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)

1986 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. SoRRELL. That is what I have stated, yes. Mr. Kearns, Do you agree with that ? Mr. Sorrell. I agree with that, yes. Mr. Kearns. In my book that is the answer. Mr. Landis. If they do not get together, they lose the privilege of striking to gain their point. Mr. Kearns. Was not the decision in the Lea bill that one picket, even though he be a blind man, was just as effective as mass picketing? Mr. Landis. I think that several pickets scattered along is more effective that one picket. Mr. Sorrell. Do you want me to express my opinion on that ? My opinion is that every man has the right to go through a gate to punch a card togo to work, has a right to picket that gate. In other words, one picket may be fine. For me, one picket is as good as a thousand. But to the average man who takes a job in the studio, for instance, he sees a picket there, he knows there is some disturbance, but he says, "That does not apply to me. I will go in and go to work.'' If he sees all the people are not working in those shops, and that they are there, and are not simplj^ idling away at home as drones he says, "No, I won't go in and take those people's jobs." I liave one man in mind, and the name just does not come to me. It is too bad I do not remember names better. He went in to work in 1045. He joined the lATSE, I think it was 468, the catch-all local. He was a painter at Paramount. He went in because at the time he went in there was only a token picket line there. And he was a returned veteran. And he heard inside that there was a strike, but it was a Connnunist-led outfit and did not mean anything. Then he lost his job when we came back in 1945, but they kept him (;n the pay roll. They not only kept him on the pay roll for the couple of months that they were supposed to, but they kept him beyond that. He became suspicious that maybe he was being held on for future trouble. He went back to work in the studio because he did not want to take money under false pretenses, as an electrician or grip or something in the lA. When the lock-out occurred, he left the studio. He sent me a letter and he said, "I have investigated, and I now believe I was a strikebreaker at the time I started to work here, but I would not have done it had I known what I know now. But there was only a couple of pickets and I was given to understand that they represented a bunch of 'Commies' and trouble-makers." He says, "I am not going back in the studios, I do not expect anything of you, because you will only know me a strikebreaker, but I will preserve my own conscience by not going back in the studios." I answered the letter, as I answer every letter written to me, and thanked him for not going back in the studios, and gave him my best regards and told him that I would appreciate him calling me. He did not call me, or if he did, he did not get ahold of me. Things went along for 4 or 5 months, when one of our boys came in :ind began to tell me about this man, that he was pretty hungry, and that he did not belong to the union, but he would not go into work. I said, "I remember getting a letter from him, and I'd like to talk to him."