Note that the figures quoted in the video for numbers of people employed (John Lewis 56,000 and M&S 61,000) are 'full time equivalent' (FTE), that is, the numbers that would have been employed if everyone had worked full time. However, the John Lewis Partnership employed around 80,000 real people and Marks and Spencer employed around 86,000, in both cases many of them working part time. Note that the productivity of the John Lewis Partnership is therefore greater: £10.2 billion sales with 56,000 FTE which is an average £182,000 per person (FTE), against M&S's £169,000 per FTE.
In this video the interviews suggest reasons why people are more productive when they own the firm than when the firm is owned by outsiders. In economic democracy, the fact that it is 'our' company leads to greater commitment. People make sure that they 'get things out of the door', to quote Neil from Suma in the video. They also come up with solutions to problems in a way that is much less likely to occur when they don't own their business. When downturns occur — as in the case of the Aberdeen based Woollard and Henry in the video — they do their best to preserve the jobs, retaining skills and firm-specific knowledge. They do this in part because the good treatment of people is a priority for everyone, and this has the economic effect that if and when the market picks up again, they are ready to take full advantage, with skills and spare capacity in place. By contrast, faced with a downturn conventional companies tend to reduce numbers employed faster. This leaves them with lower capacity in the event of an upturn, lack of skills, and the need for expensive recruitment and training. It is, then, no surprise to find evidence that democratic firms last longer, sustain jobs better, and are more productive.
On the question of inequality, the contrast between employee-owned John Lewis and the conventional alternative is clear. The cash distributed by John Lewis goes to all who work there; the cash taken out of Marks and Spencer goes up into the City. To the extent that it goes into anyone's pocket, it goes in fees to those who run the financial institutions — people who are generally already well off. A proportion of it will quite possibly be invested in derivatives or other financial instruments that do not benefit the real economy; in 2008 such investments were responsible for threatening the collapse of the whole financial sector, with the serious knock-on effects that followed in the real economy. Thus, the wider effects of the two companies were radically different. The employee-owned company spread wealth widely, so that it reduced inequality and gave the real economy a boost. The conventional company's dividends went to financial institutions, if anything making inequality worse and not helping the real economy.
