West Norwood news, chitter chatter and gossip

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by clandestino, Apr 6, 2009.

  1. clandestino

    clandestino no llevar papel

    The application is in the name of SBR South Limited. No idea who they are and can't find much online.
     
  2. clandestino

    clandestino no llevar papel

  3. clandestino

    clandestino no llevar papel

    Library and cinema opens 9th November apparently!
     
    discobastard, grosun and ringo like this.
  4. discobastard

    discobastard ____*\(oo)/*____

  5. alcopop

    alcopop Well-Known Member

  6. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    You realise that the Living Wage is the absolute minimum it's calculated that people can live off? And the whole point is that Lambeth are bigging themselves as supporters of the Living Wage but then hand over millions to a profit-scooping multi-national who won't pay the Living Wage?
     
  7. discobastard

    discobastard ____*\(oo)/*____

    I'm not going to get into an argument about this, and I'm not saying I don't support the Living Wage. But it's fair to add the benefits which many other businesses locally won't pay. The membership bonus isn't made clear but this is a really decent package. If people take advantage of some of the benefits here (like food and free coffee and nighttime allowance etc) then they can be effectively paid more than the London Living Wage. That isn't me saying that it's OK - you might not want free unlimited cinema tickets and you might not eat popcorn or drink coffee or soft drinks, but this is a pretty decent benefits package.

    *Membership bonus adding between 10 and 25p to each hour worked (excludes Ritzy) [No idea why Ritzy isn't included but we're not talking about the Ritzy here]
    *Paid breaks. So staff working an 8 hour shift, are paid for 8 hours but only work 7.5
    *Membership to The Forum - an official, recognised staff union with bargaining rights
    *Statutory paternity, pension, sick and holiday pay
    *Unlimited Cineworld and Picturehouse Cinema tickets (subject to availability)
    *Two tickets per week for guests
    *Free eye tests (for those using screens)
    *Cycle to work scheme
    *Free popcorn, soft drinks and hot drinks
    *30% off all food and beverages
    *Late night working allowance


    Lambeth Council's apparent double standards is another matter. I don't know enough about that so i won't comment. But West Norwood now at least has a library, and a community room, none of which we have had for a very long time. Oh, and a cinema.

    I'm adding this to the thread merely for context, not in support of Cineworld.
     
  8. discobastard

    discobastard ____*\(oo)/*____

    If the Living Wage was the absolute minimum that people can live off then we wouldn't have any businesses in West Norwood, because workers couldn't support themselves

    Picturehouse is one of the better paying businesses round here. And yes, that is a bad thing.
     
  9. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    You haven't thought this through. A lot of workers on low wages will be on benefits, so we're all effectively propping up shitty businesses who won't pay their staff enough to live off, and we're all lining the bosses' overstuffed pockets.

    Taxpayers spend £11bn to top up low wages paid by UK companies
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  10. discobastard

    discobastard ____*\(oo)/*____

    Yes, fair enough. That’s largely aimed at a lot of the big businesses. And I’d add that the vast majority of businesses in the uk are very small ones and a lot of them are really struggling.
     
  11. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Yes, but Picturehouse/Cineworld are a fucking huge, multi-national company, raking in multi-million profits so they should be leading the way - especially since they're being part financed by the council.
     
    Miss-Shelf, Gramsci, grosun and 2 others like this.
  12. discobastard

    discobastard ____*\(oo)/*____

    I was responding to your wider point not regarding Cineworld.

    Happy to respond to your view regarding Cineworld taking into account the benefits package.

    ETA: just to be clear (because I know how important this is) I am not supporting Cineworld here, just adding facts to the discussion
     
  13. shakespearegirl

    shakespearegirl just worked out taglines

    Given that Lambeth became a Living Wage employer in 2012, they should be ensuring that any company they finance/give grants to/donate property to are Living Wage employers. This should be a pre-condition before they even enter into conversations with potential companies.

    This is the guff from the council website during Living Wage week last year:

    The London Living Wage of £9.75 per hour is now paid as the minimum wage on 99 per cent of Lambeth Council contracts, with the ambition to get full coverage coming closer.

    The council first became a London Living Wage employer in 2012, and backs the rate to help reduce inequality.

    Successes include getting all 30 of the council’s adult social care providers paying the wage to their 2,217 employees, three-quarters of whom live in Lambeth.

    The next step will be negotiations with contractor Veolia to pay the London Living Wage rate to staff working on its environmental services contract with the council.

    Word from the Cabinet
    Cllr Paul McGlone, Lambeth Council’s deputy leader, said: “I want to thank all the businesses and contractors that have signed up. It is our aim to see every business and organisation in the borough pay their staff the London Living Wage.

    “Since 2012 I have seen first-hand the difference receiving the London Living Wage can make. Many struggle on low incomes and better pay can make a real difference for them and their families.

    “We have made huge progress over the last five-years, going from one-per-cent of our contracts being compliant to 99-per-cent, and I’m determined we will reach the wage for all our contractors.”

    Since becoming an accredited London Living Wage employer in 2012 the council has also been encouraging businesses in the borough to follow suit and ensure their staff get decent pay.
     
    Gramsci, discobastard and snowy_again like this.
  14. discobastard

    discobastard ____*\(oo)/*____

    Yes, I agree they should be. But the contracts they rely on (e.g. waste disposal) can't be easily chucked out if somebody doesn't pay LLW, otherwise there would be nobody to clean the streets.

    It's a mess, and fucked up that we even have to have an 'accredited' wage.
     
  15. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Well there would be if the bosses didn't take so much fucking money for themselves.
     
  16. shakespearegirl

    shakespearegirl just worked out taglines

    They’ve had 6 years to bring contracts in line. Most importantly, they are entering into new contracts with companies like Picturehouse who are very publicly refusing to pay Living Wage.

    And yes, it’s totally fucked up we have to have an ‘accredited’ wage.
     
    editor and Gramsci like this.
  17. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I suspect the ratio at companies like veloia of employees like refuse collectors and bosses on megabucks is about 1000/1

    The difference this will make will be tiny.

    Alex
     
    Smick likes this.
  18. alcopop

    alcopop Well-Known Member

    That’s
    that’s not bad is it.

    Paid breaks alone bumps up the hourly wage considerably
     
  19. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    Considering that about half of London councils aren’t llw employers - beating Lambeth up because only 99% of their suppliers are also llw employers is focussing on the wrong problem.

    Alex
     
  20. Smick

    Smick Strictly Second Class

    When the councils employed people providing essential services directly, they earned a decent wage as well as having meaningful benefits. Nowadays they aren’t afforded that dignity and the councils are lining the pockets of overseas corporations with overpaid bosses.
     
  21. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Wait, so you're saying we shouldn't demand that Lambeth honour their promises? Why not? And this isn't just one of their suppliers. This is a flagship project they've sunk £3 million of pubic funds into.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  22. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    They will lose their accreditation if they don’t sort this out

    FAQs | Living Wage Foundation

    “Demanding” won’t make any difference.

    Are you saying Lambeth should pay to exit contracts early in order to sort this out ?

    Alex
     
  23. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    No, I'm saying that they should ensure that the businesses they partner up with - and invest millions in - should pay the living wage, just like they pledged.

    Demanding that people stick to their promises and publicising their shortcomings can make a difference if enough people can be bothered. What's your alternative ideas?
     
  24. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    Are you saying they are in breach of their llw obligations ?

    Alex
     
  25. shakespearegirl

    shakespearegirl just worked out taglines

    Not saying they should leave contracts early but every time they enter a new contract - especially one they are investing our money or property into - they should be ensuring Living Wage is paid
     
    Gramsci and editor like this.
  26. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    If they aren’t doing this they shouldn’t be llw accredited.

    Alex
     
  27. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Can you not work that one out for yourself?
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  28. shakespearegirl

    shakespearegirl just worked out taglines

    Well they don’t seem to be doing this in the instance of Picturehouse.

    It’s also their support of such a high profile dodger of Living Wage that is shit!

    I have a start up business and one of the first things we agreed was paying Living Wage. The least you can do when you are profiting off someone else is ensure they can afford to live!
     
    Winot, Gramsci, alex_ and 1 other person like this.
  29. Me76

    Me76 Not very good lurker

    I'm really grumpy about this. This cinema is almost literally on my doorstep, like 7 minutes walk from my house.

    I like going to the cinema but as the nearest two are both at least 30 mins walk or 20 mins on a bus I don't very often.

    I really want to take advantage and see films but feel I can't ethically :(
     
    Gramsci and colacubes like this.
  30. colacubes

    colacubes Well-Known Member

    This. I’ll keep boycotting till they sort it out but really irritating as it’s so close to my house. I cancelled my Ritzy membership when it all started and would get a membership here if they just sorted it LLW :(
     
    editor and Gramsci like 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