Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Feb 1936)

F. H. RICHARDSON'S COMMENT AND ANSWERS TO INQUIRIES A CASE OF ARBITRATION OR JUST ARBITRARINESS? at least once each year we witness what all too often amounts to a battle between exhibitors and projectionists' unions, for which there would seldom be necessity did each side substitute reason and common sense for arrogance, and greed for gain. Moreover, I venture the assertion that were this done, and both sides entered into wage discussions with intent to be fair, there would in the main be ultimate gain for both sides, considered over a term of years, as compared with the net results of the battle plan. I joined the labor movement in either the fall of 1893, or the spring of 1894, when at the tender age of 17 I was accepted into the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen. Thereafter I was actively identified with labor union activities until along about 1925 or thereabouts, when I withdrew for the reason that as a writer it seemed best to be in a position to discuss either or both sides of labor questions impartially. Since that time 35 local unions have conferred honorary membership upon me, two have issued gold card honorary memberships, and one (Winnipeg, Manitoba) a gold life membership card. I set this forth merely as evidence that I am, or at least should be, in a position to discuss relations between employer and employe, or employers and unions, with at least some degree of Understanding. When first I became a union man fifty years ago, unions were just beginning to acquire some very small degree of recognition. There then was need for strikes and physical battle. Employers, up to that time, had had everything pretty much their own way; hence they resented any suggestion to discuss working conditions with an employe organization. They were willing only to enter into arguments over wages and working conditions with individual employes, holding over their heads an ifyou-don't-like-it-you-can-quit axe, ready to fall in case the argument ended otherwise than in favor of the employer. Therefore the only course open to unions was to fight, and fight we did. Those days have passed, thanks be, though there still is an occasional battle. The union now is a universally recognized institution, which employers have learned, willingly or not, they must deal with. That occasional battles still persist is due almost entirely to the fact that one side or the other, or both, refuse to cede points that calm consideration and common sense would tell them should be ceded. What I mean by the foregoing is that too often both men and employers enter wage discussions with the idea of getting everything possible, utterly regardless of fairness, right or justice. The employer seeks to argue or beat down the men to the lowest possible point, regardless of the fact that he may well know what he finally may get is not fair — also without regard to its final effect in making men dissatisfied and therefore not inclined to produce the best results. On the other hand the union representative too often is more interested in getting every possible thing, thus making a good "showing," regardless of the possible fact that he well knows what he finally secures is unfair in that it will impose an almost unbearably heavy burden on the employer. Surely all this is unnecessary, and in the end bad business for both sides. While it is very true that in many cases a wage scale must impose too heavy a burden on some badly managed theatres, or upon some theatres that are unable to get sufficient business at adequate prices, that cannot be helped. In my opinion wage scales Other Articles In addition to the material on this page, Mr. Richardson's columns of this issue also contain: Operating Dale Should Be Supplied Page 28 Kinds of Filters, What They Do Page 28 Gratitude— But It Was His Idea Page 28 Screen Width and Good Vision Page 30 Operation of Induction Motors Page 30 More Protection Against Pitting Page 31 New Bottl es and Stale Wine Page 32 Vacations With Pay Page 32 He Finds Books Are Closed Page 32 Difference in Sound Page 32 Light Sources in Small Theatres Page 33 Problems of Screen Illumination Page 34 We Hear from Lone Star State Page 36 Treatment for Some Sound Ills Page 36 should be considered by selecting what seems to be an average theatre of the class being considered. Not one doing capacity business, or the extreme opposite. The scale should be based upon ability of such average theatres to pay, and without an attempt to gouge out the very last possible cent. In the end it has been my observation that a disposition to deal fairly and justly gets more than does the attempt to grab everything in sight, and that goes both ways. UNFAIR QUESTIONS IN LICENSE TEST FROM A PROJECTIONIST located in Georgia, a considerable distance from Atlanta, comes this communication: "This is my first letter, but it will not be my last. Am a constant reader of the 'Bluebook School' in Motion Picture Herald and your Better Theatres articles. I find your writings to be of good benefit. May I ask your opinion concerning certain questions that were asked a friend of mine who applied for license in Atlanta and was refused a license ? Do you consider them fair? "First, 'Explain in detail the Hall & Connolly Type HC10 arc lamp.' Second, 'Explain the operation of the new Suprex acr.' Third, 'Explain how sound-on-film is recorded and reproduced.' Fourth, 'Give three ways an arc may be fed automatically.' Fifth, 'Draw a diagram of a full-wave rectifier.' Sixth, 'Draw a diagram of a one-stage audio amplifier.' "These questions are just a few of many. Questions five and six are to be very simple (in spare time I am a radio repair man), but many excellent projectionists know nothing about drawing diagrams of sound systems or parts thereof. Questions one, two and three I regard as foolish and unfair. I have been told by some Atlanta projectionists that they could not pass the examination now being given." I would not consider any of these questions foolish, but would regard some of them as ill-judged and others as decidedly January 11, 1936 27