Jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture Industry : hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first-session, pursuant to H. Res. 111 (1948)

348 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES hold a fair and impartial meeting, we had a lot of discussion leading up to the telephone symposium yesterday which, as Jim has told you, led us all to believe that this work went to the lA, completely and finally, until we got this little telegram today, which I think is just a whitewash to let some guys out. However, you have a lot of guys here ready to swear — and when I say a lot, I think at least six of us were in that room, or eight, including the international president of the five A's, Paul Dulzell, a man certainly, if you don't want to take an actor's word on union things, is far above reproach — we had all these men in the room. Now they told us again and again that the clarification did not change the 192G agreement. They told us that this should go to the lA. And that was it. So we were convinced. We came back. We had a telephone conversation. We were further convinced. If you felt any elation, Mattie, up here tonight, it was because Thursday we all thouglit, and I know we all felt, that we had the back of this thing broken ; that now we can all get together, get contracts, get arbitration nuichinery and that is too bad, .lim — we know it is too bad; it is tough; even though your guys can work somewhere else, you hate to lose these jobs. I know damn well Ilutcheson hates it a lot worse than you do. Let me ask another question : How important are these 300 jobs? Miss Revere made a very pungent remark tonight. Are you guys willing to risk a power play and destroy your organization and keep people out of work for these SCO jobs, or are you willing to start now and say, "We will let it go at that, start our arbitration machinery and start getting contracts for our men." How Important are these 300 jobs? I want to ask it fairly and honestly. Are these men going to work somewhere else, or is it a question of prestige and face-saving. I am a hoofer again — I want to know this. Can vou tell me that, Jim? Mr. McCann . Is that all you are interested in ? Mr, Reagan. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. I will pass this to the court reporter. Mr. Somerset. Mr. Chairman, may I say one other remark on this subject? I want it understood that when we left the meeting with the committee of three in Chicago we definitely said to them, "Is it all right to repeat the things we have been told or is it off the record?" We were assured it was not off the record and that we could tell people regarding what we had discussed for over an hour with them. That was, roughly, the third or fourth day of the convention, which lasted about 10 or 11 days. For the rest of that period of time we told people there — we told Dan Tobin, of the teamsters, and we told Matthew Woll, we told Green, we told Meany. We told them all what we had heard and what we felt. So what we are saying here today and what we said yesterday is nothing now. We are not saying something for the first time. We are merely repeating what for over a week we told various officials at the Chicago convention, and again within 2 weeks of the convention it was repeated to every union in the motion-picture industry that was assembled at the Knickerbocker Hotel by delegates of ours, by people that had come back from Chicago. The same thing was said as we are saying here. It is on record in court records. They were well aware of the fact of the way we felt and what we believed liad been said by the three men in Chicago. Mr. McCann. Do you corroborate that, Mr. Reagan? Mr. Reagan. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Do you want to add anything? Mr. Reagan. Yes, sir. I would like to say, in regard to the three men, several remarks were made here yesterday about memory. I would like to repeat something I said to the three men in Chicago, and I said to them on the telephone, as the record shows.