While Christmas was better for retail than many had first feared, the start of 2023 has been marred by a wave of job losses in the sector.
Less than two months into the year, the number of roles axed and lost through efficiency drives or company collapses totals 15,000 – a “brutal start to the year”, in the words of the Centre for Retail Research.
The latest casualty this week is Paperchase. The stationer has closed all of its stores, at the cost of 900 jobs, adding to the growing unemployment list left over from the collapse of the likes of M&Co.
At Asda and Tesco, operational changes such as new shift arrangements and the closure of serviced food counters have added to the total. Jobs are also under threat at Wilko and at a New Look distribution centre.
“Tesco has 3,912 open roles, which is equivalent to more than a quarter of all the retail jobs lost across the industry since the start of the year”
For those affected, it is a brutal time, as the lives and careers of individuals are thrown into turmoil. It is right that the loss of jobs should be highlighted, recorded and questioned. However, there is a little bit of not seeing the wood for the trees.
The retail jobs picture is not nearly as bleak as it may appear – and that matters. There is a real danger of the industry being talked down – if it’s not the effects of the pandemic, it’s the aftermath; if it’s not Christmas turkey supply fears, it’s the rationing of fruit and veg; and if it’s not labour shortages, it’s job cuts.
In fact, retail employment numbers might be thought to have held up surprisingly well considering the challenges the industry has navigated. The most recent figures available from the Office for National Statistics, for the third quarter of 2022, showed the number employed in retail to be just over 3 million.
That is a year-on-year decline of 60,000 and about 30,000 fewer than pre-pandemic. That is pretty remarkable bearing in mind the demise in the intervening period of big names such as Debenhams and Arcadia.
Fewer jobs, better jobs
While some retail jobs are sadly going, there are plenty of openings. The Original Factory Shop, for instance, is guaranteeing interviews to the staff at Wilko and New Look who may face redundancy.
Tesco, according to its careers website, has 3,912 open roles ranging from in-store starter jobs to software development engineers. That is equivalent to more than a quarter of all the retail jobs lost across the industry since the start of the year.
Setting aside any company-specific reasons for job losses, it has been envisaged for some time that overall retail employment would fall. Back in 2016, the BRC signalled that “fewer but better jobs” would be the trend of the coming years.
The BRC raised the prospect that there would be almost 1 million fewer jobs by 2025 and noted there had been a decline in retail employment since 2008 as transformation engulfed the industry.
“During the cost-of-living crisis, pay has rocketed up the agenda and competitive rates are seen as key to recruitment and retention”
While there may be fewer jobs, there are certainly questions about the extent to which some are better or whether customers are better served. The need to control costs and find efficiencies will no doubt lead to further change.
But while jobs have been cut, retailers are increasingly keen to recognise their frontline staff with higher pay. During the cost-of-living crisis, pay has rocketed up the agenda and competitive rates are seen as key to recruitment and retention.
Only this week, Tesco raised its hourly pay rate for store staff from £10.30 to £11.02. It was the third such increase in less than a year and brought the combined investment in hourly pay over the last year to £450m.
Important as it is to recognise the significance and effect of unemployment, and without donning rose-tinted glasses, retail job loss tales of woe mask a happier employment story and the industry’s ongoing significance as a vast employer should not be needlessly talked down. In uncertain times, more than ever, a sense of perspective is needed.























1 Reader's comment