Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wow, what an extremely unbiased, balanced piece of journalism. Why are people under the delusion that Picturehouse is some kind of workers co-op? It's a commercial enterprise and the people running it in an extremely competitive marketplace. They can and should run it the way they need to to keep the business viable. Emotionally charged articles masquerading as truth and offering but a single viewpoint do nobody any favours. People get moved around, reassigned or let go in thousands of businesses every day of the week. Why pick on Picturehouse?
And whose viewpoint is all but unexpressed anywhere in the article referred to. You're basing your opinion on a highly partisan and unverified document clearly written by disgruntled employees with an axe to grind. I'm not prepared to vilify a company based on such limited and one-sided information and neither should anyone else.

There are quite strict rules regarding redundancies (partly at least because of the tax free element of redundancy payments up to a ceiling), and trade's unions are normally very clear about them - to remove as many activists as is being suggested without real redundancy conditions being met does not make sense to me. You can either reduce the whole workforce through redundancy - or remove particular classes of employee (for instance those whose skill set is no longer required) - but you cannot remove people claiming redundancy and then back-fill vacancies. Any business can determine that it is necessary to reduce its workforce; that is of course very sad for the employees concerned, but it's business.


It would not be possible to set 'legal' criteria for redundancy as being trade's union membership or activity - this must be based on clear (non-discriminatory) criteria (which can however include performance measures). LIFO (last In First Out) and FIFO (First In, First Out) have both also been used by companies. Most will look for voluntary before compulsory redundancy, and many will allow people to apply for jobs elsewhere in the organisation, should there be any and they be qualified.


At the moment the company appears to be going through standard procedures (including consultancy).


From what has been written, it appears that they plan to re-organise the Ritzy - probably to reduce staff overheads - and in putting virtually all the jobs at risk, they plan to re-staff the new organisation from within the exiting pay-roll.


A cynic might suggest that since the Ritzy did continue to stay open and deliver service during the strike, the management may have decided that they can still run the cinema with fewer permanent staff, since they didn't appear to need the numbers actually on-strike at the time (numbers, not people).


Edited to say:- I have been a committed trade unionist for most of my (long) working life and am still a (reasonably) active member of my Branch Committee - in case it is assumed I am writing from a different bias.

TBH I find it hard to muster much sympathy for the Ritzy strikes. I guess I find it hard to empathise.. if I wasn't happy with my job, I'd go and find a new one. We're not talking about people with highly specific skillsets, or performing vital services.

this is the crux of modern living tho isn't it Jeremy - YOU might be able to go get another job but if everyone did that there would be nobody doing the jobs we rely on. And by rely I mean lifestyle rather than public service jobs


You either believe a large swathe of the population needs to be on low wages to subsidise your life choices, or you belive that everyone is entitled to a decent wage


What you can't have is some utopian market led idea that everyone will just gravitate to the job they want, on the money they want and everyone's a winner


Our society demands large numbers of people do relatively unskilled jobs - I don't see why that should condemn them to substandard wages


The London Living Wage is, objectively, not an unreasonable idea. So why some people/companies fight it so spitefully I don't understand

On an idealogical level, yes I agree that the LWW is not unreasonable.


But on a more individual level... I suspect (although of course I have no evidence) that we're talking about mainly fairly young people who have made a conscious choice to live what they perceive to be a bohemian lifestyle. Young, personable people who could have all sorts of options ahead of them if they wanted.

How many times have we been over this. If minimum pay increased to the LLW tomorrow across London, the economic impact would be cataclysmic. Also, why does someone living and working in zone 6 deserve as much as a commuter into zone 1? Do you deny someone living just outside the M25 the LLW while someone in the next street qualifies? The overwhelming majority of companies in London don't operate the LLW. Fact. If Picturehouse deserve a kicking then where's Odeon or Vue who are far larger entities and with whom Picturehouse do and must compete? And indeed 99% of the other businesses we all interact with on a daily basis? This cinema chain is not deserving of the special vilification it's receiving. It's only because of BECTU and their ability to marshall well-known types into the fray that we even heard about it at all. I say leave them alone. And I look forward to the ED branch opening with great anticipation.

This the quote from Picture House:


?The staff at The Ritzy recently agreed a pay package with Picturehouse Cinemas, which includes substantial pay increases across four years.


?During the negotiation process it was discussed that the amount of income available to distribute to staff would not be increasing, and that the consequence of such levels of increase to pay rates would be fewer people with more highly paid jobs.?


If true, then it appears that the union shot themselves in the foot somewhat. I wonder whether this information was disseminated to all the staff?


FWIW, I am generally in favour of increasing minimum wage levels in London, not least because low pay means subsidies from taxes going to private landlords - a classic perverse outcome. But you have to allow for the fact that increased pay in some circumstances will mean fewer jobs.

"?During the negotiation process it was discussed that the amount of income available to distribute to staff would not be increasing"



discussed doesn't mean agreed tho


and why exactly would the amount of income available to distribute to staff NOT be increasing - as a blanket statement that seems very final

discussed doesn't mean agreed tho


Unions have no rights, or expectations, to 'agree' to management decisions about resource allocation - more true would be to say that the unions may not have believed this management statement, and determined to press for more pay in the hope (or perhaps even expectation) that this was a bluff. Clearly it wasn't.


In fact, as I have said, the fact that the Ritzy continued to operate when (some) of its staff were on strike may have helped convice management that they could operate at lower stafing levels.


Throughout the management does appear to have acted honestly (they said they wouldn't change their overall pay envelope, they haven't) - which is not to say nicely - and are following standard (and legal) procedures about redundancy.


As a trade's unionist I might conclude that the principle of the LLW has been won, but at the cost of the jobs of some of my members. The principle may be more important, long term, than the jobs (but then, if I was a BECTU official, I will still be working, but some of my members won't be!). Maybe the long-run hope is that the Ritzy can't actually operate with a reduced staff, and that, in the longer term, they may have to re-hire (and they are hiring for ED anyway). A 'better' negotiation might have been to allow for the Ritzy reduction - but to negotiate for transfer of some staff to ED - but this might not have been welcomed - the strike was quite bitter and there was actual violence I am told between strikers and those not striking - the police were called (I believe) to the Monty Python live broadcast to eject strikers who were disrupting the show.

question has been asked a dozen times


1 - because the staff did something about it and deserve support

2 - because they have media attention, the case could be useful for other employees going forward - the more business introduce LLW the more pressure to introduce it elsewhere rises

3 - not many of the other businesses on LL are global affairs with income in hundreds of millions and profits measured in tens of millions

MissKing Wrote:

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

> Do all the other businesses along Lordship Lane

> pay this LLW? If not, why all the focus on just

> the cinema?


because it's been brought into focus by the staff at the ritzy


they should all pay it of course

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

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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