New Cinema for Lordship lane?

[Zebedee Tring]

Unlurked, some of us praise JB when he deserves praise and criticise him when he deserves criticism. Unlike you, we aren't prejudiced against him just because we don't support the Lib Dems.

[Arthur Facksake]

The way this thread is going you would think it was James Barber's idea to have a cinema in Lordship Lane, it wasn't the discussions were already under way long before he was even aware. He was previously in favour of a nursery on the site site and all he's done is ride on the back of the positive comments.

Read the thread from the beginning again.

[James Barber]

Hi Arthur Facksake,

Yes and no. I've spoken to five cinema chains over the last 4 years. Blanked by one - Bermondsey Shortwave.

Other 4 initially very keen. Picturehouse have taken it forward and come up with this site. But I've discussed several other sites.

[the-e-dealer]

And I thought Baba INVENTED the Magic lantyern

[VeronicaSawyer]

Excited by the thought of a cinema on Lordship Lane, but disappointed to find out Picturehouse isn't as progressive as I'd assumed: http://ritzylivingwage.tumblr.com/post/79916615964/a-response-to-picturehouse-cinemas-recent-statement

[worldwiser]

Apparently Picturehouse Brixton offered to increase wages to the Living Wage over 20 months and it was turned down. Both Vue and Odeon's lowest pay grade is hovering just above the NMW (6.31 for 21+) and no-one is specifically calling for their admonition.

Ritzy's lowest pay grade is 7.24 and the offer was to increase it to 8.80 over what is a very tolerable time-frame and, indeed, a process sanctioned and promoted by the Living Wage Foundation itself. Ritzy's staff striking in these circumstances is as idiotic as it is selfish. If you condemn Picturehouse for not being progressive enough, I hope you stand ready to condemn all London businesses as there are only 214 employers who've signed up so far.

Yeah, let's really stick it to Picturehouse before we address the real villains of the piece.

[charlesfare]

Selfish in what sense?

[worldwiser]

Because why do they (comparatively well-off employees) deserve special public attention in view of the majority of people in the cinema exhibition business (not to mention those in equivalent jobs) who are considerably worse-off? Did anyone hide the rates of pay on offer before they came into work? Striking is a staggering overreaction in the circumstances.

[titch juicy]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> Because why do they (comparatively well-off

> employees) deserve special public attention in

> view of the majority of people in the cinema

> exhibition business (not to mention those in

> equivalent jobs) who are considerably worse-off?

> Did anyone hide the rates of pay on offer before

> they came into work? Striking is a staggering

> overreaction in the circumstances.

No, it absolutely isn't.

Just because lot's of people aren't earning the LLW it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. Hopefully this will encourage others to take notice.

it's certainly got my attention and I didn't have a clue the number of businesses adopting the LLW was so low.

It's recommended level for a reason and anyone earning below it, particularly at the behest of wealthy national or multi-nation companies is entitled to a say.

[titch juicy]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> Did anyone hide the rates of pay on offer before

> they came into work?

And this is just pathetic. When young people are scratching around for any work they can get- as if they can be choosy up front.

[Zebedee Tring]

What has this got to do with the exciting prospect of a new cinema in LL? Why are certain people hunting for excuses to rubbish this proposal?

Picture House aren't a workers co-operative and neither are Iceland. This has come as a major surprise to us all.

[worldwiser]

It of course has nothing to do with the exciting proposal which most people seem to have endorsed wholeheartedly.

Of course it's a staggering overreaction if only because Picturehouse already agreed to it! They just wanted a year and half to phase in the increase and I don't think that's too much to ask, especially at a time when hardly anyone has signed up to it. Picturehouse are to be applauded not vilified. You strike when you have absolutely no other option left in this world to get your employers to listen to you over a point of principle. This is so far from the case here that I have barely any energy to even acknowledge their supposed plight let alone support it. The Living Wage is without question a real and live issue deserving of our respect and industry should definitely sit up and listen to it. But adding 20% to the wage bill of an entire city's economy cannot and should not be expected to happen overnight. Employees who misuse their right to strike so totally as they have done here have done the cause a major disservice and deserve to be ignored in favour of people who only (or, god forbid, don't even) earn the NMW.

That's the end of the spectrum where the issue needs attention, not here where the issue is practically resolved. They got what they wanted and all they've done is act like petulant children who can't have their wish right away. Badly done Ritzy.

[titch juicy]

Did Picturehouse offer the LLW phased in over 18 months completely off their own backs or did it take disgruntled staff to moan about it?

And why are the staff striking if it's been offered?

[titch juicy]

Granted this is only a standard piece but there are direct quotes from management and there's no mention of an offer of the full LLW.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ritzy-cinema-staff-vote-for-strike-over-london-living-wage-9232335.html

[worldwiser]

No, you do admittedly have to do a bit of maths. ?7.24 + 21.5% = ?8.80, LLW

[charlesfare]

I can see how staff would be unwilling to wait a year and a half for a payrise. 7.24 an hour is kind of a pittance when you consider how much rents and the general cost of living in South London are rising year on year. The fact that many people are being paid less is of no consolation to anyone when they're on a take home wage of 13,194.98 a year from a 40 hour week, which really is not very much at all. I get paid a lot more than that at my 9 - 5 but still struggle financially. Ultimately workers have the right to strike if they find the conditions they're in unsuitable.

[Zebedee Tring]

To try to put things in perspective, does anyone have details of the percentage of independent shops in ED that pay the Living Wage? Until we know this, it seems unfair to single out Picture House for criticism.

[charlesfare]

All places of work should pay a living wage or more. If any of the staff working at places in East Dulwich that don't pay it wish to strike, I support their right and decision to do so. Currently this discussion is about the Picture House chain of cinemas, so it's not unfair or singling them out to talk about their business practices.

[Otta]

Most bar staff will be on minimum wage, how is selling some tickets and a bit of popcorn any more of a skilled job deserving of higher wages?

[charlesfare]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Most bar staff will be on minimum wage, how is

> selling some tickets and a bit of popcorn any more

> of a skilled job deserving of higher wages?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Why even pay the buggers at all?

It's quite nice being able to earn enough money to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. Regardless of skill, minimum wage is a pittance in this day and age. most people I know working in bars have to work several other jobs and pull double shifts just to keep their heads above water.

Though, more fool them and the bloody cinema staff to boot, should have chosen a job that required more skill and thus paid more eh? Bloody lay abouts.

[Otta]

"Yeah, I guess you're right. Why even pay the buggers at all?"

Stupid comment.

I'm not saying it's a good situation, and that they all shouldn't be paid more. I'm simply saying that working in a cinema is no more difficult than bar work.

[Zebedee Tring]

And surely this thread is about the desirability of having a new cinema in ED and not about the desirability of firms paying the Living Wage.

For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support the principle of a Living Wage, a property tax or better graduated Council Tax (i.e. one in which people living in places such as Kensington Palace Gardens pay a darn sight more Council Tax than they pay at the moment) and a much higher top rate of tax. So I think that you could describe me as left of centre.

[charlesfare]

Otta Wrote:

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

> "Yeah, I guess you're right. Why even pay the

> buggers at all?"

>

>

> Stupid comment.

>

>

> I'm not saying it's a good situation, and that

> they all shouldn't be paid more. I'm simply saying

> that working in a cinema is no more difficult than

> bar work.

So what? Bars should pay their staff more too. What's your point?

[Otta]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I'm not saying it's a good situation, and that

> they all shouldn't be paid more.

[charlesfare]

Then why say anything at all, that working in a cinema is apparently no more difficult than bar work is a totally moot point.