East Dulwich Picturehouse and Caf?

[StraferJack]

I didn't say anything about giving up

[LondonMix]

SJ if you accept the premise your employer pays you more than the minimum wage not because of benevolence but of the value you create, then forcing businesses to pay propel more than they worth will accelerate a switch to automation.

Increasing the pay of low skilled workers by law rather than skill makes no sense. Businesses aren't being subsidised. Unskilled workers don't generated the value commensurate with higher pay. If we as a society believe that even the unskilled deserve a minimum quality of life they hold get government benefits.

That is not just appropriate but fairer as taxes are disproportionately paid by those on high incomes. A blanket wage increase passed on the all consumers is regressive as everyone is hit by higher prices regardless of their ability yo pay.

[StraferJack]

so when I said earlier:

"

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

and was lambasted as lazy and beneath me, you post that?

Because that is what you have just argued isn't it?

Plus your argument sounds like against the minimum wage, much less LLW

Yes, proportionally I pay much higher taxes than unskilled low pay workers. And that is as it should be because by comparison I am on easy street. What's your problem with the better off paying more proportionally ?

[nxjen]

"Increasing the pay of low skilled workers by law rather than skill makes no sense. Businesses aren't being subsidised. Unskilled workers don't generated the value commensurate with higher pay. If we as a society believe that even the unskilled deserve a minimum quality of life they hold get government benefits."

If the low paid are in receipt of benefits paid for by the tax payer instead of their employer paying a decent wage, the company's payroll is kept lower by payments from the taxpayer to the employee, so yes, businesses' payrolls are being subsidised.

[Jakido]

nytimes.com/2014/10/28/business/international/living-wages-served-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

>

> 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

I personally can't really muster the energy to care about this issue, but I would say that if these people are paid LLW for that job, how long before people doing much harder jobs start saying they want more than them (which would be totally understandable)?

When presented with the choice between dishing out some popcorn for over ?8 an hour, or wiping the shitty arses of elderly stroke victims for under ?7 an hour, you can see why not everyone (including those who are not "relatively well-to-do") will be overly supportive of these guys.

It's just the people wiping the arses can't afford to go to Picturehouse very often, so this issue isn't on their radar, it's an issue for the likes of the EDF to get indignant about.

[StraferJack]

"how long before people doing much harder jobs start saying they want more than them ("

immediately hopefully

the whole point about LLW is to have it applied to everyone - the reason the cinema is getting the attention is because they went on strike and if successful the pressure mounts for other organisations to do the same

Are you really suggesting that people supporting this are somehow not interested in carers being paid more?

[LondonMix]

Why don't the people who really care about this and believe it will work start a separate thread discussing supplying it across London and whatever measures they want to promote.

The fact is the staff at the Ritzy are getting the LLW.

Continuing to make this about Picture House is unfair

[LondonMix]

No, without benefits low skilled workers would live less well, not be paid more. Every employer pays what the skills of the employee add to the business. Again the vast majority of workers earn more than the legal minimum and this has nothing to do with benevolence.

Wrote:

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

> "Increasing the pay of low skilled workers by law

> rather than skill makes no sense. Businesses

> aren't being subsidised. Unskilled workers don't

> generated the value commensurate with higher pay.

> If we as a society believe that even the unskilled

> deserve a minimum quality of life they hold get

> government benefits."

>

> If the low paid are in receipt of benefits paid

> for by the tax payer instead of their employer

> paying a decent wage, the company's payroll is

> kept lower by payments from the taxpayer to the

> employee, so yes, businesses' payrolls are being

> subsidised.

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Are you really suggesting that people supporting

> this are somehow not interested in carers being

> paid more?

Er, no.

I'm suggesting that the carers should be paid more than the cinema staff.

And I'm wondering (I don't know) what would happen if everyone were paid at least LLW.

An example.

A carer commissioned by a local authority will often be paid about ?6.50ph (shocking). The LA will pay the agency ?11.50ph for that service. If carers were paid ?8.50ph, the agency office staff would need a rise and the LA would soon be paying ?15ph.

Now there is ZERO chance that the LA's budgets will go up accordingly, so that money will need to be found by cutting something else.

Someone is always going to get the shit stick. I wish it wasn't that way but it is.

It's all well and good saying cineworld are a huge rich company, I agree, they are. But in the bigger picture everyone would need to jump on board and not everyone is a huge rich company. If you support the ritzy staff then you need to support a total roll out, you can't pick and choose based on whether you think the employer is nice or not.

[nxjen]

"No, without benefits low skilled workers would live less well, not be paid more."

If however the state has determined that the wage is insufficient to live on and the employee is eligible for state top up i.e. benefits paid for by the tax payer, then the minimum wage should be set higher i.e. minimum wage + benefits.

"Every employer pays what the skills of the employee add to the business"

At some levels yes but at lower levels, those jobs that are typically outsourced (as Otta has touched upon) workers are paid the very least the agency / outsourcing company can get away with so their rake off is higher. With these parasites in control of so much low level employment, skills that are offered are only a very small part of the equation in determining wages.

[KidKruger]

"A carer commissioned by a local authority will often be paid about ?6.50ph (shocking). The LA will pay the agency ?11.50ph for that service"

Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

[StraferJack]

why are the agency even involved?

[KidKruger]

I'd assume it's because of the effort saved by the LA in engaging with so many workers, checking credentials/availability etc.

[Jeremy]

I think that's the issue for me... while I am basically in favour of a higher London minimum wage (and I don't think it would necessariy spell economic armageddon), I just think there are people out there who have a rougher deal than these guys.

[Jeremy]

I've worked at a few local councils and seen how inefficient they can be... would be surprised if the council could beat that margin.

[david_carnell]

I'm utterly depressed.

Your argument now is that they shouldn't have a pay rise becasue there are more deserving cases?!

Well I'm sure when your boss gives you a bonus or a pay rise you'll be donating it to someone more worthy.

Race to the bottom, everytime.

Otta's carers analogy, though it has my sympathy, is a straw man. Yes carers should be paid more. Yes councils should be more efficient. Services being outsourced are not always cost effective in the long term. But try advocating for nationalisation of services or returning services to the public sector on here and see the short shrift you're given.

These people have done exactly the right thing. Unionised, negotiated, reluctantly taken industrial action, stood firm and won their battle. The answer is for others to do the same. Not whinge that somehow paying one worker the LLW means another is missing out.

[Penguin68]

The issue about carers is actually much worse than described, as they are often not paid for the time travelling between jobs, so 'minimum wage' becomes 'much less than minimum wage' when taking into account total time required to work (time with clients plus time travelling between clients). 'Normal' jobs don't pay you for travel to/ from work, of course, but most do (effectively) pay you for the time you spend e.g. travelling between meetings during your working day.

Paying a LLW (under the current process) still wouldn't mean that carers actually got that for the time they spend 'at work'.

One of the key issues with LLW is how close that is to the next pay level in an organisation - if differentials erode then (in the end) you get wage drift, which puts up labour costs, which leads to price inflation, which then erodes the 'benefit' gained from the LLW - inflation always impacts the worst paid worst.

And when you set a measure based on the measure itself (wages set as a percentage of average wages) as has been pointed out, you get 'stupid' answers. Setting wages in terms of some index which isn't (at least directly) wage impacted would make more sense. (The same is true of measuring 'poverty' as a factor of overall wealth).

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> why are the agency even involved?

Partly the reasons KK suggests, and partly because of the flexibility.

It's crap, but it's been that way for a long time.

I should say that carer pay does vary, and some are paid over ?6.50, but I doubt many are earning ?8.50 or more. Lots of ads say things like "earn UP TO ?8 an hour", but I'm guessing that will be working a Sunday evening.

[Cyclemonkey]

Unison are actually supporting carers to take action over the unpaid travelling time issue - arguing that it is being used as a loophole by employers to get out of paying minimum wage.

Carers should also be paid decently but that doesn't diminish my support for the Ritzy strikers. One of the reasons i have been so supportive is that union membership is declining in the private sector and the accusation from the Right is often that collective action is a luxury only available to those in the public sector. The Ritzy strikers have shown people that employees in the private sector can take action and get a better deal for themselves. It takes a lot of strike and put your head above the parapet when you are on a zero hours contract and working for an employer that is not very receptive to unions. Also don't forget workers do not get paid when they are on strike so people have been willing to sacrifice days and days of pay in order to try and get a better deal for all their colleagues.

[Penguin68]

union membership is declining in the private sector

Part of the reason for this is that the benefits of union membership - outwith those moments of industrial action to improve direct benefts or pay - are not properly understood, either by potential members or indeed by management. Unions' actions in terms of Health and Safety, looking after individual members at times of dispute, workng with management to ease necessary change (ensuring fairness of treatment etc.) can not only improve members' conditions but can help improve overall morale within a firm, by identifying, for instance, bullying manangers and poor IR practice which leads to low morale and performance. Not all relations betweeen management and unions are necessarily confrontational, certainly at the level of the workplace. There are as many problems with anti-capital union officials as there are with anti-union managers but there are many firms where union: management relations can be conducted in an atmosphere of respect and fairness, where neither 'side' has a political axe to grind which interferes with effective relations. Union H&S reps can frequently identify dangerous practices or circumstances which can be addressed before injury occurs - to the overall benefit of the firm.

[Cyclemonkey]

Absolutely Penguin - that's my experience as a Union official at my workplace. In the main we work very well with management and i think for the msot time they appreciate our involvement.

[sedm]

Good on Picturehouse workers for successfully getting a pay rise.

But more widely, there are risks of LLW campaign.

The minimum wage is set by the Low Pay Commission, they set the increases at the highest possible level that won't have an impact on jobs. There's currently lots of pressure in Westminster to get them to push up the increases. Personally I think there are big risks in politicians/pressure groups/general do gooders interfering in the work of an independent body that are experts in this area.

There is an argument that London can afford a higher minimum wage than other parts of the country.

But how would you feel if you were a cleaner in Birmingham being told than actually, your work isn't worth the same as if you were a cleaner in London?

Plus it could lead to an even bigger pull to London compared to other parts of the UK which, in my view, is bad news.

[????]

How would you like it if you were a cleaner in Birmingham and you were told your Birmingham rent was going up to London rent?

[sedm]

I get the argument, ????. Just saying LLW campaign isn't as simple as some would like to make out.