is no effort, no information and no help.

I had assumed that the fact that they don't even try to help was down to laziness or poor work ethic, I didn't realise that this is how it works these days.

I find the idea of questionnaires and personality tests quite bizarre as a tool for recruitment, because I doubt they provide an accurate reflection of a person's aptitude for the job.

It reminds me of this: Yes, no or don't know?

marybelle01

wantsajob wrote: »

And how much skill, ability, and effort do you think it takes to stack shelves, operate a till, be friendly to customers, and so on? We're not talking brain surgery here. .

Juding by my experience in a number of retailers, I'd say it takes more skill, ability and effort than their employees have.

TrickyWicky

wantsajob wrote: »

And how much skill, ability, and effort do you think it takes to stack shelves, operate a till, be friendly to customers, and so on? We're not talking brain surgery here. Pretty much anyone can do such work, as the Workfare scheme so adequately proves when employers aren't too fussy if they're getting an employee for £0 an hour.

Well said.

marybelle01 wrote: »

Juding by my experience in a number of retailers, I'd say it takes more skill, ability and effort than their employees have.

Some do, some don't. Some just want you doing the same routine **** every day. A friend works for Tesco and has done for 8 years and they've still got him doing the menial stuff.

LadyMissA

Hiccups wrote: »

That's really interesting. Personally speaking, I find it slightly annoying when a shop assistant automatically replies, "No, just what we have out here on the shelves", when you ask if they have stuff in stock. There is no effort, no information and no help.

I had assumed that the fact that they don't even try to help was down to laziness or poor work ethic, I didn't realise that this is how it works these days.

I find the idea of questionnaires and personality tests quite bizarre as a tool for recruitment, because I doubt they provide an accurate reflection of a person's aptitude for the job.

It reminds me of this: Yes, no or don't know?

It depends where you go. Why would a discount shop like Primark go out of their way to call round, look for stock and get it transfered in when the item say is only about £5 at retail price? When I worked at House of Fraser in the 80's we had to look for stock in the store room, call HO and ask if any more was on its way then call round London trying to locate the item and then if the customer couldn't get to the other shop we would get it tranfered in for a few days time.

Of course some people may say 'it's ok don't bother' but the attitude like 'if it's not on the floor we don't have any' is a bit wrong but maybe the right answer for some companies as its not cost effective to do anything else. Sell them something and get the £ in the till.

k12479

wantsajob wrote: »

The thing I have most against the Boots application procedure is the Psychometric questions which ask you to choose the one most like you from two options, intended to determine your personality. Firstly it has no relation to job performance....

I'm not a fan either and question their usefulness. However, their purpose is, presumably, to determine a person's personality type and whether it is conducive to the role and environment.

Gingernutty

They were clearly looking for a 'correct' series of responses; responses which you clearly failed to give.

The vast majority of the time, the application hasn't been read by a human at all - the responses they're looking for have been programmed and you are automatically rejected by the software set up to sift the initial tranche of applications.

The time limit is to prevent applicants reapplying for the same position - it stops you giving differing answers to the ones you gave initially in the hope that you somehow find the right combination.

Although having said that, one year and two months seems a little extreme.

Fluffi

pawsies wrote: »

Yes I'm annoyed as my boots store is a 3 minute walk away from my house and people in this town have come from places 45 mins away by car to get here- and they get the jobs.

How far someone commutes to work is irrelevant as long as they can do the job and do it well.

In fact as others have pointed out people who are willing to put themselves out by spending more of their personal time commuting and commit to a job by traveling a bit further are often more dedicated than someone who can roll into the workplace 10 minutes after waking up and people who only take jobs that are convenient.

KevInChester

I applied for Boots a while back and passed the initial round but didn't get an interview as the jobs were all gone for the timeslots I specified. The next time I did it and my work programme advisor insisted on helping, making me change most of my answers etc, I failed the initial test.

There was one that I remember, and I didn't know the answer, I'd have to know what that companies policies were first, it was something like:

A customer scans a product at the self service till and it comes up at a higher price than they expected. The customer explains that it said it was on offer on the shelf, the label hadn't been removed from the shelf and the promotion has now expired.

Do you:
Allow them the offer price, then remove the obsolete sticker
Ask your manager if they can have the offer
Tell them sorry there is nothing you can do and ask if they still want the product at the higher price

They all seem a bit naff to me, though I'd err towards the 1st (but reckon the 3rd is what they would do).

Hiccups_2

LadyMissA wrote: »

It depends where you go. Why would a discount shop like Primark go out of their way to call round, look for stock and get it transfered in when the item say is only about £5 at retail price?

I appreciate that, but I was talking about a typical situation when you get fobbed off only for the shop assistant to stand around and do nothing of any value (in the type of shop where it would be easy to find and approach a shop assistant who is available to answer questions).

I wasn't necessarily thinking of Primark, where I think all the shop assistants are usually busy on the tills. Which means you would then have the queues to contend with; which are always way too long and (IMO) very rarely will someone want to queue and wait just to ask if they have a t-shirt in another size. Also, Primark's shop floor is usually very well stocked compared to other stores, based on my observations.

So, the question itself seems out of place for the type of scenario that you're likely to get there, but the answer they are looking for then just becomes common sense and about workload prioritisation.

However, what happens if the store is unusually quiet one day (lets say it's a sunny Saturday, and England are playing Germany in the World Cup final)?

Questions like the one in your example, where they are just looking for people to provide an answer that fits their pre-defined mould, do not actually test common sense. It would be quite easy for someone to fluke the questionnaire, likewise an otherwise suitable candidate may over think the questions they are being asked. It makes the whole exercise quite pointless.

I would expect a shop assistant on their first day would need to be shown around and given a quick induction / training anyway; when all the basics of how the business expects you to use your time would be explained.

Then again, maybe that's the real reason they do this. To avoid a situation where former workers spread the news that boots, primark etc. train its employees to neglect the customer in order to boost profits. So, they hire people who already think in the way that they expect them to think, without ever acknowledging that the want their employees to behave in a certain way?