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.

1360 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Wayne. No. It is hard to answer your question, Mr. Kearns, because in that particular shop nobody could decide what the percent- age of general machine-shop work there was as compared to so-called prop work. Mr. Kearns. You mean that particular shop was different from any of the others? Mr. Wayne. Yes, sir. Mr. Keaens. Why was that shop different? Mr. Wayne. I could never explain. In every other shop in the industry we did the machinist work with a very minimum of conten- tion. Mr. Kearns. Then at the M-G-M shop that was not considered a general machine shop, as we classify general machine shops ? Mr. Wayne. It was not by management for the lATSE. We con- sidered it just another machine shop, and we should have had control of it. Mr. Kearns. Do you have any questions, Mr. Owens? Mr. Owens. Yes, Mr. Kearns. Mr. Wayne impresses me as a gen- tleman Avho will give us the information right from the shoulder if he knows it. I waiit to ask you this question: Did you have any rule prohibiting your men from holding two cards ? Mr. Wayne. We do not. We disapprove of it, but have no rule to that effect. Mr. Owens. Then there would be nothing whatsoever to stop them from doing that ? Mr. Wayne. Nothing whatever. Mr. Kearns. Will the gentleman yield there ? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Kearns. You feel that men should have two cards in order to work anyplace ? Mr. Wayne. I can't see why a man should have to pay dues to two organizations to do one job. Mr. Kearns. You are emphatic about that ? Mr. Wayne. I am. Mr. Owens. Of course, there would be nothing to stop your organi- zation from prohibiting a man from having two cards? Mr. Wayne. I don't know how we can prohibit a man from joining any other organization and still belong to ours. Mr. Owens. You mean another union ? INIr. Wayne. Any union or any organization. Mr. Owens. Doing the same kind of work ? Mr. Wayne. No ; not for a dual job; not a dual card. Mr. Owens. But this developed to be a dual card, did it not? Mr. Wayne. It did; and we object to that. INIr. Owens. Did you issue any prohibition of it ? Mr. Wayne. We did not. Mr. Owens. Wliy? Mr. Wayne. We have been in hopes for 11 years to get the juris- diction straightened out out there. There are some actions you do not take, so long as there is hope of a settlement. Mr. Owens. The first step to take would be with your own men, would it not ? Mr. Wayne. That is right.