9000 uk jobs at tesco

[rich5315]

great news you might say, on that at making 3.17 billion (thats 3170 million) is good news, 9000 poorly paid jobs is what i see, why do we praise such companies, these jobs are only any good to someone as a second job, there is a big issue at the moment about people not working when there are jobs out there, but what about the ones that do not pay bills and keep a roof over your head, 9000 coming up at tescos its still down to the tax payer to subsidise these jobs so are they really any good, it also tells me that they have been massively being overcharging there customers, whats your views ?

[HeadingNorth]

If people were not willing to work there at the existing rates of pay, Tesco would have no employees and would close. Your argument falls down at the first hurdle.

[rich5315]

people are prepared to work at those rates but there no good as a main money earner in a household, the poverty line for a family of 4 based on working forty hours a week is £11 per hour, so how can these wages be a good thing, shouldnt they just set 4500 people on and pay them £12 an hour, that would really be of help to a lot of familys

[kebab69man]

I fully understand your point. However, the job pays the national minimum wage because of the skill level required to do it. People who want to be paid more should do what the people in well paid jobs have had to do:

 

Study, retrain apply for the promotions and kiss butt

 

I didn't exactly start on a good wage for my first few jobs and it took a long time to get onto a decent salary.

 

I do agree with your point that taxpayers should not supplementing peoples incomes. Adults should take more responsibility when having families and not over produce if they do not have the income to sustain children. (Yes i know it can't be helped if a well paid family fall on hard times. But if your starting off on a poor income you shouldn't knock out 4 kids and expect the taxpayer to chip in) Nanny state is at breaking point.

 

Now expect your thread to be flamed due to my comments lol.

[BladesNo1]

I fully understand your point. However, the job pays the national minimum wage because of the skill level required to do it. People who want to be paid more should do what the people in well paid jobs have had to do:

 

Study, retrain apply for the promotions and kiss butt

 

I didn't exactly start on a good wage for my first few jobs and it took a long time to get onto a decent salary.

 

I do agree with your point that taxpayers should not supplementing peoples incomes. Adults should take more responsibility when having families and not over produce if they do not have the income to sustain children. (Yes i know it can't be helped if a well paid family fall on hard times. But if your starting off on a poor income you shouldn't knock out 4 kids and expect the taxpayer to chip in) Nanny state is at breaking point.

 

Now expect your thread to be flamed due to my comments lol.

 

I agree 100%. too many people start with little or no earnings n pop

out kids with little forward thinking about finances because they know full

well the gov will giv them benefits.

I'm nit including people who fell on hard times after starting their family

in this though.

[Tony]

These can never be new jobs unless we've suddenly started using more groceries.

 

Since Tesco's job is to become more efficient I'm guessing that this is an indication that twice as many jobs and half the profit will be lost in the other businesses that suffer.

[Halibut]

people are prepared to work at those rates but there no good as a main money earner in a household, the poverty line for a family of 4 based on working forty hours a week is £11 per hour, so how can these wages be a good thing, shouldnt they just set 4500 people on and pay them £12 an hour, that would really be of help to a lot of familys

 

Firstly, you make the incorrect assumption that all of these jobs are part - time minimum wage posts, which isn't the case and secondly you make another incorrect assumption that all Tesco employees are at the head of families of four, which isn't the case either.

 

Setting on half the number of staff you need at twice the rate would be a pretty stupid thing to do really.

[anywebsite]

These can never be new jobs unless we've suddenly started using more groceries.

 

Since Tesco's job is to become more efficient I'm guessing that this is an indication that twice as many jobs and half the profit will be lost in the other businesses that suffer.

 

Tesco does seem to be quite efficient, so you're right. It's an overall gain for the economy.

 

Efficiency is a good thing, without it we'd all be doing unskilled jobs & we'd all be much poorer.

[Tony]

Oxymoron alert. Or is it just unintentional pedantry?

 

Of course efficiency is good in itself but I believe that it is important that we understand the implications of efficiency so that we can form an opinion as to whether efficiency is what we actually want. With that opinion we can make value judgements that may or may not relate to other aspects of our society.

 

Do you prefer Tesco to use their efficiency to lose net jobs?

[gina2007]

Firstly, you make the incorrect assumption that all of these jobs are part - time minimum wage posts, which isn't the case and secondly you make another incorrect assumption that all Tesco employees are at the head of families of four, which isn't the case either.

 

Setting on half the number of staff you need at twice the rate would be a pretty stupid thing to do really.

 

I actually agree with you! Id love a job at tesco if anyone thinks its beneath them!!