East Dulwich Picturehouse and Caf?

[granadaland]

Picturehouse membership is a good deal, I have been a member for years.

Membership is roughly the price of 3 peak film tickets, and you get 3 free tickets as a member.

Also no booking fees on future tickets, and discounts in the bar and at local restaurants.

Ie 10% off in the bar/cafe and Rivington Grill. 25% off food and drink in GBK.

So if you're going to use the picturehouse more than 3 times a year it's well worth it.

(Assuming ED membership is the same as Greenwich...)

ken78 Wrote:

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

> so whats the price to join and whats the price to

> see a film any one know ??

[northlondoner]

The overall experience of going to a Picture House is pleasant and relaxing . Could be the same at the Plex if it smartened itself up . That bleakly municipalforecourt and entrance is ok during the day but really offputting at night

[EastDulwichMan]

This sounds excellent. Cant wait for the cinema to open.

[The Minkey]

I was living in Brixton when Picturehouse took over the Ritzy, prices seemed to rocket over the years. Membership included free previews at around midday on Sundays every six weeks or so but no idea whether this is still a thing or not. Certainly reduced price membership for residents had died a death by the time I moved over here.

Last time I went to the Ritzy was a couple of years ago - pretty sure it was around ?12 a ticket, I wasn't the one buying so it may well have included a booking fee. I just remember feeling a bit gutted on my friend's behalf to have paid so much for Warhorse.

I second the hope that by the time this one opens, the Ritzy workers will have won their campaign for a living wage and it extends to the staff across all the Picturehouses.

[hannah.alton]

Just thought this might be an appropriate place to expand upon the Ritzy staff's struggle for a living wage mentioned upthread. The staff have been negotiating and are now striking to try to get the Picturehouse chain (owned by Cineworld) to pay the London Living wage of ?8.80/hr.

There have been several peaceful strikes on Windrush square over the last few weeks, and the Bectu unionised staff are asking that people take their cinema custom elsewhere until Picturehouses - who position themselves as a luxury cultural brand and make healthy profits for their shareholders- agree to stop paying poverty wages.

If you would like to know more about what is happening, you can see the campaign facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/RitzyLivingWage?fref=nf

And there is more information about the London living wage and how it is calculated here: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

It would be really helpful, if you are on side, if you could email picturehouse directors [email protected] and [email protected] to let them know why you are not buying your advance membership for the new East Dulwich Picturehouse - especially if you are a long time fan of the company (who also run the Clapham Picturehouse, the Hackney Picturehouse, the Gate in Notting Hill and some of the best cinemas around the country). They need to hear that their stance on the dispute is harming the public perception of their brand.

Hopefully by the time the East Dulwich Picturehouse opens this dispute will be long behind them and we can all enjoy the great programming (and booze in the screens!) with a clear conscience.

Thanks.

[Ladygooner]

Hannah thanks for the post. I was handed a leaflet on Sunday in Windrush Square and have done all the above that you suggest. Can I ask, is it just the Ritzy staff who are not being paid a living wage or is it all Picturehouse staff?

[hannah.alton]

It's all Picturehouse staff, but the Ritzy is the only cinema which is unionised to enough of a degree for strikes to have an impact. City Screens (not sure if that's still the company name since the cineworld takeover) used to run a sham union called the Staff Forum, which once staff had joined meant they couldn't also be a member of Bectu - union members at the Ritzy spotted this in time and managed to stop staff from joining the Forum. However if the Ritzy strikers win, Picturehouses will have to extend the living wage to all of its' employees.

[Cyclemonkey]

Thanks for this Hannah. We spoke to some of the striking workers at Lambeth Country Show on Sunday. I really admire the Ritzy workers, striking when you are on a zero hours contract on a low wage is a brave decision and the Ritzy workers should be supported for their stance.

I'll happily email the directors about this. We need to stand firm with them and get them to pay their staff a living wage. Looking at the cost of rents and living in East Dulwich it is a disgrace that a successful chain there will not pay their staff enough to live on.

[daveybigpotatoes]

I'm looking forward to this opening - will be a great addition to the area.

Was just looking at the pricing on their website and a family of 4 can go on a Saturday for ?6.50 each in Clapham for a blockbuster which sounds pretty good to me - although you need to click through a myriad of cross selling screens before you get to the price. I hope you can take your own sweets in too.

[worldwiser]

Why do the staff of the new cinema have to live in East Dulwich? There are many arguments that can be put in favour of the LLW, but that's not one of them. Do you imagine the shopstaff of Harrods live in Knightsbridge?

[EDLove]

Looking at the cost of

> rents and living in East Dulwich it is a disgrace

> that a successful chain there will not pay their

> staff enough to live on.

I'm not sure I understand this particular reasoning. What do the costs of living in East Dulwich have to do with the wages paid by a business located in East Dulwich?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I do admire the staff who have taken this action. As someone stated above, it's not an easy thing to do, especially when you're on a low wage. But, Picturehouse do pay some of the highest wages of any of the cinema chains. They are probably one of the fairer employers in a not very fair sector. That's not exactly a compliment, but why is everyone going after one of the better chains to highlight a sector wide issue (I understand why the staff are, but the cause celebre)?

More generally, on the LLW - whilst it is outrageous that hard working people can no longer afford to live in London and have to be subsidised by the state - simply increasing some minimum wages alone will not fix it. Fundamentally housing and inequality are the issues. There is a lot more that could be done on both of these issues which would have more impact than paying Ritzy staff LLW. It's always going to be difficult to convince individual employers to pay more than their competitors, it has to be a sector wide, mandated intervention.

Specifically in relation to the Ritzy (and I stand to be corrected on this), haven't they agreed to pay the equivalent of the LLW subject to staff meeting service standards? Not saying that's great, but it talks to the first point above.

[hannah.alton]

Up until today the latest offer from picturehouses was way below the LLW. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the wider issues surrounding housing, etc. that you bring up rahrahrah, but if we have a chance to help make a positive difference in the lives of staff at just these few cinemas, I'm not sure where the harm is.

[Jeremy]

I don't see why we should avoid Picturehouse, just to give our business to another chain which are probably paying their staff less! If workers want to strike then fine, but a boycott makes no sense from where I'm sitting.

[Cyclemonkey]

I would imagine most of the Picturehouse staff would work locally. Put it this way - how far would you commute for a job that pays less than ?8 an hour and may knock off after midnight for some shifts. Here's an experiment for you, ask the bar staff and waiting staff in East Dulwich pubs and restaurants where they live, i'll bet you the majority of them are local.

[DaveR]

Less than LLW does not = poverty wages.

[Cyclemonkey]

If you work a 36 hour week it is less than ?17,000 p/a before any deductions. Fancy living on that in an area where one bedroom flats are often ?1000 a month in rent.

[DaveR]

"If you work a 36 hour week it is less than ?17,000 p/a before any deductions. Fancy living on that in an area where one bedroom flats are often ?1000 a month in rent."

Is poverty wage defined as not enough to rent a one bedroom flat, by yourself, in SE22? If that is the test, you'll find precious few employers, particularly in the retail/leisure sector, who pay enough to meet the test.

If the staff at Picture House want to strike for more pay, that's a matter for them. To observe that they are not poorly paid comparatively for the job they do is relevant. To suggest that the LLW is a benchmark below which any pay for any job is not just inadequate but somehow immoral is just nonsense. Equally, to suggest that the fact that a company makes profits is somehow indicative that they should inevitably pay their staff more is ludicrous.

FWIW, I am in favour of decent pay because I think it is the long term interests of both businesses and wider society, and I would support a London specific increase in the minimum wage, but the ultimate judgment lies with employers.

I won't be boycotting the Picturehouse.

[DuncanW]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> If you work a 36 hour week it is less than ?17,000

> p/a before any deductions. Fancy living on that

> in an area where one bedroom flats are often ?1000

> a month in rent.

Is it possible though that some of the people working these jobs live at home with their parents or are students looking for a bit of extra money for a not-too-demanding job?

[VicCraven]

The Picturehouse cinema group (and I hope East Dulwich Picturehouse will be part of the scheme once it opens later in the year) have partnered with ourscreen which allows anyone to choose a film, a date and time and create their own cinema performance.

A fantastic opportunity for us all to be a part of shaping the local culture.

Check out more details at:

https://www.ourscreen.com

Vic :)

[Cazz]

Thanks Vic

I have just joined as a founder member - looks fun and good value

Cazz

[Cyclemonkey]

I'm not suggesting everyone in a low paid job should be able to afford to rent a one bedroom flat, i flatshared well into my late 20s on higher wages.

Some of the Ritzy workers may live with parents but i expect many do not. There is a reason why it is called the London Living wage as that is what has been calculated as the minimum needed to live in London.

[DaveR]

I suggest you look a bit more closely at how LLW is calculated. It takes a variety of household types e.g different numbers of earners, dependents etc. and works out living costs, then comes up with a weighted average. It is not intended to represent the minimum for any job or, more pertinently any worker.

[Cedges]

On paper, I earn excellently, certainly over the LLW. I live in a bedsit with a psycho landlord because I can't afford anything better with any iota of privacy around here. I choose to live in an affluent area only a few miles from the city - my choice.

With the amount of folk having to intern to have any remote chance of getting a job, I say lets hear it for the unpaid interns and point the gainfully employed cinema employees in the direction of reed.co.uk if they want something better.

[Cyclemonkey]

Dave that's the point the workers are asking for more than the minimum.

Cedges what an odd post. You won't support people pushing for better pay because you don't get paid enough. The cinema workers are taking action to improve their pay, just as legitimate as leaving for a new job. How do you think most of the rights we all enjoy at work were won?