# Check out Undercover Boss this Sunday



## Chateau Joe (Jan 26, 2012)

It's on CBS after 60 minutes. The undercover boss will be from Kendall Jackson Winery. It looks like it may be fun to watch.


----------



## ibglowin (Jan 26, 2012)

Thought I missed that episode glad I didn't. Looks like the boss is on the bottling line and things go crazy like Lucy with the chocolates!


----------



## Runningwolf (Jan 26, 2012)

OK Joe you started this now you'll have to remind us all on Sunday!


----------



## Flem (Jan 26, 2012)

Time to set the DVR.


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 26, 2012)

dvr set here, thanks for the heads up!!!


----------



## ffemt128 (Jan 27, 2012)

We use to watch that show all the time. Not sure if I'll remember or not, should be interesting.


----------



## Chateau Joe (Jan 27, 2012)

Runningwolf said:


> OK Joe you started this now you'll have to remind us all on Sunday!



I'll try but I don't do much computer stuff on the weekends.

I had to chuckle when I saw that I bottling I Love Lucy moment. I'll bet he is a winery owner in name only. I don't know about California. But here in New York, I cannot think of one winery owner that doesn't have his hands on every piece of the operation.


----------



## hobbyiswine (Jan 29, 2012)

DVR set! Gonna try to watch it at regular time but set it anyways just in case. I like a lot of the KJ wines. We visited them (BOTH tasting rooms) when we went to Sonoma. They have some spectacular wines that you can only get there. Single vineyard pinot and chardonnay and such that are amazing. KJ is a huge company so I can see that it would be easy to send in an owner-type person undetected. Should be good TV!


----------



## Flem (Jan 29, 2012)

Undercover Boss in 4 minutes! CBS

Probably different for you "westerners".


----------



## winemaker_3352 (Jan 29, 2012)

Yup - already have it recording!!


----------



## n2tazmania (Jan 29, 2012)

Just goes to show you that a company's success is tied to the lowest employees on the totem pole.


----------



## GerardVineyard (Jan 30, 2012)

Wish they would have showed him doing some real wine / vineyard work, like picking, crushing, cleaning tanks, driving tractors etc.. Instead he counts grape clusters, tries to load a botteling machine, delivers cases and works in a tasting room.

Also, who hires employees and does not have a manager that can speak to them?? Could I suggest Rosetta Stone .....


----------



## JohnT (Jan 31, 2012)

The guy seemed like a real cheap SOB. 

He had that one girl working the tasting room, she worked 38 - 40 hours a week, and go no benefits. 

Not sure about california, but I believe that ANY job over 35 hours in NJ is considered as "full Time". 

All this guy gave her was 5,000.00 (which she, by rights, had comming to her for benefits not paid) and the "right" to call herself a full time employee. 

Meanwhile, she is a single mother of 3.


----------



## ibglowin (Jan 31, 2012)

She took the $$ and left the company.


----------



## GerardVineyard (Jan 31, 2012)

JohnT said:


> The guy seemed like a real cheap SOB.
> 
> He had that one girl working the tasting room, she worked 38 - 40 hours a week, and go no benefits.
> 
> ...



Just because you work "full time" does not mean you get benefits. I work 40 hrs a week and have not had a job where I got benefits since 2001....


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 31, 2012)

and he DID make her full time

as far as being a single mother of three, while one can be open and sympathetic and helpful at times...her marital status is not his fault nor his responsibility and he should not and cannot dictate company policy based on charity first....it needs to be business first and charity second

i am always shocked when i see people infer that people need to be entitled to benefits simply because they exist


----------



## mikev63 (Jan 31, 2012)

I just think his bonus were pretty cheap.

It would have been nice to show him doing some of the de-stemming or firmenting.


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 31, 2012)

"I just think his bonus were pretty cheap."

how would you feel if the bonus was higher and you were an employee that did not get picked for the show? while we got to see 4 employees we didnt get to see thousands(?) of others and i am sure they would like to have been picked...so any bonus given small or large will not please everyone

while we all would like to see more wine related clips...the show is called undercover boss, not undercover winemaker

the show was nice over all and to me, very pleasant to watch


----------



## JohnT (Jan 31, 2012)

Al, 

My point was that in some states, due to the hours she worked, she aready is "Full time". The only difference for her was that she did not receive the benefits that she was intitled to. 

In other words, She did not get a bonus, just what she should have been getting all along. The 5 grand was simply to cover the medical costs incurred while she was working at the company. 

The point I was making was also that, as a company, Kendal Jackson should be PROUD of the way it ripped off a single mother of 3.


----------



## ibglowin (Jan 31, 2012)

I find it hard to believe after the first season of this show that ANYONE who works for a large corporation wouldn't know that might just be the boss in disguise especially since they have cameras following him around everywhere he goes .......


----------



## robie (Jan 31, 2012)

ibglowin said:


> I find it hard to believe after the first season of this show that ANYONE who works for a large corporation wouldn't know that might just be the boss in disguise especially since they have cameras following him around everywhere he goes .......



Ha! How true. The camera should be a dead give-away.


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 31, 2012)

ibglowin said:


> I find it hard to believe after the first season of this show that ANYONE who works for a large corporation wouldn't know that might just be the boss in disguise especially since they have cameras following him around everywhere he goes .......



I often wonder the same thing Mike..obviously that truck driver Rene who dropped all the f bombs doesnt watch the show 

As far as cameras go...i had gas stations for over 20 yrs....i could put up 100 cameras and a camera on their hat looking back at them...there was *always* someone who thought that when ***they*** put cash from the drawer into ***their*** pocket, the camera did not see them.....never underestimate the mind of a person pro-occupied with their own thoughts and are not cognitive of blatant obviousness (new word?)

***************


JohnT....your in NJ...did you vote for Gov Christie?

the state issue you raised is exactly why we formed states in the first place...and she is free to move to a state that provides more benefits Ca is one of the more liberal states and yet for you and her it isn't enough???? You said she was entitled to benefits...apparently no she was not entitled...


The guy did not rip her off at all....what you said in simply an amazing statement! She is NOT his responsibility in terms of life choices she has made..he is only responsible to get a profit going and to make sure he pays his people a competitive wage.....what if John he had gone into that tasting room and he met a young woman who had no children and had 5 k in student loans and he wanted to award her 5 k for her good service...would that be bad too?

Why are you so on her side? She told him what her issues were and he fulfilled each of them....and then she left anyways.....maybe he should have cut a vein for her? 

Also you never replied....how would you feel as an employee who worked hard and YOU didnt get picked to be viewed on the show and get a few thousand thrown your way?


----------



## Runningwolf (Jan 31, 2012)

Now you got me going. First off this is Hollywood and they can make the show come out anyway they want to get ratings up. The more p!ssed off people get the more they watch it and talk about it and ratings go up.

The girl had a choice. To work for them or someone else. Simply put, they chose the winery, the pay and hours it offers. Believe me if you live in CA or NY you get far more benefits then any other state. 

The truck driver, was he really all that bad? His main concern was to get the companies product to the customer and back by the end of the day. Is he really any different than 95% of all truckers. It is up to the company to make changes like starting him 2-3 hours earlier each day to get the deliveries to the customer when they want them. A lot of company's dictate when and when not they'll except deliveries.

This guy was pretty clumsy when it came to handling bottles. I think that was BS and just show!

Do I feel sorry for the young mother of three, sure I do just like I do every guy trying to raise a family in the same circumstance. There are a lot of us in the same situation during these economic times, but at least we have a job.


----------



## Flem (Jan 31, 2012)

Dan, your last seven words say it all!!


----------



## JohnT (Feb 2, 2012)

Al, 

I see your point, and we will need to agree to disagree.

My thinking is this.. 

If a company wants loyalty from an employee, then they need to give it first. 

The best employees are those that stay for a lifetime. It is most important for an organization to provide a decent life for those earn it by giving so much of themselves. 

Now, I know that a company needs to be profitable, and I am all for it. Sticking it to employees, however, is the worst way to become more profitable. 

Employees are not simply cattle. They are the life Blood of any company and are human beings. It is your employees that can either make or break you. If you are not providing benefits or a decent salary to your employees, how could a company expect to keep good people? If she felt well treated by the company, she would have never left.

Earlier, you talked about employees that pocketed cash even when a camera is on them. If they were paid a better salary, don't you think that they will be LESS inclined to theft? If employees feel that they work for a great company that treats them well, don't you think they would work harder and be more faithful? The term "you get what you pay for" applies here. 

This is only my opinion. 

Yes I did vote for Christie. I am a Republican. Republicans do not believe in being unfair (at least the ones I know). Most believe what I have written above and feel that the market should drive the above points instead of the Feds. 

To answer your question about the other employees that did not get on the show... Most companies have "employee of the month" or other forms of recognition. This is nothing new or different.


----------



## UBB (Feb 2, 2012)

This thread has delved into the slippery slope of politics so I'll tread lightly. I won't pretend to be familiar with the labor laws in CA but as a business owner myself I'll say this. Just because someone has had a rough time navigating their life does not 'entitle' them to a six figure salary. That sort of mindset is at the root of the problems this country finds itself in.

"“The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit.”


----------



## Julie (Feb 2, 2012)

Thank you UBB for recognizing the "slippery slope of politics".

To let everyone know, we do not tolerate talking about politics anymore than *******ing. So with that said, I do not want to hear who is a Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. If this thread starts down that lane I will shut the thread down. 

So far I have seen friendly disagreements, let's keep it that way.

Thank you.


----------



## JohnT (Feb 2, 2012)

Julie, 

You are so right! 

getting back to the latest topic, 

Is being cheap with your employees actually saving you money. 

my position is that it certainly does not!


----------



## Julie (Feb 2, 2012)

Actually, I see both sides to this. 

Do I think because someone is a single mom does not justify them receiving a paycheck. The only entitlement is what you earn. Is she the type of employee you know you can depend, never calls off, will go the extra mile for you? Yes, she deserves to receive a decent pay.


----------



## JohnT (Feb 2, 2012)

Julie said:


> Actually, I see both sides to this.
> 
> Do I think because someone is a single mom does not justify them receiving a paycheck. The only entitlement is what you earn. Is she the type of employee you know you can depend, never calls off, will go the extra mile for you? Yes, she deserves to receive a decent pay.



This is what I'm saying. 

A little incentive is an inexpensive way to avoid problems and costs associated with disgruntled employees.


----------



## UBB (Feb 2, 2012)

There is something to be said about the incentive to not be standing in an unemployment line in one of the worst economic cycles in recent history.

There was nothing that I seen in the show that indicated Kendall Jackson was being 'cheap' towards their employees. Without seeing their financial statements I doubt any of us could answer with any degree of certainty. The President did mention that their 401k program was a million dollar expense. 
Do we know for sure that they decided to suspend that benefit in lieu of laying off a bunch of workers? 
Do we know that after reinstating that benefit that they were then forced to cut somewhere else? I think this warrants being posted again:

* “The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit.”*

and as far as rewarding your most dependable employees........I agree but was that the case here? It did mention that the employee in question left the company after all. It appears she felt she was 'entitled' to even more then she got.


----------



## Runningwolf (Feb 2, 2012)

"*Earlier, you talked about employees that pocketed cash even when a camera is on them. If they were paid a better salary, don't you think that they will be LESS inclined to theft? If employees feel that they work for a great company that treats them well, don't you think they would work harder and be more faithful? The term "you get what you pay for" applies here. 
*"

John This is the one statement I do not agree with you on. A thief is a thief regardless of how much money they make. A lazy person or one that does not care is just that and rarely change. They are the non-conformists in the work place.

Ok with that said those folks are the minority. The work place is full of great people that do care. There are many people there that maybe don't care as much about the company but are there because they care about feeding their family and have good work ethics. The most important thing to remember about THESE people is a lot of what everyone has been saying "*People don't leave their company, they leave their boss*". It's all about how they are treated and respected.


----------



## grapeman (Feb 7, 2012)

Anyone who missed this, it is on the internet TV using Microsoft's TV program through Media Player.


----------



## skater388 (Feb 8, 2012)

n2tazmania said:


> Just goes to show you that a company's success is tied to the lowest employees on the totem pole.



I'm sure if the upper management quit, kj would thrive. Right?? Those that can count grapes can run a company? Those that flip bottles can run a company?

Sorry, why would I learn every 10 dollar an hour position in my company?

I love to prove people like you wrong. I receive plenty of applications each month, it's part of expansion, I try to avoid firing anyone, but I get the employees every so often that "know more than I ever will" and those that will "put me under in 6 months". My employees are a very valuable asset, but they are replaceable. I'd love people that stay for the longevity of the company, but I will not give someone 50k when I can have someone more talented for half. Nothing personal, it's just business.

If you think that is bad business, I hope you have no mortgage, investments, installment loans or revolving credit accounts.


----------



## skater388 (Feb 8, 2012)

Runningwolf said:


> "*Earlier, you talked about employees that pocketed cash even when a camera is on them. If they were paid a better salary, don't you think that they will be LESS inclined to theft? If employees feel that they work for a great company that treats them well, don't you think they would work harder and be more faithful? The term "you get what you pay for" applies here.
> *"
> 
> John This is the one statement I do not agree with you on. A thief is a thief regardless of how much money they make. A lazy person or one that does not care is just that and rarely change. They are the non-conformists in the work place.
> ...



Agreed, this is a huge part of the hiring process that is too often overlooked.


----------

