Workers Leaving Retail Jobs in Record Numbers

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

34 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    Tight labor markets do reward workers. Sometimes.

    That said, I worry that this will hasten the death of in-person retail, and drive Amazon into a large portion of the workforce. Which won’t be good given what we know about their labor practices.

    One does have to wonder what Costco makes of all this, since they have traditionally had better pay and benefits then most other large footprint retailers.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

      Funny thing, my wife just started a management position at Costco. They seem to be weathering this all just fine,Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        Costco can offset the costs of higher wages with higher productivity because their high wages give them the pick of the litter. This is a good strategy. But it is not an infinitely replicable strategy.

        Also, selling in bulk with limited selection helps. They have a small fraction of the SKUs Walmart sells (a quick search says 4k vs. 100k, but I can’t vouch for that), and the bigger pieces makes stocking shelves easier. All this leads to more revenue per employee; Walker has about three times the revenue that Costco has with nearly ten times as many employees.

        It’s good to be Costco. But not every store can be Costco.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon says:

    I was reading something this morning about how many workers across the board (not just retail/service industry) are looking to change careers entirely.

    As for the service industry, although better compensation and work/life balance would go a long way, from what I hear anecdotally, a lot of the pain in those jobs is due to poor management. A good, competent manager who looks out for their employees can make or break a lot (and, likewise, corporate leadership that supports those kinds of managers).Report

    • Richard Hershberger in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      My experience working in retail is decades out of date, but for whatever it is worth, my observation at the time was that the suckiness of the job was due to a combination of bad management exacerbated by corporate cost-cutting. This was at Walmart in the early 90s. On the one hand, the store manager clearly had been promoted to her level of incompetence. She probably was fine as an assistant manager, but couldn’t keep all the balls in the air as store manager. But a lot of this was because the pressure from above was to keep employee hours down. Walmart enjoyed its early rise due to its early adoption of inventory management technology. That had run its course by the early 90s, as other retailers caught up. So by the time I was there, the strategy was a combination of squeezing suppliers, leading to the feedback cycle of crapification of its product, and reducing employee hours. On the store level the suppliers weren’t an issue, but the reduced hours very much was. The result was everyone being stressed out, as there simply weren’t enough hours to do what had to be done. This was before retailers got the bright idea of shuffling everyone’s schedule from one week to the next, making the experience of working there that much more undesirable. Poor management on the store level is certainly an issue, but the home office has to give the store level the tools to do their job.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        Yeah, that was why I included my parenthetical bit at the end. The best manager in the world can be undercut by idiot corporate policies.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        I’ve worked at non-service jobs where high rates of attrition were baked into the company plan by the powers that be. At one firm, the saying was you lasted 7 months, 2-3 years, or were a lifer. I lasted 7 months. This was the learning curve to get some confidence that I knew what I was doing. Amazon and Netflix apparently have high attrition by design as well.

        I think it is an inhumane way of organizing an economy/company but we are only at the start of the seachange against it as a philosophy. You still have plenty of people 40 and over who rose through the old-school boot camp way of doing things and are pissed as hell that someone suggests otherwise or differently. “I worked millions of hours and so should you.”Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    A million years ago, back in the 90’s, people like me got hired fresh out of college to do IT jobs because we could type. They found it easier to teach people how to do tech support than to teach them to type.

    Minesweeper and Solitaire were included in early versions of Windows to get people to learn to use the mouse.

    Companies were *DESPERATE* to hire people to do jobs. Desperate enough to hire philosophy majors.

    I heard stories of IT companies telling workers that they want to hire the workers’ significant others. They figured that that would get them a leg up for both training and retention, I guess. Which meant that I heard stories of people being elevated from crap non-IT jobs to crap IT jobs.

    And this kept happening until corporations discovered outsourcing.

    I look at this landscape and think “good”.
    And I wonder what the next outsourcing is going to be.Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    Another factor might be the abusive behavior of customers towards retail employees trying to enforce mask protocols, up to getting murdered on the job.Report

  5. Rufus F. says:

    Basically, I’m just agreeing with Oscar about management here. But looking back at the places I’ve worked that had high turnover, it wasn’t that the work was hard and the workers were lazy- the usual explanation from bad managers. It was okay work and the wages were okay, but it was murder on the hard-working, ambitious people because it absolutely made no difference how hard they worked. They were dead-end jobs with the emphasis on the dead-end part.Report

    • Bet in reply to Rufus F. says:

      I knew a guy who worked a warehouse.
      He did about 4 times the work that anyone else did. (Quantifiable: he was an entire crew).
      Made about twice as much as anyone else (under the table, naturally, because unions).Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Rufus F. says:

      Yeah, I’ve heard “people don’t quit jobs, they quit managers” and while there are a number of exceptions to this (mostly of the “I can get an X% raise here or quit and get another job over there and get a 3X% raise” variant), I’ve seen more people quitting bad managers than not.

      And I’ve seen a surprising number of people staying on at a particular job because of a good manager (despite only getting an X% raise even though they could quit and get a 3X% raise elsewhere).Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

        Last two jobs my wife worked, she left because of bad management. She was making a ton of money (especially for a middle aged woman with a Library degree), but management was causing her so much stress, the pay wasn’t worth it.

        She wasn’t shy about telling HR about it on the way out, either.Report

      • veronica d in reply to Jaybird says:

        My last job change was due to bad management. I actually took a (small) pay cut to get out of there.Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    Working in retail as you pointed out is generally a very hard job. I’m not really a BS job guy and I think every job as thankless, boring, annoying, and stressful aspects but service-sector jobs have really sucked hard since the recession, if not before. It doesn’t help that the bosses in retail appear to be among the most clueless and reactionary of the petit bourgeois who seem to think working for them is an honor and privilege.

    The laws of supply and demand work on wages as well but so many employers faced with a labor shortage seem unwilling to recognize that and their active mindset is hurt because they are not being flooded by beggars looking for jobs. There is also the fact that a lot of people who rise through the ranks of abusive employers tend to develop boot camp mentalities instead of wondering if things could be better.Report

  7. First college athletes and now former retail workers. What is it lately with people not understanding their place?Report

  8. Saul Degraw says:

    One of the things left uncertain by COVID is whether it will change the employment landscape or not. There was a poll that had 83 percent of the nation’s CEOs really wanting everyone in the office but lots of employees really like working from home. Whether this becomes a huge fight or not is yet to be seen. Bay Area tech companies are slow walking people back into the office but seem to be allowing for hybrid. If companies go hybrid or work for home, it will be likely devastating on the businesses that did coffee, breakfast, and lunch from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      We will find out at the end of July where the federal workforce is going. I suspect most agencies will be hybrids, and face time in person will continue to decline in major office complexes.Report

  9. North says:

    It is an absolutely fascinating situation from a raw economics perspective. Obviously employers will shriek and wail but there’s very little sympathy from the admin or the public at large to their cries right now. The obvious rejoinder of “If you want more applicants then raise your pay” is especially sweet since the same business folks wailing now always liked to quote economics at liberals in the before times.

    What is especially interesting/worrying to me is the question of price stability. Wail and cry though they may the employers will gradually jack up wages until they get enough bodies in the jobs- no doubt shrieking every step of the way. Retail and service, though, is simply not a high margin business. That means the wage increases -will- be passed on to the customers. There’s no ambiguity about that. What happens next is the big question. In older economics mass wage increases would mean mass increases in buying power and then increases in demand. If supply couldn’t keep up then we’d have the ol’ inflation dragon come rousing from its decades long slumber. This new economy, though, is a very different beast. My own Pollyanna like guess is that the classes up from baseline retail and service have enough financial extra that they’ll absorb the increased cost with only a marginal degree of grumbling. The environment is competitive enough that the bigger corps might even have to eat a lower profit margin as well. International economics figures in as well as the US greenback is pretty much the only game in town outside of the Euro for wealthy people to stash their fortunes in. Those are all counter inflationary factors.

    Still, it’s going to be fascinating to watch as supply chains crank up and everything starts moving again after the covid imposed shut down. Inflection points I’ll be watching for will be September when the UI benefits run out (I guarantee they’re not gonna be extended again) and the fourth quarter when all the bugs start getting really shaken out of the carpet. God(ess?) I hope we get a post plague boom time. It’d be so good for everyone and would really help our political mess too.Report

    • Philip H in reply to North says:

      Chipotle claims to have raised their base salary to $15 an hour with only a 4 % increase in prices per item. That suggests many things, not the least of which is that their profit margins are sufficient to absorb the cost.

      Frankly given that CEO pay is on the order of 300X the rate of average worker pay, I’m fairly certain that companies can find the funds they need to pay employees more.

      My main concern is what this whole shake up does to accelerate automation in traditionally people heavy businesses, and what that then does to the discussions of Universal Basic Income.Report

      • JS in reply to Philip H says:

        Way back during the ACA debate, the founder of Papa John’s stated that if he was forced to give all his employees healthcare, the price of a pizza would rise almost 30 cents.

        Not 30 percent. 0.30 dollars.

        For some reason, he thought this was a point that would resonate with the public and they would decry the thought of pizza employees daring to have healthcare.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to JS says:

          This thread shows that there is an audience for the “wages must be kept low! Whip the peons!” The audience is right-wing misanthropes but it is an audience.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

        Not a pundit I normally agree with, but occasionally Reich gets it somewhat correct.
        https://inthesetimes.com/article/robert-reich-chipotle-republican-party-labor-shortageReport

      • North in reply to Philip H says:

        I’m in general agreement with you but it bears noting that CEO pay is basically a non-sequitur on this subject. You could take every dime of money the CEO of any given company is being paid, give it to the frontline workers and they’d probably not get enough dough to gas their cars up each month.

        CEO pay is egregious for equality issues, for questions of corporate governance and questions about whether the shareholder voting/board of directors model is irredeemably captured by the monied set but it’s not enormously germane to the question of what the frontline workers are being paid.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

        One of the side effects of rising productivity is that the cost of any given item is comprised less and less of labor, and more and more on the cost of energy, transportation, and machinery.Report

  10. Marchmaine says:

    I’m not convinced (yet) that there’s anything meaningful about the employment situation that won’t revert back to the mean in sufficient time.

    So, my contrarian take is that if it *were* a meaningful inflextion point, it would behoove us to move past wages (which will fall) and into equity… keep wages where they are going to fall back to, but the truly innovative and bigger change would be to incent workers with fractional ownership of companies.

    Yes, this is my hobby horse, and I’ll keep flogging it until we get it.Report

    • North in reply to Marchmaine says:

      Well sure, but how to compel/convince any given company with its comfortable well paid and insulated c-suite to make such a dramatic change?Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to North says:

        Tik Tok?

        My Critical Economic Theory is that it isn’t enough to be a non-Exploiter, you have to be an Anti-Exploiter and I’m starting a movement.Report

        • North in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Well heck, I’m on board with that, I bet Uncle Bern would be interested in your newsletter too! Is it strictly social pressure on companies or is the foul hand of the state allowed to be used to encourage/compel such a change?Report