Searching Staff....Is this right?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:41 PM

A bloody EXCELLENT EMPLOYER!

Lizzie, Joseph Rowntree was way ahead of his time in many ways. He set up things like pension schemes and built a Model Village for employees.

But and simply as an example, Rowntrees also refused to employ married women on a permanent basis believing that their place was in the home.

Now I don't criticise Rowntree for that and the many other paternalistic ideas left over from the Victorian era indeed the evidence was that Rowntrees were moving away from paternalism in the early part of the 20th century in some ways. After all it was the prevailing view at the time and we can't really criticise the past using our own present day values.

Which is why you have chosen a bad example. He was good of his time. That's all you can say.

Or like I suggested earlier in this thread you have a habit of posting things you don't understand properly, you haven't read properly or both.

I also feel obliged to point out in oder to help you that citing unreferenced Wikipedia examples is normally regarded as poor intellectual discipline. But you believe things you read in the Daily Mail so I suppose it is only to be expected.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:17 PM

Those following that link may care to note that this wonderful employer died in 1925. The days of diptheria, rickets, smallpox scarlet fever and other childhood diseases. And that his company became owned by Nestle's the swiss conglomerate. You know the one that sells powdered baby milk to the third world.

And as for the National Trust - not all that long ago you proudly told us they had headhunted your daughter. Clearly whilst they were a real bad employer you didn't mind your daughter being headhunted by them.

Subject: RE: BS: Home Education UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1 - PM
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 04:57 PM

......The other has been headhunted by The National Trust, who knew she had chosen to not take any 'school exams' but were very VERY happy to employ her despite that fact.

Now as people pointed out at the time - "head hunting" is usually a phrase used when rising young executives are hired. So what does your daughter do for the National Trust?

I know she's a mystery shopper!!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:10 PM

I'm surprised to see you advocating paternalism, Lizzie, given that you are normally so opposed to being controlled by the standards and conventions of others and the parameters set by employers. People like Rowntree and Cadbury exercised a profound degree of control over their employees, requiring that they adhere to strict codes of moral and social conduct. If you went to the pub, or didn't go to church, you could get sacked - and that's you and your family out of a home as well. Should employers have that level of control over their employees' personal lives?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:50 PM

Oops!

JOSEPH ROWNTREE


..and don't forget to check out the 'external links' on there which take you to all the charitable trusts and foundations set up in his name..

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:47 PM

A bloody EXCELLENT EMPLOYER!

a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rowntree_(philanthropist)">Joseph Rowntree


And all the Crooked Crooks should model themselves on Joseph, because then, and only then, would people be cared for again, by employers who value and appreciate those who work for them, making them their fortunes.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:39 PM

"...when I was a student and worked in a clothing shop (part of a chain), we were expected to try and sell an average of three items per transaction, and if we didn't, our store got marked down. If we did, we got a higher staff discount that week. We also got judged on our customer care by mystery shoppers and visits from regional managers. I'm talking about the 80s now - so it sounds to me like the NT has realised that economic survival means adopting successful models from the commercial retail industry...."


Nowadays you don't get paid any bonuses, such as higher staff discounts. You get nowt...just sell, sell, sell...

Mystery shoppers stink.

Sidmouth NT shop regularly outsells Bath, York etc.....but we got marked down because we refused to upsell and harass customers...as a result our customers loved coming in to us.

Today I went into The Body Shop and was 'harrassed' half to boredom with 'But, if you spend just another £3...." yadda yadda yadda...and she wouldn't let up. Result? I won't go back there to be harassed again.

As a customer, treat me with respect and don't harass me to buy things.

As a member of staff..treat me with respect and don't harass me to harass customers, whom I treat with respect.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:33 PM

"Can you really fault them from trying to maximise the return on the business?"


It isn't a business. It's a charity.   It is run by thousands of unpaid volunteers, as well as paid staff.

You do NOT spend millions on having your 'very own font' created and changing your logo, whilst saying that staff's hours are to be cut, or worse, their jobs go entirely.   People will always refer to The National Trust as THE National Trust, so what the f*ck is the point in spending millions to drop the 'The'???????

Answers on a postcard to

Loopily Ludicrous Ideas R Us
Selfishsville House
Swindon
Land of The Dingbats


Yes, I do fault them.

I also faulted The Royal Mail, when their bloody ex-football manager and his cronies decided to change their name to 'Consignia' at a cost of a mere £5 MILLION pounds....only to change it back months later when they realised what a stupid mistake they'd made.

Who are these twits, who implode the lives of others whilst sitting back raking in their Breathtaking Bastard Bonuses???????

Geesh!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:27 PM

One for Rapaire here....

Boots the Chemist also used to be a lending library, once upon a time...a long while ago...and every shop had a library upstairs with the Boots logo on their books.

I know. I used to visit them with my Mum...and I still have a few of those books to this day, not stolen I hasten to add, but sold off when they closed their libraries down.

The Lending Libraries

In Westminster Abbey

Let me take this other glove off
As the vox humana swells,
And the beauteous fields of Eden
Bask beneath the Abbey bells.
Here, where England's statesmen lie,
Listen to a lady's cry.

Gracious Lord, oh bomb the Germans.
Spare their women for Thy Sake,
And if that is not too easy
We will pardon Thy Mistake.
But, gracious Lord, whate'er shall be,
Don't let anyone bomb me.

Keep our Empire undismembered
Guide our Forces by Thy Hand,
Gallant blacks from far Jamaica,
Honduras and Togoland;
Protect them Lord in all their fights,
And, even more, protect the whites.

Think of what our Nation stands for,
Books from Boots and country lanes,
Free speech, free passes, class distinction,
Democracy and proper drains.
Lord, put beneath Thy special care
One-eighty-nine Cadogan Square.

Although dear Lord I am a sinner,
I have done no major crime;
Now I'll come to Evening Service
Whensoever I have the time.
So, Lord, reserve for me a crown.
And do not let my shares go down.

I will labour for Thy Kingdom,
Help our lads to win the war,
Send white flowers to the cowards
Join the Women's Army Corps,
Then wash the Steps around Thy Throne
In the Eternal Safety Zone.

Now I feel a little better,
What a treat to hear Thy word,
Where the bones of leading statesmen,
Have so often been interr'd.
And now, dear Lord, I cannot wait
Because I have a luncheon date.

        -- John Betjeman

Jessie Boot

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:11 PM

I'm not sure which real world you don't think I live in, Lizzie, but I do work for a living. And I have in my time done my share of pub and retail work. When you describe the focus on sales, it sounds to me like the NT is having to do what lots of people are having to do in the current economic environment - maximise their profits in order to ensure survival, especially if it's the high street shops that are most at risk. Can you really fault them from trying to maximise the return on the business?

The focus on mystery shoppers and on maximising POS items isn't really new: when I was a student and worked in a clothing shop (part of a chain), we were expected to try and sell an average of three items per transaction, and if we didn't, our store got marked down. If we did, we got a higher staff discount that week. We also got judged on our customer care by mystery shoppers and visits from regional managers. I'm talking about the 80s now - so it sounds to me like the NT has realised that economic survival means adopting successful models from the commercial retail industry. Surely this is a good thing in the long run? After all, it's all those donations and subscriptions that are being protected and maximised if the retail end of the business is thriving. And staff have to be trained in customer care to ensure an equal level of service across the chain, which is presumably what your training manual was for.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:00 PM

Yes, I'm sure they do.   

Hopefully, they'll continue to smile, because the shops most at risk are the ones not in the country houses, as the high street ones cost them money in rent and rates. The poorly performing ones already have the axe being moved into place above them.....just in case it's needed.

The National Trust staff are always very professional. I was too. They are also intelligent people, and therefore having to fill in 'Hello' style multiple choice questions in idiotic manuals rankles...None of the staff where I worked wanted to do those books, not one, but they buckled because they wanted to keep their jobs.

I knew that my job had already 'gone' in my head, because I will never give in to Corporate Crap, let alone be the carrier of it to others.

We all think and feel differently...

I too would have appeared very 'happy' to the customers that I served. (apart from The Dingbat, who got it with both barrels blaring)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:53 PM

The nice people in the National Trust shop down the road from me seem happy enough.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:16 PM

"Many employers will provide their staff with a chair so they can sit down if it's appropriate to their duties, and there will be a kettle for making a cup of tea, even if these things are not explicitly enshrined within employment law. In many work environments you don't need a specified break period in which to have a cup of tea. People put the kettle on. They drink tea. They carry on working. A six hour shift is really not that long."


Maybe you don't know what's going on out here in the 'real' world.

If you work in a shop, (not a supermarket till) you are not allowed to sit down. In many places now you are not even allowed to be behind the counter any longer. You are told not to even speak to one another whilst on the shop floor. You must be being seen to be 'busy ' at all times.

This goes from chemist shops to The National Trust and beyond.

In The National Trust you are constantly checked up on by idiotic Mystery Visitors who mark you out of 10 and report back to the Corporate Charity Chiefs about who is, and who isn't doing their job.
If you don't try and force extra fudge, biccies, bags etc on the poor unsuspecting customer, you are marked down. If you don't try and sell a bigger size, or make a linked sale, you are marked down. If you're daring to stand behind the counter or haven't a duster in your hand, or aren't blowing dust off the stock or constantly moving things round (only to the planned picture, mind)...or seen to be selling, selling, selling 24/7 then....you are marked down...

When I told The National Trust what they could do with their job, after they'd introduced 'staff training manuals' which took 3 months to fill in, and required us, at the end of each patronising chapter to answer even more patronising questions, such as 'How would you greet an elderly couple?' (B*gger off!)......'How would you greet a teacher with school children?' (B*gger off!)....'How would you.....?'
(B*gger off, b*gger off, b*gger off!)........

I mean....Hell, do they think that's what we'd answer??????????

Do they think that we're all so bloody stooooopid that we can't even talk to customers in the correct manner????

When I was told that it was *compulsory* to fill these total 'waste of money' books in, I replied that only dying is compulsory in my life...and handed in my notice, because I was also told that if I refused to do it, then the entire team and manager would be marked down....and *that* is emotional blackmail..


Sooooooooo, I wrote to Fiona Reynolds, the head of the NT. I told her that the Coporate Crap Guys were infiltrating something that I loved...and therefore I could no longer work for them. I told her about the terrible stress that bloody Mystery Visitors cause to staff, because suddenly all customers turn into spies...I asked her who checked up on her...and did she have Mystery Visitors a-calling to her office?   I asked her how much these manuals cost, because they were massive and every single member of staff had to have one in the retail section, possibly the rest of the NT too.

On the back of our bathroom door was a list...from the area manager, saying how we all had to sell, sell, sell, upsell to the customers every sale. How we had to buy the cheapest loo rolls, tea, coffee, etc...How managers had to cut back on staff hours wherever possible...

That's great isn't it! Cut back our hours, whilst telling us to work harder and harder and harder...

Well, sod that for a game of Charities!

Strangely, Fiona never came back about the cost of these manuals...she never mentioned the Corporate Crap Guys...and whilst the NT is now starting to make some people redundant, the great news is that they've decided to bring out a brand new name for the NT.

Yup, they're going to call it....wait for it, people.....they're going to call it....

National Trust

!!!!

See that? They've dropped the 'The'
Cool, huh?

The er.......'National Trust' is now going to re-brand itself as er...'National Trust' changing all it's headings, on everything...and it gets better, because they're also having the new catchy logo done in their very own font!   

Yes, you couldn't make it up, could you!

Get rid of the staff, change the name...er..change? Spend a bloody fortune on the crappiest idea since bailing out banks....and don't worry about explaining why you're spending money that's bequeathed to you by people who think they're saving the heritage of this country, when they're actually saving the jobs of the dingbats who work up in Swindon, who decide on these appalling things!

Geez!

I had a dingbat in once, from Swindon...and he told me merrily how he came from Sidmouth originally, but now worked up at the NT headquarters in Swindon...

"Ah, then you know about these training manuals' I said...

He looked bewildered...

I filled him in.... ;0)

Two days later, the Slimey Sidmothian Squirt sent an email to my manager saying he'd never been so verbally attacked in any shop before. Ha! This was because I'd dared to tell him that those in HQ had lost sight of what the NT was about..what it stood for, how much it meant to so many people...and they'd become like double glazing salesman, forcing us to sell, sell, sell, whilst not listening to us about how our customers hated it..how it drove them away..I got passionate, not abusive, telling him I was giving up a job I loved, because I could not work for people for whom I have no respect...and I waved my hands around in exasperation...and passion....but he was one of The Dingbats, with a capital THE...and The National Trust...sorry...'National Trust' is now, sadly in their hands...

Millions will now be spent on stupid ideas, whilst staff become more stressed and more angry over how they are being treated...and it's happening all over..in so many places...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:49 PM

"I'm sorry Lizzie, but I think you may not have noticed that when you signed onto Mudcat that anyone starting a thread that causes dissent or is responsible for said dissent must submit to me for a full body cavity strip search. I have you scheduled for 4 PM this afternoon, Mudcat time. "


Cripes! I have about left 15 minutes to get there, Spaw........I'm on my way! Mick, put the kettle on....because trust me, I have very big cavities, so this could take some time and shock you both!    ;0)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:18 PM

sadly I know of what you speak since I'm in the same situation

You mean you were once "hunk of the month?"

I don't mention it a lot but I was once on Page Three of the "Sun". March 6th 1991, if you are able to check. Just think in March 2011 it will be the 20th anniversary.

Probably the only 'Catter to be in that position.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:51 PM

Well Dave, sadly I know of what you speak since I'm in the same situation............***sigh***...........BUT WAIT!.......Big Mick is going to be on hand at 4 as well and maybe he could check you out! Would that work for you?


Spaw

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:38 PM

"I mean....would you invite someone round to your house, make them stand up the entire time and then not even offer them a cup of tea...for SIX hours?????"

Many employers will provide their staff with a chair so they can sit down if it's appropriate to their duties, and there will be a kettle for making a cup of tea, even if these things are not explicitly enshrined within employment law. In many work environments you don't need a specified break period in which to have a cup of tea. People put the kettle on. They drink tea. They carry on working. A six hour shift is really not that long.


In any case, I didn't think we were talking about people on social visits, I thought we were talking about going to work: I wouldn't invite someone into my home and expect them to sell my belongings to my neighbours, either.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:22 PM

And Spaw. I am deeply hurt by the fact that you don't want to see me naked.

No-one wants to see me naked. People used to want to see me naked all the time at one time. And now they don't.

What is the country coming to? Don't you realise PEOPLE ARE SENSITIVE?


YEEESH :-)))) O)) (((( __ :::: !!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:18 PM

Lizzie I know that all people matter. I have been a trade union member all my life since my first job at the age of 19. I have represented staff at all levels. I was elected chair of my trade union branch (NATFHE as it was) when the whole of Further Education was going through a huge and damaging re-organisation. I stayed in that post for four years.

I do know that if staff are badly done by, a trade union can help. I also know that trade unions have won thousands of legal cases over the years.

Now instead of ranting on here, what have you done about advising that friend of yours who may have been subject to an illegal search?
You can rant on here all you like - but I would have thought rather than do that you would be better off listening to other people's advice and passing that on to the young people about what has happened to them.

Generally speaking the nearest branches of Thompson's solicitors can help. And Thompsons never act for employers as far as I know.

The nearest one to you is in Exeter. Brittany House, New North Road, Exeter, EX4 4EP Telephone: [phone]. Speak to Gavin Roberts.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:06 PM

Spaw, that looks suspiciously like work, and the antithesis of what a partner in LFPS should be involved with. Because we are such good friends and partners, and because I care about your standing in the firm (but not in the biblical sense, i'm just sayin') I am going to assist you with this inspection. That way Swanno can't point a finger at you alone, and we will have him outvoted at the next bored meeting. Don't thank me. See you at 4:00.

Mick

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:52 AM

I'm sorry Lizzie, but I think you may not have noticed that when you signed onto Mudcat that anyone starting a thread that causes dissent or is responsible for said dissent must submit to me for a full body cavity strip search. I have you scheduled for 4 PM this afternoon, Mudcat time.

Now although I notice that others are causing dissent here, like Folkiedave, they are not subject to this rule.........mainly because I don't give two shits about seeing Folkiedave nekkid. Matter of fact, I want to avoid that at all costs.........

See you at 4


Spaw

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:33 AM

Sorry folks, but employers who don't show their staff loyalty, don't look after them and don't give a toss about them, apart from how much bloody money they bring in, deserve all they get.

To expect someone to work for 6 hours without giving them a free cup of tea is just beyond my way of thinking. Geez, it's like someone's cloned Scrooge and we're all now living inside A Christmas Carol!

The people who think it's OK to work 6 hours without a break are the very ones who are encouraging this to happen. It's shit, basically, as is treating ALL your staff as if they're stealing from you.

Start giving them bonuses for a job well done, recognise what they do, thank them for their hard work, let them feel they are as much a part of the team as you are and remember that *without* them, you'd be up Shit Alley....and *then* you may start to have a truly wonderful company on your hands, where happiness reigns, alongside the Kerching Kings.

I mean....would you invite someone round to your house, make them stand up the entire time and then not even offer them a cup of tea...for SIX hours?????

Just because the crappy lawmakers have made the crappy law does NOT make it RIGHT.

It's WRONG, plain and simple.

And perverts who want to search their staff, or watch their staff searching themselves should be sent up to Jupiter on a one way ticket!

And pay people a bloody decent wage too!!!!!!


Yeesh!


I've been reading Duncan Bannatyne's book, he of Dragon's Den...and he once went balistic because one of his staff had....wait for it.....stolen a boiled egg from the kitchen!


Jaysus, Maria and Joebottles! I mean??????????????????

He searched high and low for it and for the offending Egg Eater, but to no avail...and then someone told him to calm down and get back to what he did best.


And now Dave, you can go out, buy the book, read it through, then tell me how wrong I am...OR...you can sit and puzzle those words I set earlier, for a little longer until you work out the correct order!


STAFF MATTER!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:51 AM

tho she might have started out with best of intentions.

I believe she had an agenda - chunks of which has been followed by the Labour Party since 1997.

Whether we should call these the best of intentions for the majority of the people is a matter of debate. They were certainly of benefit for some. The ones who lost their jobs as unemployment went up to 3 million and benefits were cut might not have agreed.

And well-paid jobs disappeared and were replaced by Macjobs.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:37 AM

I would expect the legality has been researched.

AFAIK an 8 hour shift requires a lunch break, and for a 10 hour shift it must be 1 hour. Not sure about 6 hours, but the Citizens Advice Bureau would know.

In the current economic climate the alternative to Boots is the boot. Right now the boot is on the other .............

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:02 AM

Ruth: I am far from pro-Thatcher myself - esp at end of her time when she became absolutely impossible to control, tho she might have started out with best of intentions. But I have always thought there was an awful yah-boo element to this tendency to blame her for absolutely everything that has ever gone wrong in the last 30 years. I'm not anti-union either — they are clearly essential as everyone who knows any history from Tolpuddle on will appreciate: but like Maggie they have a tendency to get out of control if not monitored, esp if led by one of those charismatic egomaniacs like Scargill, & do not possess all the answers to everything as they & she both seemed to think — Scargill v Maggie - oppo sides of same coin, it might be argued?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:44 AM

Actually, MtheGM, I'm as pro-union and anti-Thatcher as anyone. But I do think one needs to choose one's battles rather more carefully. Businesses have to somehow respond to the fact that some staff steal stuff. As long as you understand the policy before you sign your contract, and those policies do not contravene employment law, what's the problem? If you don't like an employer's policies, don't work for them.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:52 AM

Thanks for your support, Ruth Archer. From Lizzie's OP, which I have just reread, it appears that her young relative sensibly accepted the procedure as part of the contract she had voluntarily signed. It was Lizzie herself who started jumping up & down screaming blue murder, & this is all new, and an infallible sign of our moral degeneracy, & shoot {or electrocute} tyhe bastards! [a bandwagon on which the usual boobies have leapt to prove it was all Maggie Thatcher's fault — is there a single adverse part of our current culture for which that poor woman is not responsible?]

As I demonstrated above, and say again, it is NOT a new phenomenon; nor is it, as Ruth agrees, an unreasonable expectation.

Now, all you doctrinaire, card-carrying, professionally captious TU anti-Thatcherite activists, why not cool it & find some sort of real abuses to turn the energy of your boundless animus against?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:36 AM

Lizzie is this another thread you start and then let die into some deep black hole - or are we ging to find out a result?

Apart from posting on Mudcat and building up a phone bill, have you passed any of this advice on to the people concerned? And what have they done about it?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:04 AM

MtheGM is right - my experience is a bit more recent, but when I first started having Saturday jobs almost 30 years ago, it was well known that some shops would, at the very least, have a supervisor go through your bag at the end of your shift. One place where a friend worked, a factory that made novelties, even issued their female staff with clear plastic handbags, which was the only kind of bag you were allowed to take to work with you. These bags were still subject to search on demand, and male staff had to turn out their pockets.

I always assumed that these things were a response to a problem, rather than being an attempt to persecute and de-humanise staff. If people are regularly stealing and costing a company lots of money, what are they meant to do? To be honest, if you've ever worked somewhere that someone IS stealing, but the management haven't figured out yet who it is, you'll know how awful it is: the atmosphere is very uncomfortable as everyone is under suspicion and you don't know who to trust.

I once worked in a busy pub where someone had their hand in the till over a prolonged period, and it was horrible - it made for a far worse atmosphere and environment than random searches. The owner eventually had a camera installed without the knowledge of the staff, and that's how the culprit was caught. Far from objecting to the fact that we'd been secretly filmed, we could scarcely disguise our delight when the police were called in to have the thieving git removed from the premises, because his actions had brought us all under suspicion and put all of our jobs on the line. I also don't buy the idea that the terrible practice of people working six hours without a break makes stealing justifiable. What's the big deal? Six hours straight is hardly Guantanamo Bay.

I also haven't come across this paid lunch hour culture in any place where I've worked over the past 20 years in the UK, from shops and pubs to council-run arts venues. Even in my last management job I had to fill in a timesheet - taking a daily lunch break of at least 30 mins was compulsory, but it wasn't counted within the 37.5 hours a week we were required to work. To be honest, no one really ever took a full half hour anyway, even though we wrote it down, and just eating a sandwich at your desk was quite common. Again, hardly being sent up the chimneys or down the pits...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:56 AM

Thank you, Fossil, for your eloquent and interesting post.

I too have fond and happy memories of a respected company who respected their employees.

We have lost so many very precious things in this country.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Fossil
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:13 AM

I am a pharmacist.

I trained - did my apprenticeship, in the days when that meant something - with Boots the Chemist. Like many other large companies, Boots has changed over the 40 years or so, since then, when their employees were genuinely valued and appreciated - into a huge faceless, heartless retail-based consortium where staff loyalty is neither expected, nor accounted for.

This sorry, value-less, inhumane approach to personnel, who are treated not like human beings, but as replaceable cogs in a money-making profit-driven machine administered by (themselves replaceable) middle-level management flunkies is just a part of contemporary British culture.

It's one of the many reasons I don't live in the UK any more, and never will again. Very sad story. I have no easy solution to the problem, except to encourage the lady concerned to jump up and down, scream violation and sue the bastards for every penny she can get!

And of course, to join the union and get their power (however degraded by the Thatcher beast) - on her side. Good luck, but not expecting much...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:42 AM

It has been assumed thruout this thread that this is a new situation. It is not. I had a job in my first Long Vacation in my university days, in 1953, at the Carreras cigarette factory in N London. Cigarettes were obviously easy things for employees to steal; so we were all required, & when taken on verbally & in writing warned of this, to agree to submit to random personal searches as we left work [which as it happened never happened to me], & to our lockers being searched during the day by security staff with master-keys [which did]. As I knew I wasn't a thief, and had no objection to reasonable frisking, loosening of waistbands &c, I accepted these conditions. So did everyone else who worked there, or they wouldn't have been working there. The same seems to apply to Lizzie's relative, who I gather voluntarily signed the contract specifying this on starting work. BUT, I reiterate — this was 55 years ago. This is not a new thing — it might be at Boots; but not as a requirement by some employers. Why the sudden fuss?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 07:13 PM

I choose to write here on Mudcat. If you have a problem with that, I politely suggest you desist from reading my posts, particularly as they seem to bore the pants off you.

Lizzie you have totally the wrong end of the stick (and not for the first time).

I don't find your posts boring at all - just the opposite in fact. As works of fiction I find them most entertaining.

And I mean that most sincerely. And when you start posting abuse........hilarious.

Do keep it up!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 05:27 PM

Lizzie
The working conditions should not be confused with the severity of this persons action against 2 employees. This person has gone beyond what is acceptable, and I dare say could be in a lot of trouble, if it can be proven.
There is only one issue and that is to do with innaproprite behaviour by a senior member of staff.
I think it would be better if you didn't post on here about this. These 2 people need to seek legal advice and if there is a case, go for the jugular. They need to play their cards close to their chests and not give this person any idea of what is going on until a case is brought forward.
This person who seems to have offended, could well be reading this thread for all you know. Do you want to provide that person with ammunition to get out of this.
Les

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 04:51 PM

>>>>>Finally instead of posting on here - do you not thing it would be sensible to

a) fully establish the facts and

b) once you have done so advise the person to join USDAW or see a solicitor as soon as possible? I am not sure why you think posting this on Mudcat helps anyone except allows you to show your usual moral outrage. <<<<<<<


I choose to write here on Mudcat. If you have a problem with that, I politely suggest you desist from reading my posts, particularly as they seem to bore the pants off you.

Failing that,

"why head don't arse you up your stick it'

...are always excellent words to try and rearrange when you bore of doing your crosswords.


>>>>In answer to your questions: it is not morally right; it is not ethically right; and I doubt it is legally right too. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

This is a legal problem.

Wages and meal breaks and the way people (especially young people) are treated in the labour market is an entirely separate issue.<<<<<

No it is not. Not to me. It is all inextricably linked by the crap way that Corporate Crap Companies choose to mistreat their staff.

Any company that thinks they have the right to search their staff should be put on the next rocket to Mars and left on the planet, permanently.

Yes, Villan...I know....'Lizzie, don't be silly...'

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Bainbo
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:49 PM

Thanks Dave. I hadn't looked - but I see that the advice says that any clause "should set out the reasons why a search may be made." Mine clearly doesn't.

I might bear that in mind for the future - or I might raise it with them now, before it comes to a head. I'll have a think.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:35 PM

IF you haven't looked at that link I offered Lizzie:

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave - PM
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:53 PM

then you might take a look. Such a situation is covered.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Bainbo
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 02:48 PM

I work for a company - not retail - which now has tentacles right across the UK. Anybody who's signed a new contract over the last couple of years- including me - has new a clause in it:

It is a condition of your employment that you may be required to comply with any request by an authorised person to conduct a personal search. This will be done by a memberof the same sex in the presence of a manager.

There's only me who's ever kicked up about this. It doesn't seem to bother anyone else. I signed, on the grounds that you're deemed to have accepted the contract anyway, simply by turning up for work, even if you haven't signed it.

But I wrote out a separate sheet and signed it, to go on my file, laying out my objection to this clause - namely, that it it doesn't compel the company to justify making such a search, and it doesn't even say the request has to be reasonable. No "If we have reason to suspect ..." or any other qualification.

Taken to its illogical conclusion, it means the company could make me strip to my underpants every time I left the building, and not even have to explain why. I know that wouldn't happen, but I was still being asked to sign a bit of paper saying I agreed that they could if they wanted to.

Now, whether that sheet of paper lying on my file actually carries any weight remains to be tested ...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 02:32 PM

Rapaire -

It is true that the laws regarding employee classification do not mention that a specific salary is sufficient to classify an employee as "salaried exempt." Those laws are the "many words" to which I made reference.

For many businesses, however, the regulations created by the federal oversight agencies to implement the laws do include those provisions. The oversight agents are free to write "interpretations" specific to individual kinds of businesses, and there is much variation from one "industy" to another.

Since this method of classification is frequently used to "skirt the law" it is quite likely that a smaller organization, or one supervised by a different government agency, might not be permitted to use salary alone for the classification; but in the industries where I worked the salary alone is applied in company policy, generally accepted and quoted in union contracts (as a non-negotiable article), and is supported by regulations governing the classification of employees for those industries.

As a former executive committee member for my union, I can assure you that I have been carefully and thoroughly versed in the regulations applicable to my own (former) industry; and I agree with you that this particular item is not stated in the underlying statutes. I would expect that the agency with which you may have dealt may have had an "interpretation of the law" that differs from what was applied where I have worked, but the "salary exempt" classification based on salary alone is common in most of the larger industries.

(Comparison of one's own contract with "similar employees in other companies" is part of the job of the union executive committee - where I was.)

John

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 02:02 PM

And some peeple do not believe in overtime. Me for example.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 02:00 PM

[quote]
In all he jobs I had, I had a paid lunch hour
[/quote]

In 40 years I have never worked anywhere that gave a paid lunch break. I can't think of anybody wanting one, dividing a week's basic pay across an extra five hours would just cut the overtime rate.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:56 PM

Maybe being groped by the management in this way might change their minds.

Having a union with access to legal expertise is very handy when someone above you in the work hierarchy is misusing their authority. An individual making a fusss is very isolated.

People often think of unions exclusively in terms of pay negotiations and so forth. Providing help and support in cases of harassment of one sort or another, or helping ensure that these don't ever arise, is liable to be a more important benefit of a good union for most people.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:53 PM

Lizzie -I suggest you tell the person involved to look at this.

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/07/03/41297/legal-q.html

Once they have read and understood that - or had it explained to them, they can decide what steps to take next.

This might include seeing a solicitor.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:32 PM

Sadly The Blessed Margaret so emasculated the Trade Unions that too many young people dont think being in a Union matters !

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:32 PM

Lizzie. It is not a case of trying get people to see you in my light. On a number of occasions you have posted things which turn out not to be true, or not to say what you have claimed they say. Therefore I check very carefully on anything you post that can be checked. If it cannot be checked then I am very wary of anything you write. I suggest other people do the same.

The examination of bags - as you have suggested happens at Laura Ashley is "normal" nowadays. It happens at football grounds too. I suspect body searches as you have described it are illegal and I am currently looking on the internet to see.

Have you looked? Certainly search by one person of another person of the opposite sex is against the ECHR and is therefore illegal. Since you have suggested there were two people of the opposite sex searched together and if only one person was searching then somewhere there was an illegal search. If there were two people doing the searching it would be useful to establish this and their gender.

Finally instead of posting on here - do you not thing it would be sensible to

a) fully establish the facts and

b) once you have done so advise the person to join USDAW or see a solicitor as soon as possible? I am not sure why you think posting this on Mudcat helps anyone except allows you to show your usual moral outrage.

In answer to your questions: it is not morally right; it is not ethically right; and I doubt it is legally right too. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

This is a legal problem.

Wages and meal breaks and the way people (especially young people) are treated in the labour market is an entirely separate issue.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:14 PM

1... "You First.", followed by a hearty laugh.

2... "Only on camera, with police present."

3... "Go fuck yerself."

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:06 PM

It is TRUE, Dave...so please, just for once, would you back off from trying to get people to see me in *your* light.

Thank you very much.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 12:56 PM

That should be "conducting" of course.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 12:56 PM

I would suggest that if this is true then the person cinduction the search has laid themselves open to a charge of assault.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: John P
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 10:19 AM

In the United States it is very common for employers to require random drug tests. I think this is as intrusive as being searched. If the drug tests caused people to not act crazy or the searches stopped theft I could ALMOST understand it, but these intrusions don't do that. Someone who had a fight with their spouse that morning, or got too drunk the night before, will be less likely to act rationally or be fully attentive than someone who smoked some pot the night before. And it is really easy to steal things from work without getting caught even if they do random searches.

I've found that treating employees like respected people does way more to achieve these goals than all the coercive intrusions imaginable.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:55 AM

Boots was started by Jesse Boot of Nottingham, Spaw....

He would be turning in his grave right now...


I used to work for them moons ago and was treated with respect and loyalty.

After this, I will never shop at their stores again.