Conversation 455-003

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I'm going to be very relaxed and hopeful.

We expected the enemy resistance in the area.

They're liaising it up in the Army.

Secretary, as you said, the, uh, there, uh...

They'll quote either, no comment on that.

Right, as the president said.

Yes, sir, we've talked about those.

It was questioned whether or not I should get into that here because of that.

Very well.

Right.

I think if you're pressed, you know what I'm saying?

No, this is not going to be disclosed.

There's a number of subject matter, and the Secretary of State is responsible for it.

That's good.

All right.

That's it.

All right.

Sit over there.

All right.

Ready.

Okay.

Blood.

One hundred.

Look at that.

That's good.

All right.

Well, one of the reporters that I went to tell, he said, I don't know the wrong person, but I don't know the right person.

Yeah, for a chance, if you didn't print it.

Yeah, I did.

I did.

.

Thank you.

I would like to ask Colson to sit down for a guest.

He doesn't appear to be political in our application.

He doesn't talk about other areas.

We've got a couple of friends over there.

Rene and Jay Lusser are in that group.

It's very strong.

Political people, you know, you all represent people who are technically wrong.

I want to get that new expression on her while we're here.

First of all, everybody is getting ready for breakfast.

He's going to wake up in a minute.

Here's what he's going to do.

Well, let's start with that proposition.

The wage freeze, after all of our discussion, is not going to be an easy thing.

Yes, I can understand that.

You want a wage freeze?

Temporarily.

My question is, how are we going to pull through on that?

I thought we were going to get a wage freeze as a...

I think the end of the exposure down there, the ship was viewed the way it was.

And one of the reasons is the split.

So, I'm just going to get around to this.

The idea is that they want to be such a false theory, which means there's no news in any subject.

that they're quite superior to members of the group, or members should react to anything voluntary.

And then the second part is that, however, they will obey any presidential-initiated action if they weren't at all ambivalent about this.

In other words, this is okay as long as the government takes the heat.

That's the subtitle.

And the next one is that there were there some other states, in regards to the

The third one was a little bit in advance of what I thought we'd get, and I didn't think anybody was committed not to criticize a freeze reporter, but there was a general commitment.

I wouldn't say something of surprise to the Senators.

There are a few, and the only two are those who have commented publicly that they don't like the freeze, that they consider it unfair, and they just won't want a country to go back on that kind of comment.

Question?

Was this plan developed in a meeting, an adjunct meeting, or separately?

Yes, in an adjunct meeting.

This whole thing is reflective of a meeting with the total council of the Building Trades Union Department.

That's a total of ten men and about three staff from their standpoint.

And they had a terrific reaction.

There were a lot of horrible men in the Building Trades Union movement.

Four of us, her council, three of the Trades Department.

uh, finding that, uh, uh, this sort of freeze disorder and stable proliferation plans proposed, they're going to, will be willing to sit down in discussion and re, and discuss and review such a plan.

And that brings us, uh, to sit down with the construction industry clerk's department.

Brings down to the last one, that is, the woman's goal for the plan has got to be the key to their exception.

What's their worry?

Why can't they agree to it now?

Well, one thing, they need to freeze to embolden.

They, uh, to, uh, get them to commit that they'll be willing to do something.

And second is the pressure.

They've aggravated it.

The way the press is bashing them into getting some voluntary acceptance, and they're not going to do it.

But there was no criticism of the basic plan or the subjection.

Of course, why they are, and we'll develop your comment on the next case.

You've got a problem.

Yes, sir.

His friend is about 78 years old.

He's way older than you.

He's older than you.

Yeah, and he's absolutely talking about how he lived in California.

Yeah, and he's still reflecting on the same kind of thing.

He's talking to his old friends.

And he wants to be a leader, and he tries to be assertive, and he hasn't done it all the time.

So he just won't have any leadership at all.

It's too bad.

You see, I hadn't realized how much he'd changed.

Even the last 10 years, 10 years ago, he still was too damn old.

I don't know if you think it is.

I just want to know what you're saying.

Yeah.

So they come in here, as far as I say, they really were searching for some way to get to this thing.

It was led by Jack Lyons, the art workers, and the construction car of the operating engineers.

And the reason he's, of course, two-fold, they do recognize that something is wrong.

And frankly, they don't like the alternatives.

And they know what the alternatives are because we didn't mention any words as to the possible demands of alternatives that we might produce, including the .

Then with regard to me, I think the reason that they're, I think what you say about me is correct.

People publicly oppose the private sector, but sometimes it works pretty much.

It will be rough.

It will take a long time.

There's a lot of politics.

I think he's building a groundwork for it, but I think he's keeping his options on it.

Yeah, but it's both ways, that's true.

But me, me basically is the partisan there.

He's got to be a...

I agree.

He's got to run him on.

Well, talk to the partisan.

Every guy has a choice.

Your view is that you don't want to irritate me too much.

I just don't want to burn him until we have to burn him.

Because I think that... You don't think he's burned?

No, sir.

I don't know if I'm going to do the same thing, except replace the purchase and make a few points.

Let's do some good.

Why take from the team?

Let's do some good.

David's date appears to be more for the reason.

that I realize it will rile my kelp, but it isn't going to do me harm, not really, in my opinion.

But it's a rifle shot deal, which, just let me put the case up for a moment.

It's a rifle shot deal, which,

Is a signal to the business community that you're doing something, a signal to the company that you're doing something, that you're trying to play a human hand in removing, rather than sending out the industry, as George Paulson said, that the nation of Spain is a particular piece of legislation which does discriminate.

and therefore catered with the free market, and we were removing the discrimination, but then only temporarily.

So you regarded data spending temporarily.

Now that's not possible.

The other is, that's something that might, or you could either freeze, evaporate, evaporate, freeze, and then see if they'll come along or something.

There's a point to that, and then there's a, there are two points.

One, will these do any good?

Second,

Which balloon was the most good?

And then the third we got away against that.

Assuming that one does a little more good than the other, and I realize it's marginal in both cases, you've got to weigh against that.

What's going to man the man on the other side?

In other words, is the price that we pay for doing what we have to do, and we have to do something, we've got to do something that is meaningful, something that's going to get everybody impression in the country that we're standing up against this escalation of prices in this field.

It is the marginal advantage of doing one thing, and I don't wish to do the most of it, outweighed by the disadvantage of the rage that you're going to create by taking them all in.

So that's the balance that I see here.

I'd like to address myself in the first part of what Luke said.

At the end of this month, we have two labor contracts that we do.

At the end of March, we have an enormous number that we're going to do, and that's providing for the summer.

Now, if we suspend David Spadina, that doesn't have any restraining effect on the bargains.

They can still demand as much as they want, they can strike as much as they want, and they can settle as much as they can get.

And we will see continuing to develop during these early spring months if we don't have some sort of stabilization platform.

And my level of increase is it will be between 15% and 25%.

And we will put in days of baking.

First thing, the press starts asking, and the businessmen start asking, look, you've done something, but we're still getting these big settlements.

How come?

You really touched the problem.

The problem is the big settlements.

The problem isn't whether it's big, it should be into a factory.

Which is why I invited our general manager.

Whatever we do here, we are not going to spotlight every damn settlement.

Every settlement.

Well, that's 15%.

What do you think about that?

All right, second one.

Second point is clear.

Which does the Union fear more, hate or dislike more?

Yeah, hate.

They love you.

Suspending Davis-Speakin in a different way than they will do the freeze followed by the stabilization program.

They will use suspension of Davis-Speakin as not a wage controlling device, but as an anti-union action.

And that's a different thing.

It's different in the ways you are used to describe the problems you have dealing with union people politically.

avoid giving them any kind of issue where it can be said that you are anti-elite.

And because you give them that kind of issue, then they run back to their people and get support from their political support from their people on the basis that they're fighting an anti-union administration or an anti-union president.

But if you keep them, if what you do is done, then you start to handle the economic problems.

And you do it for these reasons.

So then you don't get that anti-union text.

So that, on those two bases, I conclude that we'd be better off to follow this sort of line of action and make a faster and greater decision than developing it.

This is real for the opening of .

If you discuss it with .

Well, 5 or 6% is for the succeeding years of the contract.

The idea would be that in the initial year of the contract, all they could get would be parallel, something that Suncraft has already won right next to them.

And then for succeeding years of the contract, they'd have to get down into the area where it's a combination of the amount that would be produced by cost of living and productivity, 5 or 6%.

And we refer to it as the mid-50s level.

And finally, this reopening of these balloon-type provisions like they have in places like Parker and Kansas City, where they get $3.50 for their year of contract and that kind of thing.

So we have discussed that with them.

And we're going to have to see how much punch we can actually get out of them, I think, because they are spooked.

uptight about the prospect of such things as Davis-Bacon and other kinds of things that they've been sent to Earthcoming, that we've got some luggage to work on.

But we need to at least get a memory.

What about the RNA that you've sent?

Well, yes, in fact, the way I treated that went down there with it.

They started saying, well, it's unfair you're singling us out.

You've been singled out of the AIDS-Vacant Act.

There's a place you've already been singled out.

You're singled out of the National Labor Relations Act and at least three parts of it.

The secondary boycott part of it, the craft severance part of it, and jurisdiction part of it, and hiring hall part of it.

And you're singled out in our apprenticeship programs for special treatment.

So you've been singled out already.

And the question is, do we withdraw some of those ways you're being singled out, or do you continue to singler out for special treatment for special problems?

And they just dropped the prep there.

Not that they aren't going to keep it out until all of a sudden they're .

What is the next step ?

You confer credibility.

I know, all right, that's credibility, but let's look down the other way.

First, as I had heard, you believe that this will do some good.

I believe it will do some good.

I believe that we can expect materials or increases in the contracts negotiated this year than the ones that were negotiated last year.

Second, do you believe that they will participate in the support?

I believe they will if we can get this, uh, these kinds of provisions that you talked about.

And I think we can get pretty good ones.

We probably can't get as good ones as Red Blonde would like to have us get, or George Rodney.

But we can get something that remains.

I don't want to just go to St. Louis.

Because that's leaning too far in the other direction.

Third, we think it's, uh, that we eventually, probably in the coming days, take it anyway.

I really thought we would eventually come to this.

Maybe do it now.

I would probably do it now.

Mindful around all this.

If I didn't think there was at least a 60-40 chance of me ever getting something meaningful through this route, I wouldn't go to school.

Let me say this from my own standpoint.

It's going to be a hell of a lot better.

I guess it gets me out of the pattern from that point on of the mess that we're going to have to try to make this kind of thing work.

You just have to admit there's going to be a mess.

There always is.

The reason this helps to work is it gives the national officers a chance to put the money, and this is what they're going to do.

Well, it's their goddamn national administration that's going to do this.

We've got a boy who's going to shape us.

The government is going to keep him.

But they want to do that.

He said he should be better of that kind than my gender, politically, than the kind he did, because we go the other way, which is the Italian.

They expect that they look more like an Italian than the Italian.

That's right.

Do you agree with that, George?

I think that's true.

Yes, I think that's true.

Do you think that's true?

He doesn't talk about it.

It's true.

It's the same thing.

I think it is.

I think it could be made not to be an Italian.

They say it's true.

Because what you're really saying is that I'm not going to interfere with the pre-economics of the construction industry, except as it comes to what I, as a government, am buying.

And when it comes to what I, as a government, am buying, I'm going to have some insight of the wages of it.

It's a more rationality to it from a government standpoint.

It's a more limited interference.

I just don't mind if I go over and discuss this.

You see, with LPA, you had some across the board that you could deal with, and even that was a mess.

But here, you've got just the widest kind of regional and city-by-city variations that make your job...

What about if you would announce the suspension of Davis Bay and it become effective in 30 to 45 days unless the unions voluntarily come up with a program like this?

This is the best leverage in which to be objected to.

I think that the freeze gives us as much leverage and it doesn't give us as much political exposure, that's normal.

But if you talk about the average construction worker, the guy who hasn't been involved in the labor union hierarchy,

He really doesn't know what the name of the state is.

He doesn't understand it.

But the thing is, I can't see really why the name of the state has the leverage to make them come up with a voluntary plan because it doesn't do anything to the department.

It doesn't do anything to the department.

Second, the construction industry is very different from what it was a year ago.

On the one hand, there is this big budget pattern of movement toward non-union work.

I'm sure you were telling about the changes that were built by their city.

There's no doubt about the fact that the contractors have come here now.

We do have this interesting fact that the average, the rate of increase in average hourly earnings during 1970 actually declines somewhat.

We'll possibly figure out exactly why.

But anyway, it certainly didn't come up as you would expect.

That suggests that there's something going on here, that whatever we do, whether it's a freeze in the stabilization of the data, or something, you've got to supplement

It would be the biggest single result, right?

So that's it.

That is an element of competition.

That's going to go forward on the basis of wage rates that are low.

Working conditions are tremendous for labor and stuff like that.

So the problem with cost would be less.

And that would put pressure on the union contract.

So I agree with you that the

and give something additional for .

Let me try to get at it another way.

If we were to go to Davis State, in other words, that word should be written in .

government is not going to be in human busting activities, but this is temporary, because of the enormous government stake in stability and inflation in construction.

Now, what

what then would be the, what do we say, it is temporary, and he walked there.

Then he would have to go right through the same grill, trying to get to the board, is that right?

Yeah, I would have a hard time explaining

why Davis-Bacon is the government's response to high collective bargaining settles.

It seems to me that if you go to Davis-Bacon, you are doing it for a different reason.

You're doing it to restructure the entire construction industry.

Noting that what has happened, that our things have been so distorted by strong union versus non-union areas, the differential is so great that you want to even those two things out.

And that doesn't really get at the, this other problem.

Well, let's look at it another way.

Dealing with the steel force, dealing with the oil force, perhaps did not,

directly about the price of either steel or gasoline.

On the other hand, it did deal with that aspect of, it did deal with what government action may have contributed, whether directly or indirectly,

over a long haul to higher prices.

And they've got the government in action, adjusted to the state of the...

So, what they're talking about here is really saying...

Here's my concern about Greece, about many other things.

My concern about Greece is...

I want to...

That's the way you do it.

As such, they're strong.

If you run away, the average person

And that means the average congressman, because he's sometimes below the average person.

But in any event, the average congressman or senator says, well, why don't we do it for everything?

And then they'll say, well, let's go down the road and see who's going to die.

And I don't pray.

Well, I'm ready to pray up here.

And I said, if we move, if we move, we'll waste the price of freedoms.

And the legislation that we...

I'm just trying to get it all out here so you can understand it.

We're not making a foot.

And I'm not deciding, I'm just trying to argue, but we're not making a foot.

A problem.

Negotiating this could be extremely difficult for you, administration, rather than negotiation.

I think that what could happen is that one, to the extent that it works, people say, well, it's work, I don't have to try it.

What about those who ask people?

What about those people who raise the price of beer?

What about those people who regularly raise the price of milk?

I know it's changing.

comes in there, so they're going to raise it to six cents.

Terrible thing.

So maybe we should set it to a hundred a week market.

That's the case.

That probably, that'll probably have an effect on the consumer price index.

Your fellow Goldstein over there, he only had five points.

Anyway, my point is that everybody should just come.

So my point is that we come down to this.

It's like a water.

What you put on, or take off, you can later put on.

I know that the wound that you open can later close.

And the day it's baked, you can do that.

And the day it's baked, then you go down the same road.

You then say that you saw something that's getting better.

I've had a dangerous scenario with these saints where people go to Christ and still sit down and pray to God.

That's something they, and it's only what we didn't voluntarily decide, but for the good of this industry, we're going to do it now.

That does not bother me.

And what bothers me is where the government comes in and imposes a board.

You see, I'm in control, but it bothers me.

It bothers me, not for a very practical reason, but I know that things will not work.

And from a citizen's point of view,

and work after themselves to bring themselves to mind.

This is the Lord.

Amen.

Well, I can see, what I'm really thinking is this, I can see a question, let alone consider, but I can see a question in our hearts.

Every damn day, what about that settlement over here?

What about that settlement over here?

Do you consider this or that or the other thing?

Do you become the archer for all those settlements?

Well, what I am concerned about is they're going to say one about each other.

Some of us, Mr. Secretary, are going to start to know about our question.

They're going to go over 40%.

I can't do that.

I'm going to make the comment that if there were this kind of thing, there'd be a lot of strides.

I'm going to freeze.

I'm going to stick with it.

At this point, what's happening most of all, I'm going to think it's terrible.

I have a wage increase.

That's all right for the debt.

Right on you.

Let me ask you, what's the first one that I had to say?

and that would be a suspension for an indefinite period of time.

I hope the action of this thing would, uh, itself be smooth-reasoned.

I don't know.

to get these people to do what you've been trying to get them to do for the last year and a half done.

That's what I was on it.

Now, I mean, there was just a little bit more responsibility to be held on.

What's gonna force them down, Jim, as you well know, is gonna be the market.

What are you gonna say about it, Jim?

Well, I was just gonna say, I...

I'm concerned about third and fourth steps in all of this.

And what we do if, it seems to me that if you go the three's route, you must do something else.

That isn't enough, all that stuff.

You either have to get a stabilization mechanism or go with Davis-Macon or something.

Well, Davis-Macon suspension, it seems to me, you've still got both feet on the ground.

And I wouldn't want to see us say,

We're going Davis-Macon because we then expect the second step.

I think the President could say

Davis-Macon is like steel quotas.

Crack the steel quotas and crack the oil people.

We're going to crack the oil quotas, and because they were creating an artificial market, and the federal government has been a participant in creating an artificial market in the construction industry, and it's intended for doing that.

It's just like we did to the big bosses, and we're going to take compensating action here.

We don't think this is going to solve the problem.

But Secretary Hodgson indicates from his trip to Florida that there is a recognition of the problem among labor leaders.

And we're going to make every opportunity for labor and management to attack the problem.

Give the burden to that.

And then when you get a bad settlement, you say, Keith, we've done everything we can do.

short of dictatorial control.

And I call again on labor and management to set this industry in proper work.

And then, and again, you know, and then, just keep talking, just keep talking.

I don't think that y'all want, I'll tell you frankly, I know very little about this, you know, but I just think the idea of getting a voluntary commission together

under the threat that we're going to extend the suspension of Davis-Bacon and have them sit down and not be able to agree, call your bluff.

It seems to me it is a problem for the president.

It seems to me he can both be planted and stay for economic reasons, for equity reasons, for a dual labor, but we just have a management where it's suspended until further notice.

Well, I don't think we have a further thing yet.

It is a big act on the grass, but there's an emergency.

Yeah.

That's correct.

Emergency has certain things that characterize it.

When we discussed it, when we described it, $11 million of contracts are immense.

In fact, with $76 billion and $2 billion increase in principal, we buy less than we did before, things like that.

It's okay to use this business because of emergency.

the suspension of it when the emergency conditions passed.

And we hope that the emergency conditions pass rapidly and that the parties can get together and improve their parties.

That's what I'll do.

But now, what can you do?

He's changed.

He's trying to get the parties together.

You'll have a hard time doing that for a month or so.

What do you think happens?

Yeah, I don't need it.

All right.

Yeah.

It's making contracts as free to be such that they're free to get out and tell us to participate in anything for at least quite a while.

All right.

Well, at that point, don't we then have a very hard choice?

what the President's attitude toward labor leadership is.

And I guess I'm off-hawk on this, but I think the American people are about ready for the President to crack some of these guys and say this oligarchy is taking money out of the pockets of the American wager needlessly.

And they're not serving their country.

They're not serving the interests of their country.

And just take them on straight and head up.

Absolutely.

And tell them to come back to this board and do their job.

I've heard that he's approaching them because he said that the country was strong enough against labor to take them on.

I don't think that's the situation in this country.

I agree with Jim on that.

There's certain, you have to take, I think the construction industry people are in that repute because of these highway settlements.

And not only have settlements,

But the feeling seems to be a little different.

But at the same time, I want to go back to the Liberty State.

If you want to go back to that.

Does Davis-Bacon extend to, let's say, the environment workers and the manufacturer or even the folks?

No.

It's strictly construction.

Well, then you don't have to go any further.

No, I guess I don't know.

Well, you just tie us away to the environment workers, so I think part of that, George, is very great.

It's not that they're great.

Part of that is that they're doves, and they don't like the fact that construction means they're hawks.

No, that's what I'm saying.

This is historical.

What would you think about this?

32 states have something like Davis-Bacon.

What would be wrong with the president going to the governor's conference this week?

Supposing you were to drop in and say, gentlemen, I'm not going to suspend Davis-Bacon and the 32 of you that had this, I'd encourage you to do the same so that our governments don't contribute to this.

When I said I'd sacrifice that point to you, thank you very much.

I don't think that's a very good coercive tool.

It's a very blunt instrument.

you're going to do that, and you say, if they want to come up with something that should give us an alternative way.

But they're coming to us rather than having to do that.

Let me say this.

You've got to, first of all, you have to handle yourself well down there.

What?

And I'm thinking, and I'm thinking that I would rather take, and I must admit it's not a meeting, I would rather take the heat for David's sake.

No, I mean, I mean, quite candid now.

You don't need any words about this.

At all with Burns.

Burns is not playing our game.

On the, on the, on the, we're going to have another Quad Ram game on Friday.

Now, Bernard took money to him, and Bernard used to be against the trolls.

He always was, when I knew him, in the late 50s and through most of the 60s and up through 1968.

Now, he says he's for a wage price forward.

He keeps saying he wishes for a wage price forward.

I'm not going to have wage and price controls.

He knows that, but he's then, then knowing that, then that allows him to be like, well, you know, Jesse Martin loves the money so much.

Well, let me tell you, he's not going to get away with it because I'm going to hit his damn ass very hard at the perfect time.

It'll be done.

You know what he says.

Now, let me tell you about how this all, how this all fits in, how it fits into your scheme.

It's going to be about what you and I, what you and I should do.

And I want you to notice, I want you to tell all those people, I want you to check your goal and follow through with our transplant problem and

I have to do it because I realize what the reason this happened, the reason this happened is, is, is, is, at least we'll play it this way, the reason this happened is that the

Uh, we've got to take an even-handed approach.

You're gonna have to practice it, and we oughta do it in a correctly-stated way.

For your own self-hatred, because other men will be up in arms if you put something into the labor union.

Uh, you've also got to take some action against the problem.

Let me tell you why that's, uh, that's the labor union.

Let's get back to the Burns proposition.

I don't think there's any basis for that as well.

Well, our problem there is always, believe me,

I can see it coming just right down the pipe if you do it here.

All right, we'll say, I have won.

I have won over those men.

And therefore, Daniels identifies his feet as cement of higher construction prices.

And we suddenly say, why not go for the others?

All right, now let's go the other way around.

I don't mean that Davis-Bacon will satisfy me.

or either so forth.

But it is, I'm just arguing, I'm just yet to decide.

If you move on that, it's a very precise, rifle-shot approach to a problem.

And we'll model through what you're doing.

You're trying to do your very best getting these construction guys to agree to some specific position.

I'll work with you, and I'll help you on another.

In the second one, probably you've got to do this, or maybe you've got to do something else later, because the Congress is sitting down there.

Let us remember.

They're sitting down there, you know, with the wage and price control deal, and that can be applied to a little extent.

That can be applied.

So I can work with you, because it can be applied the other way.

You've still got the wage and price control, and it can be hung on here.

The bigger game is that it's not space.

The bigger game is that we've got to see that the economy is probably due for this kind of year.

If that economy is probably due, then this kind of play its role as well as our fiscal policy.

The first thing I think about is that I think that Arthur is all in this kit that the wage-price board had.

I'm thinking that this would fit so clearly into that pattern that it was first in that direction.

And then he'd say, well, that was fine, but he didn't know he was acting with one of the others.

Now, they displayed the thing.

You can say to them, all right, Arthur,

You can see what we're doing now.

Get off your ass and do what you should do.

I know he is.

And understand, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not, I am not,

Davis bacon is like a raw nerve, and it's a symbol.

They all fight about this and that, except for this one.

I can see the time, when you could restore it, I can see the time that the economy moves, if, you know, the construction, if there's any way that just at some time you get it back, you know.

In other words, it's like a tax increase.

You raise the taxes, and then maybe next year at a certain time, I am suspending.

I am restarting at this point because we have more stability in this industry.

I don't know if that's going to happen.

It could.

Now there's a big plan to try that on your side.

You've seen the problem with me that I have here on the front.

Oh yes, and believe me, I try to tell the same team players to go the normal way they go.

So let's see how we handle the announcement that we went this route because

I could give the president no assurances that the industry people would participate voluntarily in applying what kind of approach we use to explain why we go this route.

Because, I would put it this way, because once you had some good, open discussion with the industry people,

You were unable at this time to come back with a satisfactory, what the President considered to be a satisfactory offer of participation at this point.

Therefore, the President, because of high construction costs, a huge budget, I think because government felt that government at least should remove itself as a party to

upward pressure and wage and wage settlements necessarily temporarily however he uh he feels that it's uh vitally important that the that he favors a the participation by the secretary of labor and frankly we're we've got a voluntary

That's hard.

I agree.

What's step three and four?

Well, we don't need to believe the implications for step three and four if the other is correct.

Don't get on that potentially proven part of the problem.

And frankly, we put him on the spot in a way that was not wise.

I don't care, really.

I'm sending somebody out now.

I said, I'm going to go out and see what I can do.

I'll let you know before he goes.

What the hell are you going to do?

He's not going to come back.

So we went on and on.

I said, look, I'll do the best you can.

Didn't you in fact position yourself so that you kept saying over and over again, we don't have a proposal.

I'm here to listen.

I'm not down here to study anything.

So you can go to the, we can go to the state and apply for a vote.

That has no problem.

It seems to me that that's the strong side of this is that the secretary went down.

He did not advance a proposal because the administration was not seeking anything except

an indiscreet, voluntary solution to his problems.

The Secretary came back and reported his findings to the President, and they were not totally reassuring.

And therefore, we aren't abandoning anything that we didn't have anything.

And I'm going to say, you should know that this here is a gun box.

Oh, yeah.

Well, we have.

I decided not.

The other thing that I'm thinking is this.

I'm thinking not of the short haul.

I'm thinking of the long haul.

You do that and you set up this nice little commission and so forth and so on.

In the long haul, I don't even look.

That's my problem.

I think you have a hell of a time.

I have a hell of a time.

Maybe asking Xavier, you, everybody else, what about this or that or the other stuff?

The other thing is, I'm looking also for a discharge of earnings, Jim.

You've got to put yourself in this position.

This damn whole idea of wage and price controls, my God, I'm not for it.

And I'm not going to let that, this, in this situation, this is going to, this will lead us down that road.

When I say I'm not for it, you are to burn sitting here Friday, this gentleman, I absolutely make sure I say this.

Well, if the President and I wouldn't read the rule on wage and price controls, we wouldn't have to go to wage and price controls.

How about that?

He knows very well we can't go to wage and price controls.

Maybe we'll have to go to them.

But why, why, why was the point made?

Actually, you know what that was?

The point was made because he wanted to know what Denmark is doing about the money supply.

Correct.

Actually, I promise to take no comfort in the fact that the thing that he's talking about, the raising price for Jupiter, the only other man I know that publicly is talking about exactly that same kind of thing is Leonard Woodcock, President of the Oracle.

Sure.

The, uh...

Let me say, there's controls to freeze, for example, you know, these guys out here.

Oh, I can't, I don't even, I can't talk about the president right now.

But you see, the point is, the way this thing is going up to, they could even, the first day it came out, they immediately went from freeze to control.

You can capitalize on that.

That's it.

And he could say that... That's right.

That's right.

The other thing is that we've considered not tracking the terms of the political event.

And you should accept your friend's direction.

The leader should stay out of the political event altogether and just be nice to him.

In terms of the political event, he's a cold cock.

That point is, here are the elements.

And you guys can scream all you want.

But let's have in mind

who says that it doesn't take construction, some of these construction things are outrageous, let the second man stand up, who doesn't believe that the federal government is spending 14 billion dollars a year in new money in construction, doesn't have to do something to see that these settlements are 10 price increases from now, and third, they quiet out, and this is the most important thing, he's not able to quiet out, he falls,

No, no, no.

That's what the lefties want, and that's what our enemies want, and it's not that they want to work.

It seems to me there's a real danger in not being boxed by the press.

They're just saying, well, we considered a freeze and we didn't go for the freeze for the following six reasons, one, two, three, four, five, six.

I think we really have to take a sort of a specific position that there's a whole constellation of alternatives available to the press in this situation.

And it's probably fair to say that the whole thing was under consideration.

All the alternatives were under consideration.

This one was about to be one of the most effective and the most relevant.

Not only the most effective, but the most relevant to the problem because it involves the federal government's

And that is why it has been done, and it deals with that part of it.

The way it drives everyone impressed, just like any, any of our boats, yeah.

It's not going.

Follow-ups.

In 16 days, he's going to get it.

They're going to say, well, why didn't you go for industry-wide this?

Why didn't you go for that?

Well, don't say anything.

No comment.

We all have to get it.

At the end of the meeting, we announced that there were further consultations within the government before we decided.

At the end of this meeting, Ron, and don't be brought into other questions, which of course will not be.

The Secretary will report to the President, and the President is considering to report three.

Now, in regard to when, so let's set the time, when do we do it?

When will you be ready though?

When can I be on sound?

I would like you to do this on Thursday.

If we can do it on Thursday.

We are going to do a real government.

The covenants are all here.

We want to get a collaboration here.

Let me break some rules.

I'll follow this one.

However,

Walking out here and following this one, we're going to get two, maybe three more days of free service.

I have a question about it.

From this moment on, after this meeting, anything we do, let's not go out and say there's not going to be a free service.

Because that's wrong, too.

I think you have to move quicker than that.

All right.

Thank you.

And we've got to be on today.

Thursday is a great day on that.

Thursday's bad.

Thursday's bad for us because we have a four-hour policy to work on.

So it's better to have something to say, and that's commit ourselves to the deadline.

You can say that you've made a report on the President, the President will have an announcement tomorrow on this subject.

Is that all right?

Yes, sir.

Don't give yourself a little room by saying the person expects to have

The only part is whether we have to put the suspension in the federal register and that there's a leak.

Oh, that's all right.

It doesn't matter.

It didn't make any sense to me.

Um, it would be a, uh... Well, I'll say it doesn't matter.

With the Blockbuster, you can do it at the Governor's Conference.

Just go there and talk to them about this national problem.

You can, you know, with the Secretary.

You can go there with the Secretary.

Go with the Secretary and say, here's the problem.

We're contributing to a $14 billion worth.

You're contributing to a $1.7 billion worth or whatever their state contribution is.

We're taking steps today to correct this market abnormality.

President, I'm talking about the Red Cross wall.

That's our champion.

Let's say you go to your testimony address, but this is what people decide.

And at this point, let's get things rolling.

My preference is to have it ready to do tomorrow, the governor's conference.

What time am I meeting the governor's?

Well, you're not meeting the governor.

Are you?

I don't think so.

You're getting them for dinner.

Well, yes.

But you can do it tomorrow afternoon.

Who is that?

I don't know.

Where are they meeting?

Six o'clock.

But who's going to do the vice president's presiding?

Well, who's going to do the revenue sharing?

It's not like I'm going to do it tomorrow at 10 or 3 o'clock.

Tomorrow at 10 or 3 o'clock.

Should I go over there?

That would be my recommendation.

And then leave?

Yes.

Well, first of all, it's a hell of a platform.

You get very high visibility.

You tip the burden two ways.

You tip it to the industry and to the states, and you indicate it doesn't all end up at the present store.

Very, I think, very driving.

They'll say, this is a new setting to me.

And they'll wait until they get home and can get to Dexter.

That's way better.

And if you do go up, let the secretary make the announcement here before you go up.

Yeah.

And you refer to it in your remarks.

We haven't announced yet.

And it doesn't steal the limit of the relationship.

That way, the rest of the city, we want to get that point.

That point is true.

I don't think you need a forum for this.

The difficulty is that you're going to get those comments from the governors, whether it's announced down here or up there.

But why do you need a forum for this?

I think you can go to the governors and ask them, but I think it's... Why don't you do it a little later?

Because usually it's more of a last-minute thing.

I think it's better to talk to the people who want to be first in the parliament position.

I think if the president goes to the governor's and the president announces it, you escalate it.

I think if you announce it, you cannot refer to it, Mr. President.

Well, I think the reaction of Jim, of course, to the executive council's safety words and the effort that he's doing

We want these people to know we're here, right?

You've got to be straight with them, Mr. Taylor.

I mean, you visit the Cyber Council meeting in San Francisco.

You happen to be in San Francisco.

I'm doing it.

You've been telling them that they need to tell them about this.

Okay.