Somerville Theatre Projectionists get Union Contract!

[cos]

[from the Somerville progressive announce list]

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:09:11 -0500
From: "JK"
Subject: Somerville Theatre Projectionists Win 2 year Contract

YOU ONLY GET WHAT YOU ARE ORGANIZED TO TAKE:
'Pissed Off Projectionists' Declare Victory Over Somerville Theatre

After having been locked-out for over ten weeks, projectionists at the Somerville Theatre have emerged victorious in their struggle for union recognition. The management has agreed to voluntarily recognize the union, sign a fair contract, and pay full back wages to all locked-out employees. Although this was a modest struggle in and of itself, we see it as a significant victory for young, exploited and pissed off workers everywhere.

PROJECTIONISTS WIN A LIVING WAGE!

At the time we struck for union recognition, projectionists were paid minimum wage ($6.75/hr), were not offered benefits, and worked in an unhealthy and undemocratic environment. Under the current two-year contract, the starting wage for projectionists is now in accordance with (and fixed to) the
Somerville Living Wage Ordinance (currently $9.55/hr), which is a 40% increase; all full-time employees will be offered health benefits and vacation; and most importantly, the Somerville Theatre is now a 'union shop' for projectionists, which allows for more control over the work environment by the workers themselves and preference for hiring new employees in the hands of the union.

Although this was a clear victory, it was a victory that came at a price. It became clear during the lock-out that the management of the Somerville Theatre did not want some of us to return to work specifically because of our political beliefs. Rather than further stall the contract negotiations, we agreed to voluntarily step aside and be replaced by other union projectionists in order to ensure a speedy resolution that would benefit all. In exchange we will have the opportunity to work in other Boston-area theaters where projectionists are organized through IATSE.

DIRECT ACTION GETS THE GOODS!

We hope that our struggle is an inspiration to other workers, particularly younger workers just beginning to understand their exploitation at the hands of their bosses. Our struggle was won primarily through direct action and community pressure. Although we did indeed file for an election with the National Labor Relations Board, from the beginning of our campaign we had no faith in State-mediation. We felt that the whole NLRB process played into the hands of the bosses and government bureaucrats, and effectively removed the class struggle from off the streets and out of the hands of the workers and confined it to the court rooms of the State.

In the end it was not through the NLRB that we gained union recognition, but through a sustained campaign of public pressure and direct action. We were successful in utilizing tactics and strategies such as economic strikes, informational pickets, and publicity campaigns while simultaneously relying on the pressure from the community (in the form of boycotts, rallies, and phone actions) to win this struggle. We think we were successful in proving that, as workers, our greatest strengths are in the refusal of our labor and our ability to organize effective resistance that goes beyond the workplace and into the community.

ANARCHISTS IN THE WORKPLACE?

Absolutely! Through out the dispute at the Somerville Theatre, there have been attempts by Mel?s lawyer to 'red bait' certain projectionists by publicizing the fact that some of us are anarchists. Well, as one trade unionist who walked our picket line a few times eloquently stated: "Every workplace could use a few anarchists to ensure the boss takes a good ass-kicking every now and then." We couldn't agree more. Politics aside, the fact of the matter was that we were being exploited by a wealthy boss, and no amount of 'red baiting' changed this fact in most people's eyes. As for the actual politics in question, those of us who do identify as anarchists have been up front about it and have no problem defending out beliefs. We would like to see a society in which the needs of people are valued over profits, and exploitative bosses are a thing of the past. However, we are not hopeless dreamers. We recognize we are a far way off from this sort of society, and in the meantime we need build power in our communities and workplaces and work towards class victories
that directly benefit people's lives.

THANKS TO ALL OUR SUPPORTERS

One of the most inspiring aspects of this struggle has been the wide support we have received from trade unionists, activist groups and members of the surrounding community. Thanks to fellow unionists from SEIU, UE, CWA, IBEW, IWW, AFA, AFSCME, Teamsters, Greater Boston Central Labor Council, and our own union IATSE; also activist groups such as NEFAC, BAAM!, Jobs With Justice, Somerville Greens, and the Student Labor Action Project; and lastly, a very special thanks goes out to all the Somerville residents who supported us, everyone who made a phone call (or ten) on our behalf, and anyone else who may have helped our campaign that we forgot to mention.

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES...

The struggle at the Somerville Theatre may have come to a close, but there are other labor disputes heating up around the city. At this moment, the union contracts covering thousands of Boston-area workers at Verizon are set to expire. Up to this point negotiations have been unsuccessful and the possibility for an East Coast strike is very likely. We hope that everyone who has supported us though out our struggle will also support this important strike if it does occur, and defend workers' right to job security and health benefits. Further information on the impending Verizon strike can be found at: www.massjwj.net.

Solidarity is our greatest weapon for a better future!

In Struggle, Pissed Off Projectionists

Comments

[cos]

That's an outlandish and ridiculous claim, based on what I know about the Somerville Theatre. What do you happen to know about the situation, that gives a basis to this claim? I'd love to know.

[frederic.livejournal.com]

Probably based on the three or so other people that are at each of the last few movies I've seen there... it's not a Sony Megaplex with packed theaters and long lines and such showing first run movies...

financial state of the theater

[cos]

In other words, it's based on vague guesses and an admitted lack of actual knowledge. Do you know that the Somerville is owned by a wealthy individual who also owns the Capitol Theater in Arlington, owns both buildings outright, pays no mortgage, and has rent-paying tenants? The Someday Cafe, and office tenants on the upper floors of the Somerville, pay good rent for prime real estate.

I, too, don't have complete information, but from what I know, it seems very unlikely to me that the theater is in shaky financial state or in any danger of going out of business. I may be wrong, but at least I know something, and it seems to me the people making claims that the theater is struggling and in danger, don't. That's why I asked - what do you know that I don't know, to base this claim on?

I used to work for a small company (which I co-founded) that was looking to move to Davis Square, around the time the Somerville was renovating. The owner offerred us space on the second floor, and since we were doing well and loved the location, we said we'd take it. He jerked us around for a while and then gave it to someone else. It became pretty clear that he'd just been using us to shake a higher rent from other potential tenants.

We ended up moving into the brick building behind the bus/T station and the Osco (now Brooks), and we were happy there for a few years, so it all worked out well for us. But the owner of the Somerville plays hardball and makes good money, and he does not need to hire people at minimum wage with no benefits to survive.

Re: financial state of the theater

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

Do you know that the Somerville is owned by a wealthy individual who also owns the Capitol Theater in Arlington, owns both buildings outright, pays no mortgage, and has rent-paying tenants? The Someday Cafe, and office tenants on the upper floors of the Somerville, pay good rent for prime real estate.

Well it's great that this guy has a steady income, and is solid financially, but hardball business men like that tend to want to maximize their profits. Whats to stop him from deciding the somerville theater isn't making enough money, tearing it down and renting the place out to another business?

I mean, it's good that you know more about the business behind the somerville theatre, but nothing you've stated counters the fact that the increased cost of unionization will have an impact on the amount of money the somerville theatre makes. And this, while not guaranteeing such unfortunate consequences, increases their risk.

And that's exactly what T.O.P. said: "they just made the Somerville Theater that much more likely to go out of business."

Re: financial state of the theater

[freyja.livejournal.com]

what do you know that I don't know, to base this claim on?

what, the claim that it's not a sony megaplex? i think that's pretty obvious! it's not!

i have to say i think it's weird that you push us so hard not to have "kneejerk reactions" to this and not to "bash" the projectionists, yet you have already come with your preformed opinions of the temperament of the owner, and how much he makes, and how well off his theatre really is, and the way you're elaborating on this is to tell us a personal anecdote where you GUESS he might have been "jerking you around."

what?

Re: financial state of the theater

[cos]

I'm not personally biased against the owner and I don't feel any bitterness or antipathy towards him for that real estate deal. It's what you expect from commercial landlords. Many have been nicer than he, but many have not.

However, my "pre-formed opinions" are opinions based on actual facts and context, which I have provided. Things I knew, that I based my opinions on. That's what reason is all about. Using "pre-formed opinions" as a negative usually implies unfounded prejudice - that someone has formed an opinion based on associations before actually finding out about the specifics. In other words, if you have a prejudice againt people of a certain race and use that to pre-judge a member of that race without getting to know anything about the individual first.

That's not what I'm doing here. It is what other people are doing. As far as I can tell, all the people raising the specter of the theater getting into financial trouble because of this union contract, are doing it based on associations they have : what unions in general are like, what independent businesses in general are like, and so on. They're not basing it on any actual knowledge of the situation at hand, of the Somerville Theatre itself, its owner, and the labor situation there. I do have some knowledge on that subject, and that's what I've been offerring. It's also what I base my opinion on.

As I said in my reply to komos below, the burden of proof here lies with the people implying that this union contract puts the theater in difficulty. I've seen no evidence that it does so, and based on what I do know of the theater, it seems unlikely to me. I've laid out the reasons why. If any of these people have more information that should make me question my opinion, they are welcome to provide it, but so far none have done so.

Re: financial state of the theater

[komos.livejournal.com]

So, what you're saying is that you've nothing to show that you're not just arguing from conjecture and speculation either?

Since the owner is successful, you assume that the theater is necessarily a successful venture?

You had a bad experience with the owner, and somehow the information you gleaned from that enables you to claim that most posts on this thread are reactionary and ingnorant?

Erm.

Huh.

Re: financial state of the theater

[cos]

No, I'm saying that it seems unlikely to me, based on what I know, that the theater is in trouble. People have been posting here implying that it is, and using that as an argument against unionization. Yet, they seem to know even less than I do about the theater's finances. I'm very put off by their line of arguing. I didn't come out from the start to say that it's rock-solid and never going away, but if people are going to start attacking the projectionists for what seems, on the face of it, reasonable demands (such as a living wage), they ought to at least have some facts to back it up. And they don't. Otherwise they're just crying wolf out of ignorance, and that is knee-jerk. My feeling that the theater isn't in danger is based on some real information, and while I may be wrong, I expect those people who tell me I'm wrong to at least know as much as I do about the situation, if not more. Instead, they know a whole lot less. You don't see a problem with this?

The projectionists probably know more about it than any of us here. Pushing the theater out of business is clearly not in their interest either. The burden of proof here rests on the people implying that this contract puts the theater on danger, and not on the people who challenge that implication and provide some more information.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

Why is it so outlandish? That extra $2.80/projectionist/hour has to come from somewhere, and unless the owners of the theatre were fat cat money grubbing assholes who have been taking huge profits out of the place, then they'll either have to increase ticket prices or lose money. But if they increase ticket prices, less people will come to the movies, and they'll lose money anyway.

I dunno, I can see unionizing and fighting for better wages at a Lowes Megaultraplex or some such thing, but independent discount theatres have it hard enough as it is...

Unless you have some evidence that somerville theatre is rolling in dough and can afford this no problem. I really have no idea -- I just know that this extra $2.80/projectionist/hour (PLUS benefits, PLUS vacation, PLUS whatever workspace improvements the union requires) has to come from *somewhere*.

Justice not size

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

Size is all that matters seems to be the mantra of the left in the new millennium. Somehow we are to believe that if a business is small it can do no wrong. I'm sorry that is just WRONG! Justice is measured in how a business treats its employees, the environment, and its community. Making lots of money doesn't make the business any more or less just!

Re: Justice not size

[komos.livejournal.com]

Ok, perhaps I've been misinformed, but I heard rumors that there were only a couple of the ST projectionists who wanted the unionization. This of course makes me curious... If it's true, doesn't it suggest that justice is denied the others since they are now being forced to join a union they didn't ask for to keep their jobs?

Re: Justice not size

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

but I heard rumors

Any statement that starts out that way is suspect.

they are now being forced to join a union they didn't ask for to keep their jobs?

And worse, they will be forced to accept an extra $2.80 an hour they didn't ask for! Damn unions, don't they understand the only way to be seen as just in this age is to be poor and unsuccessful!

Re: Justice not size

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

You didn't answer my main concern -- can the somerville theatre actually afford this?

Re: Justice not size

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

I don't have the financial books for the Somerville Theater and neither do you. The owner of the Somerville Theater however does. Now while statements made during negotiations might be considered posturing, the fact he agreed to it in the end tells me he believes he can afford it. Otherwise why would he agree?

The union and the management reached a mutual agreement. Time for for the rest of us to accept their decision.

The Somerville can afford it

[hyperliminal.livejournal.com]

I don't have complete info by any means, but keep in mind that the guy who owns the Somerville Theater (and also the Capitol) owns that entire building the theater is in. He gets prime Davis Square real estate prices renting to the Someday Cafe and various offices. As far as I know he owns the building outright, with no mortgage, so he makes a very healthy profit off the rents in that building alone, even after you discount maintenance and property tax and all that.

I'd personally be more concerned that he might raise the rent on the Someday and drive *them* out of business, than that the Somerville itself would fold as a direct cost of unionizing.

Re: Justice not size

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

And since you're quoting logical and argumentative fallacies below, I'll point out that this is a strawman attack against me. I never said that "if a business is small it can do no wrong," nor do I believe that, nor does my belief that unions should concentrate less on small businesses imply or require that.

Re: Justice not size

[cos]

Unions shouldn't concentrate more or less on any business. Employees who want to unionize should concentrate on one business: the one they work for. That's exactly what happened here.

[cos]

I unfortunately don't have all the details, but apparently the little tiny bit of information I do have is a lot more than you or most of the other people posting here have, which makes me very uncomfortable with this entire debate. It colors you and other people's reactions here as knee-jerk and based on ignorance. I will point out that the Somerville Theatre is privately owned by a man who has plenty of money, and as far as I know it is in sound financial state. I see a lot of vague guesses and rumors to the contrary, here, feeding a lot of unjustified knee-jerk bashing of the projectionists.

People have an understandable bias towards supporting local independent businesses, and that is a good thing. But I'd like to point out that the very reason we should treasure and protect such businesses against the chains and multinationals, is precisely because locally owned independent businesses have to be more responsive to their community to survive. It is that - their link and responsiveness to their communities - that we value them for. If you take this to mean that we should protect them against the community, that it is illegitimate for the community to demand changes from businesses that mistreat people, you're missing the whole point. If you feel that way, then we might as well just have national chains. The fact that a small local strike like this can succeed is one of the main reasons why we want to have businesses like the Somerville Theatre around.

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

I see a lot of vague guesses and rumors to the contrary, here, feeding a lot of unjustified knee-jerk bashing of the projectionists.

I'll make a "vague guess" that it was one of the projectionists that broke the glass around the ticket window. But I could be wrong.

I'll make another "vague guess" that, a week later, another of the projectionists broke the glass to the left of the entrance doors. But it could be coincidence.

I'll make a "vague guess" that the union was behind the thousands of stickers littering Davis Square claiming "Somerville Theatre - Union Busters", "Boycott Somerville Theatre!", and the like. But it could be unrelated happenstance.

How were these actions any different than one of the local thugs stopping by, and saying "Nice little cheap second-run and art house you got here. Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it, would we?"

[cos]

I wrote: I will point out that the Somerville Theatre is privately owned by a man who has plenty of money, and as far as I know it is in sound financial state. I see a lot of vague guesses and rumors to the contrary [...]

I think I was very clear about what rumors I was referring to. If you're not even going to bother reading what I wrote, why respond? Does setting up straw men make you feel better when you don't know what to say?

Sorry, your post really set me off in frustration. It has nothing to do with what I wrote.

[komos.livejournal.com]

Not for nothing, but these statements apply just as easily to the pro-union folks. I’m not sure how much more knee-jerk one can get than assuming that health benefits automatically equate to justice. There’s simply more to the story than that.

I don’t believe that we who’ve not jumped on the bandwagon have been saying the projectionists are evil. We’ve asked questions like ‘Is there any truth to the rumor that this was a minority action?’ ‘What is the ultimate cost of these concessions?’ ‘How will these costs affect the services provided to the community and the viability of the business?’ and ‘Will the new union and their associates take responsibility for the undesired consequences and damages?’

As near as I can tell, the row to which you've reacted rests primarily on whether we have the right to ask these questions in the face of a successful collective bargaining action.

what I'm reacting to...

[cos]

Nope, what I'm reacting to is people posting here saying that this will drive the theater out of business or implying that it's in shaky financial state and can't afford to pay a living wage. I'm pretty sure it's not true, and people jumping in with the apparent assumption that it is the case, who turn out not to have any reasonable basis for thinking so, is what I'm reacting to.

Look at how this subthread began:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/davis_square/64303.html?thread=210479

that is what I'm reacting to.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

Excuse me, you must be confusing me with someone else in the debate, because the only thing I've stated as fact is that supporting a union is going to cost more, and this money has to come from *somewhere*. Everything else has been purposefully stated either as questions, "what ifs" or with hedging, and was meant to spark discussion and perhaps replies with useful info. I even said "I really have no idea" at one point.

Yet you labeled my comment under the blanket of "knee-jerk and based on ignorance." I really don't appreciate it -- and in fact, such a labelling is knee-jerk in and of itself!


Anyway, your depiction of the owner of somerville theatre seems to fit under my "unless the owners of the theatre were fat cat money grubbing assholes" exception (perhaps not as colorfully), so again I'm not sure what your problem is.

And like I said elsewhere, i'm going to have to look into this more myself.

Perhaps unionizing was a good thing for the workers and the community overall, and my fears of financial consequences are unfounded. However, I still disagree with the overly-"activist" type behavior of the projectionists, as I ranted about below.

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

Excuse me? What's your definition of "community" here? I'm guessing that there's a much higher percentage of Somerville residents here than there were on that picket line. And if you haven't noticed, a lot of us were pissed off by the tactics used.

Re: why is it so outlandish?

[cos]

That extra $2.80/projectionist/hour has to come from somewhere, and unless the owners of the theatre were fat cat money grubbing assholes who have been taking huge profits out of the place, then they'll either have to increase ticket prices or lose money.

See my response to frederic above:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/davis_square/64303.html?thread=211247