Living Wage - be careful what you wish for!

[shepherd88]

Mate, I'm a manager for a large UK chain...there are no money issues other than for staff

Well you should know the large mark-ups are needed to cover other costs. I honestly just don't see a problem with them charging so much for popcorn. If spending went down on such items, that may change their mind like

Staff costs are variable and there will always be conflict between head office and cinema managers in that regard.

 

[AndrewP]

Well you should know the large mark-ups are needed to cover other costs. I honestly just don't see a problem with them charging so much for popcorn. If spending went down on such items, that may change their mind like

Staff costs are variable and there will always be conflict between head office and cinema managers in that regard.

I love that they overcharge for popcorn. It allows ticket prices to remain low.

 

[shepherd88]

I love that they overcharge for popcorn. It allows ticket prices to remain low.

Exactly, and that has a lower profit margin so would increase even more.

 

[AndrewP]

Exactly, and that has a lower profit margin so would increase even more.

Yep. Long live overpriced popcorn and those that purchase it.

 

[WHD]

At what point has the business become a charity? The business will have other obligations like posting a profit which will satisfy any shareholders, allow the brand to invest in better screens/decor, etc.

Militant wankers boil my piss bleating on about more money. I'd wager that a vast majority of them are lazy bastards that aren't worth the minimum wage.

If they want to do something about being better off why not go and lobby government, it's those feckers that tax us to the hilt and cost us a fortune.


Just because the group is making £30m doesn't mean to say this particular cinema is doing well.

You can't judge this cinema and its finances based on the group profit.

So it's ok for shareholders to bleat on about higher profits but not ok for workers to bleat on about higher wages?

 

[Cowvahlo]

So it's ok for shareholders to bleat on about higher profits but not ok for workers to bleat on about higher wages?

Workers sign a contract agreeing a salary. Shareholders invest with the expectation of getting a healthy return.

The shareholders own the company so, yes, it is okay for them want more.

 

[Dogbark]

I'd suggest being on it's arse would suggest it's not statistically doing very well in comparison to earlier generations.

Or do you mean a different version of on it's arse? Cinema has been described as dying for years and it's always fought back. TV was meant to be the end for the cinema, it wasn't, then VHS was the end for the cinema, it wasn't. Then came DVD, it wasn't, then came piracy, it wasn't.

Cinema has consistently done well for years and I'm sure it will continue to do so.

I'm not sure about "the end" but there was a lot of damage caused by those what you've mentioned there though. I remember first-hand, VCR giving cinema a right kicking back in the eighties. Loads of the older cinemas were closed down because of the decline. I've never heard of DVD being mentioned affecting cinema attendances though

Piracy was there from the eighties.

 

[AndrewP]

I'm not sure about "the end" but there was a lot of damage caused by those what you've mentioned there though. I remember first-hand, VCR giving cinema a right kicking back in the eighties. Loads of the older cinemas were closed down because of the decline. I've never heard of DVD being mentioned affecting cinema attendances though

Piracy was there from the eighties.

Mass instant piracy I meant. Anyway the cinema just keeps on bouncing back. It's a nice cheap night out and I hope it's always around.

I think multiplexes killed the older cinemas of the 70s/80d. TV killed the really old cinemas in towns/villages prior to that as they often played TV shows.

 

[Dogbark]

The multiplexes killed what was left of the old style cinemas, but loads had already closed due to evil VCR.

I prefer the old cinemas to the modern multiplexes. Soulless places, staffed by kids who don't wanna be there.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

I'm not sure about "the end" but there was a lot of damage caused by those what you've mentioned there though. I remember first-hand, VCR giving cinema a right kicking back in the eighties. Loads of the older cinemas were closed down because of the decline.

Video killed the radio stars, iirc.

 

[WHD]

so it's okay for one group of people to want the maximum they can get, but not for another group?

What a load of shit and total double standards.

Workers sign a contract agreeing a salary. Shareholders invest with the expectation of getting a healthy return.

The shareholders own the company so, yes, it is okay for them want more.

 

[Gonzo Mackem]

In more cinema news, good timing by Curzon cinemas!
Curzon Cinemas agrees to pay the Living Wage: Curzon Cinemas has agreed to pay the Living Wage to staff in a landmark move that makes the boutique chain the first UK cinema group to commit to the higher wage, the London Evening Standard has reported. The media union Bectu negotiated with Curzon for more than a year. The agreement means staff at Curzon's six London cinemas will get the Living Wage, currently £8.80 an hour, from January. Front-of-house staff earn around £7 per hour at present. Curzon's chief executive, Philip Knatchbull, said he wanted to pay “a fair wage” to staff because they “make Curzon special” with their enthusiasm and knowledge of film. It comes as he invests heavily in the group, expanding with new sites such as Victoria in central London and revamping existing cinemas in Soho and Bloomsbury. Knatchbull told the newspaper: “This could not have occurred without the support of our shareholders, who will subsidise the cost of doing this in the short term until the cost is self-financing through the better quality of work we think paying people properly will engender.”

 

[AndrewP]

In more cinema news, good timing by Curzon cinemas!
Curzon Cinemas agrees to pay the Living Wage: Curzon Cinemas has agreed to pay the Living Wage to staff in a landmark move that makes the boutique chain the first UK cinema group to commit to the higher wage, the London Evening Standard has reported. The media union Bectu negotiated with Curzon for more than a year. The agreement means staff at Curzon's six London cinemas will get the Living Wage, currently £8.80 an hour, from January. Front-of-house staff earn around £7 per hour at present. Curzon's chief executive, Philip Knatchbull, said he wanted to pay “a fair wage” to staff because they “make Curzon special” with their enthusiasm and knowledge of film. It comes as he invests heavily in the group, expanding with new sites such as Victoria in central London and revamping existing cinemas in Soho and Bloomsbury. Knatchbull told the newspaper: “This could not have occurred without the support of our shareholders, who will subsidise the cost of doing this in the short term until the cost is self-financing through the better quality of work we think paying people properly will engender.”

Good news, but £8.80 in London is still an awful wage.

 

[pragmatic optimism]

A business should be run with a smaller disparity between executive wages and the entry workers. If a social political shift occurs whereby society agrees to a living wage being a fair reflection of needs, ethical businesses needs to incorporate this as a statement of progression.
In reality to certain businesses profit is more important people's livelihoods. These are the places hold back society and give businesses a bad name.

 

[zinedine]

Workers sign a contract agreeing a salary. Shareholders invest with the expectation of getting a healthy return.

The shareholders own the company so, yes, it is okay for them want more.

I didn't know that shares came with guaranteed returns.
Keeping the ordinary working mans wages low is counter productive. Its these people who are the backbone of our economy, without them many businesses would go under. The rich, who you are in favour or making richer, tend to salt most of their money away. We need workers on liveable wages not the profiteering poverty level that many big companies pay.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

That'll happen every time you earn more, this is a good thing.



That's why giving everyone a "living wage" isn't possible. The amount you need to live on varies due to circumstances. Working benefits make up the difference between low paid wages and what is required to live on. I can't see this situation changing, at least not without serious negative consequences to working low paid families.

It really is. It just needs the supply of labour to be suppressed and then instead of having massive gulfs in incomes everyone would be paid more equally. The haves would get a smaller piece of the pie.

 

[Cowvahlo]

I didn't know that shares came with guaranteed returns.
Keeping the ordinary working mans wages low is counter productive. Its these people who are the backbone of our economy, without them many businesses would go under. The rich, who you are in favour or making richer, tend to salt most of their money away. We need workers on liveable wages not the profiteering poverty level that many big companies pay.

I never said there was guarantees with shares but the expectation is you will get a return.
I agree that an affordable work force is crucial but so is investment.

If you don't have shareholders where do you get investment from to grow a business and give staff some sort of security?

As for liveable wages, when you sign a contract for a job do you think to yourself I'll take it but I can't afford to live on the wages I'm agreeing to so I'll take them to court in a few months?

 

[sonson]

Have you not been around when all the high street households names disappeared overnight?who knows what they can afford? i was at the cinema on Thursday and there was 15 of us watching a film

The very first move a business should be considering is its profit margin, and working from there.

Many businesses facing competition from new media or models, as with the cinema, however begin with maintaining how much they pay themselves at the top to to begin with, and then scrape around and put together whatever shitty service they can provide at the lower levels.

That's exactly what happened with the likes of Game, HMV et al. Pretend competition doesn't exist, charge a premium like they always did in spite of the fact that the competition can provide it far cheaper, continue to award yourself a massive salary, and make up the shortfall in cutting staff and quality lower down. That would appear to be exactly the same rulebook cinemas like this are taking pages from, despite the rise of Netflix etc.

 

[monkeytassle]

I didn't know that shares came with guaranteed returns.
Keeping the ordinary working mans wages low is counter productive. Its these people who are the backbone of our economy, without them many businesses would go under. The rich, who you are in favour or making richer, tend to salt most of their money away. We need workers on liveable wages not the profiteering poverty level that many big companies pay.

doesn't work in a gloablised economy though

 

[AndrewP]

It really is. It just needs the supply of labour to be suppressed and then instead of having massive gulfs in incomes everyone would be paid more equally. The haves would get a smaller piece of the pie.

I don't see how it's possible. If someone has a few kids and the wife stays home to watch the kids, what sort of "living wage" would the working dad need to ensure benefit top ups were not required? Now imagine giving everyone that!! Sit back and watch inflation wipe away any gain.