Boycott Picturehouse?

[holloway]

Why isn't Dulwich Picturehouse showing the new Alien film until next week even though it's out today?

[Jeremy]

holloway Wrote:

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

> Why isn't Dulwich Picturehouse showing the new

> Alien film until next week even though it's out today?

Because it only has three screens, and wants to keep the programme reasonably diverse?

Not sure this constitutes grounds for boycott.

[edphstaff]

we are going on strike at ED Picturehouse again

we ask supportive members of the public not to buy tickets for any time on saturday the 27th of may

if you already have, you can get a refund up to 48hours before the film starts

and we've had some great press:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/05/fight-living-wage-uk-170508130621113.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/picturehouse-staff-protest-cineworld-agm-living-wage-ritzy-hackney

*PLEASE COME DOWN FOR 2.30pm TO GREET WORKERS AS THEY WALK OUT AT 2.45p*

-------

EAST DULWICH PICTUREHOUSE WORKERS ARE GOING ON STRIKE!

JOIN US OUTSIDE THE CINEMA ON SATURDAY THE 27TH TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT!

Picturehouse management have refused to pay us Living Wage, they have refused to recognise our chosen trade union, and they have refused to grant adequate sick pay, maternity and paternity pay. And what?s more, they have refused even to meet with us to discuss these matters. Regrettably, we have been left with no option but to withdraw our labour.

Join us from 2.15 right opposite the cinema where there?ll be music, speeches, a whole bunch of people venting their anger at a company that made ?93.8 million post-tax profit and refuses to negotiate sharing this fairly.

The campaign started last year with just one cinema, The Ritzy in Brixton, and now there are 6 cinemas striking together at East Dulwich on the day. The movement is growing but we need your help.

This time, due to the other 5 sites renewing their ballot, it will be only East Dulwich on strike so we need as much support as possible. So please invite friends and share this event! There may well be a trip to the pub after too.

See you on Saturday the 27th!

[Green Goose]

edphstaff Wrote:

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

>>Join us from 2.15 right opposite the cinema where there?ll be music, speeches, a whole bunch of people venting their >> anger at a company that made ?93.8 million post-tax profit and refuses to negotiate sharing this fairly.

From livingwage.org.uk....

QUOTE ""The Living Wage is a voluntary higher rate of base pay. "" UNQUOTE

Based on this fact, Picturehouse has no obligation to pay the living wage or even talk to you about paying it.

Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8 million post-tax profit with you, this is totally absurd and laughable. The shareholders are the only ones who are entitled to share the profits of a company.

If you are to secure any sympathy from the public, you need to get a better grip on the legalities involved and a better understanding of what any employer's obligations are under law.

Apart from that, you should have good weather for the protest.

FORH

[rendelharris]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> FORH

For me? Oh bless. What does Villager have to say on the matter?

[rendelharris]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8

> million post-tax profit with you, this is totally

> absurd and laughable. The shareholders are the

> only ones who are entitled to share the profits of

> a company.

You regard it as a laughable concept that when a company makes huge profits any of that profit should be utilized to improve the terms and conditions of its workers? Seek help.

[Green Goose]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Green Goose Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8

> > million post-tax profit with you, this is

> totally

> > absurd and laughable. The shareholders are the

> > only ones who are entitled to share the profits

> of

> > a company.

>

> You regard it as a laughable concept that when a

> company makes huge profits any of that profit

> should be utilized to improve the terms and

> conditions of its workers?

It's laughable how staff can make demands on an employer who is not obliged to even consider these demands and who has no legal obligation to do so whatsoever.

It's laughable that employees demand a share of the business's profits. Worker's utopia maybe?

If the employers consider it might bring benefits to the company ( eg effeciency) if they paid more, then that's their decision.

It's also laughable how you extrapolate matters to fit your weird prejudices.

RH,You never let me down. One little tweak and you are up there straining on the leash. LOL.

Do try and get out more and try to find a job rather than hanging around the EDF all day.

[rendelharris]

"Do try to get out more" - how witty, and just the other day you were telling someone else to "get a life." What an intellect! I won't bother giving you details of the life I lead as they're none of your business, I will say that at least I have the courage to post under my own name and don't resort to having multiple accounts as you do.

I don't respond to every "little tweak" but I must confess I do enjoy ragging on far-right bigots with little sense and less knowledge, and you fit the bill so perfectly it seems a shame to let your drivel pass unanswered.

As for the part of your post which does not consist of jejune insults (I mean do at least try to make them in some way entertaining or interesting), you believe staff have no right to make demands on an employer as long as they are fulfilling their legal obligations, i.e. paying the minimum wage. So no staff should ever have the right to take strike action over their wages provided the minimum wage is being paid. Risible.

As per previous, kindly do not reply via private messages as your emails will henceforth be deleted unread.

[jaywalker]

Green Goose, you should refrain from making ad hominem remarks of this kind. They are intolerable.

You also confuse legality (the power of directors/shareholders) with ethics. Neither the proposition (if you obey the law you act ethically) nor its inverse (if you break the law you have acted wrongly) are necessarily true. One can think of many cases in which both are false.

[JoeLeg]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Green Goose Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8

> > > million post-tax profit with you, this is

> > totally

> > > absurd and laughable. The shareholders are

> the

> > > only ones who are entitled to share the

> profits

> > of

> > > a company.

> >

> > You regard it as a laughable concept that when

> a

> > company makes huge profits any of that profit

> > should be utilized to improve the terms and

> > conditions of its workers?

>

> It's laughable how staff can make demands on an

> employer who is not obliged to even consider these

> demands and who has no legal obligation to do so

> whatsoever.

>

> It's laughable that employees demand a share of

> the business's profits. Worker's utopia maybe?

>

> If the employers consider it might bring benefits

> to the company ( eg effeciency) if they paid more,

> then that's their decision.

>

> It's also laughable how you extrapolate matters to

> fit your weird prejudices.

>

> RH,You never let me down. One little tweak and you

> are up there straining on the leash. LOL.

>

> Do try and get out more and try to find a job

> rather than hanging around the EDF all day.

GG - you've previously admitted that you are, or were, a UKIP voter (in both your GG and Villager guises, so I'm guessing it's a firmly-held position. Given that, I could be forgiven for believing you voted Leave.

Again, if that is correct, consider this. It is a commonly held position amongst Leave voters that the end of freedom of movement will result in higher wages for British workers, as employers will no longer be able to offer low wages to migrant workers in an effort to keep costs down.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether this analysis of current wages is accurate (it is another debate entirely), if the position that wages will rise post-Brexit is true, surely the workers at Picturehouse are, in fact, ahead of the curve in demanding higher wages?

We can debate whether the specific role concerned is entitled to those wages until the sun rises, but the fact is that, in a city where cost of living is currently rising faster than wages (and was already high), it is not beyond imagination that workers will demand more money.

Of course no business can be compelled to pay more than it wants to, and no one is compelled to take the work. But I fail to see why anyone would stick their head in the sand over the coming storm.

Very soon we will - if it is a 'hard' Brexit of some kind - be losing foreign workers and replacing them with British. So far, so good - assuming they can do the job - but there is a definite perception that they will be able to command higher wages. Issues like those faces at Picturehouse will likely become more common.

I can think of no reason why a business would not want to be ahead of the curve on this. Wages will have to rise. Why is LLW a bad thing? If we are to attract talent to London, we have to be able to pay for it. Soon this won't just be about Picturehouse.

[Green Goose]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether

> this analysis of current wages is accurate (it is

> another debate entirely), if the position that

> wages will rise post-Brexit is true, surely the

> workers at Picturehouse are, in fact, ahead of the

> curve in demanding higher wages?

Hey, hey, this thread IS about wages at Picturehouse. It not as you say "another debate entirely". It is the debate! You just want to divert it into a debate on Brexit.

The staff there with their demands is akin to Arsenal supporters yesterday shouting "Kroenke Out!" Kronke owns around 70% of Arsenal shares. He is the majority shareholder so he can do with the business what he wants. They didn't object when he bought in and they didnt object when they had 20 years of Champions League football.

It's just laughable that people demand "rights" they have no legal right to have.

[Green Goose]

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> Green Goose, you should refrain from making ad

> hominem remarks of this kind. They are

> intolerable.

Please Teacher he started it first with his post advising me to "Seek help"

QUOTE You regard it as a laughable concept that when a company makes huge profits any of that profit should be utilized to improve the terms and conditions of its workers? Seek help. UNQUOTE

> You also confuse legality (the power of

> directors/shareholders) with ethics. Neither the

> proposition (if you obey the law you act

> ethically) nor its inverse (if you break the law

> you have acted wrongly) are necessarily true. One

> can think of many cases in which both are false.

I only endeavoured to acquaint readers with the legalities and realities of the Picturehouse situation.

The ethical dimension was tabled by you. One man's ethics can be another man's PITA hence a very subjective issue.

[Green Goose]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

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!

Just to let you know, The PictureHouse operation is owned by Cineworld plc which has other entertainment franchises. Cineworld has shareholders and is quoted on the London Stocke Exchange. Market Cap is ?1.99Bn and turnover is ?797M pa.

It provides shareholders with a dividend yield of 2.59% - which is below average.

Cineworld has active competitors which keeps profits down. Longer term its profitability could deteriorate rapidly with the likes of Netflix providing streaming video on line. Other on-line streamers have been entering the market so the impact on Picturehouse could be quite severe.

It could end up with a situation where technology creates a sea change. Remember when everyone used to rent videos from BlockBuster? And where are Blockbuster now?

[JoeLeg]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether

> > this analysis of current wages is accurate (it

> is

> > another debate entirely), if the position that

> > wages will rise post-Brexit is true, surely the

> > workers at Picturehouse are, in fact, ahead of

> the

> > curve in demanding higher wages?

>

> Hey, hey, this thread IS about wages at

> Picturehouse. It not as you say "another debate

> entirely". It is the debate! You just want to

> divert it into a debate on Brexit.

No, I don't. I was trying to place the PH dispute in the wider context of what is possibly going to happen to the debate on wages in this country in the future. Brexit is a part of this because I believe (as do many Leave voters) that there will be an expectation that wages will rise as freedom of movement is curtailed.

>

> The staff there with their demands is akin to

> Arsenal supporters yesterday shouting "Kroenke

> Out!" Kronke owns around 70% of Arsenal shares.

> He is the majority shareholder so he can do with

> the business what he wants. They didn't object

> when he bought in and they didnt object when they

> had 20 years of Champions League football.

>

> It's just laughable that people demand "rights"

> they have no legal right to have.

Women didn't used to have the legal right to vote, not did black people. There's no law against them asking for higher pay. You're free to disagree with them, but I think you're going to be surprised in a couple of years when this starts happening more.

But what do I know...?

[JoeLeg]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> -----

> 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!

>

> Just to let you know, The PictureHouse operation

> is owned by Cineworld plc which has other

> entertainment franchises. Cineworld has

> shareholders and is quoted on the London Stocke

> Exchange. Market Cap is ?1.99Bn and turnover is

> ?797M pa.

> It provides shareholders with a dividend yield of

> 2.59% - which is below average.

>

> Cineworld has active competitors which keeps

> profits down. Longer term its profitability could

> deteriorate rapidly with the likes of Netflix

> providing streaming video on line. Other on-line

> streamers have been entering the market so the

> impact on Picturehouse could be quite severe.

>

> It could end up with a situation where technology

> creates a sea change. Remember when everyone used

> to rent videos from BlockBuster? And where are

> Blockbuster now?

Hmmm, Cineworld operates in a competitive, capitalistic environment shocker. Also today, the Pope is Catholic and a bear was seen running off to the woods muuterring that he's 'touching fur'.

Wages motivate staff. More money tends to motivate better and attract better staff. I'm a stuck record I know, but how do we attract high quality staff to this city is wages aren't competitive.

Maybe it will be a technological change, though take-away hasn't killed the restaurant trade so I'm sceptical but, who knows?

[JohnL]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> -----

> 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!

>

> Just to let you know, The PictureHouse operation

> is owned by Cineworld plc which has other

> entertainment franchises. Cineworld has

> shareholders and is quoted on the London Stocke

> Exchange. Market Cap is ?1.99Bn and turnover is

> ?797M pa.

> It provides shareholders with a dividend yield of

> 2.59% - which is below average.

>

> Cineworld has active competitors which keeps

> profits down. Longer term its profitability could

> deteriorate rapidly with the likes of Netflix

> providing streaming video on line. Other on-line

> streamers have been entering the market so the

> impact on Picturehouse could be quite severe.

>

> It could end up with a situation where technology

> creates a sea change. Remember when everyone used

> to rent videos from BlockBuster? And where are

> Blockbuster now?

Can I have a P please Bob.

That's Life in the corporate world though - change or die.

If you staff buy in to this they'll help you do so.

[JohnL]

Anyway looks like Cineworld is talking

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/picturehouse-staff-protest-cineworld-agm-living-wage-ritzy-hackney

[edphstaff]

thank you all for the supportive comments, please come down and talk to us on the day of the strike, we'd love to meet you

yeah greengoose you seem to be obsessed with the idea of the law, if something is legal then it is fine with you. can you possibly think of one law ever in the recent past that in hindsight was wrong? perhaps we believe the current share of profits to be a law that should be changed. we are not asking for a radical overhaul of the system, just less than a pound more per hour

and yeah PH/cineworld said they'd talk with us and our union after we spoke at their shareholders AGM and we are really looking forward to this. we offered to call of this strike as a gesture of goodwill but they have so far declined to formally respond to our offer

[Chick]

GG why dont you just fuck off.

[Otta]

Bit of bullying towards GG here because he doesn't agree with the popular view.

[JoeLeg]

Well, GG is hardly a model of reasoned debate all the time - but then again neither am I.

He's pretty, shall we say, outspoken in his negative opinion of the PH staff, so I reckon there's a bit of 'reap what you sow'. However, if that's me you're directing that against, I'd only counter that I believe firmly that he's not considering the future implications of wages in this city; I've said all throughout this thread that we need to have a debate about how much we should be paying people in London and how much we're willing to pay for services. I don't agree with the proviso that PH staff somehow aren't menial or grubby enough to be asking for LLW.

Is the LLW moral? Ethical? Is it reflective of the true price of living in London? Can businesses actually afford it, and as customers are we willing to pay the increases that will inevitably follow if it were imposed? Should it be imposed? These are all questions that I think should be asked and discussed. Saying that PH staff simply have no right to make the argument is something I reject, and I will defend that point.

Whether they can persuade Cineworld is a matter for their negotiations, but I certainly support their right to have the debate and I fully support bringing this into wider public discussion. These days I hear a lot about making things better from politicians, but don't see a lot of it happening. I want London to continue being a successful, vibrant city, and cannot see how pretending wages aren't stagnating helps that.

[DaveR]

The staff obviously have a right to push for the best deal they can get, and what they're asking for is not outrageous. On the other hand the current package does not seem terrible and is clearly better than some (perhaps most) similar employers. So it's a pretty normal pay dispute - I'm not going to boycott PH but I'm not going to have a go at the staff either, and tbh I can't really understand how this has generated so much heat.

One thing that is rubbish is refusing to deal with a union and having an employer run 'forum' instead. This seems to be an increasingly popular way to bypass union recognition laws. I'm no fan of many trade unions but the answer is not to try and engineer them out of the way.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Bit of bullying towards GG here because he doesn't agree with the popular view.

I dunno... if you don't agree with the strike (and I personally have some misgivings too) by all means say your piece, but I think he's a bit over-the-top here...

[rendelharris]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Bit of bullying towards GG here because he doesn't

> agree with the popular view.

Given that Green Goose is a UKIP supporter, self confessed troll, a person who thinks that if someone shouts "terrorists" at Muslims in the street they should be pitied not censured (because, apparently, they're "suffering" from Islamophobia), has a nice sideline in advocating cruelty to wild animals, who is deeply offensive to all those who disagree with him and who for reasons best known to himself maintains two separate identities on this site, I'm happy for him to get anything that's coming to him. And he's not being bullied, apart from one comment above people are simply quite rightly disagreeing with his hateful and puerile right-wing views and his bellicose spiteful attitude.

[Otta]

Why is UKIP Supporter top of that list?

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Bit of bullying towards GG here because he

> doesn't agree with the popular view.

>

> I dunno... if you don't agree with the strike (and

> I personally have some misgivings too) by all

> means say your piece, but I think he's a bit

> over-the-top here...

I agree, but he hasn't actually been rude, and some people are quick to drop arguments and jump straight to fuck off.