Tesco misprice policy discussion area

fifo_2

about the angry refunders ...

its funny, because some retail staff only see items as "worth" the retail price, and don't think about the bigger picture. they are angry that that the store has "lost' £5 on a peice of beef, but don't think about all the other aspects

A mega company like tescos might make money selling goods, but the real money making and losing is done in ways you, i and the angry customer service person never even thinks about. they might stand to make/lose far more money by moving some money from one bank account, or one parent/child/sister company a days or even a few hours late or early. some companies might sell of stock at 90% off, let staff have it, even dump or burn it, because it is more economically viable to do this than sort through it, send it back to a warehouse from branches, or give it to charity

for example, tescos sell off the frozen goods cheap, so that they can get new lines in on the shelves making them profit, rather than have old goods take up shelf space not making them any profit. in the long run, they make more money by getting rid of the old stuff at a "loss' in a few days and getting the new stuff in, than selling the old stuff at full price and having it take up shelf space for weeks or months.

teams of accountants work out how things work, and I'm sure they have their reason why the refund policy is in place.

the bottom line is big companies do things because it makes commercial sense

which is why it is funny that these people get sooooooo angry.

Dick_Dastardly_3

DazedByTheLight wrote:

Isn't it also possible that he took advantage of his position at work? Like, for instance, where they have competitions and they say that employees cannot enter. /QUOTE]

That's why I say he'd only be in bother if he engineered the misprice himself, thus taking advantage of his position. If he came onto MSEr and found it, or it was accidental then he has done nothing wrong in the eyes of employment law.

Competitions are a total different area, and are not within the realms of employment law, the reason why employees are not allowed is to ensure that consumers see that fair play is being operated, and that staff ain't going to win because they know X, Y or Z

Dick_Dastardly_3

The biggest impact of Tescos would be if the general public became aware of the 'DASTRDLY' way in which they operate via a newspaper, court proceedings, etc. The value of the stock they give away is largely irrelevant in comparison to totals sales. However, if this was out in the public domain, then the share price would be adversely effected by such bad PR, these are the big numbers that the board are interested in, not whether joe bloggs get £30 or £40 worth of free cds. A drop in share price would have a serious impact on tescos, particularly those at the board level. A company's worth is based upon it stock market valuation, this is the KEY indicator in any business.

ben500

wilhelminajmd wrote:

It's not criminal law, it's employment law. If there's reasonable belief, and luck of trust, then that can be enough to dismiss someone.

Often the 'whole' truth doesn't get fed back to all employees, and mis-interpretation can come into play. We have dismissed on lesser evidence on one occasion, and this was upheld in an appeal.

Sorry but that's pants, they would have to be able to demonstrate dishonesty to support dismissal, some arrogant holier than though manager stating "I believe" is no such demonstration, any union rep worth his subs would rip this to bits given the details presented by the poster! If it went to tribunal the employee would win if all circumstances are as presented of that I have no doubt, whether or not the employee has served enough time to apply to tribunal is another matter, if the employee is a member of the union and this has taken place then there has aslo been a breach of fidutiary duty in failing to support the individual and a claim could be made against the union on that basis also, but that is only if all is as been presented by the poster.

ampersand

f.a.o.Joel -
Don't know if you're working today or have submitted an actual letter of resignation, but I, for one, wish you the very best for your future.
Ignore the (very)few knocking comments that have come from some on this thread. You have responded to and refuted them largely with great good humour, grace, mature overview, invaluable knowledge and aplomb. Therefore I am sure a new and better employer will reward and appreciate these same qualities in you.
BONNE CHANCE!
Stay on board, in touch and let us know where you head next.
All the best, Joel, very sincerely.

Bennifred

ampersand wrote:

f.a.o.Joel -
Don't know if you're working today or have submitted an actual letter of resignation, but I, for one, wish you the very best for your future.
Ignore the (very)few knocking comments that have come from some on this thread. You have responded to and refuted them largely with great good humour, grace, mature overview, invaluable knowledge and aplomb. Therefore I am sure a new and better employer will reward and appreciate these same qualities in you.
BONNE CHANCE!
Stay on board, in touch and let us know where you head next.
All the best, Joel, very sincerely.

Ditto what ampersand said :A

spa2k

ben500 wrote:

Sorry but that's pants, they would have to be able to demonstrate dishonesty to support dismissal, some arrogant holier than though manager stating "I believe" is no such demonstration, any union rep worth his subs would rip this to bits given the details presented by the poster! If it went to tribunal the employee would win if all circumstances are as presented of that I have no doubt, whether or not the employee has served enough time to apply to tribunal is another matter, if the employee is a member of the union and this has taken place then there has aslo been a breach of fidutiary duty in failing to support the individual and a claim could be made against the union on that basis also, but that is only if all is as been presented by the poster.

Actually you are wrong. There has been a breach of trust. Any decent employee would have seen the overcharge and simply said "I have been overcharged, please can i have the difference back" and not had a complete refund and the product free.

Like most other companies Tesco has 3 methods of communication, email, the telephone and the grapevine. The grapevine is the quickest and most inaccurate method and by her own admission the OP said she doesnt know the person involved and therefore there is no way that she can be in possesion of the full facts.

It absolutely amazes me how many people feel that they have the knowledge to comment on so many policies that they know absolutely nothing about in a thread that is supposed to be about a pricing policy.

ben500

spa2k wrote:

Actually you are wrong. There has been a breach of trust. Any decent employee would have seen the overcharge and simply said "I have been overcharged, please can i have the difference back" and not had a complete refund and the product free.

Like most other companies Tesco has 3 methods of communication, email, the telephone and the grapevine. The grapevine is the quickest and most inaccurate method and by her own admission the OP said she doesnt know the person involved and therefore there is no way that she can be in possesion of the full facts.

It absolutely amazes me how many people feel that they have the knowledge to comment on so many policies that they know absolutely nothing about in a thread that is supposed to be about a pricing policy.

Take note my comments were qualified by stating if all is as presented, I am well aware of the fact that people will embelish when relating to suit their own needs and that is the reason for the qualification.

As for breach of trust? A customer is a customer whether directly or indirectly employed by the purveyor and has every right to avail themselves of that which any customer not in such a position would receive without fear of penalty or reprisal, I am quite happy that I do know what I am talking about despite your opinion on my comments, however I accept my knowledge on the relevant legislation is not up to date given the rapid modification of such legislation on a day by day basis.

I would go so far as to say that your intitial sentence displays your lack of knowledge on this subject in that it is wholy incorrect and based on your interpretation of what a decent employee may do and not the relevant employment legislation. You as all of us however are entitled to your opinion.

I whilst giving my own also suggest that the individual "If all is as stated" seek professional advice whether paid for or free but obviously free from a Trades Union or CAB would be the most prudent option in the first instance, there will be plenty of time later to dip your hand in your pocket, but remembering that he will need to represent his own case at tribunal but can receive assistance in preparation up to that point.

Bumblebee_2

Quick question - is there a Tesco policy related to overcharging due to double scanning? I was charged today for 3 items when I only bought two. Customer services only refunded me the amount for the extra item. Compared to the R&R policy for misprices, this does appears a little unfair.

Rose999

I was once charged twice for something and I was given a full refund twice and kept the item. :j