Stalybridge Tesco raided by immigration officers looking for illegal workers!

Immigration officers raid Stalybridge Tesco

LAST Friday, officers from 'Immigration Enforcement' raided the Tesco car park in Stalybridge looking for illegal workers. An eyewitness, who took this photograph, told NV that on early on Friday morning, immigration officers were seen questioning two people who were working at the Tesco Hand Car Wash.

As with a lot of countries, the subject of immigration is a sensitive subject for many who live in Britain. Although 52% of people last year, voted for Britain to leave the EU on the grounds that they believed that it would curb immigration into the UK, the minority Conservative government of Theresa May, now say they want a flexible approach to migration and a transition period when Britain leaves the EU in 2019.  

Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has stated that there will be no "cliff-edge" in the migration system when the UK officially leaves the EU in March 2019. Senior political figures such as Michael Gove, a staunch Brexiteer, have stated that the cabinet is in favour of allowing free movement of labour to continue during an implementation phase of two to four years after 2019, when EU workers will have to register their details. No doubt this is aimed at reassuring British businesses, who rely on migrant labour, and others who see Brexit, as a ruinous economic policy for Britain. 

Never the less, many people may be wondering what it is they voted for last June when they voted for Brexit. According to one distinguished academic, all the talk about hard or soft Brexit, is utter nonsense. Professor Ian Begg, of the London School of Economics (LSE), said recently that the choice between a hard or soft Brexit was a "false dichotomy" and that there was in reality, only two choices facing the UK - either we leave the EU or we decide to stay. My guess is that at the end of the day, we will finish up not with a Brexit, but a fudge called a BINO - Brexit in name only. 

On 23rd June 2017, some 61.1% of people who live in the Metropolitan Borough of Tameside, Greater Manchester, voted to leave the EU, even though many see leaving, as a tragic act of folly. The MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, Angela Rayner, told the Guardian newspaper in a recent interview that there was:

"absolutely no way you can disrespect the way people voted. If it was a popular thing on the streets of Britain, there could be another referendum, but until the general public has a change of heart, we're going to exit Europe. The public can make their feelings clear, and there can be a groundswell for it. Politicians are political animals; they're savvy. That's why most of them are saying they respect the vote. But MPs haven't changed their mind on Brexit. Most of them are weeping. They want to stay in Europe because they think this is going to be really damaging. If I got a feeling in my constituency that the public wanted to remain, I'd say 'Brake'." 

We understand that following the Tesco raid last week, the car wash at Tesco Stalybridge has now been closed.

Shaming Saint Michael

Christopher Draper goes shopping…
by Chris Draper

ONCE upon a time I had a holiday job working in a Nottingham supermarket.  I fondly remember one particular day I did nothing but stick individual adhesive price labels on hundreds of boxes of Cornflakes. Nowadays shops programme prices into a computerised system that ultimately prints out individual bill-receipt at the till.  This Universal Product Coding (UPC) places a legal obligation on shops to ensure that the prices displayed on shelves are identical to those applied at the till.  As price alterations are almost invariably upwards staff must assiduously replace old shelf prices otherwise all customers at that store are systematically overcharged.  Overcharging continues until a customer finally notices and insists on rectification.  When items were individually priced it was simple to see if the price displayed on the till conformed with that on the item but UPC makes it much easier for shops to get away with overcharging and of course its in their financial interest to do so and my local, Llandudno, Marks & Spencer food department is a serial offender.

Over the last year I have been overcharged in this way on at least ten occasions, most recently yesterday (8.2.2017) and on the previous occasion just two weeks ago.  I also shop locally at ASDA and ALDI, the latter never overcharge and the former very, very seldom but Llandudno Marks & Spencer with deplorable regularity.  Even if you spot an overcharge you are required to go to another part of the store to a “Customer Service Counter” this is usually unmanned and you’re expected to wait until a passing assistant stops to help.  Usually I have to find someone myself to complain to.  Then you are required to empty out your shopping until the overcharged item(s) are located.  The assistant will then disappear to find the appropriate shelf price label before belatedly returning to admit that you have indeed been overcharged.  Then the overcharge will be dismissed as an isolated incident.  You are meant to feel grateful when you eventually get back the amount you were overcharged however if you paid by card then you are first required to produce it so the sum can be credited back on your account.  All the trouble and inconvenience is suffered by the customer whilst all illicit profit accrues to Marks & Spencer who, of course, have no system in place to recompense all those shoppers who previously paid the inflated price.

On every occasion I notice an overcharge I endure this tiresome ritual.  I’ve informed M&S HQ of this practice and on each occasion, always ask to speak a manager. I’ve also requested a “customer comment book” to formally record these incidents but I’ve been told none exists and each time I’m presented with a different “acting store manager”.  Invariably they claim ignorance and insist the store does not consciously overcharge but the regularity of such incidents evidences culpability. Utterly exasperated after the previous (January 2017) overcharge I left my contact details with “Craig” and requested that the store manager offer me an explanation of this continued discreditable performance.  The manager did not have the courtesy to reply. 

I could of course confine my shopping to Asda and Aldi but I’m now determined to challenge M&S overcharging.  Sometimes the store makes a gesture to deflect criticism (on the last occasion a bottle of wine) but this is not general practice.  I have now informed “Trading Standards” of this lamentable story but in truth UK law is predictably lax although both Tesco and Sainsburys have in the past been fined for overcharging.  In Connecticut customers overcharged are legally obliged to be given the item free not merely a refund of the excess charge.  Overcharging then costs the stores money whereas, perversely, M&S Llandudno profits by not giving this matter due care and attention.

Bangladesh: Free garment union leaders now!

'LABOUR Start' and the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) are raising concerns about the safety of trade union leaders and workers in Bangladesh, after a number of labour activists and workers were arrested on apparently arbitrary grounds.  CCC reports that the arrests have come in the wake of a week of unrest, as thousands of workers in the Ashulia area of Dhaka went on strike to demand higher wages. The strike, started on the 12th December, 2016 at the Windy Apparels factory - most recently in the news following the death of one its employees in October. The factory supplies a number of well know high street brands including H&M, Inditex (known for the brand Zara), Esprit, Tesco, Arcadia, S Oliver, and Debenhams. The strike spread over the following days to other factories in the Ashulia area. By the 20th December 2016 59 factories were closed, although many were shut down as a preventative measure by factory owners rather than by striking workers. The workers are demanding the implementation of minimum monthly wage of 15.000 BDT/ month (182 EUR). At the moment the minimum wage is 5.300 BDT, which was set in 2013 after the Rana Plaza collapse.
It is unclear how the strike started but it is generally acknowledged that it was not a coordinated action and none of the major trade union federations have endorsed the strike. At a number of press conferences trade union leaders have instead urged workers to return to work, while recognizing that their concerns need to be dealt with by the government and employers. Despite this it appears the government is taking the opportunity to carry out a crackdown on trade unions, by threatening and arresting their leaders.
For more go to www.labourstartcampaigns.net/show_campaign.cgi?c=3310

Wot No New Year Private Eye 1409?

ON· Jan 6   Private Eye Magazine ‏@PrivateEyeNews   reported:

'Happy New Year?  Eye 1409 is on its way to shops and subscribers now.'


Yet, despite our most forensic enquires to 'Rita' a customer service assistant at the Sudden Branch of Tesco in Rochdale, no copies were to be found in the store.  It couldn't have anything to do with the Eye front page splash of the ménage à trois and other coverage of Simon Danczuk's exploits?

ARBEIT MACHT FREI - Government scheme for the unemployed, condemned as slavery!

The disgraced former MP for Stalybridge & Hyde, tory boy, James Purnell, is the scoundrel who introduced forced labour for the unemployed when he was Secretary of State for work and pensions, during the last Labour government.

Under the guise of work experience, the unemployed are now being dragooned by the Con-Dem Government into working unpaid for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months in return for their dole money. The work experience programme exempts young jobseekers from the national minimum wage (NMW) for up to eight weeks when undertaking placements of up to 30 hours per week, without pay, which must be completed if they are to keep their Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). Although the scheme is voluntary and allows claimants a one week 'cooling-off' period, a person undertaking work experience, loses their benefit if they fail to complete the scheme after the first week.

Yet young people who have participated in the scheme, have told The Guardian that they were told by the Jobcentre that the scheme was mandatory and they have complained that they were kept in the dark regarding the one week cooling-off period. Many also confirmed that they were doing 30 hours unpaid labour and had to be available, between 9.00am and 10.00pm in return for their £53 a-week JSA.

The Department of Work & Pensions(DWP), have confirmed that jobcentre staff can force the unemployed into taking a placement once they have "expressed an interest" and that a person, will lose their JSA if they pull out after completing one week.

Many major high-street stores are participating in the scheme. Sainsbury, Argos, ASDA, Tesco, Poundland, Primark, have all offered no pay, work-for-your-dole placements, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it.

Cait Reilly (22), who graduated last year with a BSc in Geology, told The Guardian that she had been working for her benefits stacking and cleaning shelves for Poundland in South Birmingham, with five other claimants. Cait said:

"It seems we were being used as free labour in the run-up to Christmas."

Although she told her jobcentre that she didn't want the placement, Reilly says she was told it was mandatory and that she would lose her benefit if she didn't take it.

In Warfield, Berkshire, James Rayburn (21), spent seven weeks stacking and cleaning shelves for Tesco, unpaid, and sometimes worked the night shift. He says he was given little instruction or support but was told by his jobcentre that he would lose his benefits if he did not work without pay. He also confirmed that he was not told by the jobcentre that he had one week to refuse the placement.

While some might call this type of forced labour, slavery, which is providing big business with a pool of unpaid labour, Tesco told The Guardian that they were under the impression that the placements were voluntary and added:

"These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."

No doubt, young Mr. Rayburn, would beg to differ. He told the newspaper:

"I reckon they should have paid me...I was basically doing what a normal member of staff does for Tesco."

Though Tesco told the newspaper they would not be offering placements over Christmas, in August, they told The Guardian that they were -

"co-operating with jobcentres to provide 3,000 four-week placements this year, and Poundland rather brazenly said that taking on unpaid benefit claimants 'doesn't replace our recruitment activity but adds to the number of colleagues we have working with us.' Neither of them, nor the equally placement-friendly ASDA, answered a question about what 'work experience'actually involves, though the clue is perhaps in the title, Work?"

Though the DWP say they do not know how many hundreds or thousands of benefit claimants are working without pay, employment minister Chris Grayling, told the newspaper:

"Our work experience scheme is proving to be a big success with over half of young people leaving benefits after they have completed their placements. It is not mandatory but once someone agrees to take part we expect them to turn up or they will have their benefit stopped."

Other government schemes such as 'mandatory work activity', and the 'work programme', also involve claimants undertaking forced labour for companies. Solicitors from 'Public Interest Lawyers' in Birmingham, who are acting on behalf of two clients involved in the 'mandatory work activity' programme, are seeking a judicial review of the scheme. They maintain that their clients were forced to work against their will, which amounted to a breach of their human rights under article
4(2)of the Human Rights Act which states:

"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."

Forced labour is something which one normally associates with totalitarian regimes, like NAZI Germany and not so-called free and open liberal societies, like Britain. Despite this compulsion, and the fact that these government work-for-dole schemes clearly pose a threat to people in paid employment or those seeking employment, due to the potential for displacement and substitution of dole labour for paid labour, there has been barely a squeak of opposition from the trade unions.