Jump to content

East Dulwich Picturehouse


Recommended Posts

To Lyn Goleby, Managing Director, Picturehouse Cinemas, who said: ?We are deeply saddened by the decision of some of our staff at The Ritzy cinema in Brixton, who have voted to strike over pay."


Well Lyn, boo hoo. However, I am deeply saddened that you are refusing to pay a living wage to your staff. And as to paying them "substantially" more than the minimum wage, that would be the "substantial" amount of 93p an hour more, would it not?


That brings their pay to ?7.24 an hour. How the hell can anyone in London live on that?! I believe that if a business can't afford to pay a living wage to its staff then it does not deserve to be in business in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That brings their pay to ?7.24 an hour. How the hell can anyone in London live on that?!"


Depends who we're talking about surely. If it's a young person living at home and not paying out any rent, I think they could have a pretty good time earning that. If it's someone in a family with 2 kids, then not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asking me, and I am indeed posting here, and I've answered. Again, none of the staff in those pictures look like they're 17. They all look 20s or early 30s. And again, any business that cannot pay staff a living wage does not deserve to be in business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

buddug Wrote:

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

> Great, so people in their twenties and early

> thirties having to live at home with their

> parents. They're obviously having a great time. So

> that's all sorted then.



That's not really what Ibwas saying though was it.


I'd like everyone to be paid well enough to live, but equally I agree with those that question why Picturehouse are seemingly being singled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're being singled out because the case is already high profile, and as usual people are falling over themselves to show how terribly 'right on' they are.


Picturehouse are small fry, there are loads of huge huge businesses in London who pay minimum wage. Lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picturehouse is not small fry, it's part of the giant Cineworld group. And anyway, their staff aren't small fry either. They're ordinary workers. It's not a matter of being 'right on,' it's just that they've been on strike for a living wage and I want to support them by boycotting their cinemas. The Ritzy pretends to be 'right on' yet they can't pay a living wage. Even Ken Loach is backing them. As he says:


?It is sad and shocking that the Ritzy Cinema, which has an image of being radical and progressive, should fail to do this. It is hypocritical to sell fair trade coffee and then not pay a fair wage. Come on, Ritzy management, don?t ask the people who work for you to subsidise your business.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to reiterate at length what I've said already on this thread in case someone insults me again. Let me make it clear that I would be very pleased if Picturehouse paid the LLW; indeed they seem to be moving in that direction. But I still don't see why they are being picked out for attack when there are so many other local businesses currently in existence who don't pay it. Do people really think that larger businesses who don't pay it should be condemned while small local businesses who don't pay should be let off the hook because they're run by nice cuddly people wearing flip flops with flowers in their hair who are kind to animals and say that they want to save the world?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I'm not going to reiterate at length what I've

> said already on this thread in case someone

> insults me again. Let me make it clear that I

> would be very pleased if Picturehouse paid the

> LLW; indeed they seem to be moving in that

> direction. But I still don't see why they are

> being picked out for attack when there are so many

> other local businesses currently in existence who

> don't pay it.


This is such a depressing argument. You seem to be saying that people who want all businesses to pay the LLW *must not* highlight individual failures to pay LLW. Instead, they should limit their campaigns to general statements that all employers should pay the LLW.


What they certainly shouldn't do, in your view, is focus their attention on a large employer with employees who are engaged with this issue and loudly arguing for the LLW to be paid. Instead they should (presumably) be flyering all businesses in ED (or South London, or the UK). Only once they've done that will you permit them to highlight specific failures to pay the LLW.


Instead of asking "Why Picturehouse?" (which seems to be what you have been doing throughout this thread - and yes, I have read all your posts), how about you ask yourself "Why not Picturehouse?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It was an absolute shit show. And so much anger coming from both sides, not becoming at all (was surprised how riled cool Rishi was getting).  Agree about the format, it was lazy, whatsherchops wasn't asking pertinent questions, she was just going for binary yesses or nos. The producers didn't force either side to drill down on anything, just make commitments so they got good soundbites.  If I hear 'my father was a tool maker' / my wife's a nurse / my father was a GP one more time... as if any of those things qualify anyone to fix / understand anything. 
    • Good.  Subsidence claims generally have an excess of £1000 per claim, but was yours higher?
    • Indeed, many house here have had or will have subsidence issues so one needs to bear that in mind.  Many houses here have shallow foundations but they have been around 100 years or so without too much issue. What the surveyor has told you doesn't feel like a 'red flag', more of a sensible warning.  Bear in mind that although the surveyor is nominally working for you, their focus iln reality is mostly on the lender and the risk of being sued, either by them or you.  So they are always pretty cautious.  It would be wise to get a 2nd opinion, eg. from a structural engineer.  Or talk  to the original surveyor directly as they may say more than they are prepared to put in a report.  It's a little difficult from the description to identify what the situation is but the scenario in which part of a property has been underpinned and the rest has not is fairly common here.  The proximity of trees is likely to be the main thing to be concerned about, particularly after the hot summer of 2002, as insurers generally regard them as risky, especially if they are not cut back from time to time.  A second surveyor can advise directly on this. It would definitely be worth trying to take over the current buildings insurance.  Indeed, it may be quite hard to find new cover.  Enquire what the current premium is and who the policy is ultiimately underwitten by (ie. is it a name that you have ever heard of?)  The insurance industry, in general, works to a guideline that the insurance of an underpinned property should transfer to a new owner.   https://www.biba.org.uk/insurance-guides/home-insurance-guides/subsidence/
    • More than the 2 contestants, the format and production was the main fault last night - allowing 45 seconds for an answer will get you those responses from any 2 candidates Awful show
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...