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)

1104 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Rathvon. I had more reference to Mr. McCann's questions, and I hoped you would ask me some questions along that line. Mr. Kj:arns. Mr. Kahane made a statement out in Los Angeles that was very, very significant. He said the labor strife in Hollywood stems from jurisdictional conflict between rival unions of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor. He further stated that this has been true almost from the inception of the industry and it is true today. That was a very significant statement for this reason: We found at no time in the record whereby the producers were particularly opposed to unions. You wanted to do business. You wanted to produce pictures and you were caught in the middle, as was stated this morning by Mr. Johnston, in jurisdictional strikes. Mr. Rathvon. That is correct. Mr. Kearns. Did you condone with Mr. Johnston this morning when he said they should shut the motion-picture industry down until this jurisdictional dispute was settled? Mr, Rathvon. I differed with him definitely at the time of the first strike and all during that period, and during the early part of the second. I was ready at one stage to agree with him—and I cannot remember at the moment which one of the crises it was. There seems to be an in- dication in what I have heard here that the course of cowardice was to continue operation, and the course of boldness was to close the studios. In my own thinking that was quite the other way around. The easy course would have been to close the studios. The difficult course and the course that required courage was to decide to operate in the face of what we had to contend with out there. In my own thinking on the subject, in my weaker moments I was wanting the studio to be free of the burdens and strife that was upon us. On the other hand I arrived at the conclusion that should we close the studio, we might be closed for many, many months because of the unpredictable leadership in these two unions. I did not agree with Mr. Johnston that if we closed down we could open again very shortly because the unions would have to get together and resolve their differences. Mr. Kearns. Wasn't there some question as to whether you could financially stand a shut-down for a lengthy period ? Mr. Rathvon. There was a definite question as to how long we could stand it. We did know it would be terrifically expensive to close down. I would have been in favor of closing down if someone could have guaranteed me that the shut-down would not have lasted more than a month or some such period. But knowing the attitude of these labor leaders and the extremes to which they would go in their juris- dictional fight over our bruised bodies, I had no idea they would end the strike if they were left to their own devices. I had no belief that the A. F. or L. top management would step in and force them to do it if we closed down the studios any more than they succeeded in forcing them to do it when we kept the studios open. Therefore, very reluctantly and as I say, a course which I did not consider a cowardly course, but a bold one, and for the benefit of our stockholders, I agreed with those who said, "Let's try and keep these studios open; let's maneuver as long as we can."