Doesn’t answer Skammer’s comment about supporting the employer / more sales / job security.
Also, how do you know she won’t get a discount on groceries? The OP never mentioned that, and it’s pretty standard for employees of a business to get discounts on the business’ merchandise.
As for lower prices and better selection, I can’t quibble over that; it might well be the case that the competitor has the edge there. Customer service would be a surprising issue; when I last worked any kind of retail, we employees too pretty good care of each other.
They may not be convenient to her house
They may be more expensive
They may not carry everything she needs
She may not want to have co-workers see her buy hemorrhoid cream
She may not feel like it
Some states and/or towns may have specific laws concerning company stores that date back to the government stepping in and busting up company towns where a company effectively enslaved its workforce by putting them in debt to them.
In general there is no reason a company can’t require employees to do business there as a term of employment. Employment at will sucks sometimes. It is a stupid move on the part of the employer as it does nothing for moral and only gives the workforce reason to unionize.
If I were in your daughters position I’d check into local union chapters that may cover grocers and ask what can be done. When looking at the potential of unionization, strikes, or boycotts companies with oppressive policies tend to back off.
If as part of a bona fide contract between employer and employee it is provided that one may not shop at the competition, then that would be a valid condition of employment.
A union contract would be no different, other than representing multiple employees from an individual contract. If there are four registered pharmacists in town, and Joe, Fred, and Bob have their own pharmacies, when Joe wants to hire Tom, the fourth pharmacist, Tom can specify on what terms he is willing to work for Joe, with Joe free to accept, reject, or suggest alternatives to Tom’s terms. If the 40 experienced widgetmakers band together and state the terms on which they will work for Amalgamated Widgets, they have every right to specify the terms they will work under, with Amalgamated having the same rights as Joe the pharmacist in relation to Tom.
Now, to the point Bricker raised: in any contract, it is not legitimate for one party to unilaterally add terms to the contract – with limited exceptions. (For example, a change in the law that affects the employer/employee relationship is legitimate grounds for such a change – “To continue working here as a driver after May 1, 90 days from now, you must have successfully completed the state commercial drivers’ course they are mandating on companies who employ professional drivers.”)
The store can make it a term of hiring an employee that he refrain from shopping at the competitors, but (I bvelieve) could not decide suddenly to fire competent employees caught shopping there without prior notice to the emploees.
Thanks for all the great input. AFAIK, she is not in a union. I don’t believe she has a contract, since she is just a part-time, hourly employee. However, she is either up for promotion to a departmental assistant manager position (or has already received it), so this “requirement” may be part of her additional duties.
DanBlather listed a whole bunch of reasons why she may not want to shop at her place of employment, all of which are very valid. I believe she does her shopping there, anyway. I am pretty sure the prices at George’s Grocery are higher than at Walter’s Market, since George’s is a very small grocery chain (only within the state of Missouri, I believe) and Walter’s Market is a ginormous, national, ubiquitous chain, with all the attendant lower prices.
Not in grocery stores, it isn’t. I worked for a grocery store and we got a once-per-year 5% off $100 of groceries coupon, but that was it. Other than that, we paid full price and I did do my shopping at a less expensive grocery.
It’s really besides the point, anyway; the OP didn’t ask why employees wouldn’t want to, but rather about companies actually requiring it.
The company I worked at in the late 70’s required it. They did fire you if you didn’t buy the groceries there. It was a union place, and I’m sure this was part of the union contract. It probably was put there by the the union and not the store. One person did get fired.
Sure they could. It is still employment at will they can fire someone for any reason. They might however be in a poor position to say the employee was terminated with just cause when said employee files for unemployment.
True. Though “at will” still has exceptions – If I am your boss, I can fire you for skimming the till, or failing to sweep the floor in your department, or because you irritate me, or for no reason at all. But I cannot fire you because you are a woman (not to throw cold water on your point ;)), or black, or Vietnamese, or a couple of other categories.
When I worked at Wal-Mart we did not get any discount on groceries, though we got 10% off regular merchandise, given a few conditions which made it useless half the time anyway. We were encouraged but not required to shop there. Of course if you worked there you couldn’t really afford to shop anywhere else anyway.
Wal-Mart is one of those pieces-of-shit that if we got rid of we’d be doing a disservice to those who really do need to shop there. Maybe thats where the OP’s sister works.
BTW; they sometimes do make law where they locate.
Please don’t ask for a cite. Seeing that store’s name gives me a headache.
As others have pointed out employee discounts on groceries (ie foodstuffs for human consumption) are pretty much unheard of. The profit margins on them are razor thin (stuff like bread, milk, or eggs are often sold at loss). She might get a discount on general merchandise or at the instore pharmacy, but not on food. When I worked in a supermarket even customers couldn’t get discounts (senior citizen, military, frequent shopper) on things like milk, eggs, tobacco, gasoline, or alcohol.
The grocery chains I’ve worked at had a policy that all the hard-to-sell merchandise (dented cans, torn labels, sliced boxes, etc.) was sold to employees at a discount (usually 10%). They could save a lot, but the selection was limited. Also, the meatcutters would mark down meat that was on the last day of its’ sell-by dating. They often passed the word around about this to other employees, so they could get first chance at these discounts.
But regarding the OP, I’m wondering how you could enforce this? Especially if there was a bigger, cheaper store in a nearby town. And couldn’t the employee just send her husband to buy the groceries at whatever store they wished? The store could hardly claim that this non-employee was legally required to buy from them.
Frankly, this all seems rather pointless to me. If you can’t even convince your own employees to buy your products, you’re in trouble. Most employers try to encourage this not by contract mandates, but by offering discounts or special deals to their employees. Assuming that the good will and word of mouth will eventually be worthwhile.
"You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don’t you call me, 'cause I can’t go;
I owe my soul to the company store…"
I used to work for a very large brokerage company. It was a condition of employment that neither the employee or any member of his/her immediate household could buy stocks and other investments from any other brokerage. No e-trades. If you had holdings with another brokerage when hired you could continue to hold those. Once a year everyone was required to fill out a form listing all investments. If there was found to be a conflict of interest or violation of the employment conditions you would be gone.
In the case of the OP, however, how would the employer possibly keep track of every employee and their shopping? Who’s to know if she was in another town, perhaps one where there is no George’s Grocery store, and bought stuff?
Company store
Farmers and labor contractors once ran these, including “housing”, in the Central Valley in California. In other areas too, I’m sure.
Then along came Cesar Chavez and “messed it all up”. :dubious:
In the case of the fired employee the company found out when an employee saw them leaving a grocery store with groceries. That’s how a company finds out.