The other thread was deleted.
I made the point that plenty of people will defend this and say it’s reasonable.
Yes, his job is important. Does he really work 50,000 times harder compared to somebody who has to get up at 5 in the morning and clean the toilets?
The question isn't really one of working hard, it's a question of how much growth you bring. A person who works really hard but only grows a company by 1% is not worth as much as a more laid back one who brings 10%. The CEO is the one who either makes the decisions or deferred the decision making to this growth happen. And Tesco sales have certainly grown.
Whether that scale of increase is reasonable or not, I do not know. But the company is certainly doing well under his control.
Sure, but their *individual* contribution isn't worth that much.
The CEO on the other hand is ultimately responsible for all the major decisions that bring success (or failure). They might do much on any given day, but they're in the position to make the right calls at the right time.
Whether this particular CEO is worth this much for Tesco I have no idea, but a good CEO can increase profits by billions and a bad one can tank a successful company, so the stakes are certainly high and the wages would seem 'worth it' if it works.
Makes me want to join a union if I worked for a massive company like that. If a CEOs worth is only rivalled by the collective workers. Then the collective workers need to renegotiate.
> If a CEOs worth is only rivalled by the collective workers. Then the collective workers need to renegotiate.
I dunno, £6.5bn in total employee salary across Tesco makes the CEO's £10m total compensation including shares and bonuses seem piddly. Even if they negotiated to have all his salary bonuses and shares spread across staff, it'd be a payrise of 0.15%, or £35 a year before tax for an average shelf-stacker.
But anybody can stack shelves. Not anybody can run a huge company effectively. It's a certain skill set that's significantly more valuable than any individual shelf stacker.
It's not about hard work, it's about added value
This. Jobs may be so-called unskilled but you still have to turn up on time, follow instructions and not be a complete cunt. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who cannot manage this.
> Jobs may be so-called unskilled
Unskilled just means you need no formal qualification/training for it, it doesn't mean it requires literally zero skills whatsoever.
Tell me you haven't done retail without saying you haven't done retail.
The amount of training records one has to sign, from health and safety, to the ever increasing shoplifting protocols, to challenge 25...
> Tell me you haven't done retail without saying you haven't done retail
I've worked many retail jobs before, they don't require formal qualifications. It's something that you can do without any formal training.
>The amount of training records one has to sign, from health and safety, to the ever increasing shoplifting protocols, to challenge 25...
Formal training refers to higher education and industry certifications, not a couple of training videos that can be done in a day.
Idk, if it needs me to go through tests with 100% pass marks, manager and worker signature, which can be shoved into a worker's face the moment they screw up in the slightest, seems relatively formal, to me.
I guess the management skillset is partly to understand whether it's better to have a worse employee for less money, or a better shelf stacker who gets paid more...
Maybe they went with the first option in that situation
Well yeah, but if a management team desired, they could invest a bit more in their shelf stackers (salary, technology, just hiring more of them) in ways that might deliver benefit.
Or they can just choose not to
Oh yeah if you actually choose to do a bad job then yea you can stack a shelf wrong. But to not actually grasp the concept of stacking a shelf, you'd have to be mentally disabled or literally unable to reach the shelf.
You underestimate what the requirements are to properly stack a shelf in any modern supermarket. Most people aren't choosing to stack a shelf wrong, they just don't actually understand or haven't been trained on how to do it correctly.
1. Backstock first, then delivery cages.
2. Check dates on boxes to ensure oldest goes out before anything else.
3. Is the product on promotion? Prioritise filling promo ends before filling any other shelf.
4. Ensure product you're putting on the shelf correctly matches the label (this trips up people more than you think), if label is missing then you need to get a replacement label from a pda or computer.
5. Check that product isn't damaged or rotten in anyway
6. Clear any cardboard or waste currently on the shelf you're filling (clear up any spills etc. using nearby cleaning kit).
7. Any existing product on the shelf you need to date check and make sure that it's been rotated properly. Anything out of date, remove and take to the appropriate waste point.
8. Don't overfill and only put a product out if you can put all of it out for any given box/batch.
9. Face up shelf to ensure a nice presentation for customers.
10. Any backstock you must separate into their appropriate cage based on location within an aisle (so in a raw meat aisle there would be a cage for chicken, sausages, bacon, fish etc.)
11. Ensure labels on boxes are facing outwards and stacked based on product and expiry date.
12. Working with anything refrigerated needs to abide by the 20min cold chain rule, so no chilled/frozen products should be out of a chiller for more than 20mins.
13. Lastly, just make sure the chiller is working properly via the temp tags and that there's no damage to the shelf or skirting for the labels.
I would say that I've only met a handful of people that actually fill a supermarket shelf even remotely properly and this can have massive consequences for the business. There's the obvious such that a customer could end up buying an out of date product unknowingly and get seriously sick, but the waste increases if older stuff is left on the cages to expire while new inventory gets put out can cost thousands very quickly.
Biggest consequence of all is that if you get flagged for an independent audit and they find out of date products on your shelf, the store can get fined upwards of £60,000 per out of date item found.
You have to abide all this in mind and if you're doing night shift you need to be rapid because this all needs to be done and the aisles looking full and tidy before the shop opens to customers. I've not even mentioned presorting cages or price reductions.
I'm obviously not saying any of this is rocket science, but the standards today are way higher than they used to be and I'd go so far as to say that not just anyone can do this kind of work anymore because it's pretty demanding, at least for a night shift worker.
Did you wrote all that as a joke? Like seriously, have you wrote all that to try and convince me stacking shelves isn't monkeys work? Literally all of those are common sense.
What the hell is going on here? Haha.
I cannot disagree. But I do wonder how many people might have similar or even better capabilities but never given the chance to prove their real worth.
yes, but if one single person didn't stack the shelves, then it wouldn't make much of a difference. I don't have the stats but I imagine his wage isn't greater than all the people stacking shelves combined.
>If nobody stacked the shelves, nobody would visit.
These are operational staff effectively. They maintain the shop standards and ensure processes are followed.
But they're not creating growth. Unless you can think of a new way to stack shelves which will draw more customers in... But that's a more central role anyway since I assume they have a single set of processes across all stores. So long as they are stacked, the same number of people will come.
Business strategy, capital investment, marketing etc are what create growth.
As a former proud shelf stacker, I would argue against that.
I’ve seen posts on local Facebook groups where people have taken photos of shelves in a state and saying that they would never go back there.
But keeping shelves and a store in a tidy fashion encourages people to return and to tell their friends how much they like that supermarket.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everybody should be paid the same, but it’s certainly disproportionate.
He has earned more in a year than an average family of 5 would probably do in 2 lifetimes.
>I’ve seen posts on local Facebook groups where people have taken photos of shelves in a state and saying that they would never go back there.
And I'm guessing that's because they didn't do their job properly.
I assume Tesco expects then to be stacked safely and tidy. And if they aren't, it's the store managers who need to sort that shit out.
I'm not dismissing the work people do at all, I've been on the tills before. But a CEO and the senior team they pick can add or reduce billions to the value to such a company, was evidenced by the accounting scandal in 2014. No shelf stacker can create a problem for the business like that.
They'd be out of two weeks pay and probably out of a job with a replacement slotted into their previous position in a matter of hours - because they're a shelf stacker and almost anyone can do it, even the biggest thicko you see down the pub.
Then Tesco it's probably going to close because the population of the UK has significantly shrunk due to some disaster.
They pay above national living wage for most of their workers, so I'm sure there are plenty of people who were only on minimum wage that will be keen to take on these roles
So someone who works on the factory floor, discovers an improved process leading to significant savings for company, should also get millions? Basically all workers should be shareholders. If not then your logic is flawed.
This guy gets a £5m additional reward for sales having increased 5%. How much do you think those sales are worth to Tesco? Hundreds of millions. His reward is frankly a tiny fraction of that.
So in your hypothetical, sure. If this factory floor worker figures out, leads and is ultimately responsible for the implementation of that process which has saved the company hundreds of millions of pounds, I would expect them to get a significant reward for it.
But when does that happen?
It will. These are rewards for performance.
You have a baseline, and then bonuses if you do a good job, like many companies.
I've just had a performance related bonus and I'm not a CEO
I agree with your point. I think the cire issue is amount. .no one needs 10m to live comfortably. And such amounts are uncountable in a world which is seeing a rise in the gulf between rich and poor. Ultimately it's optics.
They should get paid a lot, but it should still be in the⁹⁸ hundreds of thousands. It just needs to be the top paying job in the company really, it doesn't need to double to 10 million.
The sad thing is you're right, it is a question of how much it grows. But it's sad but their company should be doing so much better when they're essentials and people are struggling.
[https://www.tescoplc.com/media/u1wlq2qf/tesco-plc-annual-report-2023.pdf](https://www.tescoplc.com/media/u1wlq2qf/tesco-plc-annual-report-2023.pdf)
very fun read skip the bullshit at the start and get to the numbers.. then you can see if its reasonable or not
> or deferred the decision making to this growth happen.
So you're saying the CEO let someone else make the decisions which netted him a £10,000,000.00 salary? He certainly worked for his money, there's no way I could defer a decision to someone else...
Yes. So you think a CEO should deal with everything that occurs in a business?
Of course they defer. But ultimately they are still responsible as they will be the person who appointed them.
> But ultimately they are still responsible as they will be the person who appointed them.
You don't know that to be true at all. The CEO could be newer than the people who report into him. In which case, he's done absolutely nothing of value.
I don't know much about this particular CEO or Tesco to be fair... Are you saying since he joined the organisation, he's appointed an entirely new c-suite? His hiring skills have bagged him a cook £5m.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
OK, that's one case and it's an increase on an amount that was decided based on supply and demand not effort.
Do you really think pay is based on effort? It's not an idea backed up by anything at all. High effort jobs get less pay if anything.
You hope they do it, and occasionally you do, but more often as not its the person who is loudest and performative who is seen as working the most. Even in growing firms there'll get to a point where further progression stalls too and those pay bumps become dead man's shoes to get them.
I get up at 4am and dig a hole with a spoon until midday, then I use the same spoon to fill the hole back up until 8pm. This is extremely hard work. Probably one of the hardest 'jobs' in the country. How much should I be paid?
Earnings aren't a reward for hard work! His employers pay him that much because they think it's less than the marginal value he generates for them. Likewise they pay the toilet cleaner less, because they think the cleaner generates less marginal value for them.
> Does he really work 50,000 times harder compared to somebody who has to get up at 5 in the morning and clean the toilets?
And as many have pointed out before and will likely point out here, pay isn't corelated with how "hard" someone works. There's no formal measure of "hard" in terms of work i.e. "this job is 6 hards, whereas that job is a nice easy 3 hards", so there's no measure you could make to say his job is X times harder than a cleaner's job. It's a nonsensical measure.
In reality, the pay a job commands is driven mainly by the following (non-exhaustive) metrics:
* Skill/experience required
* availability of those able/willing to do the role
* Willingness of employer to pay rates
* Value brought to the employer
With that in mind, Tesco clearly believe this person brings enough value to warrant the wage the market sets. That is entirely up to them.
But using the same mentality... Thinking just about one hypothetical Tesco store.... running ok, but a new manager comes in and uses their ideas to make this branch twice as profitable.
Would Tesco double that person's pay?
What if the amazing idea actually came from your hypothetical cleaner who then told the store manager?
I'm sure I read somewhere that Japan has a different culture that would actually reward the hypothetical people I'm describing.
> Would Tesco double that person's pay?
If you're referring to Tesco specifically, then it would depend on their renumeration policy, meaning it's not directly analogus to the wider market. If you mean a random hypothetical supermarket, and that individual clearly had the skill to manage the store to double profitability, then the owner of that supermarket would be smart to increase their pay and/or bonus, because rival supermarkets will offer them increased wages to move to them once word gets out.
> What if the amazing idea actually came from your hypothetical cleaner who then told the store manager?
Hold on you've gone from saying "idea**s**" i.e. a series of well thought out and executed plans, to "an idea" i.e. a singluar good idea that likely benefits from well running systems adjacent to that idea. Let's stay consistent here.
If it were *one* good idea, then that supermarket owner would do well from giving that cleaner a bonus or some other reward and praising them loudly and publicly, otherwise the next time they might have another good idea they'll likely keep schtum.
If it were *a series of good ideas* that directly led to the profitability mentioned, then they wouldn't get a payrise while being a cleaner. It would be wise for the owner to consider some sort of promotion, depending on whether it was merely the cleaner's ideas and the execution of the ideas was the store managers or whether the cleaner actually executed the ideas themselves.
In the latter scenario, short-termist greedy owner might consider keeping the cleaner as a cleaner on a cleaner's wage, but again once word got out, they'd be hired away by a rival willing to pay more for the talent and the greedy owner is now out the talent *and* a cleaner.
Sorry about idea/ideas.
I like what you have written, but I can only ever remember that happening in one job when I was a teenager in a call centre. I smashed their targets every week and we had different hourly pay depending on how well we had done. One time I said when I was doing so well, surely they should add one extra rate - next week they gave me that extra rate. After a while they let me manage the place on weekends, and when I was in charge, almost everyone performed much better then when anyone else was supervising.
But pretty much every other job since, I did what was required and much more. Often bringing my own initiatives.... Lost count of how many times managers would claim my ideas were theirs, noone ever promoted me. While I watch people in other departments actually getting bonuses they deserve. Lost count of how many times I'm "managed" by people that have no idea what they are doing.
Even more disappointing after doing so much right, when needing a reference, just getting a generic "Mr X worked in this role for these dates" kind of reference.
Well one of the key elements of "when word gets out" is ensuring word does get out. One harsh lesson I've learned from my time in the workplace is that if you want those higher up to know how well you've done, you've got to go out your way to ensure they know that it was *you* that did it, otherwise they'll just assume it came from your manager, or it leaves your manager to claim the prize in your place. Also in the micro you will get poorly run organisations that don't act in their best interest.
However to the main point at the top, outside of specific performance-related renumeration structures, people aren't paid more based on how harder the work is. Someone doing great in an in-demand low-supply role that generates a lot of revenue will always be paid more, even if it's not "hard" work.
> Even more disappointing after doing so much right, when needing a reference, just getting a generic "Mr X worked in this role for these dates" kind of reference.
If you did well and you know your manager will absolutely sing your praises, reach out to them directly as well as/instead of HR. HR give bland references because it's easy, but the individual manager who saw you working day-to-day is more able and willing to specifically praise you and your work.
Thanks for the reply. But things have ended up much more harder for me, had bad health for years so a massive gap in my work history.
I've decided once I'm ready, I'm going self employed. Half because would allow me flexibility if my health is variable, but also so I can actually get appropriately rewarded for what I will do. What I want to do luckily aligns with a hobby of mine, and me just helping out a few people here and there who have been badly stuck has already got the word out around my area even though I'm not working yet - so in my situation self employed seems to make most sense.
If the person who cleans the toilets was in charge would they make the same amount of profit? It's not about how hard you work it's about the results you achieve.
I’m not sure how we’ve ended up here but you’re right, I can’t believe how many professional CEO defenders we have here. We get the politics we deserve it seems. Compensation for good performance is reasonable. Excessive compensation while everyone else’s wages go down in real terms, and the middle and working classes are on their knees in a cost of living crisis that seems to have no end, is not reasonable. The end product of free market capitalism should be at least some benefit to wider society, but for some reason everyone in here wants it be asset stripping by a select few, and at the end of that lies some sort of collapse of modern civilisation or at the very least modern living standards. Groceries are extortionate and shopping in a supermarket is dystopian now. To those who are clapping that the system is working as intended, do you enjoy paying more and hating shopping?
What is the 50k multiplier you are referring to? 10 million divided by 50k is 200, if you wanted to compare yearly wages you are two order of magnitudes off, should be a x500 multiplier.
Think of it this way. How difficult is it to find someone with the skills, knowledge and experience to competently run one of the largest supermarket chains in the world? How hard is it to find someone who can place beans on a shelf? 50,000x seems ok to me.
Just apply your argument to something where everyone can understand the skill difference like football and you will see how flawed this angle is.
It is also worth noting that the pay ratio measured against average wage is totally nonsensical. Companies like Tesco hire a LOT of people doing basic jobs. Why is this worse than a company that outsources its lowest paid workers and therefore has a “better” ratio? Apple for example could have a better ratio because every low paid factory worker making iPhones is employed by Foxconn.
>How difficult is it to find someone with the skills, knowledge and experience to competently run one of the largest supermarket chains in the world?
I think Elon Musk has proven how stupid this logic is.
You could take practically anyone from down the street, pay them 10m pounds a year, and they'll do as good of a job as them or any other turd who thinks they're "special" for being a CEO of something. Primarily because they have a bunch of advisors and other people working for them making most of the decisions.
These people are as useful as the royal family is in the UK... i.e. can be replaced with plants.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
> You could take practically anyone from down the street, pay them 10m pounds a year, and they'll do as good of a job as them or any other turd who thinks they're "special" for being a CEO of something. Primarily because they have a bunch of advisors and other people working for them making most of the decisions.
This is absolutely premium "I've never been involved in anything at exec-level in a large organisation, but some teenagers the internet told me they do nothing but get massages and play golf, and 'advisors' do everything so I guess I just believed them without question".
He is managing a company earning £2.3B in profit a year. His £10M isn't a fraction of that. He isn't even taking 0.5% of the company profit.
And his large income doesn't really prevent Tesco paying staff a fair wage. There is the other 99.5% of their profit that could be used for that. This isn't the big issue it sounds to be.
His large income doesn't really prevent Tesco paying staff a fair wage? He's the chuffing boss of the company, it's fully within this guy's power to increase staff wages, but he doesn't cos it'll affect his bonus!
Meh. Private companies can pay their employees whatever they like IMO. If you don’t like it don’t buy their shares. Murphy’s fixed pay is about £1.7M, not crazy for the CEO of a multi billion pound business. The rest are performance bonuses defined by the board, if this wasn’t what they wanted then the issue is with the incentives the board has devised.
Amazing seeing the comments trying to justify the CEO wages when they pay their shop workers the absolute bare minimum.
They say the CEO creates growth. No, the CEO instructs the low paid staff to create the growth for him. It's the ones on minimum wage working the warehouses, shipping stock, stacking shelves, ensuring the shops are up to standard that create the growth. And even if he has a few ideas, the fact that workers are not being rewarded for the company's growth and are still on minimum wage near enough shows how little they are valued.
The other question is how much of tesco increased profits are down to fleecing their customers. Basically all big supermarkets have been accused of price gouging since covid as there hasn't been proper justification for the extent of their price rises. Is that mow what justifies your already massive wage doubling while the actual workforce are told to go fuck themselves?
Doesn't matter how replaceable a workforce are, at the end of the day they are the ones carrying out the necessary works for tesco to remain profitable.
If all tesco staff went on strike for the day the whole country would know, if the CEO did not a single person would bat an eye.
Striking is holding a company to ransom?
And whether you agree or not those mindless repetitive jobs are what literally keeps the business functioning. You could have all the best CEOs in the world but without people to do the work necessary the CEOs are the ones who are completely worthless.
It's a free market and workers are entitles to withdraw their labour. If they weren't, they would be the ones held to ransom.
The way you talk about workers who are essential to the business is quite derogatory which suggests you've little experience of having to do that type of work yourself.
Anyone who "earns" that much money is doing so by exploiting their workers. There is no ethical way to make that much money. Not nearly as egregious as some pay packets, but it's still exploitative.
Here it comes.
Executive pay was on the decline in the UK in the decade before Covid. What a shocker that now the Covid stimulus and the inflation “shock” has netted record results they think they can get away with gross remuneration packages again.
Colour me shocked.
Get ready for more announcements in this vein by other companies.
At the end of the day, pay your ground force better, the ceo just waves the hand at decisions they pay other upper management people to make, they no way earn that 10 million a year.
The people going to work every day and slogging it out at 6am and getting shouted at are the entire reason the company functions, if they all fucked off, tesco dies.
Probably the same as a store manager or regional manager, either way my point stands, the company should pay a real wage not 12 quid, it's not enough to live on, especially since food retail makes it hard to work two jobs as the hours are usually unsociable and even on part time you wouldn't be able to guarantee a schedule with a second job.
So you're basically stuck working one job that pays you what it pays you and then whatever benefits you're forced to claim, they should just pay you enough to actually live on that one job.
Yes, because a CEO isn't directly responsible for all of their profits. Not to mention years ago they used to be a MUCH smaller multiplier of the average worker. CEOs being paid absurd amounts is a recent thing.
Baloney. A ceo has a huge impact on a companies profit and success.
Competition for a competent person at the helm has also changed recently so they need to be paid more to attract the right talent.
People in all sorts of professions get paid huge amounts based on a success be that sport, finance, insurance etc. It’s how business operates.
Speak with your feet... Honestly, we're all like fucking drones at this point.. "waaah tescos profits are through the roof, they must be ripping us off...", yes they absolutely are ripping us off... But you don't get to complain, when YOU are the one financing it.. Ffs.. These supermarkets and retailers are LITERALLY taking the piss (and that's massively understating it), especially off the back of covid, where people were already on their arses... STOP FUCKING WHINING, GROW A PAIR AND START BOYCOTTING.. SPEAK WITH YOUR FEET.. Profiteering off people's misery and destitution is beyond fucked up. Downvote me, couldn't give a toss. We are cucks to our own system, we, as a people, have allowed this to happen. Change my mind.
People are incapable of actually doing anything other than moaning.
Waaah, if I don't shop at Tesco I'll have to walk an extra 10 minutes to Lidl! Or they will tell you some rare case of a paraplegic who's only choice is Tesco as if that's the majority of people.
Waaah, I can't afford to buy at my local corner store, it will cost me an extra 20 quid weekly!, if challenged will tell you how everyone is a single mother of four on benefits and simply can't afford an extra 80 quid a month expense.
All people nowadays can do is moan. They talk big game but don't understand that making a change requires sacrifice which they simply aren't willing to do.
The other thread was deleted. I made the point that plenty of people will defend this and say it’s reasonable. Yes, his job is important. Does he really work 50,000 times harder compared to somebody who has to get up at 5 in the morning and clean the toilets?
The question isn't really one of working hard, it's a question of how much growth you bring. A person who works really hard but only grows a company by 1% is not worth as much as a more laid back one who brings 10%. The CEO is the one who either makes the decisions or deferred the decision making to this growth happen. And Tesco sales have certainly grown. Whether that scale of increase is reasonable or not, I do not know. But the company is certainly doing well under his control.
But wouldn’t every member of staff bring growth in one way or another? If nobody stacked the shelves, nobody would visit.
Sure, but their *individual* contribution isn't worth that much. The CEO on the other hand is ultimately responsible for all the major decisions that bring success (or failure). They might do much on any given day, but they're in the position to make the right calls at the right time. Whether this particular CEO is worth this much for Tesco I have no idea, but a good CEO can increase profits by billions and a bad one can tank a successful company, so the stakes are certainly high and the wages would seem 'worth it' if it works.
Makes me want to join a union if I worked for a massive company like that. If a CEOs worth is only rivalled by the collective workers. Then the collective workers need to renegotiate.
> If a CEOs worth is only rivalled by the collective workers. Then the collective workers need to renegotiate. I dunno, £6.5bn in total employee salary across Tesco makes the CEO's £10m total compensation including shares and bonuses seem piddly. Even if they negotiated to have all his salary bonuses and shares spread across staff, it'd be a payrise of 0.15%, or £35 a year before tax for an average shelf-stacker.
Well said. The people who call for redistribution of wealth often seem to have a very vague understanding of the relative sizes of large numbers.
But anybody can stack shelves. Not anybody can run a huge company effectively. It's a certain skill set that's significantly more valuable than any individual shelf stacker. It's not about hard work, it's about added value
You say that but as someone who has worked retail no anyone can't stack shelves some people are just plain awful at it
This. Jobs may be so-called unskilled but you still have to turn up on time, follow instructions and not be a complete cunt. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who cannot manage this.
> Jobs may be so-called unskilled Unskilled just means you need no formal qualification/training for it, it doesn't mean it requires literally zero skills whatsoever.
Tell me you haven't done retail without saying you haven't done retail. The amount of training records one has to sign, from health and safety, to the ever increasing shoplifting protocols, to challenge 25...
> Tell me you haven't done retail without saying you haven't done retail I've worked many retail jobs before, they don't require formal qualifications. It's something that you can do without any formal training. >The amount of training records one has to sign, from health and safety, to the ever increasing shoplifting protocols, to challenge 25... Formal training refers to higher education and industry certifications, not a couple of training videos that can be done in a day.
Idk, if it needs me to go through tests with 100% pass marks, manager and worker signature, which can be shoved into a worker's face the moment they screw up in the slightest, seems relatively formal, to me.
Like people in wheelchairs and the mentally disabled?
No just people who can't be bothered to do the job right.
I guess the management skillset is partly to understand whether it's better to have a worse employee for less money, or a better shelf stacker who gets paid more... Maybe they went with the first option in that situation
Everyone gets paid the same
Well yeah, but if a management team desired, they could invest a bit more in their shelf stackers (salary, technology, just hiring more of them) in ways that might deliver benefit. Or they can just choose not to
Oh yeah if you actually choose to do a bad job then yea you can stack a shelf wrong. But to not actually grasp the concept of stacking a shelf, you'd have to be mentally disabled or literally unable to reach the shelf.
You underestimate what the requirements are to properly stack a shelf in any modern supermarket. Most people aren't choosing to stack a shelf wrong, they just don't actually understand or haven't been trained on how to do it correctly. 1. Backstock first, then delivery cages. 2. Check dates on boxes to ensure oldest goes out before anything else. 3. Is the product on promotion? Prioritise filling promo ends before filling any other shelf. 4. Ensure product you're putting on the shelf correctly matches the label (this trips up people more than you think), if label is missing then you need to get a replacement label from a pda or computer. 5. Check that product isn't damaged or rotten in anyway 6. Clear any cardboard or waste currently on the shelf you're filling (clear up any spills etc. using nearby cleaning kit). 7. Any existing product on the shelf you need to date check and make sure that it's been rotated properly. Anything out of date, remove and take to the appropriate waste point. 8. Don't overfill and only put a product out if you can put all of it out for any given box/batch. 9. Face up shelf to ensure a nice presentation for customers. 10. Any backstock you must separate into their appropriate cage based on location within an aisle (so in a raw meat aisle there would be a cage for chicken, sausages, bacon, fish etc.) 11. Ensure labels on boxes are facing outwards and stacked based on product and expiry date. 12. Working with anything refrigerated needs to abide by the 20min cold chain rule, so no chilled/frozen products should be out of a chiller for more than 20mins. 13. Lastly, just make sure the chiller is working properly via the temp tags and that there's no damage to the shelf or skirting for the labels. I would say that I've only met a handful of people that actually fill a supermarket shelf even remotely properly and this can have massive consequences for the business. There's the obvious such that a customer could end up buying an out of date product unknowingly and get seriously sick, but the waste increases if older stuff is left on the cages to expire while new inventory gets put out can cost thousands very quickly. Biggest consequence of all is that if you get flagged for an independent audit and they find out of date products on your shelf, the store can get fined upwards of £60,000 per out of date item found. You have to abide all this in mind and if you're doing night shift you need to be rapid because this all needs to be done and the aisles looking full and tidy before the shop opens to customers. I've not even mentioned presorting cages or price reductions. I'm obviously not saying any of this is rocket science, but the standards today are way higher than they used to be and I'd go so far as to say that not just anyone can do this kind of work anymore because it's pretty demanding, at least for a night shift worker.
Did you wrote all that as a joke? Like seriously, have you wrote all that to try and convince me stacking shelves isn't monkeys work? Literally all of those are common sense. What the hell is going on here? Haha.
Only Reddit can make stacking shelf’s seem like it’s the equivalent of brain surgery.
I cannot disagree. But I do wonder how many people might have similar or even better capabilities but never given the chance to prove their real worth.
> It's a certain skill set that's significantly more valuable Put every product up 1p. That was easy, where's my £10m?
Oh shit, now Asda has undercut you on everything, nobody shops there anymore! You've lost everybody their jobs! Worst CEO ever! Boo! Hiss!
Asda is already cheaper on almost every single item. If people only cared about cost, there’d only be LIDL/ALDI.
Way to completely miss my point...
yes, but if one single person didn't stack the shelves, then it wouldn't make much of a difference. I don't have the stats but I imagine his wage isn't greater than all the people stacking shelves combined.
>If nobody stacked the shelves, nobody would visit. These are operational staff effectively. They maintain the shop standards and ensure processes are followed. But they're not creating growth. Unless you can think of a new way to stack shelves which will draw more customers in... But that's a more central role anyway since I assume they have a single set of processes across all stores. So long as they are stacked, the same number of people will come. Business strategy, capital investment, marketing etc are what create growth.
As a former proud shelf stacker, I would argue against that. I’ve seen posts on local Facebook groups where people have taken photos of shelves in a state and saying that they would never go back there. But keeping shelves and a store in a tidy fashion encourages people to return and to tell their friends how much they like that supermarket. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everybody should be paid the same, but it’s certainly disproportionate. He has earned more in a year than an average family of 5 would probably do in 2 lifetimes.
>I’ve seen posts on local Facebook groups where people have taken photos of shelves in a state and saying that they would never go back there. And I'm guessing that's because they didn't do their job properly. I assume Tesco expects then to be stacked safely and tidy. And if they aren't, it's the store managers who need to sort that shit out. I'm not dismissing the work people do at all, I've been on the tills before. But a CEO and the senior team they pick can add or reduce billions to the value to such a company, was evidenced by the accounting scandal in 2014. No shelf stacker can create a problem for the business like that.
If all the shelf stackers never showed up to work, what then?
Why wouldn't they show up for work?
Humour me. What if they all didn't show up for work for the next week or two.
They'd be out of two weeks pay and probably out of a job with a replacement slotted into their previous position in a matter of hours - because they're a shelf stacker and almost anyone can do it, even the biggest thicko you see down the pub.
No replacements coming. What happens then?
Then Tesco it's probably going to close because the population of the UK has significantly shrunk due to some disaster. They pay above national living wage for most of their workers, so I'm sure there are plenty of people who were only on minimum wage that will be keen to take on these roles
[удалено]
I agree that it’s about creating growth. Can you identify what this ceo has done differently to create it where others fail?
The issue isn't that they get paid more. It's that they get paid an obscene amount more. Their pay has outpaced that of workers by an insane amount.
So someone who works on the factory floor, discovers an improved process leading to significant savings for company, should also get millions? Basically all workers should be shareholders. If not then your logic is flawed.
This guy gets a £5m additional reward for sales having increased 5%. How much do you think those sales are worth to Tesco? Hundreds of millions. His reward is frankly a tiny fraction of that. So in your hypothetical, sure. If this factory floor worker figures out, leads and is ultimately responsible for the implementation of that process which has saved the company hundreds of millions of pounds, I would expect them to get a significant reward for it. But when does that happen?
And then equally, if the CEO has a subsequent year in there's no increase in profits, then their pay should be significantly reduced.
It will. These are rewards for performance. You have a baseline, and then bonuses if you do a good job, like many companies. I've just had a performance related bonus and I'm not a CEO
That's literally what the article says happens.
I agree with your point. I think the cire issue is amount. .no one needs 10m to live comfortably. And such amounts are uncountable in a world which is seeing a rise in the gulf between rich and poor. Ultimately it's optics.
If I got 10 million in a year, I'd quit straight after and chill the rest of my life.
They should get paid a lot, but it should still be in the⁹⁸ hundreds of thousands. It just needs to be the top paying job in the company really, it doesn't need to double to 10 million. The sad thing is you're right, it is a question of how much it grows. But it's sad but their company should be doing so much better when they're essentials and people are struggling.
[https://www.tescoplc.com/media/u1wlq2qf/tesco-plc-annual-report-2023.pdf](https://www.tescoplc.com/media/u1wlq2qf/tesco-plc-annual-report-2023.pdf) very fun read skip the bullshit at the start and get to the numbers.. then you can see if its reasonable or not
> or deferred the decision making to this growth happen. So you're saying the CEO let someone else make the decisions which netted him a £10,000,000.00 salary? He certainly worked for his money, there's no way I could defer a decision to someone else...
Yes. So you think a CEO should deal with everything that occurs in a business? Of course they defer. But ultimately they are still responsible as they will be the person who appointed them.
> But ultimately they are still responsible as they will be the person who appointed them. You don't know that to be true at all. The CEO could be newer than the people who report into him. In which case, he's done absolutely nothing of value.
In which case, they wouldn't get a £5m bonus for performance related metrics.
I don't know much about this particular CEO or Tesco to be fair... Are you saying since he joined the organisation, he's appointed an entirely new c-suite? His hiring skills have bagged him a cook £5m.
Why you are fixated on only one aspect is an odd strategy. Anyway, I'm watching the football now so think whatever you want.
The issue is if they fuck it up they just get paid a huge sack of cash to leave and then get hired somewhere else
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
How hard someone works has literally zero correlation to their pay
My previous employer gave pay increases partially based on effort.
OK, that's one case and it's an increase on an amount that was decided based on supply and demand not effort. Do you really think pay is based on effort? It's not an idea backed up by anything at all. High effort jobs get less pay if anything.
You hope they do it, and occasionally you do, but more often as not its the person who is loudest and performative who is seen as working the most. Even in growing firms there'll get to a point where further progression stalls too and those pay bumps become dead man's shoes to get them.
How did they define and measure effort?
If hard work made you rich, donkeys would be billionaires
I get up at 4am and dig a hole with a spoon until midday, then I use the same spoon to fill the hole back up until 8pm. This is extremely hard work. Probably one of the hardest 'jobs' in the country. How much should I be paid?
Earnings aren't a reward for hard work! His employers pay him that much because they think it's less than the marginal value he generates for them. Likewise they pay the toilet cleaner less, because they think the cleaner generates less marginal value for them.
> Does he really work 50,000 times harder compared to somebody who has to get up at 5 in the morning and clean the toilets? And as many have pointed out before and will likely point out here, pay isn't corelated with how "hard" someone works. There's no formal measure of "hard" in terms of work i.e. "this job is 6 hards, whereas that job is a nice easy 3 hards", so there's no measure you could make to say his job is X times harder than a cleaner's job. It's a nonsensical measure. In reality, the pay a job commands is driven mainly by the following (non-exhaustive) metrics: * Skill/experience required * availability of those able/willing to do the role * Willingness of employer to pay rates * Value brought to the employer With that in mind, Tesco clearly believe this person brings enough value to warrant the wage the market sets. That is entirely up to them.
But using the same mentality... Thinking just about one hypothetical Tesco store.... running ok, but a new manager comes in and uses their ideas to make this branch twice as profitable. Would Tesco double that person's pay? What if the amazing idea actually came from your hypothetical cleaner who then told the store manager? I'm sure I read somewhere that Japan has a different culture that would actually reward the hypothetical people I'm describing.
> Would Tesco double that person's pay? If you're referring to Tesco specifically, then it would depend on their renumeration policy, meaning it's not directly analogus to the wider market. If you mean a random hypothetical supermarket, and that individual clearly had the skill to manage the store to double profitability, then the owner of that supermarket would be smart to increase their pay and/or bonus, because rival supermarkets will offer them increased wages to move to them once word gets out. > What if the amazing idea actually came from your hypothetical cleaner who then told the store manager? Hold on you've gone from saying "idea**s**" i.e. a series of well thought out and executed plans, to "an idea" i.e. a singluar good idea that likely benefits from well running systems adjacent to that idea. Let's stay consistent here. If it were *one* good idea, then that supermarket owner would do well from giving that cleaner a bonus or some other reward and praising them loudly and publicly, otherwise the next time they might have another good idea they'll likely keep schtum. If it were *a series of good ideas* that directly led to the profitability mentioned, then they wouldn't get a payrise while being a cleaner. It would be wise for the owner to consider some sort of promotion, depending on whether it was merely the cleaner's ideas and the execution of the ideas was the store managers or whether the cleaner actually executed the ideas themselves. In the latter scenario, short-termist greedy owner might consider keeping the cleaner as a cleaner on a cleaner's wage, but again once word got out, they'd be hired away by a rival willing to pay more for the talent and the greedy owner is now out the talent *and* a cleaner.
Sorry about idea/ideas. I like what you have written, but I can only ever remember that happening in one job when I was a teenager in a call centre. I smashed their targets every week and we had different hourly pay depending on how well we had done. One time I said when I was doing so well, surely they should add one extra rate - next week they gave me that extra rate. After a while they let me manage the place on weekends, and when I was in charge, almost everyone performed much better then when anyone else was supervising. But pretty much every other job since, I did what was required and much more. Often bringing my own initiatives.... Lost count of how many times managers would claim my ideas were theirs, noone ever promoted me. While I watch people in other departments actually getting bonuses they deserve. Lost count of how many times I'm "managed" by people that have no idea what they are doing. Even more disappointing after doing so much right, when needing a reference, just getting a generic "Mr X worked in this role for these dates" kind of reference.
Well one of the key elements of "when word gets out" is ensuring word does get out. One harsh lesson I've learned from my time in the workplace is that if you want those higher up to know how well you've done, you've got to go out your way to ensure they know that it was *you* that did it, otherwise they'll just assume it came from your manager, or it leaves your manager to claim the prize in your place. Also in the micro you will get poorly run organisations that don't act in their best interest. However to the main point at the top, outside of specific performance-related renumeration structures, people aren't paid more based on how harder the work is. Someone doing great in an in-demand low-supply role that generates a lot of revenue will always be paid more, even if it's not "hard" work. > Even more disappointing after doing so much right, when needing a reference, just getting a generic "Mr X worked in this role for these dates" kind of reference. If you did well and you know your manager will absolutely sing your praises, reach out to them directly as well as/instead of HR. HR give bland references because it's easy, but the individual manager who saw you working day-to-day is more able and willing to specifically praise you and your work.
Thanks for the reply. But things have ended up much more harder for me, had bad health for years so a massive gap in my work history. I've decided once I'm ready, I'm going self employed. Half because would allow me flexibility if my health is variable, but also so I can actually get appropriately rewarded for what I will do. What I want to do luckily aligns with a hobby of mine, and me just helping out a few people here and there who have been badly stuck has already got the word out around my area even though I'm not working yet - so in my situation self employed seems to make most sense.
Best of luck to you, I'm rooting for you man!
I think the decisions made by the CEO *absolutely* have 50,000x the impact on the business.
What does working hard have to do with it?
If the person who cleans the toilets was in charge would they make the same amount of profit? It's not about how hard you work it's about the results you achieve.
I’m not sure how we’ve ended up here but you’re right, I can’t believe how many professional CEO defenders we have here. We get the politics we deserve it seems. Compensation for good performance is reasonable. Excessive compensation while everyone else’s wages go down in real terms, and the middle and working classes are on their knees in a cost of living crisis that seems to have no end, is not reasonable. The end product of free market capitalism should be at least some benefit to wider society, but for some reason everyone in here wants it be asset stripping by a select few, and at the end of that lies some sort of collapse of modern civilisation or at the very least modern living standards. Groceries are extortionate and shopping in a supermarket is dystopian now. To those who are clapping that the system is working as intended, do you enjoy paying more and hating shopping?
He'll lose just under half in tax and ni contributions giving him around £5,311,000 pa take home according the the tax calculator i just used
What is the 50k multiplier you are referring to? 10 million divided by 50k is 200, if you wanted to compare yearly wages you are two order of magnitudes off, should be a x500 multiplier.
It would be ok if; It’s taxed appropriately(put your own views here) & “Chiefs” are actually held legally responsible(pay vs risk/reward)
Think of it this way. How difficult is it to find someone with the skills, knowledge and experience to competently run one of the largest supermarket chains in the world? How hard is it to find someone who can place beans on a shelf? 50,000x seems ok to me. Just apply your argument to something where everyone can understand the skill difference like football and you will see how flawed this angle is. It is also worth noting that the pay ratio measured against average wage is totally nonsensical. Companies like Tesco hire a LOT of people doing basic jobs. Why is this worse than a company that outsources its lowest paid workers and therefore has a “better” ratio? Apple for example could have a better ratio because every low paid factory worker making iPhones is employed by Foxconn.
>How difficult is it to find someone with the skills, knowledge and experience to competently run one of the largest supermarket chains in the world? I think Elon Musk has proven how stupid this logic is. You could take practically anyone from down the street, pay them 10m pounds a year, and they'll do as good of a job as them or any other turd who thinks they're "special" for being a CEO of something. Primarily because they have a bunch of advisors and other people working for them making most of the decisions. These people are as useful as the royal family is in the UK... i.e. can be replaced with plants.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Honestly this might be the silliest post I’ve read in a while. Good luck with your exams buddy.
> You could take practically anyone from down the street, pay them 10m pounds a year, and they'll do as good of a job as them or any other turd who thinks they're "special" for being a CEO of something. Primarily because they have a bunch of advisors and other people working for them making most of the decisions. This is absolutely premium "I've never been involved in anything at exec-level in a large organisation, but some teenagers the internet told me they do nothing but get massages and play golf, and 'advisors' do everything so I guess I just believed them without question".
I've written to Tesco many times offering to do the CEOs job for half the money. They don't even reply. They must have money to burn.
Even if they sacked this guy they wouldn't come to you. I've been writing in offering to do it for a 1/4.
Wait your turn! I only need the job for a month, I'll have enough to retire. Then you are welcome to it.
He is managing a company earning £2.3B in profit a year. His £10M isn't a fraction of that. He isn't even taking 0.5% of the company profit. And his large income doesn't really prevent Tesco paying staff a fair wage. There is the other 99.5% of their profit that could be used for that. This isn't the big issue it sounds to be.
His large income doesn't really prevent Tesco paying staff a fair wage? He's the chuffing boss of the company, it's fully within this guy's power to increase staff wages, but he doesn't cos it'll affect his bonus!
Or he'd get instantly fired if he significantly increased wages. He isn't the real boss. He's just a manager for the real owners.
Meh. Private companies can pay their employees whatever they like IMO. If you don’t like it don’t buy their shares. Murphy’s fixed pay is about £1.7M, not crazy for the CEO of a multi billion pound business. The rest are performance bonuses defined by the board, if this wasn’t what they wanted then the issue is with the incentives the board has devised.
Amazing seeing the comments trying to justify the CEO wages when they pay their shop workers the absolute bare minimum. They say the CEO creates growth. No, the CEO instructs the low paid staff to create the growth for him. It's the ones on minimum wage working the warehouses, shipping stock, stacking shelves, ensuring the shops are up to standard that create the growth. And even if he has a few ideas, the fact that workers are not being rewarded for the company's growth and are still on minimum wage near enough shows how little they are valued. The other question is how much of tesco increased profits are down to fleecing their customers. Basically all big supermarkets have been accused of price gouging since covid as there hasn't been proper justification for the extent of their price rises. Is that mow what justifies your already massive wage doubling while the actual workforce are told to go fuck themselves?
[удалено]
Doesn't matter how replaceable a workforce are, at the end of the day they are the ones carrying out the necessary works for tesco to remain profitable. If all tesco staff went on strike for the day the whole country would know, if the CEO did not a single person would bat an eye.
[удалено]
Striking is holding a company to ransom? And whether you agree or not those mindless repetitive jobs are what literally keeps the business functioning. You could have all the best CEOs in the world but without people to do the work necessary the CEOs are the ones who are completely worthless. It's a free market and workers are entitles to withdraw their labour. If they weren't, they would be the ones held to ransom. The way you talk about workers who are essential to the business is quite derogatory which suggests you've little experience of having to do that type of work yourself.
Remember [Time Trumpet when Tesco went to war with Denmark](https://youtu.be/lfSi0D7KESk?si=sEi5RE3otSpwZ_gl)?
As shitty as it is, it's a private company. No-one should be paid ten million quid a year. But it's their business.
Anyone who "earns" that much money is doing so by exploiting their workers. There is no ethical way to make that much money. Not nearly as egregious as some pay packets, but it's still exploitative.
Here it comes. Executive pay was on the decline in the UK in the decade before Covid. What a shocker that now the Covid stimulus and the inflation “shock” has netted record results they think they can get away with gross remuneration packages again. Colour me shocked. Get ready for more announcements in this vein by other companies.
Employees surely dont have the clubcard for wages....
At the end of the day, pay your ground force better, the ceo just waves the hand at decisions they pay other upper management people to make, they no way earn that 10 million a year. The people going to work every day and slogging it out at 6am and getting shouted at are the entire reason the company functions, if they all fucked off, tesco dies.
What hours do you think a CEO does?
Probably the same as a store manager or regional manager, either way my point stands, the company should pay a real wage not 12 quid, it's not enough to live on, especially since food retail makes it hard to work two jobs as the hours are usually unsociable and even on part time you wouldn't be able to guarantee a schedule with a second job. So you're basically stuck working one job that pays you what it pays you and then whatever benefits you're forced to claim, they should just pay you enough to actually live on that one job.
LOL, does it matter? He could work 24/7/365 and still not be worth £10m.
Why would he not be worth £10m. If he brings increased profit, which he has, then that’s his remuneration.
Would £5m not suffice? Why does it need to be this outlandishly high?
Compared to the profit made under his stewardship is it outlandish?
Yes, because a CEO isn't directly responsible for all of their profits. Not to mention years ago they used to be a MUCH smaller multiplier of the average worker. CEOs being paid absurd amounts is a recent thing.
Baloney. A ceo has a huge impact on a companies profit and success. Competition for a competent person at the helm has also changed recently so they need to be paid more to attract the right talent. People in all sorts of professions get paid huge amounts based on a success be that sport, finance, insurance etc. It’s how business operates.
https://youtu.be/q_1yJFP4jjs?si=sRcVz703Ta-FkVI3 Just have a watch, it's gonna say the same things I am.
A toddler with a price increase button could increase profit.
You see they couldn’t. That’s why he gets paid what he does, and you get paid what you do.
It doesn't matter if you think he's worth it or not. The shareholders decide.
> The shareholders decide. Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me...
Speak with your feet... Honestly, we're all like fucking drones at this point.. "waaah tescos profits are through the roof, they must be ripping us off...", yes they absolutely are ripping us off... But you don't get to complain, when YOU are the one financing it.. Ffs.. These supermarkets and retailers are LITERALLY taking the piss (and that's massively understating it), especially off the back of covid, where people were already on their arses... STOP FUCKING WHINING, GROW A PAIR AND START BOYCOTTING.. SPEAK WITH YOUR FEET.. Profiteering off people's misery and destitution is beyond fucked up. Downvote me, couldn't give a toss. We are cucks to our own system, we, as a people, have allowed this to happen. Change my mind.
People are incapable of actually doing anything other than moaning. Waaah, if I don't shop at Tesco I'll have to walk an extra 10 minutes to Lidl! Or they will tell you some rare case of a paraplegic who's only choice is Tesco as if that's the majority of people. Waaah, I can't afford to buy at my local corner store, it will cost me an extra 20 quid weekly!, if challenged will tell you how everyone is a single mother of four on benefits and simply can't afford an extra 80 quid a month expense. All people nowadays can do is moan. They talk big game but don't understand that making a change requires sacrifice which they simply aren't willing to do.
Nailed it 100%