Tesco dodgy dealings?
Discussion
SPS said:
I worked for 25 years within a major UK based company and can tell you that I lost count of the high level talent that they let go "to save money" replacing them at a senior level with individuals you would not have allowed to run a corner shop with the predictable dire consequences across a number of management streams!
Tesco is probably going through or has just come out of the same phase. So you end up with what you pay for, or in this case who you pay for.
Why do british companies promote goons/ face fits/ ass kissers, etc? And then panic when talent leaves because of it??Tesco is probably going through or has just come out of the same phase. So you end up with what you pay for, or in this case who you pay for.
markcoznottz said:
SPS said:
I worked for 25 years within a major UK based company and can tell you that I lost count of the high level talent that they let go "to save money" replacing them at a senior level with individuals you would not have allowed to run a corner shop with the predictable dire consequences across a number of management streams!
Tesco is probably going through or has just come out of the same phase. So you end up with what you pay for, or in this case who you pay for.
Why do british companies promote goons/ face fits/ ass kissers, etc? And then panic when talent leaves because of it??Tesco is probably going through or has just come out of the same phase. So you end up with what you pay for, or in this case who you pay for.
I know several middle managers who have left or are leaving after being passed over for an incompetent twenty something graduate who hasn't a clue.
There current performance and recent results are hardly a surprise.
Too many bigger companies have got themselves in trouble by having a policy of fast tracking graduates. Now some will be good but the vast majority I have met are useless for the first few years and inevitably get over stretched by the rapid promotions they get.
As others have said when the going is easy they survive but when it gets hard they are exposed, where as others who have paid their dues and learnt from the bottom up who know the business are ignored.
As others have said when the going is easy they survive but when it gets hard they are exposed, where as others who have paid their dues and learnt from the bottom up who know the business are ignored.
lauda said:
Hmm, not quite sure I agree with the Enron parallel. What went on there was far more complex than revenue recognition/cost accrual issues.
They basically took huge amounts of debt off-balance sheet through various accounting loopholes and special purpose entities and created non-existent assets and profits through systemic accounting fraud.
As I understand it, the Tesco issue relates to the timing of the recognition of revenue which was geniune, rather than the complete fabrication of something that didn't exist.
Enron more or less tried every trick in the book - or in their case "off the books".They basically took huge amounts of debt off-balance sheet through various accounting loopholes and special purpose entities and created non-existent assets and profits through systemic accounting fraud.
As I understand it, the Tesco issue relates to the timing of the recognition of revenue which was geniune, rather than the complete fabrication of something that didn't exist.
Eric Mc said:
R1 Indy said:
Does not surprise me if accounts etc are bogged.
I remember when I worked there, emails came down before half year/end of year etc basically banning us from adding on shrink, to essentially hide any losses temporary!!
What is "shrink".I remember when I worked there, emails came down before half year/end of year etc basically banning us from adding on shrink, to essentially hide any losses temporary!!
It's the difference between actual and recorded inventory / stocks.
Reasons can be employee error/theft, shoplifting, administrative error, supplier fraud, damage and adjustments / errors made by staff in favour of the customer.
Some of these reasons may be criminal, some simply errors, both system and human errors and some due to good customer service.
spaximus said:
Too many bigger companies have got themselves in trouble by having a policy of fast tracking graduates. Now some will be good but the vast majority I have met are useless for the first few years and inevitably get over stretched by the rapid promotions they get.
As others have said when the going is easy they survive but when it gets hard they are exposed, where as others who have paid their dues and learnt from the bottom up who know the business are ignored.
Yep, one very recent example, a very experienced, intelligent middle manager, been there twenty years, was asked to train "one of our rising stars" three months later he was her boss, she resigned instantly and is now working for one of their suppliers. As others have said when the going is easy they survive but when it gets hard they are exposed, where as others who have paid their dues and learnt from the bottom up who know the business are ignored.
They treat there staff in the same way they treat their customers, with utter contempt, it was only a matter of time, now they are on the slippery slope, look what happened to GEC, a very similar story.
Another downside to this is the company sharesave scheme, a huge number of employees are in very deep and are loosing a large proportion of there savings, again like GEC.
FiF said:
Come on you know what shrinkage is!
It's the difference between actual and recorded inventory / stocks.
Reasons can be employee error/theft, shoplifting, administrative error, supplier fraud, damage and adjustments / errors made by staff in favour of the customer.
Some of these reasons may be criminal, some simply errors, both system and human errors and some due to good customer service.
Not really heard that term being used specifically in relation to stock.It's the difference between actual and recorded inventory / stocks.
Reasons can be employee error/theft, shoplifting, administrative error, supplier fraud, damage and adjustments / errors made by staff in favour of the customer.
Some of these reasons may be criminal, some simply errors, both system and human errors and some due to good customer service.
The difference between actual and recorded stock can be in either direction, so it would be wrong to classify all such differences as "shrinkage". I've come across plenty of situations where actual stock was LARGER than what had been calculated. What do you call that - stock "inflation"?
I would normally just refer to such stock differences as "errors" (or "differences").
Eric Mc said:
FiF said:
Come on you know what shrinkage is!
It's the difference between actual and recorded inventory / stocks.
Reasons can be employee error/theft, shoplifting, administrative error, supplier fraud, damage and adjustments / errors made by staff in favour of the customer.
Some of these reasons may be criminal, some simply errors, both system and human errors and some due to good customer service.
Not really heard that term being used specifically in relation to stock.It's the difference between actual and recorded inventory / stocks.
Reasons can be employee error/theft, shoplifting, administrative error, supplier fraud, damage and adjustments / errors made by staff in favour of the customer.
Some of these reasons may be criminal, some simply errors, both system and human errors and some due to good customer service.
The difference between actual and recorded stock can be in either direction, so it would be wrong to classify all such differences as "shrinkage". I've come across plenty of situations where actual stock was LARGER than what had been calculated. What do you call that - stock "inflation"?
I would normally just refer to such stock differences as "errors" (or "differences").
Eric Mc said:
I've come across plenty of situations where actual stock was LARGER than what had been calculated. What do you call that - stock "inflation"?
I would call it Tesco's Value items; stock that is so revoltingly cheap and unpleasant the shelves must be heaving with the utter crap...Eric Mc said:
Not really heard that term being used specifically in relation to stock.
It is a common term used in retail.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(accounting...
Regard payment terms, I think we charge 5% interest per month(?) for invoices outside our 30 day payment period - I think this is inline with the Construction Act (trying to recall what our legal team were saying at the time, I was too busy eating some very nice flapjacks).
Are there similar terms regarding suppliers to Tesco etc?
Are there similar terms regarding suppliers to Tesco etc?
vonuber said:
Regard payment terms, I think we charge 5% interest per month(?) for invoices outside our 30 day payment period - I think this is inline with the Construction Act (trying to recall what our legal team were saying at the time, I was too busy eating some very nice flapjacks).
Are there similar terms regarding suppliers to Tesco etc?
I my experience no, they wouldn't sign up to them and would refuse to do business on those terms from the commercial side of the operation, the corporate side might be different. Are there similar terms regarding suppliers to Tesco etc?
There is also a disparity in how they deal with you depending on whether your business card says "Unilever" or "ABC distribution ltd" often the big brands call the shots and the little suppliers get it in the neck.
We've put them on hold before and once threatened legal action, which actually did the trick.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff