← 022-003022-005 →

Conversation 022-004

TapeTape 22StartThursday, March 23, 1972 at 2:36 PMEndThursday, March 23, 1972 at 2:40 PMTape start time00:04:33Tape end time00:08:18ParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Safire, William L.Recording deviceWhite House Telephone
AI Summary

President Nixon and William Safire discuss revisions to a presidential statement regarding the Pay Board and a public dispute with labor leader George Meany. Despite concerns from George Shultz and John Connally that the President should avoid commenting on individual Pay Board decisions, Nixon insists on directly criticizing Meany to demonstrate a firm stance. The conversation concludes with the approval of language intended to frame the administration’s position as pro-worker while diminishing the representative authority of labor leadership.

Pay BoardGeorge MeanyLabor relationsEconomic policyJohn B. ConnallyWilliam L. Safire
AudioNARA Description

On March 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon and William L. Safire talked on the telephone from 2:36 pm to 2:40 pm. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 022-004 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 22-4

Date: March 23, 1972
Time: 2:36 pm - 2:40 pm
Location: White House Telephone

William L. Safire talked with the President.

     The President’s Pay Board statement, March 23, 1972
          -Changes
               -H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman
               -Problems
                     -Pay Board
                     -George Meany
                     -George P. Shultz and John B. Connally recommendations
                          -Pay Board

                                  -Decisions
                                        -The President’s role
                                        -Blame on Meany
                       -The President’s attitude on labor
                            -Proposed language
                                  -Labor leaders
                                  -Protection of wage earners’ buying power
             -Figures
                  -Labor leaders
                       -Representativeness of wage earners
                             -Connally’s view
                             -The President’s view
Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

On the written statement, Bob suggested I run past a couple of people on a few of the changes you made.
The one that caused some problems was the line written and the pay board was right and Mr. Meany was wrong on this issue.
Both Schultz and Connolly
I want to call to your attention that if you go on the line on this specific, you have no real defense in the future when they ask you about other specifics.
And the reason the pay board was set up two steps removed from you was to avoid you having to comment on an individual decision.
You mean they don't want to say the pay board was right?
No, they don't want you to say the pay board was right.
uh... in this particular decision because they don't feel that you should be uh... commenting on the individual decisions of the people mhm now connelly said hell if he wants to break his rule and go ahead and do it uh... who's to stop him well i'm gonna say it i think i'll say it on this one i'm gonna break my rule alright well yeah i think we've got to really crack it hard uh... on this both men realize the other side of that you know of pinning this one to me
I want to pin it to Meany, and I'm just going to say so.
Okay.
And if they ask about a future one, I won't get into it.
I may say, well, that's too complicated.
That's up to the payboard.
But, boy, this one I've got to hit right on the nose, I think, Bill.
I see your point.
Everybody else does, too, but they want to know.
I understand, given the point of view.
But Connolly says it's okay if I want to do it.
Yeah.
All right, we'll do it.
Okay, Bill.
Now, one of the things, a couple of people have suggested a kind of disclaimer that you're not anti-labor.
in this.
And I've written a paragraph, and I'd like to run past you quick.
Sure.
Although several labor leaders may have chosen to reject their public responsibility...
Although a few.
A few.
Right.
Labor leaders have chosen to reject their public responsibility and have sought to justify their action with standard political rhetoric.
This administration will not accept an anti-labor label.
On the contrary, there can be no more pro-labor, pro-working man stand in the firm decision to protect the buying power of the wager and his dollar.
That's right.
Good deal.
Okay, those are the only changes.
Do you have any others?
No, that's fine, Bill.
I think what you've done is just right.
Okay, now on the...
I should flag one other thing, and that is when you wrote in toward the end a few leaders who represent only 17% of America's 80 million wager... Want to make it 20%?
No, that 17% is accurate.
The problem, however, from Connolly's point of view, he approaches it from one end saying, why credit him with all those people behind them?
I know, I know, I know that, but it still makes the other point.
The other problem is who represent only 17%.
That's a lot of people at only 13.5 million people.
That's right.
Do you want to wrap the word only?
Yeah.
No, I just leave it in.
I'm making a point there that to put these people in their place, that they aren't all that powerful, too.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
I get it.
Okay.
On the spoken word, do you want to run a check on any figures or anything you want to use?
No, no, no.
On that one, I have nothing in that I don't have in this.
Okay, fine.
I've just redone it to comply with this.
Okay.
No, it's exactly the same thing.
Okay.
Then I'll go ahead and run this other one.
Bye.
All right.
Good.
Right then.
I'm going to try to...
← 022-003022-005 →