Heinl radio business letter (July-Dec 1941)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

8/29/41 should levy extra taxes on the people to pay for defense work we do not believe in punitive or discriminatory taxation as a special levy on radio advertising broadcasts,*' Now this proposed tax is exactly the type of tax the Araerican Federation of Labor, Executive Council, objects to in that state¬ ment. I had no intention of mentioning or 5ji any way referring to in any way those arguments made for or the organizations v/ho advocate this tax. Pour of them are affiliates of the American Federation of Labor, and have joined with one organization not an affiliate of the American Federation in advocating this tax. None of the organizations advocating it has a single member employed by the radio stations. It is simply an attempt to deprive the radio industry, a nev; industry, of some of the v/ork or some of their income and transfer it to an older industry where those who advocate the tax do have members employed, "On the other hand, we have four organizations directly em¬ ployed by the radio stations. The radio stations employ approximately 40,000 people. The total membership of the organizations advocating tills tax is but 36,000, and it is an interesting thing to note the main point of their contention, which, as I get it, is that it will deprive them of work, •'Of course they do mention the exorbitant profits made by radio stations, but it is not my intent to go into that phase of the question, because I believe that should be and will be taken care of by the excess profits tax, ■’Their main idea, apparently, is to transfer v/ork thd: is secured now by the radio stations, to the newspaper business, and, they contend that their members v/ill lose work as a result, "Nov/ then, according to official figures submitted by those who advocate the tax, to the American Federation of Labor, since radio stations have come into existance, in the last sixteen years, one of chose organizations has increased its membership 11,7 per cent, anothe per cent, still another 57,5 per cent; still another 45,8 per cent, and still another 23,5 per cent, "This is not a new question to us by any means. In the midmiddle 1890’ s there was another new industry coming into existance and in one of the Central Labor Unions on the West Coast, which was located in the largest V/est Coast city, there was an organization which came in with a proposal tliat no member of the organization of organized labor, ride in an automobile, even to a funeral, and the motion v/as adopted. This proposal here is on all-fours with and is made for the same reason tliat that motion was passed through that central body over 45 years ago; and in the future you will probably look back on this proposal in the same manner that you do on the one I have just mentioned,"