VetPartners says Valley Vets has around 200 employees, less than half of which are members of the union, although the BVU says 50% are required for recognition.
Suzanna Hudson-Cooke MRCVS, Branch Chair at BVU said: “Fees at Valley Vets have increased by 25% in two years, which is hurting pet owners whilst some staff at Valley Vets are being paid so little that they’re having to use foodbanks.
“Three years ago, VetPartners CEO Jo Malone committed to paying all staff a living wage, which still hasn’t happened”
“VetPartners did increase the salaries of lower paid members by 7.27% in the last review, but this was mostly to meet its legal obligation to pay the minimum wage.”
VetPartners responded to these points saying:
"It has been and still is our aim to pay at least the real living wage to all of our employees. We have moved closer to the aim over the past three years.
"There are 20 members of the regular team that work at Valley Vets who are below the real living wage and they are paid approximately 1.6% below that level.
"Since April 2020, we have uplifted overall salary costs at Valley Vets by 31.45% before the increase in April 2024, at a time when VetPartners, like many businesses across the UK, has been hit by a sharp rise in the cost of goods and services, interest rates and rampant inflation.
"Valley Vets’ profitability has declined over the last three years.
"We have made advances over several years in improving many benefits for our teams such as life cover, health shield, sickness and enhanced maternity cover and want to continue to do so.
"We have seen mass redundancies from other large groups and we are trying to avoid this at Valley Vets.
"The BVU in Unite requested pay and condition increases initially that would have raised employment costs by over 25% and they are currently requesting increases which would raise this by 15% which would make Valley Vets unsustainable without a significant reduction in the workforce, something we are trying to avoid.”
During annual salary reviews in 2024, we benchmarked pay for all roles within Valley Vets and they sit in the upper quartile.
"We prioritised lowest-paid team members with a 7.27% pay increase while higher paid colleagues also received an increase at a lower rate.
"We are also well aware of the affordability of care fees, and that is why we felt fees paid by our clients could not be raised any further to support significant salary increases demanded by the BVU in Unite.
The strike is due to continue till the end of July, during which time the BVU says staff are being released from the picket line as needed to provide local animals with emergency care.
Staff are not paid whilst out on strike so the BVU has started a fund, here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PTVKVK3
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
I do not feel this is balanced post. Much more voice is given to the corporate than to BVU and I know that BVU has passed to Arlo much more information than mentioned. This is a historical action, strike always a last choice.
Just to add a bit more balanced view please have look at this news from The Guardian www.theguardian.com/.../vets-extend-strike-in-first-industrial-action-to-hit-britains-pet-care-sector
podenka Sorry, but that is rubbish. I listened to the BVU points and invited VetPartners to respond. Perfectly balanced. But I am wondering what your motive is because you seem to have a somewhat one-sided agenda yourself!
I think that my motive is quite clear, and I do not have to be balanced in my views. I support Fair Fees, Fair Pay and Smaller Profits that Valley Vets ask for. True for every corporate high management, which looks only at bottom line and is far away from caring about pets’ and staff wellbeing.
podenka I don’t have to be balanced either, certainly no more balanced than the left wing Guardian or the right wing Telegraph. But as it happens, I think I was completely balanced. I certainly don’t have any reason to support either side in this dispute. I simply took the allegations made to me by the BVU and asked VetPartners to respond to them, and reported its response. I am at a loss to understand why you think that was biased. Is it that you would only think an article is balanced if it leans heavily towards the ‘evil, money-grabbing corporate’ narrative?
No Arlo, it was judged by amount of lines in the article given to each of sides. Calling BVU’s statements ‚allegations’ also makes it clear that you ARE taking a side, just stop saying that it is balanced. Obviously you do not realise how biased you are - and fair enough, you don’t have to be unbiased.
podenka Why on earth do you think I would take a side? That is simply not the case. I genuinely do not support one side or the other in this dispute. As I explained in my forum reply, I do not know which side is telling the truth: usually in disputes of this sort, both sides spin information to suit their agenda.
All I can do is put one side's points to the other and allow them to reply, allowing readers to make their own minds up.
I did not refer to the BVU statements as 'allegations' in the original story. I used the term 'points'.
However, the word 'allegations' does NOT make it clear I am taking a side. Allegations can be true or false. I do not know whether the allegations made by the BVU are true or false or somewhere in between. Until proven, they therefore remain 'allegations'.Lastly, you cannot define 'balance' according to the number of words given to one side of the argument or another. Powerful points are often made in less words. It depends what the words are.
I think we could go round in circles a bit here. I am telling you, as a statement of fact, that I have no reason for bias. I have no conflict of interest, no relationship with either party, and no ideological belief that would make me lean towards one side or the other.
Perhaps it is you that doesn't realise how biased you are!