Another reason to boycott LIDL

Specific board for this popular undertaking.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 19 Oct 2014, 12:15pm

Psamathe wrote:
TonyR wrote:Unbelievable.

Unless maybe they are not at fault in any way and it was all the fault of the driver. Maybe the driver was not telling them about his working during the day (because none of the reports said he was "employed" or "on overtime").


How much Nelson's Eye are you willing to use to exhonerate Lidl? You can maybe excuse them for not bothering to check Fry's originally but continuing to use them on the basis that Fry's was not aware also?

From the press reports:

The court heard Palmer worked long hours driving in the evenings and then carrying out mechanical work for his employer, Fry's Logistics Ltd from Launceston, Cornwall, during the day.
http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Lorry- ... z3GaWc3Byb

Other reports say that mechanical work was carried out in Fry's yard.

You still think Fry's didn't know?

And what about their allowing him to continue to drive after being arrested for causing death by dangerous driving so he could have another accident and injure a lorry driver two weeks later? Surely with his arrest they must have known enough to suspend him from driving? But they turned a blind eye instead.

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Mark1978 » 19 Oct 2014, 1:10pm

al_yrpal wrote:
TonyR wrote:
garybaldy wrote:The subject title is "Another reason to boycott LIDL". Whats the other(s) then?


I do wonder with Aldi and Lidl. People go there because they are cheaper than Tescos or Sainsburys. But people are beating up on Tescos and Sainsburys over their treatment of suppliers and staff to get the low prices they are offering. So if Lidl and Aldi are offering even lower prices how do they achieve them? Even with its economies of scale Walmart hasn't been able to compete with Aldi in Germany. So what's going on?


Limited range of products 95% own brand
Thus...smaller store, lower rent rates heating
Palletised displays, less shelf stackers
No trolley collectors
Highly paid hard working staff, fast checkouts, no long waits
Non class 1 fruit and veg
Rotating centre store display of bulk purchases
German levels of hard work and efficiency
Huge multinational buying power

They are making the other bloodsuckers lower their prices and dump stupid offers. Back in the 70s supermarket margins were 1% , they are now 4 to 5%. Lidl and Aldi are restoring sanity. Go into one of these places and watch the staff, they move fast, then go into Tesco or Asda, its like watching paint dry. The big 4 are an under employment scheme. What good does that do the British economy?

Getting back to the OP, this is due to an first class idiot who was wrongly allowed to drive a truck, not the company that was ultimately paying for it.

Al

One of the reasons I don't like my local Aldi is the staff. Exceptionally unprofessional. Always shouting across the store about their personal issues.

Psamathe
Posts: 11384
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Psamathe » 19 Oct 2014, 1:26pm

TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:
TonyR wrote:Unbelievable.

Unless maybe they are not at fault in any way and it was all the fault of the driver. Maybe the driver was not telling them about his working during the day (because none of the reports said he was "employed" or "on overtime").


How much Nelson's Eye are you willing to use to exhonerate Lidl? You can maybe excuse them for not bothering to check Fry's originally but continuing to use them on the basis that Fry's was not aware also?...

Basically because I want to see some evidence before blaming.

Ian

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 19 Oct 2014, 2:52pm

Psamathe wrote:
TonyR wrote:How much Nelson's Eye are you willing to use to exhonerate Lidl? You can maybe excuse them for not bothering to check Fry's originally but continuing to use them on the basis that Fry's was not aware also?...

Basically because I want to see some evidence before blaming.


And the evidence presented in Court (above) that led to his conviction and the fact that he was clearly allowed to continue to drive professionally despite having been arrested for causing death by dangerous driving isn't enough evidence? Jeez, what do you need for evidence?

Psamathe
Posts: 11384
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Psamathe » 19 Oct 2014, 3:17pm

TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:
TonyR wrote:How much Nelson's Eye are you willing to use to exhonerate Lidl? You can maybe excuse them for not bothering to check Fry's originally but continuing to use them on the basis that Fry's was not aware also?...

Basically because I want to see some evidence before blaming.


And the evidence presented in Court (above) that led to his conviction and the fact that he was clearly allowed to continue to drive professionally despite having been arrested for causing death by dangerous driving isn't enough evidence? Jeez, what do you need for evidence?

(This is getting to hard work)
So what law was broken by the Logistics Operator when they continued to allow him to drive.
What part of the contract between Lidl and the Logistics operator defines that Lidl are responsible for checking the drivers provided by the Logistics operator. What part of the contract requires the Logistic operator to follow standards higher than legal requirement. We need details of the contract between Lidl and the Logistics operator before blaming Lidl for the tragedy.

I can't and wont keep repeating this. Evidence is needed before blaming somebody. If the logistics operator has broken the law then undoubtedly they will be taken to court. If Lidl have broken the law no doubt they will also be taken to court. But with no evidence of laws being broken and with no evidence of contracts being broken this "blame" is little more than libel/slander.

(I am not anything to do with Lidl, this particular company, etc. but have in the past had dealings with Operators providing logistics for mainstream supermarkets and those operators were responsible for providing pretty well everything (warehouses, vehicles, maintenance, staff, etc.). They received goods, stored them, received orders from the supermarkets and they delivered those goods. But I have no special knowledge of the particular relationship between Lidl and Fry ?).

Ian

maxcherry
Posts: 664
Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 5:53pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby maxcherry » 19 Oct 2014, 3:27pm

He was Arrested, not convicted.
Good grief!

What next, will it be 'That person!' Knocked over a cyclist, therefore 'All persons of the same gender,race, sexual oriantatiin'
are responsible.

You really can't see the trees in the forest can you?
Honestly chaps, I'm a female!

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6357
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Graham » 19 Oct 2014, 3:35pm

I sense some slightly elevated emotions . . . . .
Calm Down please.

Thank you.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29477
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Oct 2014, 3:59pm

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does have some provisos: in this context the police, CPS and the courts have duties and powers to control a defendant's conduct pending the conclusion of a prosecution. The ultimate form of this is the remand in custody: a lot of the modern overcrowding in prisons involves unconvicted prisoners because the pre-trial delays are much more lengthy than they used to be. This has, in turn, led to people being bailed to court who would once have "not passed GO." There are various reasons why bail may be refused or only allowed subject to conditions. In a case such as this, the relevant issue is the likelihood of the commission of further offences. That is normally applied to alleged offenders whose "profession" is crime eg burglary or drug dealing. Obviously, I wasn't privy to any of the decisions in this case, but I fancy that the fact that the defendant presumably had a fixed address, regular employment etc., meant that release on unconditional bail was virtually a formality. It's "only a driving offence" and "he's not a crook." Bearing in mind the inordinate delays in getting a case like this to trial, I've no doubt that had the police or magistrates' court imposed bail conditions which prevented his driving, those conditions would have been relaxed to allow him to continue earning a living. There may have been a change of approach after the later crash.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 19 Oct 2014, 6:15pm

maxcherry wrote:He was Arrested, not convicted.
Good grief!

What next, will it be 'That person!' Knocked over a cyclist, therefore 'All persons of the same gender,race, sexual oriantatiin'
are responsible.

You really can't see the trees in the forest can you?


In most reputable companies and organisations when someone is arrested for a serious crime they are removed from those duties where they could represent a further risk or suspended until the case is resolved in their favour. The rest of your post just seems to be a poor exercise in reductio to try to discredit what is pretty standard practice across the board but not carried out here.

birkhead
Posts: 123
Joined: 29 Apr 2007, 10:41pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby birkhead » 21 Oct 2014, 12:45am

A large proportion of this discussion has claimed that Lidl had no responsibility for a contractor, which is in turn legally responsible for the employee.
IMHO a great deal of what is wrong with modern industry/commerce is the lack of responsibility for maintaining excellent standards.
Price is the exclusive focus of all attention.
Legal contracts are the basis for all action.
Does this really allow/authorise us to employ criminals or illegal operators to perform services under contract?
Does Lidl really have no responsibility for the conduct of its contractors and sub-contractors?
Upthread there has been cited the ISO9001 standard that requires audit.
I too require and expect that responsibility for what happens further down the line, whether in-house or in-contractor.
IMHO Lidl should not employ, still less have continued to employ, a contractor that operates in the manner described in the OP above.
So that is why I shall not visit Lidl.

And for other issues about Lidl, apart from my personal judgements about the poor quality of their cycling products, try this:

<<Trade unions in Germany and other countries have repeatedly criticised Lidl for mistreatment of workers, breach of European directives on working time and other abuses. These have been published in the Black Book on the Schwarz Retail Company published in Germany and are now also available in English.[8] While The Times notes that Lidl managers work excessive hours, being obliged to sign out of the Working Time Directive when starting with the company, both The Guardian[9] and The Times[10] in the UK amongst other allegations have reported that Lidl spies on its workforce with cameras, makes extensive notes on employee behaviour, particularly focusing on attempting to sack female workers who might become pregnant and also forces staff at warehouses to do "piece-rate" work. Lidl management has denied the charges. In Italy, in 2003, a judge in Savona sentenced Lidl for anti-union policies, a crime in that country.[11] Lidl has been criticised in the United Kingdom and Ireland for not allowing workers to join unions.
In March 2008, the German news magazine Stern released a cover story reporting systematic surveillance of Lidl workers, including the most intimate details of their private affairs.[12][13]Lidl - >> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psamathe
Posts: 11384
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Psamathe » 21 Oct 2014, 9:43am

birkhead wrote:A large proportion of this discussion has claimed that Lidl had no responsibility for a contractor, which is in turn legally responsible for the employee.
IMHO a great deal of what is wrong with modern industry/commerce is the lack of responsibility for maintaining excellent standards.
Price is the exclusive focus of all attention.
Legal contracts are the basis for all action.
Does this really allow/authorise us to employ criminals or illegal operators to perform services under contract?
Does Lidl really have no responsibility for the conduct of its contractors and sub-contractors?
Upthread there has been cited the ISO9001 standard that requires audit.
I too require and expect that responsibility for what happens further down the line, whether in-house or in-contractor.
IMHO Lidl should not employ, still less have continued to employ, a contractor that operates in the manner described in the OP above.
So that is why I shall not visit Lidl.

And for other issues about Lidl, apart from my personal judgements about the poor quality of their cycling products, try this:

<<Trade unions in Germany and other countries have repeatedly criticised Lidl for mistreatment of workers, breach of European directives on working time and other abuses. These have been published in the Black Book on the Schwarz Retail Company published in Germany and are now also available in English.[8] While The Times notes that Lidl managers work excessive hours, being obliged to sign out of the Working Time Directive when starting with the company, both The Guardian[9] and The Times[10] in the UK amongst other allegations have reported that Lidl spies on its workforce with cameras, makes extensive notes on employee behaviour, particularly focusing on attempting to sack female workers who might become pregnant and also forces staff at warehouses to do "piece-rate" work. Lidl management has denied the charges. In Italy, in 2003, a judge in Savona sentenced Lidl for anti-union policies, a crime in that country.[11] Lidl has been criticised in the United Kingdom and Ireland for not allowing workers to join unions.
In March 2008, the German news magazine Stern released a cover story reporting systematic surveillance of Lidl workers, including the most intimate details of their private affairs.[12][13]Lidl - >> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trouble is, this now is sounding more like a general dislike of Lidl. Originally you were blaming them for the actions of an employee employed by a sub-contractor. Now your reasons for us all to boycott them include that you don't like their cycling kit and that German Unions criticise them for mistreatment of workers. They are hardly the 1st company to be accused of that (what about all those zero hours contracts, and quite a few stores I could list that sell poor quality/low priced goods; some very mainstream internet based companies).

Ian

birkhead
Posts: 123
Joined: 29 Apr 2007, 10:41pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby birkhead » 21 Oct 2014, 12:32pm

NO, Psamanthe, I am merely reporting my personal decision to boycott.
Hence the header is a statement, not a question, nor an exhortation.
What others choose to do is up to their conscience and judgement.
Upthread there was a request for further reasons not to buy at Lidl, and various suggestions have been made, to which I was adding.
FYI there are a number of other companies that I choose not to patronize for various, mainly ethical, reasons.
I will not confuse the thread by going into that.

Psamathe
Posts: 11384
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Psamathe » 21 Oct 2014, 2:35pm

birkhead wrote:...
FYI there are a number of other companies that I choose not to patronize for various, mainly ethical, reasons.
I will not confuse the thread by going into that.

In the same way, there are quite a few companies I will not have any dealings with (for various reasons), countries I will not buy produce from, etc. I think we all build-up our own lists of who we wont do business with. And I suspect that if you look at everybody's "list" it would probably include every company out there, but if you looked at all the reasons they would probably all be pretty much the same. I suspect a lot comes down to personal experience and what we discover and the real underlying problem comes from the fact that our capitalist system seems to be based on greed more than anything else.

Ian

AaronR
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Jul 2014, 8:12pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby AaronR » 21 Oct 2014, 8:24pm

If there was a strong case for calling Lidl or Frys to court on corporate manslaughter charges I would think somebody on here, or some switched on journalist would have already linked it to the drivers case. At the very least, I would expect to be able to look up and find out if either had been called to account by the Traffic Commissioner for hours or employment offences

There hasn't been. There probably won't be. In this case, and many more like it the driver takes the fall, Frys will tread carefully for a bit to avoid getting any more reds on their OCRS record with DVSA, Lidl may vet who they sub their transport to more rigourously

Corporate greed has been banded about, pricing, unions, sweatshops, next will be halal labelling and pesticides on vegetables, maybe a bit of horse meat for good measure - in the context of this trollesque thread its { of little consequence }, two cyclists were killed by a moron driver who was burning the candle at both ends, fully aware of what he was doing but with seemingly no regard for the safety of those around him, he has been found guilty of this by a jury, convicted, and will serve a sentence deemed sufficient by the courts

I can hardly see how boycotting Lidl will bring them back, or in any way affect Frys day to day business

thirdcrank
Posts: 29477
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby thirdcrank » 21 Oct 2014, 8:58pm

FWIW, he pleaded guilty, so the case never went to a jury. In one sense, I'm nitpicking, but in causing death by dangerous driving cases, where juries are notoriously reluctant to convict, a guilty plea tends to be indicative of an overwhelming prosecution case. The judge's sentencing remarks quoted in the OP give a bit of an idea of the thoroughness of the investigation. A guilty plea is a good thing for all sorts of reasons, including sparing the bereaved from having to listen to the deceased being slagged off as well as the substantial saving in public money.

OTOH, no matter how thorough the investigation and no matter what the court result, nothing will bring back the deceased. The "time is money" mantra which can lead to bad driving is but one aspect of what makes our roads unsafe for vulnerable users. Detection, while important, is no substitute for the prevention of offending. This is why I've posted so often on the subject of traffic policing. Incidentally, hexhome (who doesn't seem to have posted recently) has pointed to the reduction in the specialist enforcement in this connection formerly undertaken by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) now merged into the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency DVSA