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)

2156 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Lakdis. Well, it is unfortunate from the labor angle of it. Here is a question on jurisdiction that ought to be settled in tlie ranks of labor, of course. They ought to settle their own jurisdictional disputes. If it had worked it would have been all right. Of course, we have a section in the law that tries to handle that. The question I wanted to ask you, though, was this : You may answer it if you want to. For several years some of us have been trying to sit down with the labor leaders and some of their assistants — especially the people who make the bills out here and contact us all the time — to sit down and write out a few things to get rid of the labor abuses. The bigger labor leaders, I would say, have taken the angle of no labor legislation, which is their ]privilege to do so. They say, "No labor legislation, because if you get some legislation you get too much." I realize that side of the picture. But as long as these jurisdictional disputes are piling up, if I see jurisdictional disputes or breach of contract, or some wildcat strikes, or some secondai-y boycotts — these abuses are piling up, and along with it some racketeering. They would not sit down and do that. Now, we come right back to the same position, only it is reversed to where Congi'ess had to do something, and they passed the TaftHartley law. Now, we find ourselves in this position : Labor wants to repeal the law. In my opinion the law will not be repealed. But the best for the country, the best for labor and the best for management — we do not want a one-sided law, nobody does — is to sit down with labor and management, work out the bad features of the bill — I mean, if it takes away any fundamental rights of labor we should eliminate those features and try to make a decent bill out of it, instead of putting all this time, effort and energy into repealing the law. Now, you can answer that or make a comment on it if you wish. I don't want to put you on the spot. Mr. DoHEETY. Well, Congressman Landis, you have certainly handed me a good one. Mr. Landis. I don't want to put you on the spot. Mr. DoiiERTY. Let me say here, I am not one of those labor leaders who have refused to sit down with you, or any member of your committee. I have never been invited to come over here and sit before you. If I had been invited, I would have been ver}^ happy and anxious to come over here and sit down and discuss the problem with >ou. Mr. Landis. I wish we had known it. Mr. DoHERTY. I don't kn'ow that Mr. Green or Mr. Meany or any of the other A. F. of L. leaders have refused to sit down w^ith you, but since you brought in Public Law 101 I think it encumbent upon in« to give you my views on it. 1 suppose I will startle you with this answer. I think that the Wagner Act was slanted toward labor. I am certain that the Taft-Hartley Act, Public Law 101, is slanted toward management. Instead of curing the situation that existed under the Wagner Act, you have only added fuel to the fire. In my humble judgment it would have been far better to find a happy medium, one wherein both sides could work in ])eace and harmonv, I mean, labor and management in this instance. Thevf