![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cos posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_square[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
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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-29 09:52 pm (UTC)financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 11:19 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-07-30 12:11 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2003-07-30 12:20 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2003-07-30 12:55 pm (UTC)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
Re: financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 02:19 pm (UTC)lots of people have made points based on knowledge they have, whether personal experience or experience gleaned from similar situations (which is INDEED valid, otherwise why study history? i mean, the first world war specifically isn't going to happen again but it doesn't mean nobody learned from it and that something like that won't happen again!), but every time you or mattison have tried to shoot them down with highly illogical and pompous statements, and then gone and done the same thing you accuse them of doing.
i'm trying to form an opinion myself here but i find it incredibly hard when you two keep interrupting and trying to staunch the natural flow of debate by interjecting erroneous complaints. a lot of my friends are getting insulted on here and i don't like it. i've already got mattison bothering my boyfriend via e-mail about this, i really think you two should lay off and just put in your two cents non-aggressively rather than act like we just insulted your mommas by disagreeing over this union thing. not the end of the world.
Re: financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 02:23 pm (UTC)That's exactly what I've been doing. I think you're being extremely unfair to me, and that instead of reading what I have been writing for its own sake, you're coloring it with the heat of the rest of the discussion. It feels to me like you're being very aggressive and insulting to me even though I haven't been so to you. In light of that, perhaps you could re-examine your own perceptions of what I've written. I won't respond further to you on this subject.
Re: financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 12:25 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2003-07-30 12:47 pm (UTC)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.
Re: financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 02:46 pm (UTC)No, what you know says that it's unlikely that the *owner of the theater's* finances are in trouble. But, as you've said yourself, he owns many things besides the theater and has many other sources of income. Therefore, yes, the owner is sound financially and isn't going to go bankrupt anytime soon because of increased costs at the theater.
However, whether the *theater itself* is in trouble or not is a completely different issue, and is based on the theater's own costs and management and has *nothing to do* with the owner's portfolio. You haven't shown any special knowledge as to how the theater's expenses and finances will be affected.
So your special "knowledge of the situation" that you keep parading around is pretty much irrelevant, and you're on no better ground than the "ignorant" people here that you continuously bash and insult. It's basically like saying you know what material the bricks in the building are made out of, or what size the owner's shoes are, and therefore you're the only one whose opinion counts here.
they ought to at least have some facts to back it up.
I've listed many facts so far:
-- Supporting a union is a big cost increase for the management
-- This money has to come from *somewhere*
-- Raising ticket prices to account for the cost increase will result in lower attendances.
Other people have listed facts such as:
-- The somerville theater attendance hasn't been that great anyway.
I'd also like to add new facts, such as:
-- Cost increases such as these affect independent companies more than they do large corporations.
You haven't countered any of these points. You've just played your "but I know more than you" card and then pretended that no one else has presented any facts whatsoever. ... eg "And they don't."
The projectionists probably know more about it than any of us here.
So according to what you seem to be implying, none of us should be discussing this except for the projectionists themselves? Well doesn't that suck.
The burden of proof here rests on the people implying that this contract puts the theater on danger
So... people can't have a discussion about possible risks and outcomes until they have 100% solid proof of their position? Well that's a good way to kill any debate whatsoever. Is the somerville theater a publicly traded company? If not, how are we supposed to get information on their finances? Just call them up and ask? They certainly haven't been very talkative about the whole union situation so far. Are only the management and the accountants of the somerville theater allowed to discuss the situation now?
So I guess we'll just have to wait and see ... see if they start cutting costs, see if they start raising prices, see if they start laying people off, see if they end up closing. The point is, all these things are definitely a *risk* when you increase the expenses of a company, no matter what the company. And it's more risky when you're talking about smaller, independent companies.
--
Also, your entire line here is basically a big ad hominem attack -- instead of countering the points that people are actually making, you're flat-out throwing their points out the window by arguing that they don't know as many random facts about the situation as you do. Arguing against the arguer, rather than the argument.
Re: financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 03:38 pm (UTC)You and the peacock have failed to answer any concerns or questions that have been posed in response to a post that you are responsible for aside from making assertions that we're not to raise such concerns and questions in the face of the victory of the worker.
Once again I ask my central question: which worker? Was this truly a collective action, or was this the work of a couple of projectionists who have used outside union pressure to force their choice on their peers?
Now tell me, do you know one way or another, or will you just continue to cite that you know that the owner of the Somerville theater is a Bad ManTM?
I'm starting to feel a lot like I did when I was arguing with the neo-cons about our involvement in Iraq. Answer the questions. If you can't, don't try to claim moral high-ground just because a narrow and uninformed political agenda was met.
Re: financial state of the theater
Date: 2003-07-30 03:43 pm (UTC)If you wanted us to celebrate, give us the reasons why.
Date: 2003-07-30 03:59 pm (UTC)You are correct in that this has been pointless, but not for the reasons you're thinking. Can you answer any of the concerns raised over the post that you are responsible for? No? Fine. Do us the favor of not attempting to dismiss those concerns simply because you don't have answers.
None of us whom you've accused of being "reactionary and ignorant" has claimed to be in the know (unlike you) or that our ideas were fact (also unlike you.) You've opened this can of worms, so kindly demonstrate why we, the community that you seem to care so much about, should be happy about what went on.