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)

424 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES As Mr. McCann remarked at the opening of today's hearing, there have been men who have been deprived of their jobs simply because they freely expressed themselves and took a position in their union and went along with the majority decision of their union and therefore refused to cross picket lines, and supported the carpenters in what they thought was a just position. Those men have been deprived of their jobs, have been expelled from their unions. I don't think there can be any just basis in support of this. I think arbitration machinery has got to be set up which can prevent this kind of thing happening again. The lATSE has expressed concern over what it regards as a threat to its existence in Hollywood, the fear that encroachments will be made on it and eventually drive it out of Hollywood. A good kind of arbitration machinery should be able to provide the lATSE the kind of security it says it desires, so it won't feel it has to wage war to the finish to destroy the CSU. It can be secure in Hollywood in its position under a fair form of arbitration machinery, which will protect its jurisdiction. Therefore, I think there can be no just settlement and no peace in Hollywood unless the lATSE abandons its policy of a fight to the finish with the Conference of Studio Unions. I think they must recognize the necessity of getting along together in Hollywood with all these other groups. The rank and file, none of the unions want this kind of a thing to happen. Therefore, the policy of a leadership which thinks it is necessary to drive all other unions out of Hollywood, to destroy those unions, that otherwise they cannot be secure, that is a policy which manifestly leads to trouble and must lead to trouble. There can be no peace as long as that kind of a policy exists. There can be no settlement of this and no peace in Hollywood unless there is good will on both sides. That is what is chiefly wanting. The chief thing, I think, that might come out of this hearing, this investigation, is the exposition, the realization of facts which may force public pressure to demand good will on all sides, the willingness to accept the other fellow in Hollywood and set up arbitration machinery and rely upon that, rather than on war to the finish, to iron out differences that arise. I also think the producers must revamp their labor policy. I would like to say this: I don't know it has been brought out in this hearing, and I think it should be brought out in this hearing — it has been touched upon, but I think it could be gone into much more deeply than it has been gone into — the question of who determines labor policy in the studios. Now, the name of Nick Schenck, I think, figures largely in the Hollywood trouble, and his name — the industry representatives on the stand impressed me as being very anxious to keep Mr. Nick Schenck's name out of it. Mr. Mannix reacted here on the stand, at the mention of his name, as though he hardly knew the man. Yet, it is common knowledge around Hollywood it is Mr. Nick Schenck who calls the tune in Hollywood. Loew's, Inc., controls MGM. Mr. Joseph Schenck, his brother, is production manager over at Twentieth Century-Fox. It seems to me regarding any reversal of policy in Hollywood there always seems to be a flight to New York by some of