![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know any more about the legal structure of John Lewis? Is it actually a co-operative? Secretlondon 12:44, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
The reason for the £200,000 pound dividend payment is because in the early post war era the company was very short of funds and had to issue shares to raise some capital. Instead of issuing ordinary shares (where you own part of the company) they issued preference shares instead. These give you a right to a fixed dividend but don't give you any voting or other rights in the company.
Corperate structure is roughly as follows, John Lewis Partnership is a PLC, but all the shares(with the exeption of the afforementioned preferance shares) are owned by the a Trust set up by the Founder for the benefit of the employees. The profits are distributed in cash (well bank transfer) anually around the end of March, as a percentage of salary. The percentage varies each year the highest recently was around 22%, the lowest about 8%. The issue of the preferance shares should be largely ignored, they are entirely insignificant in the structure of the company.
Senior people in a coop where I was a member Poptel comented that JL is realy a Co-op but doesn't use the term.
And Poptel the company was owned by the coop via a complex trust
Question: Does that complex trust truly contain clauses related to the death of kings? I refer you to this interesting quote from http://www.newstatesman.com/199911150025:
I suspect that JL is not a true cooperative! If it was, JL would emphasise that each employee had equal voting share. As far as I can see they only say things like "everybody has a say". Therefore I guess that power is very unequally distributed amongst employees. Of course I hope that I am wrong and that one of you tells me so. —Preceding comment added by --Turifo (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
John Lewis Partnership plc is legally established an unlisted public limited company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.136.142 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
JLP is not a partnership in the legal company sense, it is not a workers co-operative, it is not owned by its employees, it is not a private company, and it is not a mutual. All of which was contained in the article, and has now been removed. None of which are accurate. JLP may call its employees partners, but that is just a title. JLP may give employees seats on the board, or on committees, but they are simply appointments to roles, and nothing else, it is not employee owned decision making, mutual members expressing their voting. JLP has a separate legal personality, a partnership under the law of England and Wales does not, and cannot, only an LLP or a Company can have a legal personality. JLP is a company. A Public Company. An unlisted public company, it is not a private company as the article tried to claim. Paying employees a share of profits through a trust is a form of a bonus scheme, and is not employee ownership, mutualisation, of a workers co-op. This article needs to be accurate, simply calling something a partnership does not in the legal sense make something a partnership. Sport and politics (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following annotation from the Southampton entry:
because it doesn't make meaningful sense. Are we saying the store traded as Tyrell & Green both before 1998 and after 2000, but traded as John Lewis in the short interim. Or did it move to West Quay in 1998, but for some strange reason didn't reopen for two years after the move. Or what?. If you know enough to rewrite this annotation in english, please feel free to do so and reinstate. -- Chris j wood 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe it traded as Tyrell & Green post-2000 and JohnLewis.com lists it as JL Southhampton --Davidprior 07:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Two quite different (in colour and font) John Lewis logos (Image:JLlogo.PNG and Image:JLPlogo.PNG} have been added to this article. Neither image page has a description. Does the John Lewis Partnership still use both, or is one historic?. If both are in use, what decides which is used where?. -- Chris j wood 13:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
A revenue of about £5 million in 2005? Shurely Shome Mishtake. That works out at around £70 annual revenue per employee. --Gantlord 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the last entry by user 212.219.95.3 as it is incorrect. I think it might be a minor violation. -- AndrewSE19 10:18, 22 September 2006
The numbers shown are gross sales (including VAT), not revenue. Gross sales figures are widely used in the retail industry, but they are not comparable to figures for non-retail businesses and it is misleading to give them as the only figure here. I don't have time to correct this just now. Cotterstock (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Greenbee has changed to John Lewis insurance. Some parts of Greenbee still exist, some are being phased out, or removed with plans to bring back at a later date. Greenbee no longer exists. This is why I added the Update tag. I will do it myself, given some time, but I am currently working on the John Lewis (department store) page. DrMotley (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As a former long-serving employee of John Lewis, and indeed a Partner who served on a number of their internal democratic bodies, I can assure you first-hand that said democratic bodies are entirely powerless talking-shops (at least at the lower echelons). They have no power whatsoever to influence John Lewis policy, or the direction of the business. Only topics pre-approved by management are up for discussion, and the only resolutions passed are those that can be implemented with a minimum of fuss or expense (for example, regarding the sort of sandwich fillings that are available in the canteen). The sole purpose of these "democratic" bodies is to give the illusion to "rank and file" employees, and external observers that the John Lewis Partnership is in some way a caring, progressive and inclusive organisation, whereas in fact they treat their employees with a good deal more contempt than most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A bond prospectus from 2010 lists a number of other businesses belonging to the group. Source is on page 28 here http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/content/dam/cws/pdfs/financials/John_Lewis_plc_Prospectus.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.81.209 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just removed some spam from the External Links section and was wondering should all of the partnerships various websites be listed? I understand having Johnlewis.com and Waitrose.com but should the ones for their credit card and other services really be on there? Seems like advertising to me? Drmotley (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There are several sections that go without citations and appear to involve some kind of unsourced declarations/synthesis, e.g., these two:
The credit card follows on from, and supersedes, the John Lewis (and Waitrose) account cards which have been around for 40 years. These cards are no longer available, and holders of these are being encouraged to replace them with the Partnership card. They can, however, still be used, and some cards from the mid-1970s are still in use.
The John Lewis Partnership currently operates one manufacturing business, Herbert Parkinson, in Darwen, Lancashire. This company, established as a weaver of jacquard fabrics in 1934, was acquired by the partnership in 1953. Herbert Parkinson currently produce John Lewis own brand fabrics and curtains as well as filled furnishing products such as cushions and pillows.
In general, there's a lot of stuff that at least appears to come from first-hand knowledge and not from independent, reliable sources. And if it can't be backed up by RS, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. czar · · 16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on John Lewis Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on John Lewis Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on John Lewis Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Being somewhat dubious about this articles claim of the Never Knowingly Undersold (NKU) slogan being that of the John Lewis Partnership, and the total lack of any citations (1st- or 3rd-party), I've delved further. According to this search on the johnlewispartnership.co.uk website, the NKU slogan is only used by John Lewis stores, and not by either Waitrose nor the JLP. I shall therefore remove the slogan from this article - except for when it refers specifically to the JL stores. 143.159.18.79 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:John Lewis (Georgia politician) In ictu oculi (talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Lewis Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/financials/financial-reports/annual-reports.html
near the end of these records in the past 5 years of Financial performance, it seems figures are different on this document to what wiki is showing
for example, the document has:
Header text | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wiki Profit before tax | N/A | 342.7 | 376.4 | 509.0 | 393.3 |
Partnership Bonus, tax and exceptional item | 305.5 | 342.7 | 376.4 | 343.3 | 353.8 |
seems prior to 2014 people were using a different figure. for the time being, I've halted my edit as a priority now would be to make sure all the figures are consistent
Same applies to Profit retained, document states "Profit for the year" was £101.0 million in 2013 while wiki "Profit retained" is £198.8 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.194.212 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I was going to edit this myself, but I chose to ask here in case I have misunderstood.
How can the company be a privately held public company? It's a public limited company, so how can it be privately-held? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of being a public limited company? Strugglehouse (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)