Coffee and Empty Shops

ChangN4N6

Donna, leave it out. So many of these These yapping yummy mummies behave like little fascist gangs and walk all over ordinary punters with their self righteous buggy mania and spoilt brats in tow. Maybe you are not one of the worst culprits (see Highgate for terrible take overs and bitchy attitude), and like miscarol says you are known to be nice, but my vote is with the poor waiter. I'd like to hear how he copes witg the shriking agro. It's a great cafe and kids should stay out or go to one of those places in wood green. Sorry but it has to be said. Chang

Mirandola

Costa pay tax. As do Vagabond, Front Room, and I suspect most people on this thread. I don't always like what taxes get spent on, but a society where people don't pay tax isn't worth living in. They're how we buy civilisation. As for evasion/avoidance, the only difference is that one is technically legal - they're ethically identical. The phrase for honourable use of the tax system (eg taking advantage of tax breaks for investment) is tax planning.

yagamuffin

Do Costa pay tax? Or are it's owners, Whitbread PLC friends with the Tories and therefore immune from this witch hunt? Much like David Cameron's mates who don't pay tax when he publicly lambasted Jimmy Carr?

Mirandola

I doubt the mirror's shilling for the Tories: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/starbucks-has-not-paid-corporation-tax-1381339 Or the guardian: http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/23/stabucks-tax-avoidance-costa-coffee?cat=business&type=article

Ali

Yagamuffin  Starbucks should pay up,  what is it "Dave"  says  "do the right thing" or is " We are all in this together"?   The law should be changed as they are hardly likely to move all their  coffee shops abroad !

yagamuffin

Exactly. If 'Dave' truly believes that we are all in this together and that everyone should be paying their fair share then he needs to change the laws to make sure this happens.<div>Sitting astride his high horse and preaching is not actually going to change anything. It does however seem to be a rather good tactic for diverting attention from his failed policies...</div>

boxrunner

Though he has so many failed policies, it's a bit like protecting yourself in a downpour with a pointy sword.<br>

nacholibre

Exactly. So as the only difference is that one is technically legal then 'Dave' should change the law if he's so fussed about it.

Mirandola

Except there's an army of very smart, very well paid, very hard working tax lawyers who will look for loopholes in any new law you draft.

Papa

Before the tax debate descends completely into one-sided political mud-slinging, just remember who was in charge from 1997 to 2010 when the whole tax dodging bonanza, light touch banking regulation party and easy credit binge got underway and was in full swing.<br><br>I have no particular political allegiance, but my view is we need to simplify the tax system, close loopholes, and make a priority of pulling the lower paid out of tax, and eventually when we move out of this mess, which will happen, we can then start raising the higher rate threshold back to where it should be if it had risen with inflation and wages and start giving more back to people who work hard but aren't wealthy.<br><br>The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/pays-tesco-ceo-wages-we-do">tax credit subsidisation of big business profits through allowing artificially low wages</a> also needs to stop<br><br><br><br>

andy

Only James Dyson and JK Rowling pay tax.

ChangN4N6

Jimmy Carr is a smug pratt and deserves to be in a reality tv show with DLT and chetski. chang

emine

I love what JK Rowling said about paying tax. I'm boycotting quite a few tax avoiding companies - although i've only just stopped using Amazon, and the one I have trouble not using is google. Is there another search engine that's as good anyone?

Mirandola

Amazon is tough to give up, and I haven't dared try give up google.

rainbow_carnage

If you boycott every company that doesn't pay its fair share of taxes, underpays its employees, damages the environment, etc, you might as well go live in a cave. <br><br>I never go to Starbucks, but not because of the tax issue. If I did buy coffee based on principles, Starbucks would probably be my first choice. In the US, it regularly makes the top 100 of the best companies to work for. They provide full health insurance benefits for their part-time employees, which very few large companies do. They were one of the first companies to extended health benefits to same-sex partners.<br><br>Having worked in the food industry for six years, I appreciate a company that treats its staff well. I love small, indie cafes as much as the next person, but I could not make ends meet on what they pay their staff. And nor could you.<br>

emine

Bit defeatist there, rainbow_carnage. I didn't say I only shop at 100% ethical companies, just ones that - as far as I know - aren't massive tax avoiders. And actually, it's pretty easy to make "better" (not "perfect") choices - I use the local chemists, not Boots, I don't go to Starbucks, I try not to go to Tesco etc. I decided a couple of weeks ago not to shop at Amazon any more (mainly after the John Lewis man essentially said if Amazon was allowed to ge away with it any longer it would be the end of John Lewis, and a world without John Lewis is not a world I would like to live in) and have rediscovered the pleasure of actual bookshops. I don't think Philip Green notices when I don't go to Topshop, but if enough people did it, he would (and more importantly so would politicians who are the ones who should be sorting this out). Though I am typing this on an Apple iPad, drinking tea made with water from Thames Water so I'm not a perfect cave-dweller yet, but I do what I can and none of it is exactly a handwringing hardship. I'm sure some small indie cafes pay their staff pretty well - I worked for one - and I'm sure some don't. Starbucks only pays the minimum wage to many of its staff anyway. The main problem with boycotting Starbucks is they're owned by franchise-holders who do pay tax and you end up hurting them, but still.

rainbow_carnage

It's not defeatist, it's pragmatic. <br><br>Last week I was choosing a new phone contract. Vodafone came out the cheapest, but I couldn't bring myself to give them any of my money. I went with O2, which is better when it comes to corporate taxes, but if I spent enough time googling, I'm sure I could find reasons to regret my decision.<br><br>There are no 'good' companies. John Lewis treats its own staff reasonably well, but is less warm 'n' fuzzy when it comes their sub-contracted <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/13/john-lewis-model-ethical-cleaners">cleaners</a>. Is not paying cleaners a living wage enough of a reason to boycott them?<br><br>If you have a problem with Amazon, Starbucks, et al legally reducing their tax bill, your issue isn't with the companies but with the government. The companies are doing what they're supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. It's the government's job to regulate them. And it's our job to vote for people who will do so fairly. <br>

kreuzkav

When it comes to workers rights I think  some small shops are often worse than big chains.  I've met a few people who have worked in small shops  (not on SGR but not that far away) and been paid very low wages. One guy told me something like £5 about five years ago.The owner is driving a 4 x 4 and his workers can barely survive.  Supermarkets wages are terrible but usually a few pound more plus there are usually more perks.  Of course some supermarkets have workfare which is terrible and should be abolished.  <div><br></div><div>Aside from workers rights I don't like the aesthetic of  big chains.  Stroud Green road has a nice vibe due to having very few of the big chains (I don't consider Porchetta to be a chain). It's horrible when every high street and main road looks the same.  </div><div><br></div><div>John Lewis are expensive and go on about how caring they are all the time.  And then they sub-contract their cleaning service, leaving their hard working cleaners out of the partner fold.  Hypocrites!</div>

ChangN4N6

John Lewis are cheaper than Selfridges who do pay cleaners properly tho there are many bisexual types who work there according to Metro. Maybe that's why there is a difference - on the wages/price i mean not the acdc staff. Chang

emine

Not to sound like a JL apologist, but they do pay their cleaners above minimum wage (admittedly after the strike) - wouldn't have thought many places do. But no, they don't have partner perks, and i believe they also outsource delivery drivers and others connected to JL, so I don't think they're perfect - and they still haven't signed up to the living wage (not just for cleaners but also for "partners" who are on less than living wage). I'd still rather spend my money there than at, say, tax-shy Debenhams. @rainbow_carnage, how is deciding to choose O2 over Vodafone any different from what I try to do? I agree, there are no "good" companies but there are better ones (O2 is best of a bad bunch, last time I looked when i changed contracts) and choosing the better ones is all I'm trying to do, not single-handedly smash the system (I wouldn't want to - I like shopping!).

kreuzkav

@ Emine.  I agree that John Lewis is a better choice than some of the tax dodgers but it's good to put some heat on them in the hope they change their ways. You're right, you try to go for the best of a bad lot.  Good to see a lot of people care. We certainly do have to enjoy our short lives too!<div><br></div><div>It's a hard one when it comes to ethical consumer choice. You think one company is better then find out other bad things about them.  A lot of people were avoiding Nike and McDonalds ten years or so ago and for good reason.  Those two companies did improve their ways.  I'm sure other trainer companies got away with cheap labour in poor countries during this time.</div>

Detritus

<p>.</p>

miss annie

<p>No retailer employs its own cleaners, why would they? If they were forced to there would be about a quarter of the cleaning jobs there are now. </p><p>I do not see the problem with not giving staff benefits to people who aren't staff. It is the responsibility of the cleaning company to pay the cleaners. I know for a fact that people who are banging on about this on twitter and elsewhere employ cleaners in their homes and pay them less than £8.50 ph.</p><p>There is only one retailer on the list of companies that pay living wage and that's, unsuprisingly, Lush. </p>

kreuzkav

Maybe John Lewis being the most amazing and caring company ever could set an example take on cleaners as partners.  I'm sure they have part time staff.<div><br></div><div>And I agree with you Miss Annie, you get all these guardian reader new labour types who probably sponsor kids in developing countries then don't pay their cleaners a living wage.  A friend rented an attic room from a family like that.  This was only a few years ago and they paid their cleaner £6 an hour.  A couple of pounds wouldn't have made much difference to their budget.</div>

rainbow_carnage

There are dozens of companies that have committed to ensuring that their sub-contracted cleaners earn a living wage. There's no good reason for JL not to do it. Some of the cleaners have been working for JL for years. They work side-by-side with JL employees. At the very least, they should be paid a living wage.<br><br>JL also doesn't give staff benefits to its part-time employees.<br><br>If you can't afford to pay your cleaner a living wage, you can't afford a cleaner. (The same applies to tipping and eating out.)<br>

miss annie

<p>People go on as if there is some controlling MD at JLP making these decisions. They are a partnership, a decision like taking on cleaners as employees would have to voted on by the partnership - the staff. The reason it doesn't happen is because the partners - staff, don't vote for it.</p><p>Part timers don't usually get sick pay, discount etc.They get statutory holiday pay.</p><p>I don't suppose that anyone bitching on about John lewis has ever worked in retail in this country, JLP are considerably better employers than most. They are however still a business and their business is to make money, however cosily it's dressed up.</p>

Brodiej

I'd just like to say that i've waited 16 weeks (7 weeks longer than advised) for some sofas from John Lewis, and been unable in two visits to buy some chuffing lights and walk out the shop with them. I always thought you could buy from shops and go home with stuff...that was the positive versus the internet. We all get a warm feeling from their "never knowingly undersold" promise, but that is more of a get out of jail free card than a pledge. Recent experiences from Brent Cross have been woeful. I'll still go there, but that's because i'm a muppet.<div><br></div><div>Where you spend your money is a highly personal choice. Don't feel you have to justify your decisions to anyone. You've earned your money, spend it how you feel fit. Other people can do the same.</div>

ChangN4N6

I did not know about the '2 tier' pay system for cleaners and it makes me think less of John Lewis who all those snowy adverts making us all feel good and the posters of staff over-grinning . if - as rainbucket suggests - they are not only old fashioned in service (which can be good btw )  but also in staff management (often bad) it - sounds as if they  treat there cleaner's like coloured's in the days of ol Dixy down south,- T<span style="font-size: 10pt;">hat is 'knowingly oversold' in my book and I will now go to another shop for such pressies. chang</span>

miss annie

I hate the advert with the snowman mysteriously moving about it reminds me of Dr Who - Weeping Snowmen

ADGS

Annie - that was my first reaction too. And you know this year's Christmas special has killer snowmen?