Boycott Picturehouse?

[El Presidente]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> 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.

Well why not start with the businesses James B say's aren't paying their staff? Or failing that, the ones that only pay the minimum wage? Why choose one that is paying over ?2 an hour above the minimum wage for a low skilled job.

[Mick Mac]

James Barber Wrote:

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

If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon would snap the lease up

So I don't see a risk of this boycott in

us losing such a valuable local resource.

Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly to be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor seems ok with that prospect.

There is a huge amount of capital expenditure in the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such a wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be employed.

I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel about their employment there the next time I'm in there, although I understand that they may feel conflicted.

As someone else suggested, tipping helps significantly.

Of course only people who use the cinema can tip, those who don't cant and those who boycott cant either.

[titch juicy]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

>

> Well why not start with the businesses James B

> say's aren't paying their staff? Or failing that,

> the ones that only pay the minimum wage? Why

> choose one that is paying over ?2 an hour above

> the minimum wage for a low skilled job.

I'm not boycotting picturehouse as I don't use it in the first place- but not for those reasons. However; I see no reason for people not to boycott it for that reason. Yes, if someone wants to list the businesses James is talking about, perhaps people could boycott those too.

I guess another reason for doing it is because a high profile protest against one of their other cinemas led to some action.

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> "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?

Why? Aldi pays the London Living Wage yet has the cheapest prices. Paying the Living Wage isn't just about businesses coughing up, there are all manner of benefits such as decreased absenteeism, greater employee loyalty etc which help offset the cost rises.

Pleased to see some supporters of the LW on here at last! Those saying Picturehouse isn't the worst offender, no it isn't (though its employment practices are pretty bad, 80% of staff on zero hours contract, no sick pay in first year, sick pay only after eight days' absence after that) but that shouldn't stop its employees for asking for fair pay. It's a useful flagship case, as it's a perceived luxury brand charging top prices whilst still not paying the LLW.

The argument that it will cost business more could be used to argue against any form of ethical consumerism - as certain people above clearly would.

[Abe_froeman]

Cost push inflation is just one aspect of it but you are right, it is sometimes (not always) off set by an increase in productivity. However, more money in the system also causes demand pull inflation. If everybody suddenly has more to spend and an imbalance between demand and supply occurs, pushing up prices.

[El Presidente]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon would

> snap the lease up

> So I don't see a risk of this boycott in

> us losing such a valuable local resource.

>

>

> Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly to

> be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor

> seems ok with that prospect.

> There is a huge amount of capital expenditure in

> the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to

> Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such a

> wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be

> employed.

>

> I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel about

> their employment there the next time I'm in there,

> although I understand that they may feel

> conflicted.

> As someone else suggested, tipping helps

> significantly.

> Of course only people who use the cinema can tip,

> those who don't cant and those who boycott cant

> either.

Crikey. I had missed this spectacularly ill informed complacency from James Barber.

I despair sometimes. We have this great local facility paying way, way above minimum wage and people are calling for a boycott. And let's just flag the elephant in the room here. Cinema jobs are easy. You spend half your time watching movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it gets. There are much tougher gigs on LL paying way less.

Vacuous virtue signalling at it's worst.

[Jeremy]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> Is that right?!

Yep - well actually it looks more like five years. The "Peckham Levels" thing is only temporary, after that, the council plan to demolish it. However - five years is a long time, and I dare say there is still potential to save the building.

http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park

But these new Council plans are just on a temporary basis. They say they are just for the next five years before the site is up for redevelopment. This means demolishing the cinema part of the building as well as the car park parts now showing their significant potential.

[Jules-and-Boo]

We should ALL be careful about how we spend our money - and buy from companies we support.

There's nothing wrong with withdrawing your support from a company at all.

In fact it's the only language companies speak - Money/ Profit/ Customers.

Look at SportsDirect. Starbucks. etc etc etc.

And then look at the choices you make and what they are based on.

If it's purely convenience, then it's a bit shallow.

[titch juicy]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

> > James Barber Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon

> would

> > snap the lease up

> > So I don't see a risk of this boycott in

> > us losing such a valuable local resource.

> >

> >

> > Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly

> to

> > be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor

> > seems ok with that prospect.

> > There is a huge amount of capital expenditure

> in

> > the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to

> > Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such

> a

> > wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be

> > employed.

> >

> > I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel

> about

> > their employment there the next time I'm in

> there,

> > although I understand that they may feel

> > conflicted.

> > As someone else suggested, tipping helps

> > significantly.

> > Of course only people who use the cinema can

> tip,

> > those who don't cant and those who boycott cant

> > either.

>

> Crikey. I had missed this spectacularly ill

> informed complacency from James Barber.

>

> I despair sometimes. We have this great local

> facility paying way, way above minimum wage and

> people are calling for a boycott. And let's just

> flag the elephant in the room here. Cinema jobs

> are easy. You spend half your time watching

> movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting

> bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it

> gets. There are much tougher gigs on LL paying way

> less.

>

> Vacuous virtue signalling at it's worst.

There are probably easier gigs paying less too.

Your point is like saying don't send your money to the RSPB because Barnados do more worthwhile work.

Where do you draw the line? Do you only support the most needy charity or spend your whole time trying to find the company that pays the very least to the people that do the hardest work and only boycott them?

What about the profit margins or the size of the company. Picturehouse are part of a multi-national behemoth.

[rendelharris]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

Cinema jobs

> are easy. You spend half your time watching

> movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting

> bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it

> gets.

You really are an idiot, you know that? I worked in a cinema as a student, jobs included dealing with drunk, violent and ill customers, cleaning up the mess left in the auditorium, which could include used condoms, syringes, vomit etc, cleaning the lavatories - even worse - etc etc - and that was in a posh university town! Most of the time you only got to watch movies in time off as on the job the whole time was spent rushing around. Your attitude that people doing shit jobs (mainly cleaning up after the likes of you) deserve shit wages is utterly reprehensible.

[Jules-and-Boo]

anyone dealing with the public deserve much respect.

[DaveR]

I find it quite interesting that plenty of people feel qualified to make a whole bunch of judgments about the Picturehouse (or more accurately Cineworld), from the health of its P&L to the overall quality of its employment terms, without any obvious measurement scale, experience, or comparison exercise, for example. It seems to me that if you are going to have a view it's either a simple personal, essentially impressionistic one - does ?9 odd per hour feel like exploitation wages for this job? - or it's a proper analytical one, which takes a bit of work. Otherwise you just have a shouting match (which may be what everyone wants but is a bit tedious).

Mick makes the point about capital investment - worth carrying out a bit of a thought experiment. If PH want to open another cinema, it will have to be financed one way or another from profits. All other things being equal, increased payroll costs = lower profits = reduced likelihood of opening another cinema. So if PH pay their existing staff more it is at the expense of nominal future staff who would have got jobs in the new cinema. those nominal future staff may be happy with ?9 odd per hour, but now they never get the chance.

I accept that this is a simplified scenario but it's a lot closer to how business actually operates than most of the stuff o this thread.

[Jules-and-Boo]

that is such a 'management' answer -

'We can't pay you more because we wouldn't be able to make any money and then we won't be able to expand and employ more staff - how selfish of you to not consider the people we cannot afford to employ if we give you a decent salary'.

[titch juicy]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> I find it quite interesting that plenty of people

> feel qualified to make a whole bunch of judgments

> about the Picturehouse (or more accurately

> Cineworld), from the health of its P&L to the

> overall quality of its employment terms, without

> any obvious measurement scale, experience, or

> comparison exercise, for example. It seems to me

> that if you are going to have a view it's either a

> simple personal, essentially impressionistic one -

> does ?9 odd per hour feel like exploitation wages

> for this job? - or it's a proper analytical one,

> which takes a bit of work. Otherwise you just

> have a shouting match (which may be what everyone

> wants but is a bit tedious).

>

> Mick makes the point about capital investment -

> worth carrying out a bit of a thought experiment.

> If PH want to open another cinema, it will have to

> be financed one way or another from profits. All

> other things being equal, increased payroll costs

> = lower profits = reduced likelihood of opening

> another cinema. So if PH pay their existing staff

> more it is at the expense of nominal future staff

> who would have got jobs in the new cinema. those

> nominal future staff may be happy with ?9 odd per

> hour, but now they never get the chance.

>

> I accept that this is a simplified scenario but

> it's a lot closer to how business actually

> operates than most of the stuff o this thread.

To me that just suggests that we'll pay people rubbish now, so we can open another cinema, make bigger profits and pay more people rubbish in the future.

[JoeLeg]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> that is such a 'management' answer -

>

> 'We can't pay you more because we wouldn't be able

> to make any money and then we won't be able to

> expand and employ more staff - how selfish of you

> to not consider the people we cannot afford to

> employ if we give you a decent salary'.

Well, yes and no.

If you want to expand, and don't want to borrow money to do so, then presumably you do face a choice between expenditure on existing facilities and staff, and spending money to expand (thus providing more jobs).

I'm not saying that's what Cineworld are doing, but the point isn't without merit.

[Jules-and-Boo]

there are other ways to increase profit than driving down staff costs

[JoeLeg]

Well, yes, and as has been pointed out Aldi pay LWW, and it's pretty obvious they trim costs by trimming 'the frills'. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's a choice they've made.

But Picturehouse is full of fringe benefits that other cinemas don't offer (and not everyone wants), all of which has to be paid for. You can increase profits by either charging more or spending less - it really is that simple - and as I don't think Cineworld will be able to cut costs that make the 'Picturehouse experience' what it is, then where else do they find them from? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't know a lot about that industry and I'm simply unsure how they would go about doing it.

[uncleglen]

Let's all move to Cuba where the binmen get the same wages as the surgeons!

What worries me most about the labour market and keeping costs down is the health and safety aspect of it in London where the world and his wife are all trying to take your pennies- food premises, tattoo parlours and the like cutting corners to maximise profits. In fact a relative who is a fully qualified electrician and has no choice but to charge the going rate as he has 2 kids and a mortgage and has to pay to renew his certification regularly was asked to certificate 5 houses by a property developer who had paid ?25 PER DAY to so-called electricians. Only 2 houses were safe....

[titch juicy]

Just out of interest- which fringe benefits do people feel they offer other than a bar/cafe, which I assume pays for itself?

I used to use Brixton Ritzy reasonably regularly (was a member for three or four years) but stopped because an evening ticket that cost three times as much as a peckham plex ticket was impossible to justify.

The technology (screen, sound etc) is no better...as far as I can tell.

The seats really aren't discernibly more comfortable. I'm 6' 4" and have never noticed more or less legroom at either cinema. I've never once left PP uncomfortable from the seat.

It's certainly no cleaner than Peckham Plex. In fact I think this and the claims about seating are largely imagined and absolutely not noticeable. Perhaps people think they should be better/cleaner than PP, so project that?

The choice of films, at Brixton anyway, are possibly slightly more diverse and maybe they have the odd independent film more than PP, but certainly not at ED where there's much less choice.

The decoration is nicer in the Picturehouse cinemas, but that's so far down the list of priorities for me sitting in the dark watching a film. Peckham Plex is a little (and only a little) shabby around the edges, but again, so what?

Is it the little free film guides/brochures they produce?

I'd love to know how a ticket price costing 3 times more can be justified for offering more or less the same service (that's an extraordinary discrepancy when you think about it- what other industries that offer essentially the same service get away with that?.......pharmaceuticals is the only one i can think of...Nurofen vs budget ibuprofen etc.........happy to be put right on that)?

[Reg Smeeton]

Dear Admin, please send this thread to the Lounge where it belongs.

[Jeremy]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> The technology (screen, sound etc) is no

> better...as far as I can tell.

I'm a fan of the plex, but IMO the picture quality isn't great.

[titch juicy]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The technology (screen, sound etc) is no

> > better...as far as I can tell.

>

> I'm a fan of the plex, but IMO the picture quality

> isn't great.

I really don't know to be honest. I'm not looking out for it, but i've never noticed a difference. And, even if there is, it's not enough that I notice and therefore have it bother me.

The only time i've noticed a cinema picture quality difference is using the newest IMAX in Leicester Square at the Empire, where they have lazer 3D. That really is something. But is also ?20+.

[Jeremy]

These things are often subjective. PP is great value either way.

[titch juicy]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> These things are often subjective. PP is great

> value either way.

Agreed.

[KidKruger]

I don't mind PeckhamPlex, but it is often filled with, well you know - riff raff.

Probably because the tickets are so cheap I expect.

I mean, I knew people like that existed obviously (I do watch documentaries you know), just hadn't seen it with my own eyes before going there.