That is quite an inspiring article, full of some very pertenant facts and not a little irony given the current discussion.

This is very interesting.

"It was no surprise to hear Richer, 54, who still holds 100 per cent of the company he started 35 years ago, explain this week how he has formed a trust for when he dies so that the business becomes a mutual, similar to John Lewis, under which every staff member receives an equal share, with the IT director, Julie Abraham, stepping up to managing director."

Not only is the idea of a trust fantastic the fact he owns 100% of the business is what allows him to do this. It's the same as John Caldwell and Phones 4 U when he used to run that. It was not listed on the stock exchange and as a result it made him rich but it also allowed him to pay his employees very well without the constant pressure to drive down costs (wages!) to improve profit..

The irony comes from thisAsda, BAA and Halifax are just three, much bigger firms to benefit from his wisdom) and motivational speaker."

Has anyone told the Walton family the UK arm of its business is trying to learn of Julian Richer?

The other irony is thisit was from their tales of M&S, which also famously treated its staff well with perks such as a good canteen and hairdresser, that he developed the notion of the Richer Way). "

This is long gone. I have a relative and a neighbour who work for them and I can assure you The Richer Way has long left the M&S building. And funnily enough they aren't considered that brilliant a retailer any more. Certainly not compared to John Lewis.

It's not meaningless because even with $15bn of profit we end up with poverty wages.

Whatever the return on capital is this, it is not delivering an equitable situation. And the fact that is the reality of the situation leads to the question is this morally acceptable?

They used $7.6bn to buy back shares. That says they are not running on any such tight margins such that they need to screw their employees to generate $15bn profit. They are screwing their employees in order to inflate what they saw as an under valued share price and the increased share price boosts the wealth of the Walton family who own over 50% of the shares.

Seems pure greed to me!

How do you know they don't have low margins? They are a large enterprise, I hav no idea what $15 billion profit represents to them. Do you?

It represents the ability to spend $7.6bn on a share buy back to inflate the Walton family personal fortune by driving the share price up. What bit of this did you miss?

Seems Walmart made net profit of c. $17 billion on turnover of c. 469 billion in their latest reported year. So, about 3.6% of turnover. Couldn't readily see staff numbers and what % of revenue staff costs represent. But, it would seem liklely that a big hike in wages would wipe out profit.

So, is your argument that because Walmart pays low wages it should not exist at all, which is how I interpreted what you said? That being the case an awful lot of (largely) Americans would be unemployed and an awful lots of low-priced stores would close. Surely that would cause alot of suffering as there are few unskilled manufacturing jobs to take up the slack (indeed supermarkets have taken up the slack from de-indusrtrialisation).

So, you've identified a "problem", what is your solution?

See my immediately following post, wriiten simultaneously.

The Walton's set up the company to run a business and earn themselves (and others) a return. They did not establish a charity (or at least Walmart was not established as one). If someone wants to run a business for the benefit of their workers or some wider ideal then they can do and they will need to compete with Walmart et al should they wish to be retailers.

Absolutely. I think you've hit a nail on the head about where at least part of the problem lies.



Spot on again.

Over the years, the quality of service – which has cost [ime[/i time and money – at a number of retailers that might appear to be cheaper than John Lewis (forgetting the 'never knowingly undersold' thing) has ensured that now, if I need household goods, say, I go straight to JL and, where I use a supermarket, it's Waitrose too. It seem that a number of retailers no longer care about customer service.

But there's also the related point that increasing numbers of businesses seem to see their employers simply as a cost – to be cut as much as possible – and not as an investment, which partly brings us back to the living wage, as mentioned earlier. Not only is it better for individual employees – it's better for business, if business is prepared to be slightly less short-sighted and short-term in thinking. I do wonder how much the pressures of the Stock Exchange/City exacerbate this.

There's also the wider point that, quite simply, the current situation is not sustainable. And why does anyone want to keep pushing an unsustainable approach?

If you think JL customer service is good try ordering carpet / flooring from them and see what happens when things go a bit wrong!

Likewise I have also received good service from RS to the point where I may need a new main TV set before xmas and will be buying it from RS, have done the price comparisons and they are within £10 or so of the very cheapest retailer (Tesco), so the choice is, do I buy a TV set from Tescos or from a specialist retail outlet who only employ people who actually know what they are talking about ?

Hmmm



They are lucky in that they have a niche market where employing generic shop assistants isn't really an option, they need to employ experts to advise the (often) geeks who shop in there, AND they also take it beyond the selling boxed TV Sets to doing full home cinema installs, and commercial installs, so they do have to know their onions.

Well I'm going on my experience – and reports from a number of people I know – and I suspect we outnumber you, Dally.

I used to love going into the Virgin Megastore on Oxford Street, to the classical music section. The staff in there really knew their stuff. They could suggest things to you that almost always worked for you. I might be able to get things cheaper from Amazon, but I miss that experience and that human interaction.

HMV at Piccadilly Circus had been like that too, before it closed.

What really grates with me is the Walton family actively and aggressively employ any meaures they can to avoid or minimise paying federal and state taxes. They then expect the US and UK taxpayer to pick up their slack on behalf of their employees.

Frankly, on that basis alone, they're filth.

It surely wouldn't be that difficult to assess the total goverment support (tax credits, housing benefits etc) paid to subsidise a company's employees. HMRC could then simply present the company with an annual bill, including all costs of calculations, to reimburse the exchquer. That might be one way to concentrate a few minds away from paying less than subsistence wages