Boycott Picturehouse?

[rjsmall]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> there are other ways to increase profit than

> driving down staff costs

That is assuming that they are trying to increase rather than just maintain profits. The term "driving down staff costs" makes it seem as if they are attempting to reduce the current pay rate rather than maintain it the level the staff were employed at. It isn't at the LLW level but I would assume the employees knew what the salary was when they signed their employment contract.

A slight side issue but I do find it strange that people sign up to work for companies such as Deliveroo, Uber etc knowing they are doing so as contract staff and then complain that they don't have the same benefits as a fully salaried employee.

[titch juicy]

rjsmall Wrote:

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

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > there are other ways to increase profit than

> > driving down staff costs

>

> That is assuming that they are trying to increase

> rather than just maintain profits. The term

> "driving down staff costs" makes it seem as if

> they are attempting to reduce the current pay rate

> rather than maintain it the level the staff were

> employed at. It isn't at the LLW level but I would

> assume the employees knew what the salary was when

> they signed their employment contract.

>

> A slight side issue but I do find it strange that

> people sign up to work for companies such as

> Deliveroo, Uber etc knowing they are doing so as

> contract staff and then complain that they don't

> have the same benefits as a fully salaried

> employee.

Perhaps because they're desperate for work/money?

The perhaps, once in the job they realise it could be fairer so campaign to make it so?

[Jeremy]

Titch is right, just because somebody is doing the job, that doesn't make it OK. Otherwise why have any minimum wage, maximum hours, and other worker protection at all?

[rjsmall]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Titch is right, just because somebody is doing the

> job, that doesn't make it OK. Otherwise why have

> any minimum wage, maximum hours, and other worker

> protection at all?

The living wage isn't a legal, safety or worker protection issue though - it is a voluntary scheme that employers sign up to.

[Westnorwoodboy]

"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?"

Erm, it's easy there are fewer screens and less seats.....

[titch juicy]

Westnorwoodboy Wrote:

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

> "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?"

>

> Erm, it's easy there are fewer screens and less

> seats.....

But Brixton Ritzy has as many screens and seats.

[JohnL]

Westnorwoodboy Wrote:

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

> "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?"

>

> Erm, it's easy there are fewer screens and less

> seats.....

Travel by Air

[Jules-and-Boo]

Absolutely. And doing so or not doing so.....coupled with how much profit that company makes....does say an awful lot about the etics of that company.

[Mick Mac]

Westnorwoodboy Wrote:

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

> "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?"

>

> Erm, it's easy there are fewer screens and less

> seats.....

3x5 = 15...... I have never paid that at ED PH

And anyway, we should be comparing it to it's peers , not to bargain basement Peckham Plex. I'd guess ED PH is charging the same as most other cinemas.

[geobz]

What is there to boycott, with the prices they are charging you can go to o2 or something and at least get out of your area.

Go peckhamplex, cheap and you can get a subway in ;)

[titch juicy]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Westnorwoodboy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "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?"

> >

> > Erm, it's easy there are fewer screens and less

> > seats.....

>

> 3x5 = 15...... I have never paid that at ED PH

>

> And anyway, we should be comparing it to it's

> peers , not to bargain basement Peckham Plex. I'd

> guess ED PH is charging the same as most other

> cinemas.

But is it's peer. It's the only other local business providing the same service. The only things that differentiate are the price, the cafe and the fact that Peckham Plex has a much larger choice of films.

[Nigello]

Monday nights/days at Picture House are cheap:

All day Monday

Except Bank Holidays

Adult ?7.00

Member ?5.00

Retired ?7.00

Retired Member ?5.00

Student ?7.00

Student Member ?5.00

Child ?5.00

Family ?19.00

[Jules-and-Boo]

Monday daytimes = at school

Monday night = school night

[Louisa]

robbin Wrote:

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

> I'm definitely going to keep going there now I

> know there's no danger of hearing Louisa moaning

> in the background!

>

> I've been to Peckham - good if you like mobile

> phones ringing, people talking, teenagers

> swearing, uncomfortable seats and sticky carpets.

> A few quid cheaper though and close to McDonalds

> if that's what floats your boat. I'm happy with

> Oddono's. Each to their own.

Don't think anyone associates any of the above with the cinema in Peckham, but hey some people like to think they're better than everyone else by going to a poncy cinema and poncy ice cream shop so they can feel good about themselves. And guess what, that's fine too! Just admit, rather than putting down people who might want to save a few quid rather than waste it on trying to be seen spending money. Very absurd behaviour.

Louisa.

[Bic Basher]

I don't know the pay structure for the Peckham Plex, but is London's only independent mulitplex cinema. The other is a sub-brand of Cineworld which kept the brand as a premium product.

[robbin]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> robbin Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I'm definitely going to keep going there now I

> > know there's no danger of hearing Louisa

> moaning

> > in the background!

> >

> > I've been to Peckham - good if you like mobile

> > phones ringing, people talking, teenagers

> > swearing, uncomfortable seats and sticky

> carpets.

> > A few quid cheaper though and close to

> McDonalds

> > if that's what floats your boat. I'm happy

> with

> > Oddono's. Each to their own.

>

> Don't think anyone associates any of the above

> with the cinema in Peckham, but hey some people

> like to think they're better than everyone else by

> going to a poncy cinema and poncy ice cream shop

> so they can feel good about themselves. And guess

> what, that's fine too! Just admit, rather than

> putting down people who might want to save a few

> quid rather than waste it on trying to be seen

> spending money. Very absurd behaviour.

>

> Louisa.

Brilliant! Quite brilliant!

[Jules-and-Boo]

I completely agree with Louisa.

[traveler2]

The Picturehouse is a welcome addition to East Dulwich. No it's not cheap but going out to see a movie is a special occasion and I would rather go there then further afield. Also it's in walking distance so reduced carbon footprint.

[Beej]

I could be being completely stupid, but in term of pure logic I really don't see how it follows that you shouldn't support the rights of one establishment (especially one who's workers have actively brought it to the public's attention) because there are others that may not be doing the same? Why does it follow that staff at the Picture House shouldn't be supported because the staff at Peckham plex may not be getting the same deal. Weird. Honest question...

[worldwiser]

Picturehouse will have spent many millions kitting out their ED location and are paying present day market rates on their lease. Peckhamplex hasn't spent a bean on their location lately and leases it from the council at highly favourable rates unrelated to market conditions. That's why.

[rendelharris]

I must be as stupid as you Beej as I've been thinking exactly the same - the implication from several posters on here is that the only people who have a right to take action to improve their wages and conditions are those who are at the absolute bottom of the scale. Apparently if there's one person worse off than yourself, you should accept your lot. Heaven knows what they must think of those earning more than the living wage who take industrial action!

[JoeLeg]

Of course everyone has the right to take action. If you think you're not being paid a wage commensurate to the job you do them you should absolutely fight for more pay. And - though I don't know the details - if PH has reneged on a deal or threatened to sack staff in order to pay it (which is a nasty bit of blackmail if true) - them they definitely should continue to fight.

I think the point is more that a) there are much worse examples of badly or non-paying employers out there, and maybe boycotts or action are better directed at them, and b) how do we morally justify taking a stand against one company while still using others who don't pay LLW? Is it hypocritical to criticise PH while still being willing to take the kids to see a 3D movie over at Surrey Quays, who also don't pay LLW? Personally I think it is, but then that doesn't mean we shouldn't still criticise Cineworld.

We should use our wallets to influence company's if we can; that's our right as consumers to spend with whom we choose. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that we're making a massive difference if we boycott PH. Then again, everything starts somewhere, and this case has got people talk big about LLW, which is a good thing.

[rendelharris]

You talk much sense Joe, and I agree that boycotting the Picturehouse isn't going to make an earthshattering difference (and to be honest we're not really boycotting it as for proximity and price reasons we use the Peckhamplex anyway). I think the one reason for taking action against Picturehouse/Cineworld is that their staff have asked for support - if staff in other businesses started the same sort of campaign then I'd certainly support them too.

[geobz]

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.

Hypocrite: A person that lives in East Dulwich and usually posts on ED forums about whats fair or not.

Generally I'd say a big part of people living in ED, especially the ones that moved in the past 10 years is on a high end salary and a good bonus. They most likely work at a bank. Then from time to time, because they have nothing better to do since they have a lot of free time, they go off trying to... boycott or whatever it is they do.

Yes thats right... boycott a business for giving X amount of money thats above the legal minimum to jobs that don't need a specific skillset. Who are you to say what a business should pay? You prolly paid more than a million for your house and you are part of the reason that London is so expensive in the first place and salaries for other people are low. While you head off to your fancy ED indian place to pay ?100 for chicken and go to the theater for a ?150 ticket, think that you are encouraging a situation where the Theater staff will get minimum wage and the indian restaurant workers will be on the same.

I am not here to tell people what to do... go buy gucci and sit on your ?5m house, no problemo. Stop trying to claim that you are fighting for PH workers rights though... its a joke. It feels like one of those billionaires doing a ?50m donation for tax evasion and people take it like "wow he must be a sweetheart". Or like those people that don't follow a spiritual life, and they go to church so they can absolve their sins. HYPOCRITE!

(The above post is not a direct response to you, I think you are right that noone should tell someone how to run a business).

[rendelharris]

geobz Wrote:

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

> Hypocrite: A person that lives in East Dulwich and

> usually posts on ED forums about whats fair or

> not.

>

> Generally I'd say a big part of people living in

> ED, especially the ones that moved in the past 10

> years is on a high end salary and a good bonus.

> They most likely work at a bank. Then from time to

> time, because they have nothing better to do since

> they have a lot of free time, they go off trying

> to... boycott or whatever it is they do.

>

> Yes thats right... boycott a business for giving X

> amount of money thats above the legal minimum to

> jobs that don't need a specific skillset. Who are

> you to say what a business should pay? You prolly

> paid more than a million for your house and you

> are part of the reason that London is so expensive

> in the first place and salaries for other people

> are low. While you head off to your fancy ED

> indian place to pay ?100 for chicken and go to the

> theater for a ?150 ticket, think that you are

> encouraging a situation where the Theater staff

> will get minimum wage and the indian restaurant

> workers will be on the same.

>

> I am not here to tell people what to do... go buy

> gucci and sit on your ?5m house, no problemo. Stop

> trying to claim that you are fighting for PH

> workers rights though... its a joke. It feels like

> one of those billionaires doing a ?50m donation

> for tax evasion and people take it like "wow he

> must be a sweetheart". Or like those people that

> don't follow a spiritual life, and they go to

> church so they can absolve their sins. HYPOCRITE!

>

> (The above post is not a direct response to you, I

> think you are right that noone should tell someone

> how to run a business).

What a load of balls - someone living in East Dulwich is a de facto hypocrite if they show any concern about local workers, are they? You say you're not here to tell anyone what to do...then immediately tell them what to do in the next sentence. If you want to see a hypocrite, look in the mirror.

I moved to East Dulwich in the last ten years, I didn't pay a million or anything close to it for my flat, I don't have a lot of free time, I don't work in finance and hour for hour I probably earn less than I would get working in the Picturehouse. But don't let your pathetic determination to insist that anyone who does anything towards ethical consumerism is a hypocrite be affected by anything so prosaic as facts.