Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tesco workers refuse to sell Ham & Wine during Ramadan Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAnusFiles)
    If non-Muslims refused to sell halal products, would you side with the customers or the employees
    Employee.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Employee.
    Why? If a company hires you for a job, you should do it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Muslim's fault for following what is written in an ancient book.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I am not saying he wouldn't. What I am saying is the same member of staff who refused to serve you and who walked away without helping you at all would probably still have to come over and waste even more of your and his time. For no reason at all.



    It sometimes is when they decide to throw a hissy fit and complain at every item you try to put through it (as happened to me last week in a Sainsburys local - I ended up giving up and going to the till, what would I have done if the member of staff there refused to serve me?).



    You mean like the member of staff did?
    You're probably using up another 30 odd seconds. I know, there is no need for any time to be wasted but I'm just trying to be practical, I don't see the need to kick up a fuss that gets into the newspapers and may end up with someone losing their job.

    Fair enough, you'd have had some issues. But is it that common? We're just individuals but I've been through self checkout tills many times and I rarely have an issue with them, if ever. I rarely even see them malfunctioning now for others. I do admit they used to be awful.

    Yes the staff member, in the end, should serve the ham and wine, I don't disagree. But I dont think it's a big deal to just go to self checkout and spare the grief. That's all.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    You love me being crap
    what even did I just read

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I want ham and black card
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    He should work somewhere else, idiot.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prodigal son)
    You mean like a catholic custom cake shop refuses to make a cake with gay rights on it? Happened! Most of tsr sided with the shop.
    that was the shop owners though (was it not). If tesco as a company decided to alter their inventory to not include ham/wine that would be their right. The issue is tesco very clearly sells such things so an employee should be aware that their is a high probability of handling such goods. So either he should have got it in his contract, changed department/shift or not gone for that job.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ggmu!)
    what even did I just read

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Don't even ask :lol:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAnusFiles)
    Why? If a company hires you for a job, you should do it
    And he was, largely, hence him being employed at the time of the incident.

    Out of interest, is your argument from a principle standpoint or a practicality standpoint? Ie, what he did was wrong because he defied his terms of employment for 30 seconds, or because he caused 30 seconds of inconvenience to a customer?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    And he was.

    Out of interest, is your argument from a principle standpoint or a practicality standpoint? Ie, what he did was wrong because he defied his terms of employment for 30 seconds, or because he caused 30 seconds of inconvenience to a customer?
    Mostly principle. My question is, should each checkout scanner have a list of items they refuse for their own weird reasons?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAnusFiles)
    Mostly principle. My question is, should each checkout scanner have a list of items they refuse for their own weird reasons?
    I don't get it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    I don't get it.
    Well if one checkout scanner won't scan anything thats not vegan, and another won't scan condoms and another refuses Halal food is that ok?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Disgrace! He should be sacked. He's paid to work the counter. So what if he's fasting; he doesn't have to eat the pork or drink the wine. Playing the religious martyr. He caused that poor woman unnecessary stress by being so damn rude. Sack him. Where's the pleasantry and hospitality? You get some miserable rude pricks on the checkout in London alright. Thank God I moved I away.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Way too many posts to quote on this one. I'll try and answer all by this one post:

    Why are we discussing this...

    First of all how do you know that the guy in question (the Muslim shop worker) hasn't been sacked. Second, why does it matter to you. That's for his employers to decide. We do not have any proof of the worker being rude. On top of that, the fact that he was backed up by the store manager probably means that he prior internal permission.

    There is nothing particularly wrong in what the worker has done. It doesn't matter what his religion says or doesn't say. He is sticking up for his own beliefs. It is up to the store whether they want an employee who has that issue.

    If I was the manager then I would probably not want that person on the till (whether it meant sack or not) simply because there being other people who can do that kind of job to the fuller extent.
    I would also definitely make sure that he knows to speak to someone if there's a part of his role that he cannot carry out. At this stage, assuming his performance for the company so far had been impeccable, I would be willing to negotiate whether he would like to carry out full service as normal or would he leave the company as it is probably not a very good business decision to have an employee who can't/won't fulfil the tasks that I need doing.

    The shopper was a bit OTT for getting furious, as I don't think there is a lot to get furious about. I understand the slight inconvenience due the expectation that big brands such as Tesco create (deliberately) of the service/product that customers will receive. But to me the shopper would have been more right in making a complaint of dissatisfaction and nothing more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange crush)
    Absolutely. I'm pretty sure this person wasn't the only till operator in the supermarket.
    It doesn't matter how many till operators there were. The point is by refusing to serve the customer they are not doing the job they were hired to do. The employee has a responsibility to serve the customer, it is not the customers responsibility to run round the shop looking for an employee willing to serve them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    And he was, largely, hence him being employed at the time of the incident.

    Out of interest, is your argument from a principle standpoint or a practicality standpoint? Ie, what he did was wrong because he defied his terms of employment for 30 seconds, or because he caused 30 seconds of inconvenience to a customer?
    You don't hire someone to do their job 'largely', or 'except when they don't want to'.

    The employer has a right to be annoyed because its employee has failed to do his job. The customer has a right to be annoyed because they've gone into a shop and the shop's employee has refused to do what he's supposed to.

    I can understand why they're not sacking the employee (if they're not; it doesn't look like they are). They think it'd cause controversy, I guess. But I don't think anyone would have good reason to criticise them for sacking him.


    (Original post by Ggmu!)
    Yes the staff member, in the end, should serve the ham and wine, I don't disagree. But I dont think it's a big deal to just go to self checkout and spare the grief. That's all.
    It certainly wouldn't kill them. Personally I'd go to the self-checkout and then make a complaint. At least, I should bother to, even if I actually might not. I go into a shop and someone refuses to provide me the service they're supposed to. It's in everyone's interests -- the customers' and the employer's -- that events like this are reported. It makes it less likely that you're going to have to go into a supermarket and have some guy refuse to serve you, or more generally have employees refuse to do things that they're paid to do for you because they don't want to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You don't hire someone to do their job 'largely', or 'except when they don't want to'.

    The employer has a right to be annoyed because its employee has failed to do his job. The customer has a right to be annoyed because they've gone into a shop and the shop's employee has refused to do what he's supposed to.

    I can understand why they're not sacking the employee (if they're not; it doesn't look like they are). They think it'd cause controversy, I guess. But I don't think anyone would have good reason to criticise them for sacking him.
    The outrage is clearly disproportionate. We're not talking about a pilot flying to New York instead of Los Angeles because he feels like it, nor are we talking about a doctor that can't be arsed to treat a patient because he wants a fag break five minutes early. We're talking an isolated incident of thirty seconds' worth of inconvenience in a supermarket.

    It might be not in the best interests of the business to assign someone a responsibility which they won't always be willing to take on. But Sainsbury's have a policy of allowing checkout workers to refuse individual sales at their absolute discretion. They don't have to give a reason. They have an 'items per minute' minimum standard to stop them refusing willy-nilly. I think that addresses any potential issues perfectly.

    People that go to customer service to complain about a minimum wage employee need to have a look at themselves.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)

    People that go to customer service to complain about a minimum wage employee need to have a look at themselves.
    Wat. In any and all circumstances, or just this one?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    Wat. In any and all circumstances, or just this one?
    Well no, I should have made it clearer, but I'm referring to this case and similar ones, such as the Sainsbury's employee that refused to serve someone on their phone (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ile-phone.html)

    Obviously if the case is rather more serious (abuse, theft among others) then a complaint should be made.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 21, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.