This article is written in a highly emotive tone and ideological rather than what I would hope to read, which is something that is balanced and objective. I'm personally not disputing Bain takeover or UK Visa rules or the experiences of a handful of employees (versus that of the other 3,500 other employees that GAIL's has).
But there are too many generalisations, sweeping statements and politically charged narratives.
The language is so incredibly loaded, ''lurking behind the upmarket veneer'', ''sinister reality''. What's the purpose here? To explore a factually accurate experience or portray a monster terrorising a neighborhood?
You've implied moral conclusions already; ''GAIL's masking exploitation behind bread and coffee'' without any evidence to let it speak.
Fundamentally, there is zero balance, you might be getting the standard response from an organisation but I'm sure you could have easily found a few employees experience that was positive too.
There's a big contradictory/logical gap in your article too.
The piece says:
“Staff told us that managers ask workers to go home early if business is quiet... we found multiple employees who reported regularly receiving less work than was written into their contracts.”
Then immediately:
“Gail’s stated that their company policy gives employees two weeks’ advance notice of their shift rota.”
And:
“One of our members was awarded back pay as they had not been receiving contractual hours.”
That final line actually confirms the policy and contractual protection worked, the employee was compensated. So instead of proving exploitation, it shows the system of accountability exists and employees have recourse when things go wrong.
You claims GAIL’s became filled with South Asian (mainly Gujarati) workers “after Brexit and Covid,” as a deliberate workforce replacement. But you also acknowledge:
“Brexit and Covid had arrived together, and many European employees couldn’t return. Those who remained were increasingly unwilling to deal with the working conditions.”
That’s a labour market issue, not a corporate racial agenda. Every UK hospitality business faced this post-Brexit labour shortage Pret, Costa, Leon, Greggs. (I should know I work in both HR and hospitality).
So implying this is a GAIL’s-specific racial or exploitative phenomenon is misleading.
The piece leans into race heavily, suggesting racialised treatment of Gujarati staff but all the examples are anecdotal and second-hand, e.g.:
“Zahra recalled that white staff would complain about Muslims fasting during Ramadan.”
That is a colleague conflict anecdote, not a company policy or systemic racism. There’s no evidence of discriminatory company practices, training, or procedures. You make sweeping conclusions from isolated perceptions.
You wrote a really long section (almost a third of the article) about Indian politics, Modi, the 2002 riots, and the Gujarat economy. That has no direct connection to GAIL’s. It’s ideological padding to imply a sinister “global capitalism” story.
In good journalism, background is used to illuminate cause and effect here, it’s used to moralise and emotionally steer your readers toward outrage.
The article begins by asserting that “many” of the staff are Gujarati, but never cites data or even approximate figures. Later it admits:
“Gail’s said 11% of its total employees are South Asian, of whom 71% are Indian.”
That’s less than 8% of total staff, I'm sorry but that's hardly the sweeping demographic dominance suggested in the intro.
You end by implying GAIL’s traps (also a terribly leading word) migrant workers through visa sponsorship:
“Staying at Gail’s and hoping for a promotion is, for Sanjana, the only option.”
But also admits the government raised visa salary thresholds not GAIL’s. So the “trap” is caused by UK immigration policy, not corporate exploitation.
As I said earlier, you've used 3 or 4 employees to represent nearly 4000. You haven't even attempted to verify these claims across multiple sites or regions, there's no factual data or mentioned any of the positive things GAIL's puts in place for its employees like benefits or it's development programme (all of this can be found on their careers page or a quick scroll through LinkedIn).
I've worked in hospitality for many years across many brands. It's not perfect but it's an incredible sector to be a part of where you can really thrive and grow your career. The imperfection part of that conversation deserves honesty, balance and integrity. None of those made it into this article.
I completely sympathise with the migrant workers and appreciate the article - however, I strongly suspect many independent shops likely operate under similar if not worse conditions as well. And in fact in my day-to-day in London - I feel like I rarely see migrant workers in small indie cafes or bakeries - it’s usually hip young white staff to be honest...
And you can laugh at my tastebuds, but I really don’t think Gail’s is on the same level as other chains, their sandwiches and pastries are genuinely tasty and offer great quality for the convenience. They’re far from the typical egg sandwich fare. Honestly, I was blown away by their aubergine and mint sandwich, and I’ve yet to find a vegan option as good elsewhere. Many people I know feel reassured when they see a Gail’s because they trust the quality, whereas independent places can be hit or miss if you don't know the area
And I really can't stress enough independent doesn’t automatically mean high quality or ethical, and chains aren’t necessarily exploitative machines...if anything, exploitation is built into our modern economic systems. There’s definitely an important conversation to be had here around but I can't help but feel that all of this demonising Gail’s is not really leading us anywhere
Gails (and everything else Luke "the unrepentant capitalist" Johnson touches) is vile and everyone I know has been boycotting it for ages. Thanks so much for this excellent writing.
I do understand the use of some chains as shortcut signifiers of reliability, and lots of indies are rotten, too. There are plenty of signs of a good place if you're willing to do a tiny bit of research (a quick internet search) and a vibes test before you go in.
When something is expanding as fast and as obviously as Gail's it's pretty obvious that it's not just on the basis of a desire to take great products to a wider audience. One prime example is Macclesfield, where a large Gail's has opened up on a prime site in the town centre a few doors away from Flour, Water Salt, one of the best and nicest local bakeries in the UK. Happily when I was there, FWS was packed and Gail's was empty. Important thing to me is to try and identify a good independent and give it all the love and support you can.
Yes Tim, FWS is thriving ✨ I could never understand Gail's opening in Macc and was so worried for FWS, Plums, All Things Nice and Cornershop. But. They all seem to be doing OK and Gail's doesn't look anywhere near busy enough.
There isn't a single part of the Gail's model that is defendable - hedge fund ownership, staff exploitation and intentional driving out of independent bakeries
What a fantastic piece. Thank you for doing proper journalism and laying this bare. For some time, I’ve noticed the demographic behind fast casual counters become more Indian. I assumed it was Brexit related but didn’t realise quite how interwoven it is with immigration policy. Thank you!
Thank you for first rate journalism, bringing together a complex range of interlinking themes - actually a hall mark of the work Vittles publishes and of huge value in understanding what is going on in hospitality (and food production). Personally, I also recognise and applaud the effort involved in gaining the trust of workers with direct experience of conditions at Gail's, and suppporting them to speak out. I'm saddened by some of the negative/grudging comments on this article, which seem to fall into two categories: 1) Gail's sandwiches/products are so tasty, who cares about the pay and conditions of their workforce? 2) Many other places are just as exploitative, so why single out Gail's? In fact, it's pretty important to understand the specific way in which different brands, corporates, indies etc operate and the finer details of worker experiences in different contexts. I subscribe to Vittles because I know I can rely on them to commission and support fine grained analysis, rather than reproducing generic sound bites. If I had to give up everything else I read, I'd busk in the streets to keep my Vittles subscription. Thanks and appreciation to Sasha Patel, Ben Jacob and Kruttika Susaria (for the illustration).
This is an insightful piece, especially in terms of how the Gujarat model has influenced immigration patterns - as a Gujarati, I have been wondering why Gujaratis are absolutely everywhere in north-west London right now: in trains, buses, behind the counters in shops, cafes, restaurants, bars, all constantly talking about food, cooking, jobs, wages and life in London, in Gujarati spoken with Ahmedabadi and Surti accents. I thought Brexit, changes in student visas and trade with India must have all played a part.
However, the picture is more complicated. The role and extent of aspiration cannot be underestimated. Gujaratis (and Punjabis – these two groups more than any other) really, really want to move to the UK or the US (actually they prefer the US – or did before Trump). There’s huge social status attached to it. Call it colonial legacy if you like. They're extremely keen to move to western countries to earn a lot of money in order to either go back to India and set up their own businesses, or to launch their own businesses here (mainly their own restaurants or shops).
Indian popular culture – movies, TV series, stand-up comedy etc – are centred on this obsession with moving abroad, and all the contradictions that come with it (the emotional pull of ‘home’ vs the social cache of having ‘made it’ abroad). There are countless YouTube videos on how to do it, and the minutiae of navigating life abroad.
So young Gujaratis are resigned to putting up with terrible conditions in order to make as much money as they possibly can during their short stay on a student visa (and beyond). They see it as a temporary phase - something they have to bear in order to eventually get rich.
After all, many of these Gujaratis are not Muslims or Dalits squeezed out of the Gujarat model – they also include Modi-worshipping Hindutvas who either want to settle abroad or go back home and enjoy an affluent lifestyle.
This is not to say that what Gail’s are doing is terrible – of course it is – but what I’m saying is that it’s not just a case of exploiters and exploited. A lot of the Gujjus are smart cookies with more agency – and their strategy is part of a long game. (I'm trying to bring another dimension to this important story of exploitative economic systems).
These sort of outfits all follow the same MO. Start off with a good product and an image of looking after their staff and being a part of their community. Next thing you know there is one in every street corner, the food is tired and generic and, most upsettingly, the staff look so unhappy and stressed. I’ve not been in one for nearly two years and won’t be going to one ever again. Short sighted profit driven management driving a business into the ground. Try and use independent coffee shops and bakeries if you can. Gail’s bread ain’t that good!
This feels like lazy journalism — why single out Gail’s when the piece itself say these labour issues exist across the whole industry?
Were you concerned that your Gujarati article wouldn’t have got clicks unless you shoe-horned in the popular sport of Gail’s bashing..
I was also surprised about how eager you were to call out the Isreali founders in a negative tone when, as far as I’m aware, the co-founder who has driven the company from the start, only mentioned as a “colleague”, is the only one still part of the company.
This feels like a critique of neoliberal economics and current UK and immigration practices through the lens of a popular sport of criticising chains. Baked into this is the assumption that independent businesses automatically have better working practices or realities, which is simply not the case either logically or in reality. There is much to decry here, but I can't help but wonder about the motivation of picking Gail's... Even the closing sentiment of the article is weirdly deliberately offensive. Most businesses waste huge amounts of unsold food at the end of the day. Gail's does at least participate in things like Too Good to Go. The alternative to throwing away unsold baked goods, given how hard it is to is to perfectly accurately predict demand, is to pack them with preservatives so they last longer. I imagine vittels would criticise that, too.
There are so many important issues being raised but tagging GAIL’s name to it just feels like clickbait.
The piece barely scratches the surface of what UK hospitality workers are really experiencing. Instead of unpacking the root causes of the challenges facing the sector, it pins the blame on PE ownership and a bakery. Let’s break it down.
Cost cutting and labour constraints
The article says GAIL’s workers have seen huge differences since the pandemic. I’d challenge anyone to find a hospitality worker who hasn’t. Rising costs in ingredients, labour, taxes, utilities, and business rates aren’t the fault of PE they’re the direct result of government policy.
Hospitality is on its knees. Independents are closing because they simply can’t sustain the cost of operating, and larger groups are forced to find efficiencies. The impact is the same everywhere: stress on resources and people scrambling to make ends meet.
Immigration and workforce realities
The article also isn’t factually correct on immigration. The sponsorship threshold rose to just under £42k in July 2025, and a raft of job codes including many hospitality roles were reclassified as “unskilled.” That means sponsorship is effectively off the table for most of the sector.
Businesses aren’t “targeting” cultural demographics. Most hire locally — people who can actually get to work at 5 a.m. or midnight. If a particular demographic is more visible in certain workplaces, it’s because that’s who lives and works in the local community. The real issue here is immigration red tape, not businesses trying to survive.
Private Equity and scale
Owning one small restaurant makes little financial sense. Two might just about work. Ten? That’s where you can start providing better pay and benefits. But to get there, you need investment and in hospitality, that often means PE.
If PE is truly the root of all evil, then let’s have that discussion ….not a hit piece on a single brand.
The bigger picture
This article risks deepening divides and marginalising communities. The problems facing hospitality are systemic: chronic underinvestment, unrealistic cost pressures, and restrictive immigration reforms.
People are people. Yes, unfair treatment at work happens and must be addressed but the biggest levers for positive change lie with government policy and industry-wide reform, not in vilifying individual businesses.
This is shocking and thank you for not putting it behind a paywall.
Now, this is what Substack is for 🙏🏻💕🍽️
This article is written in a highly emotive tone and ideological rather than what I would hope to read, which is something that is balanced and objective. I'm personally not disputing Bain takeover or UK Visa rules or the experiences of a handful of employees (versus that of the other 3,500 other employees that GAIL's has).
But there are too many generalisations, sweeping statements and politically charged narratives.
The language is so incredibly loaded, ''lurking behind the upmarket veneer'', ''sinister reality''. What's the purpose here? To explore a factually accurate experience or portray a monster terrorising a neighborhood?
You've implied moral conclusions already; ''GAIL's masking exploitation behind bread and coffee'' without any evidence to let it speak.
Fundamentally, there is zero balance, you might be getting the standard response from an organisation but I'm sure you could have easily found a few employees experience that was positive too.
There's a big contradictory/logical gap in your article too.
The piece says:
“Staff told us that managers ask workers to go home early if business is quiet... we found multiple employees who reported regularly receiving less work than was written into their contracts.”
Then immediately:
“Gail’s stated that their company policy gives employees two weeks’ advance notice of their shift rota.”
And:
“One of our members was awarded back pay as they had not been receiving contractual hours.”
That final line actually confirms the policy and contractual protection worked, the employee was compensated. So instead of proving exploitation, it shows the system of accountability exists and employees have recourse when things go wrong.
You claims GAIL’s became filled with South Asian (mainly Gujarati) workers “after Brexit and Covid,” as a deliberate workforce replacement. But you also acknowledge:
“Brexit and Covid had arrived together, and many European employees couldn’t return. Those who remained were increasingly unwilling to deal with the working conditions.”
That’s a labour market issue, not a corporate racial agenda. Every UK hospitality business faced this post-Brexit labour shortage Pret, Costa, Leon, Greggs. (I should know I work in both HR and hospitality).
So implying this is a GAIL’s-specific racial or exploitative phenomenon is misleading.
The piece leans into race heavily, suggesting racialised treatment of Gujarati staff but all the examples are anecdotal and second-hand, e.g.:
“Zahra recalled that white staff would complain about Muslims fasting during Ramadan.”
That is a colleague conflict anecdote, not a company policy or systemic racism. There’s no evidence of discriminatory company practices, training, or procedures. You make sweeping conclusions from isolated perceptions.
You wrote a really long section (almost a third of the article) about Indian politics, Modi, the 2002 riots, and the Gujarat economy. That has no direct connection to GAIL’s. It’s ideological padding to imply a sinister “global capitalism” story.
In good journalism, background is used to illuminate cause and effect here, it’s used to moralise and emotionally steer your readers toward outrage.
The article begins by asserting that “many” of the staff are Gujarati, but never cites data or even approximate figures. Later it admits:
“Gail’s said 11% of its total employees are South Asian, of whom 71% are Indian.”
That’s less than 8% of total staff, I'm sorry but that's hardly the sweeping demographic dominance suggested in the intro.
You end by implying GAIL’s traps (also a terribly leading word) migrant workers through visa sponsorship:
“Staying at Gail’s and hoping for a promotion is, for Sanjana, the only option.”
But also admits the government raised visa salary thresholds not GAIL’s. So the “trap” is caused by UK immigration policy, not corporate exploitation.
As I said earlier, you've used 3 or 4 employees to represent nearly 4000. You haven't even attempted to verify these claims across multiple sites or regions, there's no factual data or mentioned any of the positive things GAIL's puts in place for its employees like benefits or it's development programme (all of this can be found on their careers page or a quick scroll through LinkedIn).
I've worked in hospitality for many years across many brands. It's not perfect but it's an incredible sector to be a part of where you can really thrive and grow your career. The imperfection part of that conversation deserves honesty, balance and integrity. None of those made it into this article.
I completely sympathise with the migrant workers and appreciate the article - however, I strongly suspect many independent shops likely operate under similar if not worse conditions as well. And in fact in my day-to-day in London - I feel like I rarely see migrant workers in small indie cafes or bakeries - it’s usually hip young white staff to be honest...
And you can laugh at my tastebuds, but I really don’t think Gail’s is on the same level as other chains, their sandwiches and pastries are genuinely tasty and offer great quality for the convenience. They’re far from the typical egg sandwich fare. Honestly, I was blown away by their aubergine and mint sandwich, and I’ve yet to find a vegan option as good elsewhere. Many people I know feel reassured when they see a Gail’s because they trust the quality, whereas independent places can be hit or miss if you don't know the area
And I really can't stress enough independent doesn’t automatically mean high quality or ethical, and chains aren’t necessarily exploitative machines...if anything, exploitation is built into our modern economic systems. There’s definitely an important conversation to be had here around but I can't help but feel that all of this demonising Gail’s is not really leading us anywhere
Gails (and everything else Luke "the unrepentant capitalist" Johnson touches) is vile and everyone I know has been boycotting it for ages. Thanks so much for this excellent writing.
I do understand the use of some chains as shortcut signifiers of reliability, and lots of indies are rotten, too. There are plenty of signs of a good place if you're willing to do a tiny bit of research (a quick internet search) and a vibes test before you go in.
When something is expanding as fast and as obviously as Gail's it's pretty obvious that it's not just on the basis of a desire to take great products to a wider audience. One prime example is Macclesfield, where a large Gail's has opened up on a prime site in the town centre a few doors away from Flour, Water Salt, one of the best and nicest local bakeries in the UK. Happily when I was there, FWS was packed and Gail's was empty. Important thing to me is to try and identify a good independent and give it all the love and support you can.
Yes Tim, FWS is thriving ✨ I could never understand Gail's opening in Macc and was so worried for FWS, Plums, All Things Nice and Cornershop. But. They all seem to be doing OK and Gail's doesn't look anywhere near busy enough.
So true. The reason why chains are so successful is that the average consumer will know what they’re going to get, and people like that.
E5 bakehouse staff recently unionised — indicating that there’s issues at trendy organic grain to bread bakeries too.
Late stage capitalism b capitalising I guess
There isn't a single part of the Gail's model that is defendable - hedge fund ownership, staff exploitation and intentional driving out of independent bakeries
What a fantastic piece. Thank you for doing proper journalism and laying this bare. For some time, I’ve noticed the demographic behind fast casual counters become more Indian. I assumed it was Brexit related but didn’t realise quite how interwoven it is with immigration policy. Thank you!
Hooooo, you blew the LID off this. Fuck Gail's.
Thank you for first rate journalism, bringing together a complex range of interlinking themes - actually a hall mark of the work Vittles publishes and of huge value in understanding what is going on in hospitality (and food production). Personally, I also recognise and applaud the effort involved in gaining the trust of workers with direct experience of conditions at Gail's, and suppporting them to speak out. I'm saddened by some of the negative/grudging comments on this article, which seem to fall into two categories: 1) Gail's sandwiches/products are so tasty, who cares about the pay and conditions of their workforce? 2) Many other places are just as exploitative, so why single out Gail's? In fact, it's pretty important to understand the specific way in which different brands, corporates, indies etc operate and the finer details of worker experiences in different contexts. I subscribe to Vittles because I know I can rely on them to commission and support fine grained analysis, rather than reproducing generic sound bites. If I had to give up everything else I read, I'd busk in the streets to keep my Vittles subscription. Thanks and appreciation to Sasha Patel, Ben Jacob and Kruttika Susaria (for the illustration).
This is an insightful piece, especially in terms of how the Gujarat model has influenced immigration patterns - as a Gujarati, I have been wondering why Gujaratis are absolutely everywhere in north-west London right now: in trains, buses, behind the counters in shops, cafes, restaurants, bars, all constantly talking about food, cooking, jobs, wages and life in London, in Gujarati spoken with Ahmedabadi and Surti accents. I thought Brexit, changes in student visas and trade with India must have all played a part.
However, the picture is more complicated. The role and extent of aspiration cannot be underestimated. Gujaratis (and Punjabis – these two groups more than any other) really, really want to move to the UK or the US (actually they prefer the US – or did before Trump). There’s huge social status attached to it. Call it colonial legacy if you like. They're extremely keen to move to western countries to earn a lot of money in order to either go back to India and set up their own businesses, or to launch their own businesses here (mainly their own restaurants or shops).
Indian popular culture – movies, TV series, stand-up comedy etc – are centred on this obsession with moving abroad, and all the contradictions that come with it (the emotional pull of ‘home’ vs the social cache of having ‘made it’ abroad). There are countless YouTube videos on how to do it, and the minutiae of navigating life abroad.
So young Gujaratis are resigned to putting up with terrible conditions in order to make as much money as they possibly can during their short stay on a student visa (and beyond). They see it as a temporary phase - something they have to bear in order to eventually get rich.
After all, many of these Gujaratis are not Muslims or Dalits squeezed out of the Gujarat model – they also include Modi-worshipping Hindutvas who either want to settle abroad or go back home and enjoy an affluent lifestyle.
This is not to say that what Gail’s are doing is terrible – of course it is – but what I’m saying is that it’s not just a case of exploiters and exploited. A lot of the Gujjus are smart cookies with more agency – and their strategy is part of a long game. (I'm trying to bring another dimension to this important story of exploitative economic systems).
Didn’t Luke Johnson buy and ruin Patisserie Valerie ?
...and pizza express (he was also chairman of the Almeida Theatre in Islington until 2024, which is still going)
These sort of outfits all follow the same MO. Start off with a good product and an image of looking after their staff and being a part of their community. Next thing you know there is one in every street corner, the food is tired and generic and, most upsettingly, the staff look so unhappy and stressed. I’ve not been in one for nearly two years and won’t be going to one ever again. Short sighted profit driven management driving a business into the ground. Try and use independent coffee shops and bakeries if you can. Gail’s bread ain’t that good!
It’s the retail equivalent of the enshittification of the internet.
This feels like lazy journalism — why single out Gail’s when the piece itself say these labour issues exist across the whole industry?
Were you concerned that your Gujarati article wouldn’t have got clicks unless you shoe-horned in the popular sport of Gail’s bashing..
I was also surprised about how eager you were to call out the Isreali founders in a negative tone when, as far as I’m aware, the co-founder who has driven the company from the start, only mentioned as a “colleague”, is the only one still part of the company.
This is a truly incredible article and really highlights how the external “brand values” are so far away from its reality.
Great article, albeit a grim tale that is as old as time
This feels like a critique of neoliberal economics and current UK and immigration practices through the lens of a popular sport of criticising chains. Baked into this is the assumption that independent businesses automatically have better working practices or realities, which is simply not the case either logically or in reality. There is much to decry here, but I can't help but wonder about the motivation of picking Gail's... Even the closing sentiment of the article is weirdly deliberately offensive. Most businesses waste huge amounts of unsold food at the end of the day. Gail's does at least participate in things like Too Good to Go. The alternative to throwing away unsold baked goods, given how hard it is to is to perfectly accurately predict demand, is to pack them with preservatives so they last longer. I imagine vittels would criticise that, too.
This article gave me the ick.
There are so many important issues being raised but tagging GAIL’s name to it just feels like clickbait.
The piece barely scratches the surface of what UK hospitality workers are really experiencing. Instead of unpacking the root causes of the challenges facing the sector, it pins the blame on PE ownership and a bakery. Let’s break it down.
Cost cutting and labour constraints
The article says GAIL’s workers have seen huge differences since the pandemic. I’d challenge anyone to find a hospitality worker who hasn’t. Rising costs in ingredients, labour, taxes, utilities, and business rates aren’t the fault of PE they’re the direct result of government policy.
Hospitality is on its knees. Independents are closing because they simply can’t sustain the cost of operating, and larger groups are forced to find efficiencies. The impact is the same everywhere: stress on resources and people scrambling to make ends meet.
Immigration and workforce realities
The article also isn’t factually correct on immigration. The sponsorship threshold rose to just under £42k in July 2025, and a raft of job codes including many hospitality roles were reclassified as “unskilled.” That means sponsorship is effectively off the table for most of the sector.
Businesses aren’t “targeting” cultural demographics. Most hire locally — people who can actually get to work at 5 a.m. or midnight. If a particular demographic is more visible in certain workplaces, it’s because that’s who lives and works in the local community. The real issue here is immigration red tape, not businesses trying to survive.
Private Equity and scale
Owning one small restaurant makes little financial sense. Two might just about work. Ten? That’s where you can start providing better pay and benefits. But to get there, you need investment and in hospitality, that often means PE.
If PE is truly the root of all evil, then let’s have that discussion ….not a hit piece on a single brand.
The bigger picture
This article risks deepening divides and marginalising communities. The problems facing hospitality are systemic: chronic underinvestment, unrealistic cost pressures, and restrictive immigration reforms.
People are people. Yes, unfair treatment at work happens and must be addressed but the biggest levers for positive change lie with government policy and industry-wide reform, not in vilifying individual businesses.