East Dulwich Picturehouse and Caf?

[DaveR]

1 - because the staff did something about it and deserve support

or not, depending on your viewpoint. Particularly if, as has been alleged, it is true that non-striking employees were harassed/threatened

2 - because they have media attention, the case could be useful for other employees going forward - the more business introduce LLW the more pressure to introduce it elsewhere rises

subject to the shooting in the foot point mentioned above

3 - not many of the other businesses on LL are global affairs with income in hundreds of millions and profits measured in tens of millions

this is the kind of economically illiterate point that seems compelling until you actually think for two seconds. the bigger a business is the bigger its turnover and profit. It also has bigger liabilities, bigger debts, more employees, more shareholders etc. etc. Proper measures of business comparison look at margins or, better, ROCE (return on Capital Employed). Saying 'look at their profits, they can afford to pay (this person/those people/everybody they employ) more' is lazy nonsense.

[StraferJack]

"or not, depending on your viewpoint. " - why would you have a viewpoint which enjoys people in expensive cities on low income?

"Particularly if, as has been alleged, it is true that non-striking employees were harassed/threatened " - just a smear. back it up or don't

"this is the kind of economically illiterate point" - condescending as well - always a pleasure with you Dave

"Saying 'look at their profits, they can afford to pay (this person/those people/everybody they employ) more' is lazy nonsense."

Let's call that what that is - complacent

So what IS it we look for when we wonder if a company CAN pay more to it's staff? A benevolent CEO with a twinkle in his or her eye?

How have mass-employee salaries and benefits been raised through history? It hasn't ever been when wise, objective owls like you say so Dave

[DaveR]

"this is the kind of economically illiterate point" - condescending as well - always a pleasure with you Dave

It's not getting any better I'm afraid, with this:

"So what IS it we look for when we wonder if a company CAN pay more to it's staff? A benevolent CEO with a twinkle in his or her eye?"

You might look at how its margins compare with competitors, what the remuneration of senior managers looks like, whether it is consistently generating and retaining surplus cash from its operations, and the level of returns to shareholders. You might look at the overall pay and benefits package for employees and its record on retention and progression of staff. In short, you might do a bit more than adopt a stupid knee jerk reaction to some load of old sh!t you read somewhere that naturally played to your incoherent vaguely lefty feelgood man-of-the-people approach to every damn thing.

Is that better?

[StraferJack]

Not really

as long as you're sticking with an attitude like that, I'll leave you to it thanks

[Penguin68]

PLEASE NOTE

Just in case the reference to 'harrass/ threaten' was an inference drawn from my comment about violence between strikers and non-strikers, this was in fact (and I have an eye-witness who was there) a physical struggle between strikers who were 'occupying' the stage in Screen 1 during a performance and people trying to eject them. The violence was apparently pretty two-sided (and not that violent, more a struggle than a rumble) - and I quoted it not to blacken the strikers' reputations but to suggest that there was clearly going to be bad blood between them and non-strikers, making applying for jobs in the ED Picture House possibly problematic (and always assuming the protesters were actually employed by the Ritzy and striking and were not just sympathetic fellow BECTU members, or indeed fellow travellers). I have no evidence specifically of 'threaten or harrass' other than normal picket line activity. Crossing any picket line obviously will make someone feel at least slightly threatened or harrased, but within the law.

[V511]

The aspect I find most surprising about this is that the Ritzy employed 93 people.

I have no reference to go on but that feels overstaffed - Anyone with experience of working in a cinema who could comment as to how many staff are required?

I agree pretty much with Penguin68's last couple of posts. Increasing wages would lead to reduced or no profits if nothing else changed. Redundancies are therefore one of a variety of legitimate options they could've used. Hopefully most of those affected can get positions in the ED branch.

[Jeremy]

Perhaps Net Income per Employee would be a better measure of what a company can afford to pay, rather than absolute size/profit?

[Jeremy]

V511 Wrote:

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

> I have no reference to go on but that feels

> overstaffed

Not sure about that... there will be a couple of shifts per day, as well as (presumably) part time workers.

[bawdy-nan]

Love him or loathe him Will Self is writing about this in the standard:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/will-self-why-i-am-boycotting-my-favourite-local-cinema-9823254.html

[first mate]

Bawdy-nan,

Thanks for that. I didn't know they were part of Cineworld. I had thought it was a small chain...now we find out it's the biggest cinema chain in Europe..nice.

[DaveR]

Typical patronising crap from Will Self.

"The ambience of the Picturehouse cinemas is designed to make the punters feel as if they?re part of a big happy, raggedy family of enthusiasts, all keen on frothy coffee, flapjacks and the intense screen presence of Michael Fassbender."

Really? Did anybody honestly think that Picture House cinemas were some sort of film club, rather than a business? And now, because you've been so cynically misled, you're going to boycott them. But not the Odeon - you always knew that they were rapacious capitalists so their staff can go hang - what did they expect when they got a job there.

Edited to add - some credit to Will Self though for unintentionally identifying what's behind the outrage here - the cries of the metropolitan middle classes who realise they've been taken in by the marketing. I'm just slightly surprised that WS wanted to broadcast his own credulousness quite so widely

[LondonMix]

DaveR is correct. Looking at their profit margin / ROCE is the more appropriate measure. Their profit margin should also be looked at based on industry norms. This has been said before but it's around 5 percent from memory for the chain, hardly earth shattering.

Also asking a single business in isolation to adopt a different pay structure to their competitors is grossly unfair.

Lastly, those advocating for the LLW should keep in mind that when unskilled labor increases in cost, the cost benefit analysis of investing in labor saving technology changes. Fewer unskilled jobs is often the corollary.

The problem of low wage work and unskilled workers can't properly be addressed by a policy like the

LLW in isolation.

[Penguin68]

The aspect I find most surprising about this is that the Ritzy employed 93 people

This must be 93 individuals, not 93 FTE. I have seen 4 or so in the ticket area, 3 front of house in the downstairs cafe, presumably 2 at each of the screens (one for tickets, one projectionist, although most screens are automated/ digital nowadays and withour projectionists (5?) - say 3 in the k i t chen, 2-3 roving cleaners, 2-3 security, perhaps 1-2 in an office 'managing' - assume they operate 2 8 hour shifts (so FTE numbers double)- I find it hrs to get much above 50 FTE - and that seems quite generous staffing levels, assuming all staffing is at peak levels.

[first mate]

DaveR, I'm not Will Self's biggest fan either but I imagine many of us are taken in by marketing the whole time, it is not always possible to stay abreast of every company takeover and were marketing and advertising unpersuasive I doubt so much time, money and energy would be invested in any of it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

For me, the weakness in this campaign (and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to it), is that Picturehouse is one of the best employers in the sector. To single that particular chain out for a boycott seems misdirected.

[Jeremy]

Even though I find it hard to get behind the strike.. I don't think Picturehouse/Cineworld have acted particularly admirably here. It's very hard to believe they spelled out these redundancy plans at the negotiation table.

[Zebedee Tring]

Sympathetic as I am to the idea of the LLW, why are people always having a go at the Picturehouse chain, when so few (if any) employers in ED pay it? The hippy dippy flower children who run Sainsbury's and Iceland? Or the caring sharing hipsters in charge of most of the trendy little shops in LL and Northcross Road?

And if you boycott Picturehouse, you might as well boycott every cinema chain since I'm pretty sure none of them pay the LLW. So you won't be able to go to the cinema at all, and if you want to see any films you will have to buy DVDs from the likes of Amazon, who I am quite sure are much more exemplary employers (not).

In any case, hasn't the subject of Picturehouse and the LLW been flogged to death for several months? Shouldn't we be glad that we will soon have a cinema in LL, with all its imperfections?

[V511]

Thanks Penguin68, I came up with a similar approximate calculation too. You could be right in thinking the strike action revealed to PH that they might be able to run the place with fewer staff anyway.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Another article about Ritzy dispute, this time in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/join-forces-ritzy-cinema-staff-poverty-pay-living-wage

[DuncanW]

I like Will Self, but don't agree with anything in that piece in the Standard. The bit in the Guardian is even worse. At least with Will Self there's always the feeling that at least some of what he is saying is just to get a rise.

I'm not against better wages for people in these jobs. Though I'm not convinced that LLW is a practical way to bring this about, and like many others the idea of targeting one business seems like a bit of a witch-hunt to me.

[StraferJack]

Well well well

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/curzon-cinemas-agree-to-pay-staff-living-wage-in-landmark-move-9825124.html

[BrandNewGuy]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

"Bectu general-secretary Gerry Morrissey hailed the deal and said: ?We can see no reason why other cinema chains cannot follow the Curzon lead.?

I can see a reason:

Friday night adult ticket to see "Mr Turner"

Curzon Richmond: ?14.75

Ritzy Brixton: ?13.50

Peckham Plex: ?4.99

[The Minkey]

The idea that large corporates are able to operate on the back of tax payer subsidies - by which I mean welfare payments to their minimum wage workforce - whilst posting vast profits for their directors and shareholders seems really curious to me.

[*Bob*]

How many 'successful strikes' - followed by jobs cuts - does this make now?

I've lost count.

[strae]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> Typical patronising crap from Will Self.

>

> "The ambience of the Picturehouse cinemas is

> designed to make the punters feel as if they?re

> part of a big happy, raggedy family of

> enthusiasts, all keen on frothy coffee, flapjacks

> and the intense screen presence of Michael

> Fassbender."

>

> Really? Did anybody honestly think that Picture

> House cinemas were some sort of film club, rather

> than a business? And now, because you've been so

> cynically misled, you're going to boycott them.

> But not the Odeon - you always knew that they were

> rapacious capitalists so their staff can go hang -

> what did they expect when they got a job there.

>

> Edited to add - some credit to Will Self though

> for unintentionally identifying what's behind the

> outrage here - the cries of the metropolitan

> middle classes who realise they've been taken in

> by the marketing. I'm just slightly surprised

> that WS wanted to broadcast his own credulousness

> quite so widely

EDITED to say that I agree with DaveR's post above.

Perhaps this is a tad harsh, but if punters are happy to pay a certain price to see a film AND a smidgeon more to feel as if they are supporting some notion of a smaller, more independent enterprise, why should we be surprised that someone comes along to provide exactly that proposition?

Are we more upset that our proclivities are being pandered to, or that they have been discovered in the first place?

And while it is convenient to scapegoat Picturehouse etc. as being the culprits here, isn't that like blaming the Daily Mail for the existence of Daily Mail readers?

Re the LLW, am I missing something or is the premise for this idea that all must pay more so that some can have a payrise? Doesn't this all end up being circular? Cost of living in London is X, so the basic pay rate must be Y. Y is achieved which means that cost of living goes up by some amount related to Y? Is this just not an endless cycle of inflation, except that at some point the employer is incentivised (when the cost per hour is high enough) to consider some other alternative to labour, i.e. automation and/or making people do more for the same wage?