Jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture Industry : hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first-session, pursuant to H. Res. 111 (1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

1310 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES When they go beyond that and multiply and inject additional disputes, then I say their award should be thrown out the window. Mr. Kearns. Does that answer your question ? Mr. McCann. That answers the question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. I did not want to get involved in any technical word- ing. Do you have any questions, Mr. Owens ? Mr. Owens. Yes; I would like to ask a few questions. You stated before that you had 650,000 members ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Are those 650,000 paid-up members ? Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Owens. How many did you bring in in the last year? Mr. Brown. At the moment I cannot say. We brought in a great number, but a number have left because the forces have been greatly reduced in many shops throughout this year. It is hard to explain why, when workers join the labor movement and get the benefit of it, when they are laid off so often they drop their membership. There is a big turn-over. Mr. Owens. You mean you lost some in the last year ? Mr. Brown. No; we did not lose, but I say the intakes exceeded the outgo. You see, we have had various closed shops; and, of course, under the Taft-Hartley Act that is out now. But prior thereto we had a number of union shops but very few closed shops. Mr. Owens. I was wondering if you took in 50,000 in the last year? Mr. Brown. I would not want to testify because I cannot say. Mr. Owens. I remember you stated last year you had about 600,000 members. Mr. Brown. Yes; but you can take in 50,000; you may lose 45,000 and only gain 5,000. Mr. Owens. In .other words, you do not know how many more you have than you had a year ago over last May when you testified ? Mr. Brown. I could not say offhand; no. Mr. Owens. How many apprentices did you say? Mr. Brown. I could not say how many we have. Mr. Owens. As president, you cannot say how many apprentices you have ? Mr. Brown. No; because when you have 10,500 firms under con- tract, I do not take the time to find out how many apprentices there are, because that is not important. It is important, though, that employers adhere to an apprenticeship rule that there should not be more than 1 apprentice for 10 journeymen. Mr. Owens. Who makes that rule^ Mr. Brown. The imion makes that rule. Mr. Owens. Why do you make that rule ? Mr. Brown. Because we believe under that rule we can supply sufficient machinists if all the apprentices make their journeyman through the apprenticeship route. Mr. Owens. There has been testimony in some of these cases that in some shops they could use one for one, one for two, and one for three, and even the men who testified for the Government said they would like to get it to the point where there would be ione for three or four.