To be fair if you end up working at an Express store you might as well sign your soul to the devil as at least in a normal store you tend to stick to the same hours and always have the right to say no whereas in the local stores you have no set hours contract and as you say can do any hours and in areas with a number of stores be sent anywhere.

My understanding is that he deals with maintenance for a number if stores. bUt that as the number of stores has increased, including the express ones, his workload has gone up, with no additional renumeration, and he's expected to cover an ever-expanding area.

But given the state of the job market, people don't easily get to be able to duck the erratic-hours contracts, do they?

Slightly different but makes total sense.

100% right and Tesco play it to a tee making sure NI payments in particular are kept very tightly controlled.

I wonder how many Tesco employees need to claim in-work benefits to make ends meet? In other words, how much the company's profits – and Man in Madrid's junket, for that matter – are being subsidised by the taxpayer?

In fairness, it's not just Tesco. Boots used to be a great company to work for but now it's dire. Just about all the worst business practices you can think of and they treat their employees like scum.

Not as many as you would think most would kill for a 30 hour contract to get on that jolly...I'd guess the average accross Tesco is 15 or so.

Recruitment is definetly subserdised by the taxpayer as when they open up a store the local job centre forces everyone signing on to apply....hence the Costa 1700 figure came as no surprise as I bet that happened with them too.

I am not surprised to be honest the whole indusrty has gone to pot and people wonder why the staff are not all singing and all dancing when they serve them.

I'm very surprised Morrisons hasn't been mentioned in this thread.
Staff wise its appalling. Poorly trained, ignorant staff are the majority IMO.

Which (sort of) raises the issue of getting the City out of the equation.

Only a couple of years ago I recall the City slapping Tesco over the wrist because growth was not what was expected – even though the company had made a profit for the quarter in question.

The idea of unlimited growth is an utterly unsustainable situation to start with and is, I suspect, one of those factors behind this worsening treatment of employees: you're always having to find the funds to invest in new stores etc, so staff become a 'cost' that can be driven down. And indeed, good customer service is, in the shortest term, more costly than simply slamming the customers through the system with as little need for any interaction as possible.

Certainly not running away and hiding - after a long days work, I needed my dinner.

Espanyolswan, certainly not a jolly, as I'm away from my wife and children for more than a month, and missing the mighty Salford on our way to domination (!) - I'm trying to generate shareholder value in an emerging market: that's reality. It's what pays both of our wages.

Regarding NI, the majority of store staff work part time because they are predominantly working mothers or students, etc. It offers a work-life balance, fitting in hours around school, study and the like.

Holidays a year in advance? My sister-in-law works for a bank and has to book her holidays 18 months in advance. My friend works for a travel agents, and they have to do the same. Unique to Tesco? Don't think so.

Manchester United killing off rugby, hockey clubs - sorry, I don't understand what that's got to do with anything. I used Manchester United to show that the most successful are normally the ones that get slated first in this country: you've just proved my point, thank you very much.

I could give many, many examples of suppliers who have supplied Tesco for a long time who are very happy with the relationship they have. In the 5 years I have worked for Tesco, I have probably met upwards of 400 suppliers. I could count on one hand the number that have major issues. Granted, I'm not a buyer and don't deal with the commercial relationship. However, I do know that the volume they sell to consumers via Tesco enables them to supply a vast array of other retailers too. Remember - nobody is forcing them to supply anyone, they are selling a product into a free market.

Oh, sorry, forgot to say: Espanyolswan, you say I'm an arrogant wallie and an idiot: what's the score? Where have I been arrogant? I'm working hard, and said that at the end of a hard day, I was going for a beer or 2 like any number of people do all around the world. Chill, man. No need to be so personal.

Thats pretty much my experience too, the company I used to own had a relationship with a Bradford based supermarket since 1979, that relationship is now continued in the company I sold out to, we don't supply a product to them as we are a service business but although the negotiations at contract renewal time are competitive (you'd expect them to be) we don't work for them at a loss and it was their contract that made my company so attractive to the company who bought us out !

You did a nice bragging line about where you are and the beer you're getting on the company.

Presumably that's your prize for being so good A Company Man and such a neat little swerver on any meaningful questions.

Out of interest, does Tesco give people like you courses in that? Y'know, the swerving/not-answering-the-question routine?

Oh come on sunshine – don't pretend to be thick.

Tesco has used 'economies of scale' to drive small, independent businesses out of business and thus ultimately reduce choice to the customer. It's not alone in this, but it has been a prime mover in it. Much as I personally detest the Rags, they have not done anything similar in the world of sport. So please stop disingenuously pretending that you don't know what he's on about.

Well indeedy. A "free market" where 80% of it (at least) is controlled by around four to five companies.

Wowser. What sensational choice!

And to think – just 30 years ago, the same companies only had around 20% of the same UK grocery retail market, How dismal that was for the humble housewife, reducing her choice in such a fashion by having both the same supermarkets AND a load more independent shops.

Tesco is a bully. It bullies councils, for instance. It bul;lies planning committees.

And frankly, your 'jokey' attempts to suggest otherwise, combined with your pathetic efforts to pretend that you don't know what people are talking about and to deflect criticism from Tesco, show what a great Company Man you are.

Feel proud, sunshine. You're helping to wreck local communities, food sustainability and this country's culture.

They were bought out by a private equity outfit. Enough said.

Mintball, do you really think a business such as Tesco would send someone to the other side of the world for being such A Good Company Man? I’m here doing a job, as I’m sure you know.

Not bragging about where I am, and that I’m having a beer on the company: I was stating my location, and of course I’m entitled to recover the costs for subsistence whilst away from home, including a beer or 2. Pretty standard practice, really, for any business / company / organisation. Perhaps my only mistake is that I’m a little too “jokey” in my comments: ah, well – never mind.

By the way, I was just checking up on the history of supermarkets, and I found out the following:- So who do you reckon opened the first self-service supermarket in Britain? Not Tesco, as that was 1954. Sainsbury’s? 1950. M&S? 1948. No, it was actually the Co-Op, also in 1948. Legend has it that those humble housewives you mention queued in the bitter cold outside that first Manor Park store on opening day; and they were transfixed by the concept.

Lets now move forward to the halcyon days of the mid-60's: vibrant town centres, bustling high streets. But, the Co-Op had a mind-boggling 35% grocery market share! (More than even Tesco now). Was there choice then? Were they classed as bully boys? No idea, but wouldn’t have thought so.

Yep, people now go on about the power of the big supermarkets, but anyone above a certain age will remember the limited choice and queues in the old counter service general stores of the 60s and 70s, and certainly lament their passing very little. I was born in the mid-late 60's, and I just about remember some of the last ones in the 1970's near where I lived: I don't miss them.

I'm sure you'll tell me that the food was at least sourced locally then - probably was, because the motorway network was under construction. In the 1960’s, there were only 5 million cars compared to >35 million now. Think around 20 million in 1980. Co-Ops would have been on every high street, because people didn’t travel to shop…….but things evolve. By 1980, Co-Ops were down to around 9% market share, and Tesco were not that far above with approx 13%.

And how things change again. The high street now has a Tesco Express or a Sainsburys Local in place of the Co-Op. It’s the same principal, just a different name above the door. The problem isn’t necessarily the big retailers killing the high street, “wrecking communities, food sustainability and this country’s culture”. It’s peoples’ buying habits and their need for speed that has changed. Some businesses adapt to that and succeed, and some do not change and fail.

Think that's going to be my last post on this subject: I've got to spend the afternoon supplier-bashing at the local fresh produce market before getting my driver to rush me back to the 5* I'm staying at to catch an hours sun before a night out.

(See what I did there - it's one of those "jokey" comments again.............or is it?

) ลาก่อน

Quote ="Man in Madrid" <a potted history of supermarkets which tells nothing about Tesco or its practices now>'" Suppliers can be snared by what seems like a decent contract but which constitutes a very large part of their business. It can include such terms as not supplying other supermarket chains. Later, the buyer (or his ambitious replacement who won't get a decent appraisal unless (s)he gets a better deal for the supermarket) has much more power to his/her elbow because, to the supplier, losing that deal will mean losing most of their custom. I'm sure this isn't the case for ALL suppliers, as there are, for example, those whose own brand name gets them onto supermarket shelves and who the supermarket find it harder to coerce. These are countered strongly by own brand products where the power of the supermarket can effect a price reduction. Many customers won't care, many are strapped for cash and will see only the supposedly cheaper prices. You only have to look at the annual increases in, say, Tesco's percentage profit on turnover to realise the customer isn't getting the benefit of all squeezes on suppliers. See, as an example, the gap between tumbling prices to the farmer for lamb and the tiny reduction in price at the supermarket. "[i=#0080FFWhile farm gate prices have dropped by nearly a quarter, and wholesale prices for UK lamb are down 17 per cent, prices in the shops for UK products have only fallen by two per cent in the same time period[/i. " www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/news/2.2 ... rPath=home If the supermarkets have 80% of the market, it's easy to imagine that they have only to compete amongst themselves but the suppliers know that the other supermarkets will treat them much the same. It might not be a cartel but it can look like one.

Quote ="Man in Madrid" <a potted history of supermarkets which tells nothing about Tesco or its practices now>'" Suppliers can be snared by what seems like a decent contract but which constitutes a very large part of their business. It can include such terms as not supplying other supermarket chains. Later, the buyer (or his ambitious replacement who won't get a decent appraisal unless (s)he gets a better deal for the supermarket) has much more power to his/her elbow because, to the supplier, losing that deal will mean losing most of their custom. I'm sure this isn't the case for ALL suppliers, as there are, for example, those whose own brand name gets them onto supermarket shelves and who the supermarket find it harder to coerce. These are countered strongly by own brand products where the power of the supermarket can effect a price reduction. Many customers won't care, many are strapped for cash and will see only the supposedly cheaper prices. You only have to look at the annual increases in, say, Tesco's percentage profit on turnover to realise the customer isn't getting the benefit of all squeezes on suppliers. See, as an example, the gap between tumbling prices to the farmer for lamb and the tiny reduction in price at the supermarket. "[i=#0080FFWhile farm gate prices have dropped by nearly a quarter, and wholesale prices for UK lamb are down 17 per cent, prices in the shops for UK products have only fallen by two per cent in the same time period[/i. " www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/news/2.2 ... rPath=home If the supermarkets have 80% of the market, it's easy to imagine that they have only to compete amongst themselves but the suppliers know that the other supermarkets will treat them much the same. It might not be a cartel but it can look like one.

Nonsense, nowhere near the same princi[uple[/u.
For example, the environmental ethos is completely different.
Also, the co-op owns and runs farms.
Also, it is not a stock-market quoted company ... so it answers to the customer not the City.

How well it does it is another issue ... but to say the principle is the same is just risible.

[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-butcher-of-broadway-market.htmlThe impact of Tesco's expansionist approach – from the viewpoint of a rare independent survivor.[/url

Ooh you really shouldn't have said that, the Sin Bin anti supermarket activists are are on the way out to kill you as we type.

The Co-op also managed to exist quite happily alongside traditional greengrocers, bakers, butchers, fishmongers, hardware suppliers, drapers and even corner shops

It wouldn't be the consumers I was bashing if I was in MiM current location...But I'd be bashing alright!

Quote ="El Barbudo"Suppliers can be snared by what seems like a decent contract but which constitutes a very large part of their business. It can include such terms as not supplying other supermarket chains. Later, the buyer (or his ambitious replacement who won't get a decent appraisal unless (s)he gets a better deal for the supermarket) has much more power to his/her elbow because, to the supplier, losing that deal will mean losing most of their custom. I'm sure this isn't the case for ALL suppliers, as there are, for example, those whose own brand name gets them onto supermarket shelves and who the supermarket find it harder to coerce. These are countered strongly by own brand products where the power of the supermarket can effect a price reduction. Many customers won't care, many are strapped for cash and will see only the supposedly cheaper prices. You only have to look at the annual increases in, say, Tesco's percentage profit on turnover to realise the customer isn't getting the benefit of all squeezes on suppliers. See, as an example, the gap between tumbling prices to the farmer for lamb and the tiny reduction in price at the supermarket. "[i=#0080FFWhile farm gate prices have dropped by nearly a quarter, and wholesale prices for UK lamb are down 17 per cent, prices in the shops for UK products have only fallen by two per cent in the same time period[/i. " www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/news/2.2 ... rPath=home If the supermarkets have 80% of the market, it's easy to imagine that they have only to compete amongst themselves but the suppliers know that the other supermarkets will treat them much the same. It might not be a cartel but it can look like one.'" It's also worth keeping an eye on any innovative. independently-labelled food products. They'll appear on a supermarket's shelf and then gradually, find their products marginalised by the supermarket's own-label look-a-likey offering. The own-label may well have an initial price advantage but that will soon disappear once the independent product has been removed from the shelf

Quote ="El Barbudo"Suppliers can be snared by what seems like a decent contract but which constitutes a very large part of their business. It can include such terms as not supplying other supermarket chains. Later, the buyer (or his ambitious replacement who won't get a decent appraisal unless (s)he gets a better deal for the supermarket) has much more power to his/her elbow because, to the supplier, losing that deal will mean losing most of their custom. I'm sure this isn't the case for ALL suppliers, as there are, for example, those whose own brand name gets them onto supermarket shelves and who the supermarket find it harder to coerce. These are countered strongly by own brand products where the power of the supermarket can effect a price reduction. Many customers won't care, many are strapped for cash and will see only the supposedly cheaper prices. You only have to look at the annual increases in, say, Tesco's percentage profit on turnover to realise the customer isn't getting the benefit of all squeezes on suppliers. See, as an example, the gap between tumbling prices to the farmer for lamb and the tiny reduction in price at the supermarket. "[i=#0080FFWhile farm gate prices have dropped by nearly a quarter, and wholesale prices for UK lamb are down 17 per cent, prices in the shops for UK products have only fallen by two per cent in the same time period[/i. " www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/news/2.2 ... rPath=home If the supermarkets have 80% of the market, it's easy to imagine that they have only to compete amongst themselves but the suppliers know that the other supermarkets will treat them much the same. It might not be a cartel but it can look like one.'" It's also worth keeping an eye on any innovative. independently-labelled food products. They'll appear on a supermarket's shelf and then gradually, find their products marginalised by the supermarket's own-label look-a-likey offering. The own-label may well have an initial price advantage but that will soon disappear once the independent product has been removed from the shelf

As did Tesco, to be fair. Until the company decided to expand and start building really big stores.

To bring the issue around to the ongoing horse meat farce – ultimately that's about lengthened chains of production and retailers working to increase profit (the latter has been mentioned here in recent posts in terms of milk gate prices etc and Coddy mentioned the former in the thread on horse meat in terms of every link in these chains needing to make a profit).

Not that this is just an issue in the food industry. With the replacement of the sewers going on in London, we've noticed vans with the legend: 'Murphys working in partnership with Optimise to serve Thames Water'. Sop that's one job and three companies – all of which (obviously) will need to pay HR departments, press departments etc, and make a profit.

It's bonkers.