Tesco defect

[peterm]

Rjan:

Phil1979:
Its their equipment, their rules. Nothing to do with a drivers competence

More important than ownership of the equipment is the organisation of the work.

The drivers could all own their individual vehicles, or have shares in the firm, but if they are to behave as a single organisation they would still have to execute their role in the organisation at that particular time and place (where the tool required to change a bulb is called a fitter, and the driver uses a fitter by providing instructions about defects and needed repairs).

People often seem to perceive that larger organisations only want obedient robots who follow rules rigidly, but following rules rigidly is actually a form of industrial action. If anything larger organisations require workers with more common sense and initiative than the norm, but it’s a different kind of common sense.

What different kind of common sense is that then ? I did a spell driving buses for the Brisbane City Council and found out early on in the piece that you were not paid to think. I was told this in no uncertain terms by the Depot Master. No need to go in to the lengthy details of what happened, but after being on the receiving end of a bollocking, I decided that that wouldn’t happen again, so worked to the rule book and they hated it. Out of a thousand plus drivers, I was in the minority that, because of belittling treatment by management, worked to rule so to speak. There were, and always will be brown nosers who’ll do anything to keep management happy, but I ain’t one of them. Totally different if you work for someone that allows common sense to be used. So what I’m saying is that if you’re not allowed to do something simple and within your capabilities to keep on the road, don’t do it. Now that is simple.

[robroy]

Rjan:
People often seem to perceive that larger organisations only want obedient robots who follow rules rigidly, but following rules rigidly is actually a form of industrial action. If anything larger organisations require workers with more common sense and initiative than the norm, but it’s a different kind of common sense.

Not with you at all there mate, what exactly is ‘a different kind of common sense’ exactly?
As for industrial action, how does that work.
It would depend on how the management CHOSE to perceive it to cover their arses and blame a driver.

If an important load was late because you had a bulb out, as a fitter said it will take 3 hours to come out for example, your phone battery goes dead suddenly, so you can not inform them…so you obey the rule and wait, …and wait in a robot, yes man type co. style

You wait, and leave 3 and a quarter hours late the ■■■■ hits the fan when the important load arrives 4 hours late, with traffic.

It is not your fault …as you were rigidly following the rule, the reason being …in case you got the sack.

Now if I was in same scenario, I COULD have changed bulb in 2 mins. However I would not have, for a different reason to you, as I said …to play them at their own game to show up how ridiculous this rule is.
They go on to choose to interpret it as me taking ind action, to shift the blame (ok it could be argued that it was ) but I did obey the rule. The fact it was for a different reason is irelavent.

So as they perceived me as taking ind action, they sack me.

In the same scenario in your case, keep you on, but say you should have used your ‘different kind of common sense’ and actually change the bulb, because suddenly just like that the rule book gets chucked out of the window? (because suddenly they discover THEIR rules are working against THEM, putting their arses on the line)

No mate, they can not have it both ways, they either want you to obey their rules or they don’t, ie. Either an old fashioned common sense co. , or a modern robot/yesman co. you can not have a combination of the two.

[daventry]

robroy:

Rjan:
People often seem to perceive that larger organisations only want obedient robots who follow rules rigidly, but following rules rigidly is actually a form of industrial action. If anything larger organisations require workers with more common sense and initiative than the norm, but it’s a different kind of common sense.

Not with you at all there mate, what exactly is ‘a different kind of common sense’ exactly?
As for industrial action, how does that work.
It would depend on how the management CHOSE to perceive it to cover their arses and blame a driver.

If an important load was late because you had a bulb out, as a fitter said it will take 3 hours to come out for example, your phone battery goes dead suddenly, so you can not inform them…so you obey the rule and wait, …and wait in a robot, yes man type co. style

You wait, and leave 3 and a quarter hours late the [zb] hits the fan when the important load arrives 4 hours late, with traffic.

It is not your fault …as you were rigidly following the rule, the reason being …in case you got the sack.

Now if I was in same scenario, I COULD have changed bulb in 2 mins. However I would not have, for a different reason to you, as I said …to play them at their own game to show up how ridiculous this rule is.
They go on to choose to interpret it as me taking ind action, to shift the blame (ok it could be argued that it was ) but I did obey the rule. The fact it was for a different reason is irelavent.

So as they perceived me as taking ind action, they sack me.

In the same scenario in your case, keep you on, but say you should have used your ‘different kind of common sense’ and actually change the bulb, because suddenly just like that the rule book gets chucked out of the window? (because suddenly they discover THEIR rules are working against THEM, putting their arses on the line)

No mate, they can not have it both ways, they either want you to obey their rules or they don’t, ie. Either an old fashioned common sense co. , or a modern robot/yesman co. you can not have a combination of the two.

Tesco have in cab phones & text as well as tracking, all you have to do is look up the relevant message, and press send you are able to make additions to the message, the message goes to the depot you are working from as well as the planing dept, they then make the decisions, no need for the driver to be blamed. You do this with any delay, the trip is then put on an open schedule, or re-scheduled, I have always done this.

[robroy]

Daventry:

robroy:

Rjan:
People often seem to perceive that larger organisations only want obedient robots who follow rules rigidly, but following rules rigidly is actually a form of industrial action. If anything larger organisations require workers with more common sense and initiative than the norm, but it’s a different kind of common sense.

Not with you at all there mate, what exactly is ‘a different kind of common sense’ exactly?
As for industrial action, how does that work.
It would depend on how the management CHOSE to perceive it to cover their arses and blame a driver.

If an important load was late because you had a bulb out, as a fitter said it will take 3 hours to come out for example, your phone battery goes dead suddenly, so you can not inform them…so you obey the rule and wait, …and wait in a robot, yes man type co. style

You wait, and leave 3 and a quarter hours late the [zb] hits the fan when the important load arrives 4 hours late, with traffic.

It is not your fault …as you were rigidly following the rule, the reason being …in case you got the sack.

Now if I was in same scenario, I COULD have changed bulb in 2 mins. However I would not have, for a different reason to you, as I said …to play them at their own game to show up how ridiculous this rule is.
They go on to choose to interpret it as me taking ind action, to shift the blame (ok it could be argued that it was ) but I did obey the rule. The fact it was for a different reason is irelavent.

So as they perceived me as taking ind action, they sack me.

In the same scenario in your case, keep you on, but say you should have used your ‘different kind of common sense’ and actually change the bulb, because suddenly just like that the rule book gets chucked out of the window? (because suddenly they discover THEIR rules are working against THEM, putting their arses on the line)

No mate, they can not have it both ways, they either want you to obey their rules or they don’t, ie. Either an old fashioned common sense co. , or a modern robot/yesman co. you can not have a combination of the two.

Tesco have in cab phones & text as well as tracking, all you have to do is look up the relevant message, and press send you are able to make additions to the message, the message goes to the depot you are working from as well as the planing dept, they then make the decisions, no need for the driver to be blamed. You do this with any delay, the trip is then put on an open schedule, or re-scheduled, I have always done this.

Maybe so mate, thanks for the technical details, but I was just making a broad point, and an example to answer the other guy’s opinion. I was not being specific to Tesco or their communication methods and policies.

[juddian]

Reading the utter lunacy being disclosed in this thread, and yes i’ve had experience of not being allowed to fit bulbs whilst an agency bod at Asda/Argos, be interesting to hear if Aldi/Lidl own account operation has the same idiotic one size fits all lowest common denominator views about such things and by association the competence of their staff…somehow i doubt it.

Aside from this, such practices and without being told, assumed to be too thick to sort out a malfunctioning light whether bulb or pulled out wires, would probably see me not staying long at such a place.

Common sense in all things, you’re not going to get the bulb man replacing a broken Scania cab mount/damper before your shift even if he did happen to keep one handy in his back pocket, which presumably the lad behind the desk at Asda thought…

[alix776]

Thank god im where I am

[rjan]

peterm:

Rjan:

Phil1979:
Its their equipment, their rules. Nothing to do with a drivers competence

More important than ownership of the equipment is the organisation of the work.

The drivers could all own their individual vehicles, or have shares in the firm, but if they are to behave as a single organisation they would still have to execute their role in the organisation at that particular time and place (where the tool required to change a bulb is called a fitter, and the driver uses a fitter by providing instructions about defects and needed repairs).

People often seem to perceive that larger organisations only want obedient robots who follow rules rigidly, but following rules rigidly is actually a form of industrial action. If anything larger organisations require workers with more common sense and initiative than the norm, but it’s a different kind of common sense.

What different kind of common sense is that then ? I did a spell driving buses for the Brisbane City Council and found out early on in the piece that you were not paid to think. I was told this in no uncertain terms by the Depot Master. No need to go in to the lengthy details of what happened, but after being on the receiving end of a bollocking, I decided that that wouldn’t happen again, so worked to the rule book and they hated it. Out of a thousand plus drivers, I was in the minority that, because of belittling treatment by management, worked to rule so to speak. There were, and always will be brown nosers who’ll do anything to keep management happy, but I ain’t one of them. Totally different if you work for someone that allows common sense to be used. So what I’m saying is that if you’re not allowed to do something simple and within your capabilities to keep on the road, don’t do it. Now that is simple.

You prove my point, that working to rule is not what management wants after all!

Let me be clear, I’m not saying that managers in large organisations are necessarily better managers, or that large organisations are always functioning healthy, or that managers always have appropriate respect for the workforce, or that established processes are always right.

But those issues are different from the basic problem of having a workforce that understands (and are amenable to) how large organisations work differently.

An almost universal principle is that if you haven’t done something before (like go into the stores out of hours), then you ask someone who has to show you how. Or, if you are forced to do something unusual without being able to consult first, then you either just don’t do it until you have consulted, or in urgent circumstances you consult afterwards (to inform the organisation about what has been done and why, and how it was outside the normal procedure) and accept feedback (which might include feedback that you made the wrong judgment).

That’s different from not requiring initiative - large organisations love initiative or they become sclerotic and inefficient, but initiative in a large organisation frequently starts with initiating some sort of consultation with others (or consulting written information or rule books), and planning your actions and accounting for them, not just going ahead with whatever it is you want to do. That’s common sense.

[rjan]

robroy:

Rjan:
People often seem to perceive that larger organisations only want obedient robots who follow rules rigidly, but following rules rigidly is actually a form of industrial action. If anything larger organisations require workers with more common sense and initiative than the norm, but it’s a different kind of common sense.

Not with you at all there mate, what exactly is ‘a different kind of common sense’ exactly?

It’s a common sense forged from a different culture and experiences.

As for industrial action, how does that work.

It works because bosses don’t, in fact, want rules to be followed rigidly all of the time. It’s beauty is in the fact that bosses say they do want rules to be followed.

It would depend on how the management CHOSE to perceive it to cover their arses and blame a driver.

If an important load was late because you had a bulb out, as a fitter said it will take 3 hours to come out for example, your phone battery goes dead suddenly, so you can not inform them…so you obey the rule and wait, …and wait in a robot, yes man type co. style

You wait, and leave 3 and a quarter hours late the [zb] hits the fan when the important load arrives 4 hours late, with traffic.

It is not your fault …as you were rigidly following the rule, the reason being …in case you got the sack.

Now if I was in same scenario, I COULD have changed bulb in 2 mins. However I would not have, for a different reason to you, as I said …to play them at their own game to show up how ridiculous this rule is.
They go on to choose to interpret it as me taking ind action, to shift the blame (ok it could be argued that it was ) but I did obey the rule. The fact it was for a different reason is irelavent.

So as they perceived me as taking ind action, they sack me.

In the same scenario in your case, keep you on, but say you should have used your ‘different kind of common sense’ and actually change the bulb, because suddenly just like that the rule book gets chucked out of the window? (because suddenly they discover THEIR rules are working against THEM, putting their arses on the line)

No mate, they can not have it both ways, they either want you to obey their rules or they don’t, ie. Either an old fashioned common sense co. , or a modern robot/yesman co. you can not have a combination of the two.

You’ve changed the situation from the one I was addressing. Firstly, a large organisation doesn’t usually have individual loads which are important. If they are, then they aren’t time critical. And if they are, then the fitter isn’t three hours away. And if the fitter is three hours away, then someone at head office gets on the blower to the mechanic in a local village (or another haulier local to your position). And if the phone battery expires, then you use a phonebox or knock at a local business, or flag down traffic. Or at the very end of this farce, when all else has failed, you change the bulb and get on with the journey, and you receive thanks at the end of it, and someone takes steps to stop it happening again.

But we’ve got ahead from the very first point - that the individual load is probably not important. Unless you have it on good authority that this particular load is much more important than the norm for some reason, then you shouldn’t assume that any deviation from procedure is justified.

In fact, if your phone goes dead while a fitter is on the way, and you then change the bulb and move on, what the company saves in your wages could be far exceeded by the cost of having a fitter roaming around the countryside for additional time looking for you (which disrupts his predicted schedule, and then the time cost of him making calls to his boss, who makes calls to yours, all trying to find out what the hell is going on, and all potentially distracted from their routine duties). And then, if the fitter is external to the organisation, when the whopping invoice comes in, but with no record of a completed repair, then the accounts department have to start investigating whether the bill is legitimate - another merry go round of bureaucratic costs.

None of this is common sense to an owner driver whose loads are all important because of his small scale, and who just has no experience of (or need to know) how uncoordinated behaviour can cause costs to spiral (or frustrate other efficiencies that the organisation relies on).

[peterm]

Christ almighty ! Are you on planet Earth or what. It really sounds to me that you must be in management on one of these companies that RobRoy talks about that wants it’s bread buttered both sides. A company makes rules and often rods for their own backs. Some treat drivers and other employees like idiots. Instead of going to the lowest common denominator for everyone, why not just get rid of the dross and employ people that have the only type of common sense there is. There simply isn’t more than one type of common sense.

[happysack]

Christ I haven’t read all that but is this an alter ego of winseer or carryfart?

[f-reds]

More like Carryfast mixed with Happy Keith

[robroy]

So Rjan mate, Thanks for your lesson in the workings of Road Haulage, of which I have been involved in, in many different ways and capacities for a number of years.
Ok, so you state that ‘a large co does not do time critical urgent loads’ your ‘different type of common sense’ comes from a different culture , the fact that bosses don’t want their rules adhered to is ‘beautiful’ and then you go on to instruct me how being an owner driver works.

No offence mate but your patronising post comes across as a mixture of bs, and David Brent style managementspeak.

So, I will just continue to react to, and see things as they really are, or as I see them, and not be conned and brainwashed by those who just look after their own interests and will try and drop me in the ■■■■ as soon as their self motivated systems go ■■■■ up due to their own incompetence.
It has worked for me for the last 30+ yrs in the job so I’ll just stick with it. Cheers.

[daventry]

I thought this Thread was about Tesco’s operation of what is called by DHL op13, which has to filled out by the driver for every vehicle & t/r prior to leaving the depot, even if the fault occurs at the gate on leaving it has to be rectified,

[robroy]

Daventry:
I thought this Thread was about Tesco’s operation of what is called by DHL op13, which has to filled out by the driver for every vehicle & t/r prior to leaving the depot, even if the fault occurs at the gate on leaving it has to be rectified,

Correct it is/was. However it has developed into a discussion of the ins, outs, pitfalls, and consequences of ridiculous and derisory rules and regulations made by modern management, and their ways of putting them across to us mere drivers.
The fact that you refer to this type of crap as ‘Op 13’ and then go on to explain it in a non ironic way, kind of illustrates it.

[rjan]

robroy:
So Rjan mate, Thanks for your lesson in the workings of Road Haulage, of which I have been involved in, in many different ways and capacities for a number of years.
Ok, so you state that ‘a large co does not do time critical urgent loads’ your ‘different type of common sense’ comes from a different culture , the fact that bosses don’t want their rules adhered to is ‘beautiful’ and then you go on to instruct me how being an owner driver works.

No offence mate but your patronising post comes across as a mixture of bs, and David Brent style managementspeak.

So, I will just continue to react to, and see things as they really are, or as I see them, and not be conned and brainwashed by those who just look after their own interests and will try and drop me in the [zb] as soon as their self motivated systems go ■■■■ up due to their own incompetence.
It has worked for me for the last 30+ yrs in the job so I’ll just stick with it. Cheers.

Well you do what you want. I wasn’t criticising anything you’d actually done - just making the general point about why large businesses can’t just have people all of the time doing whatever they alone see fit (including flouting whatever processes have been put in place to handle various circumstances). I suppose in future, rather than trying to treat people as adults, they’ll just put the fitter’s tools under lock and key.

I should also say I’m not trying to defend any barmy management policy (of which there are too many in this game), but the example of Soldier z that I originally responded to, about him being a (presumably new) driver going and rooting around in the workshop out of hours, taking the tools of a fitter who he doesn’t know and without permission, and making a repair (albeit simple and straightforward) which he had no need to do and which the business didn’t expect him to do, is a prime example of something that should never happen without first asking somebody (not necessarily a manager but just another experienced colleague) whether that is appropriate. It wasn’t a grave crime, but it’s contrary to common sense that you talk to others about what you’re proposing to do and get a feel for what is required (or permissible for) your role. I was nevertheless being quite fair in conceding to Soldier z that I can understand how a common sense forged in a much smaller operation, or certainly a more loosely organised business, might lead him to think that changing the bulb was naturally part of his role, or that he might be expected to just get on with doing things without bothering others about it - because in smaller, less organised places, this sort of independence and resourcefulness is typically what they want, and they definitely don’t want people who expect to be shown how to do every little thing, and they don’t need people to follow formal processes because the business doesn’t need formal processes or have any.

If you are in a larger business and don’t agree with drivers not being able to change bulbs, then by all means seek an explanation or challenge it - or if the managers are tossers, then tell them so, or tell their superiors, or work to rule, or leave. But either way, it’s not a case of just being left to do whatever you want, and complaining when somebody takes umbridge (quite rightly in the case of the workshop manager defending his fitter’s right to put their tools down and not have them borrowed or rifled by any tom, ■■■■, or harry).

[daventry]

robroy:

Daventry:
I thought this Thread was about Tesco’s operation of what is called by DHL op13, which has to filled out by the driver for every vehicle & t/r prior to leaving the depot, even if the fault occurs at the gate on leaving it has to be rectified,

Correct it is/was. However it has developed into a discussion of the ins, outs, pitfalls, and consequences of ridiculous and derisory rules and regulations made by modern management, and their ways of putting them across to us mere drivers.
The fact that you refer to this type of crap as ‘Op 13’ and then go on to explain it in a non ironic way, kind of illustrates it.

I have had over 40 years working for General own account and owner drivers hauliers, it was only in 2001 I started on agency work, and came across the paper work, that is now required, so every time the opportunity arose I asked why that I as a driver engineer in a previous employment wasn’t allowed to do simple maintenance, the reply has always been the same, “we have to prove that the maintenance has been done by a qualified person” which I take to be a maintenance fitter,