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

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Mar 12, 2014.

  1. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

  2. cupid_stunt

    cupid_stunt & dyslexic cnut.

    ^^^ Good article.
     
    Gramsci and editor like this.
  3. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  4. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    There is no "urban line." :facepalm:
     
  5. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    If it was "within inches" - even with Picturehouse including paid half-hour breaks - then why don't they just fucking pay it in full?
     
  6. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    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.
     
  7. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    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.
     
  8. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    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 likes this.
  9. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    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.
     
  10. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    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?
     
  11. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Don’t know.
     
  12. colacubes

    colacubes Well-Known Member

    Living Wage Commission | Living Wage Foundation

    That’s the panel. They calculate it annually. Not sure when but I assume they give reasonable notice.
     
    Rushy likes this.
  13. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  14. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Gramsci likes this.
  15. Tricky Skills

    Tricky Skills I demand tea - NOW!

    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?

     
    cupid_stunt, Gramsci and editor like this.
  16. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    wurlycurly, stethoscope and editor like this.
  17. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
    editor likes this.
  18. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    stethoscope and editor like this.
  19. Mr Retro

    Mr Retro Beware hedgehogs

    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.
     
    alcopop likes this.
  20. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    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?
     
  21. Mr Retro

    Mr Retro Beware hedgehogs

    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.
     
    Winot likes this.
  22. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    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

     
    wurlycurly likes this.
  23. Mr Retro

    Mr Retro Beware hedgehogs

    From what I can see online Curzon don’t pay for breaks.
     
  24. Nanker Phelge

    Nanker Phelge Monkey Boy

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

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    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.
     
  26. Nanker Phelge

    Nanker Phelge Monkey Boy

    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.
     
    Twattor likes this.
  27. Sue

    Sue Well-Known Member

    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..?
     
    Gramsci and editor like this.
  28. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    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.

     
    stethoscope, Nanker Phelge and Sue like this.
  29. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
    editor likes this.
  30. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    And that's bad?
     
    editor likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice