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

[Gramsci]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

THIS:

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

THIS:

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

THIS:

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

and THIS:

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

 

[nagapie]

Ritzy strikers were doing face painting for children:

They sure were:

 

[ska invita]

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]

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]

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]

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/

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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/

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[existentialist]

£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]

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

Fuck off.

 

[DietCokeGirl]

£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.