# Brixton Ritzy staff in pay dispute for London Living Wage with Picturehouse Cinemas



## editor (Mar 12, 2014)

This has been going on for ages now, so it seems worthwhile starting a thread about it.

Last month, staff union BECTU reps met with Picturehouses at ACAS and after failing to reach agreement, have formally notified Picturehouses of their intention to ballot for industrial action.

Here's the background to the dispute: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/01/brixton-ritzy-staff-workers-fight-for-the-london-living-wage/

Today, Picturehouse released their own statement where they argue that the staff are already paid a far deal.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 12, 2014)

Solidarity with the workers. If The Ritzy really cares about its corporate social responsibility it should pay all its staff the London Living Wage. Perhaps it was just an oversight on their part what with them being really busy sourcing fair trade chocolate and occupying parts of Windrush Square.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 12, 2014)

it's a shame the staff can't benefit from my new 'verbal diarrhoea' tax which cinema goers have to fork out for (on Exit) after needlessly making trivial commentary during films and annoying half the audience.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2014)

The Picturehouse statement makes interesting reading.




> In common with most Brixton employers we do not pay wages at this level for our front-line staff,



So that ok then. 



> We have actively supported staff who want to work part-time (25% of the 104 staff work less than 16 hours a week) and fixed (non-zero hours) contracts have been offered to those who want them. However, *the principle of changing to a mix of fixed and zero-hours contracts has also been resisted by staff representatives*.



This sounds ominous. Nor does Picturehouse explain exactly what they mean by this. Do they mean reducing the number of fixed contracts over time? Would create two tier workforce. Could be the thin end of the wedge if they started to hand out zero hour contracts.

In other types of business like security work zero hour contracts are becoming widely used.

Cineworld who now own Picturehouse chain use Zero hours for the Cineworld cinemas.





> The founder of the UK's largest cinema chain has defended the company's widespread use of zero-hours contracts and pledged to continue using the controversial terms instead of offering fixed hours to employees.
> 
> Cineworld uses zero-hour contracts for 3,600 members of staff, or about 80% of its workforce, allowing the business to send workers home if business is quiet or change shift patterns each week.



I guess that Cineworld would want to gradually turn the Ritzy workforce into Zero Hours staff. With 20% remaining on fixed contracts.

This is as important an issue as the Living Wage.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2014)

Another thing. Now most cinemas have changed to digital projection they have reduced the number of projectionists. They are no longer needed. So that has saved cinemas money.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2014)

Zero Hours contracts



> It is safe to say Marx would have cavilled with those who see zero-hour contracts as an expression of Britain's economic strength, a demonstration of flexible labour markets in action. He would have thought "reserve army of labour" a better description of conditions in which workers were expected to be permanently on call for an employer.





> Firms only employ labour when they need it, so that the cost of employing an additional worker is equivalent to the extra output produced. Lower wages equals higher profit, leading eventually to higher investment and an increase in employment.
> The issue is whether this equation works at an economy-wide level, the Keynesian doctrine is that driving down wages leads either to falling aggregate demand (leading to lower profits and pressure for even lower wages), a higher government bill for tax credits or increased individual debt.





> Marx would have seen zero-hours contracts as the continuation of a long historical trend, stretching back to the mid-1960s when the profitability of western manufacturing firms started to fall. From that moment, he would say, the search was on for measures to boost profits, and this has manifested itself in a number of ways: by direct attacks on organised labour; by the increased financialisation of the economy; by the search for cheap raw materials whatever the environmental cost; and by asset bubbles. Accordingly, zero-hours contracts are the response to tougher conditions facing firms as a result of the financial crisis. Reversing that trend will require more than legislation: it will mean tackling one of the root causes of that crisis: the imbalance of power in the labour market


----------



## Smick (Mar 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Another thing. Now most cinemas have changed to digital projection they have reduced the number of projectionists. They are no longer needed. So that has saved cinemas money.


 
Especially as it was one of the more skilled jobs. The films can now come directly from the film company's server at a pre-programmed time. No human involvement.

Selling tickets online also saves them.

There will soon be three jobs in there. Checking tickets, selling popcorn and cleaning up.

It's no wonder they don't want to pay more. It's a race to the bottom skillswise.


----------



## RedDragon (Mar 13, 2014)

Here's hoping they  soon find themselves with zero punters screenings.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 13, 2014)

It looks like the employers don't want to concede to the workers in this particular cinema because of the knock-on effect it could on other cinemas in the chain. Perhaps the dispute itself needs to be escalated to these other workplaces.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 13, 2014)

The Ritzy can screen it's films with a robot projector but that robot can't buy a ticket. They can sell their tickets online, no one really objects to any of that but we all like the human touch, a bit of interaction especially in the hospitality/entertainment industry. If that's reduced to précarité popcorn sellers and surly security guards who let's not forget tried to stop people using the toilets when we turned out to party and prove Thatcher wrong on April 8th last year, then maybe none of it's any fun.


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2014)

Ken Loach has voiced his support for the workers. 

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/...dds-his-support-to-the-brixton-ritzy-workers/


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2014)

They've now voted to strike:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/ritzy-cinema-workers-vote-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-a-strike/


----------



## Smick (Apr 2, 2014)

Good for them. I wonder will there be a picket line for members of the public to come along and show support for them.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 2, 2014)

I can see the problem for Picturehouse is that they're a big chain and will have trouble differentiating between Ritzy staff and other cinemas. Not sure how they can resolve that realistically. If they jumped to £8.80 for all London staff it may be untenable for the organisation?  What does anyone think?


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I can see the problem for Picturehouse is that they're a big chain and will have trouble differentiating between Ritzy staff and other cinemas. Not sure how they can resolve that realistically. If they jumped to £8.80 for all London staff it may be untenable for the organisation?  What does anyone think?


Picturehouse is owned by Cineworld, the country's biggest cinema operator. They employ 80% of its 4,300 staff on zero hour contracts.
I'm pretty sure they could afford to pay their staff a decent wage.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Picturehouse statement makes interesting reading.
> So that ok then.


Pretty damning for retail businesses in Brixton in general. What kind of excuse is that? Everybody else round here pays poverty wages, so why not us? Salaries have also got to represent a pretty negligible part of their total costs too. 

Incidentally, it's interesting to see the effects of the declining value of the minimum wage in London. One of the happy side effects (for capital) or having a statutory minimum wage is that in acting as a floor it keeps everyone above subsistence level without having to organise and make demands. Seems to me that you can discern a gentle spread of living wage campaigns in places where the statutory minimum (or slightly above) isn't enough for subsistence.


----------



## gininteacups (Apr 2, 2014)

Loach nails it. The cinema projects this radical image, hosts the Human Rights Film Festival, and then doesn't pay staff a decent wage. 

When's the strike?


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 2, 2014)

editor said:


> Picturehouse is owned by Cineworld, the country's biggest cinema operator. They employ 80% of its 4,300 staff on zero hour contracts.
> I'm pretty sure they could afford to pay their staff a decent wage.



I support their struggle. I just wonder how realistic £8.80 is given the group of cinemas as a whole. It maybe that the parent company Cineworld is irrelevant to the negotiations ?


----------



## Smick (Apr 2, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I support their struggle. I just wonder how realistic £8.80 is given the group of cinemas as a whole. It maybe that the parent company Cineworld is irrelevant to the negotiations ?


 
They provide a premium service. If they can't afford to pay staff properly then they should put prices up, reduce their margin or get out of business.

If their supplier of films put their price up would they bury their heads in the sand to that as well or else put the prices up or reduce their margin?

It is nothing less than bully boy tactics, squeezing those least able to object.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I support their struggle. I just wonder how realistic £8.80 is given the group of cinemas as a whole. It maybe that the parent company Cineworld is irrelevant to the negotiations ?



The company doesn't have a national collective bargaining agreement, it's well within their powers to make an exception for this group of workers alone, if they want to. What's being cited in any case is the London Living Wage, which is calculated by a very unradical organisation and is a pretty objective calculation for what basic subsistence costs in the capital - it's about as realistic as you could get as a demand. 

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage (note sponsorship by such out there left-wing groups as KPMG & AVIVA)


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

Smick said:


> They provide a premium service. If they can't afford to pay staff properly then they should put prices up, reduce their margin or get out of business.
> 
> If their supplier of films put their price up would they bury their heads in the sand to that as well or else put the prices up or reduce their margin?
> 
> It is nothing less than bully boy tactics, squeezing those least able to object.


Somewhere like the Ritzy labour costs as a proportion of their total costs will be utterly marginal. They could double their wages and it wouldn't make a dent.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 2, 2014)

*THIS:*



Smick said:


> If they can't afford to pay staff properly then they should put prices up, reduce their margin or get out of business.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 2, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Somewhere like the Ritzy labour costs as a proportion of their total costs will be utterly marginal. They could double their wages and it wouldn't make a dent.



Is this true? I don't run a business or anything but it sounds unlikely. 

Either way, minimum wage is too low.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is this true? I don't run a business or anything but it sounds unlikely.
> 
> Either way, minimum wage is too low.



Yeah, what costs you money as a cinema is the films and owning/maintaining the space. The actual labour involved is minimal - as a customer you lay out £10.50 per showing and require no more than 1 minute of attention from staff.


----------



## plurker (Apr 2, 2014)

Smick said:


> They provide a premium service. If they can't afford to pay staff properly* then they should put prices up*, reduce their margin or get out of business.



Last time I went to Ritzy it was c.£12 a ticket.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 2, 2014)

Smick said:


> They provide a premium service. If they can't afford to pay staff properly then they should put prices up, reduce their margin or get out of business.



I'd be quite surprised if they were still in business in five years time. There are more profitable uses for the building in Nu Brixton and they will only have to pay minimum wage or less to run a bar or club there.

No-one enforces the minimum wage unless the workers themselves demand it and in low-paid work mostly performed by immigrants they don't dare. It's globalisation. In return we get cheap smartphones.


----------



## Smick (Apr 2, 2014)

plurker said:


> Last time I went to Ritzy it was c.£12 a ticket.



Yeah, it isn't cheap. As I have said before, each time I go with the wife I usually hand over £30 by the time some popcorn or Revels are bought.

But I'll bet that as the price of Revels, wine, ticket paper, film rights and toilet roll goes up, they up the price of tickets or side items or take a hit in the short term and factor it in to the next increase. So why not include fair staff costs in their overall business model?

I'd be happier spending £31 and knowing the person working there is being treated fairly.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2014)

poundshop


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2014)

A whisper on the street says that the strike will be next Saturday. 

I'll be there supporting them.


----------



## gabi (Apr 3, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Yeah, what costs you money as a cinema is the films and owning/maintaining the space. The actual labour involved is minimal - as a customer you lay out £10.50 per showing and require no more than 1 minute of attention from staff.



you don't even need that anymore if you've got a smartphone. the only reason to use the staff there is to buy drinks, which of course can also be purchased from the house of bottles for a fraction of the price and taken in inside your man-bag so you dont even really need that.

i do feel for them though. there seems to be huge turnover there.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 3, 2014)

plurker said:


> Last time I went to Ritzy it was c.£12 a ticket.



Last time I went it was £4.50 for the Human Rights Film Festival. The film was hard going,emotionally, perhaps they should've paid me instead.

I'll certainly support the strike , is it this saturday or next?


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 3, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Somewhere like the Ritzy labour costs as a proportion of their total costs will be utterly marginal.


 I just can't believe this is accurate sorry.....


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 3, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I just can't believe this is accurate sorry.....



Well, it doesn't especially matter, but why not? They've got a relatively small number of low paid staff, many of whom are part time. There's a very low labour content in what they sell and the running costs of a building that size in Brixton have got to be enormous (even before you get to the licensing fees for films).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Well, it doesn't especially matter, but why not? They've got a relatively small number of low paid staff, many of whom are part time. There's a very low labour content in what they sell and the running costs of a building that size in Brixton have got to be enormous (even before you get to the licensing fees for films).


The licensing of the films is a massive expense. Got to pay those millionaire actors. 

I'd like to see a calculation showing how much effect a 12p increase in the ticket price from £12 to £12.12 with the money all going to staff would have. A very significant one - staff are screwed over pennies.


----------



## Winot (Apr 3, 2014)

The arguments about the job description of the Ritzy staff are irrelevant. So are the arguments about what proportion of the Ritzy turnover is down to staff costs. The point about the London living wage is that it should be paid to all London workers as a minimum wage.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2014)

The percentage of turnover that is staff costs is not irrelevant. It shows that arguments by management that they cannot afford to pay more are lies. And this goes way beyond London.

_Sorry, distributor of blockbusters, we have to pay our staff decent wages, so you're going to have to temper your demands, and maybe you might look at the stupid money you pay your actors if that puts you in trouble. _

This goes way beyond the UK even.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 3, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The percentage of turnover that is staff costs is not irrelevant. It shows that arguments by management that they cannot afford to pay more are lies. And this goes way beyond London.
> 
> _Sorry, distributor of blockbusters, we have to pay our staff decent wages, so you're going to have to temper your demands, and maybe you might look at the stupid money you pay your actors if that puts you in trouble. _
> 
> This goes way beyond the UK even.





Winot said:


> The arguments about the job description of the Ritzy staff are irrelevant. So are the arguments about what proportion of the Ritzy turnover is down to staff costs. The point about the London living wage is that it should be paid to all London workers as a minimum wage.



Can't disagree with either of those really. London Living Wage should be paid to all London workers and it really shouldn't matter how it affects the business. But, you mobilise every argument you've got...


----------



## Winot (Apr 3, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The percentage of turnover that is staff costs is not irrelevant. It shows that arguments by management that they cannot afford to pay more are lies. And this goes way beyond London.
> 
> _Sorry, distributor of blockbusters, we have to pay our staff decent wages, so you're going to have to temper your demands, and maybe you might look at the stupid money you pay your actors if that puts you in trouble. _
> 
> This goes way beyond the UK even.




Fair enough. I meant that the living wage should be paid *even if* staff costs are a large proportion of total costs.


----------



## Winot (Apr 3, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Can't disagree with either of those really. London Living Wage should be paid to all London workers and it really shouldn't matter how it affects the business. But, you mobilise every argument you've got...



I think we are all in agreement!


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2014)

First strike set for Friday 11th April:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...et-first-strike-action-for-friday-11th-april/


----------



## Smick (Apr 3, 2014)

editor said:


> First strike set for Friday 11th April:
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...et-first-strike-action-for-friday-11th-april/


 
Are they looking for a few numbers in support? I'm always happy to mill round a picket line when I believe in the cause, but I don't want to cheapen their cause as I am not a stakeholder. It's easy for detractors to make rentamob accusations.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2014)

Smick said:


> Are they looking for a few numbers in support? I'm always happy to mill round a picket line when I believe in the cause, but I don't want to cheapen their cause as I am not a stakeholder. It's easy for detractors to make rentamob accusations.


I don't think they're going to have a picket line, even though I suggested to them that I thought it would be a grand thing. 

I'm happy to do whatever I can to support their cause and will of course go along with whatever they think is appropriate. 

This would be fun though


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 4, 2014)

I shall go along if there is a picket line,it should be good


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Apr 6, 2014)

Can't basic rights wait until the day after the Raid 2 comes out? Damn.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 9, 2014)

Just checked the website. Looks like all films are cancelled on Friday so I'm assuming it will closed.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 9, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Just checked the website. Looks like all films are cancelled on Friday so I'm assuming it will closed.



This is cancelled but the film aren't. 
CHILLI FRIED EVENT: POSTPONED!
http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema/Ritzy_Picturehouse/Whats_On/All/Date_11_4_2014/


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 9, 2014)

All the film times are crossed out, I'm assuming that doesn't mean it's all sold out


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 9, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> All the film times are crossed out, I'm assuming that doesn't mean it's all sold out



You are correct.


----------



## editor (Apr 10, 2014)

Irvine Welsh supports the Ritzy workers! 






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...rixton-ritzy-workers-ahead-of-fridays-strike/


----------



## Ms T (Apr 10, 2014)

Mark Thomas does too. Just mentioned it at a gig.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2014)

Will go along to support.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 10, 2014)

The business argument seems to have been made quite strongly in a number of papers (i.e.staff are happier, sick less often, more productive for the company paying higher salaries) but does anyone know of any research into the more general economics of the Living Wage becoming universal (in London)?
In Ritzy's case staff need a 21% wage increase to reach it but a lot of people will be earning even closer to minimum wage so their increase would be up to 40%. I don't know what proportion of people earn less than LLW as an hourly rate but if a significant proportion of the population of London were paid 20-40% more, to what extent could it create significant localised price inflation, e.g. in rents, services, etc..?
Does it have potential to create a vicious circle (i.e. people earn more but are no better off, so LLW has to go up)?
Are there certain jobs that would be driven out of London. Or have most relocatable low paid jobs already been moved? (I can't actually think of many.)


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 10, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The business argument seems to have been made quite strongly in a number of papers (i.e.staff are happier, sick less often, more productive for the company paying higher salaries) but does anyone know of any research into the more general economics of the Living Wage becoming universal (in London)?
> In Ritzy's case staff need a 21% wage increase to reach it but a lot of people will be earning even closer to minimum wage so their increase would be up to 40%. I don't know what proportion of people earn less than LLW as an hourly rate but if a significant proportion of the population of London were paid 20-40% more, to what extent could it create significant localised price inflation, e.g. in rents, services, etc..?
> Does it have potential to create a vicious circle (i.e. people earn more but are no better off, so LLW has to go up)?
> Are there certain jobs that would be driven out of London. Or have most relocatable low paid jobs already been moved? (I can't actually think of many.)



According to KPMG; research finds that Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of workers paid less than the living wage, at 26% (2012 report: 24%), followed by Wales at 25% (2012: 23%). *The lowest proportions are in London at 17%* (2012: 16%) and the south-east at 18% (2012: 16%). *However, by numbers of people the north-west, London, and the south-east are the three most affected areas.* Over five million people paid less that the living wage.

It's a Tory argument that higher wages create a vicious circle driving jobs away. The real vicious circle is caused by low pay and often no pay.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 10, 2014)

Why should more companies pay the Living Wage?

Businesses need to do what they can for the welfare of their staff.  The minimum wage simply does not pay enough for families, in particular, to live on.
The problem of in-work poverty has been highlighted by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission recently.  KPMG’s own research, just published (01/11/2013), has found that the number of people earning less than the Living Wage has grown by over 400,000 in the last year to some 5.24 million people.

KPMG has also found that the Living Wage simply makes good business sense.  Since introducing the Living Wage for its staff in 2006, KPMG has found that the extra wage costs are more than met by lowered recruitment churn and absenteeism, greater loyalty, and higher morale leading to better performance.
http://www.kpmg.com/uk/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/living-wage.aspx


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 10, 2014)

Research for KPMG, conducted by Markit, estimates that there are now 5.24 million people being paid less than the Living Wage – up from 4.82 million a year ago. This represents 21% of the UK workforce, up from 20% last year.
Report published 01/11/2013
http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAnd...ications/Pages/living-wage-research-2013.aspx


----------



## Rushy (Apr 10, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Why should more companies pay the Living Wage?
> 
> Businesses need to do what they can for the welfare of their staff.  The minimum wage simply does not pay enough for families, in particular, to live on.
> The problem of in-work poverty has been highlighted by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission recently.  KPMG’s own research, just published, has found that the number of people earning less than the Living Wage has grown by over 400,000 in the last year to some 5.24 million people.
> ...



As I said, the business argument - why it can be good for a business and those people employed by a business - appears to have been made pretty strongly in all sorts of papers. It's the wider economics I'm interested in finding out more about. How will 20-40% increases in wages of 17% of the local population (although in reality it will be pockets of much higher - e.g. Lambeth perhaps? - and lower proportions - e.g. Westminster) affect local prices? And more importantly - how does it affect those who have no job? It would seem to me that it might possibly reduce employment opportunities in localised areas? Whilst possibly offering a double whammy of localised inflation.

Obviously the wider impact is not a consideration when just talking about the Ritzy staff as we are talking about such a small number of people.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 11, 2014)

Low wages mean that people are claiming benefits at the same time as working, ie the taxpayer is subsidising the profits of businesses.


----------



## isvicthere? (Apr 11, 2014)

Right, no Ritzy for two days. I'll be going somewhere else for my post-yoga coffee. 

Bloody management!


----------



## Ms T (Apr 11, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't think they're going to have a picket line, even though I suggested to them that I thought it would be a grand thing.
> 
> I'm happy to do whatever I can to support their cause and will of course go along with whatever they think is appropriate.
> 
> This would be fun though


I'm at the NUJ conference in Eastbourne but Hendo said he might pop down to offer support.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

Great piece by Dexter Deadwood on B Buzz!






Opinion: Why Picturehouse Cinemas should pay the Brixton Ritzy staff a living wage


----------



## Manter (Apr 11, 2014)

Great article Dexter Deadwood


----------



## buscador (Apr 11, 2014)

Yes, top stuff Dexter Deadwood


----------



## Ms T (Apr 11, 2014)

Thirded.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Apr 11, 2014)

editor said:


> Great piece by Dexter Deadwood on B Buzz!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


great article Dexter  - I teach people who work in childcare which is another low paid workforce and your persuasive facts about economic benefits to all are very useful when we're talking about why wages need to be realistic


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

Someone asked me this on Twitter:


> ...don't suppose you know if Clapham Picturehouse pay their staff a living wage, do you?


I'm guessing that's a no.


----------



## boohoo (Apr 11, 2014)

Great article Dexter Deadwood . There was an article not that long ago about retail businesses and the living wage (written 2011 - can't think much has changed since then).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/what...the-shop-floors-of-oxford-street-6572455.html


----------



## Ms T (Apr 11, 2014)

Mark Thomas was saying last night that he helped the Curzon staff get union recognition by staging a few stunts before the films started. Like the Ritzy they're an art house cinema with lots of nice, liberal customers. Not sure if they're paying the London Living Wage though.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Low wages mean that people are claiming benefits at the same time as working, ie the taxpayer is subsidising the profits of businesses.



I agree that businesses should be paying enough that people on a full time wage should not need benefits. I don't see why they should be publicly subsidised other than if there is strong evidence that it will stimulate job creation - or if it contributes to essential skills and experience.

I just used the (somewhat confusing, I thought) benefits calculator to look at the impact on income for a healthy 29yr old, no dependants, sharing a rented house (150pw), <6k savings, averaging 35hrs/wk @ £7.70/hr who gets a pay raise to £8.80 (LLW). The example apparently did not qualify for benefits other than housing. The net increase after tax and reductions in Housing Benefit is £0.26/hr. 

35hr/wk @ £8.80/hr
£13,878  After tax income 
£905	  Housing Benefit
£14,784   Total

@ 7.70
£12,514 After tax income
£1,790 Housing Benefit
£14,304 Total

If the aim of the LLW is to shift responsibility for full costs onto the business - then the example above would seem to go a long way to achieving that - but that 21% increase in hourly rate only appears to deliver about 3% increase increase in net income. Can that be right?


----------



## Onket (Apr 11, 2014)

£6k savings? Who has got £6k savings?!!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2014)

Onket said:


> £6k savings? Who has got £6k savings?!!


It just asks whether you have less than or more than 6K. I selected less than.


----------



## Onket (Apr 11, 2014)

editor said:


> Great piece by Dexter Deadwood on B Buzz!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice one Dexter Deadwood!


----------



## Onket (Apr 11, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It just asks whether you have less than or more than 6K. I selected less than.


Oh right. Seems a bit of an odd cut off point. Having no savings at all is the same as having £5999.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2014)

Onket said:


> Oh right. Seems a bit of an odd cut off point. Having no savings at all is the same as having £5999.


I guess that if they set it at zero they would discourage anyone who was able from saving something.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

I imagine a lot of 29 years olds are already in huge debt.


----------



## Manter (Apr 11, 2014)

Onket said:


> Oh right. Seems a bit of an odd cut off point. Having no savings at all is the same as having £5999.


It's the cut off point for some benefits I think- you can have £6k and still get JSA, more they expect you to spend it first before relying on the state. Puddy_Tat will know


----------



## classicdish (Apr 11, 2014)

Re. JSA (income based) and savings - you lose £1 a week for every £250 over £6k. Over 16k - you get nothing. Initially it is possible to get contribution-based JSA for a while (6 months?) where this doesn't apply.


----------



## boohoo (Apr 11, 2014)

Onket said:


> £6k savings? Who has got £6k savings?!!


Those who save!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2014)

There will be a variety of economic circumstances amongst the Ritzy staff. Some will be entirely reliant on the income. I know one who is _relatively _well off - owns their house locally, small mortgage - runs a business with a modest income which is supplemented with shifts at the Ritzy. I doubt they receive benefits. The increase to LLW will benefit them and any other modestly better off employees far more than the worse off ones. I'm not concerned with them earning more - that's fine. But whilst he better off will get the full 21% pay rise as they probably don't receive benefits - or at least receive less - the worse off will get the maybe 3% pay rise after benefits are reduced.

So whilst the business would be paying its full share rather than leaving the taxpayer lumbered with supplementing it (which is a good thing), the benefit will be felt predominantly by the (only modestly) better off employees, then by the tax payer and finally, to a much smaller extent, by the employees currently in receipt of benefits. Surely this is not what was intended? Or does something else compensate for this?


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

Tonight's Offline Club is in solidarity with the workers, and as well as the usual party tunes, I'll be slipping in some rousing political tunes, showing some inspirational protest videos and giving out a free Jager shot to every Ritzy worker!

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...ht-in-solidarity-with-striking-ritzy-workers/


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

I know loads Ritzy of workers. I don't know any who own their homes and run profitable businesses as well.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 11, 2014)

I remember all the bitter, disingenuous arguments about the Minimum Wage, the same ones being trotted out now by the usual suspects. How it will cost jobs and raise prices; it was a nonsense then and it's a nonsense now. There is a moral obligation on corporates to pay their staff enough to cover the basic cost of living.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 11, 2014)

Manter said:


> It's the cut off point for some benefits I think- you can have £6k and still get JSA, more they expect you to spend it first before relying on the state. Puddy_Tat will know



my understanding is this - 



classicdish said:


> Re. JSA (income based) and savings - you lose £1 a week for every £250 over £6k. Over 16k - you get nothing. Initially it is possible to get contribution-based JSA for a while (6 months?) where this doesn't apply.



yes, you can get 'contributions based JSA' for 6 months, which is just on the basis of your NI contributions as an individual.  

If you don't have enough NI contributions, and / or when 6 months is up, you can go on to income related JSA, which has the 'capital' restrictions as above.   And it is means tested by household, so if you have a partner (and this is about the only time the state recognises a 'common law' partner) then their income / capital is also taken in to account.

The capital / means testing rules are pretty much the same for housing benefit, and usually the same (councils have more flexibility now) on council tax reduction.



Rushy said:


> If the aim of the LLW is to shift responsibility for full costs onto the business - then the example above would seem to go a long way to achieving that - but that 21% increase in hourly rate only appears to deliver about 3% increase increase in net income. Can that be right?



I haven't sat down and tried the same calculations, but broadly speaking, as your income rises, your housing benefit / council tax reduction will go down.  Not quite at 100% but at a fairly high marginal rate.  

Quite what effect working tax credits (which I don't fully understand) would have on those examples, I'm not sure, although I thought the benefits calculator would assess these as well.  This one (independent of government) should do.

One of the things that IDS keeps on about is the idea that the benefits / tax system ought to ensure that "work pays" - in other words you shouldn't end up no better off if you start work / work more hours / get a better paid job.  There are certainly some circumstances where you gain very little by working / working more.  There are also variable thresholds, e.g. if you work 16-30 hours a week, you don't qualify for JSA, and (in many circumstances) you don't qualify for working tax credits either.

Of course whether you address this by making the benefits / tax system more sensible, or by punishing people on benefits as much as possible is a matter of policy.

The other strand to the benefits system is how complicated it gets if you're on a variable income.  In theory, you can claim means tested benefits with a variable income, and it's assessed on taking an average wage over X number of weeks / months.


----------



## Manter (Apr 11, 2014)

Puddy_Tat Thx for clarifying. Or at least laying out how confusing it is


----------



## Rushy (Apr 11, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I haven't sat down and tried the same calculations, but broadly speaking, as your income rises, your housing benefit / council tax reduction will go down.  Not quite at 100% but at a fairly high marginal rate.
> 
> Quite what effect working tax credits (which I don't fully understand) would have on those examples, I'm not sure, although I thought the benefits calculator would assess these as well.  This one (independent of government) should do.
> 
> ...



Thanks for adding a little clarity to what is a labyrinthine system. It will obviously vary considerably according to the employee and their circumstances and the calculator I used would only let me try two variations before telling me I needed a professional subscription (which seems rather uncooperative). The 21% increase from 7.70 to 8.80 equates to about £2,000 (gross) based on 35hrs. The housing benefit reduction was a little under £900 so not far short of 50%. This is then amplified by the likelihood that the extra £2,000 will be fully taxed at 20%. So, approximately, the £2,000 increase is £1,600 net of tax and £700 net of benefits reduction. That rougher calc makes it worth £0.38/hr, rather than the £0.24 in the the calculator - although I'd err on the side of trusting the calculator rather than my bodging! Either way -  a huge proportion of the increase would appear to be destined to be clawed back if you fall into that income bracket.

I didn't look at JSA in my scenario since it would not apply to 16+hr workers and as far as I know is not a long term benefit.


----------



## Onket (Apr 11, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Those who save!


What, automatically?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 11, 2014)

Oh my gosh, i'm buzzing. Just come back from Windrush Square having showed solidarity with the Ritzy workers; what a lovely, lively bunch they are; pretty good drummers as well.
Lots of support from passing pedestrians and motorists tooting their horns. As i was walking away towards Effra Road, i caught sight of Chuka Umunna scurying away towards the Town Hall. "Oi Chuka try supporting the working class", i shouted. He turned round with an almighty frown and was about to stop but saw me confidently walking in another direction, he mumbled, "i am supporting them", "you're a Tory in disguise" i retorted.

Met some lovely people supporting the workers. There is going to be a samba band in the square later.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 11, 2014)




----------



## Fingers (Apr 11, 2014)

The band are having a rest bless them. Brilliant atmosphere loads of support from passing motorist's,


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

Photos from the action:
















http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/brixton-ritzy-strike-photos-from-the-windrush-square-action/


----------



## isvicthere? (Apr 11, 2014)

Great pics, Dexter.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 11, 2014)

Some video.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Some video.



Ooh, I'll add that to my photo feature. Nice one!


----------



## Fingers (Apr 11, 2014)

There is a good pic on my twitter at but can't link it as on tablet. @se24media the second to last one


----------



## Fingers (Apr 11, 2014)

There was some massive pests there, mainly Swappies getting in on the act

swappie:  Will you sign our anti Tory petition please
me: Certainly not, I won't sign my name to anything with SWP on it, they have serious issues with women
swappie: Oh yeah. *thinks for a bit* ...... but I am a woman....
me: massive


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 11, 2014)

Fingers said:


> There was some massive pests there, mainly Swappies getting in on the act
> 
> swappie:  Will you sign our anti Tory petition please
> me: Certainly not, I won't sign my name to anything with SWP on it, they have serious issues with women
> ...



I met a nice one called Jenny and had a lovely chat with her.
 

I noticed a few other Swappies with stern looking faces, utterly unapproachable but they didn't attempt to engage with me.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 11, 2014)

She was harmless enough, however, this wanker in the blue - waving his paper about - managed to photobomb just about every photo the strikers got together in, including running alongside their march down the high street, waving his paper at the cameras.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The business argument seems to have been made quite strongly in a number of papers (i.e.staff are happier, sick less often, more productive for the company paying higher salaries) but does anyone know of any research into the more general economics of the Living Wage becoming universal (in London)?
> In Ritzy's case staff need a 21% wage increase to reach it but a lot of people will be earning even closer to minimum wage so their increase would be up to 40%. I don't know what proportion of people earn less than LLW as an hourly rate but if a significant proportion of the population of London were paid 20-40% more, to what extent could it create significant localised price inflation, e.g. in rents, services, etc..?
> Does it have potential to create a vicious circle (i.e. people earn more but are no better off, so LLW has to go up)?
> Are there certain jobs that would be driven out of London. Or have most relocatable low paid jobs already been moved? (I can't actually think of many.)



Marx dealt with some of these issues in debate with an American socialist who argued that striking for higher wages is counter productive for the worker.

Under Capitalism there is always going to be a conflict between Capital and Labour. Its part of how it works. Even if one does not believe in the rest of Marx politics.

I agree most relocatable jobs have gone from London. From what Ive seen most of the campaigns around LLW are in the service sector.

Would general increase in wages cause similar rise in goods and services? Not necessarily. It would reduce the rate of profit if intensity of work stayed the same. If the Living Wage was introduced nationally it could mean two things.

1) Those who make money from profit of labour would have less to spend on "luxury" goods due to reduction in there profits. So that part of the economy would be affected. But those Capitalists who produce the "necessities" of life would see an increase due to increased disposable income of the worker. The Living Wage is an example of what Marx saw as the fact that each society has its own idea of what constitutes "necessities". Also our friends the Capitalists are also in competition with each other. A temporary increase in prices due to national introduction of LW would be reduced due to increased competition in the larger market for "necessities". ( I do not see LLW affecting rents).

2) Increase in wages may make Capital increase its productive powers. Heard a farmer in SE England say a while back that if he did not have access to cheap labour he would instead invest in more machinery to replace human labour. The guy who ran Easy Jet did propose setting up "Easy" cinemas with no staff.

I take your point that LLW may only be marginal increase. Though the reduction in benefits bill is not to be underestimated as a good outcome. In political terms LLW is partly symbolic as well as realistic achievable goal that has public support. I think its a first step. Despite what many might think Marx was not against reforms. He did not think they were the end of the matter.

Your figures do show that LLW should be higher to realistically provide a reasonable standard of life.

The issue of benefits came up in Marxs time. Landowners at one point in 1800s reduced agricultural workers wages to below subsistence levels as they knew they could get them topped up by the "Poor Law".

Summary of Marx here

Value,Price and Profit

Its basically a summary of Capital volume one. What he is taking issue with is a simple correlation between increase in wages leading to higher prices.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 12, 2014)

I dispute that LLW may only make a marginal increase in the take home pay of an employee. It would certainly make a substantial improvement in the quality of life for those that receive it.
I tried the benefits calculator that Rushy used to base his argument and i found it equally confusing. Without a great deal of effort and knowledge it is frankly useless and not apt for the purpose of discussing the Living Wage.

One of the many faults of the capitalist system is attempting to monetise everything, it is incapable of that. It's tilting at windmills without the romance.

When some talk about higher wages leading to higher prices they forget about quantative easing doled out in billions to the banksters who deliberately broke the system because they knew you and i were the bankers of last resort.

The working class have to pay for the casino class? I don't think so.

Can it be assumed, on this thread, that no one has a moral objection to the Living Wage and that the arguments are exclusively economic?


----------



## Ms T (Apr 12, 2014)

Here's the thing. How many of us will boycott the Ritzy if they refuse to give staff the LLW? Will we also refuse to go to the Albert/Trinity/Regent (delete as appropriate)?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 12, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Here's the thing. How many of us will boycott the Ritzy if they refuse to give staff the LLW? Will we also refuse to go to the Albert/Trinity/Regent (delete as appropriate)?



Boycotts are only one arrow in the quiver but if employers want to fight via market forces it's also appropriate for those that care to address this with their discretionary spending. Hit them were it hurts the prize fighter is told, siver and gold.

We all do what we can, in our own way i guess. I'm learning this about life, myself and others. Unless people want a revolution, i see little sign of it, to effect a more decent society.

I'm confident that this particular dispute is a win for the workers, they have already won; the employers need a moment to readjust to a new local paradigm. If they need an additional prompt another strike is in the planning.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 12, 2014)

Inspiring strike, it was great that they made it so public in the square and marching up and down the street so Brixton could see what was up.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Here's the thing. How many of us will boycott the Ritzy if they refuse to give staff the LLW? Will we also refuse to go to the Albert/Trinity/Regent (delete as appropriate)?


The Ritzy staff aren't calling for a boycott, but if the workers felt that a boycott was necessary for them to win the strike, then I'd support it - and I'd do the same against any pub, shop and business.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2014)

The Albert was such fun last night. Tons of Ritzy workers came down and enjoyed the free shots we served up. My favourite moment was when they were dancing and then saw photos from the  Windrush Square action come up on the screen.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 13, 2014)

I really don't see why the profits of private businesses and the dividends to shareholders should come out of the pockets of the poorest of workers, who then often have to seek benefits ie public money - to pay rent and support their families. Why should public money support profit making businesses?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I really don't see why the profits of private businesses and the dividends to shareholders should come out of the pockets of the poorest of workers,



That is how Capitalism works.

Not disagreeing with you. But profits come from the labour of the workers. Not due to the wonderful entrepreneurial skill of capitalists.

edited to add: The point of the State regulating Capitalism is that left to itself it would impoverish people to make a profit.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 13, 2014)

I remember the Ritzy as a co-op. The history was similar to the housing co-ops - it was Lambeth-owned short-life property left over from the never built Inner Ring Road scheme.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 13, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I remember the Ritzy as a co-op. The history was similar to the housing co-ops - it was Lambeth-owned short-life property left over from the never built Inner Ring Road scheme.



They did better cake then too.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2014)

Two more strike dates announced. 



> Assuming the dispute is not resolved in the interim, staff will again walk out at 5pm on Good Friday 18 April until 3am on Easter Saturday 19 April.
> 
> The strike action will then recommence at 6am on Saturday 19 April and will run through until 3am on Sunday 20 April.



More info: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/further-brixton-ritzy-strike-days-planned-for-easter/


----------



## Onket (Apr 14, 2014)

Bank Holiday weekend.  Love it.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 14, 2014)

Presumably there is a practical / legal reason it runs to 3am and then recommences at 6am the same day and then finishes at 3am again. Anyone know?


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2014)

Film about the Ritzy strike: 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/on-film-ritzy-cinema-workers-strike-for-a-living-wage/


----------



## Onket (Apr 14, 2014)

They close at 3am? Rushy


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Presumably there is a practical / legal reason it runs to 3am and then recommences at 6am the same day and then finishes at 3am again. Anyone know?


I imagine those are just the times it would normally be open for business (cleaners etc).


----------



## Ms T (Apr 14, 2014)

I've long argued that we should go on strike at Christmas.  Make the bloody management work over the holiday for a change.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> They close at 3am? Rushy



Can they not just do a 48hr strike then?
Just curious - not an important question.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Can they not just do a 48hr strike then?
> Just curious - not an important question.


Again, I'm guessing, but perhaps there wouldn't seem much point picketing a building during the hours it is empty?


----------



## Onket (Apr 14, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Can they not just do a 48hr strike then?
> Just curious - not an important question.


I don't think there Is any difference. You could call this a 48hr strike, probably. I spose, strictly speaking, you're not on strike while you're not supposed to be at work though. Dunno.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Again, I'm guessing, but perhaps there wouldn't seem much point picketing a building during the hours it is empty?


The advertised times aren't the picketing hours - they are the periods of strike action. Clearly related activities but not the same thing.
It just seems very specific and I wondered if there is a reason. Maybe it makes no difference as Onket says.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 14, 2014)

Wonder if Picturehouse will try this time to keep the cinema open.

In which case as far as I am concerned I am with Ms T its boycott time. As much as I would miss it I a not going to see film with Ritzy workers outside on a picket.


----------



## Onket (Apr 14, 2014)

Just don't cross the picket line.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Apr 15, 2014)

Good on them!

When I moved to Brixton recently, one of of the first things I did was buy a Ritzy membership. I was really excited after hearing lots of good things about the cinema, and cafe, and wanted to be a part of the community, blah blah blah - so it was REALLY disappointing to hear about this dispute as the LLW is something I feel very passionate about. 

I for one won't be renewing my membership should they not settle this - even though I do enjoy the Ritzy for a quick drink or coffee (I have to say the actual screens left me underwhelmed, as someone who is vertically challenged and has issues seeing over the seat in front -- and also there was one incident when a woman with a face like a cat's bottom asked my fiancee to stop eating his popcorn because it was loud, wtf?). 

I refuse to give my money to these companies unless unavoidable (See also: Sports Direct and zero hour contracts).


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Good on them!
> 
> When I moved to Brixton recently, one of of the first things I did was buy a Ritzy membership. I was really excited after hearing lots of good things about the cinema, and cafe, and wanted to be a part of the community, blah blah blah - so it was REALLY disappointing to hear about this dispute as the LLW is something I feel very passionate about.
> 
> ...



Is there a cinema nearby which does already guarantee to pay everyone LLW or will you simply stop going to the cinema? (Curzon pay LLW but a trip to Soho will cost an extra £8.65 incl. £4.25 extra ticket and booking cost plus £4.40 return off peak tube fare) As you are passionate about LLW, could you share which other local services / shops / pubs / restaurants you currently boycott on account of failing to pay LLW to all employees and which LLW paying businesses you have taken your custom to as a result? (I'm thinking of businesses which it would truly inconvenience you to boycott.) Did Barratt pay everyone LLW to work on the building you live in (they are one of the worst offenders according to the numbers at the end of this - rather good - 2011 article bout Lush and LLW)? And the people who maintain your building / provide security?

I think it is admirable when people boycott because of something they strongly believe in but I guess what I'm asking is, what is particularly shocking about Ritzy which makes it stand out from other businesses in relation to LLW and makes them so boycott worthy? The Ritzy tends to employ better educated, more self empowered and consequently less exploitable staff than many other businesses. They have the freedom to pick such people because it really is a pretty comfortable, untaxing and flexible working environment compared to many service / retail businesses. That's not to say they should or should not earn LLW. It just feels a bit like that people are only _particularly shocked _by Ritzy because it is other young media savvy "people like them".

[Re: your popcorn experience: Some people are remarkably noisy eaters and play their gargantuan tubs like a maracas. I'm afraid that, depending on the nature of the film, I might well ask your finacee to stop rattling around in his popcorn and noisily munching. Not a problem if it's a highly charged explosion ridden romp fest but totally inappropriate for a quieter thoughtful or suspenseful film. I would quite likely empty it in his lap if he carried on. Sorry.]


----------



## Manter (Apr 16, 2014)

I think part of it (for me, not speaking for anyone else) is the hypocrisy of it. Barratt are shits, everyone knows they are shits and -guess what!- they have shitty employment policies*. For an entertainment company that has lots of right-on lefty (see what I did there?!) films and policies- fairtrade this, organic that- to stiff their staff over such a small amount of money feels sordid.... But also like something that can be changed. If pushed hard enough, can they be tipped towards decent behaviour? They aren't a big blank faceless mindless corporate, iyswim 

*not saying it's right, obviously


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2014)

Staff at a hugely profitable business should be paid a decent wage _regardless_ of how hard or easy the job appears to people who have never worked there. When that business sells itself on its left-leaning human rights credentials, then not paying a living wage seems even more untenable.


----------



## tompound (Apr 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Is there a cinema nearby which does already guarantee to pay everyone LLW or will you simply stop going to the cinema? (Curzon pay LLW but a trip to Soho will cost an extra £8.65 incl. £4.25 extra ticket and booking cost plus £4.40 return off peak tube fare) As you are passionate about LLW, could you share which other local services / shops / pubs / restaurants you currently boycott on account of failing to pay LLW to all employees and which LLW paying businesses you have taken your custom to as a result? (I'm thinking of businesses which it would truly inconvenience you to boycott.) Did Barratt pay everyone LLW to work on the building you live in (they are one of the worst offenders according to the numbers at the end of this - rather good - 2011 article bout Lush and LLW)? And the people who maintain your building / provide security?
> 
> I think it is admirable when people boycott because of something they strongly believe in but I guess what I'm asking is, what is particularly shocking about Ritzy which makes it stand out from other businesses in relation to LLW and makes them so boycott worthy? The Ritzy tends to employ better educated, more self empowered and consequently less exploitable staff than many other businesses. They have the freedom to pick such people because it really is a pretty comfortable, untaxing and flexible working environment compared to many service / retail businesses. That's not to say they should or should not earn LLW. It just feels a bit like that people are only _particularly shocked _by Ritzy because it is other young media savvy "people like them".
> 
> [Re: your popcorn experience: Some people are remarkably noisy eaters and play their gargantuan tubs like a maracas. I'm afraid that, depending on the nature of the film, I might well ask your finacee to stop rattling around in his popcorn and noisily munching. Not a problem if it's a highly charged explosion ridden romp fest but totally inappropriate for a quieter thoughtful or suspenseful film. I would quite likely empty it in his lap if he carried on. Sorry.]



I wrote a piece on this over the weekend which makes a similar point to what Manter is saying, basically Picturehouses benefit from the idea that the Ritzy is 'local' and have brilliant staff but the last thing they want to do is pay them properly.

brixtonpound.org/2014/ritzy-living-wage/

For the reasons Rushy gives above I don't think a boycott is effective. However personally I am going to cancel my membership if this continues as I don't think Picturehouse deserve this loyalty.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2014)

Manter said:


> I think part of it (for me, not speaking for anyone else) is the hypocrisy of it. Barratt are shits, everyone knows they are shits and -guess what!- they have shitty employment policies*. For an entertainment company that has lots of right-on lefty (see what I did there?!) films and policies- fairtrade this, organic that- to stiff their staff over such a small amount of money feels sordid.... But also like something that can be changed. If pushed hard enough, can they be tipped towards decent behaviour? They aren't a big blank faceless mindless corporate, iyswim
> 
> *not saying it's right, obviously



Yes, it is easy to forget it is a commercial cinema - but it is a commercial cinema. It has to operate within the same commercial constrains as any other commercial cinema. I've always considered it to have a strong arthouse side and generally arthouse cinema is left leaning leaning but I've never been under the impression that it is anything but a commercial business. I don't think they are terribly more or less hypocritical than plenty of other businesses. Consider The Prince Albert which doesn't pay all its staff LLW. It's part of a big corporate which openly claims to run its business in an ethical and responsible manner. It's a legendary pub on one of the best known streets in Brixton - London even. It likes to be seen to be a local and likes to benefit from its left leaning alternative image. Why is that so different? Why is it not being boycotted? Why is Ritzy being treated as a pariah whilst The Albert is so warmly embraced. It's so bloody arbitrary.


----------



## Onket (Apr 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Yes, it is easy to forget it is a commercial cinema - but it is a commercial cinema. It has to operate within the same commercial constrains as any other commercial cinema. I've always considered it to have a strong arthouse side and generally arthouse cinema is left leaning leaning but I've never been under the impression that it is anything but a commercial business. I don't think they are terribly more or less hypocritical than plenty of other businesses. Consider The Prince Albert which doesn't pay all its staff LLW. It's part of a big corporate which openly claims to run its business in an ethical and responsible manner. It's a legendary pub on one of the best known streets in Brixton - London even. It likes to be seen to be a local and likes to benefit from its left leaning alternative image. Why is that so different? Why is it not being boycotted? Why is Ritzy being treated as a pariah whilst The Albert is so warmly embraced. It's so bloody arbitrary.


I'm sure people would support a strike or demo from the staff employed by The Albert, as much as The Ritzy.


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2014)

If the staff at the Albert went on strike, I'd support them 100%, and if a boycott was called I'd go elsewhere. Full stop, no question.

I imagine it would be the same story for all the regulars too, although I think this is a specious comparison anyway.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2014)

Onket said:


> I'm sure people would support a strike or demo from the staff employed by The Albert, as much as The Ritzy.


Which brings me back to the fact that the Ritzy staff are generally better educated, more self empowered and consequently less exploitable staff than many other businesses (no that's not a dig at Albert staff, I'm quoting from my previous post). Do you sit happily drinking in a pub which you know "exploits" its staff through low pay just because they are not complaining about it? Why does their not complaining about it make it ok?


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2014)

Exactly why are the staff at the Ritzy "generally better educated, more self empowered and....less exploitable" than staff at the Albert, Dogstar, Prince of Wales or anywhere else? If you knew them, you'd know that they're quite interchangeable.


----------



## Onket (Apr 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Which brings me back to the fact that the Ritzy staff are generally better educated, more self empowered and consequently less exploitable staff than many other businesses (no that's not a dig at Albert staff, I'm quoting from my previous post). Do you sit happily drinking in a pub which you know "exploits" its staff through low pay just because they are not complaining about it? Why does their not complaining about it make it ok?


Has anyone said it's ok?


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2014)

Onket said:


> Has anyone said it's ok?


Have I said anyone _said _it's ok?


----------



## Onket (Apr 16, 2014)

Sigh.


----------



## Manter (Apr 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Yes, it is easy to forget it is a commercial cinema - but it is a commercial cinema. It has to operate within the same commercial constrains as any other commercial cinema. I've always considered it to have a strong arthouse side and generally arthouse cinema is left leaning leaning but I've never been under the impression that it is anything but a commercial business. I don't think they are terribly more or less hypocritical than plenty of other businesses. Consider The Prince Albert which doesn't pay all its staff LLW. It's part of a big corporate which openly claims to run its business in an ethical and responsible manner. It's a legendary pub on one of the best known streets in Brixton - London even. It likes to be seen to be a local and likes to benefit from its left leaning alternative image. Why is that so different? Why is it not being boycotted? Why is Ritzy being treated as a pariah whilst The Albert is so warmly embraced. It's so bloody arbitrary.


It is arbitrary. Agree. And there must be some very grumpy cinema managers who feel they are being picked on.... But it has to be arbitrary.  If you want to boycott everyone right now with bad employment practices you spend half your time researching, descend into navel gazing about which are worst, who/what to prioritise, may miss organisations.... Plus action may be diluted- you become part of a small group of ignorable extremists.

Whereas by supporting the Ritzy staff (not treating the Ritzy as a pariah) you may get one injustice overturned. And the bar staff from the Albert may look up from the pumps, out of the window and think 'you know what? We can do that too'- that, to me, is powerful potential.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2014)

editor said:


> Exactly why are the staff at the Ritzy "generally better educated, more self empowered and....less exploitable" than staff at the Albert, Dogstar, Prince of Wales or anywhere else? If you knew them, you'd know that they're quite interchangeable.



I didn't say they were - I said in both my posts "than many other businesses". Particularly for your benefit, I also added the clarification  that I was quoting from an earlier post which was not about the Albert. Lower paid workers are generally a lot less self empowered - shelf stackers, till operators, street sweepers, waiters, waitresses, shop floor staff, cleaners - and yes many pub workers. For low paid jobs the Ritzy attracts a lot of people form educated and particularly artsy educated backgrounds - this is empowering. I'm sure you understand that.


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2014)

Manter said:


> Whereas by supporting the Ritzy staff (not treating the Ritzy as a pariah) you may get one injustice overturned. And the bar staff from the Albert may look up from the pumps, out of the window and think 'you know what? We can do that too'- that, to me, is powerful potential.


Yep. For what it's worth, the landlord at the Albert has argued strongly with the brewery that his staff be paid the LLW for many of the reasons highlighted in Dexter Deadwood's excellent piece for BBuzz.  Sadly, the powerplay of small cog in a big machine comes into play here.

The Ritzy's unique heritage and left leaning ethos certainly form part of its commercial identity, and its current trumpeting of human rights makes it a more suitable target than most, so I totally support what the staff are doing. And if they're successful, let's hope it spreads to other jobs and businesses.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Apr 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Is there a cinema nearby which does already guarantee to pay everyone LLW or will you simply stop going to the cinema? (Curzon pay LLW but a trip to Soho will cost an extra £8.65 incl. £4.25 extra ticket and booking cost plus £4.40 return off peak tube fare) As you are passionate about LLW, could you share which other local services / shops / pubs / restaurants you currently boycott on account of failing to pay LLW to all employees and which LLW paying businesses you have taken your custom to as a result? (I'm thinking of businesses which it would truly inconvenience you to boycott.) Did Barratt pay everyone LLW to work on the building you live in (they are one of the worst offenders according to the numbers at the end of this - rather good - 2011 article bout Lush and LLW)? And the people who maintain your building / provide security?
> 
> I think it is admirable when people boycott because of something they strongly believe in but I guess what I'm asking is, what is particularly shocking about Ritzy which makes it stand out from other businesses in relation to LLW and makes them so boycott worthy? The Ritzy tends to employ better educated, more self empowered and consequently less exploitable staff than many other businesses. They have the freedom to pick such people because it really is a pretty comfortable, untaxing and flexible working environment compared to many service / retail businesses. That's not to say they should or should not earn LLW. It just feels a bit like that people are only _particularly shocked _by Ritzy because it is other young media savvy "people like them".
> 
> [Re: your popcorn experience: Some people are remarkably noisy eaters and play their gargantuan tubs like a maracas. I'm afraid that, depending on the nature of the film, I might well ask your finacee to stop rattling around in his popcorn and noisily munching. Not a problem if it's a highly charged explosion ridden romp fest but totally inappropriate for a quieter thoughtful or suspenseful film. I would quite likely empty it in his lap if he carried on. Sorry.]



I don't google every single company I use looking for the offenders, but I am passionate about it. I work for a company who doesn't pay all of its staff the LLW, and that is actually a part of the reason I am looking for a new job. I think its shocking and have complained about it many times when asked for feedback. When these issues are brought to my attention, if I can, I vote with my money, as I stated above in the case of Sports Direct. As a regular gym goer and footie player, I used to spend a lot of money there, but I refuse to shop there anymore. Yeah, it means I recently spent an eye watering amount on a sports bra, and Ive needed a new pair of shin pads for the last 6 months, but eventually when I pull my finger out I will just pay more for it elsewhere. I've also stopped going to starbucks when the whole tax story broke, and I drink a latte every day. Im not saying I'm making a difference, Im just saying if I'm aware, I really try not to support these companies and the Ritzy now falls under this category. I have netflix and wine at my place, its not hard at all to stay in.

That being said, its nigh on impossible to boycott every single place that doesnt pay the LLW, what am I to do ask everyone their salary before I make purchases? Which is why I keep stressing _when I'm aware, _and can, I really try not to patronise such companies. Which brings me to Barratt Homes, when we found this flat I couldn't believe my luck that we were in the right place at the right time. Im not aware of Barratt ever being called out for refusing to pay a LLW, in fact I was happy to see in the info they sent around that both concierges are payed more than the LLW. That article you linked I'm sure is referring to Barratts, the shoe shop, not developers. To be honest though, that is an instance where it probably wouldn't have made a difference, because getting on the property ladder in this city is so difficult, I could not have passed up the chance. If you think that point takes away from my other efforts, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I would disagree.

Slightly off topic, my fiancee was eating his popcorn as quietly as you could possibly eat popcorn! What she complained about was the crunching of the popcorn as he chewed (mouth closed, no chomping) - Im sorry, how do you eat popcorn without chewing? She also complained before the film even started, which was why it was quiet enough to hear it, and threw me dirty looks as I ate my sweets quietly.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I think it is admirable when people boycott because of something they strongly believe in but I guess what I'm asking is, what is particularly shocking about Ritzy which makes it stand out from other businesses in relation to LLW and makes them so boycott worthy? The Ritzy tends to employ better educated, more self empowered and consequently less exploitable staff than many other businesses. They have the freedom to pick such people because it really is a pretty comfortable, untaxing and flexible working environment compared to many service / retail businesses. That's not to say they should or should not earn LLW. It just feels a bit like that people are only _particularly shocked _by Ritzy because it is other young media savvy "people like them".




To make it clear my view is that the LLW should be the minimum wage in London. Whatever the job.

I have also given the reason also why if the LW and LLW were made minimum wage nationally this would not harm the economy in previous response to one of your posts.

So if the LLW and LW were brought in across all workplaces in the country for all workers would that be ok by you?


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2014)

With all the fucking money being made in the UK and the immense profits trousered by fat corporates I find it nothing short of incredible that anyone could argue against workers being paid the absolute basic minimum wage to survive.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2014)

tompound said:


> I wrote a piece on this over the weekend which makes a similar point to what Manter is saying, basically Picturehouses benefit from the idea that the Ritzy is 'local' and have brilliant staff but the last thing they want to do is pay them properly.
> 
> brixtonpound.org/2014/ritzy-living-wage/
> 
> For the reasons Rushy gives above I don't think a boycott is effective. However personally I am going to cancel my membership if this continues as I don't think Picturehouse deserve this loyalty.



Good article. Good to see Brixton£ taking a view on this dispute.

I take issue, however, with saying that this is corporate business where the bottom line is numbers. There are plenty of small business who do not pay LW either. For them the bottom line is numbers. As they say they cannot afford it. Whole issue of LW is that the way the economy works there has been tendency to drive wages down in jobs that are classified as low skilled.

I do not think boycott is effective or desirable. Better to email Picturehouse as I think Ritzy workers suggest about the LLW for its workers.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2014)

Article in Guardian today about low pay. 

What he is saying is that low pay is linked to deeper inequalities of wealth that become entrenched in capitalist economies.



> The new superstar French economist Thomas Piketty describes how capitalism entrenches inequality of wealth. Because, left unregulated, capital accumulates faster than the national income grows, the rich get richer just by virtue of being rich already. They do not – he argues on the basis of his extensive academic research at the Paris School of Economics – get richer because they have become more productive.
> 
> At the other end of the pay scale, low earners are, obviously, getting relatively poorer. But they have also been getting absolutely poorer, or at least not richer, because any increase in their productivity is hoovered up by the asset-rich. Piketty suggests this surging inequality is making capitalism itself unsustainable.



He also makes interesting comment that in a society like ours there are still old landed estates that entrench inequality. So land ownership is an issue.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 16, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Article in Guardian today about low pay.
> 
> What he is saying is that low pay is linked to deeper inequalities of wealth that become entrenched in capitalist economies.
> 
> ...



Read a review of that book somewhere else. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Winot (Apr 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Read a review of that book somewhere else. Interesting stuff.



Twice in the Observer. He's the latest pin-up boy of the soft left.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 17, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> To make it clear my view is that the LLW should be the minimum wage in London. Whatever the job.
> 
> I given the reason also why if the LW and LLW were made minimum wage nationally this would not harm the economy in previous response to one of your posts.
> 
> So if the LLW and LW were brought in across all workplaces in the country for all workers would that be ok by you?



I have reservations about saying yes to making it _compulsory _tomorrow across the whole country because of the questions I have already asked - but that is also not a no. I'm not as certain as you: a) whether the benefit will be felt by those who need it most and b) what the knock on effect would be and who that would affect the most. I think that maybe our main differences are that you would be more satisfied with a largely symbolic change at this stage  - whereas I would not, particularly as I have concerns it would backfire if poorly or bluntly implemented.

I don't think either of us disagree that we would welcome benefits being replaced by companies paying full rather than subsidised wages. LLW would hopefully go a long way towards achieving that. My initial concern about that causing a sudden leap in wages seems to be fairly strongly mitigated for _some _by resultant decreases in benefits although I don't think any of us really know by how much and for how many. But then it raises the question for me, are the right people going to benefit? Yes it's a triumph that every penny of a person's salary is paid by the company - but wasn't the original aim to make the lowest paid better off? You conceded there is truth in that and said it is largely symbolic and just a first step - well, what's the next one?

Regarding your reference to QE not causing inflation - I don't know that I agree that QE hasn't set the ground for it. QE was supposed to trickle funds down but banks and large corporates basically mended their balance sheets cheaply and sat and waited for things to start looking up - i.e. they held on to it rather than distribute it. As soon as things started to look a little better the banks started throwing money at carefully selected members of the public - and making huge margins on their lending. Demand is at the root of housing prices but demand is dependent on the availability of finance - and there is more and more available and it is getting cheaper and cheaper - and this has fuelled house prices hugely which is rippling across the country. Companies are also sat on cash and busting to expand - this will cause wages inflation, most significantly amongst the more skilled to begin with. BoE is going to struggle to put up rates because of the huge amounts of private borrowing and when they do, the banks will be able to cushion it by reducing their margins which are still so high above where they were before. Inflation has been down lately but the £ has also strengthened which will have helped that a lot. Oil and fuel also seem to be down helping further. I (no more or less amateurishly than you) predict inflation will bite in the next 18 months and this will largely be caused by the sudden unleashing of all the capital built up by corporates as they rush to cash in on the recovery, accompanied by a lack of effective controls. I think a sudden leap in wages of those more likely to dispose of them than save them could have a similar effect, nullifying the increase and making things even harder for those out of work. The thing is, I don't know and you don't know. I'd have thought a slower transition would help - e.g. close the gap between minimum and living by 10% a year. I was going to suggest putting the burden on large corporates first, but then that would make it hard for small businesses to recruit talent competitively - better therefore to ease it in for everyone. Like it or not - many companies a have business models based on high volume, low % profits - because of constant consumer demand for the cheapest goods - so would be very susceptible to a sudden change . The aim is not to put them out of business but to change practices (as well as consumer expectations about price). A more gradual application would assist this.

I don't really disagree with any of the research about how paying people more benefits the company although several of the listed advantages are based on the advantage of paying higher wages than other companies and would not exist if everyone paid LLW. I question the meaningfulness of some of the stats under the "good for the individual" heading. The lowest I have ever paid anyone was £7/hr and that was back in 2001. LLW didn't reach that level until five years later - minimum wage still hasn't. That was for unskilled building labour but guys were able to earn more pretty quickly as they got to know the ropes and made themselves more and more useful. However, paying good money meant you could be quite picky and those who didn't work out lost their jobs rather than staying on the starting wage. It was not uncommon. I don't know what work they got after leaving me but I really think many employers would have found an alternative to having to employ them rather than pay higher rates. I do wonder where these people would fit in as individuals are expected to deliver more. Relocatable jobs have been relocated as we agreed. More and more relatively unskilled are jobs are being replaced - just look at DIY shop scanning. You even mentioned staff-less easy cinemas above. A sudden increase in many wage bills will only accelerate this - where will all the LLW jobs come from?

I would like people to be better off in general. It would be easy for me to say - yeah pay everyone the LLW tomorrow. I'm just not convinced economics are that simple. Equating "I'm not sure it will work as you expect" with wanting to deny people a fair living is nonsense (not saying you are personally doing that).


----------



## Rushy (Apr 17, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Article in Guardian today about low pay.
> 
> What he is saying is that low pay is linked to deeper inequalities of wealth that become entrenched in capitalist economies.
> 
> ...



I think there are only a small number of landed estates, but the entrenchment through inheritance problem is not limited to land - mineral rights, company stocks, IP, artworks. I find myself veering towards favouring more redistribution through inheritance tax. But the practicalities do look quite horrendous, not least how do you stop non geospecific wealth being removed from the country. And not to mention overcoming the natural desire of parents to leave a legacy for their kids and the general mistrust of the State. Also, maybe non shareholder organisations such as the Church should have a forced "inheritance audit" every 50yrs to ensure they cannot just continue accumulating (less so since the 80s!). I think that having never inherited anything and having no children yet makes this seem more palatable.


----------



## co-op (Apr 17, 2014)

> We have actively supported staff who want to work part-time (25% of the 104 staff work less than 16 hours a week) and fixed (non-zero hours) contracts have been offered to those who want them. However, *the principle of changing to a mix of fixed and zero-hours contracts has also been resisted by staff representatives*.



This ^^ quote from the Ritzy management was posted by someone earlier.

Apologies if this point has already been made but there's an important detail here which should be understood which is that the Living Wage - both nationally and in London - assumes full-take up of in-work benefits is being carried out by workers on the wage. In other words, the calculation that makes the wage "liveable" assumes you get tax credits etc. But thanks to the coalition's new rules on tax credits, you are not eligible for TCs unless you are working 30 hours a week*. It's a real problem for people working part time or on variable contracts or zero hours of course and even though take-up of TCs has always been low (considering what a decent benefit it has been) now, many people simply don't qualify and that means the "living wage" actually isn't a living wage, even on its own terms. If management want to help their workers they should be writing contracts that maximise access to TCs., not unilaterally cutting them to a point where no one can et TCs.

*lots of exceptions to this if you have children or are disabled etc etc, but even here the minimum is never below 16 hours a week, ie 25% of Ritzy staff will be excluded.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I think there are only a small number of landed estates, but the entrenchment through inheritance problem is not limited to land - mineral rights, company stocks, IP, artworks. I find myself veering towards favouring more redistribution through inheritance tax. But the practicalities do look quite horrendous, not least how do you stop non geospecific wealth being removed from the country. And not to mention overcoming the natural desire of parents to leave a legacy for their kids and the general mistrust of the State. Also, maybe non shareholder organisations such as the Church should have a forced "inheritance audit" every 50yrs to ensure they cannot just continue accumulating (less so since the 80s!). I think that having never inherited anything and having no children yet makes this seem more palatable.



Inheritance tax is a joke because it is so easily avoidable. 

One idea would be to scrap all the trusts and dodges and levy it through income tax on heirs.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Inheritance tax is a joke because it is so easily avoidable.
> 
> One idea would be to scrap all the trusts and dodges and levy it through income tax on heirs.


Agreed.


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2014)

Some photos from the post-strike solidarity party at the Albert. The free shots went down well!

















More: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...solidarity-party-at-the-offline-club-brixton/


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 17, 2014)

A lot of talk about boycotting the Ritzy on this thread - surely we should only do this if the staff call for it.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I have reservations about saying yes to making it _compulsory _tomorrow across the whole country because of the questions I have already asked - but that is also not a no. I'm not as certain as you: a) whether the benefit will be felt by those who need it most and b) what the knock on effect would be and who that would affect the most. I think that maybe our main differences are that you would be more satisfied with a largely symbolic change at this stage  - whereas I would not, particularly as I have concerns it would backfire if poorly or bluntly implemented.
> 
> I don't think either of us disagree that we would welcome benefits being replaced by companies paying full rather than subsidised wages. LLW would hopefully go a long way towards achieving that. My initial concern about that causing a sudden leap in wages seems to be fairly strongly mitigated for _some _by resultant decreases in benefits although I don't think any of us really know by how much and for how many. But then it raises the question for me, are the right people going to benefit? Yes it's a triumph that every penny of a person's salary is paid by the company - but wasn't the original aim to make the lowest paid better off? You conceded there is truth in that and said it is largely symbolic and just a first step - well, what's the next one?
> .
> ...




I wanted to know if you supported the LW/ LLW if it was rolled out for the whole country.

As your previous posts imply that better educated more articulate workers like at Ritzy have better chance of getting higher wages than the mass of low paid workers like shelf stackers.

I take your answer as a no.

A lot of the arguments you make were made when the last Labour Government brought in the minimum wage. Now employers accept it. Not even this government has said it will repeal the minimum wage.

The Living Wage concept is another stage building on the minimum wage.

Yes its symbolic in the sense that its a successful political campaign that most people can support. Its an example of incremental reform. Not going to solve all the problems of living in a society where most people sell there labour. What the LW campaign has also done is bring peoples attention to the fact that London would not function without low paid workers. A security guard recently told me that one day we should all not turn up to work. It would bring London to a halt. Thirdly the LW is about restoring the dignity of low paid work. I am sick of mainly employers saying things like "this is not a real job" ( its a fill in job between a "real" job etc). A whole list of why its your fault for working.

I have already given my views why it will not harm present economy.

The issue of automation of work. This brings in problem of the surplus population. That is surplus for the requirements of employers. In 19c this was dealt with by emigration. Not possible now.

19c introduction of factory machinery led to greatly increased productivity. Less workers were needed and work was deskilled. However for those in work in the new factory system work was intensified.

Which is why I previously posted that employers may react to LW by reducing staff and intensifying work for remaining staff. This, I know, has happened to workers since the recession started. Laying off workers and getting remaining workers to take on more work.

Potentially with automation the working week could be reduced.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

Just checked the Ritzy website and its closed during the strike times. 

Its open today up to 5pm , when I look at cinema times. Strike starts at 5pm. 

I may catch a film before strike.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2014)

I've been out chatting to people about this and what I'm finding _really_ depressing is the amount of people - of all ages and backgrounds - who tell me that £8.80 is "too much" and "unrealistic", adding comments like "why should they get that much for serving popcorn?"


----------



## Badgers (Apr 18, 2014)

To be fair there isn't much mark up on popcorn


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I've been out chatting to people about this and what I'm finding _really_ depressing is the amount of people - of all ages and backgrounds - who tell me that £8.80 is "too much" and "unrealistic", adding comments like "why should they get that much for serving popcorn?"



That is depressing, mean spirited and based on ignorance. I think a realistic Living Wage should be set at around £12 per hour.
This is still one of the largest economies in the world, still one of the richest nations on earth and we can't pay people a living wage? Don't believe it when they tell you that there ain't no cure, that the rich will stay healthy and the sick will stay poor. There is lots of money, it's just accumulated in the wrong hands. The only thing that trickles down are the lies the rich keep propagating.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2014)

Some photos from today's strike action: 












http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/brixton-ritzy-strike-day-two-photos-from-windrush-square/


----------



## Badgers (Apr 18, 2014)

Have the Picturehouse made a statement or press release?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

Badgers said:


> Have the Picturehouse made a statement or press release?



Yes. Its online here.



> *Monday 14 April 2014*
> 
> *Lyn Goleby, Managing Director, Picturehouse Cinemas said:* “We are deeply saddened by the decision of some of our staff at The Ritzy cinema in Brixton, who have voted to strike over pay. Forty-five out of 103 staff members voted in favour of strike action, and as a result we will need to close The Ritzy from 5.00pm on Friday 18 April 2014 and all day on Saturday 19 April 2014.
> 
> ...


----------



## JTG (Apr 18, 2014)

Nice use of ballot figures there, implying that it's a minority etc. Standard boss tactics


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

I was at cinema earlier today to see "Locke" before cinema closed at 5pm. Below photo of Ritzy workers just after 5.

They said tomorrow ( Saturday) they will be there from 10.30 am . They will be putting some events on. From there FB page:



> Presenting: The Alternative Ritzy Kids Club. This Saturday from 10:30am we'll be putting on lots of entertainment for local children on Windrush Square with Easter Egg hunts, egg painting, face-painting and more besides so do bring your little ones down and tell your friends! Please share.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

BECTU the Ritzy workers union comment on the strike.



> In the last two years BECTU has secured London Living Wage agreements with the National Theatre, BBC contractors and the BFI IMAX.
> 
> Gerry Morrissey ( BECTU general secretary) continued:





> “The company’s current inflexibility is sending a very bad message to staff and to the many community supporters of the venue who all believe that Ritzy staff deserve to be paid the London Living Wage.  A living wage is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.”





> The London Living Wage is widely recognised by public and private sector employers in the capital. The list of companies backing the London Living Wage grows daily and covers many sectors of industry.



*Find out which employers are paying the London Living Wage http://www.livingwage.org.uk/employers*


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 18, 2014)

There should be zero tolerance of zero hours employment contracts. Even the DWP won't sanction a JSA claimant if they refuse the offer of employment on a zero hours contract.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

More info about Living Wage



> The concept of a Living Wage has roots in various cultural, religious and philosophical traditions.
> 
> The modern UK Living Wage Campaign was launched by members of London Citizens in 2001. The founders were parents in the East End of London, who wanted to remain in work, but found that despite working two or more minimum wage jobs they were struggling to make ends meet and were left with no time for family and community life.





> The Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation began calculating a UK wide Minimum Income Standard (MIS) figure. The MIS is an average across the whole of the UK, but does not reflect the variation in the cost of living inside and outside of London.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Apr 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I've been out chatting to people about this and what I'm finding _really_ depressing is the amount of people - of all ages and backgrounds - who tell me that £8.80 is "too much" and "unrealistic", adding comments like "why should they get that much for serving popcorn?"



Not only is that sad, but also scary. You just couldn't make it up.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> That is depressing, mean spirited and based on ignorance. I think a realistic Living Wage should be set at around £12 per hour.
> This is still one of the largest economies in the world, still one of the richest nations on earth and we can't pay people a living wage?



According to "GLA Economics" who calculate the London Living Wage it is £11.30 per hour. So ur right. They set it at £8.80 per hour as in work benefits etc top it up. 



> As previously we calculate the Living Wage by a combination of two approaches. The first, developed by the Family Budget Unit (FBU), estimates the costs of a ‘Low Cost but Acceptable’ (LCA) budget for a selection of households and calculates the wage required to meet these costs. This is termed the “Basic Living Costs”approach. The second – the “Income Distribution” approach – simply identifies the median income for London (appropriately weighted for 11 household types) and then takes 60 per cent of it. The Basic Living Costs approach yields an hourly wage of £7.45 per hour and the Income Distribution approach one of £7.90.
> 
> The average of these two wages (called the “poverty threshold wage”) is £7.65 per hour.
> In order to protect against unforeseen events a margin of 15 per cent is added to the poverty threshold wage. This gives a figure of £8.80 per hour (when rounded to the nearest five pence) as the London Living Wage.
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

That well known member of the hard left Boris Johnson on LLW:



> But none of these things will be possible without the skills, commitment and hard work of those who
> maintain the fabric of our communities and our city 24/7 – our care workers and shop workers, as well
> as those who keep our workplaces and educational establishments clean. It is morally right that their
> contribution is appropriately recognised and that they share in the proceeds of London’s resumed growth.
> That means paying every London employee at least the ‘London Living Wage’ which provides the minimum acceptable quality of life for them and their families plus a bit more ‘for a rainy day’.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> There should be zero tolerance of zero hours employment contracts. Even the DWP won't sanction a JSA claimant if they refuse the offer of employment on a zero hours contract.



I listen to a radio programme "The Bottom Line" sometimes. It a programme about business where they interview dynamic business leaders and entrepreneurs.

On one programme they were comparing France and UK business environments. Lot of moans and groans about how difficult life is in France from these dynamic types whose creativity in providing jobs for the lower orders is not appreciated . The labour market is so "inflexible" in France( read cannot just sack people or lay them off).


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Not only is that sad, but also scary. You just couldn't make it up.



Unfortunately I am not surprised at what said to the Ed. One of the better things about Brixton is that most people here will support something like LLW.

Personally the people I met everyday around London ( well mainly in Soho and Brixton) support the idea of a LW. But most of them are also on the low end of pay or are liberal minded professionals rather than business owners.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 19, 2014)

Ritzy on Saturday:


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2014)

Hamlet fans lend their support.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...isy-support-to-the-brixton-ritzy-picket-line/


----------



## Ms T (Apr 19, 2014)

Great stuff. I was feeling too rough to head up there after the game but we hooted vigorously as we drove past at lunchtime. I always appreciate drivers doing that when I'm on the picket line.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 19, 2014)

Spiderman supports Ritzy workers:


----------



## nagapie (Apr 19, 2014)

Had fun in the morning with my boy supporting and playing.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)




----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

Petition to support Ritzy workers

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petiti...ff-at-the-ritzy-cinema-the-london-living-wage


----------



## Manter (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Spiderman supports Ritzy workers:


Isn't that a rather famous author behind Spider-Man?!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> Isn't that a rather famous author behind Spider-Man?!



Will Self? Does look a bit like him and he lives around here.


----------



## Manter (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I listen to a radio programme "The Bottom Line" sometimes. It a programme about business where they interview dynamic business leaders and entrepreneurs.
> 
> On one programme they were comparing France and UK business environments. Lot of moans and groans about how difficult life is in France from these dynamic types whose creativity in providing jobs for the lower orders is not appreciated . The labour market is so "inflexible" in France( read cannot just sack people or lay them off).


France is actually a very misunderstood employment market. It's not a great place to employ or be employed.  You can lay people off- conversely it is damn near impossible to create new jobs, or to change anything about how people work. It's far too late at night for me to go into loads of details, but the idea of France as a worker's paradise is so far off the mark it's untrue. It has very high levels if absenteeism, high levels of work related stress and depression, higher levels of employment related court cases than anywhere else in Europe...


----------



## Manter (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Will Self? Does look a bit like him and he lives around here.


Mouth and the dress sense are unmistakeable!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

Ritzy strikers were doing face painting for children:


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> France is actually a very misunderstood employment market. It's not a great place to employ or be employed.  You can lay people off- conversely it is damn near impossible to create new jobs, or to change anything about how people work. It's far too late at night for me to go into loads of details, but the idea of France as a worker's paradise is so far off the mark it's untrue. It has very high levels if absenteeism, high levels of work related stress and depression, higher levels of employment related court cases than anywhere else in Europe...



Point taken. Neither is Germany. They "reformed" there labour market a while back to make it more "competitive". And Germany is often held up as a model here for labour relations etc.

It was the business people on the programme who were making the comparisons not me. I have heard it before. They regard UK as paradise as opposed to France.

The point I was making was the attitude of business leaders and "entrepreneurs" towards workers. For them its obvious that they should be able to lay off or fire workers as they see fit. They use the management speech of "flexible" labour markets. As far as they were concerned they were the ones who produced wealth and it was government and awkward workers who got in the way. If only they could be allowed to create companies and jobs without hindrance the world would be such a better place.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> To make it clear my view is that the LLW should be the minimum wage in London. Whatever the job.


Its not that simple...not all business can afford it...lots of business are running with serious cash flow problems, or pumping money in from other concerns to keep that particular business afloat. Also LLW is pretty much an arbitrary figure - its still peanuts if you're paying a rent. And why stop at London?

I think if we're looking at moderate reforms on legal pay then it should be means tested to the profits of a business. You have to file a return anyway, so its not a big bureaucratic problem. THe bigger the profits the more you pay. What depresses me the most is the big chains of Amazons and Tescos, with enormous turnovers and profits who still pay their staff fuck all and work them hard. Tesco makes billions, there is no excuse that a minimum salary there isnt £10phr, say. The pay ratio of highest and lowest paid worker is a good and easily implemented idea (that'll never happen here).


----------



## ska invita (Apr 20, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I think there are only a small number of landed estates


a third of british land is owned by the aristocracy..."a group of 36,000 individuals – only 0.6 per cent of the population – own 50 per cent of rural land"


----------



## Manter (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Point taken. Neither is Germany. They "reformed" there labour market a while back to make it more "competitive". And Germany is often held up as a model here for labour relations etc.
> 
> It was the business people on the programme who were making the comparisons not me. I have heard it before. They regard UK as paradise as opposed to France.
> 
> The point I was making was the attitude of business leaders and "entrepreneurs" towards workers. For them its obvious that they should be able to lay off or fire workers as they see fit. They use the management speech of "flexible" labour markets. As far as they were concerned they were the ones who produced wealth and it was government and awkward workers who got in the way. If only they could be allowed to create companies and jobs without hindrance the world would be such a better place.


Yeah, it's a funny programme, isn't it? Sometimes they have people from interesting businesses on there and there is a great discussion, then someone'll say something completely 'wtf?' About tax, or employment rights or whatever.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 20, 2014)

ska invita said:


> *Its not that simple...not all business can afford it...lots of business are running with serious cash flow problems, or pumping money in from other concerns to keep that particular business afloat. Also LLW is pretty much an arbitrary figure* - its still peanuts if you're paying a rent. And why stop at London?
> 
> I think if we're looking at moderate reforms on legal pay then it should be means tested to the profits of a business. You have to file a return anyway, so its not a big bureaucratic problem. THe bigger the profits the more you pay. What depresses me the most is the big chains of Amazons and Tescos, with enormous turnovers and profits who still pay their staff fuck all and work them hard. Tesco makes billions, there is no excuse that a minimum salary there isnt £10phr, say. The pay ratio of highest and lowest paid worker is a good and easily implemented idea (that'll never happen here).



Then those businesses are not viable going concerns and market forces dictate they go to the wall. If they can't pay their suppliers or the VAT they would be put out of business. Why should businesses be allowed to treat humans as less valuable than stock or tax?
The London Living Wage (LLW) is not an "arbitrary figure" it's calculated according to the basic cost of living.
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation

The free market entrepreneurial evangelists want to have their cake and eat it but they don't want to pay for it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 20, 2014)

*THIS:*




Dexter Deadwood said:


> Then those businesses are not viable going concerns and market forces dictate they go to the wall.



*THIS*:



Dexter Deadwood said:


> If they can't pay their suppliers or the VAT they would be put out of business.



*THIS:*



Dexter Deadwood said:


> Why should businesses be allowed to treat humans as less valuable than stock or tax?



and *THIS:*



Dexter Deadwood said:


> The free market entrepreneurial evangelists want to have their cake and eat it but they don't want to pay for it.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Ritzy strikers were doing face painting for children:



They sure were:


----------



## ska invita (Apr 20, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Then those businesses are not viable going concerns and market forces dictate they go to the wall. If they can't pay their suppliers or the VAT they would be put out of business. Why should businesses be allowed to treat humans as less valuable than stock or tax?
> The London Living Wage (LLW) is not an "arbitrary figure" it's calculated according to the basic cost of living.
> http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation
> 
> The free market entrepreneurial evangelists want to have their cake and eat it but they don't want to pay for it.



Yes i know the LLW is calculated, but by my calculations after tax its still barely enough to cover rent ,bills and transport. The idea that it allows you to save money which Boris Johnson said is delusional. In that respect it is arbitrary. Im not particularly interested in how theyve arrived at the figure as its clear to me its still a shit wage.

fine, let small businesses close and people lose jobs. You are right, thats the consistent free market attitude.

I think there are two very different levels of business in the UK, small businesses whose existence seems to me to be a miracle considering rents (landlords are again a massive issue in the supression of wages) and other pressures, and then those of big business whose economics are on a completely different level.  

I speak to lots of shopkeepers, have worked in small shops and continue to know people who work in small shops, both as staff and owners - i'm always amazed as many shops keep their doors open as do. The next time the economy falters lots of small shops will fall like dominoes.

My experience of working in a co-op was that a few times in the year there wouldn't be enough money coming in and we had to all agree to receive less pay. Self-exploitation in co-ops is a normal thing, especially for small and fragile businesses. Its an interesting position to be in.

My attitude is if someone wants to set up a market stall or have a go at trying to start their own little business then good luck to them - they'll need it - id be more than happy to have lots of indies around. Of course I want everyone to get as good a wage as possible, but from my experience of retail I think means testing it is the fairest way of doing it. Its big business with their massive turnovers and profits that dont get shared thats the big problem - and that includes pub and cinema chains. 

Anyhow, maybe this thread isnt the place to talk about this in abstract - ive not seen picturehouse's accounts, but if they can afford to pay the wage then of course they should. Picturehosue is owned by a bigger entity, Cineworld, and their profits are surging, 38million in 2012,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...6415/Cineworld-posts-blockbuster-profits.html
so of course they should be forced to pay as much as possible. Good luck to everyone striking.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Apr 20, 2014)

Be careful what you wish for. There will exist wage levels at which it will become economically attractive to automate these jobs out of existence, for instance:

- fully automated ticketing (online, and a machine in the lobby), thus eliminating box office staff
- tickets containing access control (using rfids ?), eliminating ushers
- remote operation of projectors, eliminating projectionists
- remote security, via CCTV, cutting security staff

As ICT/robotics improves, more and more unskilled jobs - and working at the Ritzy doesn't really require any particular skills - will become vulnerable to elimination through automation. Strikes can only encourage Cineworld to accelerate any plans it might have to de-staff its properties.

The grim prospects for millions of people in service jobs requiring low/mid-level skills are discussed:

_http://www.economist.com/news/brief...s-delivered-more-long-run-employment-not-less

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/what-jobs-will-the-robots-take/283239/

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/_


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Its not that simple...not all business can afford it...lots of business are running with serious cash flow problems, or pumping money in from other concerns to keep that particular business afloat. Also LLW is pretty much an arbitrary figure - its still peanuts if you're paying a rent. And why stop at London?
> 
> I think if we're looking at moderate reforms on legal pay then it should be means tested to the profits of a business. You have to file a return anyway, so its not a big bureaucratic problem. THe bigger the profits the more you pay. What depresses me the most is the big chains of Amazons and Tescos, with enormous turnovers and profits who still pay their staff fuck all and work them hard. Tesco makes billions, there is no excuse that a minimum salary there isnt £10phr, say. The pay ratio of highest and lowest paid worker is a good and easily implemented idea (that'll never happen here).



LLW is set higher than the LW for the rest of the country. 

Its not an arbitrary figure. See my previous posts. 

Which business are you talking about? Just because its a large business does not mean that its its not in a precarious situation. 

Pay ratio: Switzerland had a referendum on this recently. It was lost. There was a lot of lobbying by business against it. Argument was that it would put off business from coming to Switzerland. 

I have not much to add to what Dexter Deadwood has already posted.

I was at meeting about Rec yesterday. One thing that came up was the LLW. Lambeth Council, to there credit, now expect contractors they use to pay the LLW. This means the cleaning staff etc.

Cleaning companies work in a competitive market in London. Its still possible to get them to pay LLW with political pressure.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 20, 2014)

urbanspaceman said:


> Be careful what you wish for. There will exist wage levels at which it will become economically attractive to automate these jobs out of existence, for instance:
> 
> - fully automated ticketing (online, and a machine in the lobby), thus eliminating box office staff
> - tickets containing access control (using rfids ?), eliminating ushers
> ...




Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?
Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/16/robots-buy-cars/


----------



## ska invita (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> LLW is set higher than the LW for the rest of the country.
> 
> Its not an arbitrary figure. See my previous posts.
> 
> ...


dont disagree with any of that, i followed the swiss referendum etc (very disappointing), i'm just saying if you're trying to create reformist policies to change wages a higher minimum wage isn't necessarily a magic bullet without its own problems. Landlordism/rent/housing problems are the biggest issue right now I think. Anyhow, i wont add any more here - good luck to the strikers. i worked as an agency ( zero hours) usher in Odeon west end cinemas for a year in the early 90s but lived with my parents so didnt pay rent. Couldnt have survived on that wage otherwise.

ETA: the transition to a robot workforce is one i hope we will see. fuck work, most of it is utter shit.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

urbanspaceman said:


> Be careful what you wish for. There will exist wage levels at which it will become economically attractive to automate these jobs out of existence,



And your point is what?

This is not new. Happened in 19c when large factory mechanisation put people out of work.

The limitation of the working day to 10 hours also led Capitalists to mechanise work.

Its one of the contradictions of Capitalism that it can increase productivity but also impoverish people.

Potentially work ( in the sense of selling ones labour to live) can be reduced. Work is not a good in itself.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

urbanspaceman said:


> Be careful what you wish for. There will exist wage levels at which it will become economically attractive to automate these jobs out of existence, for instance:
> 
> 
> - remote operation of projectors, eliminating projectionists
> ...



Projectionists have already been largely eliminated in cinemas now films are shown digitally.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Yes i know the LLW is calculated, but by my calculations after tax its still barely enough to cover rent ,bills and transport. The idea that it allows you to save money which Boris Johnson said is delusional. In that respect it is arbitrary. Im not particularly interested in how theyve arrived at the figure as its clear to me its still a shit wage.
> 
> fine, let small businesses close and people lose jobs. You are right, thats the consistent free market attitude.
> 
> ...



This thread is place to talk about it in abstract. The whole point of LLW is that it should be what all employers - big , medium or small - should pay there workers in London.

What ur saying is the small business should be able to pay wages that are below subsistence level so that they can survive. 

Fine thats consistant with someone who supports exploitation of workers in a free market.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> This thread is place to talk about it in abstract. The whole point of LLW is that it should be what all employers - big , medium or small - should pay there workers in London.
> 
> What ur saying is the small business should be able to pay wages that are below subsistence level so that they can survive.
> 
> Fine thats consistant with someone who supports exploitation of workers in a free market.


no, im saying lets make the cost of living cheaper. the llw isnt a living wage at all for someone paying full commercial rent. hiking up the wage from the bottom isnt going to stop landlords further exploiting that extra cash from both workers and businesses. 
People should get more money so make it the law to pay people more money is too simplistic IMO.

i dont think this is the thread for it because theres a strike going on and this thread is about that. lets start another thread on how to achieve higher wages under UK capitalism and id be happy to get into it there.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2014)

ska invita said:


> no, im saying lets make the cost of living cheaper. the llw isnt a living wage at all for someone paying full commercial rent. hiking up the wage from the bottom isnt going to stop landlords further exploiting that extra cash from both workers and businesses.
> People should get more money so make it the law to pay people more money is too simplistic IMO.
> 
> i dont think this is the thread for it because theres a strike going on and this thread is about that. lets start another thread on how to achieve higher wages under UK capitalism and id be happy to get into it there.



You started this on this thread. Its relevant. Your first posts are presenting arguments that undermine the reasons why they are on strike.

If the LLW is not in your opinion really a living wage then how can you use the term "hiking up" wages. If its set so low as to not really be enough to live on what you are saying is that business be able to pay wages that are way below any subsistence level.

So how do you propose to reduce cost of living?

Landlords act like capitalist as well. In fact they are.  Buy to let landlords would resist any attempts to bring back rent controls and more secure tenancies. As this would hit there profits. The Labour Party want some mild reforms of the private rented sector. Heard someone who represents small private landlords saying this would affect private rented sector from developing. It would deter people from entering the market to provide housing and thus any reforms would be counter productive. Thus the same type of arguments are used as by business people who oppose LLW . If you argue for any reforms which will affect ability to make a profit you will be met with opposition.


----------



## classicdish (Apr 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ...but if they can afford to pay the wage then of course they should. Picturehosue is owned by a bigger entity, Cineworld, and their profits are surging, 38million in 2012,
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...6415/Cineworld-posts-blockbuster-profits.html
> so of course they should be forced to pay as much as possible. Good luck to everyone striking.


If you are going to force companies making more profits to hand over more money then why not just take this via extra taxation and redistribute it to the poorest people in the country? Why limit yourself to ring-fencing this money soley within profitable industries?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> no, im saying lets make the cost of living cheaper. the llw isnt a living wage at all for someone paying full commercial rent. hiking up the wage from the bottom isnt going to stop landlords further exploiting that extra cash from both workers and businesses.
> People should get more money so make it the law to pay people more money is too simplistic IMO.
> 
> i dont think this is the thread for it because theres a strike going on and this thread is about that. lets start another thread on how to achieve higher wages under UK capitalism and id be happy to get into it there.


It's probably true that it'd be pretty pointless implementing a LLW without some form of rent control, as the landlords will simply hike rents up to hoover up the extra money.

Not that this is an argument against the LLW, more an argument in favour of some form of measures to stop the upward rent costs spiral.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2014)

classicdish said:


> If you are going to force companies making more profits to hand over more money then why not just take this via extra taxation and redistribute it to the poorest people in the country?


because money raised by taxes isnt redistributed in handouts to us, its spent on state bits and pieces. higher taxes may mean an Amazon worker has a better NHS, or more bombs can get dropped in their name, but they'll still be on minimum wage and killing themselves to earn that shit wage.



Gramsci said:


> You started this on this thread. Its relevant. Your first posts are presenting arguments that undermine the reasons why they are on strike.
> .


Not at all, as ive set out quite clearly Cineworld appears to have made 38 million profits in 2012 (could be a lot more than that depending what the accountants have been up to), of course it should pay workers better. Why stop at an arbitrary 8.80ph? why not 12ph? why not 15ph? I hope they get as much as they can out of them.

Ive personal experience on every side of this, working for less than llw, having since 2008 been forced to reduce my own wages out of "choice" (in fact necessity) in two different jobs, having even worked as a zero hours cinema usher. I know what shit pay means.

Its good that theres a minimum wage, in as much its better than not having one, but the minimum wage is shit. So is LLW. However the idea that we can get rid of poverty by enforcing higher and higher minimum wages seems to me simplistic - the economy is much more complex than that.



free spirit said:


> It's probably true that it'd be pretty pointless implementing a LLW without some form of rent control, as the landlords will simply hike rents up to hoover up the extra money. Not that this is an argument against the LLW, more an argument in favour of some form of measures to stop the upward rent costs spiral.


exactly - an enforced LLW as one reformist policy in isolation fails in a variety of different ways.
For example I think a better minimum wage would be £12ph. The so called LLW of £8.80 is still fuck all for anyone renting (never mind buying) in london. Do you back my proposal that £12ph be a legal requirement and rolled out across the country? If not, why not?

*i still think we should take this to another thread. you've already got the impression that im trying to undermine the justification for the strike which couldnt be further from the truth. There's an interesting conversation to be had here in the abstract, but i dont want to have it in the middle of this thread which can in anyway be misconstrued as going against their struggle.

I say again, of course they should be paid more, their employer can afford it and then some. And I really hope they win this - i think they can. In fact i hope they get more than the 8.80.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 21, 2014)

Could you ska invita  stop calling the LLW an "arbitrary" figure, you know it's not. It also negates all your other objections to the LLW.

Dictionary definition - Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Could you ska invita  stop calling the LLW an "arbitrary" figure, you know it's not. It also negates all your other objections to the LLW.
> 
> Dictionary definition - Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


its arbitrary in that its not enough. it based on a calculation which i consider insufficient. i can do a different calculation and call it LLW which would produce a bigger number - in that respect it is arbitrary - it depends what sum you do to arrive at the figure. LLW gives the impression that 8.80 is a wage you can achieve a quality of life on in London (and save for a rainy day according to Boris Johnson) whilst paying commercial rent- its not. but point taken, i'll say its insufficient instead of arbitrary.

ETA: for example they set rent at around 100pw - 150pw is a more accurate minimum of london rents. For travel they assume you live within zones 1-3, whereas most workers on low wages live in outer zones, and so on...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2014)

urbanspaceman said:


> Be careful what you wish for. There will exist wage levels at which it will become economically attractive to automate these jobs out of existence, for instance:
> 
> - fully automated ticketing (online, and a machine in the lobby), thus eliminating box office staff
> - tickets containing access control (using rfids ?), eliminating ushers
> ...



You have kind of missed the point that one of the reasons that The Ritzy is so well-used and popular is *because* of the "human face" the staff put on it, and that automation would affect throughput/footfall.
Also, greater automation relies on the cost/benefit analysis of purchase and maintenance of automated technologies reflecting effective savings.  Add in the losses accumulated through automation via "dodging", and often it makes no financial sense to automate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> And your point is what?
> 
> This is not new. Happened in 19c when large factory mechanisation put people out of work.
> 
> ...



When "one-man-operated" buses were introduced in London in the early to mid-'70s, London Transport made a big deal about how much money they'd save, and how they'd be able to fold those savings back into the services.
Guess what?  By the early '80s, they automation (you may remember the "turnstile" ticket machines on buses) still hadn't paid for itself, even though bus staffing levels had effectively been halved, and why not? Because of maintenance issues, and the problems of fare-dodgers when there was no conductor to either compel payment, or chuck dodgers off the bus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> no, im saying lets make the cost of living cheaper. the llw isnt a living wage at all for someone paying full commercial rent. hiking up the wage from the bottom isnt going to stop landlords further exploiting that extra cash from both workers and businesses.
> People should get more money so make it the law to pay people more money is too simplistic IMO.
> 
> i dont think this is the thread for it because theres a strike going on and this thread is about that. lets start another thread on how to achieve higher wages under UK capitalism and id be happy to get into it there.



The most effective way to reduce the cost of living for many of the people on the end of the "squeeze", would be a massive programme of building of public housing, with the concomitant social rents it would charge.
Ain't gonna happen, though.  No government is going to risk deflating the house price bubble, especially not as sharply as introducing a mass building programme would do.
So, we're stuck with the same old same old, and have to deal in what's happening NOW, not in nice dreams like a cheaper cost of living.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> exactly - an enforced LLW as one reformist policy in isolation fails in a variety of different ways.
> For example I think a better minimum wage would be £12ph. The so called LLW of £8.80 is still fuck all for anyone renting (never mind buying) in london. Do you back my proposal that £12ph be a legal requirement and rolled out across the country? If not, why not?



I am a bit confused about what you are saying.

One of your arguments against LLW  of £8.80 was the some companies would not be able to afford it. So should not be compelled to pay it. That economics is not that simple.

So how will companies with cash flow problems etc be able to pay a mandatory minimum wage of £12 an hour?

I actually think ur right about minimum wage being £12 an hour. One argument for higher wages for the less well paid is that they are more likely to spend it in their local economy. There is a multiplier effect in every extra £ they have in spending power. Same goes for not cutting benefits in a recession.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 21, 2014)

£12 per hour is roughly £24k per annum.... for selling popcorn?


----------



## existentialist (Apr 21, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> £12 per hour is roughly £24k per annum.... for selling popcorn?


It only sounds a lot because we've got used to the idea that people should earn shit money for working.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 21, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> £12 per hour is roughly £24k per annum.... for selling popcorn?



Fuck off.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Apr 21, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> £12 per hour is roughly £24k per annum.... for selling popcorn?


24k sounds like a fairly okay wage to live on. That's what we should focus on - is the salary enough to live on. If you think it's unfairly high compared to other jobs deemed as more skilled/more valuable to society then I suggest you also campaign to increase wages for those people, too.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 23, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I have reservations about saying yes to making it _compulsory _tomorrow across the whole country because of the questions I have already asked - but that is also not a no.





Gramsci said:


> I take your answer as a no.



Oh - ok then.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 23, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I am a bit confused about what you are saying.
> 
> One of your arguments against LLW  of £8.80 was the some companies would not be able to afford it. So should not be compelled to pay it. That economics is not that simple.
> 
> ...


 
yeah, sorry, i am being confusing - ive gone into this conversation reluctantly a bit, and so am dragging my feet and not expressing things too clearly... not sure this will be much better, but:

the £12per hour thing was to make a point that the reason you couldnt introduce a blanket £12 per hour min wage is the same why at the moment I think it would be wrong to introduce an £8.80 one, namely that its too high. Not too high because people dont deserve it, or dont need it, but because lots of small businesses couldnt pay it. The two main jobs i've had in the last 6 years, neither could, or can now, pay it. They would both have to close and i'd be out of a job. They can pay more than min wage though. I'd love them to pay more, but we can't afford it. And thats true for lots of small businesses.

So setting a min wage is partially based on what people need to live and also at what rate business can exist. The economy is (institutionally/politically) fucked so you cant please both sides.

Another example: a close relative of mine has gone to Norway to drive busses, to save for his retirement. Bus driving in Norway can be a well paid job on which you can even save up if you live within your means. A proper living wage. Scandinavian countries tend to have more equality between their top paid and lowest paid jobs - this is something that is clearly a good thing. But how do we get from where we are now in the UK to that point?

I have some inclinations on that, but im really not convinced its by upping the minimum wage - or crucially at least not on its own. Rather than pushing up from the bottom i think the key thing is to cap and squash down the top end, which includes top pay and top costs for things like rent. Without a ceiling, pushing up from the bottom wont work. Thats at least the jist of what im saying. Lots of business cant afford an 8.80 minimum wage. But then lots can - especially the multimillion pound businesses who not only have massive profits, but often employ on the lowest wages. A one-rule-for=all minimum wage of 8.80 may not work right now, but LLW should definitely be used to push on those, like Cineworld, who can afford it.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 23, 2014)

As above


----------



## Rushy (Apr 24, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yeah, sorry, i am being confusing - ive gone into this conversation reluctantly a bit, and so am dragging my feet and not expressing things too clearly... not sure this will be much better, but:
> 
> the £12per hour thing was to make a point that the reason you couldnt introduce a blanket £12 per hour min wage is the same why at the moment I think it would be wrong to introduce an £8.80 one, namely that its too high. Not too high because people dont deserve it, or dont need it, but because lots of small businesses couldnt pay it. The two main jobs i've had in the last 6 years, neither could, or can now, pay it. They would both have to close and i'd be out of a job. They can pay more than min wage though. I'd love them to pay more, but we can't afford it. And thats true for lots of small businesses.
> 
> ...


The one thing I'd add to this, which I touched on above, is that making it compulsory for large businesses but not for small businesses might actually cause a problem for small businesses as large businesses would be able to cream off the hardest working / most capable people because their wages are higher. Alternatively - maybe they would contract out particular services (e.g. cleaning, running the bar) to small companies to avoid the higher wages. 

In Norway - is there a cap on upper wages? What controls the wage gap?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 24, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The one thing I'd add to this, which I touched on above, is that making it compulsory for large businesses but not for small businesses might actually cause a problem for small businesses as large businesses would be able to cream off the hardest working / most capable people because their wages are higher. Alternatively - maybe they would contract out particular services (e.g. cleaning, running the bar) to small companies to avoid the higher wages.
> 
> In Norway - is there a cap on upper wages? What controls the wage gap?



You are essentially arguing against capitalism, good to see you are making progress.


----------



## Winot (Apr 24, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> £12 per hour is roughly £24k per annum.... for selling popcorn?


 
I wonder how this compares to the mean UK full-time salary? Does any one know where to get that figure? 

I can't find it easily as the ONS reports median:

"For the year ending 5 April 2013 median gross annual earnings for full-time employees (who had been in the same job for at least 12 months) were £27,000" (source = ONS).


----------



## Rushy (Apr 24, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> You are essentially arguing against capitalism, good to see you are making progress.


If you say so DD. If you say so.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 24, 2014)

the thing about fighting for a higher wage is that its relatively easier to do that than fighting for a reform of the entire economy so its kind of inevitable that discussions about it look towards raising wages - and then if you look at railworkers who have successfully fought for better wages over years they've shifted the playing field for all public service sector workers somewhat. Just to be triple-clear, I'm not against employees in non-worker-controlled situations trying to get the maximum wages they can out of their profiteering employer. Its a good thing.



Rushy said:


> In Norway - is there a cap on upper wages? What controls the wage gap?


My understanding is very limited (surprise surprise) - the picture i have painted myself is based on a conversation ive had and the odd snippet ive read...

My understanding is Scandinavian economies and cultural norms in regards to economics/capitalism/work were shaped by socialist revolution in the 30s
http://peacenews.info/node/6624/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-power-‘1’
...both countries have drifted to the right in recent years, but the broad legacy of equality, co-operatives and a cultural sense of embarrassment at earning more than others has remained. So official wages are often much closer together as a ratio (in private and state sector), though a Norwegian friend tells me its not unusual for a big boss to find ways of awarding themselves bonuses and so on.
Anyhow, a socialist-reformist state had decades of controlling, influencing and shaping the economy and culture... Id love to read more about it tbh, cant find much on the net. If anyone knows a book on it Id be interested...
that link is worth a read


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 24, 2014)

Winot said:


> I wonder how this compares to the mean UK full-time salary?



Does the median not give a more reflective comparison? I would have thought that the mean would be heftily skewed by the disproportionate spread in salaries and therefore makes for a bigger difference in this comparison... i.e. Great if you want to make £24k look low but not really an indicator of a "liveable wage"


----------



## Winot (Apr 24, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Does the median not give a more reflective comparison? I would have thought that the mean would be heftily skewed by the disproportionate spread in salaries and therefore makes for a bigger difference in this comparison... i.e. Great if you want to make £24k look low but not really an indicator of a "liveable wage"



Yes, I think the median is more useful which is why it is more often used. I was just anticipating the likely argument (on here) that everybody should be paid the same amount no matter what job they do and wondering how the resultant mean salary would compare with £24K.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 24, 2014)

Understood


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The one thing I'd add to this, which I touched on above, is that making it compulsory for large businesses but not for small businesses might actually cause a problem for small businesses as large businesses would be able to cream off the hardest working / most capable people because their wages are higher. Alternatively - maybe they would contract out particular services (e.g. cleaning, running the bar) to small companies to avoid the higher wages.
> 
> In Norway - is there a cap on upper wages? What controls the wage gap?



Companies have been contracting out services for some time. Did not always be like this. A lot of jobs that used to be inhouse are now contracted out. Companies have been doing this anyway over recent years to cut costs. Large companies used to employ canteen staff , cleaners and post room staff inhouse. This used to be the norm. Its all changed over last 30 years. Its not just low pay thats the problem its also the worse conditions of employment when jobs are outsourced. Zero hour contracts, short term contracts etc. It suits employers. 

A division between those who supposedly work hard and those who supposedly do not is an employers way of looking at it. I have seen people work hard and then get burnt out. Suddenly they are seen as slacking.

Plenty of people are worked hard by small business. In fact can be more pressure on one in a small business.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 24, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Companies have been contracting out services for some time. Did not always be like this. A lot of jobs that used to be inhouse are now contracted out. Companies have been doing this anyway over recent years to cut costs. Large companies used to employ canteen staff , cleaners and post room staff inhouse. This used to be the norm. Its all changed over last 30 years. Its not just low pay thats the problem its also the worse conditions of employment when jobs are outsourced. Zero hour contracts, short term contracts etc. It suits employers.
> 
> A division between those who supposedly work hard and those who supposedly do not is an employers way of looking at it. I have seen people work hard and then get burnt out. Suddenly they are seen as slacking.
> 
> Plenty of people are worked hard by small business. In fact can be more pressure on one in a small business.


Mostly true but not sure how it relates to my point about whether LLW could be applied to larger businesses and not to smaller businesses. Maybe it was not intended to?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 25, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Its not just low pay thats the problem its also the worse conditions of employment when jobs are outsourced. Zero hour contracts, short term contracts etc. It suits employers.



The biggest difference is usually that the 'outsourced' staff are also no longer eligible for the pension scheme that the 'employer' has...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Mostly true but not sure how it relates to my point about whether LLW could be applied to larger businesses and not to smaller businesses. Maybe it was not intended to?



I think LLW should apply to both. 

A level playing field.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 25, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I think LLW should apply to both.
> 
> A level playing field.


My comment was that an unlevel playing field would not work and would cause the scenario I described.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> The biggest difference is usually that the 'outsourced' staff are also no longer eligible for the pension scheme that the 'employer' has...



Nor redundancy. Knew someone who was the last employee in a post room who was permanent staff. Been there for 20 years in same postroom.They could not get rid of him as they would have had to pay big redundancy. 

And he was old school British worker. Did not like getting up off his arse. Moaned and groaned if he had to.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2014)

Rushy said:


> My comment was that an unlevel playing field would not work and would cause the scenario I described.



Its not how things work. 

A jobs a job. A "hard working" person might apply to BFI for LLW cinema usher not get it and end up at Ritzy or another cinema.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 25, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Its not how things work.
> 
> A jobs a job. A "hard working" person might apply to BFI for LLW cinema usher not get it and end up at Ritzy or another cinema.


Might happen. I explained in an earlier post how when I was employing people directly and paying over LLW I was able to choose people who performed best, showed most promise and could grow. Although the jobs I was recruiting for were often menial (digging holes, moving rubbish) I wanted people who would think for themselves and could learn to manage other people and who I could trust. A surprising number of people were just not up to it. I only had that luxury because I paid more than others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> £12 per hour is roughly £24k per annum.... for selling popcorn?



No, £12 an hour is only "£24k per annum" if you're fortunate enough to be working a 40+ hour week.  Most of the Ritzy's employees aren't, and neither ae a significant minority of employees in the rest of the UK either.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 26, 2014)

I think everyone realises that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> 24k sounds like a fairly okay wage to live on. That's what we should focus on - is the salary enough to live on. If you think it's unfairly high compared to other jobs deemed as more skilled/more valuable to society then I suggest you also campaign to increase wages for those people, too.



It sounds great, but it's still about £7,000 a year under the average London f/t wage, and about £4,500 a year under the UK average f/t wage.
Also, if you take into account percentage expenditure net of tax and NI that goes on rent/mortgage payments, the average runs at more than 50% of net salary.
35 years ago, before a woman called Margaret dropped a large steaming turd on us, that figure was around 30-35%.  part of the difference resides in a massive loss of social housing, but the rest resides in the rapaciousness of the _rentiers_, playing on their knowledge that an economy falsely sustained by house price inflation won't take very many measures to increase supply even minimally.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I think everyone realises that



So why the disingenuous (bordering on idiotic) comment talking about eraning £24,000 a year for selling popcorn, you donkey?


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 26, 2014)

Because irrespective of whether they sell popcorn for 12 hours at £12 per hour or sell popcorn for 40 hours at £12 per hour, a lot of people (myself included) put salaries into perspective on an annual basis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yeah, sorry, i am being confusing - ive gone into this conversation reluctantly a bit, and so am dragging my feet and not expressing things too clearly... not sure this will be much better, but:
> 
> the £12per hour thing was to make a point that the reason you couldnt introduce a blanket £12 per hour min wage is the same why at the moment I think it would be wrong to introduce an £8.80 one, namely that its too high. Not too high because people dont deserve it, or dont need it, but because lots of small businesses couldnt pay it. The two main jobs i've had in the last 6 years, neither could, or can now, pay it. They would both have to close and i'd be out of a job. They can pay more than min wage though. I'd love them to pay more, but we can't afford it. And thats true for lots of small businesses.



The corollary to that is that your two employers are probably, through being unwable or unwilling to pay more, effectively having their businesses subsidised.
I'm aware that this is more complex than a simple "low wages get subsidised through in-work benefits" argument, and that businesses are forever being injuncted to diversify/open for longer hours/save money through "efficiencies", but the costs of those injunctions (if the employer heeds them) are rarely paid by the employer - they're paid by the employee who's expected to accept shitty T & Cs; ZHCs or part-time employment etc etc.



> So setting a min wage is partially based on what people need to live and also at what rate business can exist. The economy is (institutionally/politically) fucked so you cant please both sides.



The economy isn't, however, financially fucked, and the political and institutional arguments very often confuse what business *states* that it can afford, with what it can *actually* afford.
Sometimes the arguments are almost as fatuous as the rail companies who claim they can't afford to invest in their service and need larger subsidies, while paying out record-breaking dividends to their shareholders.



> Another example: a close relative of mine has gone to Norway to drive busses, to save for his retirement. Bus driving in Norway can be a well paid job on which you can even save up if you live within your means. A proper living wage. Scandinavian countries tend to have more equality between their top paid and lowest paid jobs - this is something that is clearly a good thing. But how do we get from where we are now in the UK to that point?



As things currently stand, with neoliberal capitalism standing as it does effectively outside of governance, we'll never get there.  That was pretty much part of the intent of accepting neoliberalism - to allow the boss class to act in such a way as to enrich itself at the expense of the working class (and increasingly, as they're finding out, the _bourgeoisie_ too).



> I have some inclinations on that, but im really not convinced its by upping the minimum wage - or crucially at least not on its own. Rather than pushing up from the bottom i think the key thing is to cap and squash down the top end, which includes top pay and top costs for things like rent. Without a ceiling, pushing up from the bottom wont work. Thats at least the jist of what im saying. Lots of business cant afford an 8.80 minimum wage. But then lots can - especially the multimillion pound businesses who not only have massive profits, but often employ on the lowest wages. A one-rule-for=all minimum wage of 8.80 may not work right now, but LLW should definitely be used to push on those, like Cineworld, who can afford it.



The only effective way under our current "democracy", is to push the struggle at both ends of the argument - to campaign for a "maximum wage" while also campaigning to raise the minimum wage toa "living" wage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Because irrespective of whether they sell popcorn for 12 hours at £12 per hour or sell popcorn for 40 hours at £12 per hour, a lot of people (myself included) put salaries into perspective on an annual basis.



And a lot of people, when they do so, acknowledge that such calculations are _pro rata_.  You didn't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The one thing I'd add to this, which I touched on above, is that making it compulsory for large businesses but not for small businesses might actually cause a problem for small businesses as large businesses would be able to cream off the hardest working / most capable people because their wages are higher. Alternatively - maybe they would contract out particular services (e.g. cleaning, running the bar) to small companies to avoid the higher wages.



The latter being far more likely than the former.



> In Norway - is there a cap on upper wages? What controls the wage gap?



Yes, they have a legislated upper cap of 15x  (IIRC) the lowest full-time salary that company pays. The limit itself effectively controls the wage gap, IYSWIM.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> The biggest difference is usually that the 'outsourced' staff are also no longer eligible for the pension scheme that the 'employer' has...



Companies have made (and are still making) attempts to get round TUPE agreements too, making any security that used to come with privatisation of a public service dubious to say the least.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And a lot of people, when they do so, acknowledge that such calculations are _pro rata_.  You didn't.



Apology accepted


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2014)

Ritzy will be on strike again on Thursday 1st May.

From their Facebook page:



> We have confirmed that our next strike date will be Thursday 1st May, International Workers' Day, from 6:30pm. Please help us get the message out by sharing this post!


----------



## existentialist (Apr 26, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I think everyone realises that


Well, TBF, you did do rather a good job of demonstrating the assumption that it wasn't the case.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The two main jobs i've had in the last 6 years, neither could, or can now, pay it. They would both have to close and i'd be out of a job. They can pay more than min wage though. I'd love them to pay more, but we can't afford it. And thats true for lots of small businesses.



What evidence did your previous employers produce to show you higher pay would mean they would close?

Small business types always say they cannot pay more in my experience.

They compete with each other. Which means they drive down costs. Then they tell you they cannot pay that much.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2014)

Good to see some Ritzy workers taking advantage of Hamlet's free admission offer today.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2014)

From the Ritzy FB page this photo of this weeks issue of Time Out.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2014)

If profit making companies (Cineworld makes over £30 billion) don't pay their staff a wage that they can afford to live on - *we all pay *as tax payers.. This Govt loves to talk about benefit scroungers - but negects to say big profitable businesses use the benefit system to subsidise their payroll in this way with tax credits/ working benefits for their workers - it is an outrage!

Years ago I used to have a very small business employing a few people - this was before min wage was introduced - but even I could afford to pay cleaner and admin staff quite a bit more than the minimum that came in a few years later. I realise that many small business struggle - but the Ritzy is not small or struggling. Neither is Tecos, or Amazon.

I now work for less for LLW in the care sector for a charity (long story.) My co workers, many of whom are on minimum wage, are struggling especially with the cost of housing in London, with benefits often making up the difference. I believe my employers when they say they can't pay us more - cash from local authority funding for care cost was frozen for several years - as were our wages, so all the wages here have got closer to minimum each year.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Next strike is Thurs 28th from 6.30pm, going on till 1st May.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/04/...l-1st-may-heres-our-alternative-travel-guide/


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 30, 2014)

Brilliant writer, journalist and Brixton local Will Self joined us on our picket lines during our last strike date. He really hit the nail on the head when it comes to low pay and the ‪#‎Solidarity‬ from the local community in Brixton.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=453415331461514&id=356850264451355

Via @RitzyLivingWage @bectu


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Brilliant writer, journalist and Brixton local Will Self joined us on our picket lines during our last strike date. He really hit the nail on the head when it comes to low pay and the ‪#‎Solidarity‬ from the local community in Brixton.
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=453415331461514&id=356850264451355
> 
> Via @RitzyLivingWage @bectu



Particularly good point he made about the difference between the form of appearance and the actual social relation. 

"all the mystifications of the capitalist mode of production...have as their basis the form of appearance..which makes the actual relation invisible."

(Marx,  Capital Volume 1)


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 1, 2014)

Nationwide Building Society brings Living Wage to the high street.
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/nationwide-brings-living-wage-high-street


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2014)

Mayday. Ritzy workers brave the rain.


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2014)

Statement from BECTU



> *Big business, small wages*
> In 2012 the Picturehouse chain was bought by Cineworld in a deal worth more than £47m which reportedly made senior executives substantial sums of money. This tie-up was followed soon after, in January 2014, by the merger of Cineworld with Cinema City International which operates venues in Poland, Israel, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia.
> 
> The Picturehouse chain is reportedly engaged in a substantial expansion programme.
> ...





> Workers at the Ritzy - where 85 per cent of union members voted in support of strike action - have taken three days of strike action this month (April).
> 
> On each of the three days management has abandoned any attempt to keep the venue open preferring to lose revenue rather than work to resolve the dispute.
> 
> ...


----------



## ska invita (May 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> What evidence did your previous employers produce to show you higher pay would mean they would close?
> 
> Small business types always say they cannot pay more in my experience.
> 
> They compete with each other. Which means they drive down costs. Then they tell you they cannot pay that much.


one job was a co-op which i was a "director" of (as were all staff members) and the second, where i am still employed, is under workers control- in both the staff in effect collectively do the accounts and set the wages ourselves. Its no fiddle, i promise you thats as much as can be afforded.
ms invita worked for a long time in a shop as an assistant, but ended up effectively manging it (though still on the assistant wage) - she got to know their accounts intimately too - similar situation there. through those leads ive gotten to know other small business and their situations... its not uncommon.

in all cases the amount of staff employed was less than was needed to do the work, so it wasn't a case of too many staff.
Rent is always the biggest drain, council business rates can also really sting.

I don't want to make big generalisations based on my own experiences but i was just trying to add a bit of shading to the discussion. it is well documented that one effect of this most recent crisis is that people have taken pay cuts rather than lose their jobs - i feel the same way about LLW - id rather have my job than not - though ive tried ive never been able to rise above my paygrade and at least im in work that i enjoy. I also work an occasional cash in hand job to supplement my wage and that is also not LLW, but again i know the situation of my employer and i know he'll pay me as much as he can for the value of the work.

Which is all an aside - great to see this strike still going strong


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2014)

The new merger between Cinema City and Cineworld. "A partial reverse takeover" as the Greidingers , who owned Cinema City have leading role after merger. 



> Cineworld had been privately held by the Blackstone Group, who bought it in 2004, then took it public with an IPO in 2007, with the company going on the market then at only about half the price which its shares command today. Blackstone then sold their entire interest later in 2010.



Blackstones "Asset Managers" also known as "Shadow Banking". Shadow Bankers played big role in the recent Banking crisis. They are unregulated. Buying an asset and selling it off is typical Blackstone behaviour. 



> Cineworld shares closed at US$7.30 per share (445 pence per share) on Friday, on the London Stock Exchange, up 13% on the news of both the acquisition and the rights offering. This is doubly impressive, as both kinds of transaction can sometimes have the opposite effect on a company’s shares. With almost exactly 150 million shares outstanding this now currently values Cineworld itself before the deal closes at over US$1.1 billion (£670 million). Cineworld had been privately held by the Blackstone Group, who bought it in 2004, then took it public with an IPO in 2007, with the company going on the market then at only about half the price which its shares command today. Blackstone then sold their entire interest later in 2010.
> 
> 48 million shares will be issued by Cineworld under the new rights offering and, in order to give the Cinema City shareholders their 24.9% holding under the deal even after the dilution of the rights offering, a total of 65.5 million shares will be issued to them at closing. Thus once all the dust settles from both transactions there will ultimately then be a total of 263.5 million Cineworld shares outstanding. Hence, if the Cineworld share price continues to hold up at somewhere near its Friday close, the market capitalization of the company’s shares post-acquisition, and post-rights offering, could be as high as about US$1.9 billion (£1.17 billion).


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2014)

ska invita said:


> . it is well documented that one effect of this most recent crisis is that people have taken pay cuts rather than lose their jobs - i feel the same way about LLW



Yes I know. Its not good. The Bankers are still awarding themselves big bonuses and the ordinary person is expected to take pay cut. We are not all in it it together. 

Pay cut or no job is not a choice. 

Employers are not there to look after workers interests.


----------



## editor (May 2, 2014)

The Albert was packed full of Ritzy workers last night. I'm miffed I missed their picket yesterday - they said that they were joined by striking teachers and they went on a walkabout around Brixton in a show off solidarity. Anyone get any pics?


----------



## colacubes (May 2, 2014)

I was in Clapham last night and there was also a picket outside the Picturehouse there


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2014)

editor said:


> The Albert was packed full of Ritzy workers last night. I'm miffed I missed their picket yesterday - they said that they were joined by striking teachers and they went on a walkabout around Brixton in a show off solidarity. Anyone get any pics?



Have not got pics of the walkabout. But have pics of picket in post#250 u can use if u want.


----------



## editor (May 3, 2014)

Some great pics (and report) now up on B Buzz:











http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/05/...ite-and-march-to-clapham-picturehouse-photos/


----------



## editor (May 21, 2014)

Update:  Brixton Ritzy staff continue their strike action and take the fight to Hackney – photo report


----------



## Sue (May 22, 2014)

Had no idea about this but ended up at the Hackney Picturehouse earlier -- friend of a friend works at the Ritzy so a few of us locals went along to give our support. 

A good number of people there, making a lot of noise.  Apparently the HPH staff had been told they'd be sacked if they went outside/got involved.   Went for a few drinks after and seems the Ritzy lot have been round and about at various venues... Good luck to them. Will be sending a member for years outraged email tomorrow.  (Asked and was suggested that was the best thing to do in support at the moment.)


----------



## Sue (May 22, 2014)

They'd moved a q &a with Steve Coogan there from the Ritzy due to the evil striking workers potentially disrupting things so the evil striking Ritzy workers headed to Hackney to spread the love instead...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 22, 2014)

Well done the protestors and strikers. I don't live in the area but support your campaign whole heartedly.


----------



## andrewdroid (May 25, 2014)

If your on Farcebook they have a page for updates here
*A Living Wage for Ritzy Staff*
*and a twitter feed **@RitzyLivingWage* 
*appoligies if these were mentioned before *


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2014)

Ritzy staff will be on strike this Saturday.

From their FB:



> We have confirmed that our next Strike Date will be this Saturday 7th June from 6am to 3am on Sunday 8th June. We will be picketing outside The Ritzy from about 10am and hope to see you there.
> 
> We are hugely disappointed by the massive breach of trust with Picturehouse Cinemas this week, who pulled out of peace talks at the last minute and have imposed a pay rise of 29p per hour for most Ritzy Workers that will keep our pay below the poverty line in London.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2014)

They also have new email letter petition:

Here


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2014)

Statement from BECTU

Looks like they are asking for boycott of the cinema. Will need to ask Ritzy staff if that is want they want.



> Industrial action is resumed at Brixton cinema as management cancel peace talks.
> 
> 
> BECTU members at the Brixton Ritzy Cinema are now due to go on strike from 6.00 a.m. on Saturday 7th June following a shock decision by management to pull out of talks about the London Living Wage.
> ...


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 7, 2014)

*Luke Massey*@luke_mas
Amazing to see Eric Cantona supporting the @RitzyLivingWage strikers! Image by @philjoneswired. pic.twitter.com/RcLrkPMtEW





9:34pm · 7 Jun 2014 · Twitter for Android


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> *Luke Massey*@luke_mas
> Amazing to see Eric Cantona supporting the @RitzyLivingWage strikers! Image by @philjoneswired. pic.twitter.com/RcLrkPMtEW
> 
> 
> ...


Man's a legend.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 8, 2014)

*York SWP*@SWPYork
#OohAhh #Cantona joins @RitzyLivingWage protest #solidarity pic.twitter.com/fvYpS1RMPp





12:22am · 8 Jun 2014 · Twitter for iPhone


----------



## JTG (Jun 8, 2014)

editor said:


> Man's a legend.


He is not a man. He is Cantona


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 8, 2014)

Stateside proof that the workers can win.

Last Monday, the mayor of Seattle signed into law a city-wide minimum wage of $15 (£8.90) an hour. It will be phased in over the next three to seven years, but nonetheless it remains a path-breaking commitment. More amazingly, Kshama Sawant, Seattle's first socialist councillor since 1916, had been elected last year with the $15 wage as her key pledge .
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/07/seattle-minimum-wage-fifteen-dollars-fight


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2014)

Eric Cantona is a blooming star!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2014)

Fozzie Bear brought up issue of boycott on the Free Entry to a film thread.

I messaged Ritzy on FB and they came back to say that their position has changed now that Cineworld/ Picturehouse have pulled out of talks and imposed a 4% pay rise.

*Ritzy workers are now calling for a boycott of Picturehouse cinemas.*


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2014)

From Ritzy FB page:



> Our next strike will be on Saturday 21st June 2014 all day. We're planning a full programme of activities and events so come and join us on Windrush Square.
> 
> Anyone who would like to help us put on activities or entertainment please do get in touch on here or by emailing ritzylivingwage@gmail.com with details.



They are now on Twitter:



> https://twitter.com/RitzyLivingWage
> Are you following us on Twitter yet? Please do and PLEASE tweet about us regularly to your followers!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2014)

Might have been posted before but here is sample email to send to owners of Picturehouse/ Cineworld. Its easy to do from that link.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2014)

Recent article from Brixton Buzz on Ritzy workers meeting with GLA members. 


> Fiona Twycross AM, London Assembly Labour Group Economy Spokesperson, said:
> 
> “The Mayor must do more to increase the take up of the voluntary London Living Wage, which is set at the higher rate of £8.80 an hour. At the current rate of take up by employers it will take 425 years for all Londoners to receive a decent days pay for work.’’





> Twycross also added that despite Johnson positioning himself as a champion for employers paying their staff the LLW, the most recent London Poverty Profile found that 600,000 jobs in London were paid less than the LLW in 2012 (17% of all jobs), compared to 420,000 in 2007 (13%) prior to Boris Johnson’s election.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2014)

From Ritzy FB page a good article here



> The Labour party recently conducted a survey of 2,200 people across London which discovered that two-thirds of low-income City workers feel they have witnessed their standard of living decline in the past three years.



Sounds about right to me from what Ive seen happening since the recession started.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2014)

A few pics from Saturdays strike. As usual the cinema was closed.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2014)

They've voted to continue their strike. Up the workers!
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/06/...ir-industrial-action-next-strike-on-6th-july/

Next action is on the 6th July.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 27, 2014)

How longs it been going on now? Seems like a long time


----------



## dbs1fan (Jun 28, 2014)

I've been told that a Living Wage for Ritzy staff banner has been spotted at Glasto


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2014)

dbs1fan said:


> I've been told that a Living Wage for Ritzy staff banner has been spotted at Glasto



From  Ritzy FB when Dolly was onstage.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2014)

Did I imagine it or has this spread throughout picturehouse venues?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2014)

Article in Observer today. 



> It began with small demonstrations outside the sort of London cinemas that serve a diet of arthouse titles and gourmet popcorn to a sophisticated urban audience. Now, following a series of strikes and public protests, the drive to raise low rates of pay for staff in arts venues has grown into a movement that threatens to alter the way they are run across the capital and beyond.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> From  Ritzy FB when Dolly was onstage.


That's ace!


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Article in Observer today.


Nice reader comment: 


> There was a solidarity protest/picket & leafleting outside FACT in Liverpool (which houses a Picturehouse branch) this afternoon. A number of would-be cinema-goers, when informed about what was going on, didn't cross the picket line - while a few actually went into the building to inform staff why they would not be buying a cinema ticket that day.


I think it's brilliant what the Ritzy staff (and others) are doing. Oh, and there's a benefit coming up soon - I'll post up more later.


----------



## gabi (Jun 30, 2014)

There's nothing ace about flags at festivals, whatever the cause.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

gabi said:


> There's nothing ace about flags at festivals, whatever the cause.


Thanks for your opinion on the matter, which I shall duly ignore.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 30, 2014)

What do we think of people posting events on here that are at The Ritzy?

I think we should support the boycott by not allowing them?


----------



## gabi (Jun 30, 2014)

editor said:


> Thanks for your opinion on the matter, which I shall duly ignore.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 30, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> What do we think of people posting events on here that are at The Ritzy?
> 
> I think we should support the boycott by not allowing them?



For example this: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...a-fire-upstairs-at-the-ritzy-july-6th.325143/


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> For example this: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...a-fire-upstairs-at-the-ritzy-july-6th.325143/


Although I'm fully supporting the boycott and will make efforts to promote it as much as I can, I don't think it's appropriate to start censoring what people can post in the Noticeboard forum.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 30, 2014)

editor said:


> Although I'm fully supporting the boycott and will make efforts to promote it as much as I can, I don't think it's appropriate to start censoring what people can post in the Noticeboard forum.



OK, but surely there are already criteria for what can and cannot be posted there?

I think it would be a fantastic message to be able to say that Urban 75 supports the boycott in that way.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OK, but surely there are already criteria for what can and cannot be posted there?
> 
> I think it would be a fantastic message to be able to say that Urban 75 supports the boycott in that way.


Feels a bit like a slippery slope to me, to be honest. I've now written about 8 supportive articles on B Buzz about the strike and in every one added that we fully support the strike - and we have already done a night for them at Offline, with more to possibly come.


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2014)

Supporting a well publicised boycott is not a slippery slope.

Allowing the promotion of events at that venue actually undermines the boycott and IS a slippery slope.


----------



## gabi (Jun 30, 2014)

It does seem a tad hypocritical to publish articles urging people to boycott a venue while simultaneously having advertising up for their events


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

gabi said:


> It does seem a tad hypocritical to publish articles urging people to boycott a venue while simultaneously having advertising up for their events


Thanks for your opinion on the matter, but it would be even more hypocritical if I started censoring posts based on my own personal likes and dislikes. It's up to people whether they want to join in with the boycott or not.  

Have you asked the staff whether they're also against the bands playing the venue?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 30, 2014)

I think the staff have made it clear that they want the venue boycotted. I.e. they do not want people to attend the venue.

You can help with this by not allowing events at the venue to be publicised on your forum.

As the main moderator of a thriving online community with strong associations with Brixton, you can play a key role in this.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> As the main moderator of a thriving online community with strong associations with Brixton, you can play a key role in this.


For clarity: it's not "my" forum and I am not the "main moderator."


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 30, 2014)

Lyn Goleby, the managing director of Picturehouse: "However, we cannot predict the future levels of the London Living Wage and we cannot build a business plan around a rate that is not within our ability to forecast."

Absolute nonsense. The LLW isn't a made-up number, it's established and uprated updated using impeccable cost of living data which is broadly similar to RPI but more nuanced. And salary levels are one of the most variable elements of business planning  because it only takes a couple of months spent understaffed or a slightly more expensive replacement in a key role to throw the numbers out of whack - therefore, it's one of the levers you're most likely to pull if revenue suffers, simply by delaying headcount replacement. The idea that long-term business planning could suffer because of a few percentage points variability in minimum staff costs is unsupportable.

Who advises this woman? She'd be much better off claiming that wages are kept as low as possible so that the business can support more staff than it technically should be able to employ, and to offer more opportunities in the exciting world of cinema to the thousands of young people who demand jobs with her so that they can benefit from admission to free films and discounted cakes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 30, 2014)

editor said:


> For clarity: it's not "my" forum and I am not the "main moderator."



OK

I think the staff have made it clear that they want the venue boycotted. I.e. they do not want people to attend the venue.

You can help with this by not allowing events at the venue to be publicised on [your] this forum.

As [the main] a moderator of a thriving online community with strong associations with Brixton, you can play a key role in this.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

There's going to be a benefit at the Grosvenor on Sat 12th July for the Ritzy workers. I hope you'll all be able to come along and throw in a few quid.

I'll post up more details later today.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OK
> 
> I think the staff have made it clear that they want the venue boycotted. I.e. they do not want people to attend the venue.
> 
> ...


I'm talking to them directly and have explained the situation to them. I will act based on what _they_ say.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 30, 2014)

editor said:


> There's going to be a benefit at the Grosvenor on Sat 12th July for the Ritzy workers. I hope you'll be able to come along and throw in a few quid.
> 
> I'll post up more details.



Edited because it was crossposted with your post above. Thanks for that.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OK, but surely there are already criteria for what can and cannot be posted there?
> 
> I think it would be a fantastic message to be able to say that Urban 75 supports the boycott in that way.


Seems to me that Urban would not prevent anyone from following up to a thread advertising an event at the Ritzy to suggest that the *event* be boycotted.

And that has several advantages. One, nobody can accuse Urban (or the editor) of censorship or oppressive behaviour; two, every advert for a Ritzy event represents another opportunity for the issues at stake to be discussed. I presume the threads (and links) are indexed by Google, and this thus provides yet more material out there on the 'net to support the strikers' case.

Banning ads from the Ritzy simply on the basis that editor is a supporter of the employees' strike action might actually minimise the value of his stand and that of other Urbanites, IMO.


----------



## cesare (Jun 30, 2014)

Can we have a "boycott the Ritzy" button or smilie please?


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

The Ritzy workers have told me that they don't want anything banned or censored from the urban75 forums because, "it's not the local promoters and bands we want to hit really."


----------



## Ms T (Jul 1, 2014)

I wish I'd read about the boycott before I renewed my bloody membership the other day.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 1, 2014)

editor said:


> The Ritzy workers have told me that they don't want anything banned or censored from the urban75 forums because, "it's not the local promoters and bands we want to hit really."




OK nice one.


----------



## Winot (Jul 1, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I wish I'd read about the boycott before I renewed my bloody membership the other day.



Did you renew it online in the last 7 days? If so you might be able to cancel and get your money back under distance selling regulations. 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regulations


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2014)

Benefit at the Grosvenor on the 12th.







http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/ritzy-workers-strike-benefit-at-the-grosvenor-sat-12th-july/


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 2, 2014)

I don't think I ever anticipated seeing those two on a bill together!


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2014)

I'm currently trying to get some more acts together and make it an even more interesting bill!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OK, but surely there are already criteria for what can and cannot be posted there?
> 
> I think it would be a fantastic message to be able to say that Urban 75 supports the boycott in that way.



Urban75 is not a single group. People hold different opinions. 

If you read this thread you will find that there are a variety of opinions on the benefits or not of LLW.

I am supporting the Ritzy boycott. I do not have a problem with someone posting up an event on the Brixton noticeboard. You can choose not to go.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Urban75 is not a single group. People hold different opinions.
> 
> If you read this thread you will find that there are a variety of opinions on the benefits or not of LLW.
> 
> I am supporting the Ritzy boycott. I do not have a problem with someone posting up an event on the Brixton noticeboard. You can choose not to go.


I don't use the cinema much, but I used to regularly have meetings in the cafe and sometimes grab a beer there. I won't be going while the boycott is active.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't use the cinema much, but I used to regularly have meetings in the cafe and sometimes grab a beer there. I won't be going while the boycott is active.



I am suffering for the cause.

I went to the Rio in Dalston a few weeks ago. Slightly cheaper the Ritzy. For some reason costs the same to get there as going to West End and its quick using the overhead train link from Highbury.

Rio is like stepping back in time to the old rep cinemas like the Scala. Which I like. When I first got into film it was partly because it was cheap.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Lyn Goleby, the managing director of Picturehouse: "However, we cannot predict the future levels of the London Living Wage and we cannot build a business plan around a rate that is not within our ability to forecast."



She is also assuming that the management can set wage rates without any opposition from the staff.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Lyn Goleby, the managing director of Picturehouse: "However, we cannot predict the future levels of the London Living Wage and we cannot build a business plan around a rate that is not within our ability to forecast."



Looked her up and she made herself a multimillionaire out of the merger of Picturehouse and Cineworld.




> Cineworld has snapped up the arthouse cinema chain Picturehouse, owner of the Ritzy cinema in south London and the Phoenix in Oxford, in a deal worth £47.3m.
> 
> The deal – which will make Picturehouse's co-founder Lyn Goleby a multimillionaire





"Business plans" often work in favour of the bosses not the workers.


----------



## JTG (Jul 4, 2014)

dbs1fan said:


> I've been told that a Living Wage for Ritzy staff banner has been spotted at Glasto


I saw tshirts and the long drops were stickered


----------



## colacubes (Jul 4, 2014)

JTG said:


> I saw tshirts and the long drops were stickered



I saw the man with the flag by the cider bus and gave him a solidarity hug  I'm sure he appreciated it 

I'm pretty sure he works there as I recognised him.

I may make a trip to the Rio over the weekend on your recommendation Gramsci


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Urban75 is not a single group. People hold different opinions.
> 
> If you read this thread you will find that there are a variety of opinions on the benefits or not of LLW.
> 
> I am supporting the Ritzy boycott. I do not have a problem with someone posting up an event on the Brixton noticeboard. You can choose not to go.



I think the point is to have the discussion, which we have done quite well here. Ultimately what the Ritzy workers want is what I will support and I am grateful to editor for taking the time to ask them.

(Glad you like the Rio, btw - I am a member. Shame they have no cats tho...)


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2014)

Just posted: Want to support the striking Brixton Ritzy workers? Here’s how…

You can donate via PayPal.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 4, 2014)

editor said:


> Just posted: Want to support the striking Brixton Ritzy workers? Here’s how…
> 
> You can donate via PayPal.



That's cool but I get an error when I click on the "You can also donate to the Ritzy fighting fund here." link?


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> That's cool but I get an error when I click on the "You can also donate to the Ritzy fighting fund here." link?


Cheers for the heads up - I've fixed it. I'd posted in the URL after I'd donated.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 4, 2014)

editor said:


> Cheers for the heads up - I've fixed it. I'd posted in the URL after I'd donated.



Sorry to be a monumental pain, but clicking on that link has now changed from an error at the paypal site, to an error at the Brixton buzz site.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Sorry to be a monumental pain, but clicking on that link has now changed from an error at the paypal site, to an error at the Brixton buzz site.


What the... let me try again!  OK, there was a http that had gone walkabout.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 4, 2014)

editor said:


> What the... let me try again!  OK, there was a http that had gone walkabout.



All good now, I have donated!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2014)

Ritzy workers launch boycott of Picturehouse cinemas today


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2014)




----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2014)

From Ritzy workers FB page:



> Today marks the official boycott of all Picturehouse Cinemas . Please support the Ritzy Living Wage campaign by not spending any money at any of their cinema's until they step up and value their staff. Thank you for all your continued support. It's driving us forward !!!!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2014)

Just had another go with the photos above. Hopefully they should stay up now.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Just had another go with the photos above. Hopefully they should stay up now.


Do you mind if I add one of them to the feature I'm posting on B Buzz tomorrow? Be good to publicise this boycott far and wide


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2014)

editor said:


> Do you mind if I add one of them to the feature I'm posting on B Buzz tomorrow? Be good to publicise this boycott far and wide



That fine by me.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2014)

The boycott is on!
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...call-for-boycott-of-all-picturehouse-cinemas/


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2014)

editor said:


> The boycott is on!
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...call-for-boycott-of-all-picturehouse-cinemas/



Could you do a C&P of this ed? 
My work firewall does not approve of brixtonbuzz.com for some annoying reason


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2014)

Badgers said:


> Could you do a C&P of this ed?
> My work firewall does not approve of brixtonbuzz.com for some annoying reason


In short: don't spend your money at any Picturehouse cinema until the pay dispute is resolved!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2014)

editor said:


> In short: don't spend your money at any Picturehouse cinema until the pay dispute is resolved!


----------



## thriller (Jul 7, 2014)

editor said:


> The boycott is on!
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...call-for-boycott-of-all-picturehouse-cinemas/



whoever took this pic shouldn't be allowed near a camera.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> whoever took this pic shouldn't be allowed near a camera.


Great to see you focusing on the issues that matter here.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> whoever took this pic shouldn't be allowed near a camera.


I quite often feel the same way about you and the Internet.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 9, 2014)

they were just on c4 news


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2014)

Don't forget that there's a benefit at the Grosvenor on Saturday for the workers. 
Ritzy workers strike benefit at the Grosvenor, Sat 12th July


----------



## heinous seamus (Jul 11, 2014)

editor said:


> Don't forget that there's a benefit at the Grosvenor on Saturday for the workers.
> Ritzy workers strike benefit at the Grosvenor, Sat 12th July



Could be worth its own thread in the protest forum? I hope they get a great turnout, they seem well up for it


----------



## t0bytoo (Jul 11, 2014)

A fee weeks ago I was went to see a film festival screening at the hackney picture house. There were a couple of ritzy workers outside suggesting a boycott.

I got into a bit of a Barney with them. Me saying that I wanted to see the film and it wasn't on anywhere else. I can't remember what they said but I spent the next couple of hours a little confused. Should I support a boycott? Or should I just ignore these annoying people telling me what to do.

Coming out of the cinema, the whole singing troupe was assembled, banging drums, etc. The 'living wage' tune stayed in my head for the next few days.

What's my point? Well I initially thought the strikers were just there to annoy somebody else. But then the penny dropped. Oh. They're talking to me. An avid cinemagoer. I kinda gotta support this boycott.

So I will. And it'll probably be made easier by the current  batch of shoddy new releases. Except 'boyhood', my film of the year, which could be very tempting for a potential strike breaker. But I saw that last week..


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2014)

Prizes are needed for the Ritzy benefit tomorrow! can you donate? 

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...idents-to-donate-prizes-for-their-fundraiser/


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jul 11, 2014)

editor said:


> Prizes are needed for the Ritzy benefit tomorrow! can you donate?
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...idents-to-donate-prizes-for-their-fundraiser/



Would like to offer a voucher from me shop or something, of that's any use?


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Would like to offer a voucher from me shop or something, of that's any use?


Anything would be good! This is what we've got so far:

2 x Tickets to the C Palace pre-season game on 29th from Dulwich Hamlet
1 x adult ticket for the Green Gathering
1 x t-shirt and latest CD from Alabama 3
4 x Brixton Buzz Beers
1 x banjo
1 x signed print Ken Loach
1 x Framed Brixton £ Bowie £10 note
1 x £10 beer and food voucher from local pub


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2014)

t0bytoo said:


> So I will. And it'll probably be made easier by the current  batch of shoddy new releases. Except 'boyhood', my film of the year, which could be very tempting for a potential strike breaker. But I saw that last week..



Rio cinema is worth checking out for new releases. Boyhood is on there this week.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 11, 2014)

mildly sympathetic article in the business section of the evening (sub) standard today - it also refers to the annual reports / accounts which have just been published



> *Things are Ritzy, but not for staff*
> 
> Annual accounts for boutique movie chain Picturehouse Cinemas have landed at Companies House, and what a happy picture they show.
> 
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Jul 11, 2014)

I constantly remember the amount of public money poured into the Ritzy to multiplex it (and for the associated MHT social housing which justified the expense). Here is an article from "Brixton Challenger" - PR sheet for regeneration in those days.
I reckon total cost in today's money might might have been £35 million.
Funny how these things migrate into the private sector and lose touch with their roots. The "Little Bit Ritzy" was a co-op in the beginning.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2014)

The list is slowly growing!

2 x Tickets to the C Palace pre-season game on 29th from Dulwich Hamlet
1 x adult ticket for the Green Gathering
1 x t-shirt and latest CD from Alabama 3
4 x Brixton Buzz Beers
1 x banjo
1 x signed print Ken Loach
1 x Framed Brixton £ Bowie £10 note
1 x £10 beer and food voucher from local pub
1 x  £20 studio 73 voucher, redeemable against prints, cards, artwork and/or framing


----------



## heinous seamus (Jul 12, 2014)

Strike fund here for those of us who can't make it tonight!

www.ritzylivingwage.org/donate


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2014)

There's been a brilliant response from local businesses, with the Albert, Lounge, Kaff and Dogstar all offering prizes.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2014)

Is the pub offering a tenner the Albert?


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jul 13, 2014)

A+ fundraiser party, hanging like a good 'un today.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2014)

The fundraiser went really well - over a grand was raised. 






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...t-the-stockwell-grosvenor-raises-over-a-1000/


There's a mass picket called to support the Ritzy workers this Sunday 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/...test-against-strikebreaking-sunday-20th-july/


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2014)

Article in Evening Standard



> Low wages and, in some cases, zero-hours contracts with no guaranteed work have been the norm for too long in the cinema industry — even though UK box-office revenues rose for 10 years in a row, hitting a record £1.1 billion in 2012, before slipping 1% last year


.

Low wages and poor conditions of work are increasingly the norm across different industries.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2014)

More on the mass picket on Sunday from Ritzy FB



> On Sunday from 4:30pm The Ritzy workers are striking for the 11th time and have chosen this time because Picturehouse Cinemas are live-streaming Monty Python Live from the O2.
> 
> For the first time the company have decided to try and keep the cinema open and strike break.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2014)

I'll be there!


----------



## leanderman (Jul 19, 2014)

Would be interested in the historical tax records of the Pythons.


----------



## pesh (Jul 19, 2014)

From their facebook page


> "Whatever you do don't go to the Ritzy Cinema to see the Python O2 Show Live - the staff are going on strike - they are protesting they are not getting the London Living Wage."
> 
> Terry Jones, Monty Python
> 
> We're delighted to get this support from one of the real legends of British Comedy, another weekend of terrible PR ahead for Picturehouse Cinemas. If only there was something they could do to avoid it. Oh, wait...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2014)

Also from Ritzy FB


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2014)

Photos from today's action:

















http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/07/brixton-ritzy-workers-stage-protest-in-windrush-square-photos/


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

To add to Eds photos.

Picturehouse barricaded the Ritzy. This was mistake by Picturehouse. If they had left it open it would have been more difficult to picket and was off putting to anyone who turned up to Ritzy imo.  They also had more security staff. Who became heavy handed later on. Its a statement by Picturehouse that they are taking the dispute to a more confrontational level.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

Good atmosphere created by the drummers. Party time.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

Decorative hoarding courtesy of Picturehouse


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

The Plod turn up to support the workers


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

Just in case revolution starts several vans of cops on standby.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

Back to party. Eric Cantona turned up


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

I do love Brixton. As one of the Ritzy workers said down the pub afterwards this aspect of Brixon is (potentially) fast disappearing. 

I was glad I went. I managed to persuade a few people not to go into the Ritzy. A lot of people turning up were sympathetic. They knew about the dispute but did not know about the boycott. 

We were asking people to go in and get a refund. Which appears that Ritzy was giving people. 

The strike today was heartening in the level of support it got. Also thanks to the many people who did not go into Ritzy when asked.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I do love Brixton. As one of the Ritzy workers said down the pub afterwards this aspect of Brixon is (potentially) fast disappearing.
> 
> I was glad I went. I managed to persuade a few people not to go into the Ritzy. A lot of people turning up were sympathetic. They knew about the dispute but did not know about the boycott.
> 
> ...



I'm loving the fact that this strike is happening and I have got massive respect for the Ritzy workers and the shockwaves they might be creating.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm loving the fact that this strike is happening and I have got massive respect for the Ritzy workers and the shockwaves they might be creating.



BECTU, the Ritzy workers union, have been giving the Ritzy staff a lot of support in this dispute. BECTU also deserve credit as well for taking up issue of Living Wage.

You can use any of the photos for Brixton Buzz if u want.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2014)

Interesting to see one of the uglier responses to growing calls for a living wage in the US:
San Francisco campaign threatens workers with redundancy if they demand a living wage


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jul 21, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Decorative hoarding courtesy of Picturehouse



Love that the hoarding is a handy list of other Picturehouses to boycott


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 21, 2014)

I wondered why all the hoarding was there. Bit sad when a company feels the need to raise the barricades. I think they've shot themselves in the foot there


Gramsci said:


> Also from Ritzy FB





Good luck to all workers trying to get living wage.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Love that the hoarding is a handy list of other Picturehouses to boycott



Independent article on yesterdays strike quotes the manager of Ritzy:



> The Ritzy was last night hidden behind metal screens erected, in the words of a grim-faced manager, “to make for a more comfortable experience for our customers”.


 

Did make me laugh. I wonder which management clown in Picturehouse dreamed up that idea. Lyn Goleby maybe? What an idiot.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 21, 2014)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Love that the hoarding is a handy list of other Picturehouses to boycott


Are all picture house staff on strike or is it just the Ritzy?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Are all picture house staff on strike or is it just the Ritzy?



Its just the Ritzy.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 21, 2014)

Looks like they're treading a fine line between protesting and blockading!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 21, 2014)

I've got a Ritzy membership. It was a special offer and expires August - I think I've got one or two free tickets on it yet, which I can ill afford to waste, but I won't cross a picket line. 

If Ritzy management doesn't see sense soon I may have to give it back in protest . . .


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2014)

The Ritzy looked like it was under siege on Sunday night.


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2014)

Great to see the strike picking up national coverage (even if most of the comments are the usual depressing fare)






http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ers-striking-for-the-living-wage-9617566.html


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2014)

There's been a pretty substantial breakthrough: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...use-produce-breakthrough-on-the-ritzy-strike/


----------



## Rushy (Aug 1, 2014)

Well good on them. 

I had understood that a rise to LLW over a period of 18 months - 2 years had been offered quite early on. Or am I imagining that?


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Well good on them.
> 
> I had understood that a rise to LLW over a period of 18 months - 2 years had been offered quite early on. Or am I imagining that?


I don't recall Picturehouse ever offering such a deal. This deal has also been futureproofed to ensure that it will reach parity should the LLW increase next year.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 1, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't recall Picturehouse ever offering such a deal. This deal has also been futureproofed to ensure that it will reach parity should the LLW increase next year.


There was an early offer of a rise over a period - do you remember what it was? I seem to recall linkage was the key argument for BECTU.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 1, 2014)

Great stuff!


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 1, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Independent article on yesterdays strike quotes the manager of Ritzy:
> 
> 
> 
> Did make me laugh. I wonder which management clown in Picturehouse dreamed up that idea. Lyn Goleby maybe? What an idiot.




Much better to sit looking at a metal wall than look onto people drumming and dancing in the sun, oh yes.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 1, 2014)

editor said:


> There's been a pretty substantial breakthrough: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...use-produce-breakthrough-on-the-ritzy-strike/


about bloody time!


----------



## Effrasurfer (Aug 1, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> about bloody time!


Woohoo! Does that mean we can stop boycotting the Ritzy?


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

Effrasurfer said:


> Woohoo! Does that mean we can stop boycotting the Ritzy?


Not quite yet, but the union is recommending that the workers go with the deal.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

Effrasurfer said:


> Woohoo! Does that mean we can stop boycotting the Ritzy?



The Bectu statement ( see link on Brixton Buzz article) says boycott can stop. 



> Efforts to promote a boycott of Picturehouse venues across the UK will now be suspended,


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Bectu statement ( see link on Brixton Buzz article) says boycott can stop.


Ah, OK. I still probably won't go though till the deal is signed.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah, OK. I still probably won't go though till the deal is signed.



I read  the Bectu statement as saying that its only suspended pending a vote by Ritzy staff agreeing to deal.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

Rushy said:


> There was an early offer of a rise over a period - do you remember what it was? I seem to recall linkage was the key argument for BECTU.



It was:



> We offered a package that would have increased wages by 21.5% over 20 months but this has been turned down.



I agree that linkage to LLW was the key issue for BECTU. 

Reading the BECTU statement again I do not see that Picturehouse have agreed to be a Living Wage employer. The words used are:



> Picturehouse acknowledged that the offer fell short of the union's aims, but promised to cooperate with the union on "a *journey of delivery towards higher pay*".



Also:



> BECTU general secretary Gerry Morrissey, who led the ACAS union team, said: "This is a very welcome move by the company, and although it's not completely what we wanted, we are two thirds of the way there. The last third will depend on Picturehouse recognising the contribution made by staff, and their determined commitment to win the London Living Wage in 2016".


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

I am trying to understand the deal. Can anyone explain what the supplement means:



> Talks at ACAS, which ran until 3am on 31 July, produced a new offer from Picturehouse which fell short of immediately conceding the London Living Wage of £8.80 per hour, but laid out a calendar to pay this rate to all staff on main grades by September 2015.
> 
> Central to the new offer is *a supplement of 80p per hour* which will be paid on time worked, holiday entitlement, sickness absence, and will count towards pension contributions.
> 
> Including this supplement, staff are being offered an immediate pay increase from £7.35 per hour to £8.00, back-dated to October 2013, and supervisors will retain their differential of 50p per hour. On 5 September this will rise to £8.20 per hour, followed by a further increase to £8.40 per hour on 2 January 2015. The final rise to £8.80 will take place on 4 September 2015.



The deal is backdated which is a good result for the Ritzy workers.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Reading the BECTU statement again I do not see that Picturehouse have agreed to be a Living Wage employer.


No, they haven't. But they are 'on a journey' which involves them paying their staff more with the ultimate union destination being that of Picturehouse matching the London living wage.

There's no guarantee that the workers will reach that destination mind, but they will be still be a fair bit better off with the option to call more action if they feel that they aren't progressing along that route at a reasonable rate.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> No, they haven't. But they are 'on a journey' which involves them paying their staff more with the ultimate union destination being that of Picturehouse matching the London living wage.
> 
> There's no guarantee that the workers will reach that destination mind, but they will be still be a fair bit better off with the option to call more action if they feel that they aren't progressing along that route.



Thats how I read it as well. BECTU have also got agreement to further talks as part of the deal. The backdating of this deal and agreement by Picturehouse to further talks at a later date are a good result. My view is that the fiasco of the Monty Python screening made Picturehouse mge think again. 



> To take account of the likely increase in the LLW, probably in November 2014, negotiators built in further set of pay talks in June 2016 aimed at a two-year settlement with a guaranteed minimum rise to £9.10 an hour.



Not sure if the date of 2016 is right. Surely should be 2015?


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

Right on cue: Brixton Ritzy workers release statement regarding recent talks with Picturehouse


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Bectu statement ( see link on Brixton Buzz article) says boycott can stop.



Excellent - I want to see Boyhood (obv. the breakthrough is more important than the inconvenience to me, but still).


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2014)

Ooh! Big news coming in! Just waiting for the official statement.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Ooh! Big news coming in! Just waiting for the official statement.



Brixton Blog reporting that staff voted against the pay offer.

https://m.facebook.com/RitzyLivingWage


----------



## ska invita (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Brixton Blog reporting that staff voted against the pay offer.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/RitzyLivingWage





> Yesterday the ballot to determine whether BECTU members at The Ritzy would accept or reject the offer that was achieved by our negotiating team at ACAS last month closed.
> BECTU members at The Ritzy have voted by a slim majority to reject the offer.
> We would like to make clear that this should not be interpreted as a sign that we are in any sense divided. Nor does it indicate that a large minority of our members viewed this as a good deal that is worth accepting.
> Over the last four weeks we have discussed the offer and all the implications of accepting or rejecting it in full at two full BECTU members' meetings and during lengthy discussion via email and face to face amongst ourselves.
> ...


it sounds from that like the offer was below the LLW, anyone know what was offered?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 27, 2014)

ska invita said:


> it sounds from that like the offer was below the LLW, anyone know what was offered?





> Talks at ACAS, which ran until 3am on 31 July, produced a new offer from Picturehouse which fell short of immediately conceding the London Living Wage of £8.80 per hour, but laid out a calendar to pay this rate to all staff on main grades by September 2015.
> 
> Central to the new offer is a supplement of 80p per hour which will be paid on time worked, holiday entitlement, sickness absence, and will count towards pension contributions.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Brixton Blog reporting that staff voted against the pay offer.


That's the news I was sitting on for the past two days! I've added their full statement to the B Buzz report.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...ettlement-offer-strike-action-set-to-restart/

AFAIK, there was also 'press' clauses in the deal which were proving a real sticking point. I'l say more about that when I can.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

Oh, and well done Ritzy workers! This is a brilliant stand they're making and I wish them every success.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 27, 2014)

Good. They should stick to getting LLW and not back down. Is the boycott back on?


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Good. They should stick to getting LLW and not back down. Is the boycott back on?


I'll ask. I haven't been there at all while this dispute has remained unresolved.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 27, 2014)

I went to Catch a Fire a couple of weeks back....that's been it...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 27, 2014)

I did start going back to Ritzy. As I miss it. 

The staff were rather quiet on the issue of the deal. I got the impression there was a lot of discussion going on. 

The issue is how much support they will know get from BECTU leadership now they have turned down a deal that was recommended by Union. 

I hope they do get support from union. As its vital.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> That's the news I was sitting on for the past two days! I've added their full statement to the B Buzz report.
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...ettlement-offer-strike-action-set-to-restart/
> 
> AFAIK, there was also 'press' clauses in the deal which were proving a real sticking point. I'l say more about that when I can.



I take it you mean gagging clause? They are becoming all to common in disputes. Did hear a radio programme about them in relation to Universities. One commentator said that inappropriate use of gagging clauses damaged an open democratic society and should not be allowed. 

As for the dispute. It was about the Living Wage:



> The London Living Wage is the absolute minimum a person needs to have a basic, decent standard of living in this city.



The proposed deal did not offer a route to LLW. Just more talks at a later date. So there is a logic in voting against the deal. The proposed deal did not get them any nearer to LLW. 

Whatever the job is the LLW should be the minimum. Arguments about what job is more pleasant etc etc are beside the point.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

Am I allowed to go there tomorrow night?


----------



## T & P (Aug 30, 2014)

Judging by the image I've just seen on Sky News' newspaper preview, The Observer will feature a Ritzy worker on its front page this Sunday


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 31, 2014)

Observer front page:

http://ow.ly/i/6J1Nh


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2014)

T & P said:


> Judging by the image I've just seen on Sky News' newspaper preview, The Observer will feature a Ritzy worker on its front page this Sunday



My neighbour told me about this. She teaches English on a zero hour contract. Here is the article. At last an article saying how it is for a lot of people.




> Chief steward for Bectu at the Ritzy is Nia Hughes, 32, a photography graduate, who has worked at the cinema part-time for five years. "The company said people just walk through the job, why should we pay more? We told them some stay 10 years. They have a right to dignity and respect at work."



Dignity and respect at work is what has gone.

Typical thing employers say. The others are " its an easy job", " you should not rely on this job", "if I paid more the company would lose work to another company and then you would be sorry", "You are lucky to have a job. What are you complaining about?" , "If you do not like it here try that other company its worse there."

Its common for employers to regard the job as a "fill in job" before one gets " a real job". Even though same employers need a core of staff who are experienced. And when they look for staff they want people who have experience. God forbid that they have to actually go to the bother of training people. What a burden.



> In a paper published last month, academics Dr Lydia Hayes and Professor Tonia Novitz considered how the cake could be sliced more fairly. They say economic inequality was at its lowest when 58% of workers were in trade unions and 82% of wages were set by collective bargaining. By 2012, 26% of the workforce was in trade unions and only 23% covered by collective bargaining, while the gap between top earners and the lowest is higher than at any time since records began.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2014)

And this from the excellent Observer article:



> The lack of money  in the  pockets  of the many – who spend proportionately more than the wealthy – has led many experts to cite it as a fundamental crisis in capitalism. In the US, economists such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich support  the  analysis of Thomas Piketty, author of _Capital in the 21st Century__,_ which states that squeezing the majority while allowing the richest to accrue unprecedented levels of wealth does not create "a rising tide that lifts all boats". On the contrary, unrestrained capitalism that ignores the rules of fair play in employment  destroys its own customer. In his documentary  _Inequality for All_, Reich points out that 70% of the US economy is dependent on consumer spending. The problem is that more and more people have less and less money to spend.



Also as I pointed out elsewhere Osborne has not "rebalanced" the economy but has propped up the housing market. ie the "rentier" class.

I disagree that capitalism ignores the rules of fair play. Capitalism is not about fair play in employment. That is how it works. What has been seen over last thirty years is capitalism, unrestrained by Unions or the State, reverting to its natural mode.

I was talking to a Marxist I know ( who has read all of it and understands it) that Piketty did not say much in favour of Marx. He reckoned in fact that Piketty was heavily influenced by some of Marx economic writings but did not want publicly to be seen as a far leftist.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Observer front page:
> 
> http://ow.ly/i/6J1Nh


I was at a party with her last night


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Am I allowed to go there tomorrow night?



I will ask them next time I bump into one of them what the position now is on boycott. 

I know before they did not want people to boycott the cinema except when they were on strike.


----------



## Ms T (Sep 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> My neighbour told me about this. She teaches English on a zero hour contract. Here is the article. At last an article saying how it is for a lot of people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. Not just for people in low-paid jobs either.


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Observer front page:
> 
> http://ow.ly/i/6J1Nh


I bumped into the cover star at Kaff yesterday. She was wearing a Dulwich Hamlet FC scarf.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Yes. Not just for people in low-paid jobs either.



You are right. I have a friend who is a journalist and she has the same problem. Has worked for a journal for years and has no security of employment. A member of the "Precariat". Lots of people are on short term contracts or freelance now.

In journalism it used to be possible to start work in a local paper get experience and move on. Now its unpaid internships etc.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> You are right. I have a friend who is a journalist and she has the same problem. Has worked for a journal for years and has no security of employment. A member of the "Precariat". Lots of people are on short term contracts or freelance now.
> 
> In journalism it used to be possible to start work in a local paper get experience and move on. Now its unpaid internships etc.



And there are many fewer newspapers.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 10, 2014)

Does anyone one know - are staff still wanting us to boycott anymore? Are there any more strikes planned?

I really want to see Pride there this week if possible


----------



## Ms T (Sep 10, 2014)

Me too!


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 10, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Does anyone one know - are staff still wanting us to boycott anymore? Are there any more strikes planned?
> 
> I really want to see Pride there this week if possible



This.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 10, 2014)

I recall the Ritzy being supprtive of L&G events back in the day when that wasn't generally the case. 
I remember the UK premier of Torchsong Trilogy at the Ritzy, which was a big deal at the time, as a fundraiser (can't recall who for, but it might have been Pride) in about 89 or 90.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Does anyone one know - are staff still wanting us to boycott anymore? Are there any more strikes planned?
> 
> I really want to see Pride there this week if possible



I have just checked there FB page and it has not been updated since 31st August. 

My view is that the boycott was called as Picturehouse had pulled out of talks. This changed and a proposal was made that was not accepted by Ritzy staff.

So imo until otherwise indicated the boycott is off. 

I guess some talks are still going on.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 11, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I have just checked there FB page and it has not been updated since 31st August.
> 
> My view is that the boycott was called as Picturehouse had pulled out of talks. This changed and a proposal was made that was not accepted by Ritzy staff.
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks!



If you see "Pride" do let us know what u think. Its had good reviews. 

Have you seen "Brassed Off"? A film I rated about aftermath of the strike.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 11, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> If you see "Pride" do let us know what u think. Its had good reviews.
> 
> Have you seen "Brassed Off"? A film I rated about aftermath of the strike.



Brassed Off was excellent.  I'm going to The Ritzy tomorrow because I forgot about the boycott until I came on here and saw thread again


----------



## Rushy (Sep 11, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> If you see "Pride" do let us know what u think. Its had good reviews.
> 
> Have you seen "Brassed Off"? A film I rated about aftermath of the strike.


I've seen it a couple of times. Anything with Pete Postlethwaite is good!


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2014)

I heard that there's a pretty good chance that the Ritzy staff will be accepting the latest offer that's currently being thrashed out.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 13, 2014)

*The strike is over, the campaign continues. *
In a ballot which closed yesterday, Friday 12 September, members voted to accept the latest pay offer from Picturehouse.

Although falling short of the London Living Wage, this deal moves us much closer towards it.

In light of this, the boycott of the Picturehouse group has now officially ended.

We would like to thank and welcome back all those who have given their support to our campaign over the last months.

That support has been very much appreciated and immensely helpful in getting this result.

As a strong collective of staff at the Ritzy, doing things differently has been key to our success to date.

We have shown that workers don’t simply have to put up with poverty pay, or feel powerless and isolated.

A small milestone has been gained with our new pay offer from Picturehouse; winning what equates to a 26% pay rise over 3 years is a real achievement. 
Although strike action will now cease, our campaign for a Living Wage and the dignity and justice that it represents will continue.

We will post more information soon.

"The battle is long and they are many. But there are more of us, there will always be more of us. Tomorrow is ours!" Blanca - Land and Freedom, directed by Ken Loach"

http://ritzylivingwage.tumblr.com/post/97395545303/the-strike-is-over-the-campaign-continues


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2014)

The agreed deal also still has the guarantee of talks in the future for LLW.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2014)

I, for one, salute the Ritzy workers.


----------



## Ms T (Sep 14, 2014)

Me too.  As a trade unionist, and rep, it gladdens my heart to see people fighting for their rights, and winning. Am I right in thinking this deal only applies to Ritzy workers and not other Picturehouse staff?


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Sep 14, 2014)

3rd'd!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Me too.  As a trade unionist, and rep, it gladdens my heart to see people fighting for their rights, and winning. Am I right in thinking this deal only applies to Ritzy workers and not other Picturehouse staff?



Yes you are right.

Its only the Ritzy cinema in the chain that has unionized workforce that is recognized by mge. 

From what they have said to me they would like to see staff in other Picturehouse cinemas join union.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 14, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> If you see "Pride" do let us know what u think. Its had good reviews.
> 
> Have you seen "Brassed Off"? A film I rated about aftermath of the strike.



Yes I saw Pride on friday and enjoyed it. It fictionalises and brings in several eighties themes - the strike, Aids, gay bashing, police brutality, age of consent, Thatcher, etc all set in 84 -85 and some how manages to find the humour. The acting was great and the welsh scenery beautiful.  It made me laugh and cry. Later one of my companions had a full sobbing fit recalling how quickly young men dropped dead of Aids. 

It made it look like there were thousands of miners on the pride march - I only recall a few, though I do recall a great speach from a miner's wife that didn't make the film. Must go look at my old photos. 

Its heart warming English comedy in the same vein as Brassed Off, Billy Eliot, Full Monty etc. It's grim but we can find hope, solidarity, joy - that sort of film. The eighties were shit but this film polishes it nicely and sprinkles glitter on it.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes I saw Pride on friday and enjoyed it. It fictionalises and brings in several eighties themes - the strike, Aids, gay bashing, police brutality, age of consent, Thatcher, etc all set in 84 -85 and some how manages to find the humour. The acting was great and the welsh scenery beautiful.  It made me laugh and cry. Later one of my companions had a full sobbing fit recalling how quickly young men dropped dead of Aids.
> 
> It made it look like there were thousands of miners on the pride march - I only recall a few, though I do recall a great speach from a miner's wife that didn't make the film. Must go look at my old photos.
> 
> Its heart warming English comedy in the same vein as Brassed Off, Billy Eliot, Full Monty etc. It's grim but we can find hope, solidarity, joy - that sort of film. The eighties were shit but this film polishes it nicely and sprinkles glitter on it.



Good review. U should put it up on the Ritzy film thread. There is a thread on it in politics for some reason. Looks like a must see film.

edited to say just noticed u have already posted on that thread.


----------



## Ms T (Sep 14, 2014)

We went all the way to Mayfair on Friday to see Pride as we didn't want to break the boycott. The message they put on Facebook on Friday was actually quite ambiguous.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2014)

Ms T said:


> We went all the way to Mayfair on Friday to see Pride as we didn't want to break the boycott. The message they put on Facebook on Friday was actually quite ambiguous.



Was that Curzon Mayfair? I was tempted to see it there as it was on screen one. Which is one of the best in London imo.

Take your point about the ambiguity of the Friday message on looking at it again.


----------



## Ms T (Sep 16, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Was that Curzon Mayfair? I was tempted to see it there as it was on screen one. Which is one of the best in London imo.
> 
> Take your point about the ambiguity of the Friday message on looking at it again.



It was and it is rather fabulous.  We went in the afternoon so it was £8 rather than the rather prohibitive £14.50.  But I have a load of free tickets on my Ritzy membership, which I haven't used since I renewed it back in May!  So a bit more clarity from the Ritzy would have been good, but never mind.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 16, 2014)

Ms T said:


> It was (the Curzon Mayfair) and it is rather fabulous.



Saw Lawrence of Arabia on that big screen.

It felt like I was charging into Aqaba too!


----------



## jakejb79 (Sep 20, 2014)

http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19243/17-09-2014/ritzy-cinema-workers-win-26-pay-rise


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2014)

The strikes could be back on. 
Ritzy workers: Picturehouse have failed to honour their agreements; new strike action a possibility


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2014)

editor said:


> The strikes could be back on.
> Ritzy workers: Picturehouse have failed to honour their agreements; new strike action a possibility



From FB post:



> It should also come to your attention that Picturehouse/Cineworld have employed someone with a reputation as a union buster to deal with all union relations, including BECTU’s attempts to gain union recognition at other Picturehouse branches.



One would have thought that Cineworld/ Picturehouse at the very least would not have a problem with union recognition.


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2014)

Anyone know anything about this?


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2014)

Unbelievable. it's true. Boycott right back on then.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...zy-workers-in-wake-of-pay-dispute-settlement/


----------



## Crispy (Oct 23, 2014)

WHat a shower of utter cunts


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2014)

Good to see Owen Jones interviewing Russell Brand wearing a Ritzy strike t-shirt.

In Russell Brand's words, "First the Ritzy, then the World!"


----------



## simonSW2 (Oct 24, 2014)

I went to the Ritzy last week for the first time in many months last week (I thought the boycott was done).

Among the pre-film trailers was an excruciatingly condescending advert for Picturehouse Cinemas that featured lots of 'behind the scenes' footage of all the dedicated staff setting up, opening up, making ready, serving up tickets and drinks and popcorn and then finally closing up for the night at the end of a long day. 
A bizarrely patronising advert given the way they regard their own staff. That kind of choice, to elect to make an advert like that in that way, as if perhaps it could convince audiences and staff that they give a shit, made me pretty sure that the hapless cretins at the helm don't even know how to give a fuck.

They are back on boycott from me.


----------



## simonSW2 (Oct 24, 2014)

here it be:


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> here it be:



Sick bag required!


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2014)

It gets worse: Picturehouse prepare to axe a QUARTER of all Brixton Ritzy staff

From the workers' statement:


> We are utterly dismayed and saddened by the brutality which was thrown at us yesterday by Picturehouse Cinemas.
> 
> In what can only be described as a cynical attempt to ‘improve customer service’, they plan to axe the positions of 2 managers, ALL 8 supervisors, 3 technical staff, numerous Front Of House and numerous Bar staff.
> 
> ...


TOTAL BOYCOTT for me.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 25, 2014)

editor said:


> It gets worse: Picturehouse prepare to axe a QUARTER of all Brixton Ritzy staff
> 
> From the workers' statement:
> TOTAL BOYCOTT for me.



Emailed the directors as suggested by Ritzy staff in Brixton Buzz piece.




> Dear Alastair/ Lyn,
> I am emailing to express my disgust at the recent proposed redundancies at the Ritzy. This is clearly an attack on the workforce for striking for the London Living Wage. A dispute that was recently resolved.
> 
> I am a long time user of the Ritzy and supported the staffs strike for the LLW.
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Oct 28, 2014)

Just to point out our old mate Ben Morgan (formerly of South London Press) had an article in the Standard yesterday on the sackings http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ritzy-workers-london-living-wage-9819909.html


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

At this rate, I don't think I'll ever be setting foot in the cinema again.


----------



## 299 old timer (Oct 28, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Just to point out our old mate Ben Morgan (formerly of South London Press) had an article in the Standard yesterday on the sackings http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/staff-face-sack-after-picturehouse-cinemas-agree-to-pay-ritzy-workers-london-living-wage-9819909.html



There was also an interview on LBC sometime before 08.00am with one of the workers. She handled herself very well, so the story is deffo getting out there.


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

299 old timer said:


> There was also an interview on LBC sometime before 08.00am with one of the workers. She handled herself very well, so the story is deffo getting out there.


The pages on Brixton Buzz have enjoyed a *lot* of traffic too.


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

Will Self is urging a boycott: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...e-brixton-ritzy-and-all-picturehouse-cinemas/


----------



## Ms T (Oct 28, 2014)

I was in a meeting with Luke Crawley from Bectu yesterday and he said he would update me with any developments.


----------



## Winot (Oct 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Will Self is urging a boycott: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...e-brixton-ritzy-and-all-picturehouse-cinemas/



It's getting a lot of publicity isn't it. Let's hope it embarrasses Cineworld into a climbdown, although you've got to be pessimistic about that.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 28, 2014)

On the East Dulwich forum someone is saying that, according to the Picture House,  part of the negotiation included the discussion that the amount of income available to staff would not be increasing and that the consequence of the increase would mean fewer employees,  with better paid jobs.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> On the East Dulwich forum someone is saying that, according to the Picture House,  part of the negotiation included the discussion that the amount of income available to staff would not be increasing and that the consequence of the increase would mean fewer employees,  with better paid jobs.



That is their argument. Not a very good one.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> That is their argument. Not a very good one.


If it is what was discussed - and I have no idea whether it was or how much emphasis was put on it  - then I'm not then sure what anyone thought was meant by it . If it was said at all then BECTU should have been all over the statement seeking clarification rather than suggesting the offer be accepted.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Oct 28, 2014)

I've just resigned my membership and got the full year refunded as I hadn't used it due to the boycott. The lady I spoke to on the phone urged me to email head office and let them know the reason that I am leaving.


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> That is their argument. Not a very good one.


There's some real cringeworthy stuff on that forum too.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 28, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> I've just resigned my membership and got the full year refunded as I hadn't used it due to the boycott. The lady I spoke to on the phone urged me to email head office and let them know the reason that I am leaving.


That's good to know. I'm in the same position.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Oct 28, 2014)

Ms T said:


> That's good to know. I'm in the same position.



She did have to check with head office and call me back, she also encouraged me to support the staff through any social media platforms.


----------



## kittyP (Oct 28, 2014)

editor said:


> At this rate, I don't think I'll ever be setting foot in the cinema again.



Yep. It's a really fucking shame!


----------



## leanderman (Oct 28, 2014)

Nice guys the bosses (ES today): http://www.standard.co.uk/business/...staff-axed-9823275.html?origin=internalSearch


----------



## Onket (Oct 28, 2014)

Will Self article about boycotting in the Standard tonight. 

Also, I heard from a union colleague that part of the original agreement was that staff cannot support another boycott.  Obviously this doesn't mean there can't be one, but it must be community led, or led by a support group or some other external group.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 28, 2014)

It was on BBC London radio news today too.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 29, 2014)

Emailed Ritzy a few days ago, telling them they've lost my business for good if they proceed with these vindictive redundancies. Have had no reply.


----------



## Jimathon (Oct 29, 2014)

Been avoid the Ritzy for a while, I seem unlikely to return after this obvious attempt at union busting.

Does anyone know if ANY London indie cinemas (realise Ritzy was only faux-indie) pay the London Living Wage? Was disappointed to find the Prince Charles Cinema doesn't.


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2014)

Another strike could be looming - 
Brixton Ritzy staff to ballot for strike action over proposed large scale redundancies


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 29, 2014)

Curzon Cinemas slings a shot across Picturehouse's bows, commits to city-wide LLW for all staff at its 6 theatres in the capital from January:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...aff-living-wage-in-landmark-move-9825124.html


----------



## shakespearegirl (Oct 29, 2014)

This sums it up for me:

Curzon chief executive Philip Knatchbull said he wanted to pay “a fair wage” to staff because they “make Curzon special” with their “enthusiasm” and “knowledge of film”.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 29, 2014)

seems to me the owners of Brixton Ritz are taking a gigantic shit on their position in the market.

it's always been perceived as a slightly left of centre cinema, showing interesting films and documentaries, like many of the other smaller chains do

how can that possibly stand up now. it's barmy.

(and yes i know they are now part of a big chain)


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 29, 2014)

Jimathon said:


> Been avoid the Ritzy for a while, I seem unlikely to return after this obvious attempt at union busting.
> 
> Does anyone know if ANY London indie cinemas (realise Ritzy was only faux-indie) pay the London Living Wage? Was disappointed to find the Prince Charles Cinema doesn't.


I'd be really surprised if *any* cinemas do pay LLW (or shops or pub barstaff for that matter and don't start me on care homes) I don't earn LLW but I still support the Ritzy workers - so few low paid work places seem to be unionised these days


----------



## leanderman (Oct 29, 2014)

Dan U said:


> (and yes i know they are now part of a big chain)




But still a family business, dating back to Mandate-era Haifa in 1931:

http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/...-cineworld-for-923-million-in-cash-and-stock/


----------



## colacubes (Oct 29, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'd be really surprised if *any* cinemas do pay LLW (or shops or pub barstaff for that matter and don't start me on care homes) I don't earn LLW but I still support the Ritzy workers - so few low paid work places seem to be unionised these days



http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/29/curzon-cinema-chain-london-living-wage


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 29, 2014)

colacubes said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/29/curzon-cinema-chain-london-living-wage


Ahem


----------



## colacubes (Oct 29, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Ahem


----------



## simonSW2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Owen Jones does his bit:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...es-ritzy-cinema-staff-poverty-pay-living-wage


----------



## Winot (Oct 30, 2014)

No job cuts at the Ritzy Cinema after all: Cineworld bosses back down in the row over the London Living Wage http://t.co/pbPUD2URmk

HT @RosamundUrwin


----------



## Ms T (Oct 30, 2014)

Yay!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 30, 2014)

ETA - same link as above.

Great news!


----------



## shakespearegirl (Oct 30, 2014)

Brilliant.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2014)

Gotta love Curzon adding to the pincer movement pressure too!


----------



## Belushi (Oct 30, 2014)

Great news!


----------



## Ms T (Oct 30, 2014)

editor said:


> Gotta love Curzon adding to the pincer movement pressure too!


Yes, they really played a blinder there.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2014)




----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2014)

It's not over yet though, as the union won't drop plans for the strike ballot until guarantees are offered about their members’ long-term job security.  And quite right, too.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 30, 2014)

They've fought a good fight and won.

Long term job security? Who is guaranteed that these days?


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2014)

Nanker Phelge said:


> They've fought a good fight and won.
> 
> Long term job security? Who is guaranteed that these days?


They haven't got the London Living Wage wage yet. And why the fuck shouldn't long term employees fight for some kind of job security given the cavalier way that Picturehouse suddenly dropped their plans for near-immediate mass redundancies?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 30, 2014)

editor said:


> They haven't got the London Living Wage wage yet. And why the fuck shouldn't long term employees fight for some kind of job security given the cavalier way that Picturehouse suddenly dropped their plans for near-immediate mass redundancies?



What does 'long term job security' mean? I think it's an intangible demand. How long does an employer have to promise you have a job for? 

The question doesn't have to relate to this situation and dispute. I don't think it's a demand any employer can promise their staff these days.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2014)

Nanker Phelge said:


> What does 'long term job security' mean? I think it's an intangible demand. How long does an employer have to promise you have a job for?
> 
> The question doesn't have to relate to this situation and dispute. I don't think it's a demand any employer can promise their staff these days.


I'd suggest they're looking for some sort of reassurance that the owners won't pull another sudden 'Mass Redundancies'R'Us' number out of the bag any time soon. And that seems a reasonable enough request to me. 

I know some of the workers who were in line for the festive sacking, it would have had seriously repercussions on the lives/homes etc - and Christmas is one of the worst times to try and find a new place to live.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 30, 2014)

editor said:


> I'd suggest they're looking for some sort of reassurance that the owners won't pull another sudden 'Mass Redundancies'R'Us' number out of the bag any time soon. And that seems a reasonable enough request to me.



I think that's reasonable and fair. I'm hoping Picturehouse/Cineworld will have learned that punitive and bully boy tactics are not going to get them anywhere. They've got to swallow the sting of the defeat and move on now. 

Another way they may take this is to just let the Ritzy go without any real funding, run it into the ground, wait for it to be a shitty place where no one goes, then make everyone redundant, wait, refurb, re-open as a shit multiplex....the M&E in the place is already fucked...and it's never been a truly great experience watching a film there.

Either way....I'm not sure I really wanna go there now and put my pennies in the paymasters pockets...so I'm a bit torn now.


----------



## 299 old timer (Oct 30, 2014)

Winot said:


> No job cuts at the Ritzy Cinema after all: Cineworld bosses back down in the row over the London Living Wage http://t.co/pbPUD2URmk
> 
> HT @RosamundUrwin



Let's hope it's not a pyrrhic victory. I can imagine Cineworld not replacing staff who leave, an old tactic.
Nonetheless, well done to the staff.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 30, 2014)

299 old timer said:


> Let's hope it's not a pyrrhic victory. I can imagine Cineworld not replacing staff who leave, an old tactic.
> Nonetheless, well done to the staff.


I think it's highly likely that Cineworld don't actually want to reduce their staffing level, which are probably already pretty tight. More likely they wanted to use the redundancy process to weed out people they perceive to be troublemakers.

Companies that genuinely have to reduce staffing levels to cut costs don't back down that easily.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 30, 2014)

I have no idea why they didn't lose the jobs through not replacing people who leave.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 30, 2014)

Perhaps Cineworld must have realised the PR damage their behaviour to the Ritzy workers has caused.  The Curzon obviously do, raising the pay of a few staff has rewarded them with more media coverage than the same amount spent on advertising.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 30, 2014)

It looks like what happened is Cineworld (the massive company which owns Picturehouses) took a look at the situation and pulled rank on Picturehouses' management, with the CEO stepping in to tell them to stop the 'consultation' on the redundancies. 

The Chief Exec of a big corporate, saving the workers from the artsy, 'independent' Picturehouses? Fancy that!

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/30/brixton-ritzy-climbs-down-over-redundancies


----------



## leanderman (Oct 30, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It looks like what happened is Cineworld (the massive company which owns Picturehouses) took a look at the situation and pulled rank on Picturehouses' management, with the CEO stepping in to tell them to stop the 'consultation' on the redundancies.
> 
> The Chief Exec of a big corporate, saving the workers from the artsy, 'independent' Picturehouses? Fancy that!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/30/brixton-ritzy-climbs-down-over-redundancies



And Mooky is a pretty fucking cool name. If he was my chief exec, I'd obey too.


----------



## TheTruthRuth (Oct 31, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It looks like what happened is Cineworld (the massive company which owns Picturehouses) took a look at the situation and pulled rank on Picturehouses' management, with the CEO stepping in to tell them to stop the 'consultation' on the redundancies.
> 
> The Chief Exec of a big corporate, saving the workers from the artsy, 'independent' Picturehouses? Fancy that!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/30/brixton-ritzy-climbs-down-over-redundancies


Lots of redundancies made at Cineworld headquarters this week, maybe the Ritzy redundancies were always part of the plan.....


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2014)

Picturehouse back down. 



> The owner of Brixton’s Ritzy cinema today performed a dramatic u-turn, axing controversial plans to sack a third of its workforce which had triggered a boycott and public protests.
> 
> Just two days ago, Picturehouse warned staff that as many as 34 jobs were at risk due to higher costs after the success of a staff campaign to convince the Ritzy to take their pay up 21 per cent to £8.80, the current London Living Wage.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2014)

Celebration party on Thursday.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...tion-party-at-the-effra-social-thurs-6th-nov/


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 31, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It looks like what happened is Cineworld (the massive company which owns Picturehouses) took a look at the situation and pulled rank on Picturehouses' management, with the CEO stepping in to tell them to stop the 'consultation' on the redundancies.
> 
> The Chief Exec of a big corporate, saving the workers from the artsy, 'independent' Picturehouses? Fancy that!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/30/brixton-ritzy-climbs-down-over-redundancies


Very long tradition of upper management caving when lower management won't. The latter often take it personally, the former are just looking at the figures and thinking "hmm, 30 salaries saved short term in exchange for getting slagged off left, right and centre in national newspapers by celebrities who our arty clients tend to like? Nah"


----------



## shifting gears (Nov 1, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Very long tradition of upper management caving when lower management won't. The latter often take it personally, the former are just looking at the figures and thinking "hmm, 30 salaries saved short term in exchange for getting slagged off left, right and centre in national newspapers by celebrities who our arty clients tend to like? Nah"



Puts the workers' victory into an all-too-telling perspective, doesn't it? 

Nevertheless, on this occasion, clenched fists all round.


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 1, 2014)




----------



## Gramsci (Nov 2, 2014)

Got a reply today from Picturehouse director re my email about redundancy threat:



> Thank you for your email. We have ended our consultation on a restructure at the Ritzy and we do not intend to make any positions redundant. The pay dispute that took place over the summer ended in September with a three year deal at agreed pay rates and was accepted by a 90% majority. I am therefore pleased to inform you that the period of working on opposite sides of the table has come to an end and that we are working together with our staff to continue the Ritzy’s success.
> 
> We look forward to welcoming you back to the Ritzy soon. In addition to current films MR TURNER and GONE GIRL, Christopher Nolan’s spectacular INTERSTELLAR opens on Friday on the big screen. The Ritzy will be playing the film on 35mm, one of only 6 cinemas in the UK. And with the Film Africa festival screenings and the Matisse exhibition live from Tate and MOMA, NIGHTCRAWLER, and a couple of remarkable Documentaries, we hope you will find much to enjoy at the Ritzy.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2014)

Interesting comment from ex-Curzon employee on this page (scroll down)
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...pay-staff-living-wage-so-how-about-the-ritzy/


----------



## Fingers (Nov 7, 2014)

So according to this, only Brixton staff are going to get the living wage http://strongerunions.org/2014/11/07/picturehouse-cinemas-pay-all-your-staff-a-living-wage/


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2014)




----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 63500


Just thought I would email one of the directors and tell him how disgusted I was with their vindictive attitude but was pleasantly surprised when I received an email back


----------



## Winot (Nov 11, 2014)

My membership is up for renewal and I have just had an email exchange with the Head of Customer Relations:




			
				Winot said:
			
		

> Before I renew my membership, could you reassure me that the recent redundancy threat at the Ritzy has abated?  Could you also comment on whether Picturehouse Cinemas (and indeed Cineworld) has any plans to pay all of its staff the London Living Wage?






			
				Picturehouse said:
			
		

> While I can confirm that The Ritzy redundancies matter is closed, there is no guarantee of the LLW written into contracts for staff. The staff have been given a pay increase that meets the current LLW, but if your question concerns whether the LLW will automatically be paid in future years - which I suspect is what you mean - then the answer is no, each year will be dealt with as it arises. What we can say is that The Ritzy staff are paid well above many of our high street retail peers doing a similar job. I cannot comment for Cineworld as Picturehouse Cinemas operate as a standalone division.






			
				Winot said:
			
		

> Is that deal for all Picturehouse workers, or just for those in the Ritzy?






			
				Picturehouse said:
			
		

> The Ritzy staff are on a different contract to the remaining Picturehouses, but the comment about the LLW applies across the board. The staff at other Picturehouses receive a generous bonus payment on customer service and membership sales; The Ritzy staff voted not to receive this and to opt for a higher basic rate instead.






			
				Winot said:
			
		

> OK thanks.  I will be renewing my membership and keeping an interested eye on future staff relations.
> 
> Please pass on to Picturehouse management that I would like all Picturehouse staff to be paid the LLW (as has just been announced by Curzon Cinemas).


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2015)

An update: Ritzy workers keep up the pressure as the Living Wage campaign grows – exclusive


----------



## Winot (Feb 4, 2016)

Cinema staff backed by Cantona launch group to fight for pay rises


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

There's a launch party on Saturday for a new campaigning organisation called Living Staff Living Wage at the DIY Space in Peckham.






Yours truly will be DJing (sorry!) 

Ritzy workers set up Living Staff Living Wage campaign with launch party on 6th Feb at the DIY Space


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2016)

Photos from the launch party:































Brixton Ritzy workers launch Living Staff Living Wage campaign with party at the DIY Space – in photos

The DIY Space is a fabulous venue!


----------



## Black Halo (Feb 8, 2016)

editor said:


> The DIY Space is a fabulous venue!


A bit off topic but I was wondering about that, going to gig there in June but have never been.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2016)

Black Halo said:


> A bit off topic but I was wondering about that, going to gig there in June but have never been.


It's ace. Like an old school well-run squat, run by volunteers. Bit of a bugger to get to though.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jun 26, 2016)

Good to see the Ritzy Living Wage flag still flying at Glastonbury (spotted during PJ Harvey set).


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2016)

They're back on strike this weekend.

Brixton Ritzy workers are back on strike from midday, Saturday 24th Sept


----------



## aka (Sep 22, 2016)

If i get a bit of time I'll chew on their accounts to see if there is anything of interest....

CINEWORLD GROUP PLC - Filing history (free information from Companies House)


----------



## brixtonblade (Sep 24, 2016)

editor said:


> They're back on strike this weekend.
> 
> Brixton Ritzy workers are back on strike from midday, Saturday 24th Sept


Good luck to them.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)

Good turnout. And a fun demo. Ritzy was closed by mge for the day. 






Stall was busy with a lot of people giving support.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)

They have produced there own comic book:


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Sep 24, 2016)

Good for them....Apparently Hackney picture house staff are now following suit.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 24, 2016)

I think we need more pressure on govt to up the min wage to a decent amount. 
Its a joke that they dare to call £7.20  a 'national living wage'


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2016)

I really think people should go down the Cinema Museum in Duggard Way - apart from a much more interesting choice of films you get the home-made brownies for £1.50 and other food. The infinite variety of ales @ £4 per 500mL (or lagers for £3) might compare favourably with the Ritzy - but what I liked about my visit was you paid a donation which was entirely up to you. 

I know people on this thread have concerns about exploitation and so on, but all I'm saying is the cineman Museum is very much run at the moment like the Ritzy was in the period 1977-1987. Unfortunately the museum is in a workhouse in Lambeth whereas the Ritzy had a purpose-built auditorium which now shows schlock.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 25, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I really think people should go down the Cinema Museum in Duggard Way - apart from a much more interesting choice of films you get the home-made brownies for £1.50 and other food. The infinite variety of ales @ £4 per 500mL (or lagers for £3) might compare favourably with the Ritzy - but what I liked about my visit was you paid a donation which was entirely up to you.
> 
> I know people on this thread have concerns about exploitation and so on, but all I'm saying is the cineman Museum is very much run at the moment like the Ritzy was in the period 1977-1987. Unfortunately the museum is in a workhouse in Lambeth whereas the Ritzy had a purpose-built auditorium which now shows schlock.


They have some interesting films, old and new on there. I went to a screening of new LGBTQ short films there a while ago. They do regular showing of old / silent films.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2016)

Some pics here: 











In photos: Brixton Ritzy cinema closes for the day as workers demand a fair wage


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2016)

Shame more locals didn't turn up to support the workers, but it's great seeing them fight for a decent wage: 





















In photos: Brixton Ritzy workers close down the cinema for their second strike action of the year


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 7, 2016)

Maybe we were mostly at work?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2016)

aka said:


> If i get a bit of time I'll chew on their accounts to see if there is anything of interest....
> CINEWORLD GROUP PLC - Filing history (free information from Companies House)


Good thinking. The PLC also means you could buy a share or shares in the company and be entitled to attend the AGM and ask questions.
Or even demonstrate. http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/c/cineworld-group-plc-ordinary-1p

Not sure that this would work in the Ritzy's case - as the Cineworld directors might consider giving ground at the Ritzy would be giving ground to all Cineworld sites everywhere.

It did work for me in one instance. I used to live in Effra Court which was owned and managed by Freshwater Group (Daejan Holdings plc) in the early 1980s. Our lift had been kaput for months - so I invited myself to the AGM equiped with 100 shares.  Mt Barry Freshwater was very accomodating over a can of Freshwater Heineken at the end of the meeting - and the lift was fixed in days.

You never know until you try.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2016)

sparkybird said:


> Maybe we were mostly at work?


It took place at lunchtime and the streets around the cinema were as packed as usual, yet barely a soul turned up to support them. It's quite depressing.


----------



## ash (Oct 7, 2016)

editor said:


> It took place at lunchtime and the streets around the cinema were as packed as usual, yet barely a soul turned up to support them. It's quite depressing.


But not everyone who lives in Brixton works (or not works) in Brixton?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2016)

ash said:


> But not everyone who lives in Brixton works (or not works) in Brixton?


Yes, sure, but I counted less than 10 people showing up to support the workers. _Less than 10, ffs. _


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 7, 2016)

editor said:


> Shame more locals didn't turn up to support the workers, but it's great seeing them fight for a decent wage:



I wish them well. 

But like many other locals, I was busy earning less an hour than them. So I'm reserving my energy.


----------



## editor (Oct 8, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I wish them well.
> 
> But like many other locals, I was busy earning less an hour than them. So I'm reserving my energy.


The point being that their fight is a fight for all low paid workers.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 8, 2016)

editor said:


> The point being that their fight is a fight for all low paid workers.


Is that the point? That doesn't come across at all. 

The demos I've seen/read about so far seems very focused on just their employers. That is fine - they have a justifiable grievance against a profitable big company who have benefitted from a building that public money was spent on -so as I said I wish them well.   I would urge every low paid employee of profitable companies to do the same.

Besides like many other locals I didn't know when this was happening (I assumed they must be doing something by the blank board) Details weren't even posted on this thread. And besides I was at work earning a pittance.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 8, 2016)

I can imagine the conversation: excuse me boss, can I have some unpaid time off to campaign about forcing capitalist pigdogs like yourself to pay staff more?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 8, 2016)

SpamMisery said:


> I can imagine the conversation: excuse me boss, can I have some unpaid time off to campaign about forcing capitalist pigdogs like yourself to pay staff more?


don't you have anything useful to do?


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 8, 2016)

If I havent made the point with enough clarity for you, I apologise; but there is no need to get grumpy.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 8, 2016)

SpamMisery said:


> If I havent made the point with enough clarity for you, I apologise; but there is no need to get grumpy.


There is every need to be grumpy? About low pay. About the govt rebranding the minimum wage 'a living wage'. About the severe curtailment of union rights. About growing inequality.  About the selling of public property. About blaming the poor for everything. As if being menopausal and heading for brexit wasn't bad enough. Of course I'm fucking grumpy.

What are you so cheerful about?


----------



## editor (Oct 8, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Is that the point? That doesn't come across at all.
> 
> The demos I've seen/read about so far seems very focused on just their employers. That is fine - they have a justifiable grievance against a profitable big company who have benefitted from a building that public money was spent on -so as I said I wish them well.   I would urge every low paid employee of profitable companies to do the same.
> 
> Besides like many other locals I didn't know when this was happening (I assumed they must be doing something by the blank board) Details weren't even posted on this thread. And besides I was at work earning a pittance.


I posted it on Buzz twice and there's links to their wider arguments about the living wage in those articles. I haven't got time to post everything here, but Buzz is usually a good place to look.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2016)

Hackney Picturehouse on strike on the 15th Oct


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2016)

Ritzy on strike today. Looks like tomorrow as well as sign from Picturehouse saying cinema will be open on Monday. 

This evening. Raining.


----------



## brixtonblade (Oct 15, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Ritzy on strike today. Looks like tomorrow as well as sign from Picturehouse saying cinema will be open on Monday.
> 
> This evening. Raining.


I felt sorry for them in the rain. 

Hope they get their wages increased soon.


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Ritzy on strike today. Looks like tomorrow as well as sign from Picturehouse saying cinema will be open on Monday.
> 
> This evening. Raining.


Damn I missed this - I would have come along and supported them earlier if I'd known.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2016)

editor said:


> Damn I missed this - I would have come along and supported them earlier if I'd known.



I think they will be there on Sunday.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2016)

Ritzy strike today:


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2016)

They said they will be holding strikes on regular basis.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2016)




----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2016)

They're on strike again today from 4.30pm: Brixton Ritzy workers back on strike today, followed by zombie party in Windrush Square, Mon 31st October


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2016)

Photos from today's walkout. 
















The Severed Limb are playing in Windrush Square at 9pm - come along and support the workers!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2016)

Missed this one. 

Really like the way they inject some humour into striking.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2016)

Great party there tonight. More pics in the morning.


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2016)

Full photos here Dancing in Windrush Square: Brixton Ritzy workers celebrate their Halloween strike


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2016)

Decent piece in Vice, of all places. 



> A spokesperson for Picturehouse told me, "Our staff are hugely important to us, we pay fair wages and have a wide range of benefits within a good working environment. Increases in pay for front of house people in Picturehouse Cinemas have far outstripped inflation over the last three years."
> 
> The obvious question, then, is how badly paid were Picturehouse workers before those three years of far-above inflation increases if they're still paid less than the living wage?
> 
> ...



It's 'Living Wage Week' and Workers Are Still Fighting for an Incredibly Basic Level of Pay | VICE | United Kingdom

Once again, I felt it hard not to be disappointed by the lack of support from Brixtonites.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 5, 2016)

OK, so can you tell me please exactly what you want us to do to support this?
I was working Monday night. I see from their Facebook page they have a fundraiser event at the windmill on 23 Nov, but other than that .....?

Is there a call to action?
Should cinema goers boycott Ritzy completely? Email/write/tweet cineworld?
Do something social media-ey ( not that I have any social media)

????


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 7, 2016)

sparkybird said:


> OK, so can you tell me please exactly what you want us to do to support this?
> I was working Monday night. I see from their Facebook page they have a fundraiser event at the windmill on 23 Nov, but other than that .....?
> 
> Is there a call to action?
> ...


I think a boycott is reasonable


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2016)

brixtonblade said:


> I think a boycott is reasonable


other cinemas are, after all, available.


----------



## Winot (Nov 7, 2016)

brixtonblade said:


> I think a boycott is reasonable



Is that what the workers want though? I seem to remember last time they didn't want one, but could be wrong.

I'd be lead by what they want rather than randoms on the internet.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 7, 2016)

I've chosen to boycott. 

I also have decided that the cost to see a film is more than I am willing to pay.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I've chosen to boycott.
> 
> I also have decided that the cost to see a film is more than I am willing to pay.


That cinema has long, long been unaffordable to me. Picturehouse are taking the piss with their pricing.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2016)

editor said:


> That cinema has long, long been unaffordable to me. Picturehouse are taking the piss with their pricing.


I think you should try the Plex. The price is good and the spit and sawdust ambience of the foyer reminded me of the Rusholme Trocadero c. 1972


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 7, 2016)

I am diverting my business to The Plex.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 7, 2016)

editor said:


> That cinema has long, long been unaffordable to me. Picturehouse are taking the piss with their pricing.



Yes, but I didn't ask about you, did I? I asked about what you thought I should do.

I found a link on their facebook page which send me to a 2014 Tumblr post - relevant extract here:

"Now, we need your help to convince them and to show them that our customers support our struggle so PLEASE:

• DON’T CROSS OUR PICKET LINES!! On Strike days don’t go the The Ritzy, though by all means come and show your support to us outside.

• Follow us on Twitter: @RitzyLivingWage 

• Retweet the tweet or share the status you followed here and share this page.

• Tweet about us regularly, mentioning @picturehouses to let your followers know you support us

• ‘Like’ us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RitzyLivingWage

• Post positive messages of support for our campaign on the Picturehouse Cinemas Facebook Page (not the Ritzy one, as it gets read by our colleagues who are already BECTU members and support us)

• Post statuses on Facebook supporting us and use the 'mention’ feature to mention us and Picturehouse Cinemas (you may need to 'like’ both pages first).

• Email positive messages supporting our campaign to lyn.g@picturehouses.co.uk & alastair.o@picturehouses.co.uk and corporate@cineworld.co.uk and do please cc us too at ritzylivingwage@gmail.com 

• Tell your friends (both Facebook and real life) about our campaign, especially Ritzy customers and locals, and do so regularly."



Basically I can't do much then as I don't use twitter, FB etc. Doesn't seem to ask for a full boycott, as Winot suggested

I have however, just emailed them - so I'll report back when I get a reply
SB


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2016)

sparkybird said:


> Yes, but I didn't ask about you, did I?


And I wasn't replying to you either so I've no idea why you're quoting that. 


There's a benefit coming up on the 23rd. I'll post details soon.,


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 7, 2016)

editor said:


> Once again, I felt it hard not to be disappointed by the lack of support from Brixtonites.





sparkybird said:


> OK, so can you tell me please exactly what you want us to do to support this?
> 
> ????


 I'm not sure what editor wants Brixtonites to do either, I've no idea why we are so disappointing. You have a good point Sparkybird  I don't do social media either - so not crossing picket lines and generally wishing them well is it.

I don't intend to do anything else, unless they were staging a more general demand for genuine living wage for other or all employees.


----------



## Ms T (Nov 8, 2016)

I am a union rep and have been on strike several times and to be honest I don't expect that much from the general public. I certainly don't want them to boycott my employer! It's nice to get positive comments/supportive remarks but that's not going to win the battle anyway. Last time we went to the Ritzy we wished them well with their strike action which seemed to go down well.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 8, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I don't intend to do anything else, unless they were staging a more general demand for genuine living wage for other or all employees.



I didn't realise that those striking had to ensure that their demands and campaigns now explicitly included _everything and everybody_. So much for automatic solidarity from other workers.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm not sure what editor wants Brixtonites to do either, I've no idea why we are so disappointing.


You really can't work our why I might be disappointed by the minuscule number of people coming out to support the striking workers? I'd like the strikers to get more support from the community. I was disappointed that barely anyone turned up.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2016)

Here's their fundraiser


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 8, 2016)

Peluche are great. I think one of them works there.
And they're popular in these parts so this should be rammed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I think you should try the Plex. The price is good and the spit and sawdust ambience of the foyer reminded me of the Rusholme Trocadero c. 1972
> View attachment 95150


there's this lovely cinema in burnham on crouch


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 11, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I didn't realise that those striking had to ensure that their demands and campaigns now explicitly included _everything and everybody_. So much for automatic solidarity from other workers.


No they don't. I do support Ritzy employees. read up thread for my full views on this. 

I don't think every union/ employee protest/picket line ever did require extensive public presence? nice if they get it, they do deserve support - as do junior doctors, southern train employees and others.  I was questioning why the scolding remarks from Ed here - uncalled for here I thought.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> No they don't. I do support Ritzy employees. read up thread for my full views on this.
> 
> I don't think every union/ employee protest/picket line ever did require extensive public presence? nice if they get it, they do deserve support - as do junior doctors, southern train employees and others.  I was questioning why the scolding remarks from Ed here - uncalled for here I thought.


'Scolding'? _What? _

I just said I was _disappointed_ with the the tiny show of community support for a high profile, well publicised strike.  Barely a soul bothered to show up, so I was indeed disappointed. But that's just me. I believe in trying to make an effort in some way when I can for a cause I believe is worthy of support.

'Scolding', ffs.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 11, 2016)

editor said:


> 'Scolding'? _What? _
> 
> I just said I was _disappointed_ with the the tiny show of community support for a high profile, well publicised strike.  Barely a soul bothered to show up, so I was indeed disappointed. But that's just me. I believe in trying to make an effort in some way when I can for a cause I believe is worthy of support.
> 
> 'Scolding', ffs.


well that told me ...


----------



## T & P (Nov 11, 2016)

editor said:


> 'Scolding'? _What? _
> 
> I just said I was _disappointed_ with the the tiny show of community support for a high profile, well publicised strike.  Barely a soul bothered to show up, so I was indeed disappointed. But that's just me. I believe in trying to make an effort in some way when I can for a cause I believe is worthy of support.
> 
> 'Scolding', ffs.


I agree with your sentiment but other elements might likely have been at play. How many Brixtonians could have even been aware of the protest in question in the first place? Unless one is actively following the issue on social media, very few people are likely to have found out. This wasn't a landmark occasion in their struggle. And then a big proportion of those who did might have been at work at the time.

So you are now left with those people who where physically in the area at the time but chose to ignore the protest. What to say about that? Passers-by tend to be quite indifferent to any street protests they might come across in their daily routine, certainly as active participants. Other than a few strollers you'll always going to struggle to get people going about their business to drop their plans and join a protest of that nature.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2016)

T & P said:


> I agree with your sentiment but other elements might likely have been at play. How many Brixtonians could have even been aware of the protest in question in the first place? Unless one is actively following the issue on social media, very few people are likely to have found out. This wasn't a landmark occasion in their struggle. And then a big proportion of those who did might have been at work at the time


The various posts on Buzz leading up to their strikes have been read many, many thousands of times and all of their strikes have widely been advertised on social media.

If you have any interest at all in their struggle it really doesn't take too much effort to find out when their strikes are happening, but no one is going to spoonfeed you the info.

Living Wage for Ritzy Staff – Facebook page


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2016)

Upcoming strikes:

Thursday 17th Nov: 10pm-6am Friday
Friday 18th: 4pm-9pm
Saturday 19th: midday walkout – Strike for the rest of the day.
Sunday 20th: 3pm-6.30pm
Monday 21st: 6pm-9pm

Brixton Ritzy workers plan series of strikes to coincide with screenings of Harry Potter spin-off film, 17th-21st Nov


----------



## Ms T (Nov 16, 2016)

Wow they're really going for it.  Respect.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2016)

Ms T said:


> Wow they're really going for it.  Respect.


They're hitting Picturehouse where it hurts. I think they're doing a brilliant job.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2016)

Cineworld profits are up.

Cineworld set for record year after blockbuster summer

They could afford to pay living wage.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2016)

See a lot of Ritzy staff are on zero hours contracts. So strike is also about conditions of work not just pay. Such as sick pay.

Zero hours, temporary contracts, so called "self employment" are becoming the norm in many working class jobs.

What employers want , in this country anyway, is a "flexible" labour force they can hire and lay off when they want.

Another Evening Standard article by Anthony Hilton points out the difference between this country and Germany.

Hilton: Tougher labour laws are key to upping productivity

Stating the obvious but its something employers and business in this country are against. Of course one does not need tougher labour laws. What one needs is employers who arent just out to make a profit out of there workforce and shaft them when they want. Not part of business culture here.

My other read is CityAM paper- the voice of the scum in the City. They are the neo liberal libertarians that Hilton is criticising. City AM is worth a read now and again for why the City is shit.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 16, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> My other read is CityAM paper- the voice of the scum in the City. They are the neo liberal libertarians that Hilton is criticising. City AM is worth a read now and again for why the City is shit.


They are not uniformly ultra-right. And they sometimes have a sense of humour:


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2016)

CH1 said:


> They are not uniformly ultra-right. And they sometimes have a sense of humour:
> View attachment 95606



All the articles I have read are against any government intervention in the market. Oppose Keynesian economics for that reason. See market as able to solve all problems. Usual argument from them is that if only a more pure free market was encouraged then all would be well. They oppose living wage for that reason. There argument being that there is a cost of living issue. That it is not about wages. That if there was a more "efficient" market in goods and services prices would drop.

Ashley is an easy target. But is a symptom not the underlying cause.

There views are standard in the City. Why its a revealing read at times.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 16, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> All the articles I have read are against any government intervention in the market. Oppose Keynesian economics for that reason. See market as able to solve all problems. Usual argument from them is that if only a more pure free market was encouraged then all would be well. They oppose living wage for that reason. There views are standard in the City. Why its a revealing read at times.


I suppose it depends what you are looking for.

Today there was an article by Guy Hands saying that Trump must use his business experience of compromise not confrontation or he would get nowhere.

Also there was a snippet from the Lib Dem candidate in Richmond Park by-election on the need for MPs to approve the final Brexit deal.

Earlier in the week there was something from Vicky Price on economics post the Trump election (I consider her liberal but I guess she could be construed as a neo-con?)


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Today there was an article by Guy Hands saying that Trump must use his business experience of compromise not confrontation or he would get nowhere.



Thats because they see Trump as a dangerous populist who might be a protectionist economically. That is he may keep to his promise of sticking up for the blue collar Americans and not business as usual with the Clintons "Free Trade". ie stuffing the workers- is a CityAM standard line. 

Heard two blue collar Americans from the "Rustbelt" saying they voted Obama and he let them down. Obama promised to reform NAFTA and never did. So they both decided to give Trump a chance as he said he would get rid / reform it.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2016)

Brixton Ritzy workers on strike again today 4pm-9pm. Give them your support!  Brixton Ritzy workers plan series of strikes to coincide with screenings of Harry Potter spin-off film, 17th-21st Nov


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2016)

Pics from last night's action:
















In photos: High spirits and low temperatures on the Brixton Ritzy workers’ picket line


----------



## CH1 (Nov 19, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Another Evening Standard article by Anthony Hilton points out the difference between this country and Germany.
> Hilton: Tougher labour laws are key to upping productivity
> My other read is CityAM paper- the voice of the scum in the City. They are the neo liberal libertarians that Hilton is criticising. City AM is worth a read now and again for why the City is shit.


Not totally relevant to the subject of the thread - but out of general interest Anthony Hilton was on George Galloway's Sputnik programme on RT today.

I think it's on again at 11.30 pm for anyone interested and not out on the town.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 20, 2016)

I went down to see the Ritzy workers on strike today (Sunday about 5pm). The Ritzy workers on strike told me that the mge have kept the cinema open using a limited number of staff from head office. So its not that the workforce are divided on the strike. Looks to me that most people are not using the cinema on strike days. The bar and cinema looked fairly empty. So people are supporting the strike.

Some pics.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 20, 2016)

Unlike like the last round of strikes the mge have not put barriers up with extra security. Clearly the learnt this was a PR mistake.

When I was there people were turning up. After talking to the strikers they left. 

Living Wage is something everyone should get.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2016)

Fundraiser & auction tomorrow 






Ritzy workers fundraiser at the Brixton Windmill, Weds 23rd Nov. Great bands and brilliant items up for auction!


----------



## shakespearegirl (Nov 22, 2016)

I received this email from Picture House this morning, what a crock of shit.. 

Blaming striking workers for not being able to put Star Wars tickets for Brixton on sale.. 

Today _*Rogue One: A Star Wars Story *_has gone on sale at Picturehouse cinemas around the country. In order to minimise the inconvenience to customers in the event of industrial action, we will be putting Rogue One on sale at the Ritzy at a later date. We will announce the on-sale date in due course, via our emails and across the Ritzy social channels. 

We have scheduled extra screenings of *Rogue One: A Star Wars Story* at *Picturehouse Central*, *Clapham Picturehouse* and *East Dulwich Picturehouse *should you wish to book tickets today.

We are one of the highest paying companies in the cinema industry and offer a wide range of benefits. We have also paid substantially more than the minimum wage for over twelve years. We are disappointed therefore, by the decision of a small number of staff who, despite being in the minority, voted for strike action.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2016)

shakespearegirl said:


> I received this email from Picture House this morning, what a crock of shit..
> 
> Blaming striking workers for not being able to put Star Wars tickets for Brixton on sale..
> 
> ...


Right weaselly, innit?


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2016)

Here's the items up for the auction (so far, I'm still working on more!): 


> Dulwich Hamlet: 4 tickets for any game this season
> Brixton Dogstar: Pizza plus beer for 2
> Brixton Lounge: Meal for two
> Railway Tulse Hill: Sunday lunch for two, with a bottle of house wine
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2016)

Good turn out last night.






In photos: Ritzy striking workers fundraiser at the Brixton Windmill


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)

Ritzy workers will be on strike from 2pm today.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)

The walkout will be stàff at four Picture House cinemas. Crouch End,Picture House Central, Hackney and the Ritzy.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2017)

More here: Ritzy workers join the largest cinema workers strike in UK history today, Sat 11th Feb

I'll pop down shortly.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)




----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2017)

Some pics from today:











In photos: Brixton Ritzy workers take part in ‘largest ever cinema workers strike’


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)

I went up to West End so took some photos of the strike at Picture House Central. The Picture house central cinema by Piccadilly Circus


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)

There were less people on the picket line. This is for legal reasons. Picture House giving them a hard time. Maximum of six.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2017)

Unlike Ritzy the Picture House Central was open.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 22, 2017)

Ritzy workers will have demo this Saturday in Leicester Square.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 22, 2017)

Details
Every year at the end of February Hollywood honours the year’s best films and those who made them. But this year we want to celebrate the Oscars with the people at the other end of the cinema business - Sold out screenings, a constant flow of popcorn followed by stacks of cups and empty packets afterwards - Oscar season is a busy one for cinema workers, the Hidden Figures.

Whilst we all do our best to be as charming and magical as Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone when dishing out the popcorn and sliding beers across the bar, our pay packet is a far cry from the big bucks of Hollywood.

But we aren't asking for a million dollars. We just want enough to keep on living in the Big City. The London Living Wage is something union members of Picturehouse have been pushing for since 2014. The campaign has been growing ever since, now with four sites out on strike! Picturehouse and Cineworld are working very hard to crush our campaign and all we get from them in the way of negotiation is Silence.

So we’re having to make a song and dance about it.

Join us for a demo on the 25th of February!

Cineworld, who own Picturehouse, have recently bought the Empire Cinema in the centre of Leicester Square, which we though would be perfect for our Arrival. Then we will take a tour of a few other of the companies cinema hot spots in the west end.

Come Hell or High Water, the campaign will go on until our employers award their workers union recognition, commit to a more ethical pay scheme and pay their workers a Living Wage. Because every worker deserves enough to live comfortably on. Every worker.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2017)

They are now asking for people to boycott Picture House  /Cineworld cinemas.


----------



## Winot (Mar 4, 2017)

Good to see Helen Hayes backing campaign:

MP Helen Hayes back Ritzy campaign with Commons motion


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2017)

Full boycott called. Boycott called for all Picturehouse and Cineworld Cinemas including the Brixton Ritzy


----------



## CH1 (Mar 10, 2017)

In case anyone is interested in the big picture about Cineworld, this came up on Citywire today:
 Not stated if they pay a dividend, but you are dealing here with a company currently valued on the stock market at £1.7 billion with almost 10,000 employees.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 10, 2017)

Is a pretax profit of £80m a lot for a company of that value? Doesnt sound very high but ive no frame of reference.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2017)

CH1 said:


> In case anyone is interested in the big picture about Cineworld, this came up on Citywire today:
> View attachment 101965 Not stated if they pay a dividend, but you are dealing here with a company currently valued on the stock market at £1.7 billion with almost 10,000 employees.


Looks like they're doing very nicely indeed. Certainly well enough to pay their staff a decent wage.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 10, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> Is a pretax profit of £80m a lot for a company of that value? Doesnt sound very high but ive no frame of reference.


Maybe this will help? (from the Cineworld website for investors)

They seem to be a very acquisitive company - so probably profits are low due to buying more cinema chains such as Empire etc.

from the report:
Key Financial Highlights
Group revenue growth of 13.0% on a statutory basis and 8.7% on a constant currency basis(1);
Solid UK & Ireland revenue growth of 6.0%;
Strong ROW(4) revenue growth of 26.6% on a statutory basis and 13.3% on a constant currency basis with record performances in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czech Republic;
EBITDA double digit growth of 13.2%, 8.4% on a constant currency basis;
Adjusted profit after tax increased by 18.3% to £93.8m;
Statutory profit after tax increased 0.9% to £82.0m5;
Adjusted diluted EPS growth of 16.8% to 34.7p;
Final dividend increased by 8.6% to 19.0p;
Net cash generated from operating activities of £150.1m (2015: £165.9m), and
Net debt increased to £282.3m due to the acquisition of five Empire cinemas compared to £245.2m at 31 December 2015 with EBITDA to net debt ratio remaining at 1.6 times.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 10, 2017)

Still only generated £150m. Guess I dont understand business


----------



## T & P (Mar 10, 2017)

I wouldn't know how to start to calculate the figure but my guess is that the extra cost of increasing the salaries of anyone in their payroll currently earning less than the LLW to that level would still leave the company with an extremely fat healthy profit.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 11, 2017)

T & P said:


> I wouldn't know how to start to calculate the figure but my guess is that the extra cost of increasing the salaries of anyone in their payroll currently earning less than the LLW to that level would still leave the company with an extremely fat healthy profit.


Doesn't it work out at £8000 per employee based on 10,000. That should be plenty to bring everyone up to a living wage, plus some spare. It makes me sick that while the tories talk about council housing being "tax payer subsidised housing,", yet they ignore the fact that we are all subsidising businesses while they pay wages so low, their employees can't even afford rent and basics without tax payer assistance. 
If a business can't afford to pay living wages, they shouldn't be in business in the first place.
 How about a law to prevent any shareholder or director dividends being paid out, or salary increases in the boardroom, until living wages are achieved for all employees?


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2017)

Great news: 


> EAST DULWICH PICTUREHOUSE VOTE TO STRIKE!
> 
> The ballot is in and East Dulwich Picturehouse have achieved a 94% turnout and an 88% yes vote.
> 
> ...


A Living Wage for Ritzy Staff


----------



## CH1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Nobody seems to have spotted this full-page article in the Standard on Tuesday
Investors hold the key as Picturehouse wage strikes intensify

Apart from summarising the situation, the article does suggest this might become an issue at the company's AGM on May 18th.

Of course the days of concerned shareholder protest are long gone (it was 1995 when GMB union members took Cedric the Pig along to a British Gas shareholder's meeting to meet his namesake Cedric Brown who had just had a pay rise to the then shocking figure of £475,000 p.a.)

The Cineworld AGM is at 10.30 am on Thursday 18th May in Southside Cineworld (see notice below). Obviously interested parties with banners etc can demonstrate outside - but to get in would require purchasing a share - normally shareholder meetings are marshalled by the registrar (in this case Capita Registrars of Beckenham).


----------



## BoxRoom (Jun 2, 2017)

Just saw this, can't find out any more details at the moment.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2017)

BoxRoom said:


> Just saw this, can't find out any more details at the moment.


That's going to up the ante big time.

On a related note, it was sad to see the Brixton Blog running a large advertorial for the Ritzy recently, gushing about all the upcoming releases. The workers need all the solidarity they can get.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2017)

Boycott the Ritzy!

Brixton Ritzy cinema staff suspended before pay talks as strikes set for this weekend


----------



## CH1 (Jun 2, 2017)

Back on 21st April I suggested here that demonstrators could picket the AGM. To me this would make a lot more sense than picketing customers.

In addition I pointed out that in London we used to have shareholder political activism - people buy a share and go to the AGM and ask questions.

Neither of these things happened - it would have been reported in the Standard or the FT or City AM at the very least if they had.

Meanwhile look at the company's annual report and the report for investors published soon afterwards and you will see this is a brash self-confident company which couldn't give a toss about workers.

Both of these reports are downloaded "as-is" from the Cineworld website by the way.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2017)

In Guardian today:

Picturehouse cinema staff suspended in lead-up to strikes


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2017)

Bectu:

Living wage strikes at Picturehouse this weekend - BECTU

BECTU members at four Picturehouse venues in the capital will be on strike this weekend (3-4 June) as they continue to press their employer to pay the Living Wage.

 The Brixton Ritzy, Hackney Picturehouse, Crouch End Picturehouse and Picturehouse Central (Shaftesbury Avenue) will all be impacted by the action, which gets underway from 4pm on Saturday 3 June and from 2pm on Sunday 4 June.

The action coincides with London's Sundance Film Festival (1-4 June) which is being hosted at the Picturehouse Central.

In a new development, BECTU is also supporting six BECTU representatives who have been suspended from duty. Commenting on the suspensions, Gerry Morrissey, head of BECTU condemned the move as “an attempt by Picturehouse to intimidate our members in this long running dispute."


----------



## CH1 (Jun 3, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> In Guardian today:
> 
> Picturehouse cinema staff suspended in lead-up to strikes


I think it's fair to say Mr Bloom - chair of the Borad at  Cineworld - is not  Labour supporter (lest they raise the minimum wage to £15 he says).
Wonder how much bonus he got this year?


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2017)

Photos from today's action: 






















In photos: Brixton Ritzy workers start their weekend strike after union officials suspended


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2017)

Couple of mine. Pickets are limited for legal reasons.


----------



## Bigglesworth (Jun 4, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Back on 21st April I suggested here that demonstrators could picket the AGM. To me this would make a lot more sense than picketing customers.
> 
> In addition I pointed out that in London we used to have shareholder political activism - people buy a share and go to the AGM and ask questions.
> 
> ...



They did! They did it last time round during the strikes 3 or 4 years ago too. 

Cineworld bosses to meet union over living wage dispute

Cineworld bosses to meet union over living wage dispute | Richard Hartley


----------



## CH1 (Jun 4, 2017)

Bigglesworth said:


> They did! They did it last time round during the strikes 3 or 4 years ago too.
> 
> Cineworld bosses to meet union over living wage dispute
> 
> Cineworld bosses to meet union over living wage dispute | Richard Hartley


Thanks for pointing this out. At least all options are being fully explored then.
Strikes me Cineworld is back in the 1970s as far as industrial relations are concerned.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 4, 2017)

editor said:


> That's going to up the ante big time.
> 
> On a related note, it was sad to see the Brixton Blog running a large advertorial for the Ritzy recently, gushing about all the upcoming releases. The workers need all the solidarity they can get.


I agree. I also see plenty of promotions of 'community events' based at other Picturehouse venues. Very annoying. Some folk don't appear to understand how this gives picture house some social credibility and business in the cafe even as protests go on outside.


----------



## heinous seamus (Jun 15, 2017)

Looks like several of the reps have now been sacked.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2017)

There will be a demo on Friday (tomorrow) at 6pm in Windrush Square for the sacked reps.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2017)

Protest tonight: 
Brixton Ritzy workers stage demo in support of sacked union reps: Fri 16th June, 6pm


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2017)

Huge turn out today: 

















In Photos: Brixton Ritzy Living Wage dispute – big crowds turn out in support of sacked workers


----------



## felixgolightly (Jun 19, 2017)

#ReinstateTheReps


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2017)

felixgolightly said:


> #ReinstateTheReps


Cheers - I've posted it on Buzz/Tweeted/FB'd and hope people here will sign to. 

Brixton Ritzy workers launch petition to reinstate sacked union reps


----------



## Winot (Jun 19, 2017)

felixgolightly said:


> #ReinstateTheReps



Signed. Anyone know what excuse the company is giving for the sackings? Seems very dodgy from an employment law perspective.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2017)

Another strike on Saturday followed by an after party at the Prince Albert
Brixton Ritzy workers on strike again on July 1st as they fight to ‘Reinstate the Picturehouse 4’


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2017)

Boycott the Ritzy! 







Campaigners ask Brixtonites to boycott the Brixton Ritzy after workers sacked


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2017)

This evening. Good turnout


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2017)

Few more photos


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2017)

Some pics from today - don't forget the after party at the Prince Albert!

Shame those fucking racist homophobic 'Seven Tribes Of Israel' bellends were also in the square making a shitty racket.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2017)

Sack the head of Cineworld poster.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2017)

After all the strikes and sackings it was great to put on a fun free night for the workers - and it was a bloody fantastic party!
















In photos: Ritzy staff and Picturehouse workers party in Brixton

Kudos to the 414 for letting all the Ritzy staff in for free after.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2017)

Winot said:


> Signed. Anyone know what excuse the company is giving for the sackings? Seems very dodgy from an employment law perspective.


They're claiming CYBER TURRISM!!11!!

Picturehouse investigates allegations of ‘cyber attacks’ by union members - Hackney Citizen


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2017)

Interesting piece here: 



> *1. It shines a light on the hypocrisies of the gig economy*
> 
> Cineworld, the group who own Picturehouse, made £93.8m in post tax profit last year. Their CEO took home £2.5m in pay and bonuses, an increase from £1.2m the year before. ‘We went into negotiations with them a few days ago and they said they were struggling to maintain pay levels because of the impact of our strikes’, says Kelly Rogers, a Picturehouse worker and union rep who was suspended a month ago, said. ‘They were accusing us of being greedy whilst the CEO increased his own wage by over a £1m last year alone.’



5 reasons you should be following the Picturehouse strike


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 8, 2017)

What a shocking gap between executive and workers pay!


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 10, 2017)

After calling membership services and not getting no joy, I've just sent this email to customerservice@picturehouses.co.uk

FAO The General Manager

I have been a member of the Ritzy Cinema in Brixton for over 20 years. I have been upset and disappointed  at the recent treatment of your workers not being paid the London Living Wage and then the sacking of staff. I have not been to a Picture House cinema for about 6 months and intend to boycott until the workers ask me not to.

In the meantime I will be going to Curzon cinemas who do pay the London Living Wage.

I paid for my annual membership in November 2016 and have obviously not made much use of it. I contacted your membership helpline to see if I could receive a refund or if indeed my membership could be frozen, but I was told that this was not possible, and no refunds are given.

I am asking you to reconsider this as I'm somewhat irked that you have taken my money so me boycotting has little effect. I would be grateful if you could think about this and the impact it is having on your reputation with long standing supporters

I look forward to hearing from you

with regards


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 10, 2017)

During the last round of strikes I cancelled my membership and they refunded me for the remaining proportion of time.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2017)

shakespearegirl said:


> During the last round of strikes I cancelled my membership and they refunded me for the remaining proportion of time.


Did you mention the strike when you asked for a refund?


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 10, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Did you mention the strike when you asked for a refund?



Yep. I explained that was why I was cancelling my membership. I called and discussed with them and then had to send an email explaining why I was cancelling.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2017)

shakespearegirl said:


> Yep. I explained that was why I was cancelling my membership. I called and discussed with them and then had to send an email explaining why I was cancelling.


So looks like sparkybird could have another go


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 10, 2017)

Yep, that was in 2014. I just dug out the email and my language was pretty strong.. Disgraceful, bullying, union busting...


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 10, 2017)

shakespearegirl said:


> During the last round of strikes I cancelled my membership and they refunded me for the remaining proportion of time.


Thanks for that. I did mention the strike, but of course the person on the end of the phone has no power to authorize that. I'll definitely be pursuing this then based on your outcome shakespearegirl


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 10, 2017)

If they can't authorise it, ask who can and demand to speak to them...


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 13, 2017)

Had a response from Picture Houses. They say they can't give me a refund as I've used all my free tickets.... good excuse. I've stopped my standing order though.

Have a look at the GREAT list of benefits you can get if you work for them - all adding up to a big fat nothing in your wallet.

Thank you for contacting the Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd. Picturehouse have released the following statement regarding the industrial disputes:

"We are proud of our employees and the good relationship we have with them at all Picturehouse cinemas around the country.

For many years Picturehouse Cinemas has paid its front-of-house customer service staff well above minimum wage. Our pay rates are amongst the highest in the industry and have enabled us to attract and retain staff who are knowledgeable about film, skilled in many areas and able to offer high levels of service.

Staff at the Hackney, Crouch End and Central Picturehouses in London are represented by The Forum, a recognised union, with collective bargaining rights for all Picturehouse cinemas excluding the Ritzy Picturehouse in Brixton, South London. We negotiate pay rates each year and a new pay rate for 2016-2017 of £9.05 per hour - plus individual and cinema-wide shared bonus schemes - has just been agreed by a 72% majority vote. We are therefore disappointed by the decision of a minority of staff who have chosen to strike.

In addition, all our employees receive the following:

*Paid breaks:* breaks are 20 minutes for every 6 hours worked. At Picturehouse we try to give 5 minutes for every hour up to 30 minutes in an 8 hour shift, making the pay rate the equivalent of £9.61 per hour.

*Unlimited free cinema tickets at Picturehouse:* provided there are seats available at the last minute.

*Free soft drinks and popcorn:* when visiting the cinema to watch a film.

*Two guest tickets a week:* once a week staff can bring two guests to any film or event for free, subject to availability.

*Unlimited free tickets at Cineworld (our parent company):* subject to availability.

*Free hot and cold drinks:* when staff are working they can have as much tea, coffee, hot chocolate or draught soft drinks as they like.

*Food & drink discounts:* staff get 30% discount at Picturehouses at all times.

*Free eye tests:* for those using computers or tills.

*Statutory sick pay and four weeks paid holiday.*

Staff at the Ritzy, represented by BECTU, are on a flat rate of £9.10 per hour from 2nd September 2016. This rate was agreed by majority vote in a ballot held following considerable negotiation in July 2014."

Having checked our membership account, it would appear that you have used all your free tickets against your membership which accounts for the sum you paid for your term. Therefore, we are unable to process any form of refund on your membership.

However, it is worth pointing out that you do have a Direct Debit against your membership. Therefore, should you no longer wish to renew automatically as a member of the Picturehouse, I would suggest contacting your bank in order to cancel any future payments relating to this agreement.

I hope this information has been helpful in clarifying the pay and benefits to Picturehouse staff.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Kindest regards,

Matthew
Customer Service Team
Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2017)

Good piece here :



> It is a saga that tells us much about a country rigged in favour of unscrupulous employers, and a society riddled with injustice. The Ritzy cinema in Brixton, south London, is a hub for the young, the trendy, the progressively minded. Here you can watch rousing films with storylines about confronting oppression and injustice, while you are served by workers on poverty wages being persecuted by their own employers. Picturehouse – the owner of the Ritzy – should be shamed, but it tells a broader story of a wealthy nation in which the majority of those below the poverty line are in work, of a law that allows bosses to behave with impunity while denying workers a wage on which they can live, and of a lack of security and rights. It seemed reasonable to hope that this week’s long-awaited Taylor review into modern employment practices might have begun to address this crisis. Some hope.
> 
> But then the Ritzy cinema workers have long ceased relying on hope. They have been fighting for years now for a living wage, despite entrenched opposition from their employers. One day it will be a source of bewilderment, perhaps disgust, that any worker could earn their poverty wages. Those who fought such a scandal will be regarded as pioneers; Picturehouse owners should realise that history will be less kind to them, that they will be remembered as case studies of exploitation and nothing else.
> 
> ...



Now showing at the Ritzy: low pay and exploitation | Owen Jones


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2017)

Clever: 



> Certainly, workers have felt intimidated. “They’ve been incredibly belligerent from the beginning, refused to negotiate, brought in lots of lawyers, issued legal threats,” one tells me. In solidarity with the Ritzy workers, supportive members of the public block-booked cinema tickets. They didn’t pay for them: they were merely in their online baskets, preventing others from booking tickets. Here was an effective, ingenious even, means of solidarity.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 13, 2017)

Ritzy campaigners say housing crisis film showing ‘positive’ 

Amazing amount of things cited in the letter to sparkybird are statutory employment rights being pitched as a benevolent employer!


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 13, 2017)

Exactly!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2017)

editor said:


> Good piece here :
> 
> 
> 
> Now showing at the Ritzy: low pay and exploitation | Owen Jones






> For Agata – who is from Poland – there is another bitter side to the dispute. It has become all too common for migrants like her to be scapegoated for social ills caused by others. Here she is, a Polish worker fighting for a decent wage for her and her fellow workers, in a country where it has become fashionable to blame migrants for suppressing wages. “Why don’t you blame the employer?” she implores. “It’s got especially worse in the Brexit climate: all this trying to find blame in the wrong places.”



As I have Polish friends and a partner from another EU country I feel the referendum ended up as poisonous debate about immigration.

That's not to say the EU is all good. The single market is neo liberal. Providing business with access to cheaper labour force. Why Chukas amendment to stay in single market is not progressive. ( I heard Chukas on radio. He wants to stay in single market. But he was all for deporting EU people who were unemployed for three months. Not exactly liberal minded.)

The EU  and the way it's set up and operates is partly to blame for this not just employers.

Poles I know who came here when borders were opened did so as they felt this country was more liberal minded that there's. This country had a good reputation for younger Poles. Poland was and is now run by Catholic Nationalists. More socially conservative than our Tories. More like the DUP. They feel now let down. This was a country they liked. They can't understand what's happened.

For Poles this country had a long history of connection with Poland. They knew this. A lot of people in this country are ignorant of it. From famous Poles like Conrad to the many Poles who fought in the British army and air force against the Nazis in WW2. We have let them down more than once.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2017)

I heard there is going to be a community picket this evening of the Ritzy. 

Between 5.30 and 7.30


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I heard there is going to be a community picket this evening of the Ritzy.
> 
> Between 5.30 and 7.30


Got any more info on this? IS there a FB page? I want to do a Buzz feature to spread the word.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2017)

Up the workers!
Brixton Ritzy cinema workers out on strike this Friday and Saturday, 4th-5th August


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 4, 2017)

Saw one of the Ritzy sacked workers at a union / labour meeting last week. Found out lots about the strike and the strikers I didn't know. 

Although Cineworld made a commitment after the stikes a way back to work towards that - they have stopped 70p an hr short and now just refuse.

They really want people to continue to boycott the Ritzy. Someone said there was a group of local people (not employees) meeting outside the Ritzy evernight, early evening for a hour or two, to tell people about the boycott. 

Also found out that Lambeth Council are about to invest £3.5 million doing up Norwood library to then give it rent free for 5 years to Cineworld, where they would be under no obligation to pay LLW.  Why are our local council subsidising an explotative profitable big business - it would be cheaper to simply run a library. If this concerns you - pls write to your Lambeth councillor.


----------



## Sue (Aug 5, 2017)

I just phoned to check my membership wasn't on automatic renewal. (I renewed it when it briefly looked like things had been sorted out and they gave me some free months for setting up a direct debit. I haven't been to any of their cinemas in a very long time.)

I also asked for an email address to write to to explain why I wasn't renewing.

The woman on the phone told me she worked at the Ritzy, was aware of what was going on and was very happy with her pay. 

I'm sure she'll be very happy to accept any payrise won by her colleagues putting themselves on the line too.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2017)

Some lovely community support here: 












Striking Brixton Ritzy workers get musical support from local grime artists in Windrush Square – photos


----------



## ChrisSouth (Aug 8, 2017)

I'm going to ask a totally stupid question, so please be gentle. I agree with, and support what's happening with the workers at the Rizty (as in, I support the workers), and haven't been there for ages. What's the situation with Clapham Picture House and East Dulwich regarding pay rates? Should I also not visit those cinemas, as well as not going to Cineworld?


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2017)

ChrisSouth said:


> I'm going to ask a totally stupid question, so please be gentle. I agree with, and support what's happening with the workers at the Rizty (as in, I support the workers), and haven't been there for ages. What's the situation with Clapham Picture House and East Dulwich regarding pay rates? Should I also not visit those cinemas, as well as not going to Cineworld?


I don't think their position has changed since this was posted: Boycott called for all Picturehouse and Cineworld Cinemas including the Brixton Ritzy


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 8, 2017)

ChrisSouth said:


> I'm going to ask a totally stupid question, so please be gentle. I agree with, and support what's happening with the workers at the Rizty (as in, I support the workers), and haven't been there for ages. What's the situation with Clapham Picture House and East Dulwich regarding pay rates? Should I also not visit those cinemas, as well as not going to Cineworld?



The Ritzy workers have been represented by BECTU for years. It might have pre dated Cineworld acquiring the Ritzy. BECTU officially represent Ritzy workers.

This isn't the case with other cinemas. At Picture House central not all the workers are in the union. Each cinema union representation is done separately despite them being owned by one company.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2017)

Protest yesterday 






Boycott the Brixton Ritzy campaigners return to Windrush Square


----------



## donkyboy (Aug 20, 2017)

they must have a high turn over of staff? I dont recognise any of them. Haven't been in there for a while, mind.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 20, 2017)

I think they are supporters, not employees???

Was interesting to see people sitting outside the Ritzy drinking and enjoying the sun while these guys were stood there with their banners.

I wouldn't be able to sit there and crack a bottle of Champagne, as I saw one couple doing, while there's a pay dispute going on and a demo is taking place beside me as I sip at my bubbly.


----------



## donkyboy (Aug 20, 2017)

they are employees (the ones in red t-shirt). the last time I recognised a few of them was when eric cantona turned up.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 20, 2017)

donkyboy said:


> they are employees (the ones in red t-shirt). the last time I recognised a few of them was when eric cantona turned up.



I was talking about the last pic...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2017)

Picket there on Saturday. They said they would try to do this regularly.Fridays and Saturday.  Ritzy workers can't do it for legal reasons.

As Nanker Phelge said I also saw someone quaffing champers outside. Looked to me that picket was having effect. So anyone who wants to go along and support is welcome.


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2017)

Love it!






Empty seats outside as Boycott the Brixton Ritzy protest clears customers away


----------



## brixtonblade (Sep 9, 2017)

editor said:


> Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good to see

I cant get my head round how people sit outside there happily drinking whilst people have these placards up - how can they not feel like total arseholes?


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2017)

brixtonblade said:


> Good to see
> 
> I cant get my head round how people sit outside there happily drinking whilst people have these placards up - how can they not feel like total arseholes?


I guess they REALLY just don't give a fuck about the workers.

This lot below were the worst. How can you be like this:







When this is going on two metres away?











In Photos: Brixton Ritzy Living Wage dispute – big crowds turn out in support of sacked workers


----------



## brixtonblade (Sep 9, 2017)

editor said:


> I guess they REALLY just don't give a fuck about the workers.
> 
> This lot below were the worst. How can you be like this:
> 
> ...


Unbelievable


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 9, 2017)

People might have boycott fatigue; after all, this has been dragging on for years now.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Sep 9, 2017)

The length of the boycott is having quite the opposite effect on me.


----------



## brixtonblade (Sep 9, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> People might have boycott fatigue; after all, this has been dragging on for years now.


Perhaps.
It's got to make you feel shit if you're sat having a pint whilst people are protesting right by you though.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2017)

brixtonblade said:


> Perhaps.
> It's got to make you feel shit if you're sat having a pint whilst people are protesting right by you though.


You've got to be a special kind of twat just to sit there laughing and drinking with your mates when the workers from the establishment you're in are _right in front of you_, fighting for a decent wage.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 11, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> People might have boycott fatigue; after all, this has been dragging on for years now.


'boycott fatigue' - don't you just mean they don't give give a fuck and never did? 
or do you think they used to care that people were underpaid but two years on they don't care anymore?  
or is that just how you feel?


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 12, 2017)

Neither


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 12, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> Neither


so what do you mean?


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 12, 2017)

Sorry, I misread your post.

I mean people will often become desensitised to horrific situations if they're exposed to it often enough. Their views may not have changed. A bit how like none of us breaks down at the sight of someone living on the streets in a wealthy country such as the UK. We should; it's a terrible situation that simply should not exist. But it does. And the vast majority of us go about our lives without it actually affecting us.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 12, 2017)

Yes I understand the concept of compassion fatigue. But to ignore a picket line? and sit yards away from:



editor said:


>





SpamMisery said:


> And the vast majority of us go about our lives without it actually affecting us.



Who is 'us'? speak for yourself.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> Sorry, I misread your post.
> 
> I mean people will often become desensitised to horrific situations if they're exposed to it often enough. Their views may not have changed. A bit how like none of us breaks down at the sight of someone living on the streets in a wealthy country such as the UK. We should; it's a terrible situation that simply should not exist. But it does. And the vast majority of us go about our lives without it actually affecting us.



This is all beside the point.

Its a picket line. They crossed it.

There are plenty of other places to drink in within a few minutes walk.

So clearly they don't give a fuck .

It's not as if they were risking there jobs if they didn't cross it. Nor is it great inconvenience to go somewhere else for a drink.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 12, 2017)

Ok


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> This is all beside the point.
> 
> Its a picket line. They crossed it.
> 
> ...


The day I find myself laughing and drinking with my mates in front of a venue with a massive workers' protest going on right next to me is that day I've become an utter tosser. There's no fucking excuse for not supporting the workers in such a situation, unless you really don't give a fuck.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 12, 2017)

Lizzy Mac said:


> The length of the boycott is having quite the opposite effect on me.



Same here. I find them inspirational. They just ain't going away! Top, top effort.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2017)

There is another community picket on Saturday from 4pm to 6 pm


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2017)

Strike at Ritzy from 2pm to 6pm.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 17, 2017)

how did it go?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> how did it go?



I missd the one last Saturday. So don't know.

I want to see the strike next Saturday.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2017)

Up the workers!

Join the Brixton Ritzy cinema workers as they celebrate one year of striking: Sat 23rd Sept 2-6pm


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2017)

Today


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2017)

Huge respect to the Ritzy workers!


----------



## ricbake (Sep 23, 2017)

Mark has spent months working on the PWM - Looks brilliant!


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2017)

More pics: 











In photos: Striking Brixton Ritzy workers go on the march in Brixton to demand the Living Wage


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2017)

Forgot to post until now, but I had a frenetic phone call on Wednesday afternoon saying there was an immigration raid going on at the Ritzy - van, police, handcuffs and all. 

Anybody know anything about this? I guess the Ritzy is as likely as anywhere to employ staff without the right to work - though this is normally associated with catering establishments.


----------



## Sue (Oct 2, 2017)

Bastards.

Picturehouse threatens to sack striking workers in dispute over pay


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2017)

Fuck 'em.

I'm never setting foot back in the place until they reinstate the sacked reps and pay their staff a decent wage, 

Picturehouse threatens to sack striking Brixton Ritzy workers in ongoing dispute over pay


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 2, 2017)

editor said:


> Fuck 'em.
> 
> I'm never setting foot back in the place until they reinstate the sacked reps and pay their staff a decent wage,
> 
> Picturehouse threatens to sack striking Brixton Ritzy workers in ongoing dispute over pay



I will continue to boycott the place too.....which is a shame, but it has to be.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 3, 2017)

Yup, not been for almost a year now.
And cancelled my membership which is had for probably 20 years 
Missing seeing films, but worth it to be able to support the action.
I've just not got my lazy self into gear to go elsewhere....


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2017)

Diverse coverage of the London Film Festival opening:
Channel 8 (London Live) concentrating on the strike at 5 Cineworld cinemas (including the Ritzy) - with interview.
Channel 103 (ITV London) exclusively going on about the stars flying into this magnificent world film festival - with interviews.

Wondering what if anything will come up on BBC London if they can tear themselves away from cough sweet recommendations for Madam May.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2017)

Brilliant stuff:



> Protesters chanted and waved banners at the opening of the BFI London Film Festival as a long-running staff pay dispute with a cinema chain spilled over into red carpet territory.
> 
> Around 50 staff of London’s Picturehouse cinemas, owned by Cineworld, have been demanding their pay be brought in line with the 9.75 pounds ($12.85) per hour recommended by the Living Wage Foundation, a campaigning group.
> 
> ...



Protests disrupt London Film Festival in cinema wage dispute


----------



## Fingers (Oct 6, 2017)

Pics


----------



## Fingers (Oct 6, 2017)




----------



## Fingers (Oct 6, 2017)




----------



## Fingers (Oct 6, 2017)

X


----------



## Fingers (Oct 6, 2017)

X


----------



## Fingers (Oct 6, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2017)

You got there before me Fingers 

Still going strong at 7pm.

Btw Fingers and my photos are from Picture House Central. Picturehouse flagship art cinema in West End. Showing London Film festival films. Its the rival to Curzon Soho up the road who do pay Living Wage.


----------



## alcopop (Oct 6, 2017)

*If this is true then do they not already pay the london minimum wage?*

*How much does Picturehouse pay its staff in London?*
Front of house staff at London Picturehouses are paid £9.30 per hour, equivalent to £9.92 per hour when working an 8 hour shift as we choose to pay for breaks. This means staff working an 8 hour shift, are paid for 8 hours but only work 7.5. The equivalent rate for time worked is thus £9.92 per hour.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2017)

alcopop said:


> *If this is true then do they not already pay the london minimum wage?*


What do you think? 

PS It's the Living Wage they're after.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 7, 2017)

alcopop said:


> *If this is true then do they not already pay the london minimum wage?*
> 
> *How much does Picturehouse pay its staff in London?*
> Front of house staff at London Picturehouses are paid £9.30 per hour, equivalent to £9.92 per hour when working an 8 hour shift as we choose to pay for breaks. This means staff working an 8 hour shift, are paid for 8 hours but only work 7.5. The equivalent rate for time worked is thus £9.92 per hour.


In my view it's deceptive and dishonest of companies to say because you are paid for breaks your hourly pay is higher. When you are at work for 8 hours you should be paid for 8 hours.

Today thousands of people will head into Oxford street area to work in retail. Many won't be paid for breaks. Hard busy work, on your feet all day. You need a break but If they all said we won't take a break and you can close the store at 4:30 rather than 5:00, how many managers would say OK? Not a single one. People are forced to take breaks so should always be paid for them.

Of those same people I wonder how many get a LLW?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> In my view it's deceptive and dishonest of companies to say because you are paid for breaks your hourly pay is higher. When you are at work for 8 hours you should be paid for 8 hours.
> 
> Today thousands of people will head into Oxford street area to work in retail. Many won't be paid for breaks. Hard busy work, on your feet all day. You need a break but If they all said we won't take a break and you can close the store at 4:30 rather than 5:00, how many managers would say OK? Not a single one. People are forced to take breaks so should always be paid for them.
> 
> Of those same people I wonder how many get a LLW?


I am currently out of the loop employment wise but surely the norm in everyday jobs is you get paid for "tea breaks" of 10-15 minutes morning and afternoon but not the "lunch break" of 30 minutes to 1 hour mid-day?

Perhaps the Ritzy are muddying the waters here?

Then there is always they situation where bigwigs are too important to take their lunch break so they can stay tied to their desks wage free as a gesture of bonus-inducing loyalty. Do Ritzy workers get a bonus perchance?


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 7, 2017)

CH1 said:


> I am currently out of the loop employment wise but surely the norm in everyday jobs is you get paid for "tea breaks" of 10-15 minutes morning and afternoon but not the "lunch break" of 30 minutes to 1 hour mid-day?
> 
> Perhaps the Ritzy are muddying the waters here?
> 
> Then there is always they situation where bigwigs are too important to take their lunch break so they can stay tied to their desks wage free as a gesture of bonus-inducing loyalty. Do Ritzy workers get a bonus perchance?


I think that's about correct with breaks and payment but I think it's wrong for the reasons I say.

I doubt many "bigwigs" are on an hourly wage.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 7, 2017)

Paid tea breaks might be trade specific (and unpaid tea breaks for that matter). I think most office jobs would find the idea of a twice daily tea break odd. In fact, if I said to colleagues "I'm just off to sit in a comfy chair and have a cup of tea for 15 mins", they'd be shocked (as I would if they said it to me).


----------



## Silas Loom (Oct 7, 2017)

Office jobs are carried out in a comfy chair with a cup of tea by your side, though. That's not the case when you're manning a popcorn booth.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 7, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Office jobs are carried out in a comfy chair with a cup of tea by your side, though. That's not the case when you're manning a popcorn booth.


Yes. I think like SpamMisery says it's trade specific. Physical jobs I've worked all had tea breaks, office jobs never. Never organised ones anyway. 

When I'm planning a project I generally budget the office people I work withs time for 5 hours a day. I find thats even a little bit ambitious.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Office jobs are carried out in a comfy chair with a cup of tea by your side, though. That's not the case when you're manning a popcorn booth.


Or standing on your feet all day working at the bar....


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2017)

The dispute isn't only about the Living Wage. It's also about gaining right of Bectu to represent workers at the other sites (Hackney and Picturehouse Central ). Also to gain company sick pay and other benefits for all employees.

At present only Ritzy is officially represented by Bectu.

So I think aim of this strike action and picketing isn't only about Living Wage. It's also about Bectu in long term unionising and getting official recognition as the body that represents the Picture House workers across all Picturehouse cinemas.

I would guess that Cineworld / Picturehouse wouldn't want this. At Hackney mge say they have set up staff group to discuss issues with mge so union is not necessary.

The campaign puts at the forefront the Living Wage but there is more to it than that.


----------



## alcopop (Oct 7, 2017)

editor said:


> What do you think?
> 
> PS It's the Living Wage they're after.



Either I'm being stupid (ps but maybe you are)

But...


The London Living Wage is currently £9.75 per hour. This covers all boroughs in Greater London.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2017)

alcopop said:


> Either I'm being stupid (ps but maybe you are)
> 
> But...
> 
> ...



Picture house is paying less. Unless you accept there argument about half hour break.

Also pay rates across Picturehouse cinemas differ. Ritzy workers got pay increase for the Ritzy only.

Curzon cinemas and BFI are accredited Living Wage employers. This is voluntary but more than just paying Living Wage. It means going through accreditatation process with Living Wage Foundation. I think that Bectu want Picturehouse to do this. It commits employer to increase pay when the Living Wage Foundation decides on an increase. So it's long term commitment.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2017)

On office jobs versus more physical jobs.

Both can be equally exploitative.

Had friend who got (quite good) office job. They had (officially) a hour lunch break. She found that a lot of people in office worked through it. Eating at there desk as they worked.

She found that and was told that having a "flexible" working attitude went with the job. Showing right kind of "commitment".

She left after a while.

Not all manual jobs get proper breaks. Delivery / passenger car jobs have a lunch is for wimps work culture.



There are sectors of economy where there are "official" positions on breaks etc but the actual practice is somewhat different.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2017)

alcopop said:


> Either I'm being stupid (ps but maybe you are)


You said minimum wage. That's not the same as the London Living Wage.


----------



## alcopop (Oct 7, 2017)

editor said:


> You said minimum wage. That's not the same as the London Living Wage.


Well technically the London minimum wage is the same as the national minimum wage. 

But I meant to say London living wage. And my point still stands


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2017)

alcopop said:


> Well technically the London minimum wage is the same as the national minimum wage.


Nope The difference between National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2017)

alcopop said:


> Well technically the London minimum wage is the same as the national minimum wage.
> 
> But I meant to say London living wage. And my point still stands



No it doesn't. For reasons explained in recent posts.


----------



## alcopop (Oct 7, 2017)

editor said:


> Nope The difference between National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage


No you are not quite getting it.

The national minimum wage is national. It applies over the nation

The London minimum wage is the same because London is in the nation

The London living wage is different.

If I am incorrect then am happy to apologise


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 8, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> On office jobs versus more physical jobs.
> 
> Both can be equally exploitative.
> 
> ...


I agree both can be exploitive but your example of your friends office role is so lacking detail it isn't actually saying anything. I can't draw any conclusions from it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 8, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> I agree both can be exploitive but your example of your friends office role is so lacking detail it isn't actually saying anything. I can't draw any conclusions from it.



This is open forum. I'm not going to put to many details. And its not the only example I have.

I don't think I m saying as anything that out of the ordinary.

Bosses try to get the most out of those who work for them. I would think that is something posters can agree on. 

It's hardly controversial.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 8, 2017)

In general bosses do try to get the most out of those who work for them. That is not the same as being exploitative. They might be exploitative and they might not. You seem to be mixing terminology to make a point.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2017)

Rushy said:


> In general bosses do try to get the most out of those who work for them. That is not the same as being exploitative. They might be exploitative and they might not. You seem to be mixing terminology to make a point.



What point?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2017)

Rushy said:


> In general bosses do try to get the most out of those who work for them. That is not the same as being exploitative. They might be exploitative and they might not. You seem to be mixing terminology to make a point.



It's certainly feels exploitative when one is working for a boss. This isn't personal. It's what one expects a boss to do.

I fail to see what I've saying here is controversial.

Its based on personal experience and what friends and acquaintances say to me.


----------



## editor (Oct 9, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> It's certainly feels exploitative when one is working for a boss. This isn't personal. It's what one expects a boss to do.
> 
> I fail to see what I've saying here is controversial.
> 
> Its based on personal experience and what friends and acquaintances say to me.


'Exploitative' to me looks like a company raking in ever-fatter profits off the backs of their staff every year while refusing to pay them what is independently deemed to the minimum required to live off in London



> The cinema chain saw revenue rise 17.8 per cent to £420.2 million in the six months to June 30 [2017], while pre-tax profit increased 57.5 per cent to £48.2 million.
> Box office hits drive growth at Cineworld





> In 2016 Cineworld (Picturehouse's parent company) posted profits of £93.8m, an 18.3% increase on the previous year, whilst CEO Mooky Greidinger earned over $2 million. Yet they claim that they cannot afford to meet workers needs, refusing to take part in official negotiations.
> Living Staff Living Wage - BECTU


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 10, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> It's certainly feels exploitative when one is working for a boss. This isn't personal. It's what one expects a boss to do.
> 
> I fail to see what I've saying here is controversial.
> 
> Its based on personal experience and what friends and acquaintances say to me.


I think where I disagree is you seem to be saying anyone who works for any boss is being exploited. Correct me if I have misunderstood you though.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2017)

Support the workers!
How to support Brixton Ritzy workers fighting for the Living Wage: #1 Boycott The Cinema


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 10, 2017)

But surely everyone (who works) effectively has a boss? Even if you're self employed, you are working for your customers who direct your work and pay your wages.... like a boss.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> I think where I disagree is you seem to be saying anyone who works for any boss is being exploited. Correct me if I have misunderstood you though.



I did say in previous post that this wasn't being personal. I'm not being moralistic about bosses.  My view is that this is a Capitalist society. That labour is a commodity that people have to sell. Following Marx. Which fits into my observations of how work operates. The relationship between boss and worker is an unequal one. One does not elect ones boss. The failing of bourgeois democracy is that it's partial. The economic sphere us excluded. So yes anyone who works for a boss is being exploited. There are however different degrees of exploitation. Picturehouse aren't the same as say Sports Direct. But exploitation of labour is fundamental aspects of how Capitalism works. In a Capitalist society ones labour is not free.

Getting back to Ritzy. The Living Wage dispute is example of class struggle. Picture house for what they might see as sound economic reasons don't want to be committed to Living Wage and other benefits. They would argue that Picture house workers get reasonable deal compared to other jobs in London. The Ritzy workers/ Picture house workers are trying to get maximum they can from the employer for no increased work load. It's quite understandable that Picture house oppose Living Wage on one level.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The Ritzy workers/ Picture house workers are trying to get maximum they can from the employer for no increased work load. It's quite understandable that Picture house oppose Living Wage on one level.


Well, to be fair, the workers are trying to get what has been independently deemed as the minimum amount required to live in London.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 11, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I did say in previous post that this wasn't being personal. I'm not being moralistic about bosses.  My view is that this is a Capitalist society. That labour is a commodity that people have to sell. Following Marx. Which fits into my observations of how work operates. The relationship between boss and worker is an unequal one. One does not elect ones boss. The failing of bourgeois democracy is that it's partial. The economic sphere us excluded. So yes anyone who works for a boss is being exploited. There are however different degrees of exploitation. Picturehouse aren't the same as say Sports Direct. But exploitation of labour is fundamental aspects of how Capitalism works. In a Capitalist society ones labour is not free.
> 
> Getting back to Ritzy. The Living Wage dispute is example of class struggle. Picture house for what they might see as sound economic reasons don't want to be committed to Living Wage and other benefits. They would argue that Picture house workers get reasonable deal compared to other jobs in London. The Ritzy workers/ Picture house workers are trying to get maximum they can from the employer for no increased work load. It's quite understandable that Picture house oppose Living Wage on one level.



Fair enough, these are your observations, which I think are interesting, about how work operates. Following somebody who did their writing the thick end of 200 years ago. They are not my practical experiences in 2017, thankfully.

I think this is a country that wants to move to the left and wants more fairness for everybody. I worry when intelligent people on the left say things like "anyone who works for a boss is being exploited". It will scare people off. Everybody who works has a boss. Even powerful CEO's. It's just not true that everybody is being exploited.

I *do* think anybody who doesn't get a LLW and be expected to work in London is being exploited. I also think the LLW is too low and too simplistic. I mentioned it earlier, the retail sector in particular is a disgrace.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Everybody who works has a boss.


Nah. That's way too simplistic a claim. Many freelancers have no one who who fits the traditional definition of a 'boss' telling them what to do, how to act, when to start work, how to dress etc. They  work _with_ clients and companies and take on the jobs they choose, when they want and turn down the ones they don't want.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Fair enough, these are your observations, which I think are interesting, about how work operates. Following somebody who did their writing the thick end of 200 years ago. They are not my practical experiences in 2017, thankfully.
> 
> I think this is a country that wants to move to the left and wants more fairness for everybody. I worry when intelligent people on the left say things like "anyone who works for a boss is being exploited". It will scare people off. Everybody who works has a boss. Even powerful CEO's. It's just not true that everybody is being exploited.
> 
> I *do* think anybody who doesn't get a LLW and be expected to work in London is being exploited. I also think the LLW is too low and too simplistic. I mentioned it earlier, the retail sector in particular is a disgrace.



I'm not following somebody who wrote 200 years ago. 

Last week read a good piece in the New Statesman about the rise of Corbyn. John McDonnell said after the failing out if the banks people started reading Marx again. This was a crisis if Capitalism. When Gordon Brown and New Labour ideology said this would not happen.

I was one of many who went back to read Marx in the original. I've only read Volume one of Capital so far . And on Butchers Apron recommendation watching the geographers David Harverys lectures on it. 

Reading Volume one and I'm surprised how much of it resonates with now. The chapter on the working day for example.

I think a generational shift is going on.  Corbyn appealed to young people. My brother's 18 year old daughter is Corbyn fan and has been asking me what to read. I'm pretty staggered as I thought my kind of attitudes were finished. 

I don't think I'm scaring her off. Bought her a couple of books and she was delighted. 

And I don't even think I'm a proper socialist. My background is second generation "alternative society". 

I don't agree people, especially younger age group, are being put off by lefty opinions. The opposite is the case. I'm surprised. 

I just wish the now in there 40s children of Thatcher would step aside. People like Chuka.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I don't agree people, especially younger age group, are being put off by lefty opinions. The opposite is the case. I'm surprised.


Most of the striking Ritzy workers are in the 20s/early 30s.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2017)

Here's the next action, I can't make it unfortunately


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2017)

Respect!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2017)

I passed by the this evening.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2017)

Had a chat with one of the the Ritzy workers who was there this evening. She recognized me as (former) Ritzy regular. She thanked those old regulars like me who had been boycotting Ritzy.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2017)

She also told me about this. From five pm on Sunday in Leicester square.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 14, 2017)

I used to be a Ritzy member,  but since the boycott I've discovered the joys of Peckhamplex - only £4.99 every show! 
Cineworld would have to do a lot to ever win me back.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 14, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I used to be a Ritzy member,  but since the boycott I've discovered the joys of Peckhamplex - only £4.99 every show!
> Cineworld would have to do a lot to ever win me back.


I agree.

The only thing Ritzy does and Plex doesn't is live Opera as far as I know.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 16, 2017)

I wonder how much Peckhamplex staff get paid?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 16, 2017)

Ms T said:


> I wonder how much Peckhamplex staff get paid?


Probably as much as me (i.e. not much above minimum wage.)


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2017)

I have a life long interest in film. When I was growing up it was normal cheap entertainment. In my town going to cinema was no big thing.

When I was first in London it needs to be remembered that living in inner cities wasn't popular. With competition from TV it looked like cinemas were dying. Scala, Ritzy, Renoir, BFI were kept going by enthusiastics. Cinephiles and the "dirty mac brigade" kept alternative and foreign language film alive.

What I always liked about it was that it wasn't snobby.

Fast forwarding 30 plus years and its all changed. Thanks to loyal cinephiles cinemas in London have survived. Curzon and Picturehouse have gone upmarket. Curxon in particular. The old cinema goers like me are pushed out.

I don't know if Peckhamplex pay living wage. What they do have is long lease on the cinema. The Council want to " regenerate" the area. But Peckhamplex long lease is scuppering that. When I go to Peckhamplex it's always busy. The demographic isn't just the well off. Given the area hasn't been gentrified yet the business model works. Negotiated long lease when it wasn't popular, cheap prices mean lot of bums on seats. It's probably quite profitable.

What winds me up with Picturehouse and Curzon ( who to pay LL) is that there business model is jettison loyal customers from the ",bad times" in !London" and go for the new better off demographic. It's shit.

I've talked to people in Curzon and Picturehouse. They say they miss there old customers like me who find it hard to afford to go now.

I'm supporting the Ritzy boycott. If Peckhamplex workers did the same I would support that.

Some of us who post here only just scrape by. Options are limited. Do my best to support a long dispute at Ritzy. If Picturehouse workers win it will have knock on effect in other areas of industry.

If everyone got at least living wage and proper conditions at work there wouldn't be these arguments.


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> When I was first in London it needs to be remembered that living in inner cities wasn't popular. With competition from TV it looked like cinemas were dying. Scala, Ritzy, Renoir, BFI were kept going by enthusiastics. Cinephiles and the "dirty mac brigade" kept alternative and foreign language film alive.


In the case of the Ritzy, it was kept going thanks to support from Lambeth so it's unforgivable that we've got to the situation where Cineworld are now pricing out the locals. 


> A collaboration between Lambeth Council and the management of the time ensured the cinema's survival, with the facade being rebuilt and restored to near-original condition
> Ritzy Cinema - Wikipedia


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 20, 2017)

Probably not the best place for this but:

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/new...mplex-multi-storey-victory-local-campaigners/


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2017)

This is a good piece: 



> Picturehouse management implied they were the ones being unfairly victimised. The company asserted that, once paid breaks are added in, its hourly wages of £9.30 in London and £8.36 elsewhere were equivalent to £9.92 and £8.92 over an eight-hour shift and that these had been agreed with its own in-house union, The Forum (described by protesters as a “sham union”). Its basic rates of hourly pay were also higher than at Cineworld or Odeon — and at many other independent venues in London. The company also described itself as “one of the highest-paying employers in the cinema industry”.
> 
> To some observers, the management’s refusal to come to an agreement with the protesters was baffling. If the cinema chain really was paying the equivalent of the Living Wage, as it claimed, why not then just pay the actual Living Wage? That would end the dispute.


What the Picturehouse pay dispute means for the UK exhibition industry


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 2, 2017)

editor said:


> This is a good piece:
> 
> 
> What the Picturehouse pay dispute means for the UK exhibition industry



This is good article. Read it today. Not sure where it leaves dispute. It seems that , like a lot of industry, the big players don't want to to be tied to Living Wage.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2017)

More strike actions on Sunday and Monday: 








Brixton Ritzy workers out on strike on Sun 5th and Mon 6th Nov for Living Wage Week


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 4, 2017)

Went to peckhamplex for the first time today!
Thanks for recommending it whoever did.
£11 for 2 which is half the price I paid as a member at ritzy.
Plus walking down the high Street reminded of being in Brixton years back...


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2017)

Much respect!






Brixton Buzz salutes the supporters of the Boycott The Brixton Ritzy campaign


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 11, 2017)

From last weekend strike. The precarious workers robin reliant


----------



## T & P (Nov 11, 2017)

I can't believe how long this has been going on without resolution. The workers must be losing shit loads of income through the continuing strikes


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2017)

T & P said:


> I can't believe how long this has been going on without resolution. The workers must be losing shit loads of income through the continuing strikes


They're heroes in my book and worthy of better support from the community.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2017)

Tonight 
Boycott the Brixton Ritzy campaigners back in Windrush Square tonight, Fri Dec 1st


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2017)

Much respect!

The Brixton Ritzy boycott continues as campaigners brave the December cold


----------



## CH1 (Dec 5, 2017)

Interesting (to me at least) that Ritzy-owner Cineworld is now pissing off investors by making a rights issue - asking shareholders to stump up a massive £2.7 million to pay to buy Regal Cinemas of the USA.

The boss of Jupiter Asset Management said: “[Cineworld is] diluting all our growth to put a large amount of money into the most mature market in the world with tired assets."
Cineworld’s blockbuster £2.7bn Regal takeover deal attacked

Nice to see the Marxists and Capitalists are in agreement on this one!


----------



## aka (Dec 7, 2017)

2.7 billion  with £1.7 billion from the rights issue - which implies they have a lot of cash or will also load up on debt as well.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 8, 2017)

aka said:


> 2.7 billion  with £1.7 billion from the rights issue - which implies they have a lot of cash or will also load up on debt as well.


You may be right.
According to the FT financials their debt to capital ration was 32% in 2016 - which implies they are increasing the debt rather than paying from surplus cash.

Can you interpret this? Cineworld Group PLC, CINE:LSE financials - FT.com


----------



## Winot (Dec 12, 2017)

Just wrote to Ritzy to explain that I wouldn't be renewing my membership or visiting the cinema until they agreed terms with the strikers (membership was up for renewal).


----------



## Sue (Dec 12, 2017)

Winot said:


> Just wrote to Ritzy to explain that I wouldn't be renewing my membership or visiting the cinema until they agreed terms with the strikers (membership was up for renewal).


I did the same at Hackney PH some time ago. Never got any reply...


----------



## Winot (Dec 12, 2017)

Sue said:


> I did the same at Hackney PH some time ago. Never got any reply...



Just got an instant reply! Correspondence below:




			
				My email said:
			
		

> Dear Ms Sawyer,
> 
> I haven’t visited the Ritzy (or any Picturehouse cinema) for some time, and I will not be renewing my membership. This is because I support the campaign for the London Living Wage for all Picturehouse staff.
> 
> ...






			
				Ms Sawyer said:
			
		

> Dear Winot
> 
> Many thanks for getting in touch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sue (Dec 12, 2017)

Hopefully one they prepared earlier due to lots of people doing the same thing...


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 12, 2017)

I did this about 6 months ago. Called and spoke to them. They were not even bothered. Then got the stock email about all the benefits their workers enjoy, like....20% off food, free tea and the chance to watch films for free. I replied pointing out that this doesn't really help pay the bills....

Been a member for 20 years....


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2017)

Winot said:


> Just got an instant reply! Correspondence below:



Excellent email. Particularly adding in about reinstating sacked reps.


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2017)

Winot said:


> Just wrote to Ritzy to explain that I wouldn't be renewing my membership or visiting the cinema until they agreed terms with the strikers (membership was up for renewal).


Good for you, mate.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2018)

This James VanDyke chap seems a charmer


----------



## CH1 (Jan 18, 2018)

Just to put some perspective in, over at HQ. This was in City AM today.


----------



## editor (Jan 26, 2018)

Support the workers!
Friday community picket outside the boycotted Brixton Ritzy today, Fri 26th Jan 5.30pm

And don't forget the free party tonight!
FREE! Beyoncé to Britpop & Ritzy workers fundraiser: Brixton Buzz party at Market House, Fri 26th Jan


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2018)

Support the workers! Join the community picket outside the boycotted Brixton Ritzy tonight, Fri 2nd Feb from 5.30pm


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 2, 2018)

There was a 'Will you marry me' on the billboard tonight. I hope Alexia is ok with Union busting.......


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Feb 2, 2018)

DJWrongspeed said:


> There was a 'Will you marry me' on the billboard tonight. I hope Alexia is ok with Union busting.......


Exactly what I thought.  Ha ha.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2018)

DJWrongspeed said:


> There was a 'Will you marry me' on the billboard tonight. I hope Alexia is ok with Union busting.......


Most people don't give a shit about the dispute or showing solidarity with the workers. There's still tons of people happy to spend their money there.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2018)

Up the workers! Boycott the Ritzy!

All out! Brixton Ritzy workers set to shut down cinema for a whole week from Feb 17th A Living Wage for Ritzy Staff


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2018)

Tonight!





Tonight, 16th Feb: Community picket outside the boycotted Brixton Ritzy on eve of 7 day strike


----------



## Glads-town (Feb 17, 2018)

Wow on Black Panther opening week! Shamed to say now I’m listening. Good luck to you it horrible what these large organisations feel they can get away with. What was the outcome of the employment tribunals? I’m at the start of that process myself (very stressful) and would imaging that the sacked Ritzy union reps would be concluding theirs by now?


----------



## alcopop (Feb 17, 2018)

Are they open though?


----------



## Sue (Feb 17, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Are they open though?


Hopefully not.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Are they open though?


No. They're closed because the workers are on strike.


----------



## Sue (Feb 17, 2018)

Just met a friend who was off to meet another friend in the bar of PH Central. Explained I was boycotting PH (we've actually discussed this before) and she said 'but surely the bar doesn't count?'  She's also a union rep.  I despair (and am on the bus home).


----------



## alcopop (Feb 17, 2018)

editor said:


> No. They're closed because the workers are on strike.


How about Clapham?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 18, 2018)

alcopop said:


> How about Clapham?



It's Ritzy, Hackney, Crouch End, East Dulwich and Picture House central that are going on strike.

Management usually close Ritzy on strike days. But I've seen PictureHouse central open on strike days.

Clapham isn't part of the strike.

Bectu are calling for boycott of all PictureHouse cinemas.


----------



## alcopop (Feb 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> It's Ritzy, Hackney, Crouch End, East Dulwich and Picture House central that are going on strike.
> 
> Management usually close Ritzy on strike days. But I've seen PictureHouse central open on strike days.
> 
> ...


Cool cheers


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 18, 2018)

Hackney Picturehouse was open last night but there was a lively picket and a good response from passersby and punters.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 18, 2018)

Actually here we go, from the London Anarchist Communists site:

*RItzy Cinema Workers Strike*

There's a week of strikes and pickets coming up at the Picturehouse Cinemas in London:

 Picket lines - 

Saturday 17th: Hackney Picturehouse (17.30-20.30)
Sunday 18th: Picturehouse Central (17.30-20.30)
Monday 19th: DEMO at Picturehouse Head Office, Orange St (11.30-14.30)
Tuesday 20th: East Dulwich  Picturehouse (10.45-14.00)
Wednesday 21st: Crouch End Picturehouse  (17.30-20.30) 
Thursday 22nd: Ritzy (17.30-20.30)
Friday 23rd: Picturehouse Central (17.30-20.30)

Please support the pickets and don't cross the picket lines


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2018)

Up the workers! Support the strike and boycott the Ritzy! 

Brixton Ritzy remains closed until 24th February as workers’ strike holds firm


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2018)

Boycott action this Friday. 

Jeremy Corbyn offers solidarity with striking workers and calls on Picturehouse to reinstate sacked Ritzy union reps


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2018)

NS piece:

If the Picturehouse strikers’ demands were met, women would benefit


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2018)

Dog friendly screening. Jeez.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Mar 10, 2018)

I really can't see why you'd want to take your dog to the cinema... If it was an assistance animal yes, but surely they'd always be allowed.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 10, 2018)

Dog wankers


----------



## colacubes (Mar 10, 2018)

I have a dog. I love her dearly but there is no fucking way I’d take her to the cinema. I can’t think of anything worse


----------



## David Clapson (Mar 10, 2018)

The tribunal for the sacked reps starts on Monday and is scheduled to finish on Thursday. Members of the public can usually spectate at tribunals. I suppose this one will probably be in Croydon, like the one before, at the London South Employment Tribunal. The judgement for the one before is online - quite interesting. https://assets.publishing.service.g...td_2301537-2017_and_others_Interim_Relief.pdf The reps were sacked because they were sent an email describing  a cyber-picket of the cinemas, in which ticket sales are prevented by activists who put all the tickets in their shopping baskets but don't buy them. Picturehouse says that such a picket is illegal and the reps should have reported the email to management. They didn't, so they were sacked.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 11, 2018)

That feels quite underhand, blocking ticket sales in that way. I'm surprised though as most ticket selling sites only hold them for a few mins.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> That feels quite underhand, blocking ticket sales in that way. I'm surprised though as most ticket selling sites only hold them for a few mins.



Why do you think it "underhand" to do this? They are supporting people trying to get Living Wage. I don't see that as being "underhand".


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> That feels quite underhand, blocking ticket sales in that way. I'm surprised though as most ticket selling sites only hold them for a few mins.



Do you not think that sacking Union reps is "underhand" of Cineworld?


----------



## alcopop (Mar 11, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Why do you think it "underhand" to do this? They are supporting people trying to get Living Wage. I don't see that as being "underhand".


It’s certainly not very professional is it.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> It’s certainly not very professional is it.


Bollocks.  Why should they?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> It’s certainly not very professional is it.



These people are fighting for the living wage against a large powerful company. 

So you disapprove of "cyber picketing"? I think it's rather clever use of internet.

It's new to me

An issue appears to be under legislation that its possibly "unlawful" for union to encourage members of public to do this.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 11, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Why do you think it "underhand" to do this? They are supporting people trying to get Living Wage. I don't see that as being "underhand".


It's different from forming a picket line. People have the choice to cross it or not. 
By taking all the tickets online, people no are not given choice.


----------



## Sue (Mar 11, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> It's different from forming a picket line. People have the choice to cross it or not.
> By taking all the tickets online, people no are not given choice.


Good.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 12, 2018)

Sue said:


> Good.


indeed.


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> It's different from forming a picket line. People have the choice to cross it or not.
> By taking all the tickets online, people no are not given choice.


The kind of cunt who goes ahead and books a ticket at a venue where there's a widely publicised boycott taking place doesn't deserve any tickets in the first place.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 12, 2018)

editor said:


> The kind of cunt who goes ahead and books a ticket at a venue where there's a widely publicised boycott taking place doesn't deserve any tickets in the first place.


I'd agree that they be a cunt. 
But they should still be able to choose to be one


----------



## hungry_squirrel (Mar 12, 2018)

editor said:


> The kind of cunt who goes ahead and books a ticket at a venue where there's a widely publicised boycott taking place doesn't deserve any tickets in the first place.



Stop being so sanctimonious for one minute, Editor. It's attitudes like yours that make people less likely to listen to the argument.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 12, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> It's different from forming a picket line. People have the choice to cross it or not.
> By taking all the tickets online, people no are not given choice.



Thinking on it this is not a cyber picket. It's more like an internet "denial of service attack" . Given that Cineworld/ Picturehouse are refusing to pay living wage it's ok attempt to do this imo. Its an economic attack on there business.


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2018)

hungry_squirrel said:


> Stop being so sanctimonious for one minute, Editor. It's attitudes like yours that make people less likely to listen to the argument.


It's my opinion. I don't post it to change anyone's mind, least of all the kind of cunts who think it's OK to regularly break a workers' boycott. 

So sorry if it offends you.


----------



## hungry_squirrel (Mar 13, 2018)

editor said:


> It's my opinion. I don't post it to change anyone's mind, least of all the kind of cunts who think it's OK to regularly break a workers' boycott.
> 
> So sorry if it offends you.



Sounds a bit dickish, but each to their own.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2018)

Moving on from the tedious personal sideswipes, Back on topic there's a demo tonight at 5.30pm. 
I'll add some detail on Buzz shortly.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2018)

Anyone coming along to support the workers tonight? 







Tonight: Reinstate The Reps demo at the Brixton Ritzy, 5,30pm, Tues 13th Mar


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2018)

Happening now. Come along and support them!











In photos: Reinstate The Brixton Ritzy Reps demo in Windrush Square, Tues 13th March


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2018)

alcopop said:


> It’s certainly not very professional is it.



So you think the company was right to sack them? And that they shouldn't be reinstated?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> That feels quite underhand, blocking ticket sales in that way. I'm surprised though as most ticket selling sites only hold them for a few mins.



I see you won't answer my question on whether you see a big corporation sacking Union reps is "underhand". Says it all about you Spam. Right wing troll that ur.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2018)

Once again, only a handful of Brixtonites came out to support the sacked workers. 

Boy has Brixton changed.


----------



## editor (Mar 16, 2018)

Tonight! 
Community picket outside the boycotted Brixton Ritzy in Windrush Square tonight, Fri 16th March


----------



## Reiabuzz (Mar 16, 2018)

I did send a email to the living wage people quite some time ago of printing window stickers for businesses that paid the living wage. Zero response. Not such a bad idea methinks. The ritzy is far from being alone in this.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 18, 2018)

Not going to the Ritzy post - hope that's allowed.  Because of the consistent publicity about the boycott and the positive feedback on here about the Peckham Plex (thanks), I've checked it out. Black Panther release weekend was very exciting. The audience outfits were amazing.  If Picturehouse are not careful they will lose out permanently to regular cinema goers.  Once people realise that they could save almost a tenner per visit, habits will gradually change.  Once habits change it takes a lot to change them back.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

Lizzy Mac said:


> Not going to the Ritzy post - hope that's allowed.  Because of the consistent publicity about the boycott and the positive feedback on here about the Peckham Plex (thanks), I've checked it out. Black Panther release weekend was very exciting. The audience outfits were amazing.  If Picturehouse are not careful they will lose out permanently to regular cinema goers.  Once people realise that they could save almost a tenner per visit, habits will gradually change.  Once habits change it takes a lot to change them back.



I like my visits to Peckham on Sundays to see films. Get off the bus and we walk up to the cinema. It's still pretty well working class and Afro Carribbean is Peckham. I feel at home in Peckham. It's like Brixton used to be. The demographics of the people who use Peckham is noticeably different from Ritzy now. 

Cineworld know they can charge the prices they do as demographics in Brixton have changed somewhat. Leaves those living on estates ringing the new happening Brixton resentful. Been told by people on my local estate that Ritzy prices exclude people.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I like my visits to Peckham on Sundays to see films. Get off the bus and we walk up to the cinema. It's still pretty well working class and Afro Carribbean is Peckham. I feel at home in Peckham. It's like Brixton used to be. The demographics of the people who use Peckham is noticeably different from Ritzy now.
> 
> Cineworld know they can charge the prices they do as demographics in Brixton have changed somewhat. Leaves those living on estates ringing the new happening Brixton resentful. Been told by people on my local estate that Ritzy prices exclude people.


Yes, I am thoroughly working class and I love it there.  We went to Peckham Levels afterwards.  A wine was £4.50.  Obviously I bought several because I could.  There was an excellent live DJ playing to a relaxed crowd who could afford to be there (i.e the likes of me who happily works 8 hours a day, 5 days a weeks but loves a wine at £4.50).


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I like my visits to Peckham on Sundays to see films. Get off the bus and we walk up to the cinema. It's still pretty well working class and Afro Carribbean is Peckham. I feel at home in Peckham. It's like Brixton used to be. The demographics of the people who use Peckham is noticeably different from Ritzy now.
> 
> opps, duplicate.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

Lizzy Mac said:


> Yes, I am thoroughly working class and I love it there.  We went to Peckham Levels afterwards.  A wine was £4.50.  Obviously I bought several because I could.  There was an excellent live DJ playing to a relaxed crowd who could afford to be there (i.e the likes of me who happily works 8 hours a day, 5 days a weeks but loves a wine at £4.50).



I noticed people going up and down the levels. Fortunately the cinema is on ground floor. So didn't have to look at Pop mark two. Did suggest to my partner we go up and have a look after cinema. At those prices no thanks.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I noticed people going up and down the levels. Fortunately the cinema is on ground floor. So didn't have to look at Pop mark two. Did suggest to my partner we go up and have a look after cinema. At those prices no thanks.


I thought £4.50 was cheap for a wine but perhaps I have been conditioned?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

Lizzy Mac said:


> I thought £4.50 was cheap for a wine but perhaps I have been conditioned?



I wouldn't know. It's not in my budget.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 18, 2018)

Does anyone know if PeckhamPlex pay the living wage?


----------



## Ms T (Mar 18, 2018)

Lizzy Mac said:


> I thought £4.50 was cheap for a wine but perhaps I have been conditioned?


It’s not cheap but not expensive either. The cost of wine in pubs and restaurants has rocketed recently, partly because of Brexit and the falling pound, partly because staff costs have increased because the minimum wage is more.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 19, 2018)

Ms T said:


> It’s not cheap but not expensive either. The cost of wine in pubs and restaurants has rocketed recently, partly because of Brexit and the falling pound, partly because staff costs have increased because the minimum wage is more.



I was at the SLD in December, which was held in a pub in Peckham. I was shocked to find a glass of wine cost £8! I don't know how people can afford a night out drinking at those prices.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 19, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I wouldn't know. It's not in my budget.


I don't go out that much so I treated myself.  I couldn't pay that much on a regular basis.  I've found wine is normally about £8 a glass which I had budgeted for so I was pleased to be able to get a couple for that price.  Slightly regretting it this morning.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 19, 2018)

Ms T said:


> Does anyone know if PeckhamPlex pay the living wage?


I really hope they do.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 19, 2018)

Honestly, I think that if you want people to be paid the living wage (which I do), you have to accept that things will be more expensive.  “Casual dining” chains are closing hand over fist because they can’t make the business model work in an environment of rising food prices and increasing wages.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 19, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> I was at the SLD in December, which was held in a pub in Peckham. I was shocked to find a glass of wine cost £8! I don't know how people can afford a night out drinking at those prices.


I went to The Great North Wood in West Norwood the other day and they didn’t have a single bottle under £20. Made Herne Hill look cheap!


----------



## Winot (Mar 19, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> I was at the SLD in December, which was held in a pub in Peckham. I was shocked to find a glass of wine cost £8! I don't know how people can afford a night out drinking at those prices.



That does sound expensive. Was it 250ml?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 19, 2018)

Ms T said:


> I went to The Great North Wood in West Norwood the other day and they didn’t have a single bottle under £20. Made Herne Hill look cheap!



That's enough to have a night out drinking (lager and shots) in town where we are now.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 19, 2018)

Winot said:


> That does sound expensive. Was it 250ml?



Yep. Christ if it was a small wine


----------



## Ms T (Mar 19, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> That's enough to have a night out drinking (lager and shots) in town where we are now.


Less tax on booze?


----------



## Ms T (Mar 19, 2018)

Lizzy Mac said:


> I really hope they do.


Afaik only the Curzon chain pay the London living wage, and even they have stopped paying for breaks etc.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 19, 2018)

Ms T said:


> Less tax on booze?



Yeah there's a lot less tax on booze (and fags) but I think the taxes on wages are higher and in general the cost of living such as rent and transport is a lot lower.

Obviously drink prices depend where you go. There are some very fancy/expensive places here too.

In London it feels like pretty much everything is expensive with exceptions such as Peckham Plex and cheaper boozers like the old White Horse in TH becoming rarer and rarer.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2018)

Ms T said:


> Honestly, I think that if you want people to be paid the living wage (which I do), you have to accept that things will be more expensive.


Or perhaps bosses could trouser far less money for themselves as their workers help them rake in all that lovely lolly.


> Cinema goers absorbed by movies like Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Beauty and the Beast — while munching on popcorn and swilling fizzy pop — has led to a strong boost in revenues and profits at UK-based Cineworld. Last month, the group completed a $3.6bn acquisition of US rival Regal Entertainment in a deal that has created the world’s second largest cinema chain by number of screens. The group will move into that merger on the back of strong trading, which it said was due to increases in ticket sales as well as patrons buying food and drink before the movies.
> 
> Reporting results for 2017, the company said revenues increased 8 per cent on a constant currency basis to £890.7m, while pre-tax profits increased 22.7 per cent to £120.5m. It said that box-office sales were up 6.4 per cent on a constant currency basis to £553.7m, while retail sales increased 11.1 per cent to £220.4m. The group said it was boosted by hits like Star Wars, Beauty and the Beast and Dunkirk which outperformed the top grossing movies released in 2016.


The CEO of Picturehouse paid himself £2.5m in salary and bonuses last year.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 19, 2018)

Ms T said:


> Honestly, I think that if you want people to be paid the living wage (which I do), you have to accept that things will be more expensive.


This is correct. Higher wage costs for companies will be likely passed on to the consumer. 

There is a risk of there being less jobs too as companies try not to pass on increases by using automation for example.


----------



## aka (Mar 19, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> This is correct. Higher wage costs for companies will be likely passed on to the consumer.
> 
> There is a risk of there being less jobs too as companies try not to pass on increases by using automation for example.


All costs get passed on. That's how it works.  If a company can't pass on enough then......


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2018)

aka said:


> If a company can't pass on enough then......


...pay the rich bosses less!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2018)

aka said:


> All costs get passed on. That's how it works.



No, that's not how it works at all.

It benefits capital to _pretend_ that's how it works, but on closer inspection it falls to pieces.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 19, 2018)

Arguments that decent wages will undermine jobs aren't new.

These kinds of arguments have been given since the early days of modern Capitalism. Mill owners opposing 8 hour day, ending of child labour back in 19C for example. The argument from factory owners being that well meaning but economically misguided reforms, like ending child labour, would only hurt the less well off.

Reforms to improve conditions of work for the workers have always been resisted on basis of cost to business. Which will be passed onto consumer and possibly lead to loss of jobs. Back in 19c mill owners would threaten strikers with more automation of factory system if they didn't stop demanding more money. The "your lucky you have a job" line of argument.


Automation happens already in film industry. Projectionists are no longer needed. With digital film projection. Internet booking means less need for staff selling tickets.

Automation could be used to reduce working day but keep same wage. That was feasible back in 19c. The new factories increased productivity so much that the working day could have been shortened.

Automation could reduce jobs. Is that so bad? Read one person who said that UK is becoming "Car Wash" economy. Years back one took one's car to petrol station and used automated car wash. Now with supply of cheap labour ( EU, South Americans) this technology has gone backwards. One can have a hand car wash. Rather than a business pay for car wash machines one can get East Europeans working in poor conditions for little pay. Car Washes are the worst case. But there has been move backwards over last thirty years. Looking at car washes and I'm reminded of what I read of work in 19C.

The Ritzy dispute isn't only about Living Wage. They also want proper conditions of work like decent maternity pay. All these conditions of work are costs on business.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> This is correct. Higher wage costs for companies will be likely passed on to the consumer.
> 
> There is a risk of there being less jobs too as companies try not to pass on increases by using automation for example.


Yeah, let's all blame the _workers_ for rising prices when they've got the fucking audacity to ask for what has been independently calculated as the absolute minimum they can reasonably live off in London, along with decent working conditions.


Meanwhile: 
Huge health gap revealed between UK’s rich and poor
Inequality gap widens as 42 people hold same wealth as 3.7bn poorest


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 19, 2018)

Another thing to remember is that New Labour brought in a national minimum wage in 1998. It was opposed by Tory party and business.

The same old arguments were used.



> The policy was opposed by the Conservative party at the time of implementation, *who argued that it would create extra costs for businesses and would cause unemployment*. In 1996, The Conservative party's future leader, David Cameron, standing as a prospective member of parliament for Stafford, had said that the minimum wage "would send unemployment straight back up".[15] However, in 2005 Cameron stated that "I think the minimum wage has been a success, yes. It turned out much better than many people expected, including the CBI."[16] It is now Conservative Party policy to support the minimum wage.[17]



Its now accepted by all main parties.

National Minimum Wage Act 1998 - Wikipedia


----------



## friendofdorothy (Mar 19, 2018)

DJWrongspeed said:


> There was a 'Will you marry me' on the billboard tonight. I hope Alexia is ok with Union busting.......


I hired that sign a few years ago when I got hitched as a shock for my grlf. As I understood it the money from the notices goes to a charity (chosen by the workers I think?) and at that time it was a water charity in Africa. As they normally take down all the notices for films when on strike but left this one up - I don't think Alexia or her love ones can be accused of union busting.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Mar 19, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> This is correct. Higher wage costs for companies will be likely passed on to the consumer.
> 
> There is a risk of there being less jobs too as companies try not to pass on increases by using automation for example.



Low wages cost the tax payer in benefits. If a multi million pound profit making company can afford their directors bonuses and shareholders a dividend - why should we sub them?

yes cineworld will probably pass this on to the consumer - I think they already have. I no longer go there.


----------



## T & P (Mar 20, 2018)

As i’m sure it has been mentioned before in this thread and elsewhere, if a company’s business model is so finely balanced that it cannot afford to pay its employees the LLW (or implement a pretty moderate pay rise to bring them up to it) without putting itself at risk, then that company’s business model is fundamentally flawed and should not  e in business in the first place.

 Not that the overwhelming majority of businesses would be in any real danger of going under of course. As Gramsci has just pointed out, there were similar alarmist claims made when the minimum wage was proposed by Labour. As it turned out, not a single fucking company in the entire country went under as a result.

It’s all greed-fuelled bullshit.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

T & P said:


> As i’m sure it has been mentioned before in this thread and elsewhere, if a company’s business model is so finely balanced that it cannot afford to pay its employees the LLW (or implement a pretty moderate pay rise to bring them up to it) without putting itself at risk, then that company’s business model is fundamentally flawed and should not  e in business in the same place.
> 
> Not that the overwhelming majority of businesses would be in any real danger of going under of course. As Gramsci has just pointed out, there were similar alarmist claims made when the minimum wage was proposed by Labour. As it turned out, not a single fucking company in the entire country went under as a result.
> 
> It’s all greed-fuelled bullshit.


Absolutely spot on. If the greedy fucker at the top can award himself £2.5m in salary and bonuses for a year, there's plenty to go around for those struggling at the bottom.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> Low wages cost the tax payer in benefits. If a multi million pound profit making company can afford their directors bonuses and shareholders a dividend - why should we sub them?


That's the beauty of it for the bosses: they pay so little that workers often have to take some benefits to survive, so their private business is effectively part-funded by taxpayers. Double G&Ts all round!


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Yeah, let's all blame the _workers_ for rising prices when they've got the fucking audacity to ask for what has been independently calculated as the absolute minimum they can reasonably live off in London, along with decent working conditions.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile:
> ...


Who is blaming the workers? I’m certainly not and I support a London Living Wage across the board without exception. I think it isn’t high enough in fact.

I’m just pointing out that if this happens there are consequences. In the real world bosses in large corporations won’t pay themselves less. So therefore there will be probably be higher cost to the consumer and perhaps less jobs as employers try to find ways to cut the wage bill.

However I wouldn’t have expected you to deviate from your ingrained strawman method of debate to jump at having a go at me


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

T & P said:


> As i’m sure it has been mentioned before in this thread and elsewhere, if a company’s business model is so finely balanced that it cannot afford to pay its employees the LLW (or implement a pretty moderate pay rise to bring them up to it) without putting itself at risk, then that company’s business model is fundamentally flawed and should not  e in business in the first place.
> 
> Not that the overwhelming majority of businesses would be in any real danger of going under of course. As Gramsci has just pointed out, there were similar alarmist claims made when the minimum wage was proposed by Labour. As it turned out, not a single fucking company in the entire country went under as a result.
> 
> It’s all greed-fuelled bullshit.


I know you are speaking about large businesses so I’m not trying to shift the goalposts on you but above doesn’t hold for very small businesses in the UK. 

A third of people in the UK are employed in businesses employing 0-9 people.These businesses, especially in the retail or hospitality sectors are operating in really tight margins because if they want to be in business at all that’s the reality. 

Meeting the living wage nationally and the LLW has impacted these businesses without doubt  

These people need to be considered in any move that increases operating costs. 

“Pay greedy noses less” is a great sound bite and comes across well on a message board. The reality of course is much more subtle.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I know you are speaking about large businesses so I’m not trying to shift the goalposts on you but above doesn’t hold for very small businesses in the UK.



As the Ritzy is managed by Picturehouse (pre-tax profit 2012 of £2.9m) and is ultimately owned by Cineworld (2nd largest cinema group in world, pre-tax profit 2016 of £98m), I'd say you're very much _shifting goalposts_.

CEO of Cineworld 'earns' £575 per/hour btw. It couldn't possibly be, regardless of business size, that preserving and increasing profit margins and shareholder and director pay might rather obscure this simplistic view of 'the market' and workers wages. That's living in the _real world_.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> As the Ritzy is managed by Picturehouse (pre-tax profit 2012 of £2.9m) and is ultimately owned by Cineworld (2nd largest cinema group in world, pre-tax profit 2016 of £98m), I'd say you're very much _shifting goalposts_.
> 
> CEO of Cineworld 'earns' £575 per/hour btw. It couldn't possibly be, regardless of business size, that preserving and increasing profit margins and shareholder and director pay might rather obscure this simplistic view of 'the market' and workers wages. That's living in the _real world_.


You have totally and utterly missed my point. I used to think on here most people missed the point wilfully to make their own point sound better, lately I'm not so sure


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> You have totally and utterly missed my point. I used to think on here most people missed the point wilfully to make their own point sound better, lately I'm not so sure


Try rereading what people have posted rather than trying to play the victim card. Your 'let's blame the workers for price rises ' arguments don't stack up.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Try rereading what people have posted rather than trying to play the victim card. Your 'let's blame the workers for price rises ' arguments don't stack up.


Please point out where I have said this. You are so dishonest, but I now don't actually think it is on purpose.

I suggest you take your own advice.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Please point out where I have said this. You are so dishonest, but I now don't actually think it is on purpose.
> 
> I suggest you take your own advice.


You clearly said that paying the Living Wage would result in costs being passed on to the consumer. So if the workers ask for a decent wage, then everyone else has to pay more, so those increases are the fault of the workers.

Here's your exact words: "_Higher wage costs for companies will be likely passed on to the consumer_."


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> These people need to be considered in any move that increases operating costs.


How about FIRST considering those workers at the bottom who are struggling to survive on a wage that isn't sufficient to support a reasonable standard of living?  Without those workers, there is no business and if a business can't survive without paying its workers properly (or expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab in benefits) then it doesn't sound too sustainable to me.

Or is that a bit too wildly left wing for your Tory tastes?



Mr Retro said:


> “Pay greedy noses less” is a great sound bite and comes across well on a message board. The reality of course is much more subtle.


'Noses'? What on earth are you on about?


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> You clearly said that paying the Living Wage would result in costs being passed on to the consumer. So if the workers ask for a decent wage, then everyone else has to pay more, so those increases are the fault of the workers.
> 
> Here's your exact words: "_Higher wage costs for companies will be likely passed on to the consumer_."


And they will be passed on to the consumer. That is just fact. I am happy to pay more so people are paid a decent wage. 

I don't blame the worker for that. You made that part up. As I say I used to think you took this line of strawman argument on purpose to make a point that wasn't there. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think you are aware of what you are doing. <shakes head at my own stupidity not to see this>


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> 'Noses'? What on earth are you on about?


<shakes head at own stupidity that I thought I used to discuss things with somebody with intelligence>


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 20, 2018)

I run a 'micro-business' outside of London with a small team carrying out what could be described as 'minimum wage work', yet I manage to pay £10 ph & I am currently looking at how I can increase that to £10.50 from April, so these cunts can afford to pay the London living wage.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> And they will be passed on to the consumer. That is just fact. I am happy to pay more so people are paid a decent wage.


Seeing as you seemed to miss it, read this:



> Another thing to remember is that New Labour brought in a national minimum wage in 1998. It was opposed by Tory party and business.
> 
> The same old arguments were used.:
> 
> ...



And then absorb cupid_stunt's post above.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> And then absorb cupid_stunt's post above.


Well done to cupid_stunt. How does that negate what I’m saying?

Is your argument that if the cost of operating a business goes up then these costs don’t ever get passed on to the consumer?


----------



## Winot (Mar 20, 2018)

Only on Urban could someone who is in favour of the LLW and happy to pay more to support it be attacked as being a Tory


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Winot said:


> Only on Urban could someone who is in favour of the LLW and happy to pay more to support it be attacked as being a Tory


This was the Tory argument against the introduction of the minimum wage: "_The policy was opposed by the Conservative party at the time of implementation, who argued that it would create extra costs for businesses and would cause unemployment."_

Sound familiar?


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

Winot said:


> Only on Urban could someone who is in favour of the LLW and happy to pay more to support it be attacked as being a Tory


Often on here personal dislikes get in the way of rationality. Childish but there you go.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Well done to cupid_stunt. How does that negate what I’m saying?
> 
> Is your argument that if the cost of operating a business goes up then these costs don’t ever get passed on to the consumer?



That's not my argument at all, in some cases it will & in others it will not, it depends on the business, competition, margins, etc. 

I'll not be increasing costs to my clients, as my rates need to be in line with my competitors, whilst paying above what they pay in order to secure a loyal team, that ensures we deliver a better service. I am looking at creative ways to increase the volume of business to finance increases in wages, and I know other small businesses doing the same locally, but I accept in some cases businesses do need to pass on extra costs to customers.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's not my argument at all, in some cases it will & in others it will not, it depends on the business, competition, margins, etc.
> 
> I'll not be increasing costs to my clients, as my rates need to be in line with my competitors, whilst paying above what they pay in order to secure a loyal team, that ensures we deliver a better service. I am looking at creative ways to increase the volume of business to finance increases in wages, and I know other small businesses doing the same locally, but I accept in some cases businesses do need to pass on extra costs to customers.


Fair play I agree with all you say and good luck with it. My question was actually to editor.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's not my argument at all, in some cases it will & in others it will not, it depends on the business, competition, margins, etc.
> 
> I'll not be increasing costs to my clients, as my rates need to be in line with my competitors, whilst paying above what they pay in order to secure a loyal team, that ensures we deliver a better service. I am looking at creative ways to increase the volume of business to finance increases in wages, and I know other small businesses doing the same locally, but I accept in some cases businesses do need to pass on extra costs to customers.


Indeed. So these increased costs are anything but inevitable. Good for you 

But seeing as this thread is about the Ritzy and their profit-gorged, bosses-bonus-paying owners, there is no fucking doubt that they could afford to play their workers the Living Wage without passing on any costs to the consumer. But they won't because they're greedy fucking cunts and their behaviour is inexcusable to anyone who gives a shit about workers.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> A third of people in the UK are employed in businesses employing 0-9 people.These businesses, especially in the retail or hospitality sectors are operating in really tight margins because if they want to be in business at all that’s the reality.
> 
> Meeting the living wage nationally and the LLW has impacted these businesses without doubt
> 
> ...



You said you support the Living Wage being brought in across the board in previous post.

When you say "these people need to considered in any move that increases operating costs" what do you mean?

I take it from previous post that you want Living Wage to apply to all business. "Across the board".


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You said you support the Living Wage being brought in across the board in previous post.
> 
> When you say "these people need to considered in any move that increases operating costs" what do you mean?
> 
> I take it from previous post that you want Living Wage to apply to all business. "Across the board".


In my post you quote I think I was replying to T&Ps post where he is saying that if margins are so tight then maybe conpanies shouldn’t be in business at all. 

I was trying to point out that for small businesses in some sectors that it is not fair to say this. A fact of being in business is you have to deal with tight margins. 

If you are going to increase operating cost and further squeeze margins these businesses must be considered or you might drive them out of business altogether. Do you disagree?


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> If you are going to increase operating cost and further squeeze margins these businesses must be considered or you might drive them out of business altogether. Do you disagree?


So what's your solution? Squeeze the poor workers at the bottom and let them struggle on shit pay just so your business can thrive?


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> So what's your solution? Squeeze the poor workers at the bottom and let them struggle on shit pay just so your business can thrive?


No that’s not my solution. I have already said I support LLW and that it’s not high enough. What part of that don’t you understand?  

Be a brick and desist from putting words in my mouth in future, that’s a good chap.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> No that’s not my solution. I have already said I support LLW and that it’s not high enough. What part of that don’t you understand?.


You can't see that you're contradicting yourself here, no?

And try reading posts properly before engaging knee jerk mode. I asked a question. Perhaps you missed the question mark at the end too.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> You can't see that you're contradicting yourself here, no?
> 
> And try reading posts properly before engaging knee jerk mode. I asked a question. Perhaps you missed the question mark at the end too.


So you do not think you can pay a LLW and consider small businesses while you do so? Is your thinking really that binary?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> In my post you quote I think I was replying to T&Ps post where he is saying that if margins are so tight then maybe conpanies shouldn’t be in business at all.
> 
> I was trying to point out that for small businesses in some sectors that it is not fair to say this. A fact of being in business is you have to deal with tight margins.
> 
> If you are going to increase operating cost and further squeeze margins these businesses must be considered or you might drive them out of business altogether. Do you disagree?



You havent answered my question.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You havent answered my question.


 I think the LLW should be law. But imo you cannot do this without providing for small businesses or they will reduce the amount of people they employ due to increased cost of doing business. I believe you will drive some out of business 

I would try to help them by looking at tax. Firstly make the whole thing far simpler for a business to be compliant. Surely that alone will save a business money in first place. 

Perhaps then a sliding scale on corporation tax or increasing the threshold at which they pay VAT or decreasing the really unfair business rates. Or a combination of these. I’m no expert here. Make up for lost revenue by (the old chestnut) making large companies who avoid tax to pay it.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 20, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> I hired that sign a few years ago when I got hitched as a shock for my grlf. As I understood it the money from the notices goes to a charity (chosen by the workers I think?) and at that time it was a water charity in Africa. As they normally take down all the notices for films when on strike but left this one up - I don't think Alexia or her love ones can be accused of union busting.


thx for the clarification ,good to know


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I think the LLW should be law. But imo you cannot do this without providing for small businesses or they will reduce the amount of people they employ due to increased cost of doing business. I believe you will drive some out of business
> 
> I would try to help them by looking at tax. Firstly make the whole thing far simpler for a business to be compliant. Surely that alone will save a business money in first place.
> 
> Perhaps then a sliding scale on corporation tax or increasing the threshold at which they pay VAT or decreasing the really unfair business rates. Or a combination of these. I’m no expert here. Make up for lost revenue by (the old chestnut) making large companies who avoid tax to pay it.



Ok. Thats an answer.

I don't agree increasing minimum wage to Living Wage will necessarily cost jobs. As I pointed out in post #182 when the Labour government brought in minimum wage Tories and business argued that it would be disaster. Now it's accepted even by Tories.

As T & P points out if business plan can't pay decent wages then business shouldn't survive. This is fair enough imo. I'm no great supporter of capitalism. But it's about sink or swim. The State protecting property rights but also enforcing bottom line of how capitalist competition should work. Left to its own devices capitalism imo will lead to the "car wash" economy.

So yes I think some business should be allowed to fail if they can't pay decent wages. The introduction of minimum wage didn't lead to worse life for the working class. Despite warnings from business lobby and Tories. And Im not saying that to be harsh. Capitalism works on basis of crestive destruction/ competition. Not my idea. But that's how it is.

One argument , reformist, would be that the state should set the bottom line in which capitalism should operate. Capitalists can't do that.

8ball post @869 makes correct point imo that its



> It benefits capital to pretend that's how it works, but on closer inspection it falls to pieces.



8ball is right there is a lot of ideological obfuscation dressed up as being "realistic" we are supposed to swallow.

And I still hold to what I said back in #870 Since the beginning of modern capitalist economy in 19c bosses have been crying wolf at any improvements for the working class. Capitalism doesn't like it but has adapted to social reform. Last thirty years seen capitalism getting more of iit's own way. I think thats changing now.

On business rates agreed. But that's not purely an issue of wage levels. I know small business who are really worried about hike in business rates for the long term future of there business. And these aren't employers. They are sole traders or family run business. Large concerns can absorb it. Not small independent business.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> On business rates agreed. But that's not purely an issue of wage levels. I know small business who are really worried about hike in business rates for the long term future of there business. And these aren't employers. They are sole traders or family run business. Large concerns can absorb it. Not small independent business.


Greedy, blood sucking scum landlords would have to be dealt with too as they're one of the prime movers in making poor people's lives full of hardship.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Greedy, blood sucking scum landlords would have to be dealt with too as they're one of the prime movers in making poor people's lives full of hardship.



It should also be acknowledged that a lot of people were lured into buying and renting out properties after certain parties started helping themselves to pension funds that they claimed to be "managing".


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 21, 2018)

It's all gone quiet here.

Perhaps I can summarise discussion of past few pages.

All on this thread agree that the Living Wage should be applied to all business. In fact it can be argued that the Living Wage foundation have set the bar to low and it should be higher in London.

Personally I would agree to level set by the Living Wage foundation. Me being a reformist not an ultra leftist.

This may have unfortunate consequence that some business may be unviable if its introduced.

Posters here can live with it that if ordinary working people get the Living Wage as a minimum wage.

If any posters think my summary is incorrect can they post up and say why.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Mar 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> It's all gone quiet here.
> 
> Perhaps I can summarise discussion of past few pages.
> 
> ...


I think any business that says it can't afford a Living Wage is obviously a rubbish business. Govt ought to make them pay up. 

I think there should be legislation saying if you make x profit or have x employees then a proper living wage should be a legal requirement. Perhaps there could be an exemption for startups or really small businesses. 

But as it is at the moment enormously profitable global mega businesses let the British state ie tax payer pick up the bill for supporting millions of their low paid workers. That can't be a sustainable system, how can that be good for us as a county or our tax system, or as individuals. The wealth of the nation is moving up the pay chain and out of the country.

Naming the minimum wage 'living wage' was a joke - it is far too low - it has to be set at a level that means most employees would nor qualify for benefits or tax credits. I'm not sure what figure that would be.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 21, 2018)

I think you're right about small businesses. An acquaintance of mine runs a small business and two of the staff went off on maternity leave at the same time. It really crippled him. It hit home how finely balanced some businesses are. I think most companies could cope with a wage increase but some of them would have do some hard thinking about how to manage the change; I don't think it would be a simple case of "I'll just pay myself a bit less".


----------



## Winot (Mar 21, 2018)

Auto-enroll pensions have been set-up so that small businesses get a transition period in which they don’t have to pay into them but they know they will have to a few years later. A similar thing could be done with the introduction of the LLW. Gives them time to plan.


----------



## aka (Mar 21, 2018)

Winot said:


> Auto-enroll pensions have been set-up so that small businesses get a transition period in which they don’t have to pay into them but they know they will have to a few years later. A similar thing could be done with the introduction of the LLW. Gives them time to plan.


That period for pension is now gone, in fact they are cranking up the contributions from April this year - only if you pay annual salary below the limit (£10k per year) or only employ under 22 year olds are you let-off (as an employer) even if you only employ 1 person.  There's a tonne of other stuff, but that's the gist.  It's a ball ache, but I reckon it's the correct thing to do given the state pension, so we just suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 22, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> I think you're right about small businesses. An acquaintance of mine runs a small business and two of the staff went off on maternity leave at the same time. It really crippled him. It hit home how finely balanced some businesses are. I think most companies could cope with a wage increase but some of them would have do some hard thinking about how to manage the change; I don't think it would be a simple case of "I'll just pay myself a bit less".



Would you say that the interests of the small business (capital) is more important than the interests of women having a family (social)?


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 22, 2018)

If you are asking me if businesses should pay parental leave then yes. And that's parental leave, not maternity leave.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 22, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Would you say that the interests of the small business (capital) is more important than the interests of women having a family (social)?


The whole point of maternity leave is that a parent can have time off with a new born and be confident that they have a job to come back to (my partner went back this week after taking a full year).

If the reality of a small business is that it will struggle with two of its employees on leave at the same time (and it may not just be costs but the problem of having to replace experienced, trained or connected individuals) then it is surely in everyone's interest for such circumstances to be acknowledged and protected against.

Even if the business stays afloat but loses business, this will impact on jobs and wages. A wholly binary approach might have been appropriate whilst establishing core maternity rights. Now that maternity leave is well established, arguably with room for improvement, identifying ways to help smaller businesses disproportionately affected by the legislation would seem progressive.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 22, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> I think there should be legislation saying if you make x profit or have x employees then a proper living wage should be a legal requirement. Perhaps there could be an exemption for startups or really small businesses.



If LW became obligatory it would not help small businesses to be offered an exemption, I don't think. It would make them uncompetitive in terms of attracting good employees because they would be paying less. Some sort of VAT, NI, CT allowance would possibly be more appropriate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 22, 2018)

Is there not some kind of insurance for small businesses to deal with things like maternity leave?  You can get things like lottery insurance,  so if there isn't insurance for unexpected staff shortages then there should be


----------



## Rushy (Mar 22, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> Is there not some kind of insurance for small businesses to deal with things like maternity leave?  You can get things like lottery insurance,  so if there isn't insurance for unexpected staff shortages then there should be


I don't know. I've read a couple of recent basic articles on how to manage maternity leave but not seen it mentioned. I can't quite imagine what cost would be insured. Unless it were very affordable, I'm not sure that yet another fixed cost would be a great solution, in any case.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2018)

If small business cannot afford to pay living wage or maternity leave they aren't really viable business. 

Giving a start up help at beginning is one thing. If whats being advocated is for long standing small business thats something different.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 22, 2018)

Living Wage and paternity leave are wildly different things though...


----------



## Rushy (Mar 22, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> If small business cannot afford to pay living wage or maternity leave they aren't really viable business.


Define viable business.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Define viable business.



Ones that can afford to pay living wage.

And Paternity leave.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 22, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Define viable business.


One that pays everyone who works there, and not just its owners, enough to live on


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> One that pays everyone who works there, and not just its owners, enough to live on


i think gramsci's caught the concept of 'viable' more than you have: the business must be able to afford to pay this if it is to survive, to be viable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> Is there not some kind of insurance for small businesses to deal with things like maternity leave?  You can get things like lottery insurance,  so if there isn't insurance for unexpected staff shortages then there should be


one thing about maternity, it doesn't come out of the blue. where i work maternity cover is arranged before the member of staff goes on leave. if they can do this in my line of work i'm sure they can in others.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 22, 2018)

We should be striving towards the Swedish model for parental leave.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2018)

A suggestion.

If I lose my job and try to claim benefits I'm expected to show I actively seeking full time work. And that means full time. Had a friend recently who told her "jobs advisor" that she had applied for part time job in a supermarket. She was promptly sanctioned for not seeking full time employment.

If a small business person is incapable of paying living wage to their employees perhaps they could "sign on" to get subsidy from the state giving them a welfare handout to prop up their business and pay the Living wage. As long as they go through all the same aggravation that I know friends of mine have had when they lose a job or for health reasons are limited in what they do.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 22, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> Is there not some kind of insurance for small businesses to deal with things like maternity leave?  You can get things like lottery insurance,  so if there isn't insurance for unexpected staff shortages then there should be


Maternity pay is paid by the government at least it can be claimed back. I'm nearly 100% certain of this.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2018)

8115 said:


> Maternity pay is paid by the government at least it can be claimed back. I'm nearly 100% certain of this.


Maternity pay and leave: Pay - GOV.UK


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 23, 2018)

8115 said:


> Maternity pay is paid by the government at least it can be claimed back. I'm nearly 100% certain of this.


It is government funded. But in my opinion too little and too short


----------



## Winot (Mar 23, 2018)

8115 said:


> Maternity pay is paid by the government at least it can be claimed back. I'm nearly 100% certain of this.



Statutory Maternity Pay is, yes, but it’s tiny. After the first 6 weeks (when you get 90% of your salary) it’s a token amount - £141 a week. 

Maternity pay and leave: Pay - GOV.UK


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 23, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> I think you're right about small businesses. An acquaintance of mine runs a small business and two of the staff went off on maternity leave at the same time. It really crippled him. It hit home how finely balanced some businesses are. I think most companies could cope with a wage increase but some of them would have do some hard thinking about how to manage the change; I don't think it would be a simple case of "I'll just pay myself a bit less".



I don't understand this. From what's been said here and my own Google search maternity leave pay can be reclaimed back from the government by small business. In effect if you run a small business the government covers at least 92% of statutory maternity leave pay.

This link is bit old but I m assuming the same principle is in place.


Is there Government help for small business to fund maternity pay? | This is Money

So maternity leave pay issue isn't relevant to living wage issue.

There may be argument that small business need help with unforeseen events like maternity leave.

The issue of business big or small paying Living wage,which after all the Living Wage foundation sets as the bare minimum needed, is imo a social rights issue.

For better or worse the capitalist economy is here to stay for now. As a worker one has to sell one's labour power to survive.

As this is basis of society at present it should be social right to get at least the Living Wage as set by the Living Wage foundation.

And small business shouldn't get help to do this. If a business can't pay its workers a wage that is bare minimum for a half decent life it is not a good business imo.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> I think you're right about small businesses. An acquaintance of mine runs a small business and two of the staff went off on maternity leave at the same time. It really crippled him. It hit home how finely balanced some businesses are. I think most companies could cope with a wage increase but some of them would have do some hard thinking about how to manage the change; I don't think it would be a simple case of "I'll just pay myself a bit less".





Gramsci said:


> I don't understand this. From what's been said here and my own Google search maternity leave pay can be reclaimed back from the government by small business. In effect if you run a small business the government covers at least 92% of statutory maternity leave pay.



It’s obviously not just the cost of the maternity pay per se. 2 people leaving for 9 months or so at the same time will take their expertise and experience with them. So you have to bring in 2 new staff before the other 2 leave to manage the handover. So for a while you are paying 4 people to do 2 jobs. This you cannot claim back.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 24, 2018)

As far as I'm aware, the company can claim back part of the cost of statutory pay (which is nominal), but not whatever the company policy on maternity pay is (which could be full pay). That's the company's responsibility to cover.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 24, 2018)

My partner has just gone back after a year off. She's in a small specialist department of three or four. They really struggled getting someone appropriately experienced to cover her. And that person had no established business contacts. So billing was way down whilst she was away and her colleagues were  horribly stretched picking up the slack. Painful but survivable because they are part of a big firm. Would be much more tricky as a small company.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> As far as I'm aware, the company can claim back part of the cost of statutory pay (which is nominal).


£3.50 or so an hour. Disgraceful. Parental leave should be paid at the same level as the living wage. I think it should be for 12 months and split between the parents as the parents see fit.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 24, 2018)

Absolutely. Best I've seen is 6 months full pay for one parent followed by 6 months full pay for the other parent. So in effect you get 12 months full pay but it has to be split.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

So I take it capitalism is rubbish at covering the costs of social reproduction. Which was always the case. Discussion on maternity pay shows this.

During WW2 with increase in woman in workforce much better social provision was made for women. Increase in nurseries for example. After war women lost these. In the west not in the Soviet union where social welfare rights were guaranteed in workplaces.

It's only in recent times since 70s that maternity pay in this country has become standard. Not because of generosity of business or business enlightened views on women but because the state has compelled them to. I would think it is also related to resurgent women's movement in 70s. In 70s women were regularly got rid if they were pregnant.

It was under New Labour and EU directives that things improved.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> It’s obviously not just the cost of the maternity pay per se. 2 people leaving for 9 months or so at the same time will take their expertise and experience with them. So you have to bring in 2 new staff before the other 2 leave to manage the handover. So for a while you are paying 4 people to do 2 jobs. This you cannot claim back.



You could say that for small or large concerns. Why up to 1970s business regularly got rid of women when they became pregnant. Which from a business point of view  was a sensible business decision based on living in the real world.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> As far as I'm aware, the company can claim back part of the cost of statutory pay (which is nominal), but not whatever the company policy on maternity pay is (which could be full pay). That's the company's responsibility to cover.



My reading is that they can claim back 100% if small business. 

If a company has its own policy then it should factor that into its business plan.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> My reading is that they can claim back 100% if small business.
> 
> If a company has its own policy then it should factor that into its business plan.


You’re not actually replying to the points being made


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> My reading is that they can claim back 100% if small business.
> 
> If a company has its own policy then it should factor that into its business plan.



As has been said, the company cannot claim back the costs of employing the maternity cover workers. They can claim back Statutory maternity pay (which is bog all) but a good employer will pay more than this minimum, which they can't claim.
And it would be impossible for a small business to fully factor this into a business plan since they won't know who's planning on getting pregnant or even the ratio of male to female workers as this changes. Believe you me for this reason there is still discrimination.. .many small businesses are running on a very fine financial line, 1 or 2 maternity covers could make a huge difference to this. And then the business folds and no one has a job
I've worked for small businesses and charities and now run my own small business. The bosses, which sometimes included me were not so highly paid. Maternity cover was a nightmare financially and in terms of skills gaps.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> You’re not actually replying to the points being made



Spam said part can be claimed back. My reading is all can be claimed back if a small business.

So I am replying to the points being made.

On a general note you might not agree with my posts. That's up to you. But my posts on past couple of pages have been relevant to how the discussion has gone. So my posts have been relevant to points being made.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Spam said part can be claimed back. My reading is all can be claimed back if a small business.
> 
> So I am replying to the points being made.
> 
> On a general note you might not agree with my posts. That's up to you. But my posts on past couple of pages have been relevant to how the discussion has gone. So my posts have been relevant to points being made.



Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 24, 2018)

From. .gov.uk

As an *employer*, you *can* usually *reclaim* 92% of employees' Statutory *Maternity* ( SMP ), Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental *Pay*. You *can reclaim*103% if your business qualifies for Small *Employers*' Relief.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points


It’s now message boards work. It surprises me not at all you don’t understand this.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Spam said part can be claimed back. My reading is all can be claimed back if a small business.
> 
> So I am replying to the points being made.
> 
> On a general note you might not agree with my posts. That's up to you. But my posts on past couple of pages have been relevant to how the discussion has gone. So my posts have been relevant to points being made.


If you believe that fair enough


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> If you believe that fair enough



Where have I not been addressing points?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points



It was Spam who started it. 

The concern for small employers is rather touching.

Many the times been when Ive woken up at night worrying about my boss and how he/ she will cope.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The concern for small employers is rather touching.
> 
> Many the times been when Ive woken up at night worrying about my boss and how he/ she will cope.


The concern isn’t for the owners of a small business. The concern is for their employees and these small businesses ability to pay them the living wage. 

You contend they shouldn’t be in business at all if they are unable to pay a living wage. I argue that running a small business is often tiptoeing along a line of viability. I would rather see these businesses get some help to remain viable and employing people at the living wage than to stop trading, employing nobody.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 24, 2018)

By the way Gramsci I see editor there liking all your posts. Can I ask you editor how much you pay the djs who play at your nights? Is it a LLW?


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> By the way Gramsci I see editor there liking all your posts. Can I ask you editor how much you pay the djs who play at your nights? Is it a LLW?


For the record - and you really are excelling yourself in your patheticness here - my DJs get paid around double the London Living Wage and very often much more on top. And they get loads of free drinks all night, and a cab home if needed. 

So now you look very stupid indeed as your wildly off topic attempt at a personal dig has crumbled into dust.

But while we're all being so candid, perhaps you could tell me how much rent you charge your tenants and how much you pay your workers?

I'm happy to provide names to verify my claims, so I'll expect you to do the same.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> The concern isn’t for the owners of a small business. The concern is for their employees and these small businesses ability to pay them the living wage.
> 
> You contend they shouldn’t be in business at all if they are unable to pay a living wage. I argue that running a small business is often tiptoeing along a line of viability. I would rather see these businesses get some help to remain viable and employing people at the living wage than to stop trading, employing nobody.



You really do sound like an employer.

The reason I have posted up in way I have is because I do not like the language. 

If you think that small business people should receive government handouts to pay the bare minimum that is required to give employees the right to life that only just covers decent living then let's use the right language.

It's social welfare for capitalism. It's government handouts. It's "dependency" culture.

Why I posted up about signing on. Even if you get part time work your supposed to "actively" be seeking full time work.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> By the way Gramsci I see editor there liking all your posts. Can I ask you editor how much you pay the djs who play at your nights? Is it a LLW?



As I'm experienced poster on Brixton forum I'm not suprised that finally accusations of left wing " hyprocisy" have finally surfaced. Which is part of what last several pages have been leading to.

Right wing posting dressed up as fair minded.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points



I find it tiresome. I don't really come on urban to have to deal with this.

It's part of the" of course I want the workers to be paid well and have good conditions but this isn't the way to go about it" line of argument. Of which there's been a lot of here.

The if you want workers to have decent pay and conditions you have to face up to reality and face the consequences you have brought on the workers. Which of course employers understand and wanted to avoid but people with ideological axes to grind pursue to the detriment of real people.

And of course the old chestnut that lefties are all hypocrites anyway.

I don't really regard myself as ideological lefty. Just someone who works and thinks workers should have rights.


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As I'm experienced poster on Brixton forum I'm not suprised that finally accusations of left wing " hyprocisy" have finally surfaced. Which is part of what last several pages have been leading to.
> 
> Right wing posting dressed up as fair minded.


And what a twat he made of himself. Basing an argument around someone 'liking' a post is bad enough, but it's totally backfired in his face.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 25, 2018)

editor said:


> For the record - and you really are excelling yourself in your patheticness here - my DJs get paid around double the London Living Wage and very often much more on top. And they get loads of free drinks all night, and a cab home if needed.
> 
> So now you look very stupid indeed as your wildly off topic attempt at a personal dig has crumbled into dust.
> 
> ...


Hmmm all DJ’s all the time? Ok if you say so. 

I don’t rent at the moment and I don’t have anybody working directly for me. But those on my projects are on about 4 to 10 times the LLW depending on what they do

Might return to Gramsci points later but I think it’s futile


----------



## alcopop (Mar 25, 2018)

editor said:


> For the record - and you really are excelling yourself in your patheticness here - my DJs get paid around double the London Living Wage and very often much more on top. And they get loads of free drinks all night, and a cab home if needed.
> 
> So now you look very stupid indeed as your wildly off topic attempt at a personal dig has crumbled into dust.
> 
> ...


I hope they pay tax on all those benefits in kind they get.

Since you are being candid...


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2018)

alcopop said:


> I hope they pay tax on all those benefits in kind they get.
> 
> Since you are being candid...


Thank you for reminding me of the cancer that is killing the Brixton forum. It's people like you and Mr Retro who are happy to disrupt important threads just to pursue personal vendettas. 

This thread is about workers fighting a multinational company for a decent wage. It has nothing to do with DJs or their private tax matters.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 25, 2018)

Anyway. To try to get back to the Ritzy read this recent article this morning. CEO of Curzon saying why starting to pay LLW was a good decision.

Curzon CEO: decision to pay London Living Wage is reaping rewards


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 25, 2018)

^^^ Good article.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 26, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Anyway. To try to get back to the Ritzy read this recent article this morning. CEO of Curzon saying why starting to pay LLW was a good decision.
> 
> Curzon CEO: decision to pay London Living Wage is reaping rewards





Ms T said:


> Afaik only the Curzon chain pay the London living wage, and even they have stopped paying for breaks etc.



Wasn't Cineworld's argument that their employees earned over LLW when paid breaks were factored in?  Does anyone know for certain whether Curzon exclude breaks from hours worked?

I always wondered what the Urban line would be if Cineworld increased wages to LLW but stopped paying for breaks, meaning the employees actually earned less.


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Wasn't Cineworld's argument that their employees earned over LLW when paid breaks were factored in?  Does anyone know for certain whether Curzon exclude breaks from hours worked?
> 
> I always wondered what the Urban line would be if Cineworld increased wages to LLW but stopped paying for breaks, meaning the employees actually earned less.


There is no "urban line."


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2018)

> Bloom said the board was “proud of our employment practices everywhere” and defended the Picturehouse pay rates, claiming they were the highest in the industry, at £9.05 an hour in London (Ritzy staff are paid £9.10 an hour) and £8.18 outside the capital. Including paid half-hour breaks, this amounted to £9.65 – “within inches” of the London living wage, Bloom said – and to £8.72 outside London.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/busines...otest-cineworld-agm-living-wage-ritzy-hackney


If it was "within inches" - even with Picturehouse including paid half-hour breaks - then why don't they just fucking pay it in full?


----------



## Winot (Mar 26, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Wasn't Cineworld's argument that their employees earned over LLW when paid breaks were factored in?  Does anyone know for certain whether Curzon exclude breaks from hours worked?
> 
> I always wondered what the Urban line would be if Cineworld increased wages to LLW but stopped paying for breaks, meaning the employees actually earned less.



I don't know the detail about the Curzon pay. It's good that they pay LLW and I'd support a campaign for them to be paid for breaks if that isn't happening. 

Isn't the point though that BECTU are in a strong position at the Ritzy and so it is being used as a test case? Nothing wrong with that - it's good tactics. It doesn't mean that other places are perfect. It'll be easier to put pressure on them if the Ritzy campaign is successful.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 26, 2018)

Winot said:


> I don't know the detail about the Curzon pay. It's good that they pay LLW and I'd support a campaign for them to be paid for breaks if that isn't happening.
> 
> Isn't the point though that BECTU are in a strong position at the Ritzy and so it is being used as a test case? Nothing wrong with that - it's good tactics. It doesn't mean that other places are perfect. It'll be easier to put pressure on them if the Ritzy campaign is successful.


Still important to know as Curzon is often held up as an example of good practice. From what I understand, although one pays LLW and the other doesn't, technically they could be being paying the same. Which would not be brilliantly helpful.


----------



## Winot (Mar 26, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Still important to know as Curzon is often held up as an example of good practice. From what I understand, although one pays LLW and the other doesn't, technically they could be being paying the same. Which would not be brilliantly helpful.



Oh absolutely, yes. But one advantage of being paid LLW (and it being trumpeted as such) is that if it goes up your hourly rate rises as well. Which I imagine is exactly why Cineworld are resistant to labelling it as such.


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2018)

Winot said:


> Oh absolutely, yes. But one advantage of being paid LLW (and it being trumpeted as such) is that if it goes up your hourly rate rises as well. Which I imagine is exactly why Cineworld are resistant to labelling it as such.


And that's the critical point: once an employer commits to the LV, they have to increase wages if it goes up. Squirming Picturehouse don't want to make that commitment, so if the cost of living soars upwards, their staff have to do the suffering.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 26, 2018)

Winot said:


> Oh absolutely, yes. But one advantage of being paid LLW (and it being trumpeted as such) is that if it goes up your hourly rate rises as well. Which I imagine is exactly why Cineworld are resistant to labelling it as such.


Quite, yes. I guess that is also a risk for the business as it puts control over wages in someone else's hands. How rigorous / independent / political is the team behind LLW? It occurs to me that I know absolutely nothing about them. I assume that they give give quite a lot of notice of hikes?


----------



## Winot (Mar 26, 2018)

Don’t know.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 26, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Quite, yes. I guess that is also a risk for the business as it puts control over wages in someone else's hands. How rigorous / independent / political is the team behind LLW? It occurs to me that I know absolutely nothing about them. I assume that they give give quite a lot of notice of hikes?



Living Wage Commission | Living Wage Foundation

That’s the panel. They calculate it annually. Not sure when but I assume they give reasonable notice.


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2018)

colacubes said:


> Living Wage Commission | Living Wage Foundation
> 
> That’s the panel. They calculate it annually. Not sure when but I assume they give reasonable notice.


They give 6 months notice.



> The new Living Wage rates were announced on the 6th November 2017 and all of our accredited employers are committed to implement them within six months.



What is the real Living Wage? | Living Wage Foundation


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2018)

They explain how the amount is calculated here: 

The Calculation | Living Wage Foundation

Unsurprisingly, greedy landlords/developers are the main culprits for driving living costs up.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 26, 2018)

Good news!

I presume this means that the £3.4M gifted by Lambeth Labour to Picturehouse for the West Norwood cinema will now be returned?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Wasn't Cineworld's argument that their employees earned over LLW when paid breaks were factored in?  Does anyone know for certain whether Curzon exclude breaks from hours worked?
> 
> I always wondered what the Urban line would be if Cineworld increased wages to LLW but stopped paying for breaks, meaning the employees actually earned less.



Leaving aside the breaks issue to be a Living Wage employer a business must become accredited Living Wage employer by the Living Wage Foundation. Curzon cinemas LTD is. See here and scroll down to C.

Living Wage Employers by Region | Living Wage Foundation

If business is accredited it has to accept Living Wage Foundation increases to Living Wage. 

So that's how it works. 

The Ritzy dispute is about more than Living Wage. They want maternity pay above the minimum level as well for example.

The Living Wage issue is imo totemic. Ive followed Ritzy campaign and they see it as part of push for all workers to get Living Wage as the actual wage. They regularly support other workers  like cleaners for example. 

The Living Wage Foundation is a great idea. It's middle of road reformist idea that should be able to get support from a broad swathe of society. Practical politics.

However as last few pages show sections of the Petit Bourgeois are fighting a rearguard action against something I would have thought most of centre ground of society could support as basic human right.

Imo breaks etc can still be fought for. If Cineworld say they are almost paying Living Wage why can't they go to Living Wage Foundation and apply for accreditation? It's not a question they deal with.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Wasn't Cineworld's argument that their employees earned over LLW when paid breaks were factored in?  Does anyone know for certain whether Curzon exclude breaks from hours worked?
> 
> I always wondered what the Urban line would be if Cineworld increased wages to LLW but stopped paying for breaks, meaning the employees actually earned less.



Another thing. Curzon count as a SME. They are unusual as they own cinemas and under the Artificial Eye label distribute film. They also run on demand internet film section. They concentrate on foreign language and arthouse film. They aren't a big multinational. Or owned by one as a subsidiary. Yet are a Living Wage Foundation employer.

And scrolling down to find Curzon on Living Wage Foundation list most of the companies look like SMEs to me not big multinational companies. So all this stuff posted here about how small business can't do this is questionable to say the least.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2018)

For the average everyday person like I mix with and work with the concept of a Living Wage is a no brainer. People I know don't employ people they don't make money out of property. When one's selling one's labour to get by there is no argument about idea of Living Wage.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 27, 2018)

Rushy said:


> I guess that is also a risk for the business as it puts control over wages in someone else's hands. How rigorous / independent / political is the team behind LLW? It occurs to me that I know absolutely nothing about them. I assume that they give give quite a lot of notice of hikes?


And also business might wonder what may be next. For example will the Foundation set their sights on zero hour contracts for example or split shifts.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> And also business might wonder what may be next. For example will the Foundation set their sights on zero hour contracts for example or split shifts.


So what's your argument here:  businesses should not sign up to the Living Wage on the off chance that the Living Wage Foundation might suddenly rule out zero hour contracts or split shifts, even though there is no mention of that anywhere?


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 27, 2018)

Interesting also is Living Wage accreditation doesn’t make employers pay the Living Wage to apprentices or interns. In my view it should be all employees, meaning apprentices and interns too.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Interesting also is Living Wage accreditation doesn’t make employers pay the Living Wage to apprentices or interns. In my view it should be all employees, meaning apprentices and interns too.


You seem very keen to try and pick holes here. First you start with an entirely made up and groundless concern that the Living Wage Foundation would suddenly 'set their sights on zero hour contracts...or split shifts' and now you attacking their entirely pragmatic approach to interns.

Here's their guidance. It's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than what many employers would offer. Not sure about the all-important wages of intern DJs though. I know that's something that's of real concern to you, even if you are totally clueless on the topic



> What about volunteers, apprentices and interns?
> Living Wage accreditation does not require employers to pay the Living Wage to volunteers, apprentices or interns.
> 
> *Volunteers*
> ...


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 27, 2018)

Winot said:


> I don't know the detail about the Curzon pay. It's good that they pay LLW and I'd support a campaign for them to be paid for breaks if that isn't happening.


From what I can see online Curzon don’t pay for breaks.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 27, 2018)

What's the whole paying for breaks thing about? I've never worked anywhere where breaks were paid.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2018)

Nanker Phelge said:


> What's the whole paying for breaks thing about? I've never worked anywhere where breaks were paid.


Ritzy apparently pay their staff during breaks. This is supposedly unusual in the industry. So they have in the past argued that the rate they pay - which is close to but below LLW - works out the same as an employer who pays LLW but does not pay breaks. 

Curzon, for instance, gets a lot of back slapping for paying LLW but apparently does not pay breaks (no one seems absolutely sure about that). So in reality the staff get much the same pay over the course of a regular day. Or at least did whenever the rates were last compared.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 27, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Ritzy apparently pay their staff during breaks. This is supposedly unusual in the industry. So they have in the past argued that the rate they pay - which is close to but below LLW - works out the same as an employer who pays LLW but does not pay breaks.
> 
> Curzon, for instance, gets a lot of back slapping for paying LLW but apparently does not pay breaks (no one seems absolutely sure about that). So in reality the staff get much the same pay over the course of a regular day. Or at least did whenever the rates were last compared.



ah - ok - thanks.

I don't get why they would pay for breaks. That really is unusual. 

A break is my time. If I am paid on my break it feels like their time.


----------



## Sue (Mar 27, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Ritzy apparently pay their staff during breaks. This is supposedly unusual in the industry. So they have in the past argued that the rate they pay - which is close to but below LLW - works out the same as an employer who pays LLW but does not pay breaks.
> 
> Curzon, for instance, gets a lot of back slapping for paying LLW but apparently does not pay breaks (no one seems absolutely sure about that). So in reality the staff get much the same pay over the course of a regular day. Or at least did whenever the rates were last compared.



So if it's pretty much all the same, why don't PH stop paying for breaks, pay the LLW and avoid all this terrible publicity then..?


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2018)

Sue said:


> So if it's pretty much all the same, why don't PH stop paying for breaks, pay the LLW and avoid all this terrible publicity then..?


Indeed. I made the same point a while ago, but the real reason why Picturehouse don't want to pay the LLW is that they would then have to commit to increasing it if the cost of living soared, and they're more interested in protecting and increasing their big fat profit margins than looking after their hard working staff.



> To some observers, the management’s refusal to come to an agreement with the protesters was baffling. If the cinema chain really was paying the equivalent of the Living Wage, as it claimed, why not then just pay the actual Living Wage? That would end the dispute.
> 
> Picturehouse and Cineworld management were not available for comment for this piece but earlier this summer Cineworld chairman Anthony Bloom told _The Guardian_ that the board was “proud of our employment practices everywhere” but wary about becoming a Living Wage-accredited organisation. “If we agree to the Living Wage and it rises to £15 next year, we’ll be bound to follow that,” he commented. Contacted by _Screen_, the Living Wage Foundation indicated that there was no chance at all of the Living Wage rising to £15 next year. The London Living Wage was £9.15 in 2014, rose to £9.40 in 2015 and then to its present £9.75.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Sue said:


> So if it's pretty much all the same, why don't PH stop paying for breaks, pay the LLW and avoid all this terrible publicity then..?



I made the same point earlier. 

The thing this some posters here aren't keen on living wage. Whilst sounding reasonable they are trying to put seeds of doubt into people's minds.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> And also business might wonder what may be next. For example will the Foundation set their sights on zero hour contracts for example or split shifts.



And that's bad?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Quite, yes. I guess that is also a risk for the business as it puts control over wages in someone else's hands. How rigorous / independent / political is the team behind LLW? It occurs to me that I know absolutely nothing about them. I assume that they give give quite a lot of notice of hikes?



I really can't believe you mean this. This thread is over 30 pages. And you posted up on it enough times.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Why is it in my everyday life offline with normal average people I don't get into the kinds of arguments on something as basic as this as I do here?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Good news!
> 
> I presume this means that the £3.4M gifted by Lambeth Labour to Picturehouse for the West Norwood cinema will now be returned?




Noticed this as well:



> We will go further, partnering with our local Business Improvement Districts to promote Living Wage Zones, supporting local businesses to become Living Wage Employers and encourage businesses to adopt the Mayor’s new ‘Good Work Standard’ which includes paying the Living Wage.
> 
> The real answer to poverty pay rests in a proper national living wage. A Labour government will introduce a £10 minimum wage, giving a pay rise to millions of people.



I wonder what a Living Wage Zone in Brixton BID will be like? Leaving aside small business I can't see some of big business in Brixton area like Ritzy being happy about a Brixton BID Living Wage Zone.

I wonder if Brixton BID know about this commitment from Lambeth? Brixton BID are in theory independent of the Council.

Still. Good to see the Labour Council take Living Wage idea seriously. Rather then pick holes in it. Shows it is idea that is becoming mainstream.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Why is it in my everyday life offline with normal average people I don't get into the kinds of arguments on something as basic as this as I do here?



I’m not sure anyone here is against LLW, more that they’re exploring the realities of its implementation. Employment law is overly complicated and some long term decisions get reversed.

Do you think Mencap are having the same thoughts at the moment about sleep in pay?


----------



## Winot (Mar 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Why is it in my everyday life offline with normal average people I don't get into the kinds of arguments on something as basic as this as I do here?



What Snowy said. If you like we can all just agree that we support the LLW and leave it at that. It would be a pretty short thread. Or we can take it a step further and discuss the meatier issues - what are the details? What are the potential challenges e.g. for small businesses? How can they be overcome?

My business pays well above LLW to all staff. I’m about to try to persuade them to switch cleaning company to one that pays LLW (I’ve been meaning to do it for ages ). I’m expecting kickback from some colleagues. This is not U75. I’m going to need to marshall my arguments to persuade them. Threads like this are useful - more useful than a ‘motherhood and apple pie’ thread where everyone agrees and there’s no sand in the oyster.


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Why is it in my everyday life offline with normal average people I don't get into the kinds of arguments on something as basic as this as I do here?


You mean your friends don't focus on the vital and incredibly relevant issue of what local DJs get paid when discussing the ongoing dispute between striking cinema workers and a multi national cinema chain?


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2018)

Winot said:


> My business pays well above LLW to all staff. I’m about to try to persuade them to switch cleaning company to one that pays LLW (I’ve been meaning to do it for ages ).


Good for you - and good luck.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I really can't believe you mean this. This thread is over 30 pages. And you posted up on it enough times.


Wow. I had a look and you are right G. I did post a few times on this thread. Mind you, most of my posts are back in 2014 so I guess I must have forgotten.  Now that I think about it, I seem to recall that I became wearied and disinterested by the incessant posturing and sneering. 

Full marks for keeping the thread on it toes!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2018)

Winot said:


> What Snowy said. If you like we can all just agree that we support the LLW and leave it at that. It would be a pretty short thread. Or we can take it a step further and discuss the meatier issues - what are the details? What are the potential challenges e.g. for small businesses? How can they be overcome?
> 
> My business pays well above LLW to all staff. I’m about to try to persuade them to switch cleaning company to one that pays LLW (I’ve been meaning to do it for ages ). I’m expecting kickback from some colleagues. This is not U75. I’m going to need to marshall my arguments to persuade them. Threads like this are useful - more useful than a ‘motherhood and apple pie’ thread where everyone agrees and there’s no sand in the oyster.



If people don't support LLW they are entitled to say that here. What winds me up is this. Saying one supports LLW then posting up why it won't work.

Reminds me of someone who I used to work for who sincerely wanted to pay us more. But this never happened. Yet they sincerely believed this.
If you say that you sincerely support something then give reasons why it can't happen you don't really support it.

And I post up link to CEO of Curzon saying why paying LLW was good idea. To get this thread back to the subject. Also a link that I thought everyone could agree with.

Apart from likes and one poster the usual suspects posted up to undermine my post. To my surprise. Here I am posting up a link by a boss. Who is saying paying LLW is good for business. Yet the usual suspects have a go.

What am I supposed to do?

The recent posts show how right wing posting has got here.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2018)

Doesn't take much for liberals to descend into all manner of whataboutery and concern trolling when it comes to worker pay and rights, does it?! Same old arguments over minimum wage, as well as parental leave rights, capping of weekly working hours, etc. over the years.

_Won't someone think of the businesses._


----------



## Winot (Mar 29, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Now that I think about it, I seem to recall that I became wearied and disinterested by the incessant posturing and sneering.



You know what, you’re right.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 29, 2018)

The questions are pretty much the same ones every policy officer covering employment has and will be asking - it's not 'liberal' or 'right wing' to work out how to set and then apply a recommended pay policy into practice in conjunction with a series of other inter relating laws. 

Do you honestly think Resolution Foundation just came up with an idea and a £ figure and then didn't go and test those assumptions? 

FWIW where I work we do LLW as a minimum, for internships too.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Doesn't take much for liberals to descend into all manner of whataboutery and concern trolling when it comes to worker pay and rights, does it?! Same old arguments over minimum wage, as well as parental leave rights, capping of weekly working hours, etc. over the years.
> 
> _Won't someone think of the businesses._


Spot on. The company is raking in tens of millions, the boss is earning millions_ every year_ and all these self-proclaimed 'supporters' of the LLW here can do is try to come up with excuses why businesses should avoid signing up to on entirely invented grounds.

...or going on about DJs wages in an attempt to divert attention from a losing argument


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 29, 2018)

Who here is saying that PH shouldn't adopt the LLW?


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 29, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> Who here is saying that PH shouldn't adopt the LLW?


Nobody as far as I can see. Obviously this disappoints some posters on here which is very strange.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Nobody as far as I can see. Obviously this disappoints some posters on here which is very strange.


What's disappointing is how people like you are so desperate to continue your personal vendetta that you'll bring up the matter of how much I pay my DJs because I 'liked' someone else's posts about the LLW.

Have you any idea of how ridiculous that makes you look? What on earth has the private matter of how much a DJ gets paid at a small gig got to do with workers fighting a multinational corporate?

And as I said at the time - to your obvious disappointment - I pay over double the Living Wage, not that it's any of your fucking business.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Nobody as far as I can see. Obviously this disappoints some posters on here which is very strange.



You moved the discussion away from being specifically about Ritzy dispute in past pages.

You stated you agreed with LLW then had a series of posts why LLW was a bad idea.

So no I don't think you support the LLW in a meaningful sense.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> And also business might wonder what may be next. For example will the Foundation set their sights on zero hour contracts for example or split shifts.



This post is an example. I post up link where CEO of Curzon says being a LLW  accredited employer (of the Living Wage Foundation) is good idea and this is what you come up with.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 29, 2018)

“I know there’s a certain other chain that has a lot of problems at the moment, but they’re misunderstood in many ways as well. Employers do want to pay employees properly, of course they do, but the pressures, such as business rates, rents, regulation… I’m trying to present a balanced picture here. It isn’t easy making these decisions about work practices,” he said.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 29, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This post is an example. I post up link where CEO of Curzon says being a LLW  accredited employer (of the Living Wage Foundation) is good idea and this is what you come up with.


I did not have a series of posts saying the LLW is a bad idea and your example of my post is not me expressing such a view.

I am reasoning why an *employer* might not think being LLW accredited is good for them. I am giving examples why they might not. How does that demonstrate I personally don’t support the LLW? You are purposefully misinterpreting my view and it’s makng you look foolish. 

I think you don’t grasp that the LLW is complex and nuanced. All parties views and concerns must be considered and given equal gravitas, regardless of how distasteful one might find this. It’s what real negotiations that actually achieve things do. Oversimplification and dismissivness will achieve nothing.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I did not have a series of posts saying the LLW is a bad idea and your example of my post is not me expressing such a view.
> 
> I am reasoning why an *employer* might not think being LLW accredited is good for them. I am giving examples why they might not. How does that demonstrate I personally don’t support the LLW? You are purposefully misinterpreting my view and it’s makng you look foolish.
> 
> I think you don’t grasp that the LLW is complex and nuanced. All parties views and concerns must be considered and given equal gravitas, regardless of how distasteful one might find this. It’s what real negotiations that actually achieve things do. Oversimplification and dismissivness will achieve nothing.



I'm not purposefully misinterpreting. I've posted up one example. Not the only one.

I can see you are reasoning as an employer. That's been evident in your posts. 

You said a few pages ago that not only did you support the LLW you thought it should be higher. A strong statement. Now you are saying something different in your last sentence. 

I said after reading your posts I don't think you support the LLW in a meaningful sense. You say you believe in it then your last sentence in above post makes me think you don't.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 30, 2018)

I give up

Jesus wept


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 30, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> “I know there’s a certain other chain that has a lot of problems at the moment, but they’re misunderstood in many ways as well. Employers do want to pay employees properly, of course they do, but the pressures, such as business rates, rents, regulation… I’m trying to present a balanced picture here. It isn’t easy making these decisions about work practices,” he said.



It needs to be remembered that the Curzon workers rang a successful campaign to get LLW



> The campaign has attracted strong support from the public, who were asked to put pressure on Curzon CEO Philip Knatchbull by emailing him complaints.
> 
> An online petition to gain union recognition gathered around 7,000 signatures.
> 
> Their plight was also elevated into the limelight by comedian Mark Thomas, whose attention-grabbing protests included rearranging letters outside the Soho cinema to say ‘Give us fair pay – Recognise the union’.



Victory for Curzon Cinema workers as bosses agree to pay London Living Wage after year-long campaign - South West Londoner

They didn't get LLW just because Curzon ltd thought it would be good idea.

It took pressure from Curzon workers and public to get LLW. I used to use Curzon a lot. It's high profile arthouse cinema chain. The bad publicity wasn't doing the company image any good.

Mark Thomas stunts made a difference for example. Even if they could be portrayed as simplifying a complex issue. Not seeing it as "nuanced".


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 30, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I give up
> 
> Jesus wept



This issue isn't some kind of joke for me.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 30, 2018)

Why should the views of multinational multimillion pound businesses be given the same time of day as people struggling to pay bills, eat food and keep a roof over their heads. This is absolute nonsense.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 30, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Why should the views of multinational multimillion pound businesses be given the same time of day as people struggling to pay bills, eat food and keep a roof over their heads. This is absolute nonsense.


Because if you want them to pay a LLW you must listen to them. As I say regardless of how distasteful that might be. 

Unless you legislate to force them to pay it which I would support but I don’t think is going to happen.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This issue isn't some kind of joke for me.


Nor for me. You on the other hand...


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 30, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Because if you want them to pay a LLW you must listen to them. As I say regardless of how distasteful that might be.
> 
> Unless you legislate to force them to pay it which I would support but I don’t think is going to happen.



Wtf is this?!  You 'support' LLW but you _must listen to the businesses _if its to happen, except in the situation where legislation is forced onto those businesses anyway which you also contend to 'support'. No wonder Gramsci, Ed & co. get so very frustrated!


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 30, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Wtf is this?!  You 'support' LLW but you _must listen to the businesses _if its to happen, except in the situation where legislation is forced onto those businesses anyway which you also contend to 'support'. No wonder Gramsci, Ed & co. get so very frustrated!


You’re not arguing any point here.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 30, 2018)

Tbf though, it's a fairly standard New Labour position which tries to balance - '_we believe in the sanctity of the private market, until we decide that the state intervenes_'. Which has rather led to all kinds of the mess we see in services and housing now, and politicians of all stripes but especially New Labour ones in London councils tie themselves up in knots trying to constantly align the contradiction.


----------



## Winot (Mar 30, 2018)

The eternal tussle - do we deal with the world as we find it or as we would like it to be.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 30, 2018)

On the Ritzy dispute. This has been long running. Previous dispute led to negotiations between BECTU and Cineworld/ Picture house. This led to stopping the action on promise of talks at later stage on Living Wage. Now they are refusing.

It's Cineworld/ Picture house that are finding it to "distasteful" to sit down and talk.


> The Living Staff Living Wage campaign began in 2014 where the Ritzy won a 26% pay rise and an agreement to re-negotiate towards the Living Wage in June 2016. The company back-tracked on this agreement and refuse to negotiate at all.




Living Staff Living Wage - BECTU

The idea that somehow all parties views and concerns must be considered and given equal gravitus is not dealing with the world as we find it.

These pay disputes get resolved with a mixture of all parties sitting down and negotiating plus strikes/ public pressure.

There isnt a level / equal playing field. As Thimble Queen pointed out. The world as it is has unequal power relations. To argue otherwise is seeing the world as we would like it to be.


----------



## CH1 (May 11, 2018)

The City AM had this helpful little tit-bit yesterday (10th May) in case people have digestion issues:


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jun 8, 2018)

Tulse Hill Labour Party are proposing a motion against the Ritzy at their next branch meeting next week. 

Ritzy motion - proposed by Chris Blake

This branch notes:

 *   That BECTU (part of Prospect) members at several Picturehouse cinemas, including the Ritzy, are in dispute.  They are calling for the London Living Wage, sick pay and parental support leave.
 *   That four trade union reps at the Ritzy have been sacked by the employer.
 *   That the strike has received support from Helen Hayes MP, Chuka Umunna MP and Jeremy Corbyn MP as well as from Lambeth Council
 *   That BECTU have called for a boycott of both Picturehouse and Cineworld cinemas as part of the campaign.
 *   That the Ritzy sometimes use Windrush Square for events, this is land owned by Lambeth Council

This branch fully supports the Picturehouse workers and believes union busting firms like the Ritzy have no right to use the council owned Windrush Square.

This branch therefore:

 *   Instructs the secretary to write to Kelly Rogers of BECTU to communicate the view of the meeting
 *   Requests that Lambeth Council does not grant permission to the Ritzy to use Windrush Square for events until the dispute with BECTU is resolved.
 *   Requests that councillors give regular feedback to this branch on the progress in implementing this motion


----------



## Winot (Jun 8, 2018)

Nice.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 12, 2018)

Employment tribunal has found the union reps were unfairly dismissed by Picturehouse

Tribunal finds that Ritzy reps were unfairly dismissed - BECTU


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2018)

Update:


----------



## Gleena (Jul 26, 2018)

editor said:


> Update:




This is a weird life interaction for me, as this is a mate of mine.

Carry on.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 26, 2018)

With technological change role of projectionist was becoming redundant. Unless cinema is still showing 35mm.

Its now possible to show film without projectionist.

The thing about technological advances is that they should be used to free people from work. 

Marx himself saw that the technology built up in Capitalism could mean moving to society where machines operate everything and people are free from necessity of labour.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 8, 2018)

alex_ said:
			
		

> What is a cyber picket ?
> 
> alex_



To prevent online ticket sales by activists putting all the tickets in their shopping baskets but not buying them.

To my mind, that's an abuse of the system as some people will choose not to agree with the strikers but they are denied their right to do so. You're effectively undermining democracy by coercing people into aligning with your views.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> To prevent online ticket sales by activists putting all the tickets in their shopping baskets but not buying them.
> 
> To my mind, that's an abuse of the system as some people will choose not to agree with the strikers but they are denied their right to do so. You're effectively undermining democracy by coercing people into aligning with your views.



Did you miss out, on seeing a film?


----------



## Sue (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> [=alex_]What is a cyber picket ?
> 
> alex_



To prevent online ticket sales by activists putting all the tickets in their shopping baskets but not buying them.

To my mind, that's an abuse of the system *as some people will choose not to agree with the strikers but they are denied their right to do so.* You're effectively undermining democracy by coercing people into aligning with your views.[/QUOTE]

Good. Sounds like an effective strategy.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 8, 2018)

Very clever, you've got to give them that. But definitely not cricket.



cupid_stunt said:


> Did you miss out, on seeing a film?



Nope. I haven't been to any part of the ritzy (cinema, bar, cafe) since the strike began. I don't disagree with the strike, I just don't accept that method.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Very clever, you've got to give them that. But definitely not cricket.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I haven't been to any part of the ritzy (cinema, bar, cafe) since the strike began. I don't disagree with the strike, I just don't accept that method.



Oh, well, never mind.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> To prevent online ticket sales by activists putting all the tickets in their shopping baskets but not buying them.
> 
> To my mind, that's an abuse of the system as some people will choose not to agree with the strikers but they are denied their right to do so. You're effectively undermining democracy by coercing people into aligning with your views.



Your quoting post from Brixton summer thread. Post 460 on that thread. Your not quoting post from this thread.

Your trying to get around your ( imo justified) ban from the Brixton summer chat thread.

So I am going to report this post.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 8, 2018)

Delete quotes didn't work.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Very clever, you've got to give them that. But definitely not cricket.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I haven't been to any part of the ritzy (cinema, bar, cafe) since the strike began. I don't disagree with the strike, I just don't accept that method.



Pull the other one you right wing troll.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> To prevent online ticket sales by activists putting all the tickets in their shopping baskets but not buying them.
> 
> To my mind, that's an abuse of the system as some people will choose not to agree with the strikers but they are denied their right to do so. You're effectively undermining democracy by coercing people into aligning with your views.



The same argument can be applied to old fashioned strike. When Ritzy workers go on strike they are denying people who do not agree with strike use of cinema.

So the logic of your post is that going on strike is undermining democracy.

Your just putting the right wing argument that picketing has no place in a "democracy"


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Your quoting post from Brixton summer thread. Post 460 on that thread. Your not quoting post from this thread.
> 
> Your trying to get around your ( imo justified) ban from the Brixton summer chat thread.
> 
> So I am going to report this post.


He's banned from this thread too. I'm not having him troll a discussion as important as this one.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 9, 2018)

editor said:


> He's banned from this thread too. I'm not having him troll a discussion as important as this one.



Good


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2018)

Fantastic news - Brixton Ritzy banned from using Windrush Square while Lambeth pledges to stop using cinema facilities while dispute continues


----------



## T & P (Sep 5, 2018)

editor said:


> Fantastic news - Brixton Ritzy banned from using Windrush Square while Lambeth pledges to stop using cinema facilities while dispute continues


Wow- that is a major development, and one that might well tip the balance. Bar receipts will surely suffer significantly from this.


----------



## technical (Sep 5, 2018)

It says promotional events - which suggests they can continue to put tables and chairs outside. Or have I got that wrong?


----------



## discobastard (Sep 5, 2018)

technical said:


> It says promotional events - which suggests they can continue to put tables and chairs outside. Or have I got that wrong?


I imagine they can continue to do that as part of their licence.  Just not extend other events further into the square.  But I may be wrong.  

Picturehouse in West Norwood (opening soon we are told) are falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves locally.  

(THIS NEXT BIT IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF PICTUREHOUSE)

I understand they are paying more than many of the businesses in West Norwood.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2018)

technical said:


> It says promotional events - which suggests they can continue to put tables and chairs outside. Or have I got that wrong?


I imagine so - it's more of a gesture of (welcome) solidarity than anything that's going to actually hurt the Ritzy.

Of course, if more people had bothered to support the strikes in the past and shown solidarity with the workers and respected the boycott, I dare say that this dispute could have been over a long time ago.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I understand they are paying more than many of the businesses in West Norwood.


And I imagine they're paying less than some others too. So what is your point? That it's OK for a multi-multi million company to not pay their workers a decent wage because they're paying a bit more than some other businesses?

Why even bring up other (unnamed) businesses?


----------



## discobastard (Sep 6, 2018)

editor said:


> And I imagine they're paying less than some others too. So what is your point? That it's OK for a multi-multi million company to not pay their workers a decent wage because they're paying a bit more than some other businesses?
> 
> Why even bring up other (unnamed) businesses?


Do you really think I mean that?  Is it not ok for me to add relevant information to a discussion?

Every time ones adds something to a discussion it should automatically be assumed to be some kind of dismissal of the issue?

Grow up. 

And if you can’t understand the idea of *context* then you really shouldn’t be the judge on this forum.

It’s a point for discussion not an opportunity for what is effectively a crass and blunt callout.  Jeez.  You’re only reflecting your own inability to enter into a balanced discussion.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Do you really think I mean that?  Is it not ok for me to add relevant information to a discussion?
> 
> Every time ones adds something to a discussion it should automatically be assumed to be some kind of dismissal of the issue?
> 
> ...


So explain one more time why you felt the need to point out that a multi-million corporate who refuse to pay their staff the living wage are "paying more than many of the businesses in West Norwood."

Please explain in simple terms why you felt the need to point this out and what your point was. Thank you.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Do you really think I mean that?  Is it not ok for me to add relevant information to a discussion?
> 
> Every time ones adds something to a discussion it should automatically be assumed to be some kind of dismissal of the issue?
> 
> ...



So what is the point for discussion you are making in your post 1044?


----------



## discobastard (Sep 8, 2018)

editor said:


> So explain one more time why you felt the need to point out that a multi-million corporate who refuse to pay their staff the living wage are "paying more than many of the businesses in West Norwood."
> 
> Please explain in simple terms why you felt the need to point this out and what your point was. Thank
> 
> you.



Simply that it is important context for the discussion.  It seems to me from the words quoted here that you think i *shouldn't* have pointed that out.  What, specifically, do you think is wrong with pointing that out.  If you are going to complain about it then I think you should at least do me the courtesy of highlighting what you object to in that fact.

Simple question - would you have preferred it if I had not said that and why?

We have a Picturehouse opening in West Norwood shortly.  That is a local issue, 10 mins away from Brixton on a bus.  I have spoken to people about this, including somebody who is working at West Norwood Picturehouse.

I'm not defending them, I'm pointing out that they are paying more than many others.  Is that not relevant?  I'm not saying that we should let them off because of it - I'm 'boycotting' the Ritzy too.  I just don't know why you are so aggressive in response.  And I am trying to work out how I feel about them opening in West Norwood, where I live.  

Shall we ignore facts that might make for a more nuanced discussion?  Please tell me what problem you have with any of the above.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 8, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> So what is the point for discussion you are making in your post 1044?



Should the issue about paying the London Living Wage be extended to other businesses?  Should I boycott those other local businesses as well?  What do you think?

I am not being confrontational (and I'll say for the last time I am not defending Picturehouse, I am avoiding them also), I am wondering what people think of that.  Seems odd to single out one business, but maybe there is a good reason for it.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Should the issue about paying the London Living Wage be extended to other businesses?  Should I boycott those other local businesses as well?  What do you think?
> 
> I am not being confrontational (and I'll say for the last time I am not defending Picturehouse, I am avoiding them also), I am wondering what people think of that.  Seems odd to single out one business, but maybe there is a good reason for it.



Im not singling out one business. Ritzy workers asked me to boycott cinema. 

I've already posted up that I think the boycott was a tactical mistake.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Should the issue about paying the London Living Wage be extended to other businesses?  Should I boycott those other local businesses as well?  What do you think?
> 
> I am not being confrontational (and I'll say for the last time I am not defending Picturehouse, I am avoiding them also), I am wondering what people think of that.  Seems odd to single out one business, but maybe there is a good reason for it.



As this is issue for you the Ritzy workers campaign have a FB page and you can ask them directly these questions. As it was them and the Union Bectu who called the boycott.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 8, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im not singling out one business. Ritzy workers asked me to boycott cinema.
> 
> I've already posted up that I think the boycott was a tactical mistake.


Why's that (genuine question). Read your posts but not clear on that.

So many people have no idea that there is even an issue, although there is a sense that people should have educated themselves about it.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 8, 2018)

No response?


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Why's that (genuine question). Read your posts but not clear on that.
> 
> So many people have no idea that there is even an issue, although there is a sense that people should have educated themselves about it.


I think these people may have known about it. What's your take on the scene?

Laughing drinkers:







Looking at this:


----------



## alcopop (Sep 9, 2018)

I bet they are laughing at poor people


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2018)

alcopop said:


> I bet they are laughing at poor people


No, really, what's your take on what happened there? 

Would you be happy to laugh and joke and drink beer when there's a massive workers' protest against the venue taking place a metre away?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Why's that (genuine question). Read your posts but not clear on that.
> 
> So many people have no idea that there is even an issue, although there is a sense that people should have educated themselves about it.



Post 416 here for example:


Brixton Ritzy - upcoming films, reviews and opinions


----------



## alcopop (Sep 11, 2018)

editor said:


> No, really, what's your take on what happened there?
> 
> Would you be happy to laugh and joke and drink beer when there's a massive workers' protest against the venue taking place a metre away?


It’s looks like their crime is to be middle class.

Hangings too good for them

Bastards

And yes I would be happy, doubt it was a massive protest tbh


----------



## klang (Sep 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> doubt it was a massive protest


fuck off, it was a protest to get fair, decent pay, to survive in London, you know....


----------



## klang (Sep 11, 2018)

tbh, LLW isn't even 'decent' pay, it's just a few bobs to buy food and stuff.
they are being undermined and laughed at for asking for very very little and equally putting their livelihoods on the line.
the white shirts are cunts, regardless their class and whatever they are laughing at. they shouldnt be sitting there drinking, end of.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> tbh, LLW isn't even 'decent' pay, it's just a few bobs to buy food and stuff.


It’s nowhere near decent pay. It’s not even really a Living Wage


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> It’s looks like their crime is to be middle class.


I didn't mention the class of the people drinking, laughing and joking in the venue that the workers were protesting against. However, I did find their attitude disgusting.


alcopop said:


> And yes I would be happy, doubt it was a massive protest tbh


I think that rather sums up you, your politics and the contempt you have for workers trying to get a decent wage. Shame on you.

And it was a massive protest. If you'd been there to support the workers, you'd now that.


----------



## alcopop (Sep 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> fuck off, it was a protest to get fair, decent pay, to survive in London, you know....





editor said:


> You really can't work our why I might be disappointed by the minuscule number of people coming out to support the striking workers? I'd like the strikers to get more support from the community. I was disappointed that barely anyone turned up.



Ahem


----------



## klang (Sep 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Ahem


I didn't say anything about the size of the protest, I wasn't there. Now fuck off.


----------



## klang (Sep 11, 2018)

+ editor wasn't talking about the size of the protest, but was talking about the number of people in support of the strikers. Again, fuck off.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Ahem


Ahem what? You were disputing the size of the protest in front of the drinkers in the photo who were having such a good time in front of the workers.
As ever you were wrong, which is understandable because you weren't there. There was indeed a very large turnout that day.

Pulling up a quote describing what has happened on other days is completely irrelevant.


----------



## alcopop (Sep 11, 2018)

editor said:


> Ahem what? You were disputing the size of the protest in front of the drinkers in the photo who were having such a good time in front of the workers.
> As ever you were wrong, which is understandable because you weren't there. There was indeed a very large turnout that day.
> 
> Pulling up a quote describing what has happened on other days is completely irrelevant.


Hmmm


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Hmmm


I'm getting really bored with your disruptive behaviour. Either make a substantive point or go post your pro-scab eulogies elsewhere.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 11, 2018)

editor said:


> *I didn't mention the class* of the people drinking, laughing and joking in the venue that the workers were protesting against. However, I did find their attitude disgusting.



It's probably one of them.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2018)

Respect


----------



## discobastard (Sep 12, 2018)

editor said:


> No, really, what's your take on what happened there?
> 
> Would you be happy to laugh and joke and drink beer when there's a massive workers' protest against the venue taking place a metre away?



I suspect some people would be, yes.  Like I say, you weigh up what is important to you and you prioritise things in life.  Doesn't make you a bad person.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I suspect some people would be, yes.  Like I say, you weigh up what is important to you and you prioritise things in life.  Doesn't make you a bad person.


I was asking what _you_ would do, not what "some people" might do. But I guess your obfuscation reveals the truth.

And yes, it does make you a bad person if you're drinking and laughing right in front of people fighting for a decent wage, and treating their protest like a big joke with your mates.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 12, 2018)

editor said:


> I was asking what _you_ would do, not what "some people" might do. But I guess your obfuscation reveals the truth.
> 
> And yes, it does make you a bad person if you're drinking and laughing right in front of people fighting for a decent wage, and treating their protest like a big joke with your mates.


No it doesn't make you a bad person.  That only works if you are laughing and joking about them, taking the piss out of the workers (that lot miht habve been, might not have been, who knows).  It's great that *you* know what people are thinking and what people mean when they do things.  It must be a very special talent.

You asked what I would do - read the fucking thread.  Iv'e said it many times over that I don't go the the Ritzy.

_'I guess your obfuscation reveals the truth'
_
You really are a plank sometimes.


----------



## klang (Sep 12, 2018)

breaking a campaign of people desperate enough to put their livelihoods on the line might not make you a bad person but certainly makes you a cunt who doesn't give a shit about the issues concerning workers who make the very community you are partaking in tick.


----------



## klang (Sep 12, 2018)

...whatever they are actually laughing it, they _are _breaking a strike.
so fuck them and fuck everybody who's defending them.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2018)

discobastard said:


> No it doesn't make you a bad person.  That only works if you are laughing and joking about them, taking the piss out of the workers (that lot miht habve been, might not have been, who knows).


They were taking the piss out of the workers simply by sitting there right in front of a large, noisy protest and guzzling pints and laughing away while the staff were fighting for their livelihoods.

It doesn't take any talent at all to understand that this is inappropriate behaviour, yet you're still trying to dream up excuses for them.

At least the old chestnut that 'they might not know the strike was taking place' can't apply. It was literally right in front of their laughing faces.


----------



## aka (Sep 13, 2018)

editor said:


> They were taking the piss out of the workers simply by sitting there right in front of a large, noisy protest and guzzling pints and laughing away while the staff were fighting for their livelihoods.
> 
> It doesn't take any talent at all to understand that this is inappropriate behaviour, yet you're still trying to dream up excuses for them.
> 
> At least the old chestnut that 'they might not know the strike was taking place' can't apply. It was literally right in front of their laughing faces.


And yet the Ritzy was open, people were working there.  Name and shame those motherfuckers eh?  Instead of (as well as)  some poor (well maybe rich) twats who showed up at what is effectively an outdoor bit of a bar.  Did they look over and go 'wtf is this all about?' - Maybe - We don't know, we don't have a picture of that. On a slightly different tangent, no one taught the protesters to picket correctly. Someone should school them on picketing.  Scargill, scargill, anyone, Scargill.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

aka said:


> And yet the Ritzy was open, people were working there.  Name and shame those motherfuckers eh? .


That's just beyond 

You're blaming the workers rather than shaming the people sat outside laughing and drinking almost in the faces of the protesters? Unbelievable. You sound like Thatcher.  I'm not sure I can stand much more of this board's shift to the right.


----------



## klang (Sep 13, 2018)

unbelievable these people here.
they are either trolling at the expenses of people in a desperate situation or are just right wing tory cunts who shouldn't be anywhere near a discussion on workers rights.
get rid, i say.


----------



## alcopop (Sep 13, 2018)

littleseb said:


> unbelievable these people here.
> they are either trolling at the expenses of people in a desperate situation or are just right wing tory cunts who shouldn't be anywhere near a discussion on workers rights.
> get rid, i say.


You need to learn to engage with people you disagree with and attempt to persuade them of the correctness of your argument!


----------



## aka (Sep 13, 2018)

alcopop said:


> You need to learn to engage with people you disagree with and attempt to persuade them of the correctness of your argument!


Points off for using a '!', but - you know - good job.  Seven!


----------



## alcopop (Sep 13, 2018)

aka said:


> Points off for using a '!', but - you know - good job.  Seven!


You didn’t call me a cunt, so that’s progress


----------



## aka (Sep 13, 2018)

A Cunt's Progress - by JJ  Bunyan Abrams.  I'd watch that.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

aka said:


> Points off for using a '!', but - you know - good job.  Seven!


It's all such a joke to you and alcopop, isn't it?


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

aka said:


> A Cunt's Progress - by JJ  Bunyan Abrams.  I'd watch that.


And on that note, you're banned from this thread. The Ritzy dispute is about workers fighting for a decent wage and this thread is not an appropriate place for your pissing about.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 13, 2018)

Copied over from Brixton news thread where this was a reply to a previous post.



editor said:


> I'm fully aware of that distinction and my I stand by my comments. When people say that they would happily join the people laughing and drinking in the Ritzy when there's a protest happening right next to them, or when people try to push the blame on to the workers, then that's very much in 'I'm all right Jack' nu-Brixton demographic.
> 
> 
> And how the fuck can you be 'neutral' to workers fighting a corporation for a decent wage?



Not one single person on this thread has ever said they would _‘happily join the people laughing and drinking in the Ritzy when there’s a protest happening right next to them’_. If you actually believe that then one has to call your general judgement into question. But let’s not go into that.

Nobody is ‘pushing the blame on to the workers’ – I suspect aka was using the well known rhetorical device of 'exaggerating for comic effect' – and presumably for a reason. I suspect you know that.

Here’s a scenario. For the benefit of the tape, it is not my scenario and it is not my position. But it is possibly realistic and based on a number of things I have heard from people here, people who aren’t on the boards whom I’ve told about the situation when they have mentioned the Ritzy, and also from somebody who is currently an employee of Picturehouse, and has said they are very happy in their job.

A busy person, possibly with a family, a demanding full time job maybe, might hear about the strike. They might even take the trouble to look up what the strike is all about. They might even read the Picturehouse side of the story and decide that with the living wage at £10.20, Picturehouse staff receiving between £9.40 and £9.99 an hour* with a number of other associated benefits including discounted food, free drinks and popcorn, free cinema tickets and late night working allowance, that actually, while it would be great if they got the living wage, it isn’t something that I am prepared to get up and fight because I have other concerns. They might think that they get paid better than lots of other businesses in the area with better benefits (even just any benefits), they might think that it’s zero hours and Amazon style workers that really need people to stand up for them. They might do a sponsored bike ride for people with debilitating illnesses, work in a soup kitchen or do some other form of community work. At the end of the week, when somebody suggests going to see a movie or tells everybody to meet at the Ritzy, they might think ‘yeah’, that’s just what I need’. This of course doesn't even take into account those who don't know about the strike/dispute. Somebody I know who is very kind and does a lot of work for community groups in Crystal Palace suggested we go to see a film at the Ritzy. I told her about it, but she felt that while she sympathised, boycotting it was not something she was prepared to do (we didn't go in the end btw).

They might equally say ‘let’s go and have a few lagers at the Ritzy and laugh at the workers’ (and yes, fuck those people). It seems that this is the default position for anybody who is not boycotting or even going down there to support them – or am I wrong? If so, please clarify.

It’s the unwillingness to even consider that there are so many other mediating factors why somebody doesn’t actively support the strike which does your argument harm. Because somebody is in the former category doesn’t make them ‘right wing anti-worker’. And if you continue to apparently demonise people that might be in this category, because you cannot always (possibly never) infer somebody’s beliefs from their actions, then you are distracting yourself (and others) from the real issues and from fighting real right wing idiocy. Verging on crying wolf. And please do not infer from that that I am equating the dispute with an imaginary animal, you are bright enough to work out what I mean.

And a disclaimer (again, because these tend to get ignored), before everybody piles on and tells me that _these scenarios must be what I think because I typed them out_, these are not all of the things that I think at all (I’ve already told you my position). But I have some thinking tools (that are freely available to all) to consider them. And as a thought experiment I am asking you to consider them rather than the apparent zero sum game of assuming everybody who doesn’t think what you think is a right wing troll.

And if the posh looking blokes in your photo that keeps getting posted up were indeed laughing at the workers, then they are indeed cunts. But one of them might have gone home and told their partner about it and they may have decided not to go to the Ritzy again. You don’t know.

*ETA: yes I am aware of this from the Picturehouse website but cannot comment on detail - it does not change the general thrust of the argument - _'Staff at The Ritzy Picturehouse London are represented by BECTU and agreed a rate of £9.10 per hour (equivalent to £9.70 with a paid break) from 2 September 2016'_


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Copied over from Brixton news thread where this was a reply to a previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the post you liked. The one that blames the 'motherfucker' workers for, err, having to work. 


aka said:


> And yet the Ritzy was open, people were working there.  Name and shame those motherfuckers eh?  Instead of (as well as)  some poor (well maybe rich) twats who showed up at what is effectively an outdoor bit of a bar.  Did they look over and go 'wtf is this all about?' - Maybe - We don't know, we don't have a picture of that. On a slightly different tangent, no one taught the protesters to picket correctly. Someone should school them on picketing.  Scargill, scargill, anyone, Scargill.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 13, 2018)

editor said:


> Here's the post you liked. The one that blames the 'motherfucker' workers for, err, having to work.


Yes I liked it and still do. 'Exaggerating for comic effect'.  See my post.  Stop using distraction.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Yes I liked it and still do. 'Exaggerating for comic effect'.  See my post.  Stop using distraction.


Who the fuck are you to say what his intention was?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Yes I liked it and still do. 'Exaggerating for comic effect'.  See my post.  Stop using distraction.



Aka really means what he says. Its not exaggeration.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 15, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Aka really means what he says. Its not exaggeration.


How do you know that?

Seriously.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2018)

discobastard said:


> How do you know that?
> 
> Seriously.


A. He liked Gramsci 's post where he made that exact point and
B. You're the person asserting _what he really meant_ so it's _you_ that has to do the backing up here


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2018)

discobastard said:


> How do you know that?
> 
> Seriously.



AKA posts up regularly. I  think he means what he says. Its based on seeing the way he posts.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2018)




----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2018)

Sweet victory!

Sacked union reps to be reinstated at the Ritzy after tribunal win


----------



## Sue (Dec 6, 2018)

editor said:


> Sweet victory!
> 
> Sacked union reps to be reinstated at the Ritzy after tribunal win


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 6, 2018)

Sacked union reps to be reinstated at the Ritzy after tribunal win

So this ruling shows Picturehouse to be right wing Thatcherite employers.

The criticism here that the Ritzy strikers weren't enough like pickets of Scargill time doesn't stand up now.

Through BECTU and the legal team they have won.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Sacked union reps to be reinstated at the Ritzy after tribunal win
> 
> So this ruling shows Picturehouse to be right wing Thatcherite employers.
> 
> ...


It's a great result and a humiliating defeat for Picturehouse.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2019)

Support the Ritzy boycott 

Brixton Ritzy workers ask customers, musicians and DJs to respect the ongoing boycott at the cinema


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 22, 2019)

Why does Brixton Buzz still feature listings for the Ritzy?  Or is Upstairs At The Ritzy a totally different thing?


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> Why does Brixton Buzz still feature listings for the Ritzy?  Or is Upstairs At The Ritzy a totally different thing?


I don't do the listings on the site and I don't ever go to the cinema or the venue either.

If I get chance, I'd like to add a link to the article after each one though.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2019)

Just to clear something up: 

I got in touch with the Ritzy workers explaining that I'd decided to keep the few Ritzy gig listings on the Buzz calendar but adding "*Please note: there is currently a boycott in place for the Ritzy" along with a link to the piece published yesterday. I explained that I reckoned that by keeping the listing more people will click on it and thus find out about the boycott. They agreed and thanked me.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2019)

FIGHT THE POWER!



> Kelly Rogers, UVW member, former Ritzy worker and rep and organiser of the Ritzy and Picturehouse Living Wage strikes, has been found by an employment tribunal to have been automatically unlawfully sacked for her trade union activities and also in breach of her human right to Freedom of Assembly under Article 11 of ECHR!
> 
> Kelly, represented by UVW lay rep Richard O'Keeffe, successfully argued against Picturehouse's Counsel, Thomas Croxford QC of Blackstone Chambers instructed by Mishcon de Reya, that cyber picketing (or “cyber-attacking” as dramatically dubbed by Picturehouse) and the promoting of it and the refusal to report it to management, were all legitimate trade union activities that warranted protection under s.152 TULR(C)A 1992, regardless of whether it may have amounted to “unlawful means conspiracy” as suggested by Picturehouse.
> 
> In response to the victory Kelly says, "Our strike against Picturehouse cinemas was for the most basic demands: a wage good enough to live on, decent sick pay and adequate parental leave. This ruling, which shows how I was sacked for undertaking trade union activities, points to the fact that my dismissal was a cynical attempt by Picturehouse to end our dispute and intimidate union members into not standing up for themselves.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2019)

Buzzed: Tribunal finds that Ritzy worker was unlawfully sacked for her trade union activities


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2019)

editor said:


> FIGHT THE POWER!




Interesting that the Tribunal found that "cyber picketing" is legitimate to promote by workers ( encouraging people to flood the booking system with bookings to mess up online booking. Thus damaging Picturehouse ability to to sell tickets. )



> The tribunal noted that whilst cyber picketing was “novel” and “not an activity that could be described as traditional trade union activity... it might be said that the activity was a response to the technological advances in the way that tickets are sold





> Kelly, represented by UVW lay rep Richard O'Keeffe, successfully argued against Picturehouse's Counsel, Thomas Croxford QC of Blackstone Chambers instructed by Mishcon de Reya, that cyber picketing (or “cyber-attacking” as dramatically dubbed by Picturehouse) and the promoting of it and the refusal to report it to management, were all legitimate trade union activities that warranted protection under s.152 TULR(C)A 1992, regardless of whether it may have amounted to “unlawful means conspiracy” as suggested by Picturehouse.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2019)

I take it no one has problem with cyber picketing now Tribunal has ruled its ok?


----------



## Sue (Mar 20, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I take it no one has problem with cyber picketing now Tribunal has ruled its ok?


I was absolutely fine with it before the tribunal ruled tbf.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2019)

SpamMisery said:


> To prevent online ticket sales by activists putting all the tickets in their shopping baskets but not buying them.
> 
> To my mind, that's an abuse of the system as some people will choose not to agree with the strikers but they are denied their right to do so. You're effectively undermining democracy by coercing people into aligning with your views.



Its comments like this Im thinking of Sue that came up earlier in thread. Its of course taken a long time for this to get through Tribunals.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> It's different from forming a picket line. People have the choice to cross it or not.
> By taking all the tickets online, people no are not given choice.



Another one on why cyber picketing is "underhand"


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I take it no one has problem with cyber picketing now Tribunal has ruled its ok?


I do recall some people voicing their opposition to this earlier. Perhaps they'll be back to say what they think now.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Another one on why cyber picketing is "underhand"


I just don't think it's the same thing. 

I don't care if people do it.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 21, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> I just don't think it's the same thing.
> 
> I don't care if people do it.



I see you have changed your mind.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I see you have changed your mind.


Are you on crack?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 26, 2019)

https://bectu.org.uk/news/bectu-response-to-picturehouse-ruling/

Seems like some wins and some loses... I thought it had gone a bit quiet...



> We’re very proud of our long-running Living Staff Living Wage campaign, which has been tirelessly led by members who have inspired lots of new members to join our movement in theatre, film, entertainment and TV.
> 
> While we are disappointed by the recent Employment Tribunal decision to revoke the reinstatement order for two ex-Picturehouse representatives, we are pleased to have won both the original unfair dismissal claims and compensation for the members involved.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2019)

Proud to say that I didn't give the venue a single penny when the boycott was active.
Brixton Ritzy cinema workers call off five-year boycott


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 28, 2019)

Anyone know the details of the decision? I hadn't realised it was up for review or appeal or whatever. And why does it apply to 2 people? What about the third person?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 29, 2019)

Now I can go to the Ritzy again decided to see if Ken Loach new film is on this weekend. The Saturday afternoon showing in screen three is an eye watering £14.50

I haven't been to Ritzy through out the boycott.

Been watching more films online. BBC/ C4 and also the Curzon site ( I get 12 films a month free as part of membership I have)

The cost of cinema going in some areas of London is high imo.

These prices at Ritzy are imo to high.

This cinema complex was built with government inner city grant.

Now its pricing is excluding locals like me from going often.

Sorry We Missed You


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 29, 2019)

After my absence looked up Ritzy prices.



Ritzy Picturehouse

Mondays is cheaper but I'm working.


----------



## Sue (Oct 29, 2019)

editor said:


> Proud to say that I didn't give the venue a single penny when the boycott was active.
> Brixton Ritzy cinema workers call off five-year boycott


Me either (well PictureHouse). The Hackney one is near me but I don't even remember it's there these days as it's so off my radar. I haven't been for years.


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> After my absence looked up Ritzy prices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gordon Bennett!

*Fridays from 17.00.
All day Saturday, Sunday & Bank Holidays.*
Adult	£14.50 

Member	£12.50

Retired	£13.50 

Retired Member	£11.50 

Student	£13.50 

Student Member	£11.50 

Child	£8.30 

Family*	£33.20


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2019)

Oh and plus an extra £1.50 for online bookings because they're so expensive to set up or something.


----------



## David Clapson (Nov 8, 2019)

I'm afraid I never pay for films or TV. Everything's on Pirate Bay.


----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Now I can go to the Ritzy again decided to see if Ken Loach new film is on this weekend. The Saturday afternoon showing in screen three is an eye watering £14.50
> 
> I haven't been to Ritzy through out the boycott.
> 
> ...


 Sadly barring the likes of Peckham Multiplex or Prince Charles, such prices are the norm across cinema chains in London. It is wrong and going to the movies has become unaffordable for many.

The Odeon in Streatham is only a tiny bit cheaper at £13.25, so it isn’t just Picturehouse doing it. Most chains offer half price days, or memberships for regulars that offer them better value for money, at least.

I went for the first time to the West Norwood cinema and was very impressed with the seats. Massive space and legroom. It was almost like business class vs economy on a plane.


----------



## Smick (Nov 9, 2019)

T & P said:


> I went for the first time to the West Norwood cinema and was very impressed with the seats. Massive space and legroom. It was almost like business class vs economy on a plane.



i agree it’sa good cinema, I’ve been once on a Friday night, but I would have expected it to cost less than the Ritzy. Over fourteen quid is a lot, and I was on a date so paid for two tickets. And you’d need a mortgage to buy a few sweeties from them. I went down to the co op and picked up a bag of wine gums instead.


----------



## happyshopper (Nov 12, 2019)

I’ve been once since the end of the boycott it and still felt guilty.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2019)

happyshopper said:


> I’ve been once since the end of the boycott it and still felt guilty.


Yeah, I still can't bring myself to go back.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2019)

Ms T said:


> Does anyone know if PeckhamPlex pay the living wage?


Yes they do. They pay the London Living Wage to all their staff, AND give their workers bonuses three times a year. So that's another reason to avoid the rip-off Ritzy and their shitty bosses.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2019)

Ms T said:


> Honestly, I think that if you want people to be paid the living wage (which I do), you have to accept that things will be more expensive.  “Casual dining” chains are closing hand over fist because they can’t make the business model work in an environment of rising food prices and increasing wages.



Price of ticket at Peckhamplex £4.99

Staff get Living Wage

Peckhamplex: Social Cinema




> _Why is affordable cinema so important?_
> 
> At the end of the day, we’re a commercial business, we have to make a profit but we want to be fair to people walking through the door, and also to our employees. So unlike certain cinemas, we pay everybody at least the London living wage and give bonuses several times a year. There are people who have worked here since the very beginning and we want to share the success


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Price of ticket at Peckhamplex £4.99
> 
> Staff get Living Wage
> 
> Peckhamplex: Social Cinema


Makes the prices at the Ritzy - which was kickstarted by community funding - all the more fucking shameful.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 25, 2019)

Streatham Odeon is £11. I assume they want everyone to be members at the Ritzy. I was for a couple of years until the strike/dispute.
Interesting that West Norwood is the same £14.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 27, 2019)

I don't know if anyone clocked it, but in the erudite newspaper "Brixton Review of Books" (issue 7) there was a long detailed reminiscence of author Kate Webb's days squatting in the Brixton area - and working at the Little Bit Ritzy. [I have lifted this image from their Facebook page - but it's only a taster]
 

Her views on the Ritzy at the time chime slightly with my own - but not wholly. She brings an unexpected critique of the Ritzy's violent and misogynist fare (in her opinion).

She says that in a screening of Alan Renais' "Last Year in Marienbad"  she mistakenly got the spools in the wrong order for projection - but far from getting the sack, the (presumably pretentious yet ignorant audience) apparently failed to notice the mistake.

I can't say I went to that film, but I remember a showing of another French Renais "masterpiece"  - Providence. I went to that because the original screenplay was by David Mercer, the actors included David Warner, Dirk Bogarde and John Gielgud all of whom I admired.

It turned out to be an incredibly turgid watch. I guess it might even be that the Ritzy didn't show it in the right order - maybe it wasn't my fault!

The final bit of Kate Webb's reminiscence I wanted to mention was her objection to a film called "God told me to". People may not remember that 1981 was a time when there was a vogue for bad films, such as "Invasion of the Giant Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space" etc. - promoted by newly created Channel 4 and Alex Cox.

"God Told Me To" (or "Demon" as advertised in Britain) was promoted as a sort of paranormal "Dirty Harry". According to Kate Webb there is a scene where an image of a vagina is projected onto the (anti-)hero of the film. I did go to the show, but don't remember it.

Kate says after the show she cut out the offending piece of celluloid and took it home. After the 1981 Brixton riot the police searched her squat and seized it as evidence.

Not sure about all this. Just in case anyone has the patience, here is the Youtube version of "God told me to". Presumably there won't be a vagina projection in this - if only because sex is anathema to Youtube where murderous posing is not.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 18, 2020)

One of my favourite threads. Not because I like their films - but because they remind me of a mix of Tiny Rowland and Grunwick.

I spotted a bit in the City AM last week suggesting there were problems ahoy at Cineworld,.
This is the internet 12/3/20 version of what was snipet in the 13/3/20 paper
Coronavirus: Cineworld shares crash on debt breach warning 

This is another briefing, which has an amazing quote at the end:
Cineworld warns it may struggle to stay in business | Film Stories
Cineworld, which also owns Picturehouse in the UK, is in the midst of trying to finalise a deal to purchase Canadian chain Cineplex. It’s, as is the modern way, funding the purchase through loans, and that will see it with several billion dollars’ worth of debt. All manageable debt, as in a report at the Financial Times, the firm’s chief executive declared “we are not worried”. He cited the fact that most of the company’s costs were variable, noting “if we don’t sell movies, we don’t pay for the movies. If we don’t see Pepsi, we don’t pay for the Pepsi”.

He added too that “*a lot of our temporary manpower, if we don’t invite them to work if the cinemas are closed, we are also not paying them*”. Which is nice.

For those upper class Brixtonians who still favour the wheeling dealing Cineworld mogul, he has not changed his spots.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2020)

The Ritzy has now closed for the foreseeable future because of the virus.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2020)

Picturehouse showing their true colours again:



> The Picturehouse cinema chain has been accused by its former employees of “irresponsible” treatment after staff were made redundant with immediate effect following the widespread shutdown of cinemas in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
> 
> EmailS sent by managers to staff at the Cameo cinema in Edinburgh, part of the Picturehouse chain, says that “we need to inform you that as part of our measures to save the business given the serious difficulties it is currently facing” the recipient will be laid off on 19 March, with no payment other than their contracted “notice pay”.
> 
> The email adds: “When we are able to reopen, we sincerely hope you wish to return to us.”











						Outrage as Picturehouse makes cinema staff redundant 'with immediate effect'
					

Current and former employees call cinema chain ‘irresponsible’ as it lays off staff following coronavirus shutdown




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Picturehouse showing their true colours again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This really is bringing out the worst , or at least showing up the worst of people / chains , its appalling


----------



## CH1 (Mar 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Picturehouse showing their true colours again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Their financial problem is due to over-expansion issuing junk bonds, which predated the coronavirus, although this has been a near fatal blow.

I don't know the cinema world well enough to know if there is any chance of independents relaunching the good bits such as the Ritzy, if Cineworld goes under. I notice Riverside Studios recently re-opened. That is a charitable trust.

The admirable Peckham Plex seems to be in a chain of two, with the Regal in Cromer.
Owner Chris Green is a cinema enthusiast.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2020)

A pleasing u-turn, not that I intend to ever go back to the Ritzy


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 2, 2020)

Fucking hell! I was 'just' considering rejoining after cancelling my almost 20 year membership when the strikes started. No way ever now..


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2020)

Could the Ritzy be closing?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Could the Ritzy be closing?



cineworld are closing all cinemas "temporarily" according to the bbc


----------



## nick (Oct 4, 2020)

Why would anyone at Ritzy / picture houses expect to have been  forewarned of the cinewold announcement? - presumably it was commercially confidential until announced by cineworld.

Yes it is sad and I hope Ritzy and other cinemas survive


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2020)

nick said:


> Why would anyone at Ritzy / picture houses expect to have been  forewarned of the cinewold announcement? - presumably it was commercially confidential until announced by cineworld.
> 
> Yes it is sad and I hope Ritzy and other cinemas survive


Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if you found that you were losing your job via Twitter?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2020)

ska invita said:


> cineworld are closing all cinemas "temporarily" according to the bbc


Worse - from BBC article below -
*Independent London cinema Peckhamplex closed its doors on 25 September due to falling visitor numbers and delayed releases.








						Cineworld closure puts 5,500 jobs at risk
					

The cinema chain says it will have to temporarily close following delays to big-budget film releases.




					www.bbc.co.uk
				



*


----------



## nick (Oct 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if you found that you were losing your job via Twitter?


Yes very.  

But picture house were competitors to cineWorld so wouldn’t be expected to be told.  (Or am I wrong and it is all part of the same group.?  )


Eta Ritzy is ok isn’t it?   Just seen the sad news about plex


----------



## Sue (Oct 4, 2020)

nick said:


> But picture house were competitors to cineWorld so wouldn’t be expected to be told.  (Or am I wrong and it is all part of the same group.?  )



Cineworld bought PH years ago.


----------



## nick (Oct 4, 2020)

Sue said:


> Cineworld bought PH years ago.


Did not know that - thought they were separate 
Then my whole contribution to this thread is withdrawn.  
I’ll leave it up so that replies don’t appear incongruous


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2020)

Posted something here 








						Brixton Ritzy likely to close its doors as Cineworld announces the closure of all its UK cinemas
					

It’s been reported that Cineworld are set to temporarily close all their UK cinemas, with the decision blamed on the postponement of major blockbusters and the ongoing impact of the  coronavi…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2020)

Confirmed that Cineworld closing on Thursday on radio this morning.

Delay of Bond film was last straw.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Oct 5, 2020)

V sad, hadn't been to Ritzy in years because of the boycott, but went just after they re-opened after lockdown.

(((Peckhamplex too  )))

Though my long term dream for the Ritzy building would be that it somehow re-opened as a real community / arts cinema along the lines of Genesis on Mile End Road... (employing all the current Ritzy staff at proper wages of course)  I love that place, it seems to get everything right.


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Confirmed that Cineworld closing on Thursday on radio this morning.
> 
> Delay of Bond film was last straw.


The Ritzy website is only taking bookings up to Thursday too but no announcement about closure.


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2020)

Fighting back


----------



## editor (Oct 9, 2020)

Stay classy Cineworld









						Cineworld staff on zero-hours contracts 'held hostage' by management
					

Move to keep staff on despite company mothballing cinemas means staff cannot claim redundancy




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 9, 2020)

editor said:


> Stay classy Cineworld
> 
> 
> 
> ...



my mate is employed at Clapham picture house, the contracted staff have been told they have 2 options, take indefinite unpaid leave until they reopen, or take redundancy....for non contracted employees it’s laters taters and thanks for your help.


----------



## Sue (Oct 9, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> my mate is employed at Clapham picture house, the contracted staff have been told they have 2 options, take indefinite unpaid leave until they reopen, or take redundancy....for non contracted employees it’s laters taters and thanks for your help.


And obviously many contracted staff won't be entitled to redundancy anyway as they won't have been there long enough. Sorry for your friend, it's really shit.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 9, 2020)

Sue said:


> And obviously many contracted staff won't be entitled to redundancy anyway as they won't have been there long enough. Sorry for your friend, it's really shit.


Thanks, they found out they were closing via the news media, and only got the ultimatum today via email, they have ‘til Monday to make their. minds up but he is thinking there may be a chance of government help paying 2/3rds of salary....


----------



## Sue (Oct 10, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> Thanks, they found out they were closing via the news media, and only got the ultimatum today via email, they have ‘til Monday to make their. minds up but he is thinking there may be a chance of government help paying 2/3rds of salary....


They're such fuckers. Fingers crossed your friend at least manages to get some cash coming in as non-stressfully as possible.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 12, 2020)

This was in the Standard on Thursday 8th October.
It may be property company manoeuvering before a Cineworld CVA..
If this became a CVA (insolvency) the receiver will compile a list of the creditors.
At that point (direct) staff would become creditors ranking the same as landlords, booze suppliers, film distribution companies etc etc. and all woud be paid out an agreed "dividend" together.
If it is true that Cineworld has debts of 8 billion £ or $ the dividend may be small. Like 10% or less of what is owed.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 22, 2020)

A couple of days ago the BBC reported similar to the above - citing FT as a source.
I'm wondering if Cineworld own the Ritzy building outright - or if they are paying rent to Lambeth Council?
I suppose if the latter Lambeth could boost its bourgeois credentials by actually PAYING Cineworld to re-open the Ritzy
Cineworld eyes UK cinema closures and rescue deal  - 18th November 20


----------



## felonius monk (Nov 23, 2020)

Seems that CW own it. Subsidiary Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd owns all their cinemas.  CS (Brixton) Ltd which is the limited company for the Ritzy has assets of ~£2m which must be the cinema. In 2018, The Ritzy made operating profit of £224,000 on revenues of £3.6m. So the cinema was profitable.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 25, 2020)

felonius monk said:


> Seems that CW own it. Subsidiary Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd owns all their cinemas.  CS (Brixton) Ltd which is the limited company for the Ritzy has assets of ~£2m which must be the cinema. In 2018, The Ritzy made operating profit of £224,000 on revenues of £3.6m. So the cinema was profitable.


I seem to remember when it was multiplexed a company owned by Chris Blackwell was supposed to be investing in the project - the Gate Cinema at Notting Hill presumably. They could have purchased the freehold - but remember Metropolitan - MHT - were also part of the deal. They own the flats above the bit of the Ritzy behind the library, and also above the Satay Bar.

Could be quite an interesting land certificate, if anyone wanted to buy a copy.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 25, 2020)

This confirms my Chris Blackwell comment above - but totally omits to say that millions of government and council money was involved via Brixton Challenge.








						An Inside Look Into Brixton's Ritzy Cinema — South London Club
					

Brixton’s Ritzy Cinema has had many past lives, from starting its life as The Electric Pavillion to becoming the iconic Ritzy Cinema we know and love today. We take a deep dive into the history of this classic, Grade II listed building and its journey through the decades. So, here’s an inside look i




					www.southlondonclub.co.uk


----------



## CH1 (Mar 31, 2021)

This was in the Evening Standard on 25th March.

Seems Cineworld, the Ritzy's parent company are raising $223 million in (presumably junk) bonds.
According to the FT they are also expecting a tax refund (Trump?) of $240 million.
Again according to the FT the company has $8.3 billion in debt - and might just squeak through its bank covenants if this fundraising goes through OK.

I think there is a case for a new south London chain of Ritzy + Plex - but I guess everyone's broke due to COVID anyway.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2021)

Ritzy 1990 programme from eBay


----------



## CH1 (May 27, 2021)

I assume the Ritzy has re-opened? No comments I can see on here. Maybe the Ritzy Ritz-like price has even pissed off the usual fans on Urban75?

Meanwhile the Peckham Plex is reopening on 3rd June.


			Peckhamplex is re-opening on Thursday 3rd of June - book your tickets NOW!
		


Apparently pre-booking by internet is compulsory. The website still quotes the pre-Covid price. Hope it's true.
Refreshments from the kiosk are available using contactless payments only.

This looks good Nomadland
Like Herzog's Strozeck without the performing chicken by the look of it.


----------



## editor (May 27, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I assume the Ritzy has re-opened? No comments I can see on here. Maybe the Ritzy Ritz-like price has even pissed off the usual fans on Urban75?
> 
> Meanwhile the Peckham Plex is reopening on 3rd June.
> 
> ...



Yes it has reopened, or at least that's what their sign says. I'd rather go to Peckham these days.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2021)

I've got an email from Pucturehouse. My membership has been extended for this year.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2021)

Notwithstanding news a few weeks ago that Cineworld shares are now perking up - and count as a "hold", my eye was cught by a special offer on this academic book

Art Cinema and Neoliberalism | Alex Lykidis | Palgrave Macmillan
Whilst no doubt this topic is interesting, even more interesting is this:

Art Cinemas and Neo Liberalism - or how to turn an art house into an American whorehouse! (courtesy of the Thatcherite free market system)


----------



## CH1 (Aug 22, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I don't know if anyone clocked it, but in the erudite newspaper "Brixton Review of Books" (issue 7) there was a long detailed reminiscence of author Kate Webb's days squatting in the Brixton area - and working at the Little Bit Ritzy. [I have lifted this image from their Facebook page - but it's only a taster]
> View attachment 194293
> 
> Her views on the Ritzy at the time chime slightly with my own - but not wholly. She brings an unexpected critique of the Ritzy's violent and misogynist fare (in her opinion).
> ...



I just watched God Told Me To - which Roku's SciFi Flix claims is the second most popular film today.
It certainly did start like Dirty Harry, but moved onto alien abduction - for the purpose of propagating semi human aliens.
There was a lot of Catholic imagery in all this - so one could say this film had things in common with The Exorcist and indeed Taxi Driver.

Regarding Kate Webb's critique - a vagina did open up in the side of the Christ - or Antichrist - alien figure in the climactic scene.
Persoanlly I took that of evidence of alien origins.
There was some pretty rough stuff in the film with black pimps, including punishment homosexual sodomy off screen, and stabbings and throat cutting.
Taxi Driver stuff I assume.

I'd say the film made more sense second time round - and the most bizarre thing is some of it was filmed at Pinewood.

God Told Me To ends with a dedication to Bernard Herrman.  Herrman had written the music for an earlier Larry Cohen horror film called Its Alive. The last score Hermann did was for Scorsese's Taxi Driver. He was due to do God Told Me To, but died before he could take up the commission.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 19, 2022)

Oh dear.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 19, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> Oh dear.


They didn't mention that when they emailed me the other day 🧐


----------



## ska invita (Aug 19, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> Oh dear.




 this is strange - bottom of the article

"The state of Cineworld is in stark contrast to the performance of AMC Entertainment, the world’s largest cinema group and owner of the Odeon chain in the UK, which said the new Top Gun and Dr Strange films had fuelled a doubling of ticket sales in the US.

The company, which has a $12.8bn market value, said July had the highest monthly attendance in US cinemas since before the pandemic."

So why did Cineworld do so badly?


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2022)

ska invita said:


> this is strange - bottom of the article
> 
> "The state of Cineworld is in stark contrast to the performance of AMC Entertainment, the world’s largest cinema group and owner of the Odeon chain in the UK, which said the new Top Gun and Dr Strange films had fuelled a doubling of ticket sales in the US.
> 
> ...


The article explains that:


> “The firm will blame the lack of summer blockbusters as a reason behind its sharp downfall but in reality its aggressive acquisition plan has taken on too much debt and this was always a huge risk as interest rates rise,” said Walid Koudmani, chief market analyst at the financial brokerage XTB.


----------



## Tron Cruise (Aug 20, 2022)

Picturehouse turned from art house/rep that were staffed by film nerds to showing blockbusters staffed with whoever + charging more than any other chain in London. Ritzy especially has been a disgrace for years (shit programming, prices so high it’s cheaper to go to Mayfair for a film and that fucking cafe). When the staff decide to noisily clank in a long ladder DURING THE FUCKING FILM then you know that any love for cinema left that building a long time ago.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2022)

Tron Cruise said:


> Picturehouse turned from art house/rep that were staffed by film nerds to showing blockbusters staffed with whoever + charging more than any other chain in London. Ritzy especially has been a disgrace for years (shit programming, prices so high it’s cheaper to go to Mayfair for a film and that fucking cafe). When the staff decide to noisily clank in a long ladder DURING THE FUCKING FILM then you know that any love for cinema left that building a long time ago.


I once tried their "Silver Screen" offering for pensioners etc, where you got to see a feature for half-price and get a free cup of tea at the end. Not criticising the Ritzy here, but I went to see "Get Out" and was bursting to share my shock horror with other patrons over the tea.

Suddenly I realised that Brixton is in fact in  Surrey. "Have we been introduced?"

I would have gone again - at half-price - but truly they seldom show anything I want to see. This afternoon for example BBC2 had "Witness for the accused" a brilliant 1957 Billy Wilder film I'd never seen. There was no pop-corn going off in your ear and the sound and picture were just right.

I guess in their heyday the Little Bit Ritzy might have shown this as a Sunday matinee - now it's the BFI, the BBC or Talking Pictures TV (or possibly "Great Movies Classic")

The Ritzy had only one film I would have gone to see - the Buena Vista Social Club.
There again on Googling further I find that Silver Screen is Thurdays before 17:00 (2016)
No idea if it still runs - DNS not available.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 21, 2022)

Picture house has $5 billion worth of debt to refinance. That’s the biggest issue. Industry experts say that it’s still a viable business so will exist in some form but admission prices will need to rise


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Picture house has $5 billion worth of debt to refinance. That’s the biggest issue. Industry experts say that it’s still a viable business so will exist in some form but admission prices will need to rise


Rubbish. It needs to go bankrupt and start again. Creative capitalism. Rees Mogg. Trump.
Whoever heard of a tycoon worth their salt paying their debts?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2022)

For those with an eye for figures, here they are. It is blatantly obvious that Mookie was brought down by an over-ambitious takeover in the USA. Everyone warned him at the time - would he listen?








						CINEWORLD GROUP PLC : Shareholders Board Members Managers and Company Profile | GB00B15FWH70 | MarketScreener
					

CINEWORLD GROUP PLC : Company profile, business summary, shareholders, managers, financial ratings, industry, sector and market information | London Stock Exchange: CINE | London Stock Exchange



					www.marketscreener.com


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2022)

What annoys me is that the Ritzy was redeveloped as a multi screen cinema through Brixton Challenge funding.

Now its just another private asset at the mercy of the market place.

Maybe Cineworlds owners bad decisions will mean that the Picture House chain is sold off. 

IMO if Ritzy is part of bankrupt Cineworld and hence worth little it should go into Council ownership. And then run as Lambeth Coop Council cinema.

Or teamed up with the Peckham plex. Who seem to have business model that does not exclude the less well off.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Picture house has $5 billion worth of debt to refinance. That’s the biggest issue. Industry experts say that it’s still a viable business so will exist in some form but admission prices will need to rise



Which industry experts are you talking about? Got a link for that?

I read the Guardian article and did not see that being said. Unless I missed something.


----------



## felonius monk (Aug 22, 2022)

The Picturehouse chain represents about 10% of the total Cineworld business and pre-pandemic was profitable. If the UK business is put up for sale, I can see that there would be interest from other chains or even private equity (The Everyman chain for example has significant PE ownership). Putting up prices beyond inflation would be unwise given the current and forecasted squeeze on discretionary spending.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 22, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> Which industry experts are you talking about? Got a link for that?
> 
> I read the Guardian article and did not see that being said. Unless I missed something.


Can’t remember where I read it but I don’t just read the guardian. If I find it, I’ll re-post


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 22, 2022)

felonius monk said:


> The Picturehouse chain represents about 10% of the total Cineworld business and pre-pandemic was profitable. If the UK business is put up for sale, I can see that there would be interest from other chains or even private equity (The Everyman chain for example has significant PE ownership). Putting up prices beyond inflation would be unwise given the current and forecasted squeeze on discretionary spending.


Their prices are already such that I've stopped going to them. Hard to imagine there's any room to put them up further while maintaining ticket sales. Sadly my local tiny independent cinema collapsed during the pandemic but at least there's still Peckham Plex.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Can’t remember where I read it but I don’t just read the guardian. If I find it, I’ll re-post



Was wondering if Cineworld increases prices to survive what the demographic they are going for?

Was in West End today. At home with swimming pool and one floor for the personal cinema.

People like this are going to stream films to their own personal cinemas. The London top one percent.

I do not see them mixing with the lower orders at a cinema,

So what exactly is the demographic who will pay almost twenty pounds to see a film?

During pandemic I started streaming. I get BFI player for five pound a month. No brainer compared to cinema tickets now.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 23, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> Was wondering if Cineworld increases prices to survive what the demographic they are going for?
> 
> Was in West End today. At home with swimming pool and one floor for the personal cinema.
> 
> ...


you dont need to be in the 1% to have a "home cinema"
i bought a projector for £200 - cheaper than a tv
tv quality is really good now, in terms of size and image
ive been to the imax three of four times...im not sure if  Massive Screen really does anything for me tbh - i dont think i get immersed in a film on imax anymore than i do at home sat infront of a 3x2m (approx) image from the projector

the cinema financial model is more than ever about cynical blockbuster drawing people in to sell food and drink and rip off prices
however it still seems to just about work, especially when children are involved.  ("AMC Entertainment, the world’s largest cinema group and owner of the Odeon chain in the UK, which said the new Top Gun and Dr Strange films had fuelled a doubling of ticket sales in the US." etc).
When you have kids you need shit to do with them. People still throw loads of money at cinema experiences, more out of habit  and lack of other options I expect, rather than a love of going to the movies.

I am middle aged and have seen a lot of films over the years, so my perspective is different, but for me theres no reason to got to a cinema. the pure popcorn films are edited too fast for maximum fake excitement (actually make a film boring), and what adult films there are are better enjoyed at home

its a shame...there was a time that i loved cinemas...i worked as an usher for a year too...loved the whole thing, the buildings, the seats, the mood. Too many bad experiences in a row now (both film quality and atmosphere) make me not want to go again. Maybe if i lived in a small town I might start going to support a local or if I had time and money to waste, but on the whole, nah. I liev a walk away from an Odeon, last time I went there was Django Unchained - looked it up, 2012, ten years ago!

Talking of which I wonder what kind of business Tarantino's New Beverley cinema does:








						New Beverly Cinema - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



I would probably go to that if I lived in LA, because of the interesting programming and care to create an atmosphere.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 23, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Talking of which I wonder what kind of business Tarantino's New Beverley cinema does:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Weird, I used to live a few blocks away from that place. Never even knew it was there. I think I only went to the cinema like 3 times anyway the entire time I lived there.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 23, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> Was wondering if Cineworld increases prices to survive what the demographic they are going for?
> 
> Was in West End today. At home with swimming pool and one floor for the personal cinema.
> 
> ...


The huge move to working from home is leading to a shift in local dynamics. People (not withstanding energy price increases) have more disposal incomes so you will see more Michelin restaurants out of London and presumably this is the demographic local cinemas will also go for. We take our kids to the cinema on a regular basis despite having streaming services at home. There’s a market out there but cineworld need to restructure/dispose of their debt


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Their prices are already such that I've stopped going to them.


It's still cheap one day a week. £5 on Mondays or something. I saw Top Gun Maverick, which I thought might renew my faith in the big screen. Big mistake.


----------



## DaphneM (Aug 29, 2022)

Getting cheaper!


----------



## Winot (Aug 29, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Getting cheaper!


Would love to see the Before trilogy again but no sign of it on Picturehouse website


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 30, 2022)

Winot said:


> Would love to see the Before trilogy again but no sign of it on Picturehouse website :confused


Could be because their ramshackle site is wrong. Give 'em a ring and tell them from me that it's no wonder they're bankrupt. Maybe they've sacked all their web staff.


----------



## Sue (Aug 30, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Getting cheaper!


It's a one-off for Cinema Day. 









						550 U.K. Cinemas to Celebrate National Cinema Day as Box Office Recovers to 80% of Pre-Pandemic Level
					

Some 550 cinema venues across the U.K. will celebrate cinema and cinema-going under the banner of National Cinema Day on Sept. 3. The initiative, which has the participation of all the major U.K. c…



					www.variety.com


----------



## nottsgirl (Sep 2, 2022)

I literally just went to my local picturehouse and it was closed.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 8, 2022)

Cineworld files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in US
					

UK-based cinema chain, second-biggest in the world, hit by lockdowns, audience slump and debt from Regal theatres takeover in US




					www.theguardian.com
				




Cineworld has declared bankruptcy. I wonder what this means for the Ritzy; probably new owners eventually


----------



## CH1 (Sep 8, 2022)

urbanspaceman said:


> Cineworld files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in US
> 
> 
> UK-based cinema chain, second-biggest in the world, hit by lockdowns, audience slump and debt from Regal theatres takeover in US
> ...


Well if the shares are only 4.78p each maybe Peckham Plex might buy them out?
But seriously... Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is an American method of perpetuating companies often by fleecing investors. Shareholders get diluted - one new share for every 10 - or even 100 - currently held.
Bondholders get a "haircut" - like their bonds are adjusted maybe a 5% bond now pays 3.5%

The logical thing would be for Cineworld to sell off the Regal group. Is Mookie up to it?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 11, 2022)

Last time  saw a royal proclamation it was this at the Ritzy. Hardly surprising I suppose that Brixton Challenge hived it off to less controversial owners:


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2022)

Be warned!


----------

