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.
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
In this case, he should be held to account as per the Tesco book, which (as you suggest) he should have been aware of.
I forget the Funky name they have for eating/consuming food whilst on the shop floor
If you'd been sacked you could have made thousands from flogging your story to the Sun!![]()
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.
theft from a supermarket you work for results in a minimum of a final written warning for gross misconduct.
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.
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.
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".
NO - It's theft - plan and simple.
Explain how you can forget to pay for something, repeatedly ?
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
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.