International projectionist (Nov-Dec 1933)

16 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST November 1933 The Code OUR remarks anent code activities in Washington in these pages last month were purposely confined to statements of fact. We expressed no editorial opinion on the code, preferring to wait in the hope that by publication time for this issue the labor sections of the code would have been clarified through official rulings on the interpretations of code language which our story said were absolutely necessary to any intelligent understanding of the labor provisions. Our exposition of a list of objections to the labor provisions of the code which were common gossip among numerous labor representatives aroused the ire of a certain group of people who seem to think that there is something sacred about this section of the code, and that the mere fact that they have lent their approval to the labor provisions makes it a most palatable tidbit to be swallowed whole by everybody in the projection field. While International Projectionist has no quarrel with any organization or any individual who supports an honest difference of opinion, it most emphatically does not subscribe to the belief that a motion picture code or any other proposition in the projection field is made right simply because somebody happens along who thinks it is right. The editor of this publication has been charged with being an "obstructionist" because he dares to suggest that there exist deficiencies in the labor section of the code. While we think that this choice of descriptive language is unfortunate, it still will not serve to alter by so much as a comma any opinion we hold on the code. The business of this publication is to print news and to interpret the news by means of editorial opinions. This function we shall continue to discharge; and to those who happen to differ with our opinions we extend a cordial invitation to express their views in these columns at our expense. It is said that International Projectionist is opposed to the labor sections of the code. Emphatically we state that this is not true. Our comment on the code last month follows : No worth while evaluation of the labor section is possible at this time. What can be said is this: If interpretations favorable to the cause of Labor are forthcoming, then the code will be considered eminently satisfactory by projectionists and stagehands ; but if the interpretations placed upon the code language by Mr. Abner J. Rubien, a lawyer who handled the entire code matter for the International Alliance — if Rubien's interpretations are finally proven correct, then there are many projectionists who will consider the code to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. Time alone will provide this answer. On this statement we stand. Nothing has happened during the past month to change our views as cited above. No official interpretations of code language have been forthcoming, thus we still are unable to accurately evaluate the worth of the labor sections. Merely because the labor section provides for American Federation of Labor scales to prevail in communities where there exist A. F. of L. affiliates does not mean that the picture code is the "greatest code ever written". Nor does it mean that it is the worst. We think that the picture code labor provisions are very satisfactory — IF — if the official interpretations of code language are favorable to labor. We made this statement in our last issue, and we repeat it now. The inclusion of A. F. of L. affiliates' scales as the prevailing scales in given localities is no more than projectionist and stagehand labor was entitled to. As a matter of fact, it can be said that this provision would have "gone over" within a week after the open hearings concluded if much valuable time had not been spent in chasing a will-o-the-wisp in the form of propositions — such as national two-men shifts — which practically every labor representative at the hearings knew didn't have a chance. We don't question the judgment of those who elected to attack along the line of national twomen shifts, explosive and fraught with potential danger as the topic was ; but we do stick tenaciously to the statement that the first few days of the code hearings proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that this plan had died aborning. This writer was one of the few who favored the A. F. of L. scale plan and was outspoken in support of it almost from the very start of the hearings. Every labor delegate at the hearings knew of this writer's espousal of I.A.T.S.E. scales as the prevailing scales and knew also of the stiff fight waged by this writer to win converts to the plan. Since this clause is now pointed to as the outstanding achievement of labor in the code, there certainly can be no criticism of the writer as an "obstructionist" on this score. We are not looking for credit as the author of the idea, since the truth is that the very same clause had previously been inserted in the legitimate code, and there appeared to be no good reason why it should not go into the picture code. Still, Mr. Rubien, LA. counsel, for weeks resisted the idea that such a clause should be inserted in the picture code, his stand being that it didn't have a ghost of a chance of "going over". Subsequent events proved Mr. Rubien wrong, yet we are not disposed to be critical of him in this respect, except when he blandly lays claim to originating the idea. One other comment anent the labor sections comes to mind, and that the statement that it is manifestly impossible to obtain interpretations of code language before the code is signed by the President. This contention falls of its own dead weight, because if it be admitted that the language of the labor section is such as to require interpretation by NRA officials, then the thought immediately comes to mind that it might be dangerous indeed to subscribe wholeheartedly to any section the intent of which is vitally affected by interpretations that might subsequently be placed on the language therein. Our idea would be to insist upon clearcut interpretations of code language before subscribing, and not vice versa. Two pressing questions propounded in these pages last month appear to be slated for determination in favor of Labor. First, it appears likely that the phrase "prevailing scale" as used in the code will be held officially to mean scale per theatre, and not scale per man. Also, indications are not lacking that "existing legitimate contracts" between Labor and employers will take precedence over the code. While this information has been obtained from a usually reliable source, International Projectionist desires to emphasize its unofficial character. With the clearing up of these two vexing questions, the code begins to assume a very much brighter hue from Labor's viewpoint. While there still are several other questions remaining unanswered, the only major concern relates to the matter of who shall pay for the overage in hours beyond the 40-hour maximum established by the code. This publication considers this a very important question, and one in which plain intent of the NRA should have operated to produce a ruling favorable to the working man. It certainly seems unfair to ask a man who now is working 46, or 47, or 49 hours a week (and some stagehands are now working 50 and more hours weekly), to reduce his work week to 40 and at the same time accept a corresponding reduction in salary. NRA never was intended to effect a result of this sort, and irrespective of what unsavory charges are next hurled in our direction, we shall continue to make the statement that some provision should be made for an adjustment of salaries on the overage in hours. An answer to us on this item might be that while it is