To think that Waitrose should pay back at least some of the business rates relief they received during lockdown?

[SupposeItCouldBeMe]

At least 6 other retailers have announced they will pay back some of the taxpayer money they received this year, I get that John Lewis has a different model with dept stores badly hit, but surely they should make a contribution based on the Waitrose stores trading throughout lockdown and presumably booming like other supermarkets?

I know there is no legal obligation for them to do so, but surely they can’t push their social responsibility credentials and then be the only major food retailer to take a big bailout without appearing morally empty? Also looking at M&S Food, although they don’t seem to make such a big thing of how they are supposedly an ethically run business.

I think a lot of retailers will, even if just to give themselves more leeway to make “difficult decisions” regarding store closures and layoffs without the additional stigma and bad press of having had “bailouts/govt. relief”. I am under no illusions that this is altruistic

Without looking at their finances I couldn't comment. If they are relying on the bail out tk maintain jobs, stores etc then jt seems mad tk expect it to be paid back for the the sake of looking good

I think they should too.

I was also annoyed by the Sainsburys redundancies. This year.

i think that's a ridiculous statement - unless you've seen their books you have no idea what their finances are like and whether they can afford to repay this. It's better that they keep it, stay running and retain jobs and I think JL has taken a big hit this year.

They will lose goodwill of the public and may find they lose trade as s result.

My first impression was that I agreed with you OP until I understood the full reasoning behind it.
JL has taken a huge hit this year and this has had a massive impact on the whole business which includes Waitrose. Even though Waitrose has done well it isn’t enough to comfortably offset JL’s losses. As others have said staying running and retaining jobs is the most important thing.

No issues with John Lewis receiving the rates relief where their stores were fully closed, it is the Waitrose element that I personally disagree with when they were trading throughout and their half year results say sales were up 10%. Yes, there will have been costs associated with that, but that isn’t what the rates relief was supposed to cover, it was about stores not trading (non essential stores closed and people flocked to supermarkets) and certainly not to further subsidise the dept store element of the business. We are not giving Debenhams extra taxpayer money in this respect.

Sainsbury’s have handled it well IMO by paying back on the Sainsbury’s stores but keeping the relief in their Argos stores that were closed.

I don't know if it was across all stores, but all Waitrose employees at our local store got a small bonus for working through the 3 months of the first lockdown.

Did the other shops do the same?

No issues with John Lewis receiving the rates relief where their stores were fully closed, it is the Waitrose element that I personally disagree with when they were trading throughout
I totally agree with this.

@dontdisturbmenow

I don't know if it was across all stores, but all Waitrose employees at our local store got a small bonus for working through the 3 months of the first lockdown.

Did the other shops do the same?
Not really relevant to the conversation about business rates relief though is it?

I don't think any of the chains should be voluntarily paying back anything. I don't want to live in a country where public opinion overrides the law. It's an endorsement of a witch-hunt mentality which seems to have always existed in British public life. I had hoped that the internet reducing the power of concentrated media would reduce this sort of thing, but apparently there's still a way to go.

(I am making some assumptions about what is going on, I haven't been following the news.)

did the other shops do the same?

Tesco did, plus those in store are getting a Christmas bonus. They're repaying rates. Supermarkets have been booming during the pandemic.

Aldi have paid back the tax relief.
All supermarkets boomed during COVID.
They are not the intended recipient.
Waitrose absolutely SHOULD pay it back as they didn't require it.
Greed.

Just base corporation tax on turnover. Simplest and the Amazon of this world pay a fair share of tax then.

Not just Waitrose but M&S too. The one near us emptied the Cafe (next to the food hall) and filled it full of clothing to buy alongside food.
Clothes only shops on the same street were not allowed to open.

@RandomLondoner

I don't think any of the chains should be voluntarily paying back anything. I don't want to live in a country where public opinion overrides the law. It's an endorsement of a witch-hunt mentality which seems to have always existed in British public life. I had hoped that the internet reducing the power of concentrated media would reduce this sort of thing, but apparently there's still a way to go.

(I am making some assumptions about what is going on, I haven't been following the news.)

That's an unusual point of view. Rates relief was given to retailers to help out those who had to close during lockdown and various retailers who didn't have to close and didn't need it have paid it over.

I don't know what your sentence about the media means but what's wrong with companies deciding it's only right that they pay their rates?

Where was the witch hunt?

Waitrose/John Lewis (bit like the co-op) is a workers cooperative, so even though early operating decisions might be taken by the partners working in those areas, the other partners are in a strong position to get the changes they want. Anyone know what the mood is amongst partners?

M&S is a company and I doubt there is much that can be done to get them to change their minds. Or does anyone have a Cunning Plan?

Waitrose isn't like the other stores though. It only sells food. The other big supermarkets were all still able to sell clothes, electricals, and anything else on the random aisles of crap. Those "superstores" are entirely different to a stand alone supermarket, whose company also happens to include a stand alone retail outlet, which was closed down, unlike the others. Different business models, different outcomes, different response.

@Farahilda

Waitrose/John Lewis (bit like the co-op) is a workers cooperative, so even though early operating decisions might be taken by the partners working in those areas, the other partners are in a strong position to get the changes they want. Anyone know what the mood is amongst partners?

M&S is a company and I doubt there is much that can be done to get them to change their minds. Or does anyone have a Cunning Plan?

I knew that staff were called partners but I didnt know they actually had a say in how the business runs. That's interesting and would make business decisions very slow to make. Maybe they will decide to pay up once they've asked all the employees.

I don’t agree. John Lewis and Waitrose are the same company. JL will have taken a huge hit to it’s profits and I’m not sure that increased business for Waitrose would have offset those loses. If Waitrose giving back the money means store closures and/or job loses for JL I would much rather they kept the money and people kept their jobs. And I agree we should be pressuring companies like Amazon to be paying proper taxes rather than targeting high street shops.

The point of a business diversifying (such as a department store like John Lewis moving into the supermarket trade) is so that when one area is performing well it can support the other side.

These rates reliefs are there so jobs can survive. If John Lewis uses this as a life line to survive and keep jobs then it is being used exactly as it is intended.

There are no fat cat shareholders in the John Lewis Partnership but a lot of good jobs for hard working partners.

I think the OP should take their moral compass and point it somewhere else.

The OP likes your turn of phrase

I think the OP should take their moral compass and point it somewhere else

M&S have lots of financial problems with the rest of the business, food just about props the rest of it up, so I understand why they aren’t paying back. As for Waitrose, I don’t see why they aren’t paying back ,as John Lewis is a totally separate business.

I live close to Waitrose head quarters, and as such know a lot of people working there who are currently worried for their jobs. I don't think they should be paying anything back, times are hard. Waitrose really does look after it's staff with reasonable pay and things like the Odney club and sabaticals for long service so they arent the retailers I'd go after personally.

No-one should be bullied just for following the law of the land.
If the law gives the wrong result, that is the fault of the law makers.

Tesco made the first move as they are strongest, and knew it would 'bully' the smaller players into paying it back.

I felt the same when Victoria Beckham fashion label was 'outed' for using furlough.

@Missannelliot

I don’t agree. John Lewis and Waitrose are the same company. JL will have taken a huge hit to it’s profits and I’m not sure that increased business for Waitrose would have offset those loses. If Waitrose giving back the money means store closures and/or job loses for JL I would much rather they kept the money and people kept their jobs. And I agree we should be pressuring companies like Amazon to be paying proper taxes rather than targeting high street shops.

Absolutely. I don’t want JL shops closing with the consequent job losses so Waitrose can polish its halo.