Screen Guilds Magazine (April 1935)

4 The Screen Guilds’ Magazine The Screen Writers 5 Guild and the N. R. A* with subsequent Guild recognition and agreement. Plans were laid by the Guild for representation in Washington to this end, while the N. R. A. was in the process of being organized. When the N. R. A. did get under way, it was discovered the Guild would first have to use all its energy to eliminate from the Motion Picture Code of the N. R. A. noxious inhibitions of and controls over writers, by which producers hoped to further establish their arbitrary posi¬ tion in the industry. The Guild was not able to eliminate these from the actual writing of the Motion Picture Code. But by extraordinary representation and argument, in Washington, actors and writers were finally able to obtain sus¬ pension of these N. R. A. codes by Ex¬ ecutive order. At this time, the much disputed clause 7-A of the N. R. A., the clause which w T as supposed to guarantee to labor the risrht to bargain collectively, was carefully studied by the Guild, and dismissed temporarily as not a proper path through which to seek its ends. The history of two years of the N. R. A. and of clause 7-A has proven the Guild’s wisdom in rejecting this course. Clause 7-A has been everywhere a bone of con¬ tention, lacking in whole-hearted co¬ operation by the Department of Justice, and has in no instance offered organized labor groups an opportunity to obtain proper bargaining conditions with em¬ ployers. The origin of the now famous Five- Five Committees offers one of the most interesting chapters in the effort of writ¬ ers and actors to obtain an opportunity to bargain collectively with motion pic¬ ture producers. Before the Motion Picture Code had been signed by the President, a moment came in Washington when representa¬ tives of writers and actors felt that the pressure of producers on the administra¬ tion had become so great that the writ¬ er-actor fight was probably hopeless. The Authors’ League of America as a last resort organized one final barrage of public opinion, a barrage so vigorous that it finally turned the tide. The rep¬ resentative of The Screen Writers’ Guild was on the point of leaving Wash¬ ington for good, one dark November afternoon in 1933, but was halted by a message that General Johnson wished to talk with the writers’ representative at once. After the conference that fol¬ lowed, a hasty telephone call was put in for Guild offices in Hollywood. Guild officials were told over the long distance telephone that if they would commit the Guild to cease agitation for changes in the Code, actors and writers would be given the right of representation in committees set up within the completed Code itself. Faced with the possibility of at least some representation or none at all, the Guild officials obligated them¬ selves so far as they might to cease agi¬ tation for further code changes. The result of this agreement was the estab¬ lishment of the five and five committees in the code as finally signed at the White House late in 1933. The Guild soon discovered, however, a considerable gap between a bargain¬ ing committee on paper and a bargain¬ ing committee actually at work. Every effort was made to obtain early appoint¬ ment of these committees. Delay fol¬ lowed delay and it became obvious that producers were placing every obstacle in the path of such appointments. On April 9th, 1934, a vigorous tele¬ gram was sent to Deputy Administrator Sol. M. Rosenblatt urging the immedi¬ ate appoinment of the writer members of the five and five committee. On April 16th, 1934, Mr. Rosenblatt stated over the telephone that he hoped to be able to make the appointments shortly. On June 19th the writer and actor mem¬ bers of the five-five committees were finally appointed. The Motion Picture Code Authority did its best to stop the appointments. It even went so far as to threaten court action on the ground that the province of the Code Authority as an N. R. A. board had been invaded and that the appointments themselves were a violation of the code. In fact the hesitant Mr. Rosenblatt was only nerved to make the appointments over the objections of the Code Authority by direct word from the White House. Parenthetically it may be stated that while producers have had influence in Washington, it has been the experience of the Guild that writers may also find a way of presenting their case to the Chief Executive and obtaining action. A committee of five writers cannot bargain collectively or confer on “A Code of practice” with five empty chairs, accomodating five absent motipn picture producers. It became as diffi¬ cult to obtain producer representation on the Committees as it had been first to obtain writer representation. The writers had been appointed by Rosen¬ blatt, the Deputy Administrator. But producers, so read the code, were to be appointed by the Code Authority, made up of producers, and the Code Author¬ ity refused to act. Finally in July a long telegram was sent by the Screen Writers’ Guild to the White House. This telegram point¬ ed out the obstructive methods that were being used by the Motion Picture Code Authority. It also pointed out how under the Code, the Code Author¬ ity could be removed from office, and the Deputy Administrator could be em¬ powered himself to make these appoint¬ ments. Six days after this telegram was sent, and more than seven months after the Motion Picture Code had been signed by the White House, the Motion Picture Code Authority finally appoint¬ ed the producer members of the Five- Five Committee. It is not the function of this report to outline what happened at any of the discussions of the Writer-Producer Five- Five Committee. Ostensibly, writer representatives had been elected to a panel at a mass meeting of all screen writers, Guild members or otherwise. It is obvious however, there would have been no Five-Five Committee without the activities of The Screen Writers’ Guild. The election to the panel from which appointments were made was it¬ self held under the supervision of the Guild. The five active members of the committee and the five alternates were Guild members, although one of the five active representatives was also an Acad¬ emy member. Nevertheless because of the peculiar wording of the law, any agreement that might be drawn up could not be between the Guild and the producers; it would have to be a general agreement for all writers. Even so, the Guild considered that such a sanction, under which writers and producers would carry on their affairs, would be infinitely better than processes sanc¬ tioned by the Academy. But the pro¬ ducers, seeing the danger in rules en¬ forced by the Federal Government, would come to no agreement, even though individually they agreed with many of the recommendations made by the writers. In fact, producers sudden¬ ly became so frightened at the prospect of Federal control as envisaged in a document—the Motion Picture Code— to which they had put their own signa¬ ture seven months before, that they would not even put themselves on record in a vote against the proposed writer recommendations, for fear it would com¬ mit them to a principle. The Writ¬ er-Producer Five-Five Committee final¬ ly ended its labors in a draw. Each side agreed to send its recommenda¬ tions accompanied by a brief to Wash¬ ington. This is where the matter stands to¬ day. . The briefs have been duly sent, but with little prospect of action of any kind on these recommendations until