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

[Gramsci]

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]

^^^ Good article.

 

[Twattor]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don’t know.

 

[colacubes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Good volunteering programmes can both enrich an organisation making the opportunity available and the individual donating their time (unpaid) as charitable giving. We recommend that all of our employers adhere to government best practice guidance when creating volunteer placements.

Apprentices

Statutory apprentice wages are lower than the minimum wage as a contribution to the cost of training, particularly in the earlier stages where apprentices may spend more time training than working. For the same reason we do not require apprentices to be paid the Living Wage. However, it is good practice to ensure pay rises over the course of the apprenticeship, and many accredited employers have chosen to extend the full Living Wage to apprentices.

Become an apprentice - GOV.UK

Interns

Many paid internships provide valuable work experience and training for young people starting out in their careers. However, there is increasing concern about the use of unpaid interns to carry out the regular work of employees. 'Intern' is not a recognised legal term and some unpaid interns may actually be workers and therefore entitled to the minimum wage. Employers using interns should have an internal policy statement and follow the government's best practice guidance relating to the minimum wage, work experience and internships.

Employment rights and pay for interns - GOV.UK

 

[Mr Retro]

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]

What's the whole paying for breaks thing about? I've never worked anywhere where breaks were paid.

 

[Rushy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The protesters were quick to point out that Picturehouse’s parent company Cineworld was raking in sizeable profits — £93.8m in 2016 — and that Greidinger was on a huge remuneration package.

What the Picturehouse pay dispute means for the UK exhibition industry

 

[Gramsci]

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]

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?