International projectionist (Nov-Dec 1933)

November 1933 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST 19 theatre owners developed over the twomen shift proposal, particularly from those exhibitors who are presently using non-union men. The argument over this proposal disclosed that only 35% of the independent theatres in America have been organized by the LA. Two-Men Shift Figures Numerous inquiries received by this publication for some light as to the reason for the shelving of the two-men shift proposal focus attention on the following current figures relative to oneman and two-men projection shifts throughout the United States: I. A.. Union Theatres Non-Union Theatres 75% One-Man 99.5% One-Man 25% Two-Men .5% Two-Men Publication of these figures undoubtedly will occasion considerable surprise within the craft, particularly among those projectionists who work in big cities, a majority of which enjoy two-men conditions. The figures also are indicative of the inroads that have been made upon craft conditions within the past couple of years and constitute ample evidence as to why the original LA. proposal for national two-men shifts was foreordained to failure. Many observers were inclined to question the wisdom of asking for a national two-men shift in the face of the foregoing figures, which were available in advance, the argument put forth by this group being that it was suicidal to set up a proposition that was certain to be knocked down and thus afford exhibitors in localities now using two-men shifts an opportunity for answering union demands, now or in the future, with the statement: "Why, that proposition was up for consideration in Washington and was kicked out the window, not by us, but by Uncle Sam". That the code in its present form provides the LA. with a splendid opportunity to do intensive organizing work is freely admitted by even the die-hard non-union exhibitors. On the basis of that clause which provides that the "prevailing scale" of an LA. affiliate in a given town shall be the standard scale for the various classes of theatres in that community, it is evident that the present non-union theatres will have to jump their scales in order to conform to the prevailing LA. local union scale as of August 23. This being so, it is not inconceivable than an exhibitor in any town where there exists an LA. local union will prefer to use LA. men, since he must in any event pay the prevailing LA. scale. Should the code work the other way in that an exhibitor might prefer to retain in his employ the present crew of non-union men, the chances for the LA. reaping rich rewards from a membership drive are excellent. It developed during last month that the August 23 date mentioned in the code as applying to LA. scales was not an arbitrary selection of Deputy Administrator Rosenblatt, nor was it chosen because the tentative code draft was presented to him on that date. From reliable sources this publication learns that Rosenblatt would have been quite agreeable to making this date July 1, or June 1, or any other date within a reasonable period preceding August 23, and that his final adoption of the latter date was predicated on the desire of the labor representatives that he do so. International Projectionist also learned that (Continued on page 20, col. 1) The I. A.'s Views on Code f\ F interest to projectionists generally are the following excerpts from the current issue of the Official Bulletin of the International Alliance relative to the proposed motion picture code: It is unfair to dilate too generously upon the major and minor tenets of our . . . code. Frankness compels the statement that it is neither perfect nor an instrument of torture. If it is true that in some minor sense certain economic interests of ours are impaired, it is also equally true that in a larger sense the prestige of the LA. has been enhanced and the economic interests of its membership given a codical protection hitherto unknown. Some critics (outside our organization) have been unfair, unkind and unjust. They have stigmatized the efforts of our General Office and the assistance of a host of splendid LA. men who journeyed to Washington . . . Their intimations have been grossly unfair. Their innuendoes have been sickeningly petty. We trust that they will voluntary regret indulgence in such ungenerous criticism. . . . codification was a series of violent headaches to your G.O. staff. We can conscientiously say we worked at the job to the extent of our ability. When wre took recreation it was because recreation was a stark necessity. Codes are hard, very hard on the nervous system. That the I.A.T.S.E. made some concessions goes without saying . . . But it is patent that the NRA law in general will be advantageous to the I.A.T.S.E. in prestige and practical advantages. Labor Section of a Code Lousy Deal', Says Miller f\ NLY a promise stands between nationwide operators and stagehands strikes under the code as it is now written, said Jack Miller, chairman of the national exhibitors labor committee at the Washington code hearings, in a speech before the annual convention of the Wisconsin M.P.T.O.A. Asserting that the original code clause banning strikes and making arbitration compulsory had been dropped from the final draft, Miller said that while he considered the no-strike promise legitimate, "it is just that and nothing more". Excerpts from the address of Miller, a former B.A. of Chicago Local Union 110 but for many years past an exhibitor, follow : "All we got," he said, "was a promise from Lou Krouse to take local autonomy privileges on strikes from the hands of business agents and making the question determinable by him as vice-president of the I. A. T. S. E. That's swell and I believe Lou means it, but after all, it's only a promise, and Krouse may live six months or an hour and a half. Who knows? "I went to Washington full of hope. The code was to be the Moses leading us out of the wilderness of labor. It didn't take long to find out labor was running the NRA and the whole show. I'm telling you there aren't enough brains in the A. F. of L. to run the A. F. of L., so how is it going to run the government? If the government lets the A. F. of L. continue to run the works, there's no hope. I nredicted more strikes in the next six months than in the last six years and the first six weeks of those six months proved I was dead right with plenty to spare. Code a "Lousy DeaV "Can you imagine a government ruling a wage scale arrived at by violence and theatre bombing is to prevail as long as the NRA stays? That's what it has done. The code says Aug. 23 wage scales are to prevail, but does it mean that? It does not. It means wages can't go under that scale, but doesn't prevent unions from trying to get more. We came out of Washington not with a good deal ; we came out with a lousy deal. "There is only one way to beat this labor thing and that is for employers to organize as strongly as employes. If you don't want to pay ushers $25, doormen $35 and cashiers $25 a week you'd better wake up, and if you don't that's what you're going to get." Miller said the A. F. of L. had 16,000,000 members during the war when industry had to move and nobody worried much about wage scales. "But when the war was over and fellows looked around, the membership dropped to 1,600,000," he added. "Now you've got the NRA and the total has hiked to over 5.000.000 already. It'll be back to that 16,000.000 if you lunatics don't do something about it." Note: The peak A. F. of L. membership was in 1920 when it reached 4,060,000, thus Miller's 16,000,000 figure has no basis in fact. — Editor.