2 minute read
THE WEEK IN RETAIL ISSUE 38
EDITOR’S COMMENT
COVID CHALLENGES MASK A DEEPER PROBLEM
The decision by the majority of the big supermarkets and discounters to refuse admittance to their stores to anyone failing to wear a face covering is, on the face of it, a very responsible and sensible thing to do. Fair play. But like most things Covid-related, there’s a little more to it than that if you go digging.
The political pressure being heaped onto retailers, particularly the big boys, has been mounting for some time with increasingly frequent rumblings from politicians, industry observers and assorted commentators, all questioning whether letting shoppers go to the supermarket whenever they like is wise and whether the supermarkets themselves are doing enough in and around their stores to prevent spread of the virus. It’s a fair enough question. Supermarkets are one of the very few places where shoppers can go more or less at will. But this is clearly not an issue that the supermarkets want to get any higher up the political agenda.
So you could be cynical and argue that the decision to refuse access to customers without face coverings is entirely self-serving. And the fact that virtually every supermarket made exactly the same announcement within 48 hours of one another could be viewed with some cynicism, or at least a raised eyebrow, if you’re that way inclined.
The other issue, of course, is one of policing – this time with a small ‘p’. Ostensibly, by banning shoppers without face coverings, the supermarkets are agreeing to stop customers breaking the law. But this could easily be viewed as the thin end of a very thick wedge. In real-world practical terms, retailers of all sizes are already charged with policing all sorts of legislation. It’s not difficult to argue – and many including the BRC have already done so – that stopping people breaking the law is the job of the Police, with a capital ‘P’ – not of local retailers and their staff.
With in-store violence and abuse at record levels, is it really correct and desirable that store staff across the country, often earning minimum wage, should have to risk verbal and physical abuse just to do a job (policing customer behaviour) that isn’t legally theirs in the first place?
But the precedent has now been set by the supermarkets and it will be a very tricky task to put that genie back in the bottle.
