There can’t be many people out there who would question the testicular fortitude of Tim Martin.
Arguably the most successful publican in history, the man named his chain of watering holes “J.D. Wetherspoon” after a teacher who told him he would never amount to anything.
It’s an impressively cheeky move, but nowhere near as ballsy as Mr. Martin’s statements last week, in which he bemoaned the government plans to introduce a “living wage” by 2020, in the process effectively saying that a Tory government was being too soft on the poor.
In an Imbibe piece entitled “Wetherspoons Boss Slams Government’s Living Wage” - which could just as honestly have been titled “Millionaire Objects To Paying Waiters Enough To Survive” - Mr. Martin complains that the proposed living wage would make the job of already-squeezed pubs more difficult.
Mr. Martin’s argument is that supermarkets, which often sell alcohol at a loss in order to entice customers before making up their profits in other areas, are making more money than licensed premises already, and can therefore afford to take the financial hit of raising staff wages. The pubs, meanwhile, would have to raise the price of drinks to cover increased staff costs and cede more ground to supermarkets, effectively pricing themselves out of the drinks market.
At the risk of sounding like Malcolm X, this is a fantastic example of chickens coming home to roost.
Arguably the most successful publican in history, the man named his chain of watering holes “J.D. Wetherspoon” after a teacher who told him he would never amount to anything.
It’s an impressively cheeky move, but nowhere near as ballsy as Mr. Martin’s statements last week, in which he bemoaned the government plans to introduce a “living wage” by 2020, in the process effectively saying that a Tory government was being too soft on the poor.
In an Imbibe piece entitled “Wetherspoons Boss Slams Government’s Living Wage” - which could just as honestly have been titled “Millionaire Objects To Paying Waiters Enough To Survive” - Mr. Martin complains that the proposed living wage would make the job of already-squeezed pubs more difficult.
Mr. Martin’s argument is that supermarkets, which often sell alcohol at a loss in order to entice customers before making up their profits in other areas, are making more money than licensed premises already, and can therefore afford to take the financial hit of raising staff wages. The pubs, meanwhile, would have to raise the price of drinks to cover increased staff costs and cede more ground to supermarkets, effectively pricing themselves out of the drinks market.
At the risk of sounding like Malcolm X, this is a fantastic example of chickens coming home to roost.
Beer pump, seen here going back and to the left…
Wetherspoons has, since its corporate inception, operated on ruthless, shark-like business practices designed to squeeze out any and all competition from local, independent businesses. It’s well known within the industry that Wetherspoons will buy beer that’s near the end of its sell-by-date at a knock-down price, for example, because they are confident that their high-volume sales will mean it doesn’t actually cross the threshold of drinkability. This means that they pay less for beer than smaller pubs, charge less as a consequence, and use their low-price/high-volume business model to crush the competition.
It’s not just beer, either. Wetherspoons is a methodical, profit-driven engine of efficiency. Ever noticed that there’s no music playing in a ‘Spoons? Of course there isn’t. Music costs money. Why did Wetherspoons champion cask ale at a time when nobody was drinking it? Out of a deep and abiding love for the lost art of craft beer? Of course not. It was cheap to buy in, plain and simple.
Martin defends underpaying the staff in his budget boozers by saying that a third of profits go to staff in the form of bonuses and company shares. Ignoring for a moment that two thirds of profits (about £25 million for last year) are by definition going elsewhere, the idea of “shares” is a typical corporate get-out clause that is used in place of actual money.
How many young kids in their first bar job would have the first clue what to do with shares in a company? How many would actually know how to cash in their shares, let alone actually go through with it? These are eighteen or nineteen year old kids, many of them already struggling under the weight of tuition fees and the aforementioned tyranny of a Conservative government, who would be much happier with actual cash money in their pockets that they can spend on groceries and bills.
For Martin to complain that supermarket practices in the sales of alcohol are unfair to the competition is an act of hypocrisy so monumental it could probably be seen from a galaxy far, far away - fitting, given than Martin seems to be modelling himself and his office décor on the Emperor from Star Wars.
In the broader spectrum, any “debate” about a living wage is an insult to millions of people. There should be no debate about whether or not companies should pay their staff enough to survive. Ever. We might as well spend out time debating oxygen allowances or whether the working classes strictly need more than 1500 calories a day.
The proposed “living wage” has already been exposed as largely mendacitous, but to not even pay lip service to it is beyond any concept of fairness. Luckily, other recent government plans will probably sweeten the bitter aftertaste of having to pay a barmaid enough money to feed herself. Tax loopholes for large companies, which are being implemented as we speak, will see national chains like Wetherspoons receive sums of money that should be described not so much as a windfall but as more of a hurricane plummet.
Don’t be surprised if this time next year, Wetherspoons head office is located somewhere in the Swiss Alps for tax reasons.
And definitely don’t be surprised if the staff at your local ‘Spoons are still on the breadline.
