The Media Trust
Ledbury Calendar

Visit Ledbury


More Jobs - or Less? PDF Print E-mail
Supermarket Debate
Written by Save Ledbury   
Saturday, 19 November 2011 12:29

Supermarket job claims are unforgivably misleading.

Neither Tesco nor Sainsbury have answered the straight question which is: how many full time equivalent jobs do their headline totals represent? If they did, we could compare the number of jobs created by them and the number which would be lost in the High St (eg Co-op) and the supply/production chain.

Cost reduction and new self-scan technology are being aggressively applied by all the superstore multiples which means that employee numbers are steadily being cut back – despite a big increase in supermarket floor space. In the last year, Tesco and Sainsbury have expanded their retail floor space by over 2,750,000 sq ft while the number of people they employ has actually fallen by over 400.

When they are bidding for space, supermarket operators consistently exaggerate the number of jobs they will create in order to generate local support and tap into people's understandable anger at rising unemployment. For instance recently Tesco Accrington shed 100s of jobs before the new store even opened - to the fury of the local community who felt they had been completely misled.

And once again on the question of whether the High St will be adversely affected by an out of town superstore, read this from Rhyl Journal 15/10/10:

'Since the superstore’s opening week of trading, shops have recorded an average loss of earnings of 25 per cent, with some specific businesses having lost up to 60 per cent in revenue.

""The supermarket has definitely brought shoppers from further away," said County Councillor Mike Hodges, owner of Hodges Food and Wine Store on Tremont Road, "but many of them do not visit the town centre after they’ve finished their shop."

“Roughly 60 per cent of customers who do their major weekly shop at a big supermarket will then go straight home,” said Cllr Hodges, who attended the traders’ meeting on Thursday.

“We’re losing 25 per cent, week on week, which has surprised a lot of people because they thought our business wouldn’t be affected.”' (


Last Updated on Monday, 28 November 2011 10:57
Comments (30)
Masefiled Banned
30 Wednesday, 23 November 2011 10:10

This is not the place for 'playground bickering' nor the place to call people dogs or sad. Take your attitude and junk elsewhere. This kind of antagonistic posting is not welcome on the Ledbury Portal. You have been warned. "All material you copy, publish or send via our website must not be defamatory, obscene, indecent, hateful, discriminatory or inflammatory."

Colin Marschall's message of apology.
29 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 16:31
John McCabe
I'm intrigued. I wonder if Mr Marschall remembers the following (quoted from the LESS Facebook page Ms Bloise, perhaps now you have an answer to your question):

"Mr McCabe I don't know you nor do I care to, what you have written above is just you trying to worm your way out of your mistake, there is no way your comments could be taken as anything other than what they are, a personal attack on a person."
Colin ..
28 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 16:24
jolene bloise
Bless him,he`s such a decent bloke,doesn`t surprise me at all at his apology.
However he has been baited for a long time now,and had to deal with some pretty childish behaviour and comments by a few of the same people who seem to have not a lot else to do,and quite obviously get kicks from this behaviour.It makes me cringe reading some of the posts.
My ten year old child behaves in a much more mature fashion.
Message of apology from Colin Marschall
27 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 16:11

"I would like to apologise to you and all portal members for my outburst last night. I understand and accept that I left you no choice but to remove my membership of the portal. The comments were uncalled for and I did delete them as soon as I had calmed down, although I know the damage had already been done and does not excuse my actions. I would request that you post this on the thread in question so that all the portal members can see that I am very sorry. I would also like to point out that my comments are in no way a reflection of the LESS group policy but were made purely as an indvidual and I have been warned by the admins of LESS that any further posting of that nature on the group page or any where else will not be tolerated. "I would hope that in time I would be able to reapply for the right to post on the portal pages, but also understand this will depend on how I conduct myself on other public sites."

26 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 16:03
jolene bloise
Serious question to John Mcabe,why would you want to keep looking at the LESS page??
Claire Ellis
25 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 13:07
John McCabe
Ms Ellis,

It's easy for you to say that now that you, or perhaps one of your group admins, have deleted many of the offending comments.

I would remind you though that, when you reply to people's comments on Facebook they may be notified by email and it may be that those emails are retained by the recipient.
User Banned
24 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 10:10

Despite warnings about misusing the Ledbury Community Portal, one user, Colin Marschall, used this forum to publicly insult another user last night. This is unacceptable to this administrator. Mr Marschall has been duly banned. I would like to remind users again of the terms governing Portal users, which can be found in the column on the left hand side of the page under 'terms'. These terms include the statement: "You must not use our website to copy, publish or send material which is illegal or unlawful, or material which could give rise to legal action under English and other applicable law. All material you copy, publish or send via our website must not be defamatory, obscene, indecent, hateful, discriminatory or inflammatory; such material must not infringe any person’s intellectual property rights or rights of confidence, impinge upon any person’s privacy, or constitute incitement to commit a crime; further, material must not be misleading, deceptive, sexually explicit, threatening, abusive, harassing or menacing. We reserve the right to edit or remove any material posted upon our website. We may take such action as we deem appropriate to deal with the posting of unsuitable material, including suspending or cancelling your account, restricting your access to our website."

LESS Face Book page
23 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 00:18
Claire Ellis
In response to the previous post concerning "sickened and disgusted by the language" on the LESS Face Book page and the mentioning of my name in the same sentence, I invite any one to read my comments and check for yourselves.
Thank you!
Good for the soul!
22 Monday, 21 November 2011 21:10
jolene bloise
I think that having followed this story closely and when i`ve nothing better to do I will sit and read these posts,sometimes with my mouth agape at the utter nonsense i`ve read.I understand Colin`s frustration,after a long period of debating with these people,he`s managed to keep his cool and offer a balanced, reasonable debate,despite being baited and having to deal with all sorts of ridiculous comments,i`m really not surprised at his recent post.
I think that certain individuals have taken this all very personally and perhaps need to put it all into perspective.There is more to life gents than a page on the internet.
There are many things out there where you could make a difference if you feel the need to get involved in something passionately.Focusing your energy on making a real difference to something worthwhile is very good for the soul!
Mr Marschall...
21 Monday, 21 November 2011 20:59
John McCabe
A qualified programmer? Intriguing! Where did you get your degree? Was it a good course? I'm interested in doing an MSc part-time so looking for something fairly nearby.

As for Photoshop, my understanding is that while you can obviously edit photos with photoshop (but I don't have photoshop available) it fiddles with the EXIF data if you do so. I understand most commercial photo editing software does that, partly to try to help with forensics etc. Unfortunately it's not reliable obviously but if you really think I would go to the extent of editing a photo and/or modifying EXIF data just to prove a trivial point like this you are sadly mistaken.

Now on to the "calling a shopkeeper idiotic"; this has been fully addressed in the discussion on your facebook page, and directly with the person in question. I suggest that, before you criticise other people, you look at yourself and the comments you have made. I look at the LESS facebook page on a regular basis and I'm sickened and disgusted by the language that is used on there on a regular basis by yourself, Martin Dudley, Claire Ellis and Carl Francis to name but a few to describe members of LOTS and, in fact, anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Despite this you, in particular, regularly bring up a one-off statement and twist it in to a personal insult when, as I have clearly discussed, it was a comment intended to describe an act and was never directly aimed at a particular person (unlike the comments made on the LESS page and, now, on here which are regularly aimed at specific people).

My aim on this portal and in general is to deal with truth;

- it is TRUE that Ledbury's population has fallen between mid-2007 and mid-2010 whereas, your claim that Ledbury's population has increased by over 3100 in the last two years (without any additional housing for them to live in) is patently FALSE.

- it is TRUE that the forecast household size by 2016, when Ledbury will have another 800 houses, will be ~2.1 (which is all we have to go on at the moment) meaning that Ledbury's population increase by then, and due to those houses, will be around 1700 whereas your claim that the population increase will be in excess of 3000 is based on FALSE assumptions

- what's more, and associated with the same statistic, is the fact that you incorrectly claimed that the household size would be 3.8 in order to try to exaggerate the claims for population expansion. This was made up of a statistic that stated that each family on average had 1.7 children. Even my 7yr old daughter could can see that a family with 2 parents and 1.7 children would not add up to 3.8 people, even if that did count as a household rather than a 'family'.

- you've also consistenly created "headlines" that describe your 'interpretation' of LOTS members' comments, often taken out of context, and often clearly intended to ridicule LOTS members and their beliefs in public and to sensationalise the issue inappropriately. Not only that, in the last few days you've twice had to accept that you were wrong about your comments yet the 'headlines' remain in place.

- so far you have provided absolutely no reliable evidence to suggest that the claims the LOTS members have made regarding the potential damage to the town centre of Ledbury will NOT happen; it's all been purely your opinion whereas LOTS have provided references that describe studies as well as independent opinion on places where similar schemes have occurred causing irreparable damage to the local traders and the community. Yet every time these references are posted you simply criticise them and claim them to be nonsense or not applcable to Ledbury, without providing any valid justification as to why that would be the case.

Contrary to your opinion on me, I have many pleasures in life but making you look small is certainly not one of those.

Unfortunately though this is a necessary evil; you publish so much misinformation on this portal and on your LESS page that someone needs to step in to counter that. If you feel that makes you look small I suggest you take a look at yourself and work out why someone pointing out the truth of your claims has such an effect.
Colin - re your insulting post to Mr Mc Cabe
20 Monday, 21 November 2011 20:06
Sarah Blenkinsop
After our recent exchanges on here I actually felt encouraged that I could have had further useful discussions with you, Colin.

But if you feel the need to descend to insulting other people in such a manner (Mr Mc Cabe is someone who I have never met, btw ) for no good reason I can see, I really don't feel I wish to continue to talk to you anymore.

The effect of your comments to/about other posters whether on here, or on Fb or wherever, spill over everywhere - and makes people, other than those whom you insult, feel unwilling to talk/engage with you.

You might try to remember that, before you write or otherwise say such stuff again.

(Edited at 0052 22/11/11
I note you have now deleted the offending post, but unfortunately the comments you made are not deleted from my mind.
Time Stamp
19 Monday, 21 November 2011 19:48
I apologise for the outburst, I lost my cool somewhat.
Mr Lever
18 Monday, 21 November 2011 18:29
John McCabe
Somewhere in your essay you wrote...

"Yes, profit to a corporate would go out of the Ledbury (and some find its way back to Ledbury inhabitants from pension funds and dividends on shares) but that’s different I suggest to the profit going to a local trader who does not live in Ledbury and whose profit is not distributed (much) beyond that trader's pockets. Where a local trader whose only employees are the proprietor(s) (and immediate family) and where all the profit goes to those person(s) and there is no real spin-off for Ledbury surely it cannot be successfully argued such local traders more deserving of support?"

So, has anyone here, LOTS or, more specifically, LESS (who are immensely critical of most of Ledbury's traders other than those who are members of the LESS Facebook group), actually analysed the benefit to Ledbury from the shopkeepers of the town?

It seems you are trying to put forth a view that, if the traders don't live in Ledbury, Ledbury doesn't benefit from their presence in town.
Rhyl Journal and Llandrindod Wells
17 Monday, 21 November 2011 18:11
Save Ledbury
Terribly sorry. The article was from the Rhyl Journal, but was about Llandrindod Wells.

Cllr Hodges is a Powys County Councillor and a longstanding trader on the Llandrindod High St. We had a long conversation with him. He said he was initially neither for nor against the Tesco superstore, and like other traders thought it might actually be good for the town, bringing in more customers and visitors and so on. Since Tesco arrived however the town has gone into free-fall. 'Come up here Monday to Thursday' he says, 'and it's like someone's let off a neutron bomb. There are simply no pedestrians on the streets. The situation is dire'. There isn't a single trader on the High Street that has not been badly affected. Some limp on, others have closed. Whatever, the town is changed utterly, much to the regret of local people, many of whom supported Tesco's arrival.

Post script on jobs: upon opening, Tesco promised about 200 jobs (most part time of course). Since then Cllr Hodges says that number has been halved.

We'll report back on our forthcoming trip to Llandrindod in a little while on
16 Monday, 21 November 2011 18:09
John McCabe
Mr Marschall, I'm intrigued by the timestamp issue myself but, as a software engineer, I understand a bit about computers and so on so assume it's related to the phone's DST/BST/GMT setting, which is currently set to "Automatic: Use network-provided values" so I guess it depends on my service provider ensuring that the phone's aware of what time-zone it's in and whether DST is enabled. Having uploaded the image to a PC and been able to analyse the actual EXIF data I can see it was, to be exact, 2011/10/15 14:21:23. You may be able to see it on Google Earth in a short time and see for yourself how 'crowded' the street is!

As for who your 'contacts' are, well, of course they are allowed their privacy but it's clearly very easy for me to say I also know quite a few shopkeepers in Malvern who think business has gone through the floor since the retail park was opened as long as I can hide behind the privacy card to avoid giving any proof!
Jobs & Jobs
15 Monday, 21 November 2011 16:42
Well Mr Lever I certainly don't understand the ins and outs of retail, but from what I have read from your post (and understand lol) I agree with you.
Jobs or jobs
14 Monday, 21 November 2011 15:21
Michael Lever
"Supermarket job claims are unforgivably misleading."

How very true.
Milk and Alcohol
13 Monday, 21 November 2011 13:55
Ray X
I went to Tesco last Thursday evening and I couldn't believe how quiet it was.

Plenty of space in the aisles, shelves well-stocked, no queueing. Easy shopping. It had that Co Op spaciousness to it.

I'll buy a few essentials there (bog rolls), but I wouldn't buy fresh fruit and vegetables, because they're not fresh and don't taste good, and I wouldn't buy their meat, because I don't know where it comes from (Hereford beef from South America!) and the hock burns you see on the chickens, that've been pumped up with water.

Supermarkets are best used for buying their loss-leaders - milk and alcohol.
12 Monday, 21 November 2011 12:12
Haggis - Standard procedure for new staff to be on a trial basis, especially in retail and I'd like to know what you feel is a "good" wage for school chidren (under 16) who should be concentrating more on their school work than earning money and also taking away employment from those who may need it more than they do. I agree it wuld be better all round if the number of jobs offered was a set figure, but I'm pretty sure any new business setting up wouldn't have a fixed idea as to the number of employees required. Any job in retail where you are "the face of the company" would expect you to greet the customers with a smile which includes the high street traders as well as the large companies. The three places I mentioned before showing their low wage, they are the hourly figures after completing 3 months trial, before that they were £5.95 (Clothes shop), £6.05 (Cafe) and cider company £6.20 .. how do I know this because my partner has worked at all three over tha last two years.

Mr McCabe - I've never heard of a phone that time stamps photographs a hour after they were actually taken .. I'd get that fixed if I was you, especially as most, if not all, phones have an automatic time updating system. I'd understand it a bit more if the photos had been taken at the end of the month around the time to put our clocks back and hour. As to giving you the names of the traders I know, why on earth would I do that .. isn't their privacy important.

Valerie - I've admitted to being wrong when shown to be wrong ie the land item, but as yet nothing else LOTS have said has convinced me that Ledbury doesn't need a new supermarket in, what is probably, the only obvious place for it. As to "having a go" at the traders then to some extend they don't really do themselves any favours, complaining about how their profits are down and that the store will "kill" them and then staying closed on some of the busiest times for Ledbury (August bank holiday, carnival, October fair), not reflecting the needs of families who work upto and past 5pm each day by adjusting opening hours, by charging over the top prices for certain items such as clothing. If these traders want more people to shop with them then they need to look at how they run their businesses not blame the world for some of their own created problems.

In the end Valerie is correct, these discussions are becoming more and more irrelevant, both sides are doing what they believe is right for Ledbury and its future and it is plain to see that neither side is going to change those views. Perhaps the best course of action is for us all to agree to disagree.

Sorry for the long reply.
Malvern Church Street
11 Monday, 21 November 2011 10:30
John McCabe
Mr Marschall,

For clarification/correction, the photo was actually taken at 2:30pm (my phone shows it as 3:30 but I'v checked on other photos from around then that also show 1hr later than they really were taken).

Feel free to take a photo of Ledbury High Street at 2:30pm on a Saturday AFTERNOON (I'm not aware of anyone who considers 3:30pm to be evening!). I'm often in Ledbury at that sort of time and there are certainly many more people there than I saw in Malvern that day. I'd been wandering around Malvern for over an hour by the time I took that photo and had seen far fewer people than I normally see in Ledbury on a Saturday afternoon.

Of course this was only one, specific afternoon....

I'm intrigued to know which traders you know in Malvern.
jobs etc.
10 Monday, 21 November 2011 09:54
Well, I have come to the conclusion that this whole thing is not about jobs. Sarah and Rich could not have made the employment case any clearer....I do not see any shortage of low paid part time retail jobs in Ledbury. My own daughter had no problem in finding one when she first came to live in Ledbury. Spar, Tesco and shops on the High Street often advertise for staff. This is about whether people want to retain the character of our High Street or not. The LESS people want to shop in a huge Superstore on their doorstep and the LOTS people are happy with our present supermarkets. A look at LESS FB page over the weeks and months show much negativity towards the traders in our High Street and what they sell. I feel that we all need to focus more on our own campaigns rather than on discussions that are not going anywhere ....Finally.... it can be a sign of strength of character to admit that we are wrong about something.
Up to 220 and a good wage?
9 Monday, 21 November 2011 00:24
It would be good if there was a breakdown so people could know, though up to 220 could shrink down, to less than 170 by the time the store was settled and any natural wastage people leaving etc.

Working on the checkouts, you’ll be the face of Sainsbury’s. So you’ll be expected to greet customers with a friendly smile and a pleasant word, really when you get paid this much:

Over 18's £6.21 per hr rising to £6.37 after 26 wks, under 18's £4.76

If you have ever worked in retail you will know its a hard slog for the money, self scan checkouts although they are there for people with little shopping but they are also taking jobs away from people, what do you have 4 in Tesco with one person responsible for them all.

The fact you look on the website, it may give a basic of £6.88 per hour, but no mention af a lower wage in the probationery period, or that of £4.76 for under 16's.
8 Sunday, 20 November 2011 23:20
Well at 3.30pm on a October evening I doubt you would even see that many on the streets of Ledbury, try going around 11.00am next time. I could quite as easily take a photograph of Ledbury high street at a certain time on a Saturday and there would be the same or even less than in your photographs. Its strange as I know a number of traders in Malvern and they have all informed me recently that while their profits are down they don't see the retail park as the problem, more the economic climate.
Full Time Jobs and Out of Town Superstores.
7 Sunday, 20 November 2011 23:07
Richard - I am more than happy to have a sensible discussion with you when you admit that all the figures etc quoted are not fact, they are figures etc based around "possibles". There is asbolutly no evidence to say that any of the things quoted by LOTS will happen in Ledbury and as with anything 'new' there is always a risk element involved. I will also have that discussion with you when you admit that there are towns who have not had any problems with OOTS, in fact there are towns who have seen increases in footfall.

Richard, even you have to admit that on any given day in Ledbury that there are few of the younger generation actually shopping (I include young parents in that as well)

Also on your point of finding an alternative site within Ledbury, surely this would increase the traffic within the town, thus more risk of damage being done to our historic buildings, one of the LOTS points against the OOTS. I'm sure Sainsbury's and Tesco's looked very hard for a place to build a new store within the town before even looking at out of town options and to my mind they just couldn't find one suitable.
6 Sunday, 20 November 2011 22:51
John McCabe
I was intrigued, having heard this sort of comment from Colin Marschall before, to such an extent that I took a photo down Church Street in Malvern at around 3:30pm on Saturday the 15th of October. I'm quite happy to email this photo to whoever's interested in seeing it as it shows the vast crowd of around 7 or 8 people who were present on the street that day. Furthermore I went from the town centre, via Malvern Link, to the retail park. On my way through the link on the Worcester Road I saw an even more impressive crowd of around 3 people in the vicinity of the shops.

Neither the town centre or the link could ever be considered "vibrant" on that showing, and that was a Saturday afternoon. However, when I go to the retail park, there weren't many car parking spaces available.
Full Time Jobs and Out of Town Superstores.
5 Sunday, 20 November 2011 20:16
Rich Hadley
"As I said Sainsburys have never said 220 full time jobs, they have alsways said upto 220 jobs, in what way is this misleading. It plainly states in black and white upto 220 jobs. "

...Because the real number of jobs, that is full time equivalent jobs, is being charitable, about a third of the headline number, that's 70 max. Sounds good...

But you have then to factor in the number of jobs that would be lost in the wider economy. I know, yawn, we keep quibbling over this, but it's important. The retail economy in Ledbury is not just about shopkeepers! It consists of suppliers (growers, farmers, producers etc) who depend on the local shops to sell their stuff, but also the people who support the High St (trades people, bookkeepers, printers etc), and the tourist industry (which is huge). There is also the fact that more of the money spent in local shops stay in the local economy. Money spent in supermarkets (any of them - including Coop) flows out of town.

The High Street works like an eco-system - it's interdependent, fragile but generally pretty effective (which is not to say improvements couldn't be made - let's talk!)

So - the CPRE research showed 500 jobs depend on Ledbury High St, so even if a paltry 15% were lost by the arrival of an out of town superstore (and that would be a very conservative estimate), the net jobs gain at Sainsbury's would be zero. Plus the other research which I've quoted ad infinitum is that 275 jobs are lost in a local economy when a superstore opens. I know, it's boring, gets in the way, and is a bit old - but hey: it's evidence! And nobody has disproved it.

Finally, I point you in the direction of Sainsbury's Thame PR web site: in it, they say:

"The Cattle Market is well located for a new food store as it is close to the town centre, in line with national planning policy, and is Sainsbury’s preferred choice rather than pursuing an out of town location. An out of centre store is less likely to encourage shoppers to visit the town centre as part of a ‘linked’ shopping trip."

Check out the web site:

Sainsbury's well know that out of town superstores reduce customer footfall on local High Streets. They are using that knowledge to get the thumbs up for their new store in Thame.

We have always said that we are not opposed to Tesco or Sainsbury - simply the location out of town, and the disproportionate size. And contrary to Mr Dudley's contention - there are demonstrably very good options for retail development in or near the town centre which would be entirely appropriate to pursue. Please can we now have a sensible discussion about where might be the best, or least damaging place for a new or expanded supermarket, if that's what we really have to have?
Full Time Equivalent Jobs
4 Sunday, 20 November 2011 14:17
As I said Sainsburys have never said 220 full time jobs, they have alsways said upto 220 jobs, in what way is this misleading. It plainly states in black and white upto 220 jobs.

The £6.88 they offer is still quite some way above what independant traders are offering, I assume that as you feel this is not a living wage that you will be lobbying those independant traders to raise their rates to £7.20 and hour as well.

Even one of the larger employers, a cider company, only pay some of their staff £6.50 an hour again less than Sainsburys are offering.
Full Time Equivalent Jobs
3 Sunday, 20 November 2011 12:00
Save Ledbury
Thank you Colin, precisely.

When Sainsbury claim up to 220 jobs, they know very well that this is a wholly misleading headline figure and that the true total of full time equivalent jobs is a fraction of this.

The claimed jobs total also includes a significant number of specialist staff brought into the store from other locations to handle management, HR, logistics, and finance. It also includes all the delivery and other contract staff who will be servicing the store, again - located externally at regional offices.

The only point we are trying to make here is that Sainsbury and Tesco are deliberately exaggerating their job creation claims. The reason we used the word 'unforgiveable' was because this kind of PR flannel is manipulative and unethical. It raises people's hopes purely to win support from hard-pressed working people.

On the pay question, nobody can seriously be claiming that £6.88 per hour is a living wage. Please read this quote:

"Debbie Walker, a checkout worker who had travelled from Ellesmere Port, near Liverpool, said it was "shameful" that King collected pay and bonuses of £3.24m last year while she struggles to get by on £6.71 an hour after 15 years of loyal service. "I've had no pay rise for two years, and we're facing no pay rises in the future," she said. "I don't really have enough money to live on. I get paid just 40p more than my daughter, who only started this year. What's that for loyalty?"

The Unite union is calling on Sainsbury's to pay its staff a "living wage" of £8.30 an hour in London and £7.20 outside the capital. The union points out that Sainsbury's is lagging behind rival Tesco, which pays staff a minimum of £7 an hour." (Guardian 13/7/11)

Full time positions
2 Saturday, 19 November 2011 23:15
Sorry forgot to add this to my other comment. It has already been stated that Sainsburys cannot give a firm figure on the fulltime jobs as it is dependant on the hours people want to work, which to me is a very flexible attitude, if the majority want only 10 hours then there will be more jobs avaialble, if the majority want 30+ hours then there will be fewer jobs. I've also seen a number of comments relating to the "low pay" that Sainsburys offer, as of July 2011 Sainsburys hourly rate is £6.88, 80p an hour over the goverment minimum wage rate of £6.08. Sainsburys have also scrapped the 16-18 rate, so that even their 16 year old employees recieve the same rate as a 20 year old. I will also add that this rate (£6.88) is higher than many of the traders offer in the high street, two examples I can give, a clothes shop offers £6.08 and a cafe offers £6.25 per hour, with 16-18 year olds less than those amounts.

While I agree there has been an increase in self scan systems, these are mainly designed for people with only a small amount of shopping, this offers a much better service option for those people who only have a small amount to purchase. I would say that the supermarkets would suffer a customer backlash if they tried to install only self scan systems, as what happened when Safeway tried to introduce the hand held scanners that you used as you shopped .. a short lived idea.
Sainsburys are not fools and know that the till operator is an important part of what they offer to the customer.
More Jobs - or Less?
1 Saturday, 19 November 2011 22:50
As quoted many times before this was the case in Malvern when the Retail park opened and when Waitrose opened .. but .. once the novelty of somewhere new had worn off the high streets saw a return to normal with some businesses actually reporting an increase in footfall and profit.
You only have to visit one of the three main high streets in Malvern to see that they are vibrant with many more people than on any equivalent day in Ledbury.