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)

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.

1188 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Before you are through you don't know whether you are right or wrong. Mr. Landis. So between the stockholders and labor Mr. Michel. Oh, my God, you just go nutty. Maybe I'm going that way. Mr. Landis. That is all. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Michel, you represent your company as to policy also, is that right ? Mr. Michel. Absolutely. Mr. Skouras, and so would the board of directors stand behind any decision I make. Mr. Kearns. After the producers decided to keep open rather than shut down, you, representing your company, had no meeting with any union to work out plans to keep the studios open ? Mr. Michel. No. Fred Meyer may have had a lot of meetings. Mr. Kearns. I am talking about you, now. Mr. Michel. Oh, no; I did not. Mr. Kearns. I know what he did. Mr. Michel. Well, if you know what he did, that is all right. Mr. Kearns. Do you agree with Mr. Johnston that we should have legislation to cope with jurisdictional disputes? Mr. Michel. It all depends on what you mean by legislation. This morning I heard a dissertation on the JMiami conference, if that is what you want to call it, where this man almost wore his throat out reading this long dissertation by a man who could never agree to any- thing. When the thing ends up, what was it? A barrel of words. There was nothing decided and there is nothing decided today. So I don't know what you can do about it. I think that until men unclerstjind there is a give and take in life—and I say this in all honesty—there is a give and take in life; maybe you are not always going to get the lion's share. Who is going to collect the dues ? That is the biggest problem of all. That is all it boils down to. These two unions, these two internationals that are always arguing, for my money they are both bad medicine. That includes Walsh and the other bunch. They are all bad medicine, for my money. I don't know what you can do. INIaybe you gentlemen have more intellect and more knowledge of the situation whereby through some methods you can accomplish something. I don't know. Eric Johnston made a recommendation. I read it. I don't know whether it will accomplish it because here, right in the A. F. of L. they cannot settle their differences. They certainly should be able to settle them there. Mr. Kearns. You do not feel that compulsory arbitration would do it,, do you? Mr. JNIicHEL. I don't know. Mr. Kearns. You have had a lot of experience, and that is why I am askino; you. Mr. JMichel. I don't like to have anything compulsory. We are supDOSPd to be a free people. Mr. Kearns. That is right. Mr. Michel. I think you gentlemen appreciate that in evervthing that you try to do. We are a free people. You are our representa- tives. You come down here and try to make laws to keep us in line. That is what you are doing, trying to lead us.