The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

January, 1954 THE CINE-TECHNICIAN 11 ment we have in the Agrement. As an overall picture, a pound today is worth 18/ compared with what it was in 1951. This means that a worker earning £10 per week in 1951 would have to earn £11 5s. Od. per wek today for his income to have the same purchasing power. All our members have had under the sliding scale arrangements is 16/-. 3. It happens that at the actual time of negotiation, the laboratory employers are right in stating that our laboratory members have fared better, relatively, in the past few years than our members on the production side of the film industry. The only logic in this argument is that if they had not fared so well the laboratory employers would automatically have granted increases to maintain their position. Would they? But in any case, the argument is irrelevant as we are discussing the claim with the F.L.A. because they are the F.L.A. and discussing the particular needs of their employees. 4. The employers refer to the difference in the value of the pound. While in many matters, including wage claims, the value of the pound is a valid argument, we fail to see how it enters into the argument concerning efficiency. We cannot believe the employers are really arguing that productivity has not increased, particularly after all the capital expenditure they talk about. 5. As to profits, the employers did not speak of profits until we did. They have still not published to us any profits which we did not publish. They speak of various comparisons but only vaguely and say that if different years had been quoted, different conclusions could have been drawn but significantly they do not quote any different figures. And, in fact, such arguments as they put forward they use our figures. The elementary fact of the business that it is preferable to work for a profitable business does not mean that one must suffer comparative poverty to ensure that happy state — for someone else. The other people, as far as shareholders are concerned, are for the most part those with many financial irons in other fires. We want the truth about profits. As far as we are aware we have published it. We have had to drag out the facts, the employers have never volunteered them. Any employer knows that when preparing his accounts for the year his charges for wages are accounted for before the gross trading profit is struck. Therefore, if a wage increase is granted the most junior trainee accountant would follow the same procedure in making an estimate as to ability to meet such increases and would not think of making his deductions after dividends and many other charges have been made. Incidentally, it is worth noting that if the employers meet A.C.T.'s claim some of their other charges such as income tax would be automatically reduced. To meet A.C.T.'s claim of 30/ per week would, therefore, only cost some of the laboratory employers 12/ per week after allowing for the reduced taxation. So it is clearly cussedness and not inability to pay which is making the employers say no. One"final point. Our star witness is Mr. J. Arthur Rank. The employers have, in fact, tried to convince us that laboratory processing is not really profitable. Less than three months ago Mr. Rank, at the Annual Meeting of his Companies, was asked by a shareholder whether Denham Laboratories were profitable. Mr. Rank, true to character, made a short, simple and direct answer; it was " very profitable." More recently still, Mr. Rank has had something to say which makes nonsense of another part of the employers' case. The employers told us as far as Denham Laboratories was concerned that the British and Dominion Film Corporation was not, as A.C.T.'s case said, doing rather well as one of its principal shareholders. On the contrary, it was only the goodness of the company in pouring out money for the purchase of new plant and equipment which had enabled the laboratory to maintain its position. In fact we were all made to feel we were rather a lot of cads for not accepting the point of view that B. & D. were behaving with great selfsacrifice in expending vast sums they could ill-afford to maintain the laboratory. Yet within less than a week, Mr. Rank stated on affidavit in the Chancery Division that B. & D. had £300,000 more than it could do with or, in Mr. Rank's words, which "could not be usefully employed in the company's business." He therefore applied for part of the company's paidup capital to be repaid. Well ! Well ! For all the foregoing reasons, we refuse to accept the F.L.A. rejection of our application. We intend to press the claim as strongly as possible. The first step will be the mass meeting at the Gaumont Theatre, Hammersmith, on Sunday morning the 24th January. Every laboratory member should attend in order to hear a full report and play his part in taking the decisions as to how we should continue the fight. THE CROWN THEATRE Provides Complete Studio Projection Service at Any Time to Suit Your Requirements DOUBLE HEAD PROJECTION MIXING PANELS FOR TRACKS also SUB-STANDARD PROJECTION SEATING FOR 70 PERSONS SOUND SYSTEM ALSO THREE EDITING BAYS 86 Wardour St., London, W.l Tel: GERrard 5223 Editing Bays: GERrard 9309