John Lewis shines again

dryhat

It turns out that the bonus is not so good after all ...

LINK

JimmyTheWig

wotsthat wrote: »

I prefer staff bonuses to reflect the contribution that has been made towards profit.

Where's the incentive for really good staff if others get the same bonus just for being there?

Job satisfaction?
Promotion?
Less likely to be selected for redundancy?

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

That probably answers my next question. On the basis taht shareholders take the hit if losses are made would the "partners" be hit in some way? No bonus for that year and future years until good profitability resumes?

Presumably, yes.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

...Don't suppose they have ever lost money so probably academic.

JL management are famously 'conservative'. They don't take risks. Even the biggest recession for 80 years or so hasn't tipped them into the red.

P.S. In fact given that the chairman of JLP is quoted in the Telegraph report as calling on "George Osborne to “literally provide the foundations for investment” in the Budget by pressing ahead with the drive to reducing Britain’s budget deficit", JL management may well be Conservative as well.:)

ERICS_MUM

The very large company I worked for for 30 odd years paid bonuses based on our personal appraisal against agreed targets, so the better you worked, the higher the bonus.

In addition they had a profit-sharing scheme - the same percentage of base salary was paid to everyone from most junior to the top dogs. This percentage obviously varied from year to year.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is John Lewis the model others should be following?

Perhaps, but how would pension and investment funds be convinced to settle for lower returns, and how would this go down with thier investors, most of whom will be ordinary workers?

What will WHICH mag say in terms of shopping around for best performing funds - this dilema really is the nub of everything because I find those that decry corporate greed are also those that shop around for best returns!

CLAPTON

It's not an obviously repeatable model.


Start up you own business; maybe struggle for years; mortgage your house to the hilt to provide capital for growth; nearly go bankrupt; work 24 hours a day
and then you are eventually successful and start to make lots of money

so then give the business away to the workers.

can't really see it catching on in a big way.