Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: grounds for dissmissal

This is topic grounds for dissmissal in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001540

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 12-12-2002, 11:02 PM:

I'm just curious about everyone's opinion on this.......Let's say a person that has been running projectors for several months, and has had numerous little mistakes and several brain wraps, but to his defence, he was quickly trained in a short period of time. My question is if this person were to screw up new realease such as LOTR in its opening weekend, would that be grounds for firing this person? This is completely hypethetical, I was just sitting here putting off studying for my final.........

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-12-2002, 11:28 PM:

IMHO, I don't think it matters much anymore, let him stay. If the companies cared about presentation, they wouldn't have de-professionalized the craft. If they want to stick someone untrained and unskilled in the booth, that's the theatre's problem. It's certainly not the employee's fault. (Moral: ya gets what ya pays for.) [Wink]

Although, if I couldn't work with him or if he didn't show some improvement after more training, I might consider moving him back downstairs, but that's just me.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-12-2002, 11:50 PM:

"Do it once, shame on you. Do it twice, shame on me."

In other words, if you make a mistake twice, it's still possible that I'm not training you properly. Everyone makes mistakes, and may repeat them if there is a lack of skill or understanding. But...

"Three strikes and you're out."

If after proper training, you still don't learn from your mistakes, you're out. Trashing three prints through your own negligence would not be acceptable, and it's time to look for another job.

If those "numerous little mistakes" kept happening, and were the reason a big show was lost or a print trashed, there's a square peg in a round hole.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-13-2002, 12:26 AM:

I think it depends on whether the person tries to do it right, or if the person is a screw-up and could care less about what he/she is doing.

If a good person can't handle the booth, then maybe that person should be put in a job that he/she can do well in the establishment.

You have to remember there are some people who can screw up a steel ball with a rubber hammer through no fault of their own.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-13-2002, 06:02 AM:

When training projectionists, I took the line that anyone is allowed to make any mistake once. If a serious mistake (i.e. one which cost a substantial amount in time and or money, e.g. repairs or a lost show) were repeated due to plain simple negligence, I'd consider that grounds for a verbal warning.

Of course it's not always easy to determine whether it's a case of plain simple negligence or if other factors are involved. I think if you're training someone to perform a specific task, it's a good idea to ask the trainee if they now feel confident in carrying out that task unsupervised, and to make a note of their answer. If they say yes and subsequently screw it up, then they've got something to answer for.

That having been said, I would never have rostered someone inexperienced or who I wasn't confident with to work an important show, e.g. the opening night of a big new film.

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 12-13-2002, 08:12 AM:

We had the same problem in my theater when I first started training. This was shortly after the theater's opening and there were still some bugs being worked out daily. To catch up on the bugs, management allowed us two projectionists per shift (for a 20-plex). One projectionist would work projectors 1-12 and the other would work 13-20 (easier on all because of the booth setup). There was one guy who would always work the 13-20 side and after all his shifts we would always find damage such as scratched prints, huge amounts of emulsion buildup in the gates, etc. We tried talking to him about it and showing some better techniques, but they ended up telling him he couldn't work the booth any longer and because of that he quit.

I think the consensus here is to give someone the benefit of the doubt and account for the "human" part of being a projectionist by letting a mistake go once. If that person shows no interest in learning from that mistake or repeats/makes similar mistakes then I think they should just work "on the floor". Sure it's not as fun or challenging as running a booth, but these days it just about pays the same. [Frown]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-13-2002, 09:48 AM:

Agreed with the majority. If the guy is obviously trying hard, but is making simple mistakes due to poor training, then the problem is with the trainer and with whoever decided to schedule someone without much experience to work on busy nights.

On the other hand, if the guy is clearly a goof-off and isn't interested in learning how to do the job right (which is usually indicated by making the same mistake multiple times), then he should be "directed toward other career opportunities" (i.e. fired).

Everyone will make occasional mistakes, and as long as they are treated as learning experiences and don't involve significant film or equipment damage, they can be positive experiences. Obviously, the best and most experienced operators (who are less likely to have problems) should be working on the "big" nights, though. A manager who schedules "the new guy" to run widely anticipated films on their opening weekend (when interlocks, etc. are most likely) is just asking for print damage and angry customers.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-13-2002, 12:07 PM:

Leo
This all reminds me of the John situation I had a few months back.

Anything that he did wrong was someone elses fault. wouldnt take advice, didnt turn up for a shift ,
I asked him to leave the next day.

Darren

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-13-2002, 12:22 PM:

Add to the "grounds for dismissal" not admitting to the mistakes you have made. If someone keeps scratching prints or causing brainwraps, yet the claim "it wasn't me" when it clearly was, they should be fired for lying.

We had a situation like that with one of our booth employees. He would ALWAYS manage to emulsion scratch a print on his shift. We got to the point where none of our prints were scratched in the entire theater. He works a shift, a print gets scratched. "It wasn't me man! That was like that when I came in! Don't try and blame me for that crap!!" Since I was the one that worked the shift before him (unbeknownst to him) not only did he lie to my face, but accused ME of doing the damage he did!! [Mad]

Then there are those people who don't write down problems in the booth log in fear of getting in trouble for them. We had a tech come in to fix a platter deck that was continuously throwing prints. The platter deck still wasn't fixed at that point, (no one wrote in the log if it was or wasn't) and someone ran a print which was thrown, and they didn't log it. Next shift, assuming the platter was fixed, another print was run, and thrown as well.

THOSE are the people who should be fired. Not willing to admit to mistakes, and in turn not willing to learn how to prevent them.

=TMP=

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-13-2002, 01:30 PM:

I have actually seen film companies ask for theatre management's resignation due to film problems. I remember an incident with the film "Death Becomes Her" in which Universal called for an assistant manager's resignation when a major brain wrap occured opening day. There was a lot involved with the scenario - but it boiled down to a brain wrap, show canceled, a bunch of refunds, and an assistant manager out of a job. End of Story. Harsh stuff......

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 12-13-2002, 02:30 PM:

I know that I am going to take some heat for this response but unless there is a equipment problem, there is really NO excuse for damaging a print. This isn't rocket science. You can pretty much teach anyone the mechanics of threading and starting a movie. If you do the same thing, the same way, each and every time there should be zero print damage (once again assuming no mechanical problems, broken rollers etc.). I understand that everyone makes a mistake now and then but basically if you have someone in the booth who is constantly makes threading errors, than they not only do not have any business being in the booth, but I wouldn't want somebody like that working for me period.

Now to take a little bit of the heat off, there is a lot more to running a booth than threading and starting movies. That should only be about 10% of the work and it should be the easiest part of the job. If someone can't handle that, then they shouldn't be up there.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-14-2002, 06:06 PM:

Human beings make mistakes: that's how God designed us. That's why in an aircraft that carries paying passengers, international law says that you have to have two qualified pilots on board, one double-checking what the other is doing. In operating theatres you have to have at least two qualified surgeons present whenever a patient gets cut up. In other words, really safety-critical procedures are done by two professionals, one of whose job is to catch any mistakes made by the other. It's the best system we have for reducing the risks of human fallibility to rock bottom.

Projecting films is not a safety-critical application, which is why most cinemas don't have two projectionists on duty at all times. The costs of doing this are far greater than the cost of accidently trashing a print every 2-3 years. My point is that even a well trained and experienced projectionst is capable of making a mistake, and should not be lynched for so doing. Lacing up a projector may not be rocket science, but in a multiplex environment it is a monotonous, repetitive task, but one in which even a minor, momentary error can scratch a print.

So the trick is to identify those who are fundamentally unable and unwilling to do the job properly, and get them out, but not to lynch someone who makes the occasional human error. It's not always easy to distinguish between the two situations, but I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt until I'm convinced that I'm dealing with a problem person.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-14-2002, 06:56 PM:

quote:
In other words, really safety-critical procedures are done by two professionals, one of whose job is to catch any mistakes made by the other. It's the best system we have for reducing the risks of human fallibility to rock bottom.

Actually, in very large theatres in New York City at least, during nitrate/carbon arc/changeover days, a two man crew was normal, sometimes with a third operator, the foreman, present. I'm told this was standard practice at the Radio City Music Hall. The public safety WAS a critical factor, plus the importance of the presentation with very large audiences.
Since there was usually a stage show as well, lighting and stage crews
added many additional technical people. Sometimes in a booth I'd come across old IATSE projectionist yearbooks in which full-page advertisements were placed by the technical staffs of Broadway and Times Square theatres, with group photos of six to eight projectionists, since there were often two (sometimes three) shifts per day, and crews worked alternate days, for a total of four crews.
I've been told that at the RCMH it was not uncommon to run two prints simultaneously, so that in case of a film break or other mishap,the
safety projector would take over without missing a beat.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-15-2002, 11:05 AM:

I believe that the backup projector is still used for big premieres in the West End of London. Sure, in the days of nitrate and 2,000 seat auditoria, you needed a much larger number of technicians on duty at any one time. If you increased staff levels in today's multiplex environment that would probably cut 'film done wrong' errors down to a bare minimum, just as having two pilots in every passenger aircraft reduces the number of accidents caused by pilot error to virtually zero. But in the real world, economies of scale prevents this from being viable.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-15-2002, 11:23 AM:

In Los Angeles during the real days of projection. As per Local 150's
contract, in houses seating over 1000 people. You had to have 2
projectionists per show. To get around that contract item. Theatre
chains with large neighborhood or under performing houses that
seated very close to 1000. They took a few seats out to make 999
or less houses. So they could cut that one extra job and maybe
another job also for the extra other projectionist at the site.
But the big Hollywood and Beverly Hills and Downtown Los Angeles
house stayed two men booths.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-15-2002, 05:06 PM:

Which shows how ridiculous labor contracts can be since there is no more work for the large house than the smaller. Sure, the owners might want extra help to ensure a good show for such a large audience but there was no legitimate reason for labor to demand it in their contract other than make-work.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-15-2002, 06:48 PM:

Were the larger houses also doing live programming or anything else that might require the use of a followspot, Brenograph, or other special equipment? Otherwise, a two-man booth would seem to be excessive for normal film-only shows using safety film.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-15-2002, 08:35 PM:

quote:
there was no legitimate reason for labor to demand it in their contract other than make-work.

But the economics of exhibition supported a high degree of performance reliability at a time when projection involved danger,responsibility for public safety, and the ability to work in confinement with dangerous materials in unhealthy atmosphere and isolation. Projectionists were understood to be in life-long craft vocations, and many bought houses and sent their children through college on their contractual earnings.
I wish the young would stop boasting of their abilities to run fourteen or twenty auditoriums single-handed at minimum wage, while the profits go elsewhere than to those whose labor creates it. How can you justify a worker earning less per hour than the cost of a single ticket to one of his many auditoriums he or she is responsible for running?

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-16-2002, 12:33 AM:

How can that be justified?

They accepted a job, and they accepted a wage. No one "tricked" them into taking a job. If they felt that they should earn more they could very easily walk away, or ask for a raise. Thats just my opinion.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-16-2002, 09:17 AM:

Scott's

quote:
Otherwise, a two-man booth would seem to be
excessive for normal film only shows using safty film.

Yes, it seems tobe excessive for everyday shows. The last regular
two-man booth (non Roadshow) lasted till the early 70's at the
Los Angeles Theatre. Live shows left Hollywood in the early 40's.
But live shows countiued in the Downtown Los Angeles houses till
the early 50's. Most of those houses seated 1500 to the largest
seating 3600 people. Some of the large Fox neighborhood houses
seated 1100-1200 people. It sometimes depended on what neighborhood
it was located. But the chains would remove seats on under proforming
houses, so they could save on the extra payroll. The Roadshow houses
were in Hollywood and Beverly Hills areas. They where two-men booths
and the operators got $50.00 a show (early 70's contract).
But on the contract for those houses over 1000 seats you had to have
two-man booths. That was a carry-over from older contracts. So that extra operator lost his job,
[Eek!]

over extra seats. Another item in the contract was you could only work 6-7 hours shifts, no doubles. That was open to 6pm, 6pm to close. During the 70's contracts, the only way to transfer film between theatres was on 2000 foot exchange reels, you could not transfer film on 6000 foot reels. otherwise you could get fined by the local and go see the executive board.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-16-2002, 09:47 AM:

quote:
They accepted a job, and they accepted a wage. No one "tricked" them into taking a job. If they felt that they should earn more they could very easily walk away, or ask for a raise. Thats just my opinion.

Historically, that line of reasoning has been used to justify child labor in mines and mills, and sweatshop labor worldwide today.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-16-2002, 10:05 AM:

As Leo says, people make mistakes..... however they should be prepared to take responsibility for their mistakes. All too often now a days people just shrug their shoulders and couldn't care less. Mind you it must be even worse when the company, who ever they may be, takes a similar attitude.

I would have thought wrap arounds, brain wraps, would not be a case for dissmisal or even a warning unless they were contributing to them in some way. The only way I can think of that that would be the case is as a result of poor making up by leaving sticky patches all over the place. Apart from that wrap arounds are not down to the projectionist.....

Some people struggle while learning and then just when you thought they would never make the grade it all falls into place and they turn out fine.

If some one f**k's up BIG time I can and have given a warning and put it down to experience. However, if they lie about and I can prove it then they would be out the door. If you can't trust them to be honest then you're better off without them.

We are running on interlock as of Wednesday so it is vital I can trust the guy and gal when I'm not there. If there is a problem I need reliable information to sort it out. I also need to know that they are following the routine that I have established that is proven and works well.

Darren, not being funny but you should be aware that our employers don't like any company issues being talked about on this forum. I would have thought your comment especially falls into that category as you have named someone! You could easily end up with a gagging order, for what its worth, being placed on you too. It's an unfortunate situation just as long as you are aware. Not that it'll keep me off here, or should it you.

Regards.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-16-2002, 10:15 AM:

Hi Gerard,

That's why we now have the minimum wage in the UK. It's still quite a pathetic rate but at least it's there. However, there is NOTHING to stop any employer paying more. Unfortunatly many employers pay the bare minimum and only pay more when REQUIRED to do so.

I thought your point about slave labour etc was very well made. Your comments about accepting a job at a poor rate are quite valid unless of course the rate being offered is reasonable or better, then I would have no problem with demanding better from them. Unfortunatly what's reasonable.... how long's a piece of string.

Pay peanuts.... and get monkeys to work for you.... plain and simple [thumbsup]

I had to smile when I read on another post, not sure which it was, about McDonalds paying more than a cinema was paying some of its projection staff..... now THAT'S unreasonable.... and very worrying. God forbid it starts a trend over here.

Regards.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-16-2002, 12:19 PM:

Another factor that comes into play is that most theaters do not hire "projectionists." They hire Doormen/Ushers who sometimes happen to run the booth. THAT'S where the problems arise. Some blue-hair on the 40th floor behind an oak desk sees that they can save $6 more per hour on this practice, regardless of the quality of labor as long as a picture gets on screen and no one complains.

Also, and this was especially a practice of Regal's when they took over some union booths, was to impliment a company policy that only management can run the booth. Certainly management can't form a union, so "problem solved" [Frown]

It's difficult to take disciplinary action against someone who scratches a print when you're not really paying them enough to care. Why is someone going to take the time to set up the film cleaner, or double-check the film path, or even sweep and mop the floor when they can "better" spend that time sitting at the re-wind bench with fast food spread over it reading a book? If they get fired, they can move right along to the next minimum-wage job down the road.

Gerard -- "How can you justify a worker earning less per hour than the cost of a single ticket to one of his many auditoriums he or she is responsible for running?" -- I would frame this and hang it in the stariway to the booth, but would be afraid it could be "grounds for dismissal" [Smile]

=TMP=

Posted by Jim Alexander (Member # 226) on 12-16-2002, 03:21 PM:

To fire or not to fire. I have trained quite a few propective projectionist and I've found it is not a job for just anyone. The individual needs to be able to think on their feet (when a problem occurs I don't want then standing there scracthing their head) and mechanically minded. We use a length of film, made up of old trailers, that we have them load and load and load... And we then, purposely put snags on the projector, platter, sound system etc and have them solve it. Once done, I expect them to learn from their mistakes. Yes, everyone makes them, and some will be new, so it becomes a learning experience. Mind you, if they continue make the same mistake, then obviously they aren't learning and its time to let them go...

Back when we ran 20 minute reels, we had one girl, who really tried, but just couldn't get the hang of it. Three weeks of training got topped off when I came in to the booth to find her standing knee deep in the middle of over 1000ft of film (and building)on the floor. She forgot to thread it onto the takeup reel. All she said was "what do I do now", with tears running down her cheek. All I could do was laugh. I told her not to move, and let the film go where it wanted to go. Once the end of the reel was done, I would do the change over and she could wind it back onto the supply reel. That was her last night.

Everone desirves a chance, and mistakes will happen. It how they deal with the mistakes that is important.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-16-2002, 08:22 PM:

Jim wrote:

quote:
And we then, purposely put snags on the projector, platter, sound system etc and have them solve it. Once done, I expect them to learn from their mistakes.

That reminded me of a part of the second half of my Projectionist licensing exam--the performance part. After having to cement splice multiple damages in a small reel of film, to make it runable, I was led to a rusty projector in the sub-basement of Surrogate's Court building, and told to project it. Well, the wall switches were unlabled, and one was ON in the up position, but the other, ON in the down position. In striking the arc, I failed to notice the mirror was tilted so the beam did not hit the aperture, etc. ( A friend swears that during his exam the examiner handed him two wooden dowel sticks painted black and told him to strike an arc!) I did not succeed in getting a presentable image on the screen in the time allotted, and failed my first attempt.

That taught me to expect the worst. The second time I was more mentally alert and passed easily.

Gerard

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-16-2002, 11:21 PM:

OK Daniel, I confess, I haven't read all the posts in this thread. But the first thought that came to my mind is that a projectionist is not "trained" in that short period of time. Depending on the individual, a projectionist is learning for years, especially as the industry changes. If the operator has potential then whoever is working with him should continue the training. I was a projectionist for 25 years and I still have a lot to learn. (And if you guys don't help slow it down a bit I may not have enough time left on this Earth to learn it.)

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-17-2002, 04:10 AM:

Gerard said:

"Historically, that line of reasoning has been used to justify child labor in mines and mills, and sweatshop labor worldwide today."

Unfortunately we are not having a history lesson, and that argument does not fit into the subject matter at hand at all. What we were discussing was a person taking a job as a motion picture operator (Who by law has to be 18 or older).

The fact remains that this is not slave labor. This is a free country where citizens have the ability to choose whom they work for, If you do not like the wage you have been offered you have the ability to seek employment elsewhere. No one is twisting your arm.

So therefore your argument makes no sense and is not within the context of this discussion. If you would like to discuss sweat shops and underage labor then please feel free to start another thread on that topic.

Also,

What Mr. Martin failed to mention was that while the McDonalds *HIRES* at a higher starting wage thier bonuses, and increases are quite poor in comparison to this theatre,

This particular theatre in question offers concession commission to the floor staff, A $0.50 raise after "cross training" and another $0.25 raise after six months. Also very soon they will be offering a health plan to the floor staff employees. Not to mention the free movies and other perks of working in a theatre.

most floor staff employees at that location make between 9-10 an hour.

McDonalds does not offer an incentive program like the theatre. There raise structure is a lot less, and AFAIK they do not offer any health benefits.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-17-2002, 09:04 AM:

Sean,
Yesterday when the Transit Workers marched across the Brooklyn Bridge to their 5PM ralley before accepting the result of negociations that resulted in wage increases, better safety provisions (two workers were killed below ground in two days last month) and new "dignity " provisions, they were enthusiastically cheered by motorists and pedestrians alike. You might have expected them to be booed, owing to the intransigence of the govenor, mayor and Transit Authority, who threatened them with heavy fines and imprisonment. A strike would have
seriously disrupted the city.
But the working population of New York hugely sympathize with the
cause of workers following the ethic "In Union There Is Strength."

How does this relate to the scarcely trained kids running multiplexes
for long hours at pitiful wages without pensions or welfare provisions? Yes they are free to quit or to ask for a raise and be laughed at. But the high standards of living of American workers
have been achieved by their uniting to demand dignity, better working conditions, hours, wages and welfare provisions.

The once-high standard of middle class America is being threatened by corporate greed. The middle class is shrinking while the poor and wealthiest are growing. Tax cuts that benefit the rich, corporate CEOs paid bonuses in $$millions for firing thousands to increase the value of corporate stock, and a national administration hell bent on weakening labor laws, turning federally protected lands over to timber, mining and oil interests, raping the earth for short-term profits while depleting the environment for future generations--
these form the background for the cynical view that the individual worker can choose his destiny alone. The young are being exploited
because they lack the knowledge or experience of history, and as with all exploitation, it debases our industry.
Gerard

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-17-2002, 09:54 AM:

Exactly! Well said, Gerard.

And I'd like to add that the de-professionalization of projection has contributed immensely to the growth of home-video. Many of my friends contend that they have stopped going to the movies because they can get a better presentation at home with less hassle. As a projectionist who trains newbies, I can't ignore that kind of feedback.

A little off-topic, but I'll insert it here anyway because it kind-of relates to the whole "keep the costs down" mentality: Half-baked digital projection systems -- believed to be simple enough to "run themselves" -- will only compound this problem. If it is perceived that movie theatres are "just running DVDs or tapes" then our industry will suffer. There is this whole (bogus) argument that scratches, dust/dirt, jumping and weaving, etc are inevitable with film projection. These so-called "inherent flaws" are common today because professional projectionists are becoming harder and harder to find.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-17-2002, 01:37 PM:

Well said, Gerard and Manny! Also, may I add:

quote:
If you do not like the wage you have been offered you have the ability to seek employment elsewhere. No one is twisting your arm.

Well, given the current economic and unemployment situation, most people do not have the ability to seek employment elsewhere. It's either what they have now, or nothing. And part of the problem IS the de-professionalization of jobs like projection where people willing to work for minimum wage (and companies who are willing to spend less for unskilled labor) are occupying those positions.

=TMP=

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-17-2002, 04:13 PM:

I'm in an [evil]

mood today.

Thomas said:

quote:
It's difficult to take disciplinary action against someone who scratches a print when you're not really paying them enough to care. Why is someone going to take the time to set up the film cleaner, or double-check the film path, or even sweep and mop the floor when they can "better" spend that time sitting at the re-wind bench with fast food spread over it reading a book? If they get fired, they can move right along to the next minimum-wage job down the road.

A slacker employee with that attitude probably SHOULD be fired. If they've been assigned those responsibilities and they aren't doing the job, why would you keep them? And why would you reward someone like that with better pay, when they've clearly demonstrated that they will only do the minimum they can get away with?

Gerard said:

quote:
How does this relate to the scarcely trained kids running multiplexes
for long hours at pitiful wages without pensions or welfare provisions?

The key is, as you point out, many of these people are "kids". Probably in school. The low-level theater job is obviously not intended to be a long-term career. But you seem to be saying they should be paid a "living wage". In Eugene, that's been determined by the City of Eugene to be $11.50/hr with benefits, or $14.50/hr without benefits (round numbers). Are you advocating paying part-time ushers, concessionists, and yes, booth workers, a "living wage"? What will that do to ticket prices, and if ticket prices rise, what will that do to movie attendance? Don't forget that you would also have to raise the salaries of management by the same proportion.

Manny said:

quote:
And I'd like to add that the de-professionalization of projection has contributed immensely to the growth of home-video. Many of my friends contend that they have stopped going to the movies because they can get a better presentation at home with less hassle.

Manny, are these friends who complain about poor presentation also fellow theater workers? I have never heard anyone in the general public complain about a presentation issue at any movie theater. Sticky floors, long lines, high prices, Yes. Presentation, No. To 99% of moviegoers, if there's picture and sound, the presentation is fine. I argue with my friends that Theater A here has better presentation than Theater B, but Theater B has stadium seating, so that's where they want to go. Presentation is a non-issue as long as there's nothing grossly wrong (it pains me to say that). I really don't think the de-professionalization of projection has much to do with the popularity of home video.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-17-2002, 05:04 PM:

Nope. These are customers. Some of them are friends (it's a small island) but some are also complete strangers.

David, I agree that those are probably the most common annoyances but, as the booth operations person, those aren't the ones that get forwarded to my attention.

Something I should explain: From the mid-1970s until about 1994 we did not have first-run theatres in The Bahamas. The sub-run cinema we had was very large and had a relatively tiny screen and mono sound. As a result, by the early 1990s the high-end home-video market gained a reasonably strong foothold here in Nassau.

I should also add that I only hear serious complaints. Nobody ever goes to the trouble of calling/writing to report a minor problem and they definitely do not bother to comment if they thought a presentation was good.

Something else: These customers that I hear from tend to be unforgiving. If they have one bad experience, they will stay away for a long time...and so might their friends and family.

With an amazing uniformity, it always comes down to this argument:

"I have a DVD player and a 50" TV with Dolby Surround. I can stay home. It doesn't take long for these movies to come out on video. I can wait, you know."

Once, a not-so-savvy customer added:

"...and I'll have the letterboxed version. You think we don't notice but we know y'all don't get the letterboxed version for every movie."

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 12-17-2002, 05:21 PM:

A few flaws to point out:

"What Mr. Martin failed to mention was that while the McDonalds *HIRES* at a higher starting wage thier bonuses, and increases are quite poor in comparison to this theatre,

This particular theatre in question offers concession commission to the floor staff, A $0.50 raise after "cross training" and another $0.25 raise after six months. Also very soon they will be offering a health plan to the floor staff employees. Not to mention the free movies and other perks of working in a theatre.

most floor staff employees at that location make between 9-10 an hour.

McDonalds does not offer an incentive program like the theatre. There raise structure is a lot less, and AFAIK they do not offer any health benefits."

Perfect example of not researching your information before shooting down someone else's opinion. A former theater employee is now working for that particular McDonald's and gets medical, dental, vision and all the "perks" the theater offered (tuition assistance, and bonuses) with the exception of free movies.

My original post referred to a starting rate comparison from a year ago. McDonald's rate was $8.25/hour and this theater was $7.75. McDonald's had the same "raise" structure as the theater, giving a 5% increase after 30 days and every year thereafter. The only place this theater might outpay the fast food was bonuses, but you have to work concession to get those bonuses. Projectionists, supervisors (for the most part) and about 80% of the staff do not share in those concession profits unless they are fortunate enough to be put in the stand. Even those that did get into concession regularly were not making more than $30-40/week extra with the exception of the two "regulars" who have done concession for over a decade and never have to work anything but concession.

As for the health plan, I'll believe it when I see it. This theater has a tendancy of making promises to keep people longer and then just "forgetting" to follow up. Such instances include the concession item discount for employees, which has been promised since 1998. The giving of gift certificates on days when the theater performs especially well, a great idea promised at a staff meeting before the last GM left.

As for making $9-10/hour I am willing to agree that some make this after being certified for kitchen work and other special training. My point in the paying of exhibition workers has always been what do they get paid on Sundays? Christmas? Thanksgiving? New Years? The same they always get paid, and they are REQUIRED to work those days. Why is it any different to stand over a popcorn bin scooping for 8 hours (I wish my shifts had been that short) than it is standing in front of a register taking money?

Around here people can find other jobs. There are Now Hiring signs just about everywhere. However, a lot of people work in projection because they love it and just want to get paid fairly and somewhat to the degree as everyone else. Would you be happy about having to leave management all of a sudden because every theater in the area has started paying management $12-15,000/year just because Corporate isn't making enough to pay their executives $150-750,000/year? You'd be outraged and have to leave because you have people to support. So they put an ad out, and they hire someone who isn't half the manager you were and the theater goes to Hell in a handbasket. Now, can you do anything but laugh?

I can agree that two operators are not even necessary for a 20 screen, as I have done it alone. But it takes a lot of work for that crew to be able to run it properly with only one person. At my theater we had double coverage on BOTH shifts Sunday-Saturday with extra people on for print work on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. After we hammered out all the problems and got eachother properly trained we cut the hours required to work that booth cut in HALF. Nobody got a piece of that savings, except maybe Corporate.

Moral of the story: When it comes to business you get what you pay for. As far as I can tell from what everyone says here the exhibition industry has been paying for [bs]

for quite some time.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-17-2002, 07:56 PM:

True, most customers may not complain about or talk about what was *exactly* wrong with the presentation, but they know. There was an 8-screen UA near Royal Palm Beach that had consistently bad presentation. Base scratches, platter scratches, bad splices (out of frame), and they showed most stuff at 2:1.

There was another UA-8 in West Palm Beach, about 15-20 minutes from Royal Palm Beach. This one had much better presentation, side-masking, and their prints were always clean. People would go out of their way to patronize this one instead of the other, closer one. There was no stadium seating or other flashy amenities, but they knew something was better about it.

My friends and I went out of our way to see the Star Wars Trilogy and Titanic at the theater with better presentation. And that was back when we didn't know theaters ran 35mm!! [Razz]

=TMP=

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-18-2002, 03:22 AM:

I am Sorry Barry you are correct I was refering to information I found was outdated from someone I knew who used to work at McDonalds a few years ago.

I know I am in the majority with some of my views on this forum. I feel the ways that I do out of my experiences.

I think that most people work at Theatres because they enjoy it. I know I do. If I wanted to make more money I could go somewhere else and do it but I know that I would not be happy so I choose to stay. I AM GRATEFUL THAT SOMEONE IS WILLING TO PAY ME TO SO SOMETHING THAT I LOVE. Thats my point if it is something that you want to do bad enough then you will make sacrifices.

You seem to pick on executives a lot and I believe that is unfair. They have earned thier positions and deserve to be compensated on it. I do not think it is right to put anyone down on thier success.

It bothers me to see people that are so focused on money that they lose sight of whats important, Bieng Happy.

Would I be happy managing a Target store? No. Would I make more money? Quite possibly but I CHOSE my job and accepted the rate of pay. If I wanted to I could walk away.

If it were up to me everyone would make $100 an hour but that is unrealistic. I am just happy that I am paid to do somethig that I love.

Oh, and FYI employees are eligible for review every 6 months as opposed what you stated was every year at McDonalds.

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 12-18-2002, 07:02 AM:

Apology accepted and appreciated, I don't mind being told I'm wrong, I just prefer facts to back them up instead of opinions.

"Thats my point if it is something that you want to do bad enough then you will make sacrifices."

I can definitely agree with that, and use our theater as an example. I took a pay cut by applying there but I had two good friends who suggested I come over and I have always loved movies. I cannot agree that one should make sacrifices which will effect the quality of life he/she is able to provide their family. An $8/hour job would pay more than enough if I wasn't living in my own apartment, starting a family, and trying to get some money put aside. The only time I even complained about wages was when I found out people were getting paid twice as much as I was with benefits to boot to run half as many screens. Sure, screen number doesn't always dictate amount of work but we both know in many of these booths the 20 was the hardest to man alone.

"You seem to pick on executives a lot and I believe that is unfair. They have earned thier positions and deserve to be compensated on it. I do not think it is right to put anyone down on thier success."

I completely agree that I pick on executives a lot. Most of them deserve it (note the MOST, meaning not all). I have had some GREAT experiences with corporate executives and some really poor ones. When I see a company mistreating it's staff based on policies handed down by executives, I blame them. Then of course there are all these problems with corporate scandal recently, such as Enron and the like.

In our example, I was asked to take a $5,000/year pay cut because my employer was bankrupt while at the same time executives petitioned the bankruptcy court to allow them millions of dollars to be paid in bonuses equal of up to 70% of their annual salaries topping out at one million/year. In a recent study (dying to remember the name of the organization, will insert it when I find it) it was shown that, on average, corporate executives make 70 times their employees in America! This increase has been worstened by the recent practice of giving executives "stock options" which often allow them to profit when a company goes bankrupt. If you worked your life and excelled then by all means you deserve to be paid more than anyone else. Certainly when the success of a company depends on your day to day decisions you deserve to be paid very well. But there is no excuse for making 70 times your employees' rate, only to allow the company to go bankrupt through poor management (in our industry, over-building), and then beg for more money. I know of executives who have refused bonuses and increases when their companies have performed poorly. That's leadership deserving of praise.

"It bothers me to see people that are so focused on money that they lose sight of whats important, Bieng Happy."

I hate to break it to you but money is a very large part of happiness these days. Money buys food, pays doctor and utility bills, buys a house, christmas presents, birthday presents, clothes. I'm not advocating that any employee should be paid enough to buy their own Ferrari or vacation home, but being able to afford to live on your own, a "living wage", is what every employer should strive for. Not because some minimum wage law REQUIRES them to, but because they want the best and happiest people to work for them longer than 6 months, resulting in their customers being so impressed they forget the name of the other chains around.

Just my humble opinion, now what has this got to do with dismissal again? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 12-20-2002, 10:18 PM:

I 100% agree with Gerard's point of view in favor of workers rights. Just because a majority of floorstaff/projectionists are teenagers nowadays that have no overhead, does not mean that theaters should feel that they can pay minimum wage to these people and be justified in doing so. Still, as long as theater employees keep accepting the low wages nothing will change. It takes people to reject the crappy wage, thus only getting subpar people to work for that low wage for them to realize thier mistakes. There are reasons why unions are around, and they are still needed today. That is why I have no sympathy for managers to complain when employees 'slack off' or don't take thier job 'seriously'. They are not getting paid enough to do so. Good pay=good employees. Bad pay=bad employees.

While I love what I do, that reason in not enough to accept being taken advantage of financially. The sooner you realize corporate is sticking it to you, the harder it is to still enjoy doing your job. I learned this the hard way and got out and moved to a theater which would pay decently. As long as I am being taken care of by corporate, I have no problem working hard for them. It is difficult to be happy when you are continuously worrying about the money and benefits issues, no matter how much you like your job.

Just my 2 cents thrown in by a fellow projectionist

Now stepping of of the soap box [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2002, 01:50 AM:

I rejected the initial wage offered to me at my current theater. It didn't take them too long (about 30 seconds) to come back with one that was a bit more acceptable. I then accepted the job.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-21-2002, 02:43 AM:

My staff takes thier jobs very seriously and hardly ever "Slacks off". Why? Not because they make a tremendous amount of money but because we treat them right. Some have even turned down higher paying jobs to stay. I honestly believe in my persoanl opinion that my supervisory staff cares more about film done right than some of the union operators ive dealt with (Only my persoanl opinion.) I have nothing against unions in general they are neccessary in certain situations. At one point my floor staff was talked into organizing, after learning the facts they turned it down. They felt they were treated properly and paid appropriately. They felt that they could represent themselves on thier own and recieve appropriate raises/benefits out of hard work and doing a good job and not have to pay moeney out of thier pockets for someone else to do it for them.

On an un related note it is now official that my theatre offers health/Dental, and vision plans to its hourly employees. That is on top of Concession Commision, Educational Assistance, Discounted Cell Phone Service, and Free movies. They also pay extra money per hour for employees that work "premium" shifts (Christmas eve, Christmas Day, New yars eve, New Years day) up to an extra $3 an hour. They also raise the concession incentives significantly during holiday seasons. There are also other little things we do I buy my employees Pizza or Coffee sometimes. The company gives out special pins for "years of service". We run employee screenings of new movies. If I were floor staff I'd rather work for my Theatre than flip burgers.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2002, 03:31 AM:

Treating staff well does go a very long way. I like my current theater for that reason. For the most part people are treated well and get along. Not an excuse to pay low, but it definitely makes everybody do their jobs more betterer. [Smile]