Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Projectionists Fight For Rights

This is topic Projectionists Fight For Rights in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000829

Posted by Paul Salley (Member # 740) on 06-18-2003, 01:16 PM:

Found this article on http://bostonphoenix.com

DEPT. OF LABOR
Jonathan Richman and the Pissed Off Projectionists
BY CAMILLE DODERO

Labor struggles are steely-eyed showdowns, but the ongoing battle between Somerville Theatre management and its camp of picketing projectionists has recently broken into a bare-knuckle beat down. Four of the picture palace’s seven part-time projectionists went on strike May 1, a day after demanding that the theater recognize their desire to join the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 182; the demand was a bid to secure an increase from their $6.75-an-hour minimum wage. Now more than a month later — after the self-declared " Pissed Off Projectionists " offered to return to work unconditionally; after they haven’t been scheduled for shifts; after the reel spinners went to labor court to contest the movie house’s assertion that managers would be eligible to vote in an upcoming union election because they’d been running the projectors since the strike; after an unknown vandal shattered the Somerville Theatre’s front ticket window and the projectionists publicly swore they didn’t know who was responsible — the conflict has become a sanguinary slugfest with indie-rock progenitor Jonathan Richman standing in the Pissed Off Projectionists’ corner.

Last week Richman moved his show from the Somerville Theatre to the Middle East Downstairs in support of the locked-out projectionists, but won’t get into specifics about what factors led him to the decision. " While I disagree with the management of the Somerville Theatre on this particular issue, " Richman says over the phone from a tour stop in Toronto, " they’ve always been great when we played there — and I’d gladly play at the Somerville Theatre again. "

Richman admits he discussed the dispute with both sides for weeks and still isn’t sure he understands who’s to blame. " I don’t think this is black and white, " Richman says. " I don’t want anyone to look like the enemy. " Nevertheless, the decision to pull out of the venue " was the conclusion I came to. I told both parties that I wasn’t sure it was even the right decision, but this is how it looked to me. " He adds, " In the middle of what seems to be an honest labor dispute, I just figured that it’s not the time to play the theater. "

This past Monday, Richman’s name still appeared on the Davis Square cinema’s neon marquee, even though he’d yanked the engagement days earlier. As for the Somerville Theatre’s stance, a female voice answering the phone for its executive office offered, " We have no comment. " And who is this? " Doesn’t matter. Pretty much anyone you talk to around here, this is what you’re going to get. "

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-18-2003, 02:53 PM:

Admittedly, I don't know the details of this dispute, but I might be more inclined to support the projectionists' position if any of the half-dozen or so shows that I've seen at the Somerville Theatre in the last year had been presented properly. I don't think I've ever seen a show there that wasn't mangled in some way (scratches on entire print including trailers, poor focus/framing, or any of a number of other possible issues that were clearly the fault of that theatre's operators).

In general, I think that the union can be a good thing when there is a fair trade involved: theatre owners agree to pay a higher wage than they normally would and in return the union agrees to provide them with well-trained, professional operators. When things work as they should, both sides benefit, as does the moviegoing public.

As things are, however, I have a hard time with the idea that the same people who seem to have trouble with "film done right" should suddenly get paid more to do the same poor-quality work. Maybe I've just been unlucky and this theatre normally practices "film done right." Somehow, I doubt it, though.

Although I don't know much about this situation, I wouldn't be surprised if both sides were at fault. The theatre owners probably could have avoided this whole situation if they had been willing to pay their operators somewhat more than minimum wage from the beginning.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-18-2003, 03:55 PM:

I have spoken to a member of Local 182 about this. This persons comments were that "These kids have talked to the wrong people in our union and are getting poor advice" and that "They dont care if they get thier jobs back or not they say that they are doing this just for fun" and that "we (IATSE 182) never ever go on strike that is stupid everyone knows that when you go on strike it is 100% legal to replace you"

Also, that article is incorrect... These operators are not locked out. They were most likely replaced in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act. A lock out is when collective bargaining (which has not occured here) reaches an impasse without a contract and the employer removes the employees from work until a contract is established. That is a lockout. This is a bunch of kids who decided they wanted to strike and got replaced. I hope that for the self respect of proffesional unions out there these jokers are not allowed to return to work as thier statements and attitude are very unproffesional.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-18-2003, 04:44 PM:

Previously discussed in Yak, I just bumped up Somerville, MA projectionist strike.

--jhawk

Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 06-20-2003, 07:35 PM:

I just had to reply...regarding the comment that "...everyone knows that when you go on strike it is 100% legal to replace you"

That is not true. It depends upon the reasons the workers committed their CONCERTED ACTION. Could they have listed unfair labor practices, safety and health issues, working conditions, or was it simply "money"?

As for the suggestion that..."These operators are not locked out. They were most likely replaced in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act. A lock out is when collective bargaining (which has not occured here)..."

A "lockout" can actually occur without collective bargaining. The workers, after their concerted action (a walkout) offered to return to work and the theater management refused to take them back. Call it whatever you wish. Labor law may or may not respect these workers. Granted, they would have had more understood protections if they had organized their own union
PRIOR to walking out but I have seen NLRB judgements made for workers who were not members of a union. Again, the issues are the key.

Lastly, for the opinion that "This is a bunch of kids who decided they wanted to strike and got replaced. I hope that for the self respect of proffesional unions out there these jokers are not allowed to return to work as thier statements and attitude are very unproffesional."

Keep in mind we are talking about an enterprise (motion picture theater ownership) that has, in general, done all that it can to eliminate and decimate the "profession" of Moving Picture Machine Operator to replace them with teens who are also expected (typically) to pop corn in the concession. Wages of $6.75 an hour, all of them PART-TIME, and situated in Boston, Mass (no doubt a high cost of living) with a management that likely expects master-craftsmenship in the trade with some kind of gratitude for allowing these workers the privilege of toiling in their facility with equipment that probably is not state-of-the-art. These workers must live with their decision but without knowing all of the issues, I cannot pass judgement in this dispute.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-20-2003, 11:49 PM:

A lockout is when management removes represented employees from thier jobs and a member of management operates in thier capacity a manager or "Supervisor" is defined by section 2-11 of the national labor relations act. In order for an employee to be represented thier has to be collective bargaining. This is a case of individuals asking to be recognized as a collective bargaining unit, bieng denied that request, and then striking in retaliation. If you go on strike you may be replaced... If you choose to come back to work the only thing that management has to do is return you to your position *IF* there should be an opening.

That is my interpretation of the law. I have dealt with the NLRB and have had nothing but favorable experiences with them. But again law comes down to interpretation and my interpretation is of a management side. If I had the cash I would go to law school I find this stuff absolutely fascinating, especially labor law.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-23-2003, 12:25 PM:

This has been an interesting subject to me, too. I experienced it... maybe not to the extent that some of you did, but I was a union operator in a relatively small town, working mainly large, single screen venues when we were systematically "de-unionized" by an Oregon operator that moved into our state.

Looking at this thread (and others), what I wonder from a group like this is: Considering the realities of the business today...
we're not running labor-intensive, manual-everything arc projectors (for the most part)... does anyone here reasonably expect that a living wage should be made in all booths?

A single screener in a small town places vastly different expectations on an operator than does a large multiplex, but I've seen little variation in the overall attitude here. A decently paid projectionist slot would put a lot of small-town operations out of business... but might not have such an effect on metropolitan multi's. Should a living wage be justifiable at all levels?... or maybe once a certain number of screens is reached? Not accounting for the greed of some chains, where do you draw that line, and how do you put a "$10 - $30 + benefits" employee into that slot while maintaining the rest of the staff and management, and still pay the rent?

It would seem one of those issues that lends more toward "vicious circles" than rational solutions.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-23-2003, 12:53 PM:

Valid points, Jack, but in regards to:

quote:
how do you put a "$10 - $30 + benefits" employee into that slot while maintaining the rest of the staff and management, and still pay the rent?

The thing I've seen over and over, is some outfits will have no problem assigning two or more youngsters to do the same amount of work one good professional could. The company pays more overall to get the job done, and not necessarily at the same level of quality, but they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep one person from getting that much compensation.

For some reason, it seems they don't want anyone to get more than a certain amount of money; their managers, included... not many are getting paid what they're worth.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-23-2003, 07:21 PM:

True.

I guess what I'm fishing for here is... given today's realities, what factors (screen count, income or population level, etc) could be used as benchmarks to justify the cost of a reasonably paid pro-operator?

That also being said, how does a local deal with the way the chains' use the "manager-projectionist" title to do an end run around unionized labor? Our largest multiplex usually has 6 or 7 "managers" running around the place... only one of which appears authorized (though not necessarily 'qualified') to make an actual decision.

When my daughter asked about an operator's job at a Regal outlet, she was told she had to qualfy as a "manager" do any work in the booth.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-24-2003, 06:42 AM:

$6.75 seems a very low wage for people who are supposed to be professional projectionists. It works out at below the minimum wage in the UK [for anybody over 21].

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 06-24-2003, 09:04 AM:

Quite often the managers get sick of running the projectors and then they train the ushers and popcorn shovelers to work upstairs.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-24-2003, 10:06 AM:

quote:
Quite often the managers get sick of running the projectors and then they train the ushers and popcorn shovelers to work upstairs.

And often a case of "the blind leading the blind". [Roll Eyes]

IMHO, at the very least, the lead projectionist should be a career position that can attract and keep a skilled and competent person, who can properly train and supervise the projection staff, and handle routine maintenance and any day-to-day technical issues that arise.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-24-2003, 11:30 AM:

lets do some math
lets take a 10 plex and assume we pay the operator $20.00 per hour so that works out to $2.00 per screen times say 2.5 hours per show that works out to $5.00 labour cost per show time not very much when you look at it in that perspective

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 06-24-2003, 11:36 AM:

I find it amazing that anyone in this day and age...especially kids...feel they need a union to run a projector. While being sheltered in the midwest, I don't know any theatre that still has unionised projectionists here. It is not dangerous anymore and it is seldom a career choice for these kids unless they become techs or managers. I can see more need for this in a huge operation, but not your average complex with 14 or less screens. All of mine are part-time and do great. I have trained them well enough and if a major problem arrises, that is why I am the manager. It is only 5 screens however.

Besides that when studios take 90%, how can we pay career people to do this for high wages!!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-24-2003, 12:13 PM:

Well it is a lot like insurance
Recently in Canada revenue canada now requires remitance of sales tax on tickets that are refunded for lost shows and on the ticket value of all comps used
It seems there has been so many "lost shows" that tax revenue is down

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-24-2003, 12:19 PM:

quote:
...a 10 plex... $20.00 per hour... $5.00 labour cost per show time not very much when you look at it in that perspective

Granted... by itself, it looks puny. But this is what tax advocates always say when they're pushing some new tax. They rarely acknowledge that there were a multitude of "It's only a little tax" people that came before them, and now "it's only" is pretty darned big.

In any case, to use the "per-show" measure, you'd also have to factor in any no-shows, plus all of the overhead, amortization and long-term maintenance costs of the property, not to mention the additional taxes and benefits (and any union package, if involved) that would be placed ON TOP of that $20/hr for the projectionist.

If you had those figures (including the effects of concessions), and divided them up by what each auditorium represents to the big picture, you'd have a lot better idea how big that $5 per show might look to the owners.

As the economy of the industry goes right now... it might take at least 10 screens to pull this off... not to mention the Manager'd probably be a bit unhappy about his projectionist making twice what he does! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 06-24-2003, 12:49 PM:

This discussion reveals the inherent problem in this industry. The studios are taking way too much money in first-run theaters. This is especially problematic with the recent push to open films on as many screens as possible so that when a movie could be making more money for a theater, the attendance has tapered off after a huge opening week push.

I haven't worked in a commercial theater before, so please forgive me if my questions seem a bit naive. Why shouldn't a manager or skilled projectionist be able to make a living wage? It seems ridiculous that on a huge opening night, when thousands of tickets are being sold, that a manager (or projectionist) is making probably little over $13/hour. (based on a $28,000 salary and an unrealistic 40 hour workweek) I understand that this is easier said than done, but isn't it about time that the exhibition wing of the film industry as a whole demand more fair practices of the studios? The profit margin on any given blockbuster must be astronomical compared to the profit made by a theater. It is ridiculous that movie theaters have to depend on jacked-up concession prices to survive. I'm am very curious to hear what some of the folks in management have to say about these comments.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-24-2003, 12:57 PM:

Actually it does add up but that is also the cost of doing business
If one adds up the amount of repair costs due to improper operation and maintance, lost revenue due to lost performances and damaged prints and finally the publics impression of film done wrong a theatre realy can't afford not to do it right

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-24-2003, 08:26 PM:

quote:
a theatre realy can't afford not to do it right

... and I'm in agreement with that... just trying to pin down how today's company gets to where a living wage "fits in". I've seen some of the chains' annual reports. Yah... they probably could do it if they wanted to... but I'm not so sure about smaller companies and many independents... a lot of whom "do it themselves".

Added to the points Joe makes; it's reasonable to assume that the unprofitable theatres a chain has are being carried along by the ones that ARE making a buck. No doubt there are plenty of cases where a profitable operation that MIGHT be in a position to propose upping standards in the booth probably won't because it's carrying the load of a couple o' "Cache 8's".

In the end though, most of this probably won't go anywhere... as long as the top 3 in a company are more obsessed with their personal income package... which is probably tied to corporate returns.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-25-2003, 12:06 PM:

quote:
not to mention the Manager'd probably be a bit unhappy about his projectionist making twice what he does!

Well, if the manager is as dumb as a bag of hammers who could probably pull off supervising a popcorn stand or box office but has no clue what "soundtrack up" means, then the projectionist SHOULD be making more since their skills are more vital to the survival of the business than the manager's.

I was offered a position in management because I was the most skilled in the booth. However, as a result of being manager, my booth shifts would have been cut by more than half. What the [fu]

is that?! Well, the logic behind it was that I couldn't be given a raise unless I had the TITLE of manager, regardless of my skills. Utter bullshit.

Another problem is this management-without-a-clue running the projection booth like a freaking Space Camp! Any zit-faced popcorn-shovler that raised his hand and went "ooh! ooh!" was given a chance to "work the booth".... and work the booth they did. [Frown]

And I won't even get in to the other silly and inane tasks that some management gives their booth staff to do (because you can find that rant of mine in another thread). With this kind of crap going on in the industry resulting in trashed prints and equipment, regardless of how automated or xenofied or plattered or simplified booths are these days we NEED a return of Union Projectionists, locked booth doors, and put the hopeless lives stuck in middle-management back in their place!! [beer]

=TMP=

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-03-2003, 05:50 PM:

If a multiplex theatre operator can afford to invest $millions to put up a building (and I realize that's a capital cost, not an operating cost) and a few hundred thousand for concession fixtures, but they don't think they can pay something above minimum wage for someone to operate a booth, ESPECIALLY when they're operating multiple booths, then IMHO, they don't deserve to be in business.

It is absolutely ridiculous that booth operators make the same or less than french-fry servers. Trained, experienced professionals (with a union or without) deserve to make more than poverty-level wages. This isn't supposed to be a hobby....I don't know how you guys (and gals) can afford to live. It's one thing to hire kids part-time to take tickets and push popcorn and pay them minimum wage so they can earn a few extra bucks - it's quite another to force trained professionals to live in poverty in the name of company profits.

It's certainly true that part of the problem is the studios taking 90% of the opening weeks revenues, but that's a battle for the theatre owners to fight.

Companies such as Wal-Mart, which I believe is the largest private employer in the US, have been accused of forcing even minimum wage employees to clock out and then work additional hours. A major clothing retailer has been accused not only of firing employees of particular races who didn't fit their 'ideal look', but of forcing their minimum wage employees to purchase and wear clothes from the store, which is illegal (it's considered to be a uniform and the company must pay.)

If we continue along this path, we're going to become very much like a third-world country, where there is virtually no middle class - only the very rich and the very poor.

And that's aside from the issue that poorly run theatres with amateurs in the booths are pushing people to buy/rent DVDs and watch them at home where frequently, the presentation is better than in the theatres. What are theatres going to do in another five years when HDTV prices are a few hundred dollars a set instead of the thousands that they are today? While a theatre might actually make its profit on the popcorn, it has only two things to sell besides the movie itself: ambiance (including the social aspects of being part of a group) and presentation. If they fail on the presentation, that only leaves the ambiance and most theatres these days don't have much of that.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-06-2003, 08:59 AM:

As to an operator in every booth...you bet I feel EVERY booth should have an operator...even lowly singles. If the theatre is so marginal that it can't afford a manager and projectionist for the entire operation of every day then let it go out of business...we have too many screens as it is to have blind booths out there.

Ironically, as the industry has changed and the big chains have moved to the multiplex and the small town/art house operators have taken over the smaller screen count theatres (including singles)...I've found that the lower screen count theatres are the ones that have projectionists...these guys value the shows whereas the chains only see the theatre as a line on a spreadsheet with all of the salaries viewd as "descretionary items that can be eliminated for improved profits."

So, I come back to...if your theatre can't afford a full-time projectionist and manager (two different people) for the entire operating hours...then I'd as soon see the theatre shut down...as sad as that may sound. When a business becomes non-viable, it is non-viable. I agree with others that have stated that part of the problem is the 90/10 split but greedy exhibitors have given the studios that...that have things like NATO but there is always one greedy bastard that will give that extra percent to get the picture over their competitors...once given it is near impossible to go back. Once upon a time the "house-nut" covered the expense of having a projectionist...now I guess it doesn't...again, once lost, it will be near impossible to go back. Mind you, the studios are where projectionists still have living wages...sometimes quite good ones!

Steve