Brixton Ritzy staff in pay dispute for London Living Wage with Picturehouse Cinemas
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
It's Cineworld/ Picture house that are finding it to "distasteful" to sit down and talk.
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.
shakespearegirl
just worked out taglines
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
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
shakespearegirl
just worked out taglines
Employment tribunal has found the union reps were unfairly dismissed by Picturehouse
Tribunal finds that Ritzy reps were unfairly dismissed - BECTU
Tribunal finds that Ritzy reps were unfairly dismissed - BECTU
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
alex_ 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.
Last edited:
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Did you miss out, on seeing a film?
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
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
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.
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
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Oh, well, never mind.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Pull the other one you right wing troll.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
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
hiraethified
He's banned from this thread too. I'm not having him troll a discussion as important as this one.
Nanker Phelge
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Good
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Wow- that is a major development, and one that might well tip the balance. Bar receipts will surely suffer significantly from this.
discobastard
Well-Known Member
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
hiraethified
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
hiraethified
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
Well-Known Member
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
hiraethified
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
Well-Known Member
So what is the point for discussion you are making in your post 1044?
discobastard
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
