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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1311 Mr. Brown. Yes; we have orjianizecl shops, and we have discovered there were more apprentices than journeymen, because tlie employer believed that was a good way to reduce the operating costs and have an unfair advantage over an employer who was respecting our ap- prenticeship rules, ]Mr. Oavens. Do you think there is anything wrong with an em- ployer reducing his costs to the public? Mr. Brown. Xo; not reducing his costs, but I do say if he reduces the cost at the expense of the wage earner there is something wrong. Mr. Owens. If the work was satisfactory, there would be nothing wrong with that, would there? ]Mr. Brown. Workers in the past, when they were unorganized; yes; but when they were told something about organization and what it was accomplishing, then they became dissatisfied with conditions and started organizing. Mr. Owens. So you have set a 10 to 1 ratio ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. And you insist that the employer stand by that ratio? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Owens, may I interrupt you? We will stand adjourned until 1: 30. (At 11: 50 p. m., a recess was taken until 1: 30 p. m.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 1: 30 p. m.) Mr. Kearns, The hearing will please come to order. TESTIMONY OF HARVEY W. BROWN— Continued Mr. Kearns. I wish to make an announcement at this time which I think probably will affect the itinerary of some of the people who are here to testify—that I will be forced to carry this hearing over until JNIonday; because, as I left the session at noon, Mr. Hutcheson called me from Florida. He will be here to testify at 10 o'clock Monday morning. I know some of the other unions who are involved in this will be very much interested in hearing his testimony—or not hearing it; I don't know which. But they will probably want to be here. Mr. Brov/n. I believe Mr. Owens was questioning you about some matters when we adjourned for lunch. Mr. Owens. Yours is an independent union that used to be affiliated with the A. F. of L. ? Mr. Brown. We were affiliated for a time; yes; for 50 years. ]\Ir. Owens. AVere you with the A. F. of L. at that time, yourself personally ? ]\Ir. Brown. I don't quite understand your question, sir. Mr. Owens, When you broke away from the A. F. of L., were you a member of the A. F. of L. ? Mr. Browx. Yes, a member of the A. F. of L. executive council. Mr. Owexs. How long had you been a member of that council? Mr. Brown. I think I was on that council for about 4 years, I be- lieve, 4 or 5. Mr. Owens. Prior to that time you were working as a machinist in the A. F. or L. ?