Boycott Picturehouse?

[JoeLeg]

edphstaff Wrote:

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

> Dbboy: It's telling that under the heading of

> "Sick Pay, Holiday, Pension, Maternity and

> Paternity " you've copied and pasted there is no

> mention of Maternity and Paternity pay.

Erm, sorry to be difficult but yes there is, under the paragraph marked 'Pensions Contributions'.

As I've

> said before sick pay only applies to those that

> have worked at the company for more than a year

> (about five members of front of house at our

> site)and unfortunately people sometimes get sick

> before 12 months in their new job has passed.

>

Yes that doesn't sound great, but again I would ask if you're able to provide examples of other comparable jobs which do provide it; the point being that any evidence you have of others being able to afford it will help your case. This isn't to say you shouldn't be the first of course, but as I understand it full sick pay benefits tend not to kick in until the employee has been with a company for a little while, and I have to say that staying a year isn't a big ask. Doesn't seem that Dickensian to me.

> JoeLeg: I completely agree with you about

> zero-hour contracts and think anyone who has a job

> should be able to afford to raise a family. On

> that reason alone would you not support our

> strike

>

I completely support your right to strike, I just think you're coming at this whole issue in the wrong way. The time is ripe for a national discussion about wages, but I think you're thinking too small.

[JoeLeg]

Ok. I didn't post that in bold! Not sure what's going on here...Admin?

[edphstaff]

Sorry if this is in bold, i don't mean to make it look like i'm shouting!

dbboy, as i've said before when i and my colleagues took the job we were aware of our power to change the terms of employment. we've already gotten a pay increase and we are going to keep going until our original demand of the LLW is met.

The strike does affect head office. If a cinema is closed it affects profit. And some of the managers will be on the picket line with us. For those managers that are not, the point is to cause a disruption. It's a strike. If we close the cinema, get the attention of the public and hurt PH's profits and reputation that's a win for us. LLW is the end goal.

You say we should try meeting management. If you had read what I posted earlier they have refused to meet with our chosen union for over a year. This is why we feel the need to strike. I am repeating myself here.

JoeLeg, i should have been clearer about the maternity/paternity pay, sorry. I don't think it explains how bad that support is.

As I've said before comparing the pay of one under paid worker to another isn't of interest to us but if you insist one cinema that provides what we are asking for is the ArtHouse in Crouch End and the Royal Shakespeare Company front of house staff. The RSC got these demands by joining the union we are part of...

[Penguin68]

That should do it (close the bold) - sorry - it does it on preview but not in reality - somewhere (no spaces) there is - to close it you need to input - I'm going to put in another couple to see if that works - it didn't - and now it has?

[JoeLeg]

edphstaff Wrote:

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

>

> JoeLeg, i should have been clearer about the

> maternity/paternity pay, sorry. I don't think it

> explains how bad that support is.

>

I'm not sure I'd agree that statutory maternity/paternity pay is bad; I mean, it's not fantastic, but it's not terrible. However at this point in confused as to what your aims are. Do you seek just the LLW, or are you about better pay and conditions across the board? And before you say 'well, duh, the latter of course', remember that the strikes have always been primarily about the wages.

I don't think it helps to dilute it with accusations of poor conditions in the rest of your contract, especially when a lot of those conditions aren't that bad.

> As I've said before comparing the pay of one under

> paid worker to another isn't of interest to us

And here I think you're making a tactical error. Firstly this reads like you don't care about other workers (though I doubt you intend that), and secondly I think you should be bringing other workers into it, you absolutely should be showing what other people get paid. As I say, you're thinking too small. You want to win this fight? You need to be showing not only that PH can afford LLW, but you need to persuade them that it'll be better for them of they pay it. There haven't been many cases of people pushing for LWW, you're trailblazers in that respect, but you aren't hospital cleaners or teachers or another profession that tends to naturally engender public support. You need to be showing why this is good not only for you but for everyone else.

but

> if you insist one cinema that provides what we are

> asking for is the ArtHouse in Crouch End and the

> Royal Shakespeare Company front of house staff.

> The RSC got these demands by joining the union we

> are part of...

So what did the RSC do differently?

[edphstaff]

Our requests:

? A London Living Wage (currently ?9.75/hr)

? Recognition of the BECTU sector of Prospect at East Dulwich Picturehouse and other PH cinemas

? Fair pay rises for supervisors, managers, chefs, sound technicians & projectionists

? Company sick pay for all staff

? Company maternity/paternity/ adoption pay for all staff

? The option of fixed term contracts

I take your point about using the examples of other places that pay the LLW and where similar work is done. This would probably be more appealing to the public. We are currently working on a map of London that shows cinemas that pay the conditions we are asking for. It's not complete yet but the BFI, ArtHouse and Barbican are on it.

I think a company that makes ?93.8 million post-tax profit a year can pay the LLW. We've made a very rough calculation and we think they could still make ?90m post-tax profit and pay us.

For all of us involved this movement isn't just about us. It's about all workers, especially those on the lower end. Some people have to work jobs that pay badly all their lives and they should be given the opportunity to have a family. People should not have to go to work ill out of a fear of missing their rent payments. It's about justice and a more equal distribution of income towards a fairer society.

The RSC staff asked to be paid the LLW. The company said no. They joined BECTU (our union) and reps from the union negotiated with the company and an agreement to pay the living wage was reached before any strike took place. We tried this, as i said earlier:

"The Living Staff Living Wage campaign began in 2014 where the Ritzy won a 26% pay rise and an agreement to re-negotiate towards the Living Wage in June 2016. The company back-tracked on this agreement and refuse to negotiate at all". Since then the company have refused to meet union reps. We would much rather achieve our aims the easy way but we feel we have been left with no option. Seven months on, there are now 6 sites striking and more joining soon. What do you think we should do instead?

[Chick]

Exactly.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I may be misremembering, but wasn't the issue with

> Picturehouse that they agreed to pay the London

> Living Wage - then turned round and said so we're

> going to sack X% of staff to pay for it?

[Chick]

What utter bullshit. Discussing a legal dispute on a public forum is not gross negligence.

>

> Cineworld will be made aware of your actions here,

> which more than clearly meets the definition of

> Gross Negligence.

[JoeLeg]

I personally have no issue with anything you're doing, I just think you have a much better chance of success by widening your focus to make it not just about you but everyone. As I say I think the time is right for us, as a society, to have this debate about what wages should be (especially within Brexit coming up, and the impending suggestion that this will be better for workers). You stand a better chance of getting widespread public support and media attention.

I'm repeating myself, but I really don't think that using Cineworlds profits as a whole is what you want. Focus on PH, and only PH. They paint themselves in a certain way, but from your descriptions behave differently; sounds to me like bad press is the way to get their attention. No one likes bad press.

[JohnL]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> I personally have no issue with anything you're

> doing, I just think you have a much better chance

> of success by widening your focus to make it not

> just about you but everyone. As I say I think the

> time is right for us, as a society, to have this

> debate about what wages should be (especially

> within Brexit coming up, and the impending

> suggestion that this will be better for workers).

> You stand a better chance of getting widespread

> public support and media attention.

>

> I'm repeating myself, but I really don't think

> that using Cineworlds profits as a whole is what

> you want. Focus on PH, and only PH. They paint

> themselves in a certain way, but from your

> descriptions behave differently; sounds to me like

> bad press is the way to get their attention. No

> one likes bad press.

Sadiq Khan has said he wants all London employers to pay

the London Living Wage.

He did write a letter to the CEO of Cineworld I think

[uptheworkers!]

Interesting article here: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/latestnews/entryid/2149/picturehouse-cinema-strike.aspx

Please support the strikers on Saturday

[Fellbrigg Josh]

Chick Wrote:

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

> What utter bullshit. Discussing a legal dispute on

> a public forum is not gross negligence.

>

>

> >

> > Cineworld will be made aware of your actions

> here,

> > which more than clearly meets the definition of

> > Gross Negligence.

Not to worry, I have emailed Cineworld head office. I think they agree with me. The only bullshit here is you and your attempt to deny it.

I cannot wait to cross your picket line and speak to your managers. Rest assured I'll be doing all I can to see that you lose your jobs.

[rendelharris]

Fellbrigg Josh Wrote:

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

>

> Not to worry, I have emailed Cineworld head

> office. I think they agree with me. The only

> bullshit here is you and your attempt to deny it.

>

> I cannot wait to cross your picket line and speak

> to your managers. Rest assured I'll be doing all I

> can to see that you lose your jobs.

Before anyone bothers replying to this spiteful little troll, he's been "deactivated" - good work Admin!

[Jeremy]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> good work Admin!

seconded

[Chick]

Thirded. I don't work for Cineworld.

[edphstaff]

You will all be the first to know as soon as I loose my job!

[uptheworkers!]

Hoping that all you good-minded people are preparing to support the strikers on Saturday. Time to step up.

[dbboy]

What time will this happen on Saturday and how long will it last?

[Abe_froeman]

Will the bar still be open during your strike?

[edphstaff]

Staff are walking out at 1pm

The official picket will go on til about 4pm

The strike technically lasts all day and we ask supportive members of the public not to enter the cinema for the rest of the day. If you've already bought tickets you can ask for a refund.

thanks for all the support so far

[uptheworkers!]

Seems the strike did a good job, thanks for the support

[jmpl]

Not sure that you realise quite how good you actually have it. You're in danger of biting the hand that feeds you really quite well. If you put in a modicum of work rather than going on strike you'll earn over the living wage quite easily, assuming the pay and benefits outlined on the picture house website are correct. Most people in a hospitality role would be delighted with these additional benefits as well.

The majority of the picturehouse jobs are part-time shift-based roles on a low-ish but not outrageous wage; nothing more, nothing less; perfect for students and the like. It's a clear proposition which you sign up for. You cannot expect a company to pay wages for staff to stand around and do nothing in quiet times of the year. the only way for businesses of this nature to move away from zero hours contracts is to cut jobs and remove any flexibility, so be careful what you wish for. And are you actually campaigning for 4 weeks sick pay a year...?

Given that the roles are not exactly taxing or require (with one or two exceptions)any sort of specialist qualification, I'm not sure how you can expect to be paid more than any other bar cafe or retail staff in the capital.In fact, your wages are already in excess of what many in these roles currently earn.

Looking at the formidable picket line this weekend, it didn't look to me like any of the largely middle and upper class wannabe hipster participants (who looked a long way from the breadline)had actually ever experienced proper, hard manual work for low wages. Perhaps try a sabbatical doing some this, then see how you feel about your current role.....

[KidKruger]

A lot of decent points indeed.

One question - what IS 'the look' or tell tale signs of middle or upperclass wannabe hipsters that HAVE ever experienced proper hard manual work ? That is, the look which those you observed on Saturday did not have ?

[Chick]

Another troll.

jmpl Wrote:

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

> Not sure that you realise quite how good you

> actually have it. You're in danger of biting the

> hand that feeds you really quite well. If you put

> in a modicum of work rather than going on strike

> you'll earn over the living wage quite easily,

> assuming the pay and benefits outlined on the

> picture house website are correct. Most people in

> a hospitality role would be delighted with these

> additional benefits as well.

>

> The majority of the picturehouse jobs are

> part-time shift-based roles on a low-ish but not

> outrageous wage; nothing more, nothing less;

> perfect for students and the like. It's a clear

> proposition which you sign up for. You cannot

> expect a company to pay wages for staff to stand

> around and do nothing in quiet times of the year.

> the only way for businesses of this nature to move

> away from zero hours contracts is to cut jobs and

> remove any flexibility, so be careful what you

> wish for. And are you actually campaigning for 4

> weeks sick pay a year...?

>

> Given that the roles are not exactly taxing or

> require (with one or two exceptions)any sort of

> specialist qualification, I'm not sure how you can

> expect to be paid more than any other bar cafe or

> retail staff in the capital.In fact, your wages

> are already in excess of what many in these roles

> currently earn.

>

> Looking at the formidable picket line this

> weekend, it didn't look to me like any of the

> largely middle and upper class wannabe hipster

> participants (who looked a long way from the

> breadline)had actually ever experienced proper,

> hard manual work for low wages. Perhaps try a

> sabbatical doing some this, then see how you feel

> about your current role.....

[rendelharris]

Strange assumption that EDPH staff are asking for more than everybody else. The point of the London Living Wage campaign, as backed by our Mayor and many others, is that they're asking for what should be the minimum wage in London for all workers. To point out that others may have done, or be doing, harder work for less money is irrelevant and frankly silly. In my distant youth I worked on building sites for pretty criminal wages - I needed the money and it was all that was available - but I don't regard that as giving me the right to tell others they're not entitled to a living wage.