NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

since the Radio Act of 1927 lodged the licensing power with the Federal Radio Commission, the NRA was helpless to do anything about the licensing question. Notwithstanding that the report of James W. Baldwin, industrial advisor, which report was approved by the NRA Industrial Advisory Board, emphasizes that “as a definite part of the national program of recovery and increased stability and confidence, the broadcasters are clearly entitled to the full term of license provided by Congress in the Radio Act of 1927” and that he could not “recommend that the radio broadcasting in¬ dustry be required to make additional fixed and permanent com¬ mitments unless it first can be given the full measure of protection provided by law,” the Commission has not as yet extended the terms of broadcast station licenses. The NAB has consistently advocated three-year license terms as the best means for bringing stability into the industry. LABOR PROVISIONS RESTRICTED After it was considered that all conferences had been concluded, the NRA, over the protest of the NAB, inserted in Article V, Para¬ graph S, a provision that “where on November 1, 1933, any broad¬ caster paid broadcast technicians wages in excess of the minimum herein provided for or worked such employees a lesser number of hours per week than herein permitted, such higher wages and such lesser number of hours shall be deemed to be and are hereby declared to be the minimum scale of wages and maximum number of hours with respect to such stations.” EQUITIES WILL GOVERN It was argued by the NAB that the above provision would penalize the broadcaster, who in an endeavor to cooperate with the Administration, signed the blanket code, reduced hours of work to 40 and adjusted wages; and discriminate against him in favor of the broadcaster who did not sign the President’s Reemploy¬ ment Agreement. It was further argued that such a condition, if permitted to continue, would seriously affect competitive conditions between stations similarly situated. It was then agreed that the Administrator should have the power to make exceptions and upon the insistence of the NAB there was inserted in the Code the following provision: “Where the operation of the provisions of this Code imposes an unusual or undue hardship upon any broadcaster or network such broadcaster or network may make application for relief to the Administrator or to his duly authorized agent, and the Administrator or his agent may, after such public notice and hearing as he may deem necessary, grant such exception to or modification of the provisions of this Code as may be required to effectuate the purpose of the National Industrial Recovery Act.” PERFORMERS DEMAND RECOGNITION Disagreement arose over the inclusion of radio performers in the Code at the time of public hearing. Mrs. Annette R. Bushman, representing Allied Production Incorporated of New York, urged adoption of a provision in the Code setting minimum rates for actors and musicians. Her position was supported by Frank Gillmore, president of the Actors’ Equity Association, who alleged that the industry was guilty of abuses concerning artists and their participation in rehearsals and auditions. His original proposal, which was modified later, provided that the minimum wage for broadcasting by actors in radio be $25 for a sustaining hour or part thereof and $50 for a commercial hour or part thereof. He demanded that for each broadcast two free rehearsals be given by actors of not more than three hours each and that half salaries be paid for additional rehearsals of not more than three hours. For broadcasting to make electrical transcriptions a minimum rate of $150 was urged. He proposed that all auditions be paid at half of the minimum scale and that actors called to the studio be paid whether they go on the air or not. This proposal met vigorous objection on the part of the NAB and after a number of lengthy conferences it was agreed that the whole subject should be made the subject of study by the Code Authority. As a result of these conferences Article VI, Section 3, was adopted. ARTA WANTS $225 FOR OPERATORS Hoyt S. Haddock, president of the American Radio Telegraphists Association, Inc., demanded a 36-hour week for broadcast techni¬ cians with twice the normal rate for overtime. He urged the adoption of a pay schedule for all stations, large and small, ranging • Page from $150 to $225 per month. This proposal also met with objec¬ tion and was later discarded when it was shown that this organi¬ zation was not representative of operators employed in the broad¬ casting industry. IBEW DEMANDS 40-HOUR WEEK Thomas R. McLean, Radio Division, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, demanded $40 pay for a 40-hour week for broadcast technicians at the hearing. He asserted that he repre¬ sented by agreement 100 per cent of the stations in St. Louis, WCFL in Chicago, and WMCA, WAAT, and WHOM in Greater New York. He claimed to represent by membership: Chicago, 65 per cent; Fort Wayne, 100 per cent; Detroit, 90 per cent; Cleveland, 100 per cent; Akron, 100 per cent; Birmingham, 100 per cent; Jersey City, 100 per cent; Newark, 100 per cent; Kansas City, Kans., 100 per cent; Kansas City, Mo., 100 per cent. He purported to represent by signature stations in some 30 additional cities ranging from 75 to 100 per cent. WAGE DIFFERENTIAL OPPOSED McLean maintained that the 40-hour week and $40 wage should be applicable to both large and small stations and opposed any lower classification for small stations on the grounds that they employ fewer men. The NAB stood on its original proposal and demanded that stations be classified with respect to their economic position. The clash which began at the hearing continued throughout conferences which lasted for more than six weeks. Finally, there was agree¬ ment on the establishment of a 48-hour week for operators and con¬ trol men and a classification of minimum wages ranging from $20 to $40 a week depending upon the class of the employer-station. However, as a result of these lengthy negotiations, it was agreed that the Code Authority shall “investigate the hours of labor, wages, and working conditions of broadcast technicians and the relation thereof to general conditions within the industry, and within a period of ninety days from the effective date of this Code, shall report thereon to the Administrator.” WCFL MAKES DEMANDS During the hearing and in subsequent conferences, Benjamin F. Goldstein, representing the Chicago Federation of Labor, insisted upon a 40-hour week for all employees except radio operators and control men. With respect to operators and control men, the substitute code offered by the Chicago Federation of Labor pro¬ posed a 48-hour week. While the substitute code maintained the station differential proposed in the NAB draft it fixed as a minimum for operators and control men $40 a week for large stations and $25 for smaller stations. The minimum weekly wage for announc¬ ers and program production employees was fixed at $35 in large stations and $20 in the smaller stations, based on a 40-hour week. He advocated similar increases over the rates proposed by the NAB. WANTED RECORDS PROTECTED Representing the leading phonograph record manufacturing companies, H. A. Huebner, attorney, New York, asked that the Code contain a provision making it an unfair trade practice and a violation of the Code for any broadcaster or network to broadcast records without the prior written consent of the manufacturer of such records. The NAB refused to agree to such a provision, arguing that if the phonograph record companies had any legal rights in the matter they should pursue such rights in the law courts and not ask the NRA to settle the issue for them. WOULD CONTROL ALL ADVERTISING The proposal of the American Home Economics Association that there be included in the Code a fair trade practice provision barring “the broadcasting of any false representation regarding goods and services or any representations which may by ambiguity or infer¬ ence mislead the hearer regarding the value of such goods or services” was rejected after it had encountered vigorous objection from the NAB. It was argued by the NAB that inclusion of such a provision would place the broadcasting industry at a disadvan¬ tage unless all other advertising media were under a similar regu¬ lation. It was argued further that the manufacturer, rather than the media, was the responsible party if such advertising practices existed. 234 •