logo
Labour policy ‘actively working against job creation', says Currys boss

Labour policy ‘actively working against job creation', says Currys boss

Yahoo6 hours ago

The boss of one of Britain's biggest electricals retailers has criticised government policy for 'actively working against job creation' amid a raft of tax increases and looming worker rights reforms.
Writing in The Telegraph, Alex Baldock, the chief executive of Currys, said Labour risked making it 'harder, riskier and more expensive to hire people' as Angela Rayner prepares to implement the Employment Rights Bill, which is making its way through the House of Lords.
Mr Baldock said the retailer had already faced a 13pc overnight increase in the cost of employing part-time workers from Rachel Reeves's £25bn National Insurance raid, while its property tax bill also rose.
He said Currys was now facing 'new and counter-productive red tape in the shape of employment law changes'.
Mr Baldock added: 'Smart people know that changing your mind in the face of compelling evidence is a sign of strength, not weakness.
'It's not too late for the Government to change its mind on employment law changes that would lead to less employment.'
It comes amid growing warnings from bosses that the Government risks derailing its growth ambitions by piling higher taxes and more red tape on businesses.
In a recent poll by the Institute of Directors, a quarter of business leaders said the Employment Rights Bill made it likely that they would make redundancies.
Under the planned reforms, workers will be entitled to contracts with a minimum number of weekly hours baked in, giving them the same number of hours as they have worked in the recent past.
However, retail and hospitality chiefs have called for a rethink of the plans amid concerns that the changes risk stopping them from hiring extra people during crucial trading periods such as Christmas. Bosses have said they cannot afford to offer everyone more shifts all year round when stores are quieter.
Mr Baldock said businesses including Currys were 'ready to play our part in getting Britain back to work', adding: 'Enlist us in this cause, don't hammer us.'
In a House of Lords debate in April, Lord Wolfson, the boss of Next, said the employment rights reforms risked making it 'almost impossible for businesses to offer additional voluntary hours to workers' because they could then end up overstaffed at some times of the year.
Lord Wolfson said: 'There is a world of difference between tackling potentially abusive zero-hours contracts and eliminating the flexibility that legitimate part-time contracts provide to those who need and want them.'
The Government did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, a spokesman previously said: 'We've consulted extensively with business on our proposals, and we will continue to work closely with employers to ensure new laws work for them while putting money back into the pockets of working people.'
By Alex Baldock, the chief executive of Currys
The Government talks a lot about growth and jobs, with plenty of warm words and encouragement for growth drivers such as high-tech manufacturing, life sciences and the creative industries. Next week, no doubt, these will be at the heart of theGovernment's new industrial strategy. And more power to such exciting sectors, where the UK enjoys a real competitive edge.
Yet the engine room of the British economy lies elsewhere. The likes of retail, leisure and hospitality may be less glamorous. But they employ 6m people – nearly a quarter of the private sector workforce – bringing prosperity and prospects to everycorner of the country.
They're no less innovative, either. Retailer productivity is growing at twice the national rate, as we deploy AI and other technology to improve customer service and empower colleagues. And boosting Britain's moribund productivity, as every economist will tell you, is essential for growth.
Nor are these retail and hospitality jobs just any jobs. They're great introductions (or re-introductions) to work. Once we've given colleagues this leg up, and as they gain in confidence and experience, we often find they progress rapidly, taking on more hours, moving into management or moving on to other work with our good wishes.
My first job as a spotty teenager was in a high street retailer (Waterstones in Newbury, as it happens), and I'm far from alone. Flexible and entry-level as they often are, retail jobs help people break into the world of work. They help those coming back after having children or caring for their elders – and, crucially, to those seeking a way off benefits.
It's crucial because of the UK's biggest domestic challenge today: the human and economic crisis of worklessness. The UK now has almost 1m 16-24 year olds not in employment, education or training, out of fully 3m people not in work because of physical or mental ill health. This is much more than pre-pandemic, and much higher than in other countries.
These 3m are exactly the people the Government wants to help off welfare and into work. This is the only way to reduce Britain's ballooning benefits bill, and so avoid further adding to an already punishing and growth-sapping tax burden. It's the only way to help millions of people find the fulfilment (and mental health benefits) of work. Research shows that the vast majority of them want to work – they just need the right opportunities and the right support.
'Everyone who can work, should work', says the prime minister. Where better for them to work than retail and hospitality? If not there, where?
It's not hard to connect the dots here. The country needs more growth and millions of new jobs. Retail and hospitality are where these are to be found. So, as well as lavishing goodies on the sexy growth industries, surely Government must be looking to help such big, high-employing, high-productivity sectors as retail and hospitality? If only.
In fact, government policy is actively working against job creation. Promised business rates 'relief' actually increased many bills. Punitive increases in National Insurance disproportionately hit employers who have many part-time workers. For example, the cost to Currys of employing such workers increased by 13pc overnight.
Now, and despite promised deregulation, we face new and counter-productive red tape in the shape of employment law changes. Retailers are busier at some times than others, as Saturday or Christmas, as shoppers will have noticed. So retailers need to flex up and down the number of colleagues on the shopfloor accordingly.
That works for colleagues looking for flexible work, for customers to get good service and for retailers to make an honest profit. But the Government's so-called 'guaranteed hours' proposals will force retailers to offer all colleagues the same number of hours as they've worked in the recent past – and pay for hours we don't need.
Even successful retailers such as Currys work on fine margins – we make £1.60 profit for every £100 we sell. We simply can't afford to pay for hours we don't need, especially now those hours cost more. The result will be that retailers have to hire fewer people. It's no wonder that the Retail Jobs Alliance expects over 300,000 retail jobs to be lost in the next three years – and those job losses have already started.
Thus government policy threatens the viability of the very jobs it sets out to protect, and this when the country desperately needs us to hire more people, not fewer. Where's the joining of dots here?
The frustrating part? Nobody doubts the Government's good intentions. There's much to praise in its long-overdue planning reforms and investment in decaying infrastructure, both essential for growth. The Government has shown it can listen to business when presented with reasoned arguments. For example, it withdrew ill-thought-through recycling proposals inherited from the previous government which would have had the perverse impact of reducing recycling. We welcomed that warmly.
Smart people know that changing your mind in the face of compelling evidence is a sign of strength, not weakness. It's not too late for the Government to change its mind on employment law changes that would lead to less employment. It's not too late to address the broken business rates system. It's not too late, instead of making it harder, riskier and more expensive to hire people, to do the reverse.
We all want more growth and jobs. Businesses like Currys stand ready to play our part in getting Britain back to work. Enlist us in this cause, don't hammer us. We could be doing so much more to help.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukraine Amasses $43 Billion for Defense Industry, Zelenskiy Says
Ukraine Amasses $43 Billion for Defense Industry, Zelenskiy Says

Bloomberg

time36 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Ukraine Amasses $43 Billion for Defense Industry, Zelenskiy Says

By and Daryna Krasnolutska Save Ukraine has accumulated $43 billion for its defence industry so far this year between local funding and aid from allies, using it to ramp up the production and purchase of drones, artillery and other weaponry, said President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Kyiv has also launched a 'Build with Ukraine' program and announced new agreements to be signed this summer, including opening production lines in European countries.

Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder on how brands are navigating attention and polarization at Cannes Lions
Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder on how brands are navigating attention and polarization at Cannes Lions

Fast Company

time41 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder on how brands are navigating attention and polarization at Cannes Lions

At the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, top agencies and brands vie for awards and hustle to close deals. As this year's event wraps up, Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder shares the insider buzz—from the continued rise of creator-led content to how brands navigate getting the right kind of attention in a polarized market. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. What are you hearing people talk about here at the festival? A lot is going on. There's a recurring theme. I think . . . everyone is trying to figure out, How can I cut through without being cut out? How can I cut through without alienating a core part of my audience? Because we're living in such a polarized time, where there are very few things people can align on. And so there is really that, but we are also in an attention recession, where it's so difficult to get attention, and getting attention is not enough, because you have to convert that attention into intention, right? To get people to actually go into discovery, consideration, and ultimately purchase. So, it's not just getting the attention, but the attention in the way that's right for your brand. Exactly. Getting attention in a way that's right for your brand and drives action, drives engagement. And now, there's just so much that grabs people's attention, so grabbing attention isn't enough. It's actually converting the attention into intention, into buyer intent. Are there any rules about it, or is it that each brand has to do it in its own way? I think that there are some themes that we're seeing about how brands in general are doing this, across all industries, B2B, B2C, healthcare, technology, beauty, retail. We're seeing some recurring themes. And I think one of the big themes is leaning into creators and community, because people show up for people. They might not necessarily show up for brands in the same way as we've seen in the past. So a lot of brands are leaning into [that]. I mean, creators are all over the place. Creators and athletes. Because creators and athletes come with a more dedicated and a more engaged and a more, I'm going to use the word rabid, a little bit, fan base. Yes, real fans. Real fans, rather than just celebrities that you see. I mean, we've been talking for a few years about influencers and how that has sort of changed the marketplace. It sounds a little bit like we've broken through to a new layer with that? We've certainly broken through to a new layer. And in fact, they don't want to be called influencers. They want to be called creators. Because they're saying, 'Hey, I'm not here to just influence. I'm here to co-create with you to drive a certain outcome.' So we're seeing that happen more now. And does that change the relationship that a brand like yours has with a traditional advertising firm? Are you going to creators in a different way? It definitely changes, because creators have, I think, a lot more say and a lot more power, and they're taking a bigger space at the table. So, gone are the days, I think, where it's just you find a creator, you tell them exactly what you want to do. If you're actually trying to drive real results and you want their fans to show up, they're taking an audience-first approach. So first of all, you've got to find that creator that aligns with your values. So you have to know they agree with you or they're simpatico in that way before they start. There's got to be trust. . . . And the trust goes both ways. You have got to trust that they are aligned to your brand values, they are aligned to your customer base, because remember, you want to cut through, you want to break through, but you are not trying to cut out a big portion of your customer base. So you need to make sure that you have that trust that yes, they are aligned to your brand values, they're aligned to your purpose, they're aligned to the outcomes, but then you also have to trust them to give them the space to do what they do. Because it can't come across as an ad. It has to come across as something more organic, something that they would truly want to do on their own, because that's when their audience shows up, and that's what determines the result. Are you, in your conversations with your peers, with other CMOs, are you hearing them privately acknowledge like, 'Oh, we didn't do that quite right? We alienated a group we didn't want to.' One hundred percent, especially in today's world. . . . As we're having these private CMO roundtables, we're all sharing, here's what went wrong, here's what went right, here's what I learned. And a lot of it is just, the margin for error is a lot slimmer than it ever was. There is a very thin line between cutting through and cutting out. It's like walking on high heels on a teeny-tiny thread. There is no margin for error. And so . . . a lot of CMOs are thinking about, How do I do this and how do I do this well?. . . And I think one of the things that's really important is making sure that you have a broad pull at the table as these decisions are being made, and that you are also able to pivot and adjust very quickly. Yes. The idea that to break through, you have to say something sharp, but you're also saying that the risk is higher than ever, but you have to take that risk. There's no way out of this bind. There's no way out. Let me tell you. We've got to give CMOs and marketers, all marketers at all levels, we've got to give [them] a break. It is a tough world out there. And so, yes, you have to opine with a spine, but you got to be careful what you opine on. So you need to pick the thing that truly makes sense for your brand and business. You cannot opine on everything. If you speak about everything, you're speaking about nothing. And if you end up speaking about things that you have not earned the right to speak about, you don't have the credibility to speak about, you could end up in some real hot water that you don't want to be on. Not the good kind of bath, the scalding kind of bath. So there really is that thoughtfulness that has to go into it.

Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut

(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches. So far, at least 150 of the governing party's Members of Parliament have indicated concerns about the cuts in two letters to the government. Other non-signatories have told Bloomberg they also intend to vote against the bill. While Starmer's attention this week was centered on the escalating tensions in the Middle East, the domestic threat was laid bare on Thursday when Vicky Foxcroft, a government whip who would have been tasked with helping quell the revolt, quit, citing her own objections. The rebellion threatens to bruise Starmer's and Reeves' credibility and further damage their stock with the left of their party. In order to avoid falling to what would be an unprecedented defeat for a government enjoying such a large majority so early in its tenure, ministers could at worst be forced into major concessions that reduce the bill's expected cost savings, forcing the Treasury to conjure up money from other cuts or tax rises at the budget in the fall. 'It's a test of Starmer's authority and the way he and Rachel Reeves are running the economy,' Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London, said in a phone interview. 'If the rebellion is too big, you start to run into questions about the loyalty of your backbenchers and even perhaps the future of your leadership.' The welfare reforms allowed Reeves to save about £5 billion ($6.5 billion) a year by 2030 by making it harder for disabled people to claim a benefit called the personal independence payment, or PIP. The chancellor factored them into a spring statement as part of spending cuts designed to help meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. Reeves says the changes are necessary because an extra thousand people a day have been signing on for PIP, creating an 'unsustainable' impact on the public finances. PIP payments had been projected to almost double to £41 billion by the end of the decade, within overall spending on disability and incapacity benefits that the Office for Budget Responsibility — the government's fiscal watchdog — sees rising to £100 billion from £65 billion last year. The government has also says there is a moral case for supporting people back into work. But Labour lawmakers are concerned the government announced changes in a rush to deliver savings, without thinking through the impact on vulnerable people. 'There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people,' one Labour backbencher, Debbie Abrahams, told the House of Commons. There are particular concerns about a new requirement for claimants to score four or above in one of the daily living components of the PIP assessment, meaning people who can't wash half their body or cook a meal will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. One Labour MP describing the process as letting the OBR tail wag the government dog. Some 45 Labour MPs signed a public letter objecting to the measures, while another letter — arranged in secrecy so that even signatories couldn't see who they were joining — garnered 105 signatures and was sent to the chief whip. While some of the would-be rebels have indicated they could be swayed by the government whips, one of them told Bloomberg they are confident that more than 80 MPs will commit to voting against the government. Given Starmer's working majority is 165, if all opposition parties vote against the bill, it would take 83 Labour rebels to defeat the government. The main opposition Conservative Party is planning to vote against the changes, Danny Kruger, one of the party's work and pensions spokespeople, told parliament in May. Its reasons are different: the Tories argue the measures don't go far enough. One Labour MP told Bloomberg that concerned lawmakers plan to put forward a procedural challenge to the bill. While they don't expect the speaker to select that amendment for debate, the aim is to force further changes from the government, and organize would-be Labour rebels into a coherent group which could eventually vote down the bill. Many in Labour had been waiting to see the bill before making up their minds. When the text was published on Wednesday, the concessions to their concerns were minimal, largely amounting to a 13-week transition period for those losing their PIP. Foxcroft — the whip who had previously served for four years as Starmer's shadow disability minister in opposition — quit within hours of the publication, saying she didn't believe cutting the disability benefits should be part of the solution to tackling ballooning welfare costs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Friday that Foxcroft's resignation wasn't a sign of a major rebellion, while conceding that 'of course' there are dissenting voices on such a big reform. 'Vicky is the only front-bencher that I've had a conversation with about resigning,' she said. Nevertheless, many so-called 'red wall' Labour MPs in northern and central England face a tough decision. Health Equity North, a public health institute, found that all the places most affected financially by the PIP reforms are Labour constituencies in northern England. In several areas, the number of people affected by the welfare changes exceeds the Labour majority, meaning those MPs could see a crucial drop in support. The government is gearing up for a fight, indicating it will make no further concessions. On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failed to rule out stripping the whip from Labour rebels, while government enforcers are warning MPs that their political career prospects will be ruined if they oppose the bill. Whips and wannabe rebels alike expect the potential revolt to be whittled down as July 1 approaches. Some opponents are weighing whether to abstain at the second reading and wait until the third reading to take a more decisive vote, as whips are encouraging them to do. 'I'd be amazed if he were defeated here,' Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said. 'If the whips got a whiff they were going to get defeated, they'd give some concessions. The worst of all outcomes is to lose this.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store