Boycott Picturehouse?

[Penguin68]

I don't know the ethics behind Peckham Plex, but I do now know the ethics behind Cineworld, so, you make your choice, simples.

If you are making a choice about ethical behaviour, and you don't know how one of the two alternatives performs, then you may actually be making no choice at all. What if you are encouraging a firm which pays less even than Picture House? How does that sit with your conscience?

[DaveR]

"You don't think we can assume that people (especially the press, Helen Hayes MP, Mayor Sadiq Khan to name a few of the local heavy weigh supporters, have done their homework prior to supporting the boycott?"

No - it would be safer to assume the opposite. Politicians like presenting situations as binary - this is right, this is wrong, and we're on the right side, support us. The press like an eye-catching story - 'Poverty wages paid by greedy fat cats - SHOCK!'. Life is almost always more complicated than that. And financial statements of listed companies definitely are.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not condoning them, simply pointing out that

> 'the sums' often aren't as easy to work out as it

> first seems.

I freely admit I'm not the best with finance - just ask my bank manager, or indeed Mrs.H - but clearly Cineworld could afford to pay LLW, albeit by accepting lower profits. I was merely disputing the previous poster's point that cinemas would be economically unviable if they paid the LLW, which in the case of Cineworld/Picturehouse is clearly not the case.

[JoeLeg]

If we want everyone in this town to earn the LLW, then we'll have to start paying more for our cinema tickets, burgers, pints of beer, packets of crisps, shoes, books and flat screen tv's.

While I totally support the theory behind it, I laugh at the idea that it can be implemented without price raises. Certainly there are places which could afford to pay more in wages. There's also a lot that can't, but which are unable to raise prices on the products/services they provide because there's a limit to what people will pay for stuff.

Antic Pub Co, owners of EDT, don't pay it. Why not boycott them? I'm pretty sure some of the staff in M+S aren't getting it. Boycott M+S? What about the various hair salons? Or Londis? Or even Sainsbury's? And I'd be surprised if Peckham Plex paid it. McDonalds certainly don't

There's plenty of places out there paying the same as Picturehouse which no one is talking about. Why just these guys? Vote with your wallet by all means, it's one of few things the head office will listen too. But don't kid yourself that it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Then again, everything starts somewhere...Though I guarantee it'll lead to increased prices. If you're willing to pay them then good on you.

[JoeLeg]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > I am not condoning them, simply pointing out

> that

> > 'the sums' often aren't as easy to work out as

> it

> > first seems.

>

> I freely admit I'm not the best with finance -

> just ask my bank manager, or indeed Mrs.H - but

> clearly Cineworld could afford to pay LLW, albeit

> by accepting lower profits. I was merely

> disputing the previous poster's point that cinemas

> would be economically unviable if they paid the

> LLW, which in the case of Cineworld/Picturehouse

> is clearly not the case.

Well, as Penguin points out, those profit figures are far from being a clear picture of what Cineworld can actually afford to pay in wages. However, I wonder if they have shareholders, because if they do there's your answer - I have a hard time imagining that any shareholders will tolerate lower dividends; they don't tend to!

[peckham_ryu]

Happy to 'boycott' the big screen, by staying home and watching all the latest movies freely available on the internet. No worries about living wage - none of the folks involved in the movies' legitimate production and distribution will see a penny. Just the guy who stole and sold the content, and the people who run the website.

Millions of people around the world do this every day.

Or, we can go to the cinema (any cinema) and pay money which pays everyone working in the industry. Even if you feel that some or many of those people are underpaid: at least they are paid!

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure some of the staff in

> M+S aren't getting it. Boycott M+S?

I agree with most of what you say Joe, but actually M&S announced last year that from this coming April they will pay their staff ?9.65 per hour, pretty close to LLW.

[JoeLeg]

Very happy to stand corrected on M+s - or anyone else - who pays that.

[worldwiser]

Exactly what I was gong to add JoeLeg.

Odeon is a far bigger employer and they steadfastly adhere to minimum wage. As do vue, another massive employer. As do the vast majority of businesses of all types across the city. I'm not saying people shouldn't campaign for better pay and conditions where possible but this kind of fatuous, headline-grabbing behaviour helps no-one and unfairly demonises what is, when you look at the competition and the local employment scene, one of the good guys. I shall continue to support Picturehouses everywhere.

[rendelharris]

Picturehouse have reneged on a promise to pay staff LLW and keep 80% of their staff on zero hours contracts. Our definition of "good guys" obviously differs.

Sorry if you think it's "fatuous" for people to campaign for fair wages and terms of employment (a campaign backed by Sadiq Khan and Ken Loach, amongst many others).

Curzon Cinemas pays its staff LLW, so it clearly is possible.

ETA "The vast majority of businesses across the city..." Check out who does pay living wage here: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/who-pays-the-living-wage?title=&field_region_tid=7&field_sector_tid=All&field_industry_tid=All&items_per_page=42 - companies including Barclays, KPMG, Aviva, Accenture - this isn't some loony left demand, it's companies recognising that it's only right that when they make huge profits their employees get enough to live on.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If your going to organise a boycott, it should target the worst offenders. That's not pocturehouse.

[mikeb]

It would be good to hear from Peckhamplex on their approach to wages.

There's not a lot of public info on Peckhamplex's finances. The cinema business is owned by Peckhamplex Ltd which is owned by John Reiss who is a well-connected PR businessesman, chairman of Premier PR (www.premiercomms.com). The cinema itself is leased from the council. From various press articles, John Reiss appears to be genuinely interested in building a community-focused cinmea with a real 'alternative' approach. That said, his house in one of Primose Hill's best streets does suggest that he is personally a long way from the poverty line...

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02449371/filing-history/MzE2MjY1NDA1OWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

As a small company, Peckhamplex's accounts are abbreviated and don't contain much info. They suggest that it made just ?65,000 net profit in YE Mar-16, but there's no insight into whether that is 'normal' profit or whether it is after management charges / interest that would have reduced it. Doesn't seem to be any unusual shareholder transactions though disclosure is scant.

[El Presidente]

Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all ED businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? The skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could completely wipe out all the good little businesses in ED and feel really great about ourselves because we're such ethical consumers!

[worldwiser]

I did not say that people campaigning for fair wages is fatuous. I said this campaign was. Ritzy's starting pay is 9.10 per hour which is by far one of the best wages for this kind of work in London.

At the end of 2015, according to ONS, there were 445,000 PAYE-registered businesses in London. The 2,900 businesses signed up to LLW do not undermine my statement that the vast majority are not (in spite of the monstruously profitable names you cite.)

That's not to say that LLW isn't an an important voice because they are. But they're not the only voice. If everyone in London were uprated to the LLW overnight, with the knock-on effects there would be a catastrophic economic correction the likes of which we have never seen. That serves no-one.

This is the kind of thing that employers need to work towards over time, not overnight. And Picturehouse is way out in front on this issue and should be applauded for their efforts thus far rather than demonised for being something that they're not. Luvvies and politicians trotting out easy statements from their well-padded armchairs do far more harm than good.

[apbremer]

Anyway, none of our business.

[Jeremy]

I agree all staff should get the living wage, but a boycott makes no sense unless you boycott all businesses that don't pay it.

Just because they might show the occasional indie film, and have cultivated a less corporate image, doesn't mean they should be held to different standards.

[James Barber]

In East Dulwich we have a bigger issue of some local businesses not paying staff at all - I've had a number of items of casework where I've helped organise solicitor letters to extract wages from local businesses.

Ideally everyone would be in receipt of the LLW.

If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon would snap the lease up. When Cllr Rosie Shimell, former councillor Jonathan Mitchell and I were searching for cinema operators we had four interested parties and the Picturehouse won out with the landlord. So I don't see a risk of this boycott in us losing such a valuable local resource. But I do feel concern about a boycott of one cinema when we don't know how people are paid at the alternative.

Would be great to know people employed at PeckhamPlex are paid the LLW before favouring it by boycotting the nearest competitor.

NB. I should declare I'm a member of ED Picturehouse membership scheme.

[KidKruger]

What El Presidente said.

[JohnL]

worldwiser Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not to say that LLW isn't an an important

> voice because they are. But they're not the only

> voice. If everyone in London were uprated to the

> LLW overnight, with the knock-on effects there

> would be a catastrophic economic correction the

> likes of which we have never seen. That serves

> no-one.

People did say that when the minimum wage was introduced

back in the 90s - and it turned out the bankers brought

the economy to it's knees.

[JohnL]

El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all ED

> businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? The

> skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could

> completely wipe out all the good little businesses

> in ED and feel really great about ourselves

> because we're such ethical consumers!

I don't boycott - but I do spend more on businesses that

do if I can.

[Jules-and-Boo]

The PH and Peckhamplax are substantially different.

The reason we prefer PP is because we like to support our local area and local businesses.

It's very clear that they could 'gentrify' but that's actually an ethical decision covering many areas of London and affecting many businesses.

The fact that they choose to continue to charge prices that more people and more families can afford over higher prices and more profit will always attract my support.

There's more to life than making money and being greedy. It's a pity more businesses do not embrace ethical approaches to their customers.

Added to the fact, when we do go - with the kids and their friends in tow, the price differential is huge. There are no issues taking our own snacks and I have never experienced any of the complaints stated above. We go much more often than we would to the PH for that reason, so I wouldn't say they get less business by charging lower prices.

[Abe_froeman]

"Ideally everyone would be in receipt of the LLW. "

Erm, wouldn't that just cause rampant inflation, pushing up the cost of living beyond the so-called LLW?

[titch juicy]

El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all ED

> businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? The

> skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could

> completely wipe out all the good little businesses

> in ED and feel really great about ourselves

> because we're such ethical consumers!

You always need to start somewhere and once a prominent local business starts paying LLW, others will feel pressured to follow.

And Picturehouse is a long long way from being a small independent local business.

[Jeremy]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's very clear that they could 'gentrify' but

> that's actually an ethical decision

I thought the building was due for demolition in a couple of years? I don't think there's any scope for PP to go all fancy, even if they wanted to.

[titch juicy]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's very clear that they could 'gentrify' but

> > that's actually an ethical decision

>

> I thought the building was due for demolition in a

> couple of years? I don't think there's any scope

> for PP to go all fancy, even if they wanted to.

Is that right?!