By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:28 - Sep 29 by Wolfshead
Don't have anything more specific than that, other than people need to be encouraged to get out to work (and that includes better support for single parents for example) rather than claiming welfare.
There are 700,000 vacancies all of which will require experience and/or qualifications.
There are many more than that not working, and I imagine the vast majority will not have sufficient experience or qualifications for the vast majority of those jobs.
Then there are people like the over-50s who might have experience and/or qualifications but many of whom appear to struggle to get another job if they lose their job. No doubt they will have to draw down their savings before they are entitled to benefits, but are you suggesting they shouldn't get benefits then and so end up destitute?
The problem for me is that people in receipt of benefits have been demonised when the supposed solution (cuts) is far too simplistic.
But then again, it has always been thus with corresponding expressions like the undeserving poor going back decades if not centuries.
[Post edited 29 Sep 20:58]
3
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:58 - Sep 29 with 1096 views
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:10 - Sep 29 by Cafe_Newman
I loathe self checkouts for the reasons you give, but you can do some things to prevent these job losses.
Insist on using the manned-checkouts, even if it means queuing. Alternatively, be old and doddery when you do use the self-checkout. Literally take 20-30 to check out and slow up the checkout process - if enough people do this, people will stop shopping at these places.
Appalling confession, but I’ll live with the fallout…
Our local Waitrose had a total refit, pared the staff level down to the bare minimum and installed a load of these self service things about 18 months ago.
To start with, the queues were ridiculous whilst one poor frazzled employee had to police all twelve of them, authorising the alcohol and dealing with the unexpected item in baggage area nonsense and the people who hadn’t pre-weighed their fruit & veg….
The result…
They reduced the sensitivity of the scales and now you can get away with tons of unscanned items and no one verifies your bag of ‘pre-weighed’ spuds that might actually be avocados, tomatoes-on-the-vine or peppers…
It must be costing them a fortune in lost stock, but they’ve clearly decided it’s more financially beneficial than paying another x4 employee salaries…
For our older readers, dear old Callis would definitely approve….
Sometimes I giggle about the frothing lunatic who’s put me on ignore and now has to constantly log out to see what I’ve said. Beneath that counterfeit persona lurks the same pitifully desperate egomaniac.
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:55 - Sep 29 by FrimleyBlue
Number 1 on his agenda should have been the removal of self checkouts from all stores.
Thousands of jobs lost in supermarkets for those with disabilities who relied on checkout work & thousands of jobs lost for young people who started off working in places like KFC, sainsburys etc etc now replaced by screens.
250,000 jobs have been lost due to self checkouts. 751,000 16-24 unemployed currently.
by 2030 it's projected that 75% of hotel jobs will be replaced by automated systems too
Tesco have added over 100000 workers while improving productivity in the last 20 years. They just don’t work on tills anymore.
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:58 - Sep 29 by Bigalhunter
Appalling confession, but I’ll live with the fallout…
Our local Waitrose had a total refit, pared the staff level down to the bare minimum and installed a load of these self service things about 18 months ago.
To start with, the queues were ridiculous whilst one poor frazzled employee had to police all twelve of them, authorising the alcohol and dealing with the unexpected item in baggage area nonsense and the people who hadn’t pre-weighed their fruit & veg….
The result…
They reduced the sensitivity of the scales and now you can get away with tons of unscanned items and no one verifies your bag of ‘pre-weighed’ spuds that might actually be avocados, tomatoes-on-the-vine or peppers…
It must be costing them a fortune in lost stock, but they’ve clearly decided it’s more financially beneficial than paying another x4 employee salaries…
For our older readers, dear old Callis would definitely approve….
We’ve a Waitrose, sains, Lidl, Tesco and Morrisons local to us.
I use the first three and avoid the last two unless there’s an emergency.
Our Sainsbury’s now has a scales where you plonk your fruit or veg in the bowl and it identifies it weighs it prices it and prints out your barcode.
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:58 - Sep 29 by Bigalhunter
Appalling confession, but I’ll live with the fallout…
Our local Waitrose had a total refit, pared the staff level down to the bare minimum and installed a load of these self service things about 18 months ago.
To start with, the queues were ridiculous whilst one poor frazzled employee had to police all twelve of them, authorising the alcohol and dealing with the unexpected item in baggage area nonsense and the people who hadn’t pre-weighed their fruit & veg….
The result…
They reduced the sensitivity of the scales and now you can get away with tons of unscanned items and no one verifies your bag of ‘pre-weighed’ spuds that might actually be avocados, tomatoes-on-the-vine or peppers…
It must be costing them a fortune in lost stock, but they’ve clearly decided it’s more financially beneficial than paying another x4 employee salaries…
For our older readers, dear old Callis would definitely approve….
Our local coop has just installed them. They went one better and didn’t install any scales at all, so it’s all on trust only. Which is probably ok where we are in fairness.
The human side is the loss. It’s a small local coop in a village, so the only shop bar a post office 0.5ml walk away on the other side of the village. And there’s a lot of elderly people around and it’s a generally pretty social place. The tills were always a place where people could see a familiar face and have a bit of a chat. It took no longer than self-scanning. It was a lot quicker than many people are trying to work out how the scanners work. One worker there who was doing some hours part time after retirement and seemed to know everyone has already left.
It’s the human cost of these things. It’s no quicker, more hassle for us and you lose the human connection. That may not be such a big thing in big towns and cities where people don’t talk to each other anyway, but in places like here it’s huge.
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:28 - Sep 29 by Wolfshead
Don't have anything more specific than that, other than people need to be encouraged to get out to work (and that includes better support for single parents for example) rather than claiming welfare.
You realise most of the welfare bill is pensions, right?
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:53 - Sep 29 by Swansea_Blue
He’s a breath of fresh air already after the last idiot who wasted a massive majority for two years. I’m in agreement with the OP. At least there’s the start of a coherent vision with some ambition. There’s been some decent easy wins announced so far but the hard work’s still to come. I suspect they’ll fall short of what they’re aiming for, but at least they’re thinking about some of the big challenges (not all; the environment’s barely been addressed yet bar the already discussed water co privatisation). It’s not all about the cost of living, so I hope they’re good at multitasking!
The proposal for a publicly owned Great British Grid is intended to speed up connections of wind and solar farms amongst other things so that is a further environmental plus point.
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess.
[Post edited 30 Sep 4:16]
-3
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 04:36 - Sep 30 with 712 views
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:14 - Sep 30 by TownieRob
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess.
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:14 - Sep 30 by TownieRob
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess.
[Post edited 30 Sep 4:16]
Giving aid abroad is a long-term gain for the uk, promotes better global health, helping prevent global pandemics & reducing migration?
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:31 - Sep 29 by J2BLUE
It is, and he may well know that he's planning an election for early next year which would make it a much shorter window.
I'm sure Reform will start trying to whip up pensioners into a frenzy claiming they are being screwed.
There seems to be an increasing recognition amongst pensioners that things are broken and do need to change so I have faith in them to accept a bit of a hit for the greater good.
‘Just managing’ pensioner here who agrees with your last paragraph.
A PM and party with actual joined up thinking have been a desperate need for the UK for the last 1.5 decades. Thank heavens if one has finally landed, better late than never.
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:14 - Sep 30 by TownieRob
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess.
[Post edited 30 Sep 4:16]
Good grief, a socialist party proposing a socialist solution, who would'ha thunk it ?
Note that there was also a lot of space for responsible private enterprise in the speech (and companies with stands at the conference, Rolls Royce for example) and exhortation for people to get into work or to enhance skills and perform at a more skilled level. None of this is easy but all of it is necessary.
The triple lock question is difficult (and the proposed solution is really the replacement of an ultimately unaffordable triple lock with a more rational triple lock that doesn't walk in lockstep with the earnings of those still in work) but we have been hearing for years from younger people about how unfair they find it (and there were also proposals to address the problems that student loans are making for prospective house buyers in the speech) and at last someone has addressed that. Also, the current triple lock is not disappearing overnight, that change is more than five years away. Enough time to get a comprehensive social care programme that doesn't see pensioners stripped of their savings, and having to sell the house they hoped to leave for their kids, in place. As someone who has been getting a state pension for six years now but doesn't expect to be in care anytime soon I still find these changes acceptable.
And would you prefer three billion a year given in aid to Ukraine or a hundred billion a year spent on extra defence spent on creeping tacit invasion of our shores by an emboldened, and no longer socialist Russia ?
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:14 - Sep 30 by TownieRob
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess.
[Post edited 30 Sep 4:16]
So you want socialist solutions to problems caused by right wing incompetence and greed, but without the socialism?
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:14 - Sep 30 by TownieRob
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess.
[Post edited 30 Sep 4:16]
"Sorry, but this screams socialism to me."
Have you considered that his target audience might actually want a bit more socialism after decades of rampant capitalism have left the country in a right state?
"He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?"
The triple lock is unsustainable in reality.
From the OBR:
"The Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed to the triple lock as one of the factors contributing to the unsustainability of the public finances. It predicted that about 9% of GDP would have been spent on state pensions by 2075/76 if the triple lock had remained in place – that’s up from 5% currently."
The changes still maintain an inflation linkage and baseline. I do understand this is a difficult and emotive subject though given people have paid all their lives for their pension.
I don't see any good argument against nationalising water, it's been totally mismanaged by the private sector for decades. You're upset about money going abroad but seem happy to have privatised water companies sending huge dividends abroad whilst not even providing a basic level of service to the country which seems strange to me.
"Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. £662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they. £6bn on 'climate finance' over three years. £146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan. £165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had."
- Funding the Ukraine helps restrict Russia whilst we get our armed services up to scratch. - The boats are slowing hugely, the numbers support this. - Climate is one of the most important things we should be focusing on. - I have no issue with the foreign aid to these countries but that could be debated. Sudan for instance was exploited by the UK during colonialism. - This is a longer term negioation that has been ongoing and a remenant of colonial land grabs.
"I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after."
None of these things were sorted under the Tories, why do you think more of the same will work? The heating allowance policy was reversed, why are you citing it?
"I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder"
The classic "fix the waste in the NHS", something that once again hasn't happened over the recent more right leaning governments. We are taxed lower than many countries in Europe, this narrative that we can't tax a bit more doesn't stack up to any real metrics in comparison to similar countries.
Totally agree we should tackle the issues you've cited but perhaps that needs a new methodology and I'm willing to hear about that given nothing has worked.
"All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess."
This isn't true though, it's a manifesto point for the next GE. No promises have been broken, if people don't like it they don't have to vote for it. I think we are at the point now where a lot of people are willing to try something different. Hopefully any future manifesto will also contain a pathway to re-joining the EU.
SB
Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy
1
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:46 - Sep 30 with 508 views
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 04:36 - Sep 30 by Benters
I remember some of you (not necessarily you) saying Starmers speech was ‘Statesman like’ and look where it got him!
This ‘Andy’ bloke is worse than Starmer and that takes some doing.
I may be biased given my wife and her family are Everton fans and her grandad was born in Everton, but surely it is better to have a PM who is an Everton fan rather than an Arsenal fan?
[Post edited 30 Sep 8:12]
0
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:48 - Sep 30 with 499 views
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:17 - Sep 30 by WeWereZombies
Good grief, a socialist party proposing a socialist solution, who would'ha thunk it ?
Note that there was also a lot of space for responsible private enterprise in the speech (and companies with stands at the conference, Rolls Royce for example) and exhortation for people to get into work or to enhance skills and perform at a more skilled level. None of this is easy but all of it is necessary.
The triple lock question is difficult (and the proposed solution is really the replacement of an ultimately unaffordable triple lock with a more rational triple lock that doesn't walk in lockstep with the earnings of those still in work) but we have been hearing for years from younger people about how unfair they find it (and there were also proposals to address the problems that student loans are making for prospective house buyers in the speech) and at last someone has addressed that. Also, the current triple lock is not disappearing overnight, that change is more than five years away. Enough time to get a comprehensive social care programme that doesn't see pensioners stripped of their savings, and having to sell the house they hoped to leave for their kids, in place. As someone who has been getting a state pension for six years now but doesn't expect to be in care anytime soon I still find these changes acceptable.
And would you prefer three billion a year given in aid to Ukraine or a hundred billion a year spent on extra defence spent on creeping tacit invasion of our shores by an emboldened, and no longer socialist Russia ?
It's not either/or. Nobody's saying let Russia walk in. But £3bn a year 'for as long as it takes' is a blank cheque with no end date and no exit plan. The hundred billion is a guess about what might happen, while the £3bn a year is real money going out now, with no end in sight. Why is it on us so much? Plenty of European countries sit a lot closer to Russia than we do. Let them step up more.
On the triple lock, I get the argument about fairness to younger people. My issue is trust. 'Five years to get social care sorted' is what we've heard for twenty years. So forgive me if I don't hand over pensioners' future rises on the promise of a care service that doesn't exist yet.
Fair play to you for being fine with it, but not every pensioner is in the same boat. Plenty rely on the state pension alone, and every rise counts for them. Build the care service first, prove it works, then talk about changing the deal.
1
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:49 - Sep 30 with 480 views
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:55 - Sep 29 by FrimleyBlue
Number 1 on his agenda should have been the removal of self checkouts from all stores.
Thousands of jobs lost in supermarkets for those with disabilities who relied on checkout work & thousands of jobs lost for young people who started off working in places like KFC, sainsburys etc etc now replaced by screens.
250,000 jobs have been lost due to self checkouts. 751,000 16-24 unemployed currently.
by 2030 it's projected that 75% of hotel jobs will be replaced by automated systems too
Not only the job losses my friend, but the things are cr@p anyway. All packaged as something for customer convenience but just helps make the supermarkets and fast food gaffs more cash. Public duped again.
bluescouser
2
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:52 - Sep 30 with 462 views
Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:09 - Sep 29 by chicoazul
Tesco have added over 100000 workers while improving productivity in the last 20 years. They just don’t work on tills anymore.
In 2015 tesco employed over 500000 people. Thats fallen to 330000 today
58% of supermarket jobs used to be checkouts. Now its down to just 15%
As mentioned earler in thread. We knoe roles opened gathering orders for click collect and delivery. But those jobs are needed anywah due to the nature and advancement of the internet. If you had tbe same 58% of available jobs as checkout too that would be a really healthy set up for the uk. Many old/young or disabled people would have the opportunity to get a till job removing thousands of £s of benefit spending.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
