International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

September 1933 [NTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST 25 ists. A projectionist's first consideration of any approved code should be for conditions. I believe that one-man operation has failed to justify itself, although I am aware that in certain sections of the United States one-man operation of a projection room is accepted practice. I believe that a vigorous stand in favor of two-men operation should be made by projectionist representatives at the Washington hearings. I think that this condition can be had, irrespective ui what sections of this country have permitted the one-man shift. Much loose talk is heard about giving the smaller theatres the one-man shift, and the larger theatres the two-men shift.' This is sheer nonsense, as the size and type of theatre has absolutely no bearing on the question of one-man vs. twomen operation. Two operating projectors, and accessory equipment, require two men. Wages is not expected to be a controversial topic at Washington. The stagehands obtained recognition of the fairness of their scale of wages as of July 1 last, and there is no reason why projectionist scales as of some similar date should not be recognized — plus, of course, any special reduction given only for the summer period. Good conditions are the cornerstone of any acceptable projectionist code, and projectionist representatives at the Washington hearings should insist upon good conditions — throughout the country! The mere fact that Oscaloosa or Podunk today is operating on a one-man basis doesn't mean that this basis cannot be changed. It should not be forgotten that oneman operation in a given territory positively constitutes unfair competi tion when another exhibitor in the same territory is using two-men shifts. This angle would take the matter of manpower out of the labor section. Important Exhibition Practices Projectionists are vitally interested in still another section of the proposed code — that relating to the barring of double features and the use of premiums. This statement may occasion the arching of eyebrows in certain quarters, but in this instance the interests of projectionists lie directly with the interests of the independent theatre owners. The elimination of double features is certain to result in the closing of many theatres, with resultant unemployment of projectionists. The barring of premiums, or giveaways of any kind, also will remove another weapon from the armory of the small independent exhibitor, who is hard pressed to compete with the larger and better appointed theatres. Another evil against which projectionist representatives should take a firm stand is the practice of overbuying, indulged in by practically all of the larger houses, which is held responsible for the unemployment of at least 500 projectionists throughout the past year. When a circuit house, with producer connections, overbuys film the result in many instances is that the next fellow in line is at a terrific disadvantage. Overbuying is very much the concern of projectionists. Thus, Labor must fight for itself in the matter of conditions — uniform conditions throughout the country^ — and it certainly should stand with the independent exhibitor in the fight to retain double features and premiums, and to eliminate the overbuying evil. Local 306 Asks Removal of Blue Eagle from N. Y. Theatres T N a surprise move only a few days in advance of the general hearing on the motion picture code, scheduled for September 12 in Washington, Harry Sherman, president of Local 306, demanded that NRA officials remove the Blue Eagle from certain New York City theatres which had supplanted 306 men with members of an organization known as Allied Moving Picture Operators Union, termed by Sherman a strictly company union. The case is notable by reason of its being the first to provoke a controversy centering around the collective bargaining sections of the Recovery Act. Sherman carried his complaint direct to NRA officials in Washington, who immediately ordered a thorough investigation by New York NRA headquarters. The latter, acting upon formal complaints submitted by Local 306, summoned representatives of both the union and the exhibitors to a conference at which the various charges were thoroughly aired. Subsequently the NRA sent out into the theatre field a staff of investigators to check upon the conditions prevailing in those theatres referred to in the 306 complaint. In the complaint Sherman charged that the exhibitors had committed two distinct violations of the National Recovery Act: (1) by forming a company union (Allied), they were flaunting the collective bargaining section of NRA, and (2) by working projectionists from 60 to 70 hours per week, subsequent to having signed the President's blanket code. Sherman submitted to New York NRA officials documentary evidence in support of his charges, including receipts for dues given by the exhibitors to projectionists and copies of a "yellow dog" agreement which every man seeking employment was asked to sign before he was put to work by the exhibitors. The case created a sensation in New York City, with the newspapers giving generous space to a detailed account of the hearings, particularly with respect to that section of the complaint referring to the company union activities of the employers. Although the exhibitors denied the 306 charges, the nature of the evidence submitted by Sherman was such as to substantiate the allegations. It is generally agreed that Sherman's action in filing the complaint in advance of the general code hearings in Washington was a smart move and one that is calculated to improve greatly the projectionists' position at the hearings. By focusing attention upon the company union aspects of the Allied Union, which point was given much attention by the newspapers, and by discrediting the exhibitors organization which, it is charged, not only formed its own union but also fixed the hours of work, Sherman has gained a heavy advantage. Picketing Operations Another interesting angle of the case was the action of Local 306 in assigning pickets to every theatre which ousted its men, despite the fact that all such theatres were flying the Blue Eagle. One week previously in a similar case the New York NRA officials had taken the stand that picketing of an establishment which flew the Blue Eagle was inconsistent with the Act and was not in spirit with the agreement reached between NRA officials and labor leaders. However, the 306 pickets were not molested, despite strenuous protests by exhibitors. Almost simultaneously, a New York Supreme Court Justice handed down a decision which enjoined the Bakers Union from picketing business places which, although flying the Blue Eagle, had discharged the union bakers. This decision aroused the ire of William F. Green, A. F. of L. leader, who announced in Washington that the entire resources of his organization would be aligned in back of the Bakers Union in an effort to win the right of picketing for any bona fide labor organization which sought to win better conditions for its members. New York newspapers were practically unanimous in the opinion that the ban against picketing would be lifted on appeal to a higher court. Picketing of Blue Eagle businesses