East Dulwich Picturehouse

[StraferJack]

" However, job losses and business closures do occur every time the minimum wage increases. "

you could replace the last 6 words with "all the time, regardless of anything"

bad business loves to blame anything for their troubles - bad pubs blame smoking ban for going bust when many other pubs have thrived. Saying something is the cause doesn't make it so

[LondonMix]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Cineworld had ?31 million of profit last year. I

> think they can afford it.

>

> And on a wider scale, an increase in pay also

> leads to wider societal benefits: people have more

> money to spend - it stimulates the local economy;

> people have to claim less or no additional

> benefits resulting in a lower tax burden; staff

> are more likely to be loyal to the employer

> resulting in fewer costly recruitment processes,

> training, etc.

Quoting profits in isolation is ridiculous. That would be like taking your wage and saying since you make money you could give more away without any context.

Anyone who runs a business has to make a profit in order to do so. No one would risk investing their own money in a business and all that entails for little or no profit. The 31m that company made was over a very large equity investment spread across many investors (some institutional funds holding your pension).

Last year Cineworld experienced a 24% FALL in net income. They had a 5.35% return on investment. Would you invest your money to open up a cinema for less of a return than that? Or would you at that point just say I?d rather take it easy and just stick it in a government bond rather than run a risky complicated business?

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=CINE:LSE

[StraferJack]

You MIGHT run a business because you can make a good living, like what you do and take pride in employing other people

"That would be like taking your wage and saying since you make money you could give more away without any context. "

Isn't that exactly what income tax is?

[LondonMix]

No, an increase in wages for some businesses can actually be the difference between failing and staying afloat. Of course, any of their costs increasing could do this but if the only thing that changed is their employee costs then yes, for some businesses it makes a difference.

That doesn?t mean the minimum wage should not exist or not be increased. I have already stated that when increased appropriately it lifts people out of poverty and can be neutral for net job creation.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> " However, job losses and business closures do

> occur every time the minimum wage increases. "

>

>

> you could replace the last 6 words with "all the

> time, regardless of anything"

>

> bad business loves to blame anything for their

> troubles - bad pubs blame smoking ban for going

> bust when many other pubs have thrived. Saying

> something is the cause doesn't make it so

[LondonMix]

Running a business and taking risk is by no means easy. The proft made is the financial reward (the wage of the owner is the profit in a typical corporate structure). If you think anyone would start a business and risk their own money for no financial reward, I find that hard to understand.

My analogy before was that the fact a company has some profit isn't evidence of their being excess profit that can be reduced. If someone sees you get 100 quid, it doesn't follow automatically that you have some money you don't need.

[StraferJack]

"Running a business and taking risk is by no means easy. The proft made is the financial reward (the wage of the owner is the profit in a typical corporate structure). If you think anyone would start a business and risk their own money for no financial reward, I find that hard to understand. "

can't disagree and wouldn't want to

But there are costs of doing business as well - wages is one of them. You can choose to pay as little as possible of course, but of everyone did that, business wouldn't have any customers

[LondonMix]

I agree SJ but most companies just pay what their competitors do rather than the legal minimum. Wages are set in the labor market and are largely determined by supply and demand of specific skills. A business can?t pay less than its competitors and still attract equally talented employees. However, if a business were simply to pay their employees more, unless it helped the business, they would simply have to charge more than their competitors, all things being equal. This isn?t always possible if you want to survive in a competitive industry.

Of course some companies pay more than their competitors to have better more motivated employees who in turn are more productive and provide a real advantage (and they can attract slightly better talent). My employer does this?they benchmark against the market (specifically benefits and maternity leave) and make a point to beat it slightly. They have entire staff devoted to this and do this in each market we operate which results in people working in different offices having different benefits (ie. in our NY HQ, they get less mat leave than here in London but what American?s would consider very generous).

Given the vast majority of people are on far more than the minimum wage, it is clear that salaries are determined by much more than how much the government says is the legal minimum. Its more complicated than that and I have two close friends that are small business owners and know what a struggle it is. Even large corporates can and do fail.

[DaveR]

Did I mention that I'm really pleased a cinema will be opening in ED? Even if, or possibly particularly if, it is boycotted by some of the posters on this thread.

[Penguin68]

The money made on profits comes (in general from revenues) - the money from revenues (from this cinema) will come from you, ED residents. They money they have to pay staff also comes from revenues, that is to say, from you.

So, if you want them to pay higher wages, ask them to increase their seat charges (and what they charge for food and drinks) and pass this money on. And no special deals for concessions. Because, with a ROCE of just over 5% that's what they will have to do. Or become more efficient by employing fewer people, so your choice is (probably) to pay more and/ or see fewer people employed. As you will all want the best for the staff (and as many of them as possible, presumably, to address the employment problems locally) then raise the prices and then raise the prices again.

What they have to pay staff has to come from somewhere. Their retained profits make running a business worthwhile at all - if they have less profit then they may as well sell up and put it the bank. So, pay more, don't have a cinema here at all, or perhaps grasp economic realities of doing business.

[LondonMix]

Thanks DaveR for reminding me to stay on topic. I am very much looking forward to being able to walk to the cinema for a change.

I am curious (as previously stated) about what the hours will be if this has been agreed already.

[Jon Barrenechea]

Usually first film will be around 1030am-11am and the last film around 9pm....cafe will most likely be open daily from 10am until around 10pm

[buddug]

This argument about smaller businesses going bust if they paid the london living wage is spurious. There are many small businesses locally paying it (let's hear it for the Ivy House, who are actually accredited!).

[LondonMix]

Jon Barrenechea Wrote:

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

> Usually first film will be around 1030am-11am and

> the last film around 9pm....cafe will most likely

> be open daily from 10am until around 10pm

Thanks Jon, I?m not sure if you have finalized your retail strategy yet but if the restaurant offering included sushi, I think that would be a welcomed addition to the area.

Also, will there be anything equivalent to Upstairs at the Ritzy on offer as part of this scheme or is there not enough space?

[Otta]

buddug Wrote:

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

> There are many small businesses locally paying it (let's hear it for the Ivy House, who are actually accredited!).

Who else makes up this many?

[buddug]

I personally know of several businesses, but they aren't actually accredited with the London Living Wage scheme yet. They should do so, so that they can be out and proud, and advertise the fact. The Ivy House was the first in our hood and is so far the only one accredited, bless them, but I may be wrong. But if the Ivy House can do it, so can any other business. Watch this space. I shall update once I check with the companies. And once we have a list of local small businesses doing this, we can shame the conglomerates such as Tesco's and Sainsbury's into following suit.

Even Goldman Sachs for god's sake, abides by the London living wage! As does Southwark Council, amazingly.

[Otta]

I'm surprised Sainsbury's don't. They paid well back when I did my stint as a teenager in 96. Even back then I could earn ?8 an hour for working a Sunday.

[buddug]

Don't be surprised.

[worldwiser]

I can't imagine GS has more than about a dozen people on staff that would come close to falling into the category. Even front desk staff are on more than 30k. Their facilities people are all hired at arms' length via a facilities company so can probably be ignored when they claim they pay LLW.

[holloway]

does any know if the public consultation period on the ED cinema is now closed? can't find anything on southwark council website. james barber mentioned it would be over towards the end of may and providing there were no major objections, the council would give the official go ahead and building would commence.

[BrandNewGuy]

The consultation period ends on June 4th:

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9554210

[holloway]

Cheers BNG, new it was there somewhere.

[StraferJack]

This is all rather petty and unfortunate

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Ken-Loach-s-sadness-Bath-s-Little-Theatre-owners/story-21115486-detail/story.html

the telling line is where the local manager says it was a decision taken at head office and out of his hands. Hopefully Jon and co will have more autonomy. It's hard to imagine Picture House behaving this way before the takeover

[nxjen]

.

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> It's hard to imagine Picture House

> behaving this way before the takeover

Maybe, maybe not. If the original owners were so altruistic, they wouldn't have cashed in.

[StraferJack]

again, maybe. In any takeover promises are made about retaining the ethos and so on of the junior partner. It rarely happens