Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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


or not, depending on your viewpoint. Particularly if, as has been alleged, it is true that non-striking employees were harassed/threatened


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


subject to the shooting in the foot point mentioned above


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


this is the kind of economically illiterate point that seems compelling until you actually think for two seconds. the bigger a business is the bigger its turnover and profit. It also has bigger liabilities, bigger debts, more employees, more shareholders etc. etc. Proper measures of business comparison look at margins or, better, ROCE (return on Capital Employed). Saying 'look at their profits, they can afford to pay (this person/those people/everybody they employ) more' is lazy nonsense.

"or not, depending on your viewpoint. " - why would you have a viewpoint which enjoys people in expensive cities on low income?


"Particularly if, as has been alleged, it is true that non-striking employees were harassed/threatened " - just a smear. back it up or don't


"this is the kind of economically illiterate point" - condescending as well - always a pleasure with you Dave



"Saying 'look at their profits, they can afford to pay (this person/those people/everybody they employ) more' is lazy nonsense."


Let's call that what that is - complacent


So what IS it we look for when we wonder if a company CAN pay more to it's staff? A benevolent CEO with a twinkle in his or her eye?


How have mass-employee salaries and benefits been raised through history? It hasn't ever been when wise, objective owls like you say so Dave

"this is the kind of economically illiterate point" - condescending as well - always a pleasure with you Dave


It's not getting any better I'm afraid, with this:


"So what IS it we look for when we wonder if a company CAN pay more to it's staff? A benevolent CEO with a twinkle in his or her eye?"


You might look at how its margins compare with competitors, what the remuneration of senior managers looks like, whether it is consistently generating and retaining surplus cash from its operations, and the level of returns to shareholders. You might look at the overall pay and benefits package for employees and its record on retention and progression of staff. In short, you might do a bit more than adopt a stupid knee jerk reaction to some load of old sh!t you read somewhere that naturally played to your incoherent vaguely lefty feelgood man-of-the-people approach to every damn thing.


Is that better?

PLEASE NOTE


Just in case the reference to 'harrass/ threaten' was an inference drawn from my comment about violence between strikers and non-strikers, this was in fact (and I have an eye-witness who was there) a physical struggle between strikers who were 'occupying' the stage in Screen 1 during a performance and people trying to eject them. The violence was apparently pretty two-sided (and not that violent, more a struggle than a rumble) - and I quoted it not to blacken the strikers' reputations but to suggest that there was clearly going to be bad blood between them and non-strikers, making applying for jobs in the ED Picture House possibly problematic (and always assuming the protesters were actually employed by the Ritzy and striking and were not just sympathetic fellow BECTU members, or indeed fellow travellers). I have no evidence specifically of 'threaten or harrass' other than normal picket line activity. Crossing any picket line obviously will make someone feel at least slightly threatened or harrased, but within the law.

The aspect I find most surprising about this is that the Ritzy employed 93 people.

I have no reference to go on but that feels overstaffed - Anyone with experience of working in a cinema who could comment as to how many staff are required?


I agree pretty much with Penguin68's last couple of posts. Increasing wages would lead to reduced or no profits if nothing else changed. Redundancies are therefore one of a variety of legitimate options they could've used. Hopefully most of those affected can get positions in the ED branch.

Typical patronising crap from Will Self.


"The ambience of the Picturehouse cinemas is designed to make the punters feel as if they?re part of a big happy, raggedy family of enthusiasts, all keen on frothy coffee, flapjacks and the intense screen presence of Michael Fassbender."


Really? Did anybody honestly think that Picture House cinemas were some sort of film club, rather than a business? And now, because you've been so cynically misled, you're going to boycott them. But not the Odeon - you always knew that they were rapacious capitalists so their staff can go hang - what did they expect when they got a job there.


Edited to add - some credit to Will Self though for unintentionally identifying what's behind the outrage here - the cries of the metropolitan middle classes who realise they've been taken in by the marketing. I'm just slightly surprised that WS wanted to broadcast his own credulousness quite so widely

DaveR is correct. Looking at their profit margin / ROCE is the more appropriate measure. Their profit margin should also be looked at based on industry norms. This has been said before but it's around 5 percent from memory for the chain, hardly earth shattering.


Also asking a single business in isolation to adopt a different pay structure to their competitors is grossly unfair.



Lastly, those advocating for the LLW should keep in mind that when unskilled labor increases in cost, the cost benefit analysis of investing in labor saving technology changes. Fewer unskilled jobs is often the corollary.


The problem of low wage work and unskilled workers can't properly be addressed by a policy like the

LLW in isolation.

The aspect I find most surprising about this is that the Ritzy employed 93 people


This must be 93 individuals, not 93 FTE. I have seen 4 or so in the ticket area, 3 front of house in the downstairs cafe, presumably 2 at each of the screens (one for tickets, one projectionist, although most screens are automated/ digital nowadays and withour projectionists (5?) - say 3 in the k i t chen, 2-3 roving cleaners, 2-3 security, perhaps 1-2 in an office 'managing' - assume they operate 2 8 hour shifts (so FTE numbers double)- I find it hrs to get much above 50 FTE - and that seems quite generous staffing levels, assuming all staffing is at peak levels.

DaveR, I'm not Will Self's biggest fan either but I imagine many of us are taken in by marketing the whole time, it is not always possible to stay abreast of every company takeover and were marketing and advertising unpersuasive I doubt so much time, money and energy would be invested in any of it.

Sympathetic as I am to the idea of the LLW, why are people always having a go at the Picturehouse chain, when so few (if any) employers in ED pay it? The hippy dippy flower children who run Sainsbury's and Iceland? Or the caring sharing hipsters in charge of most of the trendy little shops in LL and Northcross Road?


And if you boycott Picturehouse, you might as well boycott every cinema chain since I'm pretty sure none of them pay the LLW. So you won't be able to go to the cinema at all, and if you want to see any films you will have to buy DVDs from the likes of Amazon, who I am quite sure are much more exemplary employers (not).


In any case, hasn't the subject of Picturehouse and the LLW been flogged to death for several months? Shouldn't we be glad that we will soon have a cinema in LL, with all its imperfections?

I like Will Self, but don't agree with anything in that piece in the Standard. The bit in the Guardian is even worse. At least with Will Self there's always the feeling that at least some of what he is saying is just to get a rise.


I'm not against better wages for people in these jobs. Though I'm not convinced that LLW is a practical way to bring this about, and like many others the idea of targeting one business seems like a bit of a witch-hunt to me.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:


"Bectu general-secretary Gerry Morrissey hailed the deal and said: ?We can see no reason why other cinema chains cannot follow the Curzon lead.?


I can see a reason:

Friday night adult ticket to see "Mr Turner"

Curzon Richmond: ?14.75

Ritzy Brixton: ?13.50

Peckham Plex: ?4.99

The idea that large corporates are able to operate on the back of tax payer subsidies - by which I mean welfare payments to their minimum wage workforce - whilst posting vast profits for their directors and shareholders seems really curious to me.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> Typical patronising crap from Will Self.

>

> "The ambience of the Picturehouse cinemas is

> designed to make the punters feel as if they?re

> part of a big happy, raggedy family of

> enthusiasts, all keen on frothy coffee, flapjacks

> and the intense screen presence of Michael

> Fassbender."

>

> Really? Did anybody honestly think that Picture

> House cinemas were some sort of film club, rather

> than a business? And now, because you've been so

> cynically misled, you're going to boycott them.

> But not the Odeon - you always knew that they were

> rapacious capitalists so their staff can go hang -

> what did they expect when they got a job there.

>

> Edited to add - some credit to Will Self though

> for unintentionally identifying what's behind the

> outrage here - the cries of the metropolitan

> middle classes who realise they've been taken in

> by the marketing. I'm just slightly surprised

> that WS wanted to broadcast his own credulousness

> quite so widely


EDITED to say that I agree with DaveR's post above.


Perhaps this is a tad harsh, but if punters are happy to pay a certain price to see a film AND a smidgeon more to feel as if they are supporting some notion of a smaller, more independent enterprise, why should we be surprised that someone comes along to provide exactly that proposition?


Are we more upset that our proclivities are being pandered to, or that they have been discovered in the first place?


And while it is convenient to scapegoat Picturehouse etc. as being the culprits here, isn't that like blaming the Daily Mail for the existence of Daily Mail readers?


Re the LLW, am I missing something or is the premise for this idea that all must pay more so that some can have a payrise? Doesn't this all end up being circular? Cost of living in London is X, so the basic pay rate must be Y. Y is achieved which means that cost of living goes up by some amount related to Y? Is this just not an endless cycle of inflation, except that at some point the employer is incentivised (when the cost per hour is high enough) to consider some other alternative to labour, i.e. automation and/or making people do more for the same wage?

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

    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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