International projectionist (Nov-Dec 1933)

18 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST November 1933 shall bear the burden of the overage in hours beyond the 40-hour maximum set by the code, in communities where either no contract exists or there is a difference of opinion between the union (LA. affiliate) and exhibitors as to what actually is the wage scale for the various classes of theatres, it appears reasonably certin that the burden of costs will be borne by the various local unions so affected, through the medium of the men now employed having to take a wage cut to the extent of the number of hours they now work over 40 weekly. This proposal was explained in detail in these pages last month. Taking notice of pointed criticism voiced in certain quarters to the effect that the action of this publication in directing attention to the question of the overage in hours, among other things, was in the nature of "a smoke screen" and an "absurd and silly reflection on the greatest code ever written", this writer has examined carefully the codes, proposed or approved, for other industries and has uncovered some interesting data relative to this very question. The following excerpts from codes of representative industries are illuminating in this respect: Woolen Industry, July 26 — . . . Wages for 40 hours are to be not less than wages paid for a 48-hour week. Corset and Brassiere Industry, August 14 — ... If hours of labor are reduced by code requirements, rates of pay must be adjusted so as not to reduce compensation. Coats and Suits (W omen s) , August 4 — ... The compensation for employment shall not be reduced even though hours of labor may be reduced. Hosiery, August 26 — . . . length of shift may not exceed 35 hours a week and employees must be paid the same wage for a 35-hour week as if they worked a 40-hour week. The foregoing citations are indicative of similar provisions embodied in many representative industry codes, and should serve to effectively silence those critics who have maintained that there existed no precedent for adjusting the burden of an overage in hours set by a code. Overtime has been an important revenue-producer for projectionists, but the proposed motion picture code makes no provision for overtime work and compensation therefor except to state vaguely that the 40-hour maximum work week established shall not apply to "emergencies"— whatever this may mean — and whoever shall be recognized as having the right to declare that an emergency exists. This writer can think of any number of situations that might arise in a projection room to which the term "emergency" might be applied, and he can also visualize sharp differences of opinion on the part of managers and projectionists as to what really constitutes an "emergency". The code for the Photographic Industry, approved on August 19, provides that "repair, outside and cleaning crews shall be paid time and one-half for all time over 40 hours", thus establishing a precedent for overtime payment, a point not even considered in the motion picture code exhibition section. Projection Wages and Others Exceptions to these citations have been made on the ground that the motion picture operator occupies a "unique" position in that his wages are so high in general that he cannot be classed with the "ordinary run" of labor. This observation is made to appear ridiculous by figures which show that out of a total of 252 wage scales included in the original LA. proposal, 162 (or 64%) of Code Signed! The motion picture code was signed by President Roosevelt at Warm Springs, Ga., on November 27. Its provisions will become effective within ten days, or on December 8. Although official publication of the code draft as approved by the President was withheld, authoritative advice to this publication indicates that there have been no changes in the exhibition labor section of the code as published in full in these pages last month. the total scales called for less than $35.00 per week. Still another 8% of the total called for wages ranging between $35 and $41. The explanation for this preponderance of low scales, of course, lies in the fact that the original LA. proposal included a general two-men shift provision, each shift to be made up of a No. 1 man and a No. 2 man, with No. 1 man to receive on an average of $11 more per week than the No. 2 man. Had this proposal been adopted by the code authorities, local union leaders would have been confronted with the necessity for splitting their memberships into two groups — No. 1 and No. 2 men — or in other words, reintroducing the alleged inequalities of the permit system on a national scale. It is doubtful if this proposal would have stood up in a court test of its legality, discrimination being apparent at a glance. Another interesting comparison may be drawn from the fact that the code presently provides that chorus girls, whose craft hardly can be considered more exacting than that of projection, will receive $30 a week in permanent production work and $35 weekly while on the road. Particular attention was paid to the announcement by Deputy Administrator Rosenblatt to the effect that Labor (meaning the LA.), will not be represented on the Code Authority, the personnel of which has not yet been revealed but which is expected to be confined to producer-distributor-exhibitor ranks. The importance of Labor representation on all code authorities is stressed by the American Federation of Labor in the following statement: "Wage earners, although co-equal with capital as a producing essential, are in almost every code ignored in setting up the continuing code authority for the industry with power to legislate. As codes will provide industrial government, the significance of this situation is very grave. (Italics ours.) Workers as such should have representation on the code authority on an equal footing with all other members." This shortcoming of the motion picture code, from the labor point of view, has already been pointed out exclusively by this publication. The point was often made during the code hearings in Washington that the NRA could not and would not write into the picture code any clause having to do with "conditions of employment", which phrase, so far as the projection field is concerned, relates specifically to the current controversy anent oneman vs. two-men operation. Of a piece with these rantings was the oft-repeated statement to the effect that it would be "utterly impossible" to include in the code any reference to American Federation of Labor scales as the "prevailing scale" for a given community. Still, weeks later the provision went over as smoothly as it would have five weeks previous, and those who had shouted the loudest that it was "impossible" were the first to claim credit for its inclusion in the code. On the point of writing into the code conditions of employment, this prerogative on Labor's part needed no further justification than a portion of the National Recovery Act itself (Section 7, b): "The President shall, so far as practicable, afford every opportunity to employers and employees in any trade or industry ... to establish by mutual agreement the standards as to the maximum hours of labor, minimum rates of pay, and such other conditions of employment as may be necessary ... to effectuate the policy of this title ..." Intense opposition from independent