East Dulwich Picturehouse

[Otta]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I'm not going to reiterate at length what I've

> said already on this thread in case someone

> insults me again. Let me make it clear that I

> would be very pleased if Picturehouse paid the

> LLW; indeed they seem to be moving in that

> direction. But I still don't see why they are

> being picked out for attack when there are so many

> other local businesses currently in existence who

> don't pay it. Do people really think that larger

> businesses who don't pay it should be condemned

> while small local businesses who don't pay should

> be let off the hook because they're run by nice

> cuddly people wearing flip flops with flowers in

> their hair who are kind to animals and say that

> they want to save the world?

I agree with this post. I've always agreed with your stance on this, I just didn't agree with the way you "spoke" to people that disagreed with you, which is why I said you are "coming across as a bit of a prick today", before immediately clarifying that I didn't think you were a prick in general.

But if you want to keep dragging it up and playing the wounded party, go for your life. If you honestly feel you've been insulted though, I'd suggest you develop a thicker skin, or when someone does actually insult you you'll be throwing yourself off a bridge in despair.

[Otta]

RE The Living Wage thing, it would be great if the gov turned around tomorrow and forced the issue, but being as they won't do that, and no other business is doing much at all, I think it's good that Picturehouse are in ongoing discussions with staff and unions.

And none of this addresses the issue of why a London Living Wage is even required, and it's not all about house prices, it's the London premium on everything, the need for which is shown to be bollocks by those businesses that choose not to take thge piss.

And I tend to agree with Maxxi that Picturehouse's prices to suit the local area probably means that the ED Picturehouse will be a bloody expensive way to see a film. But time will tell on that one I guess.

[Zebedee Tring]

Otta, I would refer you to the response of the defendant in the case of Arkle v. Pressdram.

[Zebedee Tring]

Buddug, you know that I have the greatest respect for you, but IMHO there are much bigger baddies out there than Picture House.

If Milliband and his chums promise to legislate to enforce the LLW if they win the General Election, this would be one more reason for me to vote Labour.

[Otta]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> playing the wounded party, go for your life. If

> you honestly feel you've been insulted though, I'd

> suggest you develop a thicker skin, or when

> someone does actually insult you you'll be

> throwing yourself off a bridge in despair >

>

> Otta, I would refer you to the response of the

> defendant in the case of Arkle v. Pressdram.

If you're going to be clever you could at least spell Arkell right.

[BrandNewGuy]

Otta Wrote:

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

> And I tend to agree with Maxxi that Picturehouse's

> prices to suit the local area probably means that

> the ED Picturehouse will be a bloody expensive way

> to see a film. But time will tell on that one I

> guess.

Well, a quick check reveals that Godzilla (3D) at 18.00ish tomorrow is ?12.50 (adult) in Clapham, Brixton and Hackney, while it's ?12.00 in Greenwich. It's ?8.20 (in 2D) in Edinburgh. And York (also 2D) is ?8.10. So London loks pretty uniform in price.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Haven't been to Clapham for a while since I noticed it was always a pound or so more than the Ritzy. Prices at the Ritzy have gone up quite a bit the last couple of years so perhaps it has caught up since. I just kept noticing as I was out of work at the time. Still good value though.

[buddug]

Zebedee Tring wrote: "Buddug, you know that I have the greatest respect for you, but IMHO there are much bigger baddies out there than Picture House. If Milliband and his chums promise to legislate to enforce the LLW if they win the General Election, this would be one more reason for me to vote Labour."

Zebedee Tring, I didn't know that actually, but thankee kindly! Bigger baddies or not, the employees in this case are currently on strike, risking their jobs and livelihoods. That is a quite remarkable thing. Hence my support for them. Sadly, the employees of the bigger conglomerates feel powerless and are not striking, so nothing we can do at present to help them.

Until, as you say, a more compassionate government changes the law. However, like you I think, I doubt if Labour will promise to bring in a living wage. They are as much in the pockets of the banks and big business as the current crooks and shysters in government.

[buddug]

And let me just add: I don't know about you and everyone else and the gatepost, but it really makes me angry that because these businesses refuse to pay a living wage to their employees, the government has to make up the difference via taxpayer money in the form of tax credits, so they don't starve. When on earth did that start happening? Yes, you guessed it, under Toni (Italian mafia spelling) Blair's government. It's unbelievable. Why are we putting up with this?

[James Barber]

It isn't just about a living wage but living hours as well. Some companies pay living wage rate per hour but then limit the hours to 30 pw to minimise their tax, NI and pension costs.

30 x ?8.80ph for London isn't that much to live on.

[Zebedee Tring]

Buddug, I agree fully with what you say about Blair's failure to act on the living wage issue. But what did you expect from him? He is as much a crypto Tory as the likes of Clegg and The Undertaker (my name for David Laws).

[Zebedee Tring]

Sorry Ottika, my most humbel appologies.

[DaveR]

I query whether 'fair wage', 'living wage' and 'the London Living Wage' should instinctively be treated as equivalent, as many posters here are happy to do. The LLW is ?8.80 per hour, calculated by reference to needs for all different types of people in different circumstances (working full time and part time, with or without children etc.). To say that any lower hourly rate for any job in London is not a 'fair wage' is just not sensible.

[Otta]

Well said DaveR.

[StraferJack]

If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my head, what job in London should I get, for less than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?

[LondonMix]

buddug Wrote:

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

I believe

> that if a business can't afford to pay a living

> wage to its staff then it does not deserve to be

> in business in the first place.

That is totally unreasonable. You are essentially saying that virtually every business in London should close. How does that exactly help low-wage workers and employment exactly?

Singling out the Picture House for boycott and criticism is totally unfair on this issue. Unless you are prepared to boycott virtually all goods and services in London, attacking a specific business over this issue is very hypocritical.

The London Living Wage is a complex issue, deserving of its own thread in the lounge.

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my

> head, what job in London should I get, for less

> than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?

You can't.

But not everyone is an idividual looking to put a roof over their head. Some are living at home, some are living with their partner who works full time, and are going out to bring a bit extra in.

You can't assume that everyone is a single person desperately trying to scrape their rent together.

[LondonMix]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my

> head, what job in London should I get, for less

> than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?

Most people in London earn more than the LLW. Those on less tend to be unskilled workers (or workers with skills that unfortunately are no longer needed).

Starting out in unskilled work as a young person can allow someone to develop the skills to move into a higher wage position over time and therefore unskilled positions in and of themselves are not a problem as many businesses need an element of unskilled workers to run their businesses.

The problem arises when people spend a lifetime as unskilled workers. However, that is a social and political issue that needs to be addressed through policy initiatives. Suggesting that businesses should pay unskilled workers more value than they create through their efforts is akin to suggesting coal miners should have continued mining regardless of the underlying economic reality.

The real issue is skill training (including retraining), the education system, and social mobility.

The implications of unilaterally increasing the minimum wage (to the LLW or otherwise) are complex and have different outcomes depending on the full universe of factors that apply. Sometimes, unemployment increases as businesses close or staff numbers are cut. Sometimes prices increase (inflation) if demand for the good or service is not price sensitive because its essential. Alternatively wages of higher skilled employees are cut if the business cannot operate without the low income employees and if they believe they can retain the higher skilled staff (this can boost GDP growth overall in certain circumstances). One other possibility is that the low income employees will be forced to become more productive (working harder / increased duties etc) if possible within the role. How each business responds will depend on the details of their circumstances and has been heavily researched and studied.

There is actually an Independent Low Wage Commission that tries to balance out the implications for the hiring and the economy when setting minimum wages. For those of you who claim to be really passionate about this issue, why not start an intelligent discussion of the complexities in the Lounge or the Discussion Room and then try to advocate for whatever policy changes you think make sense?

Making this about the Picture House is hopelessly myopic.

[LondonMix]

Back on topic!

Someone asked what the proposed opening hours would be? I am curious about the same actually. I imagine it will be a real boost to the evening trade for the local restaurants in the area.

Also, will any of the screens be able to show films in 3-D?

[StraferJack]

LM - you said earlier today that if business had to pay a living wage that virtually ALL London business would close

Minutes later you said - "Most people in London earn more than the LLW"

contradictory

But anyway - number of people living in London below living wage = about 16-20 % of population

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/1-5-paid-less-living-wage-says-kpmg

That is not a small number - and I doubt most of them are the casual workers looking for supplemental income.

No poicy ever is going to magic those peolpe into better skilled/paid jobs, much less replace them should they actually find those jobs

[buddug]

Strafer Jack wrote: If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my head, what job in London should I get, for less than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?

I couldn't have put it better myself. And yes,LM has contradicted himself/herself. But a living wage (in London ?8.80) could become policy, to replace the minimum wage.

But I have to say again, that any business that can't (or rather won't) pay its workers a living wage doesn't deserve to be in business. It seems obvious to me, otherwise in the near future workers like those at the Ritzy, or bar staff/waiters etc won't be able to even travel in to London daily, never mind live here. Where will that leave businesses? Or they'll be forced to live in a hovel or dosshouse. That's happening already. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. As to low paid workers with children getting tax credits, it really isn't right that taxpayers should be subsidising businesses in this way.

House prices and rent are a problem too. Witness how many cottages and small houses for sale are marketed as former fisherman's cottage or artisan's cottage or quarryman's cottage. Ordinary workers on low incomes could afford to rent or buy a home on just one income even in Victorian times. My house (two flats now) was owned by a bank clerk then!

[jimbo1964]

It will be a big boost to restaurants in the area. People will come in from places as far afield as Forest Hill, Sydenham, Camberwell etc to see films and contribute to the ED economy.

[buddug]

It's great that the cinema will boost other local businesses in ED like restaurants and pubs. But I doubt very much if those businesses will pass any of the extra profits to their workers in the form of a living wage.

[LondonMix]

I did not say that. I said that Buddug's earlier call for all businessses that do not pay the LLW to ALL their employees to close would result in virtually all businesses shutting as it currently stands. I said this to show how rediculous it was to single out Picture House.

Most people in most organisations earn well above the LLW. The question concerns making this obligatory for all employees regardless of skill level in every organisation. Virtually no organisations pay all their employees above the LLW which is the standard to which people are holding the Picture House.

If either you SJ or Buddug spent time actually reading what people who are trying to engage with you were saying instead of attacking you would realise that I am not against an increase in the minimum wage but recognise that its a complicated issue with various points that need to be weighed up. Mandating a significant payrise for low skilled workers in one shot might have significant unintended consequences that those advocating for such a policy initiative don't appreciate and could harm those they intend to help...

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> LM - you said earlier today that if business had

> to pay a living wage that virtually ALL London

> business would close

>

> Minutes later you said - "Most people in London

> earn more than the LLW"

>

> contradictory

>

> But anyway - number of people living in London

> below living wage = about 16-20 % of population

>

> http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/1-5-paid-less-li

> ving-wage-says-kpmg

>

> That is not a small number - and I doubt most of

> them are the casual workers looking for

> supplemental income.

>

> No poicy ever is going to magic those peolpe into

> better skilled/paid jobs, much less replace them

> should they actually find those jobs

[StraferJack]

gosh LM, you think I'm attacking you? How so?