Searching Staff....Is this right?

Subject: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:50 PM

I have a friend whose daughter has not long started working at 'Boots the Chemist', which, for our American, Canadian and Australian friends on here is the most major pharmacy chain in the UK.

Today, the young person was searched.

She was taken into a room which locked itself from the inside, with another member of staff, a young man, who was also searched. They had to take their shoes off, pull the waist of their trousers open so that person checking them could see they had nothing hidden down there.

I know someone else who works for Laura Ashley, the clothes shop, and they too are subject to random searches, but bags only.

Both these companies are paying basic minimum wages to their staff, not even allowing them a paid tea break, even if they work for 6 hours...They are allowed to have one, but it's taken out of their wages. They are not allowed lunch breaks.

What the f*ck is going on?

Boots has not long been taken over by some Italian Billionaire Bastard, apparently....

What right does he have to insist his staff are treated this way?

Is it legal?
Can they be prosecuted for invasion of privacy, or some such thing?

I believe the young girl says it's in her contract that she agrees to be searched, but is this morally, ethically or legally right?

Geez, have we lost the plot!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:51 PM

Apologies. Could this be moved to the BS section please. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:59 PM

Nothing wrong if it is in the contract.

However I would be dead worried if it was only one member of staff doing this behind closed doors. That is not acceptable and should be reported immediately.
It should be 2 memebers and preferably one male and one female.

If you do not have anything then no harm, but do remember its in the contract.

I remember back in the sixties when I worked for the GEC in Birmingham with over 18000 employees, every exit had guards at the gates and they had the right to search you and your car without question. I got searched several times. I didn't complain. I was clean.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:30 PM

"If you do not have anything then no harm, but do remember its in the contract."


Sorry, I totally disagree.

I worked for Boots when I was young and we were NEVER treated this way, ever.

Many young people think it has always been this way, it hasn't.

Now, employers often go out of their way to emplop staff only for 7 1/2 hours so they don't have to give them a paid lunch hour.   In all he jobs I had, I had a paid lunch hour and a tea break morning and afternoon..and I was NEVER searched, ever.

Goodness me, there'd have been a total outcry if employers had done that.

The Executives of GEC should have had some of their own volts shoved up their trousers for doing that...

If you feel you cannot trust your staff, then you shouldn't be in business....because one of the main reasons that staff are possibly now stealing things is because they are treated so shittily. No tea breaks, no lunchtimes, searches, no contracts (often) no regular hours, no support.

Where the hell are the Unions???????

Thank God the Dustmen have come out on strike!
I fully support them, every inch of the way...because this morning I sat watching a pratty councillor telling the BBC that being a dustman wasn't a skilled job, and therefore it was right for the council to now pay them less under the new equal wages rules. One dustman said his pay would drop from £19,000 to £14,500 ?????!!!!!!

You cannot keep treating people like this!   I bet that snivelly, snotty arsed councillor would never pick up his own dustbin....yet he thinks that he has the right to pay his dustbin collector less, because 'he' is not as 'skilled' as Snotty Arse!

Holy Dumping Dustbins!!

WHAT has happened to us all???????????

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:31 PM

Yikes. In the US, federal law requires the establishment to allow a ten minute (paid!) break every two hours and a (paid!) 30 minute break after four hours. Any time worked after 8 hours is overtime at time and a half.

If an establishment does not honor this law, the Department of Labor will step in.

Every now and then I realize that other countries are not necessarily as civilized as the US.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:31 PM

'emplop' ?    I like that word! :0)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:34 PM

Ebbie.....thank you so much for posting that. I'll pass that on to the young girl concerned..and well done USA!

Someone else has just told me to go to ACAS to find out the rules and regulations that the employers have to meet.

I'm not shopping at Boots from now on. Or Laura Ashley!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Gervase
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:45 PM

I agree that being searched is an intrusive and degrading process - but on the other hand, retailers are losing huge amounts to what is euphemistically termed 'shrinkage', and in some sectors more is taken by the staff than by shoplifters. In 2005 the British retail sector lost nearly £2.5 billion from shrinkage, and more than a third of that was down to staff theft. It's why more and more shops have CCTV over the counters; they need to monitor the staff as much as the customers. Very few chains have no process in place to monitor staff; if they don't search they will have cameras trained on them.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 06:06 PM

It doesn't sound legal. In fact I suspect they could be in serious trouble if she decides to make a complaint.

If she's in a union that would be the place to start.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:39 PM

I do not know whether this is true or not.

But one thing for certain - I would check very carefully before posting to anything that Lizzie says.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:56 PM

Not to comment about the accuracy of the events related, at all, but this sort of thing does happen. I think that, at a minimum, a person has a right to privacy while undergoing any kind of invasive search, and it should be performed by a person of the same gender. I can't honestly discuss the legality of it, since I'm not in the UK.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:57 PM

In 2005 the British retail sector lost nearly £2.5 billion from shrinkage,

Or so they told the Inland Revenue.. 'Shrinkage' is a tax-deductable expense and a heaven-sent opportunity for creative accountancy.

and more than a third of that was down to staff theft.

How could they possibly know that?

Beware of statistics :-)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 08:29 PM

So join the Union while you may

Dont wait until your dying day

For that may not be far away

If You're a black Leg Miner

As Kevin said - The Union is the place to start

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 08:45 PM

It is legal for employers to search their employees' bags.

It is TOTALLY illegal for them to do body searches of any kind (like looking into pockets). If they have suspicions they can call the police, who do have such powers but will only use them if given good reason. And "it's Friday afternoon" is not a good reason.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 10:42 PM

If I search, or even just look in for something, a person's desk I have someone else with me as a witness.

If I had to have a search of the person done I would call the police to do it.

If there is suspicion of theft there are other ways of confirming or denying the person's supposed guilt without an invasive search. Don't these firms employ security personnel (and I don't mean low-paid security guards, but professional loss prevention specialists)?

I'd scream bloody murder over this -- if a woman and searched by a man, in private, I'd scream sexual abuse.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:46 AM

Sorry to contradict my dear friend Ebbie, but there is no provision US labor law (FLSA, Fair Labor Standards Act) which requires an employer to provide breaks, rest periods, or even lunch breaks. The only requirement is to pay time and one half after 40 hours. The only exceptions I know of to this involves employees who are minors. And to put a point on it, a few years back the Republicans proposed not having overtime kick in until a worker worked 2080 hours in a year. Doesn't require too much to see how that would be abused.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:40 AM

Yikes. In the US, federal law requires ...

There are some regulations in US federal law regarding working hours, breaks, and other conditions; but as also pointed out the main impact of federal law is on (minimum) wage and overtime pay - - - however - - -

The laws generally apply only to businesses doing business with the government in some way, and even then only to businesses above a certain size. They may be applied to businesses without government contracts if the size (number of employees) is sufficiently large.

Most states have additional "requirements" that apply more broadly than the federal ones, but in most cases they again apply only to companies with "state contracts" and/or above a certain size - typically 12 to 40 or so employees in a single workplace.

Additionally, a business is permitted to ignore the rules for overtime pay for "salaried exempt" employees, so that the rules do not apply to almost anyone paid a salary as opposed to an hourly wage. There are "lots of words" about who qualifies to be called "salaried exempt" but all the words are overridden by the provision that anyone who's salary exceeds a specific amount can be considered "exempt" and not subject to the rules. The last time I checked, the "specific amount" was about 80% of the federal poverty level income.

A second "out" for businesses is that anyone who's is eligible to receive "commissions" on work performed - rather than only an hourly wage - generally are exempted from the rules, even if they also receive a "base wage" and even if they never actually receive a "commission." ("Tips" from customers are (sometimes) treated as "commissions" but that gets pretty fuzzy in practice.)

An employment contract is about the only way to know what "they" can do to you, and about the only way to get a decent and clearly defined contract - and to have some assurance that the contract will be enforced - is to be in a decent union.

John

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:52 AM

>>The Executives of GEC should have had some of their own volts shoved up their trousers for doing that...
<<

Don't be silly Lizzie

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 04:42 AM

I'm with Terry & Kevin on this. No point not joining a union & then complaining if you get exploited. Unions should deal with these problems on your behalf. That means not just paying your dues but going to meetings, serving on committeees etc. Yes, it's 90% boring but if you don't who will?

RtS
Retired Member UCU, former Dept Rep, Branch Member & Union Rep on University Academic Board.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:06 AM

Sorry, JiK, but to be an exempt employee requires more than just being on salary. It also requires (among other things) supervisory responsibility. Some libraries have tried to get around the FLSA by putting everyone on salary, only to learn that there's more to exemption than that.

In lieu of overtime I get six additional days of leave each year -- and believe me, I earn 'em!

This isn't the definitive Word from the government, but it gives a fair discussion of what defines an exempt employee.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:42 AM

I think its horseshit of course but beyond that..........

There are times I just love the UK or whatever we're calling folks over there today.............

BOOTS THE CHEMIST

See, our chain pharmacies are named things like Rite-Aid, CVS, Walgreens, and stuff like that............Boots the fuckin' chemist just cracks me up!


Spaw

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:53 AM

"RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:39 PM

I do not know whether this is true or not.

But one thing for certain - I would check very carefully before posting to anything that Lizzie says."



















So, moving on from fatuous comments.....

I've rung up ACAS this morning and they put me on to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Both of them were very shocked to hear the story.

The Human Rights folks told me to contact the 'Human Resources' section of Boots. (Goodness, how I hate that HR word!) Needless to say, the HR department would not talk to me...so I was ushered along to the Customer Services Department..The young woman there was as shocked as the two previous people.

Basically, it's down to the young person concerned to now take this further, because even Boots own Customer Care Department wanted that to happen.



As far as people stealing, Gervase...you know, I'm almost at the point of understanding why they do it...because down here in the West Country you get shite wages, minimum wages more often than not...and if an employee won't even give you a tea break for free, after you've worked for them from 8am in the morning for SIX hours, on your feet all the time...well, you know what, the bastards deserve all they get!

If you show your staff no loyalty, then you will get NONE back..and sadly, that is what is happening all over the place, as penny pinching accountants claw back money from the very people who MAKE the money for their Corporate Masters.

You cannot and should not treat all employees as if they are criminals.

This world wide craziness that we have, where we are all regarded as potential criminals, terrorists, paedeophiles etc...is utter madness!

The young woman concerned was NOT stealing....she was just picked at random out of all the staff.

I'm not sure why some people on here seem to think this is right, or that she should be glad to have a job. That's the kind of thinking that has brought this abhorrent situation into being in the first place.

It's *not* right, not right at all.

And just think on this one....If you have a boss who's a little weird, well....what a wonderful idea for perverts to give themselves a good time at Boots the Chemist expense....

"Now then young woman, just lift your shirt up and pull your trouser waistband out....and....."

It's sick, it's disgusting and it's morally wrong.

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.

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: 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: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 12:56 PM

That should be "conducting" of course.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:53 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 05:27 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: 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 - 05:39 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 - 05:47 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 - 05:50 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: 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: 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: 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: Wesley S
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:57 PM

"Mystery shoppers stink."

Not all of them. When properly used they can show who your best employees are and also reveal weak spots on your staff. They've almost always produced good results whenever I've seen them used. I spent over 20 years in high end retail shops here in the US and I've seen how they work.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,EWH
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:15 AM

The fruit does not fall from the tree

Have her quit - if she has not been fired yet

And return to the all welcoming arms of mommy dearest

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:26 AM

Catspaw said:

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.

Lizzie said:

Today I went into The Body Shop

Spaw - you see how seriously she was taking you? That's marvellous!!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:37 AM

I was going to post............... but after all that ranting........I cant be bothered !

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Fossil
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:15 AM

Hmm...OK have read all the thread. .

Is it Ok to search staff? Well, depressingly, you've probably had to sign an agreement that allows them to do it, so yes - if they want to, they can.

*Should* they do it, on a more-than-occasional basis? My view is, that unless management has a strong, nay very strong, reason to think said employee is stealing from the business, no they shouldn't.

Very regular staff searching indicates profound management insecurity, inefficient targeting - the general public contains more villains than ever the staff will throw up, assuming that you have been proper about your recruiting and have managed to weed out the more obviously light-fingered ones before they get near the sales floor.

What you need to do is build in a culture where people stealing from the firm is seen by those on the front-line as "stealing from us". "Us" meaning the business, of course.

It *can* be done, but only by management fostering a family-centred, concerned and employee-valuing culture within the business, something which almost no major retail chain even bothers with these days.

It is seen as too wimpy, anaemic and not macho enough for the lazy, pre-programmed, male-oriented, uncultured and stupid people (generally with worthless degrees) who inhabit British middle-management these days. Wonder why we're facing a total loss of manufacturing industry? Or why Britain will be the last, the very last country to climb out of the W-shaped depression?

Would the final British retail manager who believes in his or her staff, please turn off the lights as you leave?

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

Joseph Rowntree lived in a very different time to this, so the values he upheld would not be those of today...er..obviously.

However, when it comes to Mothers and Work, I actually think he had a point, because children need their mothers...and a mother's place IS with her children.

You only have to look at what is happening to so many children these days, as they grow older, in particular...where they seek love in gangs, large groups of so-called 'friends'...who sadly now take the place, for so many youngsters, of a large, caring family. (and yes, I *do* know that not *all* families are caring, before some on here come twittering on at me)

Just think, if everyone had adopted Joseph's attitude of feeling that mothers were best employed bringing up the next generation then we may not have the cold, desensitised bastards who are now runnig Corporate Crap Chains like Boots...and all the others, because they'd have been loved as children, small children...and they'd not have had a Corporate Edukashon System to steal their souls and make them feel that life is about nothing but tests, exams, tests, exams...and failure.

Ho hum!

Pass the Rowntree's Fruit Pastilles, please.......

(She sits back and waits for the Fearsome Feminists to Self-Combust in their Anti-Motherhood Rage!)

Also, the Corporate Bastards seized the opportunity of women going out to work en masse to realise that they now had TWO salaries to steal...TWO people to make feel guilty...and of course, how they POURED down the guilt on both parents for leaving their children with childminders all day long....because that's when parents started to replace LOVE with MATERIALISM....and the bottom started to fall out of the world as we knew it..........

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:40 AM

The National Trust were very good employers....that's why I worked for them...but things change when new people come in...and they now have way more than their fair share of the De-Sensitised Mercenary ones, who's lives revolve around profit, profit, profit...

Tell me, how much do you think it's going to cost to have a font especially designed for them and them alone? How many millions are they going to happily pass over (of other people's money) in order that they can be groovy and 're-logo'?   It's all Corporate Crap and I am so glad that I got out when I did...

If children are brought up by their mothers, and fathers, to feel loved, valued and treasured, then they will treat their fellow human beings with compassion, care and respect.

What is going on in so many corporate places is the exact opposite and some should ask themselves why and how this has happened.

If you treat people like shit, then the shit flies back in your face...and you richly deserve to be covered in it.

Treat your employees like gold....and you may well end up with far more than just a golden glow..

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:50 AM

So what has your last 2 posts got to do with Searching people Lizzie?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,EX
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:09 AM

I do not know where it went. But the California state labor law that was posted here included time at work for nursing mothers. Now THAT is nurturing. Lizzie why did some Ax that? Are their managment here that might not like in the UK? It is in the Netherlands also. Are there people afraid of Brussel Sprouts on this board?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:15 AM

Mothers staying at home to look after their children is a mother's choice. My wife chose to stay at home and bring the children up until they were at school.

But that wasn't what Rowntree was about Lizzie. He let them go when they got married. They didn't have any choice.

I could have sworn you were arguing for individual liberty and choice. Clearly I don't understand the contradictions in what you write. But then neither do you.

Now this thread drift has moved us away from the issue that you began with Lizzie.

What has happened to the young people who were searched? Have you given them any advice? Suggested they see a solicitor for example? I did give you the address of a specialist solicitor they could go to.

Don't you think we should be told? Otherwise people might think there was no real reason for the rant at the start of this thread other than the chance for you to spout off your own moral outrage and troll along merrily.

But again, nothing new there.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:22 AM

I will contribute, though I fear it will be unpopular.

If you are made aware of the conditions of your employment before you accept the position, ie staff will be subject to random searches etc, then dont complain if after starting, those condition are imposed. You knew before you started - you didnt have to take the job.

If practices are started after you have commenced employment and you are completely certain and have proof that they have been instigated without prior consultation, you have two choices - fight it (with the proper legal representation) or leave.

If you choose to fight be prepared to be extremely unpopular and for your worklife to made a misery. Is the fight worth it.

Whether this is morally wrong or right, is another matter.

Many employers have little or no respect for staff. They dont have to, there are many people out there who would willingly fill the vacancy, if someone decides to walk. Its not right but it is the world we live in - the real world.

We can all take the moral high-ground and say this is wrong and we shall rise up and fight the rich man - but dont forget while we're rising up and fighting, we still have to pay the mortgage and put food on the table and that and only that is the main concern of many people.

As for the retail world, my son is looking for a job in his gap year and talking to him and his friends, random searches of staff in high street shops are not uncommon. His opinion is, if I've nothing to hide its not a problem - live with it.

- As for tea breaks, sorry, I dont see what that has to do with staff searches.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:32 AM

I am with you Green Wellies.

My only concern on this issue, is whether the search was carried out correctly and according to the rules of the company. I can't see anybody being allowed to do a search on their own.

I would have thought the appropriate action if not involving the police, would have been 2 senior female staff searching the young lady and 2 senior male staff searching the male employee. Anything less than that should be taken up legally.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 09:06 AM

I would have thought the appropriate action if not involving the police, would have been 2 senior female staff searching the young lady and 2 senior male staff searching the male employee. Anything less than that should be taken up legally.

Absolutely Villan.

Shame about last night by the way! Could have done with your lads winning there!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 09:40 AM

Off topic

Are you a Blackburn fan then Dave?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 10:04 AM

Hi Villan I could be mistaken but aren't the only people allowed to search without permission, the Police? I have a feeling that even store detectives are only allowed to detain, but not search until the Police arrive? Could be wrong.

Most employers get round this by including it in their contract of empoyment, and by accepting such you are agreeing to be searched. My husband worked for years at MG at Longbridge and they were regularly searched on their way out.

Which reminds me of of the man who left each night with a wheelbarrow covered over with a sack. When the security lifted the sack there was nothing in the wheelbarrow. It was months before they realised that he was stealing wheelbarrows.

Oh come on!! the oldies are the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 10:09 AM

Ah the sad demise of Longbridge. Should never have been allowed to happen.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 10:48 AM

Thanks Villan, the sad thing is the story which is not told. The fact that hundreds have never found jobs, and the number of men who have comitted suicide since because they could not support their families. A number of these were known personally by my husband. Thats the real crime. Ooops off thread, sorry.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 10:54 AM

The law was altered recently to allow teachers to search.

Details here.

Customs officers for example also have such powers. If you refuse a customs officer permission to search you, they have to get a warrant. Even if they have found something in a suitcase for example which is the usual trigger.

But I wouldn't worry about it - Lizzie has forgotten this one now and is off on another troll.

To Villan off topic - Blade of course. Don't care who beats the Shammers.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 11:04 AM

Folkiedave, interesting when you actually think of the number of occasions when you could be searched, ie., schools, shops, airports, in public by the police. Public building/events, football etc. Never given it much thought before.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 01:45 PM

I bet Lizzie doesn't go abroad, becuase she would have to be searched at the airport and with these new xray things that can undress you.

Or maybe thats different as she want's to go on holiday. :-)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:32 PM

I don't go abroad, Villan...

Personally, I think the world's gone raving nuts.

Dave, please stop issuing me orders, as I take no notice of them. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Gervase
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:23 PM

Hmm - bit of bullying going on here?
FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with Lizzie. Yes, I know we live in a rufty-tufty world where dog must eat dog to survive, but we do appear to have forgotten as much as we've learned.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:20 PM

Dave, please stop issuing me orders, as I take no notice of them. Thank you.

I feel much the same when you tell me to stick my head up my arse.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:22 PM

The orders came first...go figure.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: HuwG
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:27 PM

Many, many years ago (in the early 1980s), my job required me to visit a steelworks. All people, including employees, leaving the site were required to allow their car boots (US = trunks) to be searched, to prevent people stealing scrap. I would have thought that this would be a cursory "Open up mate ... fine, off you go", but it was carried out by security guards who were reckoned to be rejected by the Prison Service as unsuitable sociopaths. They would occasionally and without obvious cause, insist on drivers removing every item from the boot, including spare wheels and toolkits. Of course, this could hold up a whole shift trying to leave the site at clocking-off time, for several minutes at a time.

To say the least, industrial relations at this works belonged in the days when they were building the pyramids, and sometimes, when industrial action took place or was threatened, the security guards had to be careful about walking alone down dark alleys at night.

Urban legend (possibly inspired by Johnny Cash's "One Piece at a Time") at the site had it that workers once put together a complete car from the bits and pieces in the scrap bins and drove it past the Neanderthals on the gate without raising suspicion.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 03:28 AM

My husband was leaving Rover, and his boot was searched. In the corner there was less than half a roll of masking tape. It was dirty, squashed and had obviously been tucked away in there for a very long time. But because he could not produce a receipt or account for its origin, they detained him in a locked office and questioned him for one and half hours.

As I said in an earlier post, he had agreed to this by signing his contract of employment. There was nothing he could do - not if he wanted to keep his job.

This was back in the 70's when the 'Unions Ruled'. Searching of employees is nothing new.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 03:35 AM

"Searching of employees is nothing new."

That does not make it right.

What happened to your husband was downright disgusting and deeply worrying.

They should not be allowed to have these contracts in the first place, and that is what should be being discussed by unions.

Who are these control freaks who distrust everyone and everything?

We are all becoming more and more controlled and it's happening because we are allowing it to happen.

Boots told me they have a guide book telling employees exactly what will happen during a search.

Again, that does not make it right.

It is morally wrong.

They have had the absolute shite put up them, as I've told them I'm going to the press about companies who force people to sign these contracts if they want to get the job...and people are 'forced', not physically, but mentally.

It is wrong.

It is way past time that the British Workforce stood up to bullying, control freak employers and told them exactly what to do with their 'searches'....

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 04:02 AM

100

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 04:44 AM

No, it isn't right.

We never used to live our lives this way. We don't have to now.
The more you let things 'happen' the more that will happen.

When did we all become so suspicious of each other? Who has driven this? What kind of suspicious minds are behind so much of what is happening in this world.

It is not right to search your staff....because if you have staff that you cannot trust then you've either hired the wrong staff in the first place, or you're treating them so bloody badly that they're intent on 'getting their own back'...and a lot of *that* is going on at the moment.

Never have employers treated their staff so shittily, and never have staff LET themselves be treated this way.

If you care for your workforce, then you have, in general, a very happy and loyal place, where profits come back to you far faster, because everyone feels a part of it all, everyone benefits.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 04:50 AM

Just tell me Lizzie, after you have told them what they can do with their searches and no doubt their job to boot, just what are you going to use to pay the mortgage and feed the family.

I'm not saying whether its wrong or right, but in the real world people need job to earn money to survive and that is their priority.

I also think we need to keep sight of the face that stealing is a crime, and if a company/shop is having a problem, and loosing money because of it, what do you say they should do about it.

Imagine, for just a moment Lizzie, that you are the owner of a small independent chemist, built up over say 20 years by your own hard slog, and every week you are 'loosing' £100 worth of cosmetics or even just a couple of bottles of 'designer' perfume.
What are YOU going to do - let it continue?

What happens if you did search someone and found stolen goods. That search is then justified, and has taken the suspecion away from innocent members of staff ......... so does that then make searching OK ?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 05:50 AM

No, it doesn't.

I used to WORK for that family chain, GW, and if you'd read my earlier posts you'd see that it was very different back then.

Trust has gone, because Loyalty has gone.

Again, if you look after your staff and see that without them your business cannot grow as you would like it to, then your staff will look after you too.

If you make them sign contracts stating that you have the right to body search them, bag search them, etc...then they are already feeling resentment towards that company.

Yes, people still carry on working for companies like this because they *have* to, to pay the bills etc...but already the employer is on a losing streak, because his workforce will not be giving of their best. Why should they?   They get crap wages, crap treatment, crap trust...

Everything has broken down...and it's broken down because of GREED!

It's broken down because of the bean counters who sit there and say..."Hey, if we stop giving our staff a paid break and a drink, then we can make even MORE disgusting profits to stash away!"

And THAT is what is so terribly wrong about all of this.

Last week, that store took in over £250,000....and yet they charge their staff for a cup of tea?????????

Oh, purleeeeeeeeeze!!!


Life was once about pleasure, not profit.   It was about great places to work, sincere and loyal workforces who loved where they worked...

But Scrooge came in and taught a whole new lesson...and unlike A Christmas Carol, we so far do not have a happy ending.

We are going back to the Days of Dickens.....

It all stinks.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:09 AM

Yes yes yes that's all very well, but you havnt answered my question - what would YOU do if you owned a small business - not a chain - and suspected a member of your staff was stealing.

How would you go about confirming your suspecions without upsetting your other loyal hardworking staff.

What measures would you take to confront the offender.

I dont want chapter and verse on the moral decline of the modern world - just your answers to the above questions, which are central to the title of this post.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:39 AM

You will get my reply in whatever way I choose to write it, GW.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:42 AM

Employers are different now but perhaps it' because the staff are different.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:50 AM

'We never used to live our lives this way. We don't have to now.'

Sorry Lizzy, but yes we did. I have given you an example above from 56 years ago. Ruth Archer then joined in to give further examples from many years back. If you have never come across such contracts & such systems before, I don't know where you can have been. Cloud=Cuckooland, perhaps? It has always been regarded as perfectly normal business practice. Taking the job & agreeing to the contract are voluntary; but it is no use moaning afterwards if the contract is then enforced. No system is perfect, and there have doubtless been employers whose security staff are unreasonable: but a complaint to management would make more sense if that is the case, as in some of the stories above, than your coming on here & sounding off about an experience a relative of yours happened to have recently, when, by all accounts, she herself wasn't even particularly worried by it, sensibly recognising it as in accordance with the contract she had voluntarily agreed to sign.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:53 AM

The staff have changed because of the terrible meaness of the employers, Manitas.


And if I suspected a member of my staff of stealing, then I would personally watch that person very carefully, from a distance, unobtrusively, until I had the evidence required.

I would certainly NOT expect ALL my staff to be body searched by me, randomly, because I know they would become very angry about that and the trust between us all would be broken forever.

As stated, I will not buy things from Boots any longer...and I have told them this. They are going to contact their HR departments in the West Country, to ensure that everything is done 'to the book'...but what they cannot, or rather, will not, acknowledge is that they should not be doing this in the first place.

We are living in a world which has become dominated by those who are unable to trust, who have fearful and suspcious natures and who are determined to bring in as many rules and tegulations at every turn to 'stop anything from happening'...

You will, sadly, always get people who steal, just as you will always get paedeophiles, wife-beaters, murderers...and treating everyone as if they are thieves or any of those aforementioned, will NOT stop it from happening, just make innocent person, who make up the vast majority, angry, fed up and pissed off....and THAT is when you get the rebellion..and in this case the employers have caused their own rebellion by staff stealing from their pennypinching, controlling, crap wages companies..

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:59 AM

No, we didn't.

I worked for Boots, I worked for most of the major department stores in London, I worked for private chemists, I worked in Harley Street, I worked in Upper Wimpole St, I worked in The National Trust, and in none of these places was I ever searched, or ever asked to sign a contract stating that I would allow it.

Some places did, but they were in the minority.

The minority is now becoming the majority and if you are happy to put up with that, well...you are contributing to the way things are going.

Staff, particularly those in the retail trade, are now treated like shite, in many places.

I recall John Tams saying on The Reckoning...."Who will tow the line...?"

Who indeed?

Because it seems to me that we have turned into a nation, into a world of yellow bellied twits who roll over and agree to anything and everything that bully boy Scrooge employers want to dish out...

SHEESH!!

Of course, I could tell you that the Edukashon System and the crazy political correctness have a great deal to do with this..but there are those on here who now feel it's their right to tell me to write my replies as 'they' feel fit....Well, I've been there, done that, been bullied half senseless with those who sought to control the way I write, whilst never ever demanding that they write the way I dictated.

Treating staff like shite is wrong. Period.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 07:03 AM

And whichever PC prat it was who decided to de-humanize staff by calling them 'Human Resources' needs a real kick up their de-sensitised backside, because to view PEOPLE as a RESOURCE is, quite frankly, shocking.

And if employers now have "Am I bovvered?" staff working for them, then they sooooo need to look to themselves for the reasons as to why.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 07:29 AM

The term "Human Resources" is nothing to do with "PC" (whatever that is). It is a term that came from business. And in reality, those companies and organisations who recognise that the humans who work for them are their most precious and valuable resource are probably going to benefit from that - as are the employees who will be valued and well treated.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 07:30 AM

And so you watch your staff as described, and you see said person put something into their pocket, say, what do you do then?

Ask them, politely, to take it out or empty their pockets,

They say NO,

What do you do then?

You cant touch them, because thats assault.

And YOU dont believe in searching them so,

What do you do?

You can of course call the police, but they would search them.......but you dont believe in that........ do you?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 07:31 AM

"And if I suspected a member of my staff of stealing, then I would personally watch that person very carefully, from a distance, unobtrusively, until I had the evidence required."

But what if you didn't know which staff member it was? In the case I cited, the manager of the pub didn't know which of us to suspect, which effectively put us all under suspicion. So what should he have done? Was he right to secretly install a camera which meant that we were all being watched without our knowledge, but that the culprit was eventually caught?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:10 AM

Sorry, if it was my company, then I'd be watching.

I would never expect all my staff to be treated as if they were potential thieves.

I would also be intelligent enough to know that whether I liked it or not, at some point, there would be people who worked for me who probably would steal....because such is life. It's not right, but it's life.

The reason that staff are perhaps stealing far more these days is that they're getting crap wages, whilst living in a world gone crazy...and they're often working for corporate companies whose owners write themselves out unbelievable bonuses, whilst not even letting their staff take a decent, paid tea-break.

If you wanna be mean, then you can expect to have meaness thrown back at you.

You will never stop thieving. You will never be able to trust every single person in your life...and most of us realise that. The Controlling Ones, want to be able to do that though, and so they treat EVERYONE as if they are thieves.

It's utterly wrong, in every way.

And ask yourselves WHY it never used to be this way, because as I stated above, it didn't.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 04:01 PM

You still didnt answer my question. What would you do when you see that person putting something into their pocket - if you're not going to search them - then what ?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 09:31 PM

Liz - you are a obviously a lovely lady. You, obviously have a delightful, dutiful, daughter that you cherish and protect.

Since you are reveared member of our Mudcat community...this is a cause that has moved foreward on the "to do" agenda.

To get to root of the matter - I have taken the liberty to make contacts regarding your concerns - unfortunatly, it is the weekend.

I anticipate a corporate response into this thread by Wednesday, November 11.

The location of her "Boots" store - and the hours of the "incident" will help.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 10:44 PM

"And ask yourselves WHY it never used to be this way, because as I stated above, it didn't. "

You can 'state' it as often as you like till you are blue in the face, Lizzie; but it won't alter the fact that, as I, & Ruth A, and others, have clearly demonstrated above, YES IT DID...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish (too tired to log in)
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 01:56 AM

No, it didn't. I used to work for Boots, and I can assure you, it didn't. I don't care about other places this may have happened, the fact is that back then it was pretty unusual and now, it's become the norm...and it's *not* normal to want to search your staff.


Most staff of big corporate places are not treated well these days.

You lot obviously think that's an OK situation. I don't. And on that we will have to agree to disagree.   The more you let things go, the more shite will be rained down upon you. And it's the apathy and attitude that I see above that has brought this situation into being.

The Corporate Slave Masters have been doing many things wrong for a very long time. This is just one more thing.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 03:26 AM

Lizzie, you seem to think Boots is the ONLY employer in the country BECAUSE you used to work for them. Your logic is a constant joy & delight & entertainment. Even if your once-beloved-because-graced-by-your-presence Boots didn't do them way back then, staff searches were still a perfectly common practice 50+ years ago. That is the fact. If you don't like it — tough·titty. Keep your head buried in the sand then. & you know what they say about whence all sound emanates from those whose heads are buried in the sand...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:18 AM

Refreshed to give Lizzie chance to come back before this drops off end...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:05 AM

The fact that Boots and many other shops now do this IS relatively new, actually...(sticky out tongue smiley)....and it does NOT make it right that large factories, workplaces etc..used to do this 50 years back.

It was wrong then.

It's wrong now.

And the fact that it is being taken into the High Street shops is even more wrong.

If you don't trust me, don't employ me.
And if you don't trust me, why the f*c* would I want to work for you?

We are all becoming more and more controlled, untrusted and dictated to, and it's happening because WE are letting it happen by not taking a stand and shouting out...."EXCUSE ME, but P*SS OFF!"


Thank you.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:10 AM

I was told by my manager in The National Trust, that if I did not fill in their stooooopid,patronising, multiple choice answer manual, then the whole shop would be marked down and the manager would be seen as being not in control of the staff.

I said it was emotional blackmail by The National Trust's new Controlling Ones...and I resigned.

I do NOT want to work for people who treat me like an idiot, and don't even want to entertain the idea of listening to their staff.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:14 AM

And yes, I needed the money, but no, I won't sell my soul to any Corporate Devil, and would rather struggle on until I find a job that treats me half decently.

It is OUR fault that things have got this bad. WE are the staff and without us, they cannot run their shops, factories, businesses etc.....

Employment is a two way thing, and the employees seem to have forgotten that, letting patronising, uncaring, mean-spirited B*stard Employers treat them like shite.

When I go for an interview, I am also interviewing 'them'...and if they don't come up to my standards, I walk away....and struggle.

I will not surrender my pride, my intelligence, my self-respect or my soul to a Corporate Master...ever.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:16 AM

Charming, Lizzie — but if you knew me at all you would know that enjoining me to PISS OFF is the most certain way of ensuring that I shall do no such thing. So, to respond in kind, up yours, my dear... And your arguments remain FATUOUS. The employers who 'treat you like an idiot' appear to me to have a point.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:25 AM

'I will not surrender my pride, my intelligence??????????, my self-respect or my soul to a Corporate Master...ever.'

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:38 AM

OK, so here is THE way to treat your staff.

I worked in Harley Street, as a medical secretary/PA. That was my job, nothing more. But, the two men I worked for were very supportive, loyal, hard working, thoroughly decent people. Within weeks of starting work for them, I got married. They bought me crystal wine glasses. I was stunned.

I worked hard for them, VERY hard...and between the three of us we built up a highly excellent practice, giving life back to patients from around the world.

Pay rise time comes....

"So, what do you think we should pay you, Lizzie?"

"£100,000 and a company car, please!" joked I....and we all laughed together...

"Find out what Dr. so and so's secretary's getting, then pay yourself £1,000 more" said Dr. Spurrell, and Gareth nodded his head in agreement...

Again, I was a bit stunned....


When the Tube Strike was on, I slept on the settee in the Consulting Room, so I'd be there next day, as ever. When they went on holiday I decorated their Examination Room from top to bottom..free of charge...apart from the paint. They didn't know I'd done it until they got back...it wasn't in my job description, but...it needed doing, so I did it.

I did a thousand and one other things that weren't in my job description either. Why? Because they treated me with the utmost respect and kindness.

And that was returned to them a thousand fold.

They knew they could trust me with their lives, if needs be...and vice versa...and THAT is the ONLY foundation that you should want to build a successful business on, not one of control, meaness and distrust.

The current way of thinking stinks.

And thanks, mate...but I am well aware of my intelligence, despite the ridiculing that goes on here. I've ridden over a wall of nastiness...

...and just so's you know...I would never question YOUR intelligence publicly, despite it being more than a little obvious that er.......


Roll over and give in, if you must, but do NOT expect me to join you.

Lizzie - A Woman of Principle!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 06:38 AM

Sorry, Lizzie — some of my comments on your intelligence were unworthy & I do wish I hadn't said them.

Your above job description sounds a delight, & the practice were very lucky to get an employee as dedicated as you and you were lucky to get employers like them. But I don't exactly see its relevance to the topic of this thread. All one can say is that it would be nice if everyone were so loving and appreciative.

Unhappily, it isn't so. You know that there are, e.g., thieves, who will steal from their employers if they can, & from whom employers have not only the right but the duty (as Ruth A pointed out, in the interests of the honest majority) to protect themselves by any reasonable and honest means at their disposal.

Honestly now, Lizzie; starting again with a bit of goodwill between us, please; and bringing that intelligence of yours to the question — how can you fault what I have just said?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:23 PM

I accept your kinder words, and thank you.

However, the way forward is to bin the Gross Suspicion that has taken so many things over, and start going back to Honourable Trust.

If you don't want staff to steal from you, then you treat them as I was treated, with respect.

Respect should start at school. And it should start with teachers respecting children, as much as the other way around. We live in a shattered society at present, and it is way past time to start putting those pieces back together.

Boots, or anyone else, can do it by saying to their employees that they are all entitled to a 15 minute paid tea break, with tea, coffee etc, paid for by the company. The amount of goodwill that will bring would be enormous, as would Boots, or anyone else, stating that they are no longer carrying out searches on their staff, because they have decided to make their staff partners in the firm, just as John Lewis/Waitrose do...and therefore, if stealing happens, the staff are actually stealing their own profits.

You need to look at why people are stealing more than before. And when you look you will see that many employees feel hard done by, working for minimum wage, under shite conditions, whilst those at the top get maximum profits and a life of luxury.

After all, it was cups of tea that won the war, you know. :0) They can do an awful lot for business relations too.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,Dr. Fraud
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:00 PM

Re: I will not surrender my pride, my intelligence, my self-respect or my soul to a Corporate Master...ever.

Ahhh. MizLiz...your rage then stems from the disappointment in finding that you raised a child who has compromised "your ideals."

Let go, and let live.

They are not you.

In France - anyone may be questioned at anytime - and called to account - even the president.

In Iran - we do not worry about theft, or other social problems. Our people have instilled the higher moral code that you so desperately wish from your western society.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:50 PM

Cups of tea keep me going — I couldn't agree more about their overwhelming importance. Trust, partnerships, goodwill — they all have their place in the commonweal indeed. But unhappily there always does remain an intransigent hard core who are just not honest and not trustworthy [I have no religion; but one thing I do believe, in a non-doctrinal sense, is the existence of what I can only summarise by the term Original Sin].

So, now: in all sobriety and all honesty — what is to be done about them if they are not to louse up everything for the rest of us?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 05:18 PM

So, to get back to my question, what do you do when you see a member of staff puting your property into their pocket if you do not agree with searching your staff.

Its not a trick question ............. honestly. Simple answer will do.

Lizzie - woman of principle..........or Lizzie - woman who doesnt answer simple questions directly related to the thread subject.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:48 AM

To get to root of the matter - I have taken the liberty to make contacts regarding your concerns - unfortunatly, it is the weekend.

I anticipate a corporate response into this thread by Wednesday, November 11.

The location of her "Boots" store - and the hours of the "incident" will help.

Lizzie has clearly forgotten to assist you here, since she has posted six times and not bothered. It is no secret that Lizzie lives in the South-West.

But it happened to the daughter of a friend so it could be anywhere. Lizzie may decide to help get an answer or not. My advice is not to hold your breathe.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,Mike
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:26 AM

I would not say no to a full Body search when I left the office of an evening providing the person who did the search was female and well proportioned and enjoyed it as has much as I did.

What I dislike is the change from Personnel Department to Human Resources Department that most companies have adopted now. I know that those of us at the bottom of the ladder are, to the bosses, just a load of cattle but do they have to make it so obvious.

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

What I dislike is the change from Personnel Department to Human Resources Department that most companies have adopted now. I know that those of us at the bottom of the ladder are, to the bosses, just a load of cattle but do they have to make it so obvious.

So you think "Human" is not as good as "Personnel"?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:08 AM

I have written to Boots with the following note -

Hello

I am very alarmed at a story running on a web discussion group that your company is mistreating your young employees. The full post is here -

http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=124791&messages=133#2761939

but the gist is that staff are being illegally searched and denied their rights in terms of proper breaks and facilities.

I hope you understand that if this type of thing does go on oin your company you will loose not only my trade but that of countless others.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Regards

David


Hopefully we will get their side of the story and decide for ourselves. I will post the reply when I get it.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:31 AM

Be interested to see what they have to say, especially as they are now advertising for temporary Christmas staff. Positions which are usually filled by younsters and students home from Uni for the holidays.

Ripe for explotation - IF that is indeed what is happening.

I, for one, shall look forward to their side of the story, as my gap-year son has just applied to our local branch.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:33 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:15 PM

Very prompt respose from Boot customer service - Copy below.

I'd like to offer you my reassurances that whilst we do search our store colleagues at no time do we undertake strip searches. All our colleagues from both our stores and our support offices grant us the 'right of search' when they accept our terms and conditions of employment. We fully appreciate that searches are always very sensitive our teams follow guidelines and ensure that the dignity and feelings of the individual they are searching is respected.

Before searching, we always ask the colleague first if they have any objections to being searched and we do arrange for another appropriate colleague to be present at the time. Where possible we try to ensure that someone of the same sex carries out the search and at no time is the individual asked to remove garments other than outdoor clothing (coats, cardigans etc) and we take great care to not physically touch the person being searched.

Of course, if there is a specific incident that you feel we need to investigate I can of course engage the right team colleagues to make this happen.

In the meantime, I would like to thank you for your trust in and custom with Boots and to re-assure you that we will always strive to carry on our business in accordance with highest ethical standards.

Yours sincerely,

So, they say it is - in the contract, no strip searches, no physical touching, the right to have a collegue present and the right to object. Sounds very reasonable to me. They also offer the right to bring specific incidents to their attention for further investigation. Maybe rather than risking a libel writ against themselves or, worse still, the Mudcat the opening poster should consider getting an investigation underway to get the facts. After all, as pointed out, we should not assume guilt without proof - Even of Boots the Chemists!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM

Er...I've also written to Boots....and I didn't say anything about a 'strip search'....but the young woman concerned was asked to hold the top of her trousers out, so they could see nothing was hidden down there. She was picked 'at random', not because of any suspicion.

I told Boots that this whole idea was beyond comprehension. They told me that they appreciated my points, many of which I've put on here, so I won't go into them again...and ended telling me that they would make sure that all staff concerned with these searches were properly instructed.

I wrote back, telling them they'd missed my point entirely..which was that these searches should not even be happening in the first place.

However, it would seem that apart from a very few on here, a very, very few, and one is, like me, a former employee of Boots the Chemist, most are on the side of the employers in this.

I'm amazed at this.....and saddened too, that relatively intelligent people cannot see that once you let mistrust take such a strong hold in your life, then you cannot live your life in a normal manner.

It is not normal to search staff like this. It never used to be done, never...and staff were treated with far more decency, loyalty and thought than they are now, in so many cases.

I truly do not understand those who can see no wrong in this situation..and it makes me feel that Orwellian Britain is producing Proles faster than I can keep up with it.

Yeesh!

Support the Corporate Billionaires and their Henchmen if you must, but *never* in a thousand years hope that I will ever give in to them.

Boots are wrong in treating their staff in this way and I, my friends too, all have decided not to shop there any longer, because WHY would we want to support a company who behaves in this manner...

8am to 2pm and no break, unless they take it out of your wages...Sheesh!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:45 PM

Meaness, Suspicion and Mistrust are NOT the foundations of a happy company, nor one I want to have anything to do with, but you guys 'shop away'....and leave Jesse Boot to turn over in his grave, up in Nottingahm...where his ancient tears will fall silently into the earth as his beloved company betray all that his business once stood for.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 05:34 PM

I've been speaking to colleagues and friends ref breaks and lunch. Nobody I know says part-time workers are treated the same as full time staff and why should they.

I work from 8.00am until 5.00pm and get breaks and my lunch. Why should someone working a fraction of that time get the same perks as me. You want the same breaks - do the same hours as the full time staff.

But back to the main point, what do you do Lizzie when you see someone stealing from you. Your hard earned property. You ask them to empty their pockets and they say 'no' - search them or let them walk away laughing.

Everybody go and shop at Lizzies, she'll let you fill your pockets and walk away no questions asked !!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 05:57 PM

OK, Lizzie. So the workers have the right not be be treated with mistrust and suspicion. In other words Innocent until proven guilty? But the employers and managers are not be be afforded the same courtesy? The 'Italian billionaire bastard' is tried, sentenced and executed without even being in court? Mind you, from what I have seen on the news that is nothing new for the Italian justice system! I can see where you are coming from though and wokers rights are somehing I do feel passionately about.I am happy to say our views just differ somewhat on when the rot set in and agree that they need to be improved.

However, as to, It is not normal to search staff like this. It never used to be done, never...and staff were treated with far more decency, loyalty and thought than they are now, in so many cases.

I do not think I can accept that. What about the mill workers and miners who were subject to searches and all sorts of other intrusions? What about the factory and building site workers who were 'quarter-houred' for being 2 minutes late - and sacked the next time? What about the people who were, and still are, expected to work longer hours than they are paid for if they want to keep their jobs? This is not the 1800's I am talking about but the 1960s and 70s - I remember it well.

Once again I am afraid you are measuring all experiences by your cosy past and, yes, shop work was much nicer than the mills or mines or building sites. They still are. But don't try to tell us it is new and it did not happen in your chocolate box England.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:45 PM

But don't try to tell us it is new and it did not happen in your chocolate box England.

Strong collective organisations can fight bastard employers. They don't always win, I never met an organisation that did. And it costs, and sometimes the hardships are hard to take. But you can win sometimes. And that's what counts.

People learnt that particular hard lesson about collectivism a century and a half ago.

But that takes organisation and effort and time. And organising and attending meetings (many of which are boring) and forming strong liaisons with like-minded people. And going to more meetings, and gathering support. And leafleting and nowadays using social networking organisations to draw attention to the cause. And going to more meetings. And cajoling and arguing your corner and writing letters (emails) and getting involved in organisations. It is hard work.

Folk Against Fascism did wonders gathering people together - it seemed within minutes. Because there were a lot of like-minded people who knew what to do. And were happy to use modern technology and were able to gather some high profile names around them. But it didn't just happen, it took emails and telephone calls and long-standing relationships built up over a period of time and so on. And given that initial impetus, was and is being worked upon.

Lizzie against the rest of the world is mainly a Mudcat phenomenon as far as I can see, and thus is unlikely to have much impact.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 03:27 AM

Ah the good old days, so unlike today, now let me recall, at the Austin (MG Rover):

If you were 3 minutes late you were docked 15 minutes pay,
If you were 5 minutes late you were docked 30 minutes pay,
If you were up to 10 minutes late you were not allowed to clock in, you had to go and find your foreman and ask if he needed you that day. Usually he said no and you were sent home without pay.
The shop floor were never paid for tea breaks or lunch.
On the track if you wanted to go to the toilet you had to find someone to take you place so that the track continued.
It was usual for men to p**s at the side of the track.
The only time off paid, apart from 4 weeks annual holidays, were funerals usually only mother, father, spouse or child and that was at the descretion of the foreman.

When was this, the early 1900's, no this was 1970's and 1980's. And some of these practices continued until the day it closed.

Sorry Lizzie I dont know what pink fluffy world you inhabit, but it sure as hell aint the the real one.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Gervase
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 04:39 AM

I do wonder that if Lizzie said two and two made four, whether certain posters on this thread wouldn't go out of their way to try to prove her wrong. The level of bullying is pretty unpleasant.
She's made a valid point. To search staff, especially pulling their clothes away to peer down their trousers, is a demeaning process. Yes, it's gone on for years in the manual sector, where the 'us and them' lines were drawn up back in the days when the good guys wore blue, the middle guys wore brown and the bad guys wore white, but it's a shame it's still going on.
It's also a shame that so many staff steal.
At root, it's a shame that labour relations in the UK are shot to shit, and that employees have so little pride and employers have so little respect.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 05:02 AM

Its not bullying its just making a point and backing it up with facts and evidence. Thats giving your point of view. Whats the point of a discussion forum if you cant do that.

Yes she's made a valid point, and all along I have asked one valid question, to which there has been no answer.

However the fact that there has been no reply, in itself speaks volumns (pardon the punn). Its incredibly rude to ignor someone when all they've done is ask a question.

There are too many people around who are prepared to light the blue touch paper and retire...............

Dont fret, I wont be posting again - life's too short.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 05:25 AM

Well I have never attacked Lizzie, only what she has written. Here is an example: Lizzie wrote in this thread:

From: Lizzie Cornish 1 - PM
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:47 PM

A bloody EXCELLENT EMPLOYER!

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.

She was talking about Joseph Rowntree who died in 1925. And forced the women in his factory to leave his employment once they got married.

Now if pointing this out is bullying then I plead guilty.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 12:41 PM

I don't think it is bullying but the point is significant. If someone is searched, albeit in a legal and sympathetic manner (nothing said has indicated otherwise) the for some reason it becomes harrasment. If someone mentions anything to do with colour or creed it becomes racism. If anyone disagrees with another persons views it becomes bullying. We are breeding a culture of victims. If someone disagrees with us it is easier to shout 'bullying/racism/facism' than it is to try and prove our point logicaly.

Sad really.

DeG

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 04:37 PM

Thank you, Gervase. x


As to what I would do if my staff were stealing from me:

They wouldn't be stealing in the first place, because I'd damn well be looking after them, realising that without them I'd have no business. I would go out of my way to ensure they were decently paid, decently rewarded and felt a real part of the business, seeing bonuses come *their* way as much as mine.

I'm really quite sickened by those who've come down on the side of Boots about this, really sickened indeed.

GW, for your information, I do not answer questions unless I want to, no matter how much someone asks, and...I answer them in the way I choose to, not the way you may want me to.

I write as I write, think as I think, speak as I speak. I have never tried to stop anyone else from doing exactly the same.

Therefore, please treat me with respect and realise that I do not *have* to reply to you at all, nor write in the way you deem acceptable.

I am me, not you.



Again, as a former employee of Boots, who therefore knows far more than most on this thread about how we were all once treated, I would suggest to the new owner of Jessie Boots business that he ensures all his staff are treated in a correct and decent manner and NOT looked upon as potential thieves, but well-paid, potential bonus-earning staff, who deserve his respect, because without them he would not be able to survive.

Employment is a two-way thing and we seem to have forgotten that, on both sides.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:44 PM

Employment is a two-way thing and we seem to have forgotten that, on both sides.

Thank you Lizzie - It is indeed a two way thing. Employers have rights as well as employees. There are a number of Employers who abuse those rights, that is taken as read. But there are also employess who take advantage as well. Until we realise that respect should be shown in both directions we will always get confrontations.

Maybe when emploers stop abusing their privelages employees will stop taking every advantage they can. Maybe when employess stop taking advantage employers will stop abusing them. Who will go first?

The most basic economic tenat is to fill unlimited wants with limited means. To fulfil that demand a balancing act of labour, capital and resources is required. No single one can work without the other.

DeG

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:51 PM

...and I claim page 4 with an idea. Lizzie - a comendable goal.

would go out of my way to ensure they were decently paid, decently rewarded and felt a real part of the business, seeing bonuses come *their* way as much as mine.

In answe to my last question, how about you go first? I would recommend a little reading first though and would recommend 'The ragged trousered philantropists' by Robet Tressell. Look at how abused the workforce was back then. Look at the marvelous ideas for a Utopian society. Then read the last chapter where it is all ruined, by the human nature of both sides. If it gets too heavy maybe a revisit of 'Animal Farm' would be in order?

DeG

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:51 PM

"They wouldn't be stealing in the first place, because I'd damn well be looking after them, realising that without them I'd have no business. I would go out of my way to ensure they were decently paid, decently rewarded and felt a real part of the business, seeing bonuses come *their* way as much as mine."

This is totally naive. To go back to the example of the pub where I worked: it was a new business, set up by an enthusiastic couple. It had live music, a lively clientele, paid decent wages, and if you worked a late shift they gave you a meal.

Someone - a doctor's son, as it turned out, who was better off than pretty much everyone else working there - decided to go on the fiddle anyway. He didn't steal because he was being undervalued, or because he needed the money: he stole because he could. Because he was greedy. Because he didn't care what happened to the rest of us and our jobs.


Another example: a couple I knew in my hometown used to provide summer jobs in their shops for ex-pats and students from the UK and Ireland. They had done this for years, even letting new arrivals stay with them till they got themselves sorted with digs, paid well, and didn't breathe down their necks or watch everyone like hawks because they had trust in their employees. One year they even let a young English couple manage one of their shops for the summer. Well, this young English couple realised that, because of the trust placed in them, it would be fairly easy to start nicking. So they did. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars. They weren't found out for ages because they were doing all the banking themselves. And when they were discovered, they did a runner. Naturally, the owners were terribly shocked and upset by this, and stopped hiring ex-pats and students. So loads of other people were screwed by the selfishness of just two people.

That's all stealing often is, I'm afraid: opportunistic, selfish acts done by people just because they can.

So I think Green Wellies' question is still a valid one.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 01:53 AM

Exactly, D el G & Ruth — as I said above it can all, in a non-doctrinal sense, be put down to what might be termed 'Original Sin'. There just are, unhappily, people who are opportunistic & untrustworthy however much you confide in them & however well you treat them. We seem agreed, Lizzie, that this is the aspect of the matter you are failing to address. & it's really no use your turning all hoity-toity & saying you'll choose which questions to answer, that's your privilege . It isn't, because you OP'd this thread, so surely have a moral, if not a legal, obligation to defend and justify the positions you have taken up rather than choose to ignore opposition to them if it just happens to suit you to do so.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:25 AM

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but hey ho, this is regarding trust.

As some of you know, we have a livery yard renting stables and grazing. A couple of years ago we had two vacancies and were contacted by a lovely family looking for stabling for the mothers horse and the childs pony. They visited, had a look, I explained the rules and routines, they also had all the yard info in writing, both parties had a think about it., ie., was our yard right for them (no two yards are the same!), and from our point of view did I think they would fit in with my existing clients. A few days later they phoned to say they would take up the stables and arrived with their horses a week later.

For approximately 9 months everything was fine, they looked after their horses to my standards, followed all the rules, got on well with all my existing clients, some of which have been with me for over 10 years. I allowed them to park their lorry on site, we went off to shows and met up for drinks and bbq's in the evenings, the lot.

Then things started to change, one of our 'rules' is that when you need hay you help yourself from the barn, record it on the list, and pay at the end of the month. Their horses were never without hay, but only half was ever recorded - and I know how much hay a horse will eat! Other clients were finding that their tack had been used, feed was being used up quicker than normal. Two ladies kept a record of these incidents as these things only happened when the 'new' family were alone on the yard. They came to me and I agreed to look at their 'evidence' and keep an eye on things for myself. After about 6 months, I had to agree with their findings.

Then things took a sinister turn. Their horses were moved from one field to another without my permission, breaking one of the golden rules you never ever move a horse without asking first. When I asked why they had done it the husband said it was because my horse had attacked their pony. I found this completely unbelievable, my horse just does not behave in that way. Their horse was not injured at all so I asked them to return their horses to the correct field and all went back to normal.
Then soon afterwards this happened again. This evening I was alone on the yard, it was late and dark. The husband turned up and I asked him why their horses had been moved. Well to say he scared the life out of me was an understatement - he stood right in my face, I mean nose to nose, and shouted 'I'll put my f*****g horses where the f***k I like' and so he went on and on, threatening, bullying, intimidating. He left me shaking and scared for my life - no joke. They had turned from the perfect horsie family to the customers from hell, with the intent of taking over the yard, and nobody - but nobody saw it coming.
My husband and his farming mates turned up the next morning and chucked them off the yard.

The point I'm making is that you may think that you're employing the nicest, most honest, trustworthy, genuine people in the world, but you just dont know what people are really like. It is impossible to know. From this experience I can see why, rightly or wrongly, employers do not trust staff no matter how nice they appear to be at the interview. Once bitten etc.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:12 AM

Liz - I feel your pain. I understand your anger...that stems from frustration....and a "system" that does not fit your sense of "higher values."

Encourage your child to join the union!

In today's world... union membership is NOT a system of "worker VS management." It is a cooperative network.

Personally, I like the Dutch analogy of the "polder system," ie...if the dyke is breached we all drown together." None of us wants to be submerged. And we are all living in a time of "high tides" and "stormy forecasts."

Take it from the "lone wolves" that have weathered many a battle...against the vilest of foes....going blow for blow, solo, against the big-boys for years. ....

it helps,

it is necessary,

it is vital,

to have the "force of the pack" behind your cause...when it looks like they have you by the throat and you will never hear the "ten-count"...a powerful union (with its lawyers) has no equal...hopefuly they are never needed.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

It is very hard to imagine why, recently, you Brits keep - spewing your spleen to audiences un-seen...So... times are that hard on the island?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 09:36 AM

My Dear Dad worked as an optician all his life. He built up the business back just after the War, with his friend, Eric Massey. Together they made it a success, going on to open quite a few branches. Nothing was ever put in writing.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:16 AM

Nothing to disagree with there Lizzie, I have certain friends who I would trust with my life, family, horses and bank balance, without a second thought.

But taking on complete strangers whom you know nothing about except what they choose to tell you, is a completely different matter. And I wouldn't rely on references either, anyone can write a reference.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:36 AM

Oops...it posted before I'd finished... :0)

Nothing was ever put in writing...a 'gentleman's agreement'....and lo and behold...40 years later, Dad went in to work to find that his 'partner' (who was the one with the money) had sold out to D&A's, the big optical firm. Not a word had been said to Dad, not a single word...All those years when he'd been the one putting in the work and there it was....gone.

He never really recovered from the sense of betrayal from his friend, but at no time did he lose his trust in other people. He realised, eventually, that his friend Eric was no friend at all, just one who was ruled by greed and disloyalty, but he never viewed others in the same way.

This was because my Dad was a good man, who refused to dislike people or be suspicious of them.

You cannot treat everyone as if they are thieves. It is total madness.

We live in a world now where trust is starting to become a thing of the past....

We are all viewed as potential terrorists, paedeophiles, thieves...

It is wrong.


Oh, and there is no moral or legal requirement for me to answer any questions from those above, no matter how determined they are to get me to do so.   I am my own person and I will answer what I choose to, in the way I choose to. My way.

Thank you.


And.....you all have a great deal to learn from my Father.


Oh...and today I spotted a 'Security Desk' in Boots, in our town...manned by a swarthy looking Security Guard, who looked as he'd murder yer Granny.....so who knows, perhaps Boots have decided to search their customers now, as well as their staff....?????

And don't even get me started on the way the Postmen are being treated by Adam Crozier and his Shite Team in The Royal Mail, because..after travelling back on the bus with two very angry Posties, I nearly got the Rebellion started...as half the bus joined in the conversation I was having with them.

Bring BACK the Union Men!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:44 AM

The way forward is to bring the trust BACK, gw...not to become more and more paranoid all the time, as is happening now.

Geez, I had to have TWO forms of identity just to get a LIBRARY card the other day.   ???????????????


Many staff are being treated like shite, being forced into accepting bad conditions, bad pay, bad treatment, because if they don't, then they don't get the job....and that is shite!

And another thing.....

You can only get a job in Boots by going online, or being put through the most dumbed down, patronising telephone questionnaire...which asks such questions as (and I cannot recall the exact wording here):

'Do you deem yourself to be

a) Dishonest
b) Slightly dishonest
c) Honest'


I mean???????????????????????

Obviously, their policy ain't working, 'cos they're stuck into thinking that all their stafff answered 'a'...or maybe that's their problem...they only take staff who answer 'a' in the first place! LOL

Geez, what has Boots come to.....Marks and Spencers are the same, Waterstones, Waitrose, Sainsburys..all job applications are done this way, online or over the phone...

Sorry, but bring back the days of "Hello there, I was wondering if you had any jobs going?"

"Why yes, dear, we do actually. Come and have a cup of tea and let's have a chat about it..."


Oh, happy days!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:50 AM

Did you know that they're trying to cut the Postmen's wages by a THIRD?

Meanwhile, Adam Crozier (spit!) is paying himself around £57,000 a WEEK. Good, huh? And....he was a football manager, brought into The Royal Mail by his great friend, 'Would you buy a used car from me? Alan Leighton'....who also awarded himself megabucks...and who now is something to do with Leeds Football Club.

The two of them have wrecked The Royal Mail....they also spent £5 million pounds on calling it Consignia...and then...a few months later, realised what a terrible mistake they'd made, so they changed it back to The Royal Mail....

.....and meanwhile, out on the shop floor, the staff are being searched, paid crap wages, not even given a cuppa after a 6 hour shift...

The days of The Greedy Ones are numbered...because the anger on that bus was just a tiny smidgeon of what's going on around the country...

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:52 AM

I'm glad they're searching the Royal Mail staff - I've had stuff nicked by them. The police installed cameras and got the bugger and that was before Adam Crozier took over so you can't blame him.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:53 AM

Appears to be legal:
http://www.insight-security.com/pdfs/pirssm2.pdf



You live in a world where trust has become a thing of the past. I don't. I sleep well at night, place nicely with others (usually) and never run with scissors.

Is anyone in all of Britain happy, unabused or at least safe? Sometimes when I read these threads I wonder. Micca is always smiling but I think he drinks a lot. Jacqui is no longer a real Brit. Neither is TRUBRIT. A real conundrum.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:08 AM

It's just the British way to moan. Think of some of our comedy heroes - Tony Hancock, Victor Meldrew, Albert and Harold Steptoe, Alf Garnett - all of them railing against the Fates.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:37 AM

Yes Lizzie, lets bring back trust. I'd be the first to sign up.

To follow on from my experience with the customer from hell at my stables, the vacancy was then take up by an old friend who used to keep her horse with us years ago.

She had an accident with her new horse and ended up in hospital. After a while the sick pay dried up and to cut a long story short (sure you've all had more than enough horse 'tails'! for now) she left the yard owing me over £1,000. I had no proof that I had paid for her vet, feed, hay, farrier, it was all cash and of course she promised to pay me back.

She was having a hard time, no money, injured etc. I was an old friend I helped her out - I TRUSTED her !!! And dont think I havent tried to get the money back - I have.

One instance was a complete stranger, the second was an old friend. Some may say I'm just not a very good judge of character, my friends say my biggest downfall is that I always see the good in people, and look where its got me. And you wonder why I dont trust people.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:46 AM

Lizzie, I'm afraid I tend to err barely even skim your posts as they are so fulsome so to speak - but without wishing to attack other posters, I think Gervase has a point..

Unfortunately however (IMO) it's your extreme *style* that alienates people, rather than the actual *content* of your posts. It comes over like extreme evangelism, and while I appreciate passion, it's simply too much too ingest! And others react to that. Honestly if you were a religious zealot, I'd give you NO time at all, but you obviously care strongly about things I care about too. So I personally also sympathise with some of what you say, if not with the way in which you tend to say it... :)

In this instance, if Boots are busy peering down peoples trousers I think that, that to me, sounds a bit much too. Big orgs. like Boots essentially have power over people that need jobs.

It's an employers market out there today, so there will be an increased danger of big employers in particular, being more free to abuse their power over a needy workforce - which shouldn't in my humble be summarily dismissed as "well you don't have to work there if you don't want to have people poking down your pants".

As Gargoyle rightly intimates, Unions were created to correct the longstanding imbalance of power between the ickle worker, and the great big boss man. In times when the employee is less valuable, the Union becomes even more so.

But I'd like to hear more about it, and certainly hear Boot's side of the story if poss.

Meanwhile, I flagged this up elsewhere for you:

Liberty - Protecting Civil Liberties, Promoting Human Rights

Join up and connect with others who DO actually make a difference to the world we all share. Your passionate energy is but meaningless wasted breath otherwise! Take those fighting words and bloody well put them into action!!! ;-) x

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:51 AM

Green Wellies - a contract and receipts are basic to running a business.
Lizzie - the latest ad for postal worker jobs shows a full time salary (after a year of part time) at about $24,000/year. 40+ paid days off. Not bad for an 18 year old. No figures on union contract increases.

US jobs give one week of paid vacation (sometimes two)for the first year plus about 10 paid holidays.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 12:01 PM

Sinsull, We have contracts. And an accountant etc.

The second instance was an arrangement between 'friends' I didn't think I needed to keep proof that I'd helped a friend.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 03:28 PM

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Crow Sister - PM
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:46 AM

I did write much the same thing in the post below. I wonder if writing it twice will make much difference.


Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave - PM
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:45 PM

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Gervase
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:01 PM

Is anyone in all of Britain happy, unabused or at least safe?
Me. But I live in Wales, so that probably doesn't count.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:39 PM

I can blame Adam Crozier for so many things, you'd not believe it!

Crow Sister, my words have never been wasted. It is precisely because I write as I do that my little crowd of followers love to follow me. I get more people to look things up, think about things, or sit there with their mouths open in anger, than many....

That's what I do....that's where my words go, to the hearts and minds of others, where ideas are taken up, or the aggression to 'prove me wrong' becomes so strong that more than a few things start to happen, for the good, because of it.

I've known it for years...watched it over and over.

For years they have insisted I write as they want me to, I never will.

My Right to Write belongs to me, and to no-one else, other than one man on here who has fought so hard to give that Right back to me, for which I will always be grateful.

If all employers believed in Rights, as that man does, then my goodness, what a happy workforce there would be in this world.


Ah, Wales counts, Gervase! Most definitely.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:54 PM

"I did write much the same thing in the post below. I wonder if writing it twice will make much difference."

Sowry Dave! I'll be sure and double check that I haven't echoed prior sentiments in future threads... ;-)

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

No problem, Crow Sister. It can be awkward to read through a thread, no-one knows better than me :-)

Obviously from the post just below yours Lizzie is perfectly happy in her world with her band of followers.

Great. Nothing to argue with there. I am sure she is correct.