Currys' boss calls on govt to show it's serious about getting people back to work
Instead, he says, it is making employing staff 'riskier, harder and more expensive'.
5
Britain faces a worklessness crisis with three million on sickness benefits and a million young people not in education, training or employment.
Alex Baldock, chief executive of the electricals chain, points out that retailers are the biggest private sector employer and, along with hospitality firms, often give people their first jobs and help to get back into work with flexible, part-time roles.
But he believes these opportunities risk being cut off if the Government goes ahead with its shake-up of employment rights.
Mr Baldock said: 'The Make Work Pay reforms threaten the viability of the very jobs the Government wants to protect.
"Retailers need flexibility because shops are busier at some times than others.
'Saturdays are busier than Tuesdays and December is busier than February so we need to flex up and down how many colleagues we have on the shop floor accordingly.'
He says the biggest problem is demanding that firms give a contract to a worker based on average hours worked in the previous 12 weeks.
This could apply to those taking extra shifts in the run-up to Christmas.
Mr Baldock added: 'We'd end up paying for hours we don't need and can't afford.
"The result is we won't be able to offer them at all.
Millions hit by benefit cuts as Rachel Reeves warns 'if you can work, you should work!' in bid to fix 'broken system'
"The Government wants to protect workers, but workers need somewhere to work.
'The riskier, harder and more expensive it is for business to employ people, the fewer jobs there will be.'
Retailers have already been burdened with £7billion of extra costs following the Budget.
Mr Baldock highlighted that Currys makes just £1.80 of profit for £100 gadgets it sells, a thin margin.
He said: 'The Government said the Budget was an ugly necessity but these employment reforms are a choice.
"It's a choice they don't have to make.'
There is growing frustration that firms that could be hiring and expanding are being hamstrung.
Mr Baldock said: 'The Government is slashing red tape elsewhere and it's great to see them tackling planning reforms and leaning on regulators for growth.
"But the Employment Rights Bill is the odd one out.'
5
RAYE OF HOPE FOR GAMERS
BRITISH gamers could soon be thanking Donald Trump for helping them get their hands on sought-after Nintendo Switch 2 consoles.
Stock from China destined for the US is coming to the UK instead as firms try to avoid the President's trade tariffs — increasing supply of the hotly-anticipated gaming tech promoted by singer Raye and her sisters.
5
5
However, Currys boss Alex Baldock has warned that the move could also see Britain become a dumping ground for 'unsafe, tax-dodging tat'.
The Chancellor has announced a consultation into low-value imports after intense lobbying from retailers.
USE US, RACHEL.. DON'T HAMMER US
EVERYONE wants to get Britain back to work.
Three million people of working age are not working for health reasons.
A million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. It's a desperate — and unaffordable — waste of human talent.
Meanwhile, retailers such as Currys are the country's biggest employers.
We give first jobs to school leavers, part-time jobs to students and carers, and a way back to work for parents.
It doesn't take a genius to see the solution here.
Retailers create the good, flexible jobs tailor-made to get people back to work — and get the welfare bill down.
But just when the Government needs more people back into work, its actions pull the other way.
Retailers such as Tesco and B&Q have warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves the industry will have to employ 300,000 fewer people due to a barrage of new costs and red tape.
Retailers want to help, and we can.
Our ask of Government is simple: Enlist businesses like us, don't hammer us. Let us play our part in getting Britain back to work.
BUYING'S STAMPED ON IN DIP
HOUSE prices slipped in April as a stamp duty increase for buyers dampened demand.
The average property fell by 0.6 per cent to £270,752, according to Nationwide 's house price index.
5
The drop follows a rush of house sales in March, when buyers raced to complete their property purchases before the duty discount was scrapped.
Separate figures by HMRC show that the number of property transactions jumped by almost two thirds from 109,700 in February to 177,370 in March.
Karen Noye, mortgage expert at Quilter, said: 'Residential transactions jumped over 60 per cent compared to February as many were racing against the clock.'
An update from housebuilder Taylor Wimpey yesterday struck a positive tone, saying falling mortgate rates had boosted its new home orders.
A clutch of lenders is now offering home loans below four per cent.
UNILEVER PAY ROW
ALMOST a third of investors rebelled against a pay package for Unilever 's new boss.
Fernando Fernandez is set to receive a £1.5million basic salary and perks including £763,000 to move house.
He justified his salary as saying the company needed to recruit talent and highlighted the support of activist investor Nelson Peltz, who is on its remuneration committee.
Shareholder advisers at ISS had recommended investors vote against the pay package.
ASTON U.S. LIMIT
JAMES Bond favourite Aston Martin said it will limit deliveries of its luxury cars to the US due to Trump's tariffs.
The British firm has been hit hard by the 25 per cent rate on all foreign cars by one of its most lucrative markets as it makes its Vantage and Vanquish models in the UK.
Rivals Mercedes-Benz and Stellantis withdrew profit forecasts due to uncertainty.
Trump has offered relief to makers who can assemble vehicles in the US.
But firms are already under pressure in the shift to electric vehicles.
LOST LANGUAGE
DUOLINGO, the language learning service, is going to replace contract workers with artificial intelligence.
Boss Luis von Ahn said in an email to staff the company would 'gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle'.
As part of its 'AI-first' approach, Duolingo yesterday launched 148 new language courses that were created using generative AI.
Mr von Ahn said it had taken 12 years to create 100 courses, which have a gaming approach to lessons and exercises.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Church of England must stop feeling guilty about the Reformation
Thomas More has a richly ambiguous place in our religious and political history. Like a brave hero of conscience, he defied the will of a tyrant, even unto death. A herald of modern liberty, then? Not quite. Before he found himself on the wrong end of the axe, as Lord Chancellor he calmly sent many dissidents to their death. His cause was not modern liberty, but the defence of the old version of authoritarian order. The Catholic Church calls him a saint. He is back in the news because a church in Canterbury has said it wants to exhume his remains, which the Catholic faithful are obviously keen to venerate. The surprising thing is that this church, St Dunstan's, is Anglican. As a few GCSE students still know, the Church of England was launched by the very tyrant who ordered More's death, Henry VIII. Some well-meaning types will see it as a lovely sign of harmony between the old rival traditions, that an Anglican church wants to maximise the veneration of this Catholic martyr. I don't. To me it is a sign that the Church of England lacks self-confidence. It is inclined to apologise for its birth. It is hypocritical to honour a man who wanted to strangle the CofE in its cradle. Yes, there was a bloody side to the birth of our national Church. Revolutions are bloody. You can't make a holy omelette without breaking holy eggs. Maybe it could all have happened in a slightly nicer way, but it is good that it happened. The English Reformation was a good thing. More was on the wrong side of history. You might be neither Catholic nor Protestant, and feel you have no dog in this fight. But, if you care about the tradition of British liberty, you have a puppy in this fight. For that tradition was born here, in the rather brutal national take-over of the Church. Paradoxically, the Tudor tyranny paved the way for the first major liberal state. It was the Reformation that led to a break with the medieval unity of religion and politics, which was basically a form of theocracy. It used to be part of British identity, to have some awareness of this. The Church of England should try to rekindle that awareness. Instead it is crippled with guilt about its origins. This guilt explains its current failure to sort out its divisions. In a story that is seemingly unrelated to the remains of Thomas More, the bishop of Fulham was cross with a community choir that was borrowing his church this week. He came down in his dressing gown and told them to can it. The real significance of this story is an omission in the Times report of what happened. It tells us at the end that this bishop, called Jonathan Baker, 'is responsible for episcopal oversight in the dioceses of London, Southwark and Rochester.' It sounds as if he is therefore the chief bishop of these places, which puts him on a par with the archbishops of Canterbury and York. In reality, he is responsible for the episcopal oversight of parishes in these dioceses that reject the ordination of women. The Church of England is divided, with a sub-group of bishops running a church-within-the-Church. These traditionalist bishops effectively reject the spiritual leadership of the archbishops, often declining to receive communion from them. What's the link with the More story? The Church allowed this division to emerge due its guilt at the Reformation. A Church shouldn't impose unity and force tender consciences, so let's allow the traditionalists to have their own bishops. It was a weak-minded decision, which has opened the door to opponents of homosexuality now demanding their own bishops too. The Church is disintegrating because of its victor's guilt at the excesses of Tudor times. Let it rediscover some pride in its remarkable, if a little brutal, history. And let St Dunstan's donate the remains of More to the local Catholic church.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's Palestine recognition speech full of colonial arrogance
This week, three-quarters of a century later, the British Prime Minister affirmed the enduring truth of Sayegh's words. In the same breath that Keir Starmer declared statehood to be the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, he confirmed that British recognition will hinge on the actions of the Israeli state: Only if Benjamin Netanyahu and his government continue their campaign of ethnic cleansing will Britain join 147 other countries in recognising [[Palestine]] as a sovereign nation. Speaking in front of two large Union Jacks, the Prime Minister acted with the same colonial arrogance that motivated the British colonisation of Palestine in the early 20th century. Justifying that occupation before the Peel Commission in 1937, Winston Churchill said: 'I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time … I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.' READ MORE: Police remove pro-Palestine protesters from John Swinney's Edinburgh Fringe show Keir Starmer would never say such things. However, for as long as Britain uses Palestinian statehood as a bargaining chip and simultaneously supplies material aid to abet Israel's crimes, the Prime Minister channels Churchill's imperial logic: Dehumanise the Palestinians in order to justify the denial of their right to self-determination. In Gassan Kanafani's novella, Returning To Haifa, Said, the protagonist, asks his wife, Safiyya: 'Do you know what homeland is? It is where nothing like this happens.' Since October 2023, the Palestinian homeland has been decimated – 70,000 tonnes of explosives have been dropped on the Gaza Strip; 4000 buildings have been demolished in the Occupied West Bank. The conditions necessary for human habitation of that homeland have been systematically erased too. Gaza, the UN acknowledges, is now 'the hungriest place on earth'. As the direct consequence of intentional decisions by a nuclear power, the mass starvation of Gaza is, as Professor Adam Tooze points out, 'quite unlike that anywhere else in the world'. In Yemen, Sudan and Haiti – among the places where hunger is most acute – the share of the population at risk is between 49% and 57%. In Gaza, the share is 100%. The declared objective of Israel's genocide is to deny the Palestinian people even the hope of a homeland. Last week, the British state served that aim, conferring the right to decide Palestine's future not to the land's people, but to its illegal occupier. Deploying the language of universal human rights to strip the Palestinian people of their agency, Keir Starmer's duplicitous designs offer Benjamin Netanyahu an olive branch. By delaying any decision regarding recognition until the UN General Assembly meets in September, the British government has afforded the Israeli government six more weeks of impunity. Keir Starmer will only recognise Palestine as a last-ditch attempt to salvage what little faith remains in the 'rules-based international order'. To do so would involve committing the cardinal sin of humanising a population whose erasure the British state has licensed, supported and participated in for decades. If the British state is to concede that Palestinians, like the rest of the world, have the right to self-determination, then Keir Starmer and his Cabinet have a series of uncomfortable questions to answer. To this day, imperialism's serial dispossession of the Palestinians has rested on the explicit understanding that they do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. The question of recognition – and Keir Starmer's attitude to it – forces this contradiction to the surface for all to see. Since last year's General Election, the question of Palestine has posed serious challenges to the Labour leader's premiership. Confronted by a mass movement to end Israel's genocide, the Prime Minister has taken every possible step to evade accountability – including the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Last week's announcement is no different. The foreign policy of the British state – which has conducted more surveillance flights over Gaza than even Israel – is not, as far as our government is concerned, up for debate. Indeed, Britain's subjugation to the United States is such that the interests of imperialism have always sat outside the realms of our democracy. By cynically gesturing toward recognising the Palestinian state, Keir Starmer hopes to ease popular domestic pressure while not straying from the broad position of the Trump administration. The Palestine solidarity movement can have no truck with such colonial parlour games.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Is age verification being used right in Online Safety Act?
Chelsea Jarvie, who is finishing up a PhD in online age verification, said the technology brought in to support the implementation of the Online Safety Act needs to be 'urgently' looked at as she accused ministers of failing to 'read the room'. She added that the legislation in isolation will not be enough to protect children online, and the Government had "work to do" to balance children's safety with public trust in the technology available. The legislation has sparked a huge backlash since it came into force on July 25. It mandates that websites verify users' age – often using facial recognition or photo ID – before granting access to adult content such as pornography, violence, or material on self-harm and eating disorders. READ MORE: Revealed: The full text of SNP's independence strategy But while the sentiment may seem well-intentioned, major websites such as Reddit, Instagram and Wikipedia have been caught up in the storm, with the latter launching a court case against the UK Government as it argues the legislation will hurt collaborators. Nearly 470,000 people have signed a petition calling for the act to be repealed. Jarvie, who has been doing her research at the University of Strathclyde, said the UK is attempting to take ID-checking methods from the physical world and expecting them to work in the digital one, when trust in both the Government and cybersecurity is at an all-time low. 'The public don't want to be giving up their ID because they're concerned about security, privacy, surveillance, and there is a general lack of trust in the Government,' she told the Sunday National. 'So I think the Government has come at this from the perspective of 'we all want to keep children safe and so people will give up their ID in order to meet that goal', and they've just not read the room at all on what adults actually want from their own internet experiences. 'I think people do want online safety for children, but do they have to give up their ID or their face or their privacy for that? No, I don't think that they should. (Image: Supplied) 'We're essentially trying to take the methods that we use in the physical world to do ID, where we look at someone's face or we check their documents, and we're trying to replicate it in the digital world, and that, for me, is not the right approach. 'We need to be more innovative and thinking out of the box of how the internet works – the fact it's dynamic, we're served algorithmic content and have a much slicker and more effective way of telling whether someone is an adult or a child and guiding them through their internet journey that way.' While she said facial age verification has its place, there should be more options for people to anonymously confirm their age. "We should have more options people can choose if they want an anonymous method," she went on. "I don't think the technology options are available to meet everyone's needs and wants right now." The legislation has come into force in the wake of major brands such as M&S and Harrods being victims of cyberattacks, putting the public on edge about giving sensitive information away online. Not only are there privacy concerns, but the public have also been angered at being blocked from accessing legal content and many have turned to downloading virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow users to appear to be browsing from countries with looser rules. While Jarvie believes the UK Government's goal of trying to ensure children do not stumble across harmful content will largely have been achieved, the legislation alone will not make the internet safer for children. Asked if she felt age verification was being used in the right way, she said: 'I think the Government has brought something in and put a stake in the ground to say 'this is what we're going to do with online age verification to make the internet a safer place', but the legislation itself is not going to make the internet a safer place for children. 'There's so much more needed. READ MORE: Erin Brockovich joins forces with Scottish university to launch course 'It's one of the things I'm writing about in my thesis, is that on the internet we need layers of care around a minor. Age verification has come in as one control but you have so many other things you'd need to put in place to really make the internet a safer place, and that includes education for everybody. 'Have they [the UK Government] done the right thing? I think prioritising online safety from a legislative perspective, yes, but in practice, the technology that is there, the sentiment of the public, the collaboration between Government and public, I think is not right.' Jarvie added she felt engagement between the public and Government on the legislation had been 'seriously lacking'. 'I think the technology to support the regulation needs to evolve and we need to look at what people are saying, how they're now using VPNs, and looking at what it is they want and need and how we meet those requirements,' she went on. 'I also think there's a huge amount of trust and engagement needed between the public and the Government on this, you cannot just force it out on the basis everyone is going to do it because they care about online safety for kids because that's clearly not enough.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'This self-proclaimed expert is wrong. The Online Safety Act protects children without sacrificing people's privacy. 'Under the law, platforms are required to verify users' ages using secure, privacy-preserving methods that avoid collecting or storing personal data. 'The Information Commissioner's Office has significant enforcement powers to hold platforms accountable, including the ability to impose severe fines on services that misuse personal information. All online services – regardless of where they are based – must adhere to UK data protection laws.'
