International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

Observations . WHAT the projectionist craft needs most of all, and that for which it displays the least aptitude, is efficient organization. Sectionalism is rampant within the craft, with one state unit neither hearing nor caring what happens in a neighboring state, despite the oft-demonstrated truth of the statement that occurences in, let us say, San Francisco projection circles, whether affecting wages or conditions, ultimately exert their influence on happenings in, for example, Boston. This condition of disorganization is emphasized by the following item appearing in Motion Picture Herald for July 29 : Theatre-owning interests of Sheboygan, Wis., last week won a signal victory from its common council. In May was passed an ordinance requiring one operator for each projection machine, shooting overhead skyward. To the council theatre owners brought concrete proof, indisputably indicating the impossibility of films catching fire, causing serious damage. Repealed was the obnoxious ordinance, sad were projectionists, happy were thysatre owners. . . . Of course, the "concrete proof" adduced by exhibitors in support of one-man projection shifts undoubtedly is hooey, and probably reflects only better organization on the part of exhibitors. This need not be discussed at Hhis time. What interests us very much, however, is the fact that at one stroke projection crews are cut in half, organization strength and revenue are sharply reduced, and a bad precedent is set. More pressing is the question: "What shall we do about it?" Two-men projection shifts agitation is the history of a small group of unselfish people within the craft who have worked long and hard in an effort to achieve coordinated action by scattered groups. Of late, two-men projection shifts activity is the history of the work of an individual, and that the writer of these lines. The result of this condition is apparent in the foregoing item relating to Sheboygan, Wise. What is all this talk of leadership and organization? If the aforementioned result be the product of this much-discussed leadership and organization, then may projectionists everywhere pray fervently that they be spared such leadership. Four months ago the Projection Advisory Council, prodded by its able and courageous president, Thad C. Barrows of Boston, undertook to strengthen the tottering structure of two-men projection shifts. From the Council membership was formed a committee to direct this work, and numbered among its personnel were such capable craftsmen as Thad C. Barrows, Lester Isaac, director of projection, Loew Theatres; Harry Rubin, ParamountPublix director of projection, and M. D. O'Brien, assistant director of projection, Loew Theatres. Here was a group of men ready to go to work — at no salary — and in back of them were more than 3,000 other Council members ready to cooperate. Funds were needed — hardly more than a producer might drop at a race track in an afternoon of bad guessing. An appeal for organization and individual backing was made. And then came the bombshell in the form of the question: "What's the use of fighting for two-men shifts just to put dual union members to work?". You don't believe it? Neither did we, at first. But it's true. But . . . four months later from the same quarter was relea.sed the sage observation that the salvation of the projectionist craft lay in a strenuous campaign for two-men projection shifts. We leave the balancing of this equation to better mathematicians than we are. There is no ducking the fact that only projectionists will benefit through two-men shifts, but this in itself is hardly enough to justify non-cooperation by every member of an organization serving the theatrical field. Projectionists are not to blame if the introduction of sound pictures served to make theirs the dominant craft in the motion picture field, even though their ascension was marked by a correspondingly sharp decline in jobs for stagehands. The latter group at present are very badly situated, with few jobs available and in the face of a steadily increasing demand on the part of exhibitors that the matter of projectionist conditions be considered apart from the question of stage service and maintenance. We agree wholeheartedly that two-men shifts are the salvation of the projectionist craft, but unless the latter takes immediate steps to safeguard this condition, without depending upon others and by foregoing petty politics, the curve of two-men operation will continue downward. Thousands of dollars are available for lawyers, good, bad and indifferent, to fight deposed labor "czars" and to sustain contracts which often are not worth the legal fee involved. Attacked "czars" usually are permitted to select their own lawyers, without haggling about costs. But not one penny is available to back up a fight to keep men working and that will mean double the pay at the end of the week. Unless projectionists themselves band together to sustain two-men shifts, without waiting for others to help them, there will be nothing much left for which to fight. Incidentally, copies of that issue of I. P. in which appeared the address on two-men shifts by the undersigned before the legislatures of Connecticut and Ohio, are no longer available. However, a verbatim transcript of this address was printed in the June issue of the General Bulletin of the I. A., to which similar requests should be directed. Labor and Public Relations LABOR has never concerned itself unduly about its public relations. Newspaper accounts of the West Coast studio strike by I. A. units show very clearly the great need for increased favorable publicity for labor organizations. Consider a family man sitting at home after a hard day's work on a job which pays him the munificent salary of $18 a week for six full days. Upon reading the newspaper accounts of the Hollywood strike he might well remark to his wife and children : "I see where those union fellows who help make our movies are striking because they get only $100 a week". And make no mistake about this : it actually happens in thousands of homes — and the "family" mind reacts accordingly. Even the hammiest eight-time-a-day actor has some sort of press contact ; but not Labor. Why ? Labor certainly needs the modern skilled press agent, whose work is much more specialized than any group of craftsmen afiiliated with Labor. Code Business LAST month, in advance of clarifying opinions from directors of the National Recovery Act, we came out flatfooted and said: "... industry trade papers reflect a feverish activity on the part of industry groups to . . . agree upon a code. But, the industry press seems to have overlooked the obvious fact that the primary interest of the Act is the welfare of the laboring class." (Continued at foot of next jjage) 21]