Reply With QuoteWell done John Lewis. Love John Lewis and Amazon.
Department store group John Lewis has announced a 17% bonus for staff after reporting a rise in profits.
The partnership, which includes Waitrose supermarkets, said it made pre-tax profits of £409m ($613m) last year - a rise of 15.8%.
John Lewis is owned by its employees, meaning some of the profits are paid as bonuses every year.
This year's bonus is up from the 14% paid out last year, with this year's bonus pool worth £210m.
Unlike our fatcat bankers and captains of industry, the employees will recieve a bonus for increasing profits through great customer care.
Well done John Lewis. Love John Lewis and Amazon.
It's not a question of other companies being "Fat Cats", it's about them being publically owned with shareholders. I do like John Lewis though.
Amazon can go whistle - once they pay some tax I'll be more inclined to sing their praises.
The right way to do business.
Ditto.Originally Posted by kungfugerbil
As a retail model John Lewis is hard to beat,
Another who likes John Lewis, especially their customer service which has always been top notch in my experience. Amazon on the other hand could learn a lot on how to treat their staff, pay their taxes and still make a profit.
I did some work with JL a few years back on a project which also involved a large bank, general insurance company and a life company. Really interesting being a mediator between the parties as they all spoke very different languages... JL were all about the customer journey - everything focused on viewing the work from the customer's perspective. The bank, much, much less so. The GI company just seemed confused by the whole thing.
A great model - High Quality products, Quality service and customer care. And shared rewards.
A poke in the eye to those who'd have the UK run like Poundland rather than John Lewis, ie cheap goods cheap labour cheap rights.
Careful all, this is verging on commie talk.
And as for the Co-Op and the way they share their profits around amongst their customer members, well they are worse than North Korea. Probably.
So clever my foot fell off.
Co-Ops another great company, shop there regularly.
Last edited by number2; 7th March 2013 at 15:08.
My wife works for JL ...
Ah, but how much tax? A totally random amount? 10 pee? Any other amount specified personally by you, that everyone agrees with? Or the amount the taxman wants, which is what they have paid obviously, since they're not being chased for it?
Sort your own tax laws out first - then go after people who don't pay.
Last edited by andrew; 7th March 2013 at 15:32.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Amazon is being pursued by the US and France for unpaid taxes, being investigated by HMRC and admits themselves that they may be subject to back taxes since 2003. In three years from 2009 to 2011, Amazon earned more than £7bn in the UK but paid just £2.3m in corporation tax - they knew that wasn't going to fly... They very much are being chased for it - their SEC filings since 2011 have stated that they are being investigated by HMRC.
And if you're looking for the way they treat employees, Amazon is far from a shining example - according to GMB, most of the staff employed in the UK in their distribution centres are on minimum wage plus 1p and are on 'zero hour' contracts. This means they can and do send workers home mid-shift to avoid paying them for a full shift if they don't believe the work is there.
Last edited by kungfugerbil; 7th March 2013 at 16:24.
A rare, egalitarian model that results in happy staff, happy customers, and a successful business. As others have said, the world would probably be a better place if more companies were run that way.
I suspect John Lewis' success is as much to do with their very clever market positioning and their effective communications. JohnLewis.com is also one of the most successful websites in the UK. Not treating staff like crap completes a virtuous circle.
Disclosure: one my best friends has a senior Head Office job. When I found out about the pension scheme I made sure I was a very very good friend.
Fascinating article in the FT on their distribution centre at Rudgely:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ed6a985c-7...9a.html#slide0
Having been involved in commercial finance, and specifically what has become known as "Supply chain finance". I know that not only do John Lewis serve their customers well, they also treat their staff and suppliers fairly and with respect.
Not surprisingly, John Lewis and Waitrose are always at the top of any survey on shopper or supplier satisfaction.
Well done, and the staff and management should be congratulated. They thoroughly deserve their bonuses.
Regards
Ian
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
As a customer, JL have always been very professional with me. The stores are superbly presented and laid out. All the staff thoroughly deserve their bonuses.
Rod
JL deserve all the success they get - as do their staff who are top notch
I went to JL tonight and bought some bedding. When I paid I said "well done on your bonus you deserve it". The lady on the till said "thank you sir, that means a lot" .
She looked like she was going to cry she was so pleased.
well done JL.
Why are there more companies like this?
Shareholder value.
Excellent company, excellent benefits. I know a couple of people who work there and trust me, their bonuses were better than a lot of folks in the City! (that's the real 'bankers', every day folk who just happen to work for financial institutions , earning relatively modest salaries and bonuses - not the 1% that the media and public are fixated on).
Incidentally, there was once another famous 'partnership' - Goldman Sachs - which was one of the last major Investment banks to go public back in 1998. Made a lot of people very very rich overnight. Still does..but then they work incredibly hard at very high levels so why begrudge them the spoils.
JL may consider doing the same - going public and still performing at a high level - at some stage.
Just sayin'.
It's not just the bonus scheme which makes JLP stand out when it comes to looking after their employees, the list of other perks is very impressive as well.
There are all kinds of things, ranging from holidaying at one of the JLP's private residencies dotted around the country, free Norwich FC (Delia connection) and Reading FC tickets (Waitrose sponsor Reading), cheap O2 arena box tickets, discounts on things like car tyres and insurance plus a very healthy discount at both JL and Waitrose.
I'm sure some employees have gripes with the way certain things are done there, as there are with any company of that size, but overall they are a good company to work for.
A proposal to demutualise was made in 1999 and received virtually no support on the Board (80% elected by employees/partners) despite the inducement of a £100K layout. JL is a great example of co-operatives as an alternative to both state and private ownership. Although JL is a very specific form of mutual organisation, you would be surprised how many successful organisations are quietly based on one or other model of mutuality. Barcelona FC is one such example.Excellent company, excellent benefits. I know a couple of people who work there and trust me, their bonuses were better than a lot of folks in the City! (that's the real 'bankers', every day folk who just happen to work for financial institutions , earning relatively modest salaries and bonuses - not the 1% that the media and public are fixated on).
Incidentally, there was once another famous 'partnership' - Goldman Sachs - which was one of the last major Investment banks to go public back in 1998. Made a lot of people very very rich overnight. Still does..but then they work incredibly hard at very high levels so why begrudge them the spoils.
JL may consider doing the same - going public and still performing at a high level - at some stage.
Just sayin'.
And the Waitrose checkout staff do not lick their fingers when handling customers' produce - unlike Tesco and Sainsbury employees.
Waitrose provide checkouts with moist sponge pads so staff can use same instead of wiping twopence worth of spit from licked fingers onto customers' bags and purchases.
dunk
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
Just to point out and for the avoidance of doubt, a co-operative or partnership is just one of many forms of private ownership! It's just that the shareholders work for it. This is of course no less private than any other form of private ownership.
I can't help thinking that perhaps bank bonuses (indeed all bonuses) should be paid as a share of profits?
Perhaps we could also have a wage claw-back in the event of a bank posting a loss?
Or would such policies "Drive the talent away"?
Mike.
A lot of them are. When I worked for a bank we were given a 'corporate performance factor' at the end of the year based on how the bank had done. It was a multiplier used in the bonus calculation. If the bank made a loss or significantly below target profits that would be zero, meaning no bonus.
Now, when people say 'banker bonus' they generally mean investment banker for who the bonus is part of the wage structure - like waiting staff in the US who make less than minimum wage as salary and make it up in tips.
I would love to see how wage clawback would work, but apply it to MPs, heads of public sector organisations, NHS chiefs, utility companies etc too.
Indeed.
Shouldn't be surprised you'd sully this thread by talking about an organisation with a dubious recent history such as Goldman SachsExcellent company, excellent benefits. I know a couple of people who work there and trust me, their bonuses were better than a lot of folks in the City! (that's the real 'bankers', every day folk who just happen to work for financial institutions , earning relatively modest salaries and bonuses - not the 1% that the media and public are fixated on).
Incidentally, there was once another famous 'partnership' - Goldman Sachs - which was one of the last major Investment banks to go public back in 1998. Made a lot of people very very rich overnight. Still does..but then they work incredibly hard at very high levels so why begrudge them the spoils.
JL may consider doing the same - going public and still performing at a high level - at some stage.
Just sayin'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-charges.html
Last edited by bparker170; 8th March 2013 at 11:05.
Oh please. You're the one who has now 'sullied' the thread. Take your vendetta elsewhere..shoo!
Well if that's what you want to think then there's probably little I can say to persuade you otherwise. However, it is widely accepted that member-owned businesses, whilst sharing some features of individual ownership, are distinct and different from either state/public or market/private ones and form a category of their own, although a varied one that shades off at either end of that polarity. If you want to disregard the extensive discussion of this in the literature then you are, of course, entirely free to do so.
Another to add to your list of perks - after 25 years employment you're entitled to 6 months fully paid leave.
What do you suppose is the average salary of people who work for banks (and John Lewis)?
Working for a bank doesn't make you a banker any more than working for google makes you a programmer.
I haven't a clue. But I'd guess at £10 an hour, so about £21kpa??
John Lewis' operating profit was down 20% in 2012. Rewards for failure?
I like John Lewis too, even though sometimes Amazon is cheaper, I try not to use Amazon as much as possible and support companies trying to do the right thing. Amazon has to start fighting on equal grounds, the governement has to do something.
Eh ? Pre-tax profits of £409m ($613m) last year - a rise of 15.8%.
But operating profit at JL stores was down 20%, at least according to their 2012 annual report. And sales excluding vat rose by less than inflation. Don't have the link handy, but assume you are looking at profit before tax for the group which includes Waitrose and non operating items.
A good example of "weasel words", as Wikipedia woul say: Name your authorities when making such statements of social proof. ;-)
Member-owned businesses such co-operatives are, by definition, private ones.
Consider: Ask yourself who owns them. Answer: The employees. The employees are private individuals; not the state. Ergo such businesses are privately held entities, an example of the the private sector.
In this respect co-operatives are just like any other privatetely owned businesses, regardless of the details of the nature of ownership.
By all means, the exact nature of ownership varies between different types of privately owned business but that's why we have different words and descriptions for them (e.g. sole tradership, partnership, share owned businesses, and so on). Nevertheless, a co-operative is no more or less an example of private sector, individual/group owenership, than any other sole tradership, partnership, or shareholder owned-business with no state sector shareholding.
To try and imbue a co-operative with some kind of pseudo-magical status beyond this objective description of its inherent nature is pointless. It's just a private business arrangement like any other, with its own inherent advantages and disadvantages.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th March 2013 at 03:16.
Exactly. Partnerships do not exist in some socially acceptable hinterland between government/state and private. They are as private as it gets. More private than publicly-owned companies, in fact. "The state" has zero ownership in JL, just like the general public.
The furore was about how little tax they were paying because of transfer pricing, royalties and EU tax treaties. The rules were exploited because they were there. If you don't like Amazon shipping profits around the single market to the lowest tax jurisdiction, fix it, or exit the single market. Simple.
Different point. I guess you could register your dissatisfaction by never buying there. I wonder, after all the moralising about Amazon, what its next full-year performance in the UK is going to be like?And if you're looking for the way they treat employees, Amazon is far from a shining example - according to GMB, most of the staff employed in the UK in their distribution centres are on minimum wage plus 1p and are on 'zero hour' contracts. This means they can and do send workers home mid-shift to avoid paying them for a full shift if they don't believe the work is there.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Which is what the authorities in a number of countries are doing. The French have already sent them a bill for 250 million US back taxes, the yanks are after them for billions and even the countries that aren't going to try to reclaim taxes are changing the rules to prevent them avoiding tax in the future.
Simple.
Morality has absolutely nothing to do with profitability. Ask Apple/Exxon/BP.
Oh Mark you are so wrong and in so many ways. Here are just two:
a) on the narrow issue of whether co-operatives are another form of individual ownership
The key point you are missing is that state ownership is not the only form of collective ownership. Member-owned businesses are collectively owned but not state owned.
Ownership implies the right to sell or otherwise dispose of the assets of a business. If, for example, I individually own a business then I am entitled to sell it if I so wish. Or, in the case of a joint stock company, if I own shares in a company I am entitled to sell them on the secondary market, realising my share in the asset and transferring its ownership to the buyer.
This is not the case with member-owned businesses. The "share" I might own in the member-owned business cannot be sold by me as an individual to realise my portion of the businesses assets. The share simply does not entitle me to individual ownership of a portion of the assets of the business because the ownership is collective. Rather, the share entitles me to a say in the running of the business and to a share in whatever benefits might accrue from it - as decided collectively through whatever arrangements are put in place to decide that.
Of course the members may decide collectively to demutualise the business, as many Building Societies did in the 80s and 90s, and turn a collective ownership into a private one. But that only underlines that the member-owned business is collectively not individually owned. Individual Building Society members could not individually decide to sell their individual share of the business - because they did not own anything individually. Instead they had the right to a say and a vote in the collective decision to demutualise.
The case of John Lewis illustrates all this. If I were an employee (or "partner" as they are called) of JL I could vote to elect a member of the Board, attend meetings to discuss the future of the business, get an annual bonus etc. But I could not sell the business as an individual because individually I do not own the business or any part of it. The business is jointly (or to put it another way) collectively owned. (But it isn't, of course, state owned).
b) the broader issue of you form of argument
Frankly, it's extremely scholastic. It's really a little syllogism that goes like this:
(i) there are only two forms of ownership, state and individual;
(ii) member-owned businesses are not owned by the state;
(iii) therefore they must be individually owned.
But like all such reasoning the conclusion is only valid if the premises are true. And in this case it is demonstrable that there are more than two forms of ownership. There are at least two forms of collective ownership (state and joint ownership through membership) plus there is individual ownership (and that too comes in different flavours).
But more than this, setting up an oppositional dualism (like state vs individual) and expecting the world to conform to it is a very reductionist way of thinking. Admittedly, its the favoured approach of ideologues and politicians - but that only goes to show how sterile and pointless it is. It generally leads to trying to force the rich diversity of life into one or other of the terms of an oppositional dualism. (And by-the-by, your assertion that there are only state or individual forms of ownership is very much shared by immoderate ideologues of both the right and left: one because they want everything to be state owned; the other because they want everything to be individually owned. Both have trouble accepting member-owned businesses as legitimate because they just don't fit their preconceptions).
It's a bit like the spectacle of seventeenth century biologists trying to decide whether bacteria are animals or plants - they thought they knew that there were only two kingdoms of life and if bacteria were not one, well they "must be" the other. (I believe the current count is six kingdoms of life, with some biologists rejecting the whole idea of a kingdom altogether).
BUT ANYWAY, fascinating (or not) as this exchange may, I won't be saying any more about it. Basically, if you want to fight for the bone then go ahead and have it. Life really is too long to spend it on fruitless arguments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...te-demand.html
Oh dear, not quite so squeaky clean as they pretend.
Working for JL in real life is just the same as working for any other company except that the staff get a profit share based on a formula. We have the 2nd largest JL in the country in Cardiff. I shop there but don't find it in any way any better the HoF just up the street. There is a Waitrose in Cowbridge that we use, I don't feel any different shopping in there to shopping in Tesco.
I do identify the JL marketing is very targetted
I need a special key on my keyboard for this, as I find myself typing this quite often. Markrlondon is once again, completely right IMO
Posting Permissions
