News2 mins ago
Retail Apartheid?
241 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Since this is a classic case of 'surly employee shouldering workload off themselves and onto their colleagues, while on identical salary', I suggest the simple solution that you let these till employees have their way but you use computer monitoring to determine how much workload has been shifted onto their less-fussy colleagues and share a bonus among the latter group or, if you have more computing power, trace which till the displaced customer went to, so as to individualise the bonuses.
Or, with clearer thinking, just put all the till workers on piecework: - pay directly proportional to number of customers served.
I've not stopped to read the other 6 pages yet but will catch up, when I can.
Or, with clearer thinking, just put all the till workers on piecework: - pay directly proportional to number of customers served.
I've not stopped to read the other 6 pages yet but will catch up, when I can.
Marks and Spencer finally got round to releasing a statement -- according to the BBC they've apologised and the suggestion appears to be that this is not store policy.
http://
http://
(paraphrasing) "Staff will be moved to other areas, like the clothes section where food/alcohol handling is not a problem"
It would be interesting to learn, at this point, whether the other till staff perceive the clothes section (etc) to be the 'cushy number', the logical step up for staff who are 'time served' on till duty.
In other words, could this have kicked off because the person concerned worked out that it was a handy short-cut to being moved to the more desirable work areas?
It would be interesting to learn, at this point, whether the other till staff perceive the clothes section (etc) to be the 'cushy number', the logical step up for staff who are 'time served' on till duty.
In other words, could this have kicked off because the person concerned worked out that it was a handy short-cut to being moved to the more desirable work areas?
/// So what do you consider "our identity" to be? Britain is a country full of people who are multicultural anyway - those of us not descended from Germanic races are likely to be of Viking stock from invaders and settlers (they weren't welcome either), or Irish, or any number of original races. It's the nature of our country for thousands of years to be multicultural, there is (IMO) no single identity which is peculiarly British. ///
The usual hogwash we have come to expect from those who are perhaps not even old enough to remember how England once was (yes I put England because this is just one more thing we are losing and that is the name of our country).
The Romans the Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans were all part of our history, and I agree all took part in one way or another to make us and our culture what it was until after the 1950s, when an almighty change took place to make this country what it is today a mishmash of different faiths, customs, and cultures, a smaller version of the USA, and that is how we have finished up, a mirror image of what has taken place over more years in the USA.
To those interested this makes interesting reading.
http://
The usual hogwash we have come to expect from those who are perhaps not even old enough to remember how England once was (yes I put England because this is just one more thing we are losing and that is the name of our country).
The Romans the Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans were all part of our history, and I agree all took part in one way or another to make us and our culture what it was until after the 1950s, when an almighty change took place to make this country what it is today a mishmash of different faiths, customs, and cultures, a smaller version of the USA, and that is how we have finished up, a mirror image of what has taken place over more years in the USA.
To those interested this makes interesting reading.
http://
It's not hogwash at all, and there were surely as many people back then in their huts moaning about "bloody foreigners" and the decline of values then as there are now. And it was certainly a lot more violent back then, too! The Romans came not to take some jobs but to take everything, ditto Vikings, Normans, etc. Every time something is happening and you don't know the result, the uncertainty can be distracting and divisive. In years to come when the current generations of immigrants either leave home or settle into life here then people will talk about their forming "an important part of our culture" just as much as you do about the immigrants/ invaders of years past.
Whilst I can understand those who fear high levels of immigration, don't you find it distasteful when some people are also keen to brand as "traitors" those who call for calm or perspective or patience? As if in some sense I was born to have a blood loyalty and if I do not I am as filthy as those who come here. It's not that far of the whole "pureblood" rubbish in Harry Potter, and such views should have no place in the debate whatsoever.
Whilst I can understand those who fear high levels of immigration, don't you find it distasteful when some people are also keen to brand as "traitors" those who call for calm or perspective or patience? As if in some sense I was born to have a blood loyalty and if I do not I am as filthy as those who come here. It's not that far of the whole "pureblood" rubbish in Harry Potter, and such views should have no place in the debate whatsoever.
This thread was doomed from the first letter typed, the reason was because it contained a link from the Daily Mail, which was criticised from the offset of telling porkies, that was until it was proven the story originally came from the Telegraph, but then this didn't matter because they are both right-wing newspapers and we all know these are very much frowned upon by some of our left thinking ABers who seem to be in the majority on this site, and then the main reason most found it hard to accept was simply because it happened to commit the biggest misdemeanour of all, it dared to criticised Muslims.
No aog
The thread was criticised because the Telegraph/Mail either got the wrong end of the stick or worse, deliberately misrepresented it.
That has been born out by M&S statements today.
As several of the more sensible and thoughtful ABers suggested from the start, it is NOT M&S policy for customers to be refused service.
It IS M&S policy for staff to request placement in areas where they won't have to deal with certain products.
Personally I think that is a misguided policy but it is nobody's business but M&S.
The disruption caused to a customer was a management/staffing cock up; nothing more.
The allusion to the Christian Fundamentalist B&B owners was silly and ill thought through.
What M&S have done is the equivalent of a B&B owner allowing some staff with particular beliefs not to service a room that has been occupied by a gay couple - and then messing up their rota so the staff member is put in the embarrassing situation of having to decline those duties.
The thread was criticised because the Telegraph/Mail either got the wrong end of the stick or worse, deliberately misrepresented it.
That has been born out by M&S statements today.
As several of the more sensible and thoughtful ABers suggested from the start, it is NOT M&S policy for customers to be refused service.
It IS M&S policy for staff to request placement in areas where they won't have to deal with certain products.
Personally I think that is a misguided policy but it is nobody's business but M&S.
The disruption caused to a customer was a management/staffing cock up; nothing more.
The allusion to the Christian Fundamentalist B&B owners was silly and ill thought through.
What M&S have done is the equivalent of a B&B owner allowing some staff with particular beliefs not to service a room that has been occupied by a gay couple - and then messing up their rota so the staff member is put in the embarrassing situation of having to decline those duties.
jim360
I am not sitting in my hut moaning, I look around me, I read the newspapers, and not just the Daily Mail (I hasten to add before you get your yoghurt knitting in a mess), I watch the TV reports and unlike some with their rose tinted specs on and their heads buried in the sand, I can witness the vast changes that have taken place in England, and I don't like what I see.
/// Whilst I can understand those who fear high levels of immigration, don't you find it distasteful when some people are also keen to brand as "traitors" those who call for calm or perspective or patience? ///
Yes I do find it distasteful for you to be called a 'traitor', I would have chosen 'Pacifist' and I am pleased that they were in a minority in 1939.
I am not sitting in my hut moaning, I look around me, I read the newspapers, and not just the Daily Mail (I hasten to add before you get your yoghurt knitting in a mess), I watch the TV reports and unlike some with their rose tinted specs on and their heads buried in the sand, I can witness the vast changes that have taken place in England, and I don't like what I see.
/// Whilst I can understand those who fear high levels of immigration, don't you find it distasteful when some people are also keen to brand as "traitors" those who call for calm or perspective or patience? ///
Yes I do find it distasteful for you to be called a 'traitor', I would have chosen 'Pacifist' and I am pleased that they were in a minority in 1939.
AOG
There is not one post attacking the Daily Mail as the source of this story. I have looked, there aren't any. At post 91 I have included the number of complaints the PCC has received about the Daily Mail, but that was only because a poster didn't believe they would print something that was untrue.
This thread was doomed from the start because the allegation that it is company policy to let muslims refuse to serve customers was false.
// If this was Call my Bluff, I am holding a "False" card. // And I was right.
There is not one post attacking the Daily Mail as the source of this story. I have looked, there aren't any. At post 91 I have included the number of complaints the PCC has received about the Daily Mail, but that was only because a poster didn't believe they would print something that was untrue.
This thread was doomed from the start because the allegation that it is company policy to let muslims refuse to serve customers was false.
// If this was Call my Bluff, I am holding a "False" card. // And I was right.
Lovely thinly-veiled insult there at the end. Not.
I too pay attention to the news, and it's a matter of opinion as to how you take what's going on. Personally I see a lot of changes and arguably they are happening too fast, but ultimately the ordinary man in the street wants peace and quiet and that's too strong a force to be ignored for long. In time people will wonder what all the fuss was about. And right now I've been able to get on with my life in peace, doing most of what I would like to, so I hardly think that we're facing the end of civilisation as we know it.
I too pay attention to the news, and it's a matter of opinion as to how you take what's going on. Personally I see a lot of changes and arguably they are happening too fast, but ultimately the ordinary man in the street wants peace and quiet and that's too strong a force to be ignored for long. In time people will wonder what all the fuss was about. And right now I've been able to get on with my life in peace, doing most of what I would like to, so I hardly think that we're facing the end of civilisation as we know it.
Latest Posts
Three Quarters Of Gps Want To Go On...
News7 mins ago
News11 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.