Jump to content

Recommended Posts

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Well well well

>

> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/curzon-cinem

> as-agree-to-pay-staff-living-wage-in-landmark-move

> -9825124.html


Was about to post the same thing (Curzon cinemas to pay staff LLW)

My understanding is that the LLW is based on a combination of a 'Basic Living Costs' calculation and 60% of the median salary (the average of the two I think). So yes, if everyone were to introduce it then there would be continual wage inflation. There are many factors which lead to problems with cost of living in London and they need to be addressed in a more sophisticated way in my opinion.
And right now they'll be looking at ways of reducing the payroll and people on it ( by say increasing automatum and less customer facing staff) overall=less employment.....them's the 'unintended' consequences of such well meaning 'interference' with businesses. Still, far less harmful than capping energy prices in the grand scheme of things.

The Minkey Wrote:

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

> 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.


quite

What is most dispiriting reading threads like this is not seeing comments like ?yeah it?s a shame but what can you do? ? which is already fatalistic enough


It?s reading comments like ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money?


I understand (bit not necessarily agree with ) it from the perspective of those running a business, but seeing relatively well-to-do people telling badly paid people to lump it really sticks in the craw

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> What is most dispiriting reading threads like this

> is not seeing comments like ?yeah it?s a shame but

> what can you do? ? which is already fatalistic

> enough

>

> It?s reading comments like ?no, they shouldn?t

> have more money. It would be wrong to give them

> more money?

>

> I understand (bit not necessarily agree with ) it

> from the perspective of those running a business,

> but seeing relatively well-to-do people telling

> badly paid people to lump it really sticks in the

> craw


Yep. Agree with all that.

@StraferJack - I don't think that anyone is saying that (I haven't read through the whole thread mind). It's just that suggesting that everyone must receive 60% of median salaries, doesn't make sense (as the median is always a moving target). I do feel for people being paid wages which they can't live on and I think it's ridiculous that we subsidise employers through tax credits and housing benefit payments - it's not sustainable. But, the answer is not the LLW in my opinion. There needs to be a huge investment in social housing first off - something which should have formed part of our recovery plan post recession and may have seen us come out of it more quickly and on a better footing. There needs to be better, more affordable public transport, education and a number of other things - but instead we privatise everything, sell of public assets wherever we can, cut benefits and shift government subsidies away from social enterprises towards private corporations, (who then payout huge figures to executives and shareholders). We're becoming a more and more unequal society and to address that we need a more sophisticated response.

Rahrahrah ? as ever, I agree with so much of what you say


Is LLW ?Utopia?? No of course not ? but it is a very immediate solution to a very specific here and now problem. And as with the minimum wage introduction it is being opposed by vested interests and ideologues


The more structural changes you suggest are all very much to be supported ? but realistically it will take a lot longer (if ever?) to see any of them materialise. And between now and then are we supposed to just sit on our thumbs?

Fair enough. I am slightly ambivalent about the Ritzy campaign. On the one hand I feel for the workers and my gut instinct is to support them. On the other I am slightly dubious about the way the LLW is calculated and feel a bit for Picturehouse being singled out when they are far from the worst offenders in the sector. I am perhaps not quite decided where I stand on it.

Depends what you mean by singled out tho?


Many is the person asking why not cafe X, Y or Z. Or pub A, B or C


But timing is a big part of it ? at the same time Dulwich finds out it?s getting a cinema, staff at another branch are very publically on strike about this specific cause. So in that sense there is no other comparable business. So it is a good time to ask ?the new neighbours? if the new staff will be getting what the strikers are protesting about


Now, if the staff are successful, that does raise expectation for other businesses ? so people ?singling out? PH are more likely using them as a test case. I expect if Greene King staff were to unionise and strike, places like the Bishop might find themselves under similar scrutiny

"What is most dispiriting reading threads like this is not seeing comments like ?yeah it?s a shame but what can you do? ? which is already fatalistic enough


It?s reading comments like ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money? "


Can you point us to a comment where someone says "it would be wrong to give them more money"?

?worldwiser October 28, 10:19AM


How many times have we been over this. If minimum pay increased to the LLW tomorrow across London, the economic impact would be cataclysmic?


?V511 October 28, 04:48PM


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?


?LondonMix Yesterday, 10:06AM


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. ?


?strae Yesterday, 03:15PM


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??





And that?s even before we address your anger management and people issues Dave

This was my first post on this topic, and i don't think I've posted anything different since:


"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 don't read any of the posts quoted as saying 'it would be wrong to pay people more', but I guess you see what you want to see.


I'm not going to bother to respond to this:


"And that?s even before we address your anger management and people issues Dave"


Other will make their own (slightly more rational) judgment about who has 'issues'

None of those posts use the phrase but all attempt to justify reasons, many spurious, about why they shouldn't pay this salary or why the salary is a bad idea.


I think you can use the term immoral for an employer that sets its wages at a level below which it is sensibly deemed "liveable" on. Perhaps they could say they pay a London Surviving Wage?

This was my favourite "rational" Dave post on the thread so far



"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. "


And all because I was saying Cineworld could pay the staff the LLW - a fact that Cineworld appear to have come around to as well.

I can't see how SJ can say that. The LLW is flawed in many ways including as a mathematical calculation.



People pointing that out in no way are suggesting people shouldn't earn more or have a better quality of life. In fact most people have explicitly said that the issues surrounding this are more complex than the LLW is equipped to address. And that is exactly what I personally said before.


If you think advocating for the LLW across all firms will make unskilled workers better of in real terms rather than just causing inflation and technology substitution then explain why. Vilifying people who disagree with your position In such a lazy and unfair way is beneath you.

cinemas have automated quite a lot already - you no longer have a projectionist for example, and many tickets are sold via machines these days. If a job can be automated it will be


"If you think advocating for the LLW across all firms will make unskilled workers better of in real terms rather than just causing inflation and technology substitution then explain why."


I think this is horse before cart - I think you should be saying why it will cause inflation. Wasn't the minimum wage meant to unleash a wave of inflation AND job cuts? Why will this be different?

In short I think anyone stating that inflation will rocket is wrong


Ditto "the ultimate judgment lies with employers." " - left to just employers, unskilled wages wouldn't even be at minimum wage


As for me "vilifying" people, I think it's me getting called most of the names on here, thanks for asking


I'm being scolded for summarizing one side of the argument as " ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money? " but how exactly are these people going to actually get more money if the only proposal on the table is the (admittedly imperfect) LLW.


I understand you are arguing against the LLW as a mechanism, I'm just not seeing any argument for how people working in London in these jobs get more money. If I don't see an argument for them getting more money it's not unreasonable to conclude it's not dissimilar to they shouldn't have more money surely?


How do we get from LondonMix saying "People pointing that out in no way are suggesting people shouldn't earn more or have a better quality of life. " to people actually earning more? And if they DO earn more (via some mysterious non LLW mechanism), why doesn't THAT cause this cataclysmic inflation some are so worried about?

Assuming the eventual cost of the LLW is passed on to consumers across all industries not just cinemas or the Ritzy, this will increase the cost of living in London. That again will lead to an adjustment in the LLW in an endless loop.


Moreover, assuming the same number of people want to live in London, unless more homes are created, the increase to the LLW will just cause housing costs to increase without making it more affordable for the working poor.


Lastly, automation will increase as the cost of unskilled labor increases putting unskilled workers out of jobs perversely.



The right answer- besides of course building more housing to make London itself more affordable- is to get more people into skilled work. I and most people as youngsters have done unskilled work and honestly as a student you don't need the LLW. However, no one should be trapped in life-long unskilled work which is when this really becomes a problem. Much earlier in this discussion I outlined this as did others- might have even been the other thread on Picture House.


There is no quick fix beyond making the worker more valuable. The vast majority of people earn more than the legal minimum wage and it's not because their employers are benevolent. It's because the skills they have create at least as much value to their employers as their wage.


Obviously it's not as sexy to start a campaign on social media about skills training and affordable housing but that is what is needed.

" the LLW will just cause housing costs to increase without making it more affordable for the working poor. "


housing costs have spiralled beyond all hope long before the LLW - I wouldn't be so quick to pin that on the LLW


As I've said automation will happen anyway where possible - pretending it won't if we keep wages down is fallacious (and with costs of everything shooting up without an increase in wages what's the benefit in not paying people more?)


Housing costs have been debated many times - I have said many times that people who simply say "build more" are simplistic. Even if a million homes were magiced up tomorrow, the starting price would be beyond a lot of the people we are talking about. They would instead be bought by speculators and rented to the badly paid, with government topups


Actually if a million homes were built overnight there wouldn't be speculators, there would be a crash and a lot of people with a lot more earning s than minimum wage would be making a lot more noise, but I digress


You can get as many people into skilled work as you like, but unskilled jobs will remain and need doing.


I'm not arguing for minimum wage to be on a par with qualified jobs - just a recognition that the market has spiralled and the gap between unskilled and the rest has reached a point where something needs to be done. None of the suggestions you come up with are likely to happen in the next what - 10, 20 years? Ever


So in the meantime...

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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