Mick Mac

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'd also like to point out that when you're > carrying out calculations about our annual incomes > that most of the staff are on zero-hour contracts. > Cinemas are quite seasonal so there's lots of > hours going around now as oscar films come out and > up to Christmas with Star Wars and big > blockbusters. In the new year and the summer > there's a lot less need for staff. This summer the > most I could make, working all the hours I could > get and taking the shifts of other staff on > holiday was take home ?800 a month. My rent is > ?500 a month so we are not left with much. When > you factor annual income would be about ?11-12,000 > a year. Some weeks I work 40 hours, some weeks 20. > We take what we are given and save for the quieter > months. Also I think it's worth saying that we > work with staff with young children to support. ok understood - it looks therefore that it's the zero hours contracts that are the problem, more so that the hourly rate? although LLW entitlement is important. I had assumed at least some of you guys were full time employed - apologies.

?9.30 per hour at 7.5 hours per day and a minimum 240 paid days per year amounts to 16740 per annum - the expected net pay per year/month/week/day are : Take Home ?14,662.88 ?1,221.91 ?281.98 ?56.40 at 300 paid days per year - gross ?20,925 per annum Take Home ?17,508.68 ?1,459.06 ?336.71 ?67.34

I think an important question here is how the Picturehouse remuneration/package compares to competitors It seems some of the coverage of cinema pay suggests that picturehouse are as good if not better than the competition any truth in this edphstaff? as I say i'm supportive of you getting LLW but just interested in this point.

MissWiggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mark, I totally agree with you. It wasn't the > difference in opinion I was picking up on. Of > course we're all entitled to say whether or not we > like something, that doesn't equal negativity. > > It was more the focus on VAT, mention of > "vandalism" and "poisoning of the children". My > feeling was that some of the comments were quite > snide. > Indeed. Good point.

Found it: The value of these perks depends upon how much cinema you watch and eat and drink i guess. Other perks are normal employment type expectations Picturehouse staff package *Membership bonus adding between 10 and 25p to each hour worked (excludes Ritzy) *Paid breaks. So staff working an 8 hour shift, are paid for 8 hours but only work 7.5 *Membership to The Forum - an official, recognised staff union with bargaining rights *Statutory paternity, pension, sick and holiday pay *Unlimited Cineworld and Picturehouse Cinema tickets (subject to availability) *Two tickets per week for guests *Free eye tests (for those using screens) *Cycle to work scheme *Free popcorn, soft drinks and hot drinks *30% off all food and beverages *Late night working allowance

I do love the picturehouse - and the staff are excellent and make a big difference to the enjoyment. Happy to pay a little more myself (the membership are an incredibly good deal) and for them to get London living wage. I remember that picturehouse did suggest once, on their website or somewhere else, that the employees received other benefits in addition to their salary - do you know if this is the case and what the benefits are supposed to be?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > ok good - but I doubt that this justifies "we are > really delighted with this positive outcome" on reading it again, I suspect now that the comment was tongue in cheek - as in not sacked for not breaking the law....

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not on the living wage - just the threat to sack > anyone who strikes hasn't materialised I think. ok good - but I doubt that this justifies "we are really delighted with this positive outcome"

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KalamityKel, the kids films aren't the most > profitable for the company and we'd rather not > disappoint kids so young that they don't choose > where they go to watch a film so we try to avoid > them > we also have to work to pay rent etc so we can't > strike all day etc > > fishbiscuits, thanks for your reply and yeah i > guess we just have different approaches to the > issue > > as of yet no one has been sacked for not breaking > the law! we are really delighted with this > positive outcome > > What positive outcome - did I miss some conclusion on this?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm so proud of my little thread. I was not even > expecting double digits, let alone botherin the > centurian boffins. Quote from 2009. Almost a decade of tapping into the EDF ... such fun. This thread brings back many memories of old friends, many who have moved on.

A very old thread that I've just remembered about. But I still like Emily Maitlis on Newsnight.

I checked this out after seeing it on Victoria last night. Some French chefs want to bring this back, yes, they do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11101187/Ortolans-could-Frances-cruellest-food-be-back-on-the-menu.html "The French do themselves no favours. There is a ritual to eating an ortolan: diners cover their head in a large napkin. They then pop the entire bird into their mouth and eat everything save the feet, crunching the bones as they go. The napkin is partly to keep in all the aromas of the dish, partly to disguise you having to spit out some of the bigger bones. But, mostly, because diners wish to hide the shame of eating such a beautiful creature from the eyes of God."

I heard its changing from Audi to Aldi, so they can save money on minimal signage changes.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just go in an check the place out yourself! > > I'll probably give it a body swerve as there are > places more suitable to my tastes. If it was on my doorstep I would have no doubt tried it by now, i'm no stranger to a pub. But I like to know that if a pub is quiet, or crap, I can move to another nearby, which with this one you can't. I just hoped it had improved from its teething problems on re-opening - out of general interest. But having now checked tripadvisor - its seems to be awful.....still - what a shame https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186338-d2397787-Reviews-The_Crown_and_Greyhound-London_England.html

Any, more positive feedback on the Dog. Looked super busy today as I cycled past, seems to be thriving.

I don't know why but I didn't really get the buzz this time. something was missing for me. being nostalgic about previous ones perhaps.

magnificent tour - I don't think it was. the Lions were lucky. New coach next time please.

Not at all - I think the initial post is worthwhile - but not sure it needs mega analysis. your heart is clearly in the right place :)

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1864343,1864343#msg-1864343 No more Uber...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-lost-licence-operate-london-2017-9

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was at the bus stop today and he was there. A > lovely chap offered him food, he refused and said > he needed cash. Does this guy deserve a personal thread above the other homeless people we have here already. if he's refusing food and wants cash I'd suggest he's dependent upon something that requires cash. possibly if he refuses food he also refuses legitimate help from homeless charities - id say its unlikely he hasn't been offered targeted legitimate assistance already.

I'm struggling with whether this reflects well or badly on SOB. I'm guessing it wont be well received Personally I'm glad he said it, it gives an insight into the haphazard performance in the first test and some improvement thereafter. Personally I think Sexton not being involved in the first test with his experience, record of success and tactical nouse was a mistake - Itoje being left out was jaw dropping in terms of individual ability If Gatland and the team listened better as a result of first test failings fair enough, or whether the team took over the coaching as SOB suggests then fine, but there seems no doubt mistakes were rectified after losing the first test. After that its an uphill struggle. And despite achieving a drawn series I think a lot of people felt the Lions were very much second best and could have done better.

Take Note Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's Mick Mac, @Toosmart1973. Really not that > smart. > > Who says (anything) .com? Don't know that that means regarding me....

Toosmart1973 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good grief! > > Can a grown man not innocently 'rub one out' in > the privacy of some foliage anymore without some > self absorbed fitness fanatic pervertedly watching > them?? > > Whats the world coming to? Maybe you should rename yourself Nottoosmart

Well - I seemed to quite enjoy the match despite the result. Bit frustrating until 2-0 at which point there was already no way back, so just had to admire a very good team and some very good players.