East Dulwich Picturehouse

[LondonMix]

Sorry, not attacking in the sense of being abusive or anything. However, your immediate reaction was to assume I was trying to undermine the LLW and therefore, instead of reading my posts carefully, you immediately went into the mode of defending your position and trying to undermine mine rather than engaging with the substance of what I was saying.

Perphas saying that some on this thread have a strong defensive attitude towards the issue would be a better choice of words.

Eitherway, I think this issue is so much larger than the Picture House, continuing to discuss it here is really hijacking a thread meant to spread information about a new facility in the area.

[StraferJack]

I sort of agree about "singling out the picture house isn't fair" thing btw - but then again teh thread IS about the picture house and their staff have recently gone on strike on the matter, so it's germaine to the discussion. But on the wider topic we can assume we are also talking about other companies I guess

[StraferJack]

I did read your posts carefully tho, and it still wasn't clear what your position was. To me anyway. And that could be my fault. But it's not for lack of reading your messages

[Otta]

I just looked at the pay scales for my employer (a London Local Authority), and the bottom scale pays out in incriments as follows.

7.9078

7.9701

8.0388

8.1874

8.4016

8.6110

8.7644

8.8683 MAX

So you'd have to be in that job a while to work your way up to the top of the scale and hit ?8.80.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS RIGHT!!!!!!

But if a local authority aren't paying LLW, this illustrates just how pointless it is banging on about Picturehouse.

Edit because the data all came out funny.

[Otta]

Even more worryingly, in said local authority it is thought that 1 in 5 people are not even being paid the minimum wage, so frankly there are bigger issues to worry about than a cinema which isn't breaking any laws.

[DaveR]

Btw, I'm very pleased that a cinema will be opening in ED

[LondonMix]

Okay, fair enough SJ, I am not always very clear.

My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business. Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time. The economy still has shortages of various types of skilled labor and this needs rebalancing. This has to be part of the broader discussion on the LLW.

My other point, is that unskilled jobs that pay a lower wage have a genuine roll to play in the economy, particularly for younger employees. Of the circa 16% of employees earning below the LLW, it would be interesting to see how many of them are students. Given how young London?s population is, 16%-20% doesn?t strike me as terribly high. This becomes a more significant issue of course, if young unskilled workers remain in unskilled work for life.

My last point concerns increasing wages as a matter of law. The research on this is mixed but there is growing evidence that in certain circumstances minimum wage increases can be positive for the wider economy including job creation and lifting people out of poverty. However, when done without analyzing the impact it will have on business, it can result in spiraling inflation, job losses (particularly amongst the unskilled) and business closures. There are independent bodies both in the US and the UK that exist solely to assess this and advise government. Any increase in the minimum wage will result in some job cuts and closures in certain businesses but if enough businesses can absorb the increase via either cutting higher wage earners salaries, increasing prices moderately, increasing the productivity of low skilled workers etc, the net impact can be neutral on total employment as the increased spending power of low wage workers tends to stimulate growth faster than other segments of the population resulting in jobs growth. To simplify this point?forcing a minimum salary on the economy / London has to be done very carefully for it to be a net positive for low wage workers and the economy as a whole.

[Penguin68]

Otta

In the pay scales you attached, is there any element of London Weighting (often paid by public bodies) and if not, what would LW do to change these scales? When I worked for public bodies London Weighting and the basic pay scale were separate, as they were not increased in step with each other. Often LW was a lump sum increment, paid regardless of grade (and so of more relative value to the low paid).

[buddug]

LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business."

More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy workers contribute enormous value. How would Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready for the next batch of cinema-goers without these workers who are not even being paid a living wage?

Do you really think businesses in this economic climate, especially small businesses, would employ anyone who wasn't vital to their business? Everyone has a part to play to enable a business to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when profits are made, the owners or shareholders forget this.

[Otta]

Penguin68,

Looking down the list to my own scale, it seems these figures include any london weighting.

Edit to add, just noticed that these are April 2013 figures, but given that there has been a pay freeze, I doubt they'll have gone up by more than 1% if that.

[buddug]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/06/cineworld-buys-picturehouse

[Otta]

And for a bit more detail,

Bottom of the scale @ 7.9078 = 14844.00 a year, 1237.00 a month

Top of the scale @ 8.8683 = 16647.00 per year, 1387.25 a month

Based on full time

[buddug]

Those figures are shocking, Otta.

[Otta]

I don't disagree.

[Otta]

To be fair, I don't know how many jobs, if any, are actually paid at that low scale, but the fact it's on their pay scales at all is a bit of a surprise.

[El Pibe]

"Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time"

I'm not sure this makes sense does it? You increase your value by going up the career ladder, but this is a hierarchichal thing, there simply can't be positions for everyone higher up the chain as they all get older.

"Picturehouse programming director, Clare Binns, ... who worked her way up from an usher at the Brixton Ritzy" must surely be the exception amongst her ex usher peers.

In theory it'd be nice if people got paid more for increased experience, seniority in the literal rather than hierarchical sense of the word, but we know in low/unskilled professions this isn't really the case.

I've spent my entire career at the coalface, but am fortunate that it's an industry that pays well to begin with and my seniority has risen with experience, not responsibility, but professional erm professions aren't exactly the issue here.

So in reality doesn't society, well shareholders, depend on the work force not increasing its value in any way?

In fact given the levels of youth unemployment it would seem that older more experienced staff are being kept on at low wages rather than being replaced with cheap inexperienced youngsters.

Sorry, just musing really.

*edited for shameless grocers apostrophe

[LondonMix]

Beddug, I simply mean that if the cost of employing someone is unprofitable, a business cannot afford to do it. Not everyone contributes more than the LLW to the earnings of the company they are employed for. The fact that a business may not be able to run without them is irrelevant and staff costs can cause a business to close or fail.

Similarly, when certain low-skilled work becomes too expensive, the cost- benefit of using technology tips in favor of technology, which results in low-skilled jobs being lost. Collecting your ticket only from a machine and installing ticket scanners with security gates for example could reduce the need for certain low-skilled jobs in a cinema.

buddug Wrote:

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

> LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is

> difficult to pay an individual more than the value

> they contribute to your business."

>

> More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy

> workers contribute enormous value. How would

> Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks

> served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready

> for the next batch of cinema-goers without these

> workers who are not even being paid a living wage?

>

>

> Do you really think businesses in this economic

> climate, especially small businesses, would employ

> anyone who wasn't vital to their business?

> Everyone has a part to play to enable a business

> to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when

> profits are made, the owners or shareholders

> forget this.

[Penguin68]

Otta

Thanks for that clarification - and I would guess that many paid on these low scales would not, in fact, be full-time employees - these look like unskilled wages, which are often part-time or short-hours jobs (such as cleaning).

Of course, depending upon the terms of the contract, if part-time the staff member might also do another job as well, but probably at a similar low wage.

[buddug]

LM wrote: "The fact that a business may not be able to run without them is irrelevant "

What?!

[LondonMix]

Irrelevant to if they can afford to pay them LLW. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying Beddug.

[StraferJack]

Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's legally required to?

All legal of course, but not exactly ideal

[Otta]

Like most businesses care about ideal.

[david_carnell]

Cineworld had ?31 million of profit last year. I think they can afford it.

And on a wider scale, an increase in pay also leads to wider societal benefits: people have more money to spend - it stimulates the local economy; people have to claim less or no additional benefits resulting in a lower tax burden; staff are more likely to be loyal to the employer resulting in fewer costly recruitment processes, training, etc.

[StraferJack]

"Like most businesses care about ideal."

well this is it Otta - historically, most of thr 20th century had some link between business and social goals. that has been eroding for the past few decades and is reaching a tipping point

And it's not just a bunch of lefty liberals wringing their hands over this - in last few days we have had head of IMF and the Bank of England talking about the disconnect

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/27/carnney-lagarde-city-primeval-will-survive

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/27/capitalism-critique-bank-of-england-carney

[LondonMix]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage

> levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just

> tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay

> LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's

> legally required to?

>

> All legal of course, but not exactly ideal

Yes, of course. However, job losses and business closures do occur every time the minimum wage increases. However, job creation also takes place when the rate is set correctly . Clearly some firms cannot pay the higher wage and they fail. The trick when increasing the legal minimum wage is to make sure not too many are in that position given based on the size of the increase.

The firms least able to pay are those for whom the product they sell has elastic demand (meaning people are very price sensitive and will stop using it if prices go up), where a large portion of their employees are affected (for Goldman Sachs who do pay the LLW, only a small fraction of their workforce is unskilled and they can spread the increased cost of these limited number of employees through very small reductions in other staff costs or other efficiency gains) or when it?s impossible for the employees to become more productive (ie increasing targets etc which can happen after a hike in the min wage).

How large the increase is plays a role in how many businesses will find the change unsustainable without layoffs or closing all together.