Tesco Minus Hours?

it will have been made very clear to the OP that consumption off food, not paid for, on the premises would result in a disciplinary hearing for an act of gross misconduct should he be discovered to be doing such a thing.

I'm a person of morals, theft is wrong, if he'd been a customer doing just the same his company would have had the right to prosecute. consumption of something you don't pay for is theft, ignorance is no defence against the law, nor is 'forgetting to pay'.

the person reporting the incident is of no importance in this instance, s/he only brought to the attention the consumption of food on the premises, how tesco chose to act on that information is entirely their choice.

how you can insult someone you've never met based purely on one incident of which you had no involvement is a bit arrogant to say the least.

edit: to address your aside; yes I do, I have a personal role in trying to prevent waste from supermarkets ending up in land fills, yes lots off food is thrown away, and no it does not please me but it is an unfortunate consequence of our fast food culture and demand for availability coupled with ridiculous food laws that allow for no common sense in addition to a deal of incompetency.

did you know for example that the big bread manufactures insist on no mark down of their products?

So, reading between the lines, the issue is not that the OP did not pay but that he should not have been eating on the premises full stop? In which case, I can understand... A rule's a rule. If this is the case, then it's not "forgetting" I have the issue with; it could purely have been a one off mistake or an accident which could have been rectified (pay up, as expected!). Clearly though in this case, whether the OP paid or not is irrelevant; he should not have been eating whilst working.

In this case, he should be held to account as per the Tesco book, which (as you suggest) he should have been aware of.
 
So, reading between the lines, the issue is not that the OP did not pay but that he should not have been eating on the premises full stop? In which case, I can understand... A rule's a rule. If this is the case, then it's not "forgetting" I have the issue with; it could purely have been a one off mistake or an accident which could have been rectified (pay up, as expected!). Clearly though in this case, whether the OP paid or not is irrelevant; he should not have been eating whilst working.

In this case, he should be held to account as per the Tesco book, which (as you suggest) he should have been aware of.

a little of A and a little of B.
 
and if a store eliminates shop lifting do you think the price comes down? i doubt most shops even lose much to shop lifters seeing as its so much harder than it was in the 90's when most places didnt even have cameras

My store loses approximately £4-5k a week.

And i'm completely with vincent here. There is no way on earth the OP should have been eating that croissant. Not only is it theft since he consumed it before paying but it breaks several food safety laws/regulations.

I once had a case where a member of staff in the bakery was witnessed by a representative of the EHO (Environmental Health Organisation) eating a roll in the bakery. We were issued formal notice and they demanded that severe action be taken against the individual (dismissal was mentioned). Failure to do so would have resulted in closure.

I sacked the lady in question. (She had been caught doing this before and we had re-trained her on several occasions)

Quite simply there is no way that the OP cannot have known his actions were wrong, you sign to say that you understand this on your very first day working for the company and are retrained every 6 months so that we show due diligance in such cases.

Theft causes Tesco in the region of hundreds of millions a year and that is just the known theft.

As an employee in the bakery you do not eat in there period... Let alone if you haven't paid for it!

I am a Tesco store manager by the way so my apologies if this post seems emotive but the amount of money I spend out of my budget combatting this kind of behaviour drives me up the wall and directly effects both the service that my customers experience and the shopping trip they encounter since I have less payroll to spend in said areas.
 
Last edited:
In this case, he should be held to account as per the Tesco book, which (as you suggest) he should have been aware of.

It's not just the Tesco book... It's international food safety law which all premises preparing/selling food have to abide by. If we as a business tolerate this behaviour then we should expect to be shut down... And rightfully so.
 
I forget the Funky name they have for eating/consuming food whilst on the shop floor

It's known as grazing... It costs the company an absolute fortune.

If you'd been sacked you could have made thousands from flogging your story to the Sun! :p

I don't think even the sun would stoop as low as to print a story about an employee being sacked for stealing considering it is the completely expected and normal response to someone who has misappropriated company property. Tesco sacks hundreds of people a year for exactly that. The company would be completely within their rights to do so.
 
Last edited:
Tescos loss through shrinkage can't be all that much of a problem seen at they posted profits of £3.4bn last year, vac pac meat at £10m and strawberries at £4m are chicken feed on this figure. However, I don't think the issue here was that it wasn't paid for, more likely the health and safety implications - After all we live in a world of health and safety gone mad.
 
What a prat (your colleague, not you).

Working in a petrol station in the past I forgot (or other times, "forgot") to pay for things LOADS but just stuck some money in the till when I remembered. Literally nobody cared.

I'm with you buddy, the (ex)colleague is a douche.

Yes x company may lose x millions per x, but that does not negate from the fact that the OP's (ex)colleague is an arse.
 
Tescos loss through shrinkage can't be all that much of a problem seen at they posted profits of £3.4bn last year, vac pac meat at £10m and strawberries at £4m are chicken feed on this figure. However, I don't think the issue here was that it wasn't paid for, more likely the health and safety implications - After all we live in a world of health and safety gone mad.

While I can understand that point of view you have to scale it up to a company the size of Tesco.

We have 100's of £millions stolen each year. This comes directly from pure profit. We spend 100's of £millions investing in ways to combat it. We spend 100's of £millions on security gaurding. We spend 100's of millions on instore routines to count the stock and record the loss etc...etc... The list goes on and on. If no one stole anything the profit of the company probably would have been in the region of £4 billion for 2009/2010.

Obviously ball park figures there but i'm sure you see the point.

Now imagine what the company could have done with that extra £500 million:-

Higher store headcount
More tills open
Less queue-ing
Consumer savings
Cleaner stores
More replenishment staff

The list goes on and on... How many of these things are things that consumers complain about regularly? "Oh this is never in stock" or "I always have to queue". Theft directly effects the shopping experience of every customer we have. It also effects how much we give to charity as a company. etc...
 
Last edited:
GordyR makes a lot of sense, but whether or not the actions of the OP were wrong doesn't matter in the context of why I referred to his colleague as a prat.

Fair enough if he was collared directly by a manager, but scuttling off to go "OMG he ate a croissant" to a supervisor is just playground politics.
 
GordyR makes a lot of sense, but whether or not the actions of the OP were wrong doesn't matter in the context of why I referred to his colleague as a prat.

Fair enough if he was collared directly by a manager, but scuttling off to go "OMG he ate a croissant" to a supervisor is just playground politics.

the colleague came in the next day and reported finding half eaten food in the bakery, if it had been down to rats you'd have wanted that to have been reported I'm sure?
 
While I can understand that point of view you have to scale it up to a company the size of Tesco.

We have 100's of £millions stolen each year. This comes directly from pure profit. We spend 100's of £millions investing in ways to combat it. We spend 100's of £millions on security gaurding. We spend 100's of millions on instore routines to count the stock and record the loss etc...etc... The list goes on and on. If no one stole anything the profit of the company probably would have been in the region of £4 billion for 2009/2010.

Obviously ball park figures there but i'm sure you see the point.

Now imagine what the company could have done with that extra £500 million:-

Higher store headcount
More tills open
Less queue-ing
Consumer savings
Cleaner stores
More replenishment staff

The list goes on and on... How many of these things are things that consumers complain about regularly? "Oh this is never in stock" or "I always have to queue".

Don't get me wrong mate theft is wrong either way you look at it. At the same time though every retailer out there has some degree of shrinkage, whether that be at the point of sale - cashiers missing items (happened to me just the other week on a couple of crates of corona - I didn't notice until I got home - thnx tesco ;) ), or from people pilfering goods from the shelf.

When I used to work in retail the items tended to have enough profit margin that they could cover x amount of shrinkage and still turn a profit. I think to say what the extra £500m could be used for is a bit of a red herring seen as there is still 3.4bn in the kitty to make the nessesary improvements.

Anyway I am not trying to argue that what the op did is right just that shrinkage figures would be taken into account for. It's sad to say it but tesco, asda, sainsburys and in fact any other retailer out there expect it.
 
Last edited:
NO - It's theft - plan and simple.

Explain how you can forget to pay for something, repeatedly ?

Excuse me where did I say I have done it repeatedly? Look I know I have did wrong and I have to suffer the consequences. But it was genuine mistake. This was the first bad thing to come up against me.
 
tesco are scum tbh. they are cost cutting so much in the one here that its turning into netto on steroids

shelves always empty , tills always have big queues , floor always scummy , when you talk to a manager about it they caim ''staff havent turned up'' ''lots of people on the sick'' . funny that... because my brother works there and is quite literally desperate for more hours and so are others.
 
OP shouldn't of walked out either , should have took aslong as he could on suspension with pay and took someone with him to the meetings.

resigning looks nearly as bad as being fired at that sort of level. especially when you get put on the spot with a ''so why did you leave that job'' , you cant sign on if youve resigned either
 
Now imagine what the company could have done with that extra £500 million:-

Higher store headcount
More tills open
Less queue-ing
Consumer savings
Cleaner stores
More replenishment staff

More like pay it's shareholders more dividends, give it's executives more bonus :p
 
Don't get me wrong mate theft is wrong either way you look at it. At the same time though every retailer out there has some degree of shrinkage, whether that be at the point of sale - cashiers missing items (happened to me just the other week on a couple of crates of corona - I didn't notice until I got home - thnx tesco ;) ), or from people pilfering goods from the shelf.

When I used to work in retail the items tended to have enough profit margin that they could cover x amount of shrinkage and still turn a profit. I think to say what the extra £500m could be used for is a bit of a red herring seen as there is still 3.4bn in the kitty to make the nessesary improvements.

Anyway I am not trying to argue that what the op did is right just that shrinkage figures would be taken into account for. It's sad to say it but tesco, asda, sainsburys and in fact any other retailer out there expects it.


You're absolutely right, we totally expect it. Which is a real shame because of what could be done with that money.

My store is a medium sized superstore with a turnover of £650k per week on average. (Bare in mind the large extras take approximately £2.5 million a week) And I am given a budget of anywhere from £2k-£5k per week that I am actually allowed to lose through shrink.

When you're a store manager and see what an extra £2k-£5k a week could do for the staff that work for you and the shopping trip that your customers recieve it's utterly soul destroying.

My night team work themselves to the bone every night to ensure that the shop is full for 8am. Even £500 per week would make all of their jobs so much easier and more stress free all while delivering a higher standard of shop for the morning.

The shopfloor staff are regularly dragged away from their jobs to go sit on the tills when our trade peaks. With an extra £500 spent there everyone could do their own job 100% of the time. That leaves another £1k-£4k per week.... How much could I do with that I wonder?

Its just extremely frustrating when you're running a business where you want to be able to provide the best working environment possible for your employees and of course the best shopping experience possible for your customers only to have yourself neutered at every corner by another thief. :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom