They look at what the customer wants, and provides the service accordingly. One example of this is that David Lloyd has all there facilities under one roof, and they are also developing smaller centres in urban areas in response to customer needs. They have also responded well to the fact customers do not want genetically modified foods by clearly stating not none of the food provided in their restaurants contain GM ingredients, additives or flavourings.
In short Whitbread’s management are well attuned and provide a great service overall. They strive to improve efficiency and quality, and are always introducing new ideas in response to customer wants.
Describe the way Whitbread treats it’s Human Resources, and how this treatment affects the attitudes and behaviours of its workforce and ultimately organisational performance.
The leisure industry is very people orientated so most employees deal with customers on a daily basis so it is vital that the employees come across well to secure the customers loyalty and enjoyment. With around 70,000 employees working in its restaurants, hotels, health clubs and service departments Whitbread realise happy and satisfied employee’s equal satisfied customers which leads to happy shareholders. So Whitbread has a commitment to its people and treats them to there three main principles:
- It cares for them;
- It makes clear what is required from them;
- It treats people as individuals.
Obviously Whitbread has to adhere to all legal requirements involved in employment such as minimum wage and the working time directive but they strive to be better and have many operations in place to ensure that employees enjoy there work at get what they want from there job. Training is a big part of this, ensuring that there staff are not only the best in there field but they have the training, experience and qualifications necessary to advance in their chosen career. They pride there selves on versatility through there wide scope of the market.
For example a health and fitness manager at David Lloyd leisure, after the necessary training provided, can become the manager of the fitness centre in a large Marriot hotel.
Comparing the Whitbread mission with either container Store ranked #1 by fortune magazine or TD Industries ranked #4 by fortune magazine or, www.voiceforchange.org a charity organisation building homes for the street children of Brazil. Determine to what extent the statement provides a sense of purpose that employees can believe in and relate to.
Voice for Change is a very different company from Whitbread and has very contrasting and opposing aims, views and visions.
Voice for Change:
- Is a non profitable charity organisation
- Aim to build houses for the homeless children of Brazil
- Aim to help others less fortunate rather than it’s self.
- Aim to educate the homeless children
- Aim to provide Guidance and a portal back into society.
However Whitbread:
- Is a profitable organisation
- with the one core purpose
This core purpose is to make money for its shareholders. Return on capital employed is the main interest of Whitworth and it constantly strives to improve it by moving and adapting to new markets with potentially high growth rates, which currently is the UK leisure industry – restaurants, hotels and active leisure. Whitworth’s vision is:
“To be the customer’s first choice for enjoyment as the UK’s leading leisure company.”
But this is basically just to secure customer loyalty therefore increasing profit, thus improving return on capital employed for shareholders attracting more investors. Whitbread believes it provides a clear and accurate goal helping employees gain the sense of purpose and ambition that is needed to be efficient and successful.
Voice of change has a education and vocational scheme to help the street kids cope with re-entering the general society and any money received gets ploughed into that and the building of more houses.
That is one of the main differences in the two companies, people invest in Whitbread, people donate to Voice of Change.
Describe the legal provisions which are relevant to the regulation of passive smoking in the workplace. What are the potential consequences for an employer in the event of non-compliance with these provisions?
Smoking has always been regarded a hazard in relation to the risk of fire and explosion.
It also poses a risk to the health of employees within the work place. According to
medical opinion, passive smoking can, in the case of non-smokers, cause lung cancer,
aggravate asthma and produce acute irritant effects on the eyes, throat and respiratory
tract. Section 2 of the Health and Safety at work act 1974 states that it is the duty of
employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees as far it is reasonably
feasible. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states:
-
Employers have a duty to undertake and provide a written risk assessment for employees. Employers must monitor and review the risk assessment.
- Risks to health caused by tobacco smoke should be included in such an assessment, especially so in relation to the more vulnerable employees such as asthmatics.
- Risks should be minimised by the introduction of preventive measures.
- Installation of effective ventilation or air conditioning equipment.
The workplace health, welfare and safety regulations 1992 say that every workplace must have an area set out especially for non-smokers. In September 2000, ministers put together a legally binding Code of Practise on Passive Smoking at work. Breach of this Code of Conduct would put liability on to employers and employees could claim for compensation. If the employer reasonably could have predicted that an employee might suffer ill health as a consequence of environmental tobacco smoke in the work place; did not take reasonable steps to guard against those risks; and if medical evidence proves that the employee’s health did worsen as a result of other employees smoking in the workplace the employer will be liable. If the employer was liable, they could then face a civil claim for compensation.
There have been a number of cases in Australia in which compensation has been awarded due to discomfort or disease caused by passive smoking at work. Most of these cases have been settled out-of-court. The largest compensation payouts which have been disclosed to date are the $65,000 paid out-of-court in July 1988 by the Melbourne Metropolitan Transit Authority to Mr Sean Carroll, a bus driver who contracted lung cancer after 36 years' passive exposure to tobacco smoke, and the $85,000 awarded to Mrs Liesel Scholem in May 1992. Mrs Scholem was awarded damages by the New South Wales Department of Health in a case heard before the New South Wales District Court. This was the first Australian passive smoking case to be decided in a full court hearing, and publicity following the decision resulted in many major workplaces, announcing that they would become smoke free.
The Health and Safety Commission proposals for an Approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking at Work have met with resistance from the Hospitality and Leisure Sectors. Discuss the implications of the regulation of passive smoking for the Hospitality/Leisure Sectors and evaluate the arguments for and against such regulation with particular reference to these sectors.
The Approved Code of Practise on Passive smoking at work has implications for the Hospitality and Leisure Sectors. People who pay for the services and products within the hospitality and leisure industries feel they should have the right to smoke if the wish. People pay for these services to relax and smoking places a huge part in relaxation for smokers. Smokers believe they should have the freedom of choice; they should be able to smoke if they so wish. Banning smoking in public places such as restaurants would avert smokers from going to such places if they were unable to smoke. A report from the Restaurant Association revealed that 45,000 jobs and £346 million could be lost if restaurants were forced to ban smokers. More recently The Publican Market Report showed that 92 percent of the 1,000 licensees surveyed believed that a ban on smoking would cost, on average, 41 percent of their trade.
Of course there are advantages for these sectors as well as disadvantages. The major advantage is, the elimination of a huge risk to the health of employees within the hospitality and leisure sector. Many customers want to choose non-smoking facilities, and guides for restaurants or pubs providing smoke-free areas for diners are proving popular. These customers are not necessarily just non-smokers, but also smokers may prefer to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. Seven out of ten people do not smoke. Those people should not have to breathe other people's smoke when they go into a pub or restaurant if they do not wish to. On the other hand, if someone who smokes wants to spend the evening in a pub with friends who either smoke themselves, or who do not mind other people's smoke, they should be able to do so. Therefore a balance is needed. Designated areas in the buildings within the leisure and hospitality sectors so the health of employees and customers is protected and at the same time the interests of the future of the sectors is planned for.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Internet sources: