|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Union Projectionists
|
|
|
Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 02-26-2005 08:13 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
As to Local #110...it is easy to pick on...it is the most notorious, as is the entire city of Chicago and unions in general. However, the concept of Unions should not be associated with crime. Crime need not have a union card. Most every worthwhile worker protection that the government likes to take credit for came from organized labor, not the government...unions are not bad, just a necessary evil if you don't want a world of subsitance level wages.
I am not equating unions with crime. What I am saying is that the IATSE - AS AN ORGANIZATION - appears, by its silence, to endorse such activities. The fact that the 110 still exists in its current form demonstrates a tolerance of its activites by the IATSE leadership. Several people have pointed out that most of the negative things that are said about the IATSE are a result of the actions of Chicago. Seems to me that the best way for the union to clear its name would be to hold Chicago accountable.
quote: John Walsh
How long do we blame Italian people for Al Capone? It’s pretty well known Mayor Daly (Sr.) was supported by organized crime; do we say his son or even the general government of Chicago is no good? If my dad robbed a bank, is it OK for people to say to me, “Your whole family is no good” for the next 50 years?
Realize I am not blaming the rank and file union members for the actiosn of Chicago. However, I do hold the organization and the leadership responsible because they have not, publically anyway, done anything about it.
quote: Jeremy Fuentes
Or they could do a better job training the people who will do and have been doing the job for half the pay that union workers receive. If you mention "for half the pay" to an owner, I'm sure that'll help them lean toward non-union.
When I was working for Cinemark, most of my operators made more than the IATSE operator Cinemark had in Omaha. Also, union training, as others have mentioned, can be hit or miss. The guy in Omaha had a lower skill level than most of my operators as well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darryl Spicer
Film God
Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 02-27-2005 03:16 PM
quote: Richard May
This does not mean that he or she is qualified to run the booth.
What do you consider as qualified?
Here is what I consider as qualified.
1, Understanding the propper methods of threading the equipment and checking your threading for any issues. Making sure the picture is in frame, the intermittent set correctly to the stop position, wich by the way is just after the pull down has completed not before the pull down starts. That will insure that the picture is in frame and that all loops stay the same size. Checking loops for correct size orientation. Making sure that the film picture area is not touching any metal surfaces other than the sound drum. Checking all rollers for correct alighnment and making sure the film is not running on the flangs.
2, Understanding how to focus, check the sound, understanding the diferance in the types of lenses used and how to determin the diferances in the image on the film.
3, Understanding how to troubleshoot a problem which are many to explain here.
4, Understanding how to build and break down films without having out of frame issues and reel orientation problems.
5, understanding the terminology and what each piece of equipment does in the booth and how to use it.
6, Knowing how to propperly change a xenon bulb.
All of this one must learn over the course of ones training and it can be an ongoing learning thing. That's called gaining experience.
For a manage who has to do both managing and booth operation I can see where many things can become overlooked. That is why when a manager is running the booth there is another manager running the floor. That's just the way it is at my location.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-28-2005 06:57 AM
quote: Tim Reed
I once talked a Carmike manager through changing an intermittent! I was on the phone from the Texas panhandle, and he was in east Oklahoma.
Two questions Tim: 1) Can I have your telephone number and 2) Did you charge him service time?
I have been following this union discussion and I will add my limited experience. The New York local, 306 had rampant cronyism, questionable use of union dues and, from what many members have told me, union leaders who were in bed with theatre owners, selling out their members for kickbacks. I am not saying this is a fact, only that this was accepted as truth by many members. If one looks at all the give-backs over the years that 306 gave to the chains and UA especially -- reduction of benefits, reduction of salary, reduction of the number of operators in the booths and in theatres with smaller number of screens, no union operator at all -- one would see how members could assume that, at the very least, their union was not fighting for them. An outsider like me would say, there are some prime issues that any other union would call a strike before they would give those back. Rather than fight, the leadership would always say, if we don't accept their offer, we will loose jobs. Then years later when Chicago went down, they would point to Chicago and say, if we don't accept their offer, we will wind up locked out like Chicago.
Instead of fighting, the 306 cry was always a threat -- approve the contract or go without a job. With that kind of union leadership, IMHO, members would have been better off negotiating with theatre management on their own.
As for the IATSE issue, at least with regard to its relationship with 306, there are all the documented disputes that 306 members had with their local leadership that were so severe that they felt they had to take them to IATSE for resolution; IATSE never once sided with the membership. That is how NLRB got involved; finally someone went to the NLRB for relief and the NLRB came in did a lot of house-cleaning, but, alas, they left the leadership in place....the same management that many of the members called corrupt. Did management have ties to organized crime? I have no idea. But I do know that the president of 306 would keep a gun on his desk during union meetings as a way of intimidating the rank & file.
My personal contact with the union has been less than amiable. They tried to force me to join when I first got my license and started working my booth. I was just a kid and they tried to intimidate me and finally they outright threatened me. Initally I had no objection to joining, in fact, I was working toward my union card as an apprentice when I was in Houston only a year prior. But from that very first phone call from the Brooklyn business manager, things went down hill. He barked at me through the whole conversation and talked to me as if I was an indentured servant; then and there he changed my mind. When he got nowhere with me, the head honcho got called and kept telling that if I "knew what was good for me," I would get my ass over to the union hall. Yah; that won me over for sure. I told him, "I don't get told what to do and no, I won't come down to your office tomorrow; you want to talk to me so badly, I have an office right here -- make an appointment with my secretary for sometime next week." I had no secretary, but it had a nice ring to it.
After that, the calls from the local escallated or rather I should say deteriorated until after half a dozen calls, it had moved to the threat of physical harm. Why would I ever voluntarilly join an organization run by nothing but a bunch of thugs and bullies? I had enough of that shit growing up.
To this day I work in a variety of venues and all without benefit of union "representation," and to the consternation of the local whose leader used to brag that there wasn't a screen in New York that wasn't unionized. Once at a meeting he felt had to add, "....except for that low-life scab Frank Angel." Just as a point of reference, each of the places where I work pay me more that the union is able to get for its members. So joining the union, aside our mutual irreconsilable differences, would have required me to take a pay cut and benefits cut (I particularly like their recent debacal where they removed the spouses from health benefits), plus, since my joining would effectively unionize the booth, they then could tell me that I could no longer work that booth and they could put in someone who they choose, especially as it would be a plum job, just ripe for one of union leaders' pets.
I built that booth with my own hands, carrying every piece of equipment up 5 flights of narrow stair wells and these guys are going to tell me that I can no longer work my own booth if I join them? In other words, join the union and loose your job is what they were telling me. I ask you, would anyone in his right mind buy into such a deal?
And that's my experience with union locals. Unions may be a necessity, but they need to be kept in check just as much as management. Power corrupts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic