SHOCK RESULT AS DISCOUNT RETAILER BEATS TECH GIANT IN NEW LIST OF TOP EMPLOYERS
The Aldi graduate scheme is better than Google’s, according to the UK’s graduates.
The discount retailer has risen to number two in the prestigious Times Top 100 list of graduate employers, compiled using feedback from over 18,000 graduates. Google jumped from ninth place last year to third this year, but the tech giant was still beaten by the cut-price supermarket.
Since the league table was first published in 1999, no retailer has been ranked in the top two until this year. The news follows Lidl’s pledge to pay the Living Wage from October 2015, and Ikea’s promise to pay it from April 2016, suggesting the retail industry is finally tackling its reputation for being made up of low-paying, high-turnover employers that struggle to retain their staff long-term.
Aldi has been recognised for its highly regarded Area Management Programme, which offers successful candidates a starting salary of £42,000 (that’s well above the average graduate salary).
The Times Top 10 Graduate Employers (Source: The Times Top 100 Graduate Employers)
During the programme, graduates are given significant levels of responsibility and autonomy, and the opportunity to progress within the UK’s fastest growing retailer.
After a year’s comprehensive training, Aldi’s graduate Area Managers are expected to oversee and manage a portfolio of three to five stores, and provide direction and leadership to their store management teams.
Mary Dunn, Communications Director at Aldi, said the store relied on a strong pipeline of graduates to keep up with success the German store is having in the UK, and that successful candidates would be likely to stay with Aldi for many years to come:
“As a result of Aldi’s strong growth, it is imperative that we recruit high calibre graduates across the UK to oversee our store portfolio, and we will be recruiting 150 graduates during the upcoming academic year. Area Managers are fundamental to our business and we invest significantly in our training programmes so graduates enjoy a successful and rewarding career.
“The Area Management Programme is challenging and diverse, but offers significant opportunities for career progression — with the majority of current Aldi directors having joined the business as graduates.”
Graduate Fog wonders whether this shock result may indicate graduates being increasingly discerning about who they work for – and being able to differentiate between ‘cool’ brands and good employers. Our sources tell us that ‘several thousand’ people apply for Aldi’s graduate scheme, so the message is clearly getting through.
Full details of the Aldi Area Management Programme can be viewed at www.aldirecruitment.co.uk
* WOULD YOU RATHER WORK FOR ALDI OR GOOGLE?
What factors do you consider when deciding which graduate schemes to apply for? How important is it to work for a ‘cool’ company? And if you don’t apply for the big graduate schemes, what puts you off them?
Okay, I’m going to kick off! I’m really interested in this question: What exactly is the relationship between a firm’s consumer brand (how customers think of them) and their employer brand (how potential employees think of them)?
Generally, I think we tend to assume that the two automatically go together – people assume ‘good’ brands are also ‘good’ employers. But that isn’t always the case, as we’ve seen with popular fashion and media brands who pay very low wages and / or rely on unpaid interns (*waves to Arcadia and Vivienne Westwood*). Similarly, we often discover that some less strong brands are surprisingly great employers. (Aldi is a good brand, but I think we can all agree it’s no Google in the ‘cool’ stakes’).
I’m also interested in the idea that less cool or recognisable brands have to work a bit harder to gain the attention of graduates, and grow their reputation as a good employer. On the flip side of this, is it fair to say that cool brands are more likely to become complacent and allow themselves to coast, allowing their strong consumer brand to maintain interest from potential employees? (I have certainly found that these brands are less interested in sponsoring Graduate Fog! It seems they feel they don’t ‘need’ to…)
I also think it’s interesting to hear from graduates the a bad candidate experience (not hearing back about their application, or being refused feedback after a lengthy selection process) can make them feel negatively about that brand as a consumer.
Does anyone agree or disagree? Or have any examples of this consumer / employer brand clash that they’d care to share?
Surely, if such a list had been predicated with a modicum of common sense, “Google” would never have made the grade.
@Eowyn – what makes you say that?
Do ALDI also still have an obsession with 2.1 degrees?
@Tanya I think there’s truth in that. Desirable brands tend to have the attitude that they’re almost doing you a favour by allowing you to work for them. When I was a student our tutor told us about a bunch of graduates who went to do work experience at a well known TV channel. Apparently in the first week they made them do menial tasks like bringing tea and sweeping the floor. Lots of people dropped out, and on the second week the few who had stuck it out were offered (low) paid temp jobs because they’d “proven” that they really want to work there.
The way the tutor told it, it was meant to be a moral tale about how grit and hard work pay off. To me it just sounded like complete arrogance on the part of the employer. Yet some people would do anything, including working unpaid for months, just so they can say they’ve worked at X or Y.
On the other hand the likes of Aldi and Lidl have to work harder to attract graduates. While they’re large, established brands, they’re not exactly glamorous. No one grows up dreaming of a job at a budget supermarket. That’s why the graduate scheme has a fat salary and an Audi company car. However, I know people who have done the scheme and they say you really do work for every penny. They were doing silly hours – up to 80 a week and always had to be on call. If something went wrong at 3am in one of the supermarkets, they had to get there to sort it out. They had no leisure time at all and it took a toll on their health, so not many stayed on. Maybe some people enjoy that kind of pace but for me it’s not a sustainable job – I’d rather earn less and have free time to see friends and pursue hobbies.
@JC – When you ask whether Aldi still has an ‘obsession’ with 2:1s, I take it you’re asking whether they still ask for graduate applicants to have a 2:1 minimum degree? I just checked the website and it seems they do…
We ask for a minimum of 240 UCAS points, points from your top 3 A levels, excluding general studies, (or the equivalent accreditations such as BTECs and BACs). And, in terms of degree, we need a 2:1 in any discipline.
The 2:1 cut-off is controversial among graduates and some employers are scrapping it – Grant Thornton were first, then EY followed suit. Others say you can apply with less than a 2:1, if you can give a reason why you didn’t get that grade (illness or family circumstance, for example).
What exactly is your objection to employers like Aldi using a 2:1 cut-off? What would you say to anyone who says “Aldi’s scheme is very well-paid – don’t they have the right to demand top-notch academic results?”
@NV – Really interesting comment, thanks. And interesting to hear about your experience working at a TV channel – that does sound like a clear mismatch between the strength of the consumer brand and the reality of the employee experience 🙁
And I like your use of the word ‘glamour’ when talking about Aldi / Lidl – I think it’s spot-on (“While they’re large, established brands, they’re not exactly glamorous…”) I think ‘the glamour factor’ is probably more important than most people imagine when determining which employers graduates say they want to work for. It makes sense that glossier / more glamorous brands will be among the most desirable employers, but what if that image doesn’t fit the product / business itself? Aldi and Lidl are probably more stronger businesses than many of their glossier competitors, so it’s odd to think they are less naturally attractive employers. What can they do to prove themselves to be desirable employers to graduates, without alienating their core customers, whose priority is value for money?
PS On your point about being given menial tasks at the TV company.. Interesting to wonder whether this was a legitimate screening tool testing attitude, or just arrogance on the behalf of the employer, to see who wanted a job badly enough. Perhaps the truth is a bit of both? Also, I’ve just seen today that John Vincent, founder of restaurant chain Leon, cleans the toilets himself:
“I wouldn’t ask a team member to do anything I don’t do myself,” says Vincent, emphatically. “So I clean the toilets, I get on my hands and knees and scrub. I take the rubbish out. I do all of the crap jobs.”
Although I’d say he’s definitely in the minority – we don’t often hear of CEOs getting down on their hands and knees and scrubbing the bogs / working the tills, etc, do we?!
except top notch academic results don’t necessarily translate into a better class of employee. I also knew plenty of people with 1sts/2.1s who could not get work for ages either. People who get 2.2’s might have worked hard for their qualifications, I know I didn’t kick back and do nothing. Not all courses or unis are equal.
There was a reason for me perhaps not doing so well, but don’t see why I have to share my circumstances with complete strangers.
Rated top until you actually start them. I have a friend who got on the Aldi scheme. He currently works 60 hours a week, sees his partner once a month and wishes he could jack it all in and do what he actually loves doing, farming. But he can’t afford to and puts in the hours now in the hope one day he will be at director status, earn as much as possible then quit and buy a farm.
A lot of these schemes are ridiculous. Aldi expect you to go through endless online tests, send them videos of yourself it is 3 or 4 months of endless crap before most end up getting rejected.