International projectionist (Nov-Dec 1933)

EXPECT CODE INTERPRETATIONS FAVORABLE TO LABOR James J. Finn THE motion picture code still is unsigned by President Roosevelt, six weeks after the "absolute deadline" set by NRA officials and industry leaders. It appears likely, however, that the Presidential signature will be affixed to the document by November 30 at the latest, ten days following which the code provisions will become effective. While Administrator Johnson is known to be opposed to the 56 wage scale classifications contained in the proposed code draft — his opinion being that four major classifications are sufficient — it is generally understood that there will be no material changes in the exhibition labor section of the draft as published in these pages last month. The delay has been occasioned by differences of opinion among NRA officials as to certain filmbuying clauses which are held to be in conflict with previous Federal Court decisions, as well as by the necessity for considering carefully the proposed limitation on film star salaries. No "OfficiaF' Interpretation Independent exhibitor ranks have been split wide open by the code, with the M.P.T.O.A. showing every evidence of a willingness to go along, while the Allied group still breathes opposition and hints defiance now and after the code is signed. The position of the major producers and distributors, including the Hays organization, remains the same in favor of the code. No official interpretation anent the intent of certain clauses in the exhibition labor section has been forthcoming from the NRA headquarters, and no statement relative to these much-discussed interpretations has been forthcoming from the International Alliance of Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators, parent body of some 700 local unions throughout the United States. These questions as to the intent of the exhibition labor clauses are (1) who is to pay the cost of any overage in hours beyond 40, the maximum set by the code? (2) whether existing contracts, signed either before or since August 23, the date specified by the code, prevail over the code or are superseded by the code (3) whether the phrase "prevailing scale" (Section 6a and thereafter) may be taken to mean scale per projection room or scale per man and (4) whether the phrase "prevailing scale" refers to basic contract price as of August 23, or to basic contract price less a given summer cut, which in many instances ran beyond August 23. Labor representatives are also concerned about the provision for inclusion of non-union men on the arbitration board which will consider questions as to what really is the "prevailing scale" of an I. A. affiliate, as mentioned in the code, and not a little concern is being felt about the no-strike and "agree to mediate" sections of the proposed draft. International Projectionist has exerted strenuous efforts to obtain authoritative answers to the foregoing questions, but to no avail, it being apparent that the mantle of secrecy which cloaked the codifying activities in Washington still endures. Overages in Hours This publication did learn unofficially, however, that all "legitimate contracts executed prior to August 23" will hold good until their expiration, and that "prevailing scale" as written into the code means scale per theatre and not scale per man. While this information was obtained from a very reliable source, this publication desires to emphasize its unofficial character. On the question as to whether "prevailing scale" may be taken to mean basic contract price or contract price less summer cuts, no reliable information could be obtained. There appears to be an outside chance, however, that the basic contract price will prevail in all cases. Relative to the question as to who true that a small minority must accept a wage cut as a result of no adjustment in wages being made, it all simply boils down to a question of the few suffering so that a large majority might gain something. This is a perfectly logical answer; but it is our stand that it is unnecessary for any man to suffer a wage cut — or at least, that some idea as to the number of men affected should be had before endorsement is given to the plan. Considered generally, it is apparent that the code will prove a boon to the International Alliance in the way of providing a magnificent opportunity for intensive organizing of present non-union theatres, in addition to attracting to the LA. many non-union projectionists. The membership possibilities are staggering, viewed on a countrywide basis, and it is plain that the LA. already is preparing to take immediate advantage of the situation. Since a given theatre in a particular community will have to "up" its scales to match the LA. local union scale in effect in that community, the organizing possibilities are readily apparent. It seems unlikely that a theatre which in any event will have to pay LA. scales will elect to go along on a non-union basis. Some trouble may develop in localities where wage scales have to be set. The "no strike" and the arbitration clauses of the code are not to the fancy of many Labor men, yet it is evident that Labor simply had to give some assurance of industrial peace in order to gain the advantages it did. This publication is not enthusiastic about the arbitration provisions, which open up avenues leading to intensive squabbling on a wide front. Labor never has had the best of it in any arbitration proceeding, and it appears extremely doubtful that the immediate future under the code will see a general improvement in this condition. The next few months will provide the answer to this at the moment open question. One very important code clause which until now has induced little comment is that which provides that manpower must not be cut below the level which existed on August 23, 1933, which provision also was a feature of the President's Reemployment Agreement (or blanket contract, so-called), but which now is cinched by the code. In conclusion, we repeat that organization policies on the score of codes or any other matter are not our concern, but we desire to emphasize anew that the results of organization or individual policies on matters which affect profoundly the destinies of thousands of workers within the projection field always have, do now and will continue to excite our interest to the extent of printing the news thereof and, if we choose, interpreting that news editorially. James J. Finn [17]