Easy Jet-no friend of the environment
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 35,000ft
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't BOB food returned to catering/bonded store as a stock check and count before being disposed of? This isn't to protect the food from being eaten by staff, but to stop dishonest staff perhaps pocketing the money and writing off the goods by Saying 'X' amount were thrown away when actually they were sold as cash in-flight.
I take it you are joking? Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. No manager worth his salt would sack an employee for such an offence - they would receive a formal warning - unless there was an ulterior motive (along the lines of imprisoning Al Capone for tax offences which could be proven rather than for murder and extortion which could not).
Someone taking a 99p item today feels they can get away with it, at what point it time does it stop ? £99 or £999.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get real. Is there an office where no-one ever prints or copies a personal document? Or a manager who faithfully declares all the private miles in their company car? It's the same as stealing a pair of socks.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Racedo - most large scale frauds start off as very small ones. Also if you wanted to sack someone for stealing, say £1000, and s/he could point out that you turned a blind eye to smaller sums, you would not have a leg to stand on
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I appreciate we're now in a post-truth society but I hadn't heard that the fundamental rules of trade and ownership had been changed.
Easyjet offers sandwich for sale
Customer pays Easyjet for sandwich
Easyjet transfers said sandwich to customer
Customer is now the owner of sandwich
Customer decides not to eat the sandwich and leaves it on plane
At what point does the ownership of that sandwich revert to Easyjet? Because if it's not Easyjet's sandwich how can an employee be "stealing" it from Easyjet?
Maybe the small print is like these finance deals you get on cars nowadays where you never actually own the car, just borrow it from the owners for a while.
Easyjet offers sandwich for sale
Customer pays Easyjet for sandwich
Easyjet transfers said sandwich to customer
Customer is now the owner of sandwich
Customer decides not to eat the sandwich and leaves it on plane
At what point does the ownership of that sandwich revert to Easyjet? Because if it's not Easyjet's sandwich how can an employee be "stealing" it from Easyjet?
Maybe the small print is like these finance deals you get on cars nowadays where you never actually own the car, just borrow it from the owners for a while.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't joking, operating a logistics warehouse you are in a position of trust and responsible for goods that are ultimately owned by someone else.
It was company policy to operate a zero tolerance to any form of pilfering be it 1p or £1000.
You say we should have given a warning for stealing a 99p pair of socks, if that same person had stolen a £500 dress from the same customer would that equally have merited just a warning.
It was company policy to operate a zero tolerance to any form of pilfering be it 1p or £1000.
You say we should have given a warning for stealing a 99p pair of socks, if that same person had stolen a £500 dress from the same customer would that equally have merited just a warning.
Not heard the line about it being left by a customer, but the EZY line in the tribunal was that if you didn't have a receipt, you hadn't paid for it so it was stolen.
While I appreciate that on board theft has been a major concern for airlines for years, EZY haven't covered themselves in glory here.
While I appreciate that on board theft has been a major concern for airlines for years, EZY haven't covered themselves in glory here.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say we should have given a warning for stealing a 99p pair of socks, if that same person had stolen a £500 dress from the same customer would that equally have merited just a warning.
Following the formal warning for the 99p pilfering any repetition would lead to immediate dismissal, even if it was again for only a trivial amount. It's a question of scale and proportionate response. Zero tolerance schemes take any human judgement element out of it, if that's what you want then it logically leads to a return to the so-called "Bloody Code" of the 18th Century when there were over 220 offences for which the penalty was death, including the theft of any item over one shilling, which was equivalent to about £25 in today's currency.
The point I'm making is that, in my opinion, a business should not be run as if it were an army unit where stern, inflexible discipline is essential. A business's major resource is its staff. If you treat staff in a draconian way they will have no real respect for you other than the fear of losing their job and they will not enjoy their work (even in a warehouse) and give of their best. An employer has a duty of care towards his or her employees. Let's consider two scenarios - if the sock thief is a young man then he needs to learn the lesson that pilfering is not tolerated without disciplinary action being taken; if the sock thief is an older, experienced employee with an unimpeachable record up to that time then there may well be something wrong with him. In both cases you could simply fire these guys but if you used your own experience and judgement of people you might decide on a better way such as, as I said before, a formal warning.
A touch of humanity in management and in dealing with employees is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. It can be a key factor in building trust and reinforcing the company's commitment to its employees and can help improve staff retention, motivation, boost productivity and encourage greater employee engagement with the company which will only help the bottom line in the end.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well said.
Can I also say that the biggest deterrent to any economic crime is the likelihood of being caught, not the punishment meeted out to those who are unlucky enough to be caught.
Can I also say that the biggest deterrent to any economic crime is the likelihood of being caught, not the punishment meeted out to those who are unlucky enough to be caught.
The point I'm making is that, in my opinion, a business should not be run as if it were an army unit where stern, inflexible discipline is essential. A business's major resource is its staff. If you treat staff in a draconian way they will have no real respect for you other than the fear of losing their job and they will not enjoy their work (even in a warehouse) and give of their best. An employer has a duty of care towards his or her employees. Let's consider two scenarios - if the sock thief is a young man then he needs to learn the lesson that pilfering is not tolerated without disciplinary action being taken; if the sock thief is an older, experienced employee with an unimpeachable record up to that time then there may well be something wrong with him. In both cases you could simply fire these guys but if you used your own experience and judgement of people you might decide on a better way such as, as I said before, a formal warning.
A ZERO tolerance policy is explained on induction, reiterated at staff meetings and notices around in common wotk areas.
The fact you ignore means it is best off you not working there.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So a fair bit of publicity for Ez and all of it negative, perhaps if they paid their staff properly and did not treat them with contempt-see comments about crew food maybe pilfering would drop substantially"
Pilfering is not acceptable. Given how hard it is to sack people these days I would suggest this was possibly the "straw that broke the camels back" Pilfering passenger food also "eats in to" staff commission.
Although i dont eat it crew food is better than in the past.
With regard to pay, basic is OK, but commission can ramp up take home appreciably. Some who left for BA have applied to come back as their take home with easy was better than BA.
Pilfering is not acceptable. Given how hard it is to sack people these days I would suggest this was possibly the "straw that broke the camels back" Pilfering passenger food also "eats in to" staff commission.
Although i dont eat it crew food is better than in the past.
With regard to pay, basic is OK, but commission can ramp up take home appreciably. Some who left for BA have applied to come back as their take home with easy was better than BA.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad issue here, from what i can make out, is that the crew member had a nut allergy, she was working in Europe (away from base) and so will have had difficulty in sourcing her own food with her being in a hotel. Under those circumstances, there is no way that she should have been fired or even disciplined. If that was the scenario anyway. It should have been noted on the flight report though.
Stealing stock, regardless of cost, is stealing though and you cannot differentiate between the low value and high value..... regardless of how tempting it is to do so. How many of us would be incensed if the theft of our clapped out M-Reg fiesta was disregarded by the police in stark contrast to your neighbours BMW 5 series being nicked?
As for easyJet crew pay. After your first year, your actual take home pay is particularly good. Depending where in the UK you are based, a junior crew member earns 24-26K before tax whilst a cabin manager is on circa 29-32K per annum. (Average UK salary is 28K) Those rates are made up of...
Basic Salary
Sector Pay (Pay for actually operating flights)
Commission (this is what can make differences depending on base-certain bases, generally Northern ones, offer greater commission)
With that in mind, there is no reason to believe that crew are so poorly paid they have to steal. JosuaNkomo is indeed correct when I says that in the early days of 'mixed fleet' easyJet lost crew to BA and they saw a substantial difference to their pay.
Stealing stock, regardless of cost, is stealing though and you cannot differentiate between the low value and high value..... regardless of how tempting it is to do so. How many of us would be incensed if the theft of our clapped out M-Reg fiesta was disregarded by the police in stark contrast to your neighbours BMW 5 series being nicked?
As for easyJet crew pay. After your first year, your actual take home pay is particularly good. Depending where in the UK you are based, a junior crew member earns 24-26K before tax whilst a cabin manager is on circa 29-32K per annum. (Average UK salary is 28K) Those rates are made up of...
Basic Salary
Sector Pay (Pay for actually operating flights)
Commission (this is what can make differences depending on base-certain bases, generally Northern ones, offer greater commission)
With that in mind, there is no reason to believe that crew are so poorly paid they have to steal. JosuaNkomo is indeed correct when I says that in the early days of 'mixed fleet' easyJet lost crew to BA and they saw a substantial difference to their pay.
Yeah, I cleared over £2500 after tax one month last summer as cabin manager. An exceptional month admittedly but contrary to popular belief, the pay at an LCC can be pretty good.