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

[editor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

“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]

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]

'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]

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]

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.:

"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]"
#87

And then absorb cupid_stunt's post above.

 

[Mr Retro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.