Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

There is a good pic on my twitter at but can't link it as on tablet. @se24media the second to last one
 
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 :facepalm:
 
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
swappie: Oh yeah. *thinks for a bit* ...... but I am a woman....
me: massive :facepalm:
Click to expand...

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

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


19bdz7.png
 
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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)?
 
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)?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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)?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
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,
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
Rushy said:
Can they not just do a 48hr strike then?
Just curious - not an important question.
Click to expand...
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.
 
editor said:
Again, I'm guessing, but perhaps there wouldn't seem much point picketing a building during the hours it is empty?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
756
editor
editor
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
489
madolesance
M
N
Looking for an affordable dance studio space for hire in Brixton or South London ?
Replies
8
Views
532
Ms Ordinary
M
Back
Top Bottom