StraferJack

Next person to see Jah, prise him of the ceiling won't you?

I said "trade wasn't great" - it certainly had busy periods but for a big gaff, plenty of down time as well. I reckon I was going there twice a week and most times could take the pick of where I wanted to sit. That includes during some games (admittedly not a top of table clash)

As ever I love reading Dulwich Raider's blog and agree with much of what he says - but something about this article didn't sit right Yes all of the pubs sit within Dulwich Estate but I don't think the situation has as much to do with them as the article suggests The root causes for all 4 pubs mentioned are quite different The Grove - for years it's been a wasteland with a succession of remakes and indifferent management ensuring it's nobodies idea of a go to destination. Dulwich Estate is Arsene Wenger and the Grove is Nicklas Bendtner - what can they do? The Dog - long mooted to be a hotel, it's finally happening. This forum is a testament to the appetite for hotel accomodation in the area, it's a huge underused and suitable venue and as long as they keep a good bar open, it can only be win-win for everyone. The Half Moon - yes it's but like half the business in HH it was banjaxed by that flood. Unlike half the business, trade wasn't great before the flood and I can see why it's a struggle to get going again. Like Otta I really hope it does and with the venue intact - but more locals need to use the blinking place. That's not on Dulwich Estate The Fox - only been twice. always busy ????- been a morgue the times I have been But yeah a licence review - not the end of the world. Spoiler Alert - it will continue trading

If anyone thought for a second about moving to London for a higher minimum wage, they would turn around as soon as they saw the cost of accomodation

why are the agency even involved?

"how long before people doing much harder jobs start saying they want more than them (" immediately hopefully the whole point about LLW is to have it applied to everyone - the reason the cinema is getting the attention is because they went on strike and if successful the pressure mounts for other organisations to do the same Are you really suggesting that people supporting this are somehow not interested in carers being paid more?

so when I said earlier: " It?s reading comments like ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money? " and was lambasted as lazy and beneath me, you post that? Because that is what you have just argued isn't it? Plus your argument sounds like against the minimum wage, much less LLW Yes, proportionally I pay much higher taxes than unskilled low pay workers. And that is as it should be because by comparison I am on easy street. What's your problem with the better off paying more proportionally ?

I didn't say anything about giving up

" the LLW will just cause housing costs to increase without making it more affordable for the working poor. " housing costs have spiralled beyond all hope long before the LLW - I wouldn't be so quick to pin that on the LLW As I've said automation will happen anyway where possible - pretending it won't if we keep wages down is fallacious (and with costs of everything shooting up without an increase in wages what's the benefit in not paying people more?) Housing costs have been debated many times - I have said many times that people who simply say "build more" are simplistic. Even if a million homes were magiced up tomorrow, the starting price would be beyond a lot of the people we are talking about. They would instead be bought by speculators and rented to the badly paid, with government topups Actually if a million homes were built overnight there wouldn't be speculators, there would be a crash and a lot of people with a lot more earning s than minimum wage would be making a lot more noise, but I digress You can get as many people into skilled work as you like, but unskilled jobs will remain and need doing. I'm not arguing for minimum wage to be on a par with qualified jobs - just a recognition that the market has spiralled and the gap between unskilled and the rest has reached a point where something needs to be done. None of the suggestions you come up with are likely to happen in the next what - 10, 20 years? Ever So in the meantime...

cinemas have automated quite a lot already - you no longer have a projectionist for example, and many tickets are sold via machines these days. If a job can be automated it will be "If you think advocating for the LLW across all firms will make unskilled workers better of in real terms rather than just causing inflation and technology substitution then explain why." I think this is horse before cart - I think you should be saying why it will cause inflation. Wasn't the minimum wage meant to unleash a wave of inflation AND job cuts? Why will this be different? In short I think anyone stating that inflation will rocket is wrong Ditto "the ultimate judgment lies with employers." " - left to just employers, unskilled wages wouldn't even be at minimum wage As for me "vilifying" people, I think it's me getting called most of the names on here, thanks for asking I'm being scolded for summarizing one side of the argument as " ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money? " but how exactly are these people going to actually get more money if the only proposal on the table is the (admittedly imperfect) LLW. I understand you are arguing against the LLW as a mechanism, I'm just not seeing any argument for how people working in London in these jobs get more money. If I don't see an argument for them getting more money it's not unreasonable to conclude it's not dissimilar to they shouldn't have more money surely? How do we get from LondonMix saying "People pointing that out in no way are suggesting people shouldn't earn more or have a better quality of life. " to people actually earning more? And if they DO earn more (via some mysterious non LLW mechanism), why doesn't THAT cause this cataclysmic inflation some are so worried about?

"SJ - I'd suggest that it was inappropriate of the owner to think such a project was suitable in that location." And I would agree with you. I'd be livid if I was in teh neighbours position - but by now it would be too late for complaining to either party I would say (but I do take DB&B point about it possibly preventing a repeat)

This was my favourite "rational" Dave post on the thread so far "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. " And all because I was saying Cineworld could pay the staff the LLW - a fact that Cineworld appear to have come around to as well.

Well yes all that may be true and understandable But issuing a formal complaint wouldn't seem to solve any of that

?worldwiser October 28, 10:19AM How many times have we been over this. If minimum pay increased to the LLW tomorrow across London, the economic impact would be cataclysmic? ?V511 October 28, 04:48PM 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? ?LondonMix Yesterday, 10:06AM 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. ? ?strae Yesterday, 03:15PM 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?? And that?s even before we address your anger management and people issues Dave

Depends what you mean by singled out tho? Many is the person asking why not cafe X, Y or Z. Or pub A, B or C But timing is a big part of it ? at the same time Dulwich finds out it?s getting a cinema, staff at another branch are very publically on strike about this specific cause. So in that sense there is no other comparable business. So it is a good time to ask ?the new neighbours? if the new staff will be getting what the strikers are protesting about Now, if the staff are successful, that does raise expectation for other businesses ? so people ?singling out? PH are more likely using them as a test case. I expect if Greene King staff were to unionise and strike, places like the Bishop might find themselves under similar scrutiny

At this point, what will complaining achieve tho? Look at it from the owners point of view ? you don?t have to like or even be sympathetic to his situation to acknowledge that he is probably way more hacked off than anyone else (not to mention financially ?inconvenienced?) about all of the delay The project can?t be rolled back The only way out of this is completion sooner rather than later and there isn?t anyone involved who doesn?t want the same thing So what will complaining hope to achieve?

Rahrahrah ? as ever, I agree with so much of what you say Is LLW ?Utopia?? No of course not ? but it is a very immediate solution to a very specific here and now problem. And as with the minimum wage introduction it is being opposed by vested interests and ideologues The more structural changes you suggest are all very much to be supported ? but realistically it will take a lot longer (if ever?) to see any of them materialise. And between now and then are we supposed to just sit on our thumbs?

What is most dispiriting reading threads like this is not seeing comments like ?yeah it?s a shame but what can you do? ? which is already fatalistic enough It?s reading comments like ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money? I understand (bit not necessarily agree with ) it from the perspective of those running a business, but seeing relatively well-to-do people telling badly paid people to lump it really sticks in the craw

Cheers Alan. I'll have a gander at that

That was always the problem when cineeorld bought picture house Spreadsheet cinemas.

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

Re the Irish thing. All I can say is "whoosh" I wasn't being serious when I ignored years of disruption to highlight two Irishmen swearing... 'Twas meant as a humorous aside

Not really as long as you're sticking with an attitude like that, I'll leave you to it thanks

so tradesmen are oversubscribed AND unable to charge more? I would argue that many people would pay a fair bit extra if they could be sure the person would turn up on time and deliver as promised

"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