Nixon, Tonelli & Hodgson on Labor Relations and Foreign Policy

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Hi, how are you, Mr. President?

I'm good, good to see you.

Mr. President, good to see you.

Mr. President, how are you?

The last time I saw you was at the Sheridan Hotel in 1960.

Right.

A fundraising dinner.

I've got you, Mr. President.

Hello, Mr. President.

How are you, Mr. President?

I'm good, Mr. President.

Oh, sorry to keep you waiting.

Come on over here and sit down so we can get a nice picture taken.

Well, I want to say that I'm really very grateful for your support.

I hope to hear from your people.

That's the main thing.

Plenty of jobs, and also to get a fair treatment.

And if it isn't fair to give us, we're going to give them hats.

I think, Mr. President, I say this in all sincerity, I think you've been doing a great job.

I think you've been doing a tremendous job.

I think some of your bold moves and some of the things that you've done with the countries that we've had that relationship actually have been our adversaries, and you've developed a rapport with them.

This is great.

I think it was needed.

It was long overdue.

And with Peking, I think you've developed a better rapport with Russia.

There's no question about it.

Certainly, you've done everything humanly possible to bring the war to an end.

You've brought back more than 500,000 soldiers.

And you're trying to stabilize the economy.

We're opposed to wage and price control, but the time comes, and we need to have it.

As a matter of fact, I think that price and wage control should have been involved before you were elected president.

They worked during World War II, and I think that when Truman saw that we got equally involved in the Korean War, he again involved wage and price control, and

established a formula as to how which increases could be granted.

Of course, you inherit this condition, and you're trying to do the best you can with it.

We appreciate this.

And so far as my organization is concerned, there's a bill that's being worked on in the Senate, the Harkeys First Bill.

We are very much opposed to this bill.

my organization in its entirety for the following reasons.

The pulp and paper industry exports $1,400,000,000 of paper per annum.

You do?

Yes, sir.

This is the equivalent of between 45 and 50,000 jobs in the pulp and paper industry.

That's good.

This is great.

Where do you get your paper?

I thought that we brought most of our paper.

We export that much.

I'm sure.

We have paper mills in the south of the National Paper Company that practically export all of it on foot of the mill.

This is basically the raw material.

In other words, the mills that make it all up.

We manufacture the pulp, manufacture the paper, and then convert it by various products.

Corrugated boxes, emeralds, bags, complete from time to time.

As I said at the White House conference, this industry employs over 750,000 workers.

It has a volume of business of over $22 million per annum.

And if you took all of the sundry industry that's connected with it, you could perhaps employ more workers than steel or auto does.

Yeah, when you get in boxes and all the other things, I mean, what do you mean, containers?

I mean, it's terrific.

All your milk comes down in paper containers.

Paper containers.

So we cover the gaps.

Right.

We certainly, if I am needed to testify on Harkinsburg, I don't testify because this is a mandate from our union.

The difficulty with the Harkinsburg bill is that it appeals to a lot of businessmen, of course, but of course it appeals to a lot of people in labor, certainly on the ground.

They figure we're going to export the jobs, you see, and we don't want to export any jobs.

But on the other hand, we've got to, when it comes, just like you mentioned, as this relationship with Russia became Japan for us, it's to the interest of the United States to increase its trade, not to decrease its trade abroad.

Because that means more jobs for us.

The only problem we've got is to remain competitive.

Exactly.

And we can remain competitive and see that we don't get unfair treatment from countries abroad.

I believe them all right.

But if we start getting older and we just decide not to be competitive, it would just cut you right to pieces.

Oh, sure.

You'd make a great buy-off.

That's right.

A million, $450 million.

Well, we couldn't get rid of it.

Now, these things that I'm getting in the comics from the Falkland Table Institute, and they're accurate.

Oh, sure.

Sure.

There's no question about it.

Of course, we're going to be imposing tax on anything that's coming into the United States in the way of parity.

And certainly there'll be reciprocity, as I saw the other end of it, perhaps in double holds.

Yes, right.

Yeah, that's the thing we have to realize, is that we're, particularly the European, you know, they're playing a very rough game.

And the moment that we start doing anything, the Europeans and the Japanese, the big deals for us in the free world are Europe and Japan.

That's where you're at.

the great industrial nations will not, as long as, as long as, the moment that we start raising barriers, they're going to get something out of us.

So the point is, it doesn't mean we don't give them something for nothing.

On the other hand, they are going to take something from us without giving something in return.

If it's bad, they'll give us something bad.

That's the name of this game.

That's the name of the game.

So the intention of our people is good.

In other words, they say that what they intend is to keep jobs in the U.S.

The problem is that the method is a blunderbuss.

What does it do?

You know, it cheats on our own people.

In other words, it might save some jobs, but it might lose more jobs than it saves.

In the long run, I think that would be... That's what we're interested in.

Is it lose more jobs or save more jobs?

I'm interested in that.

You know, I'm the chairman of the Politico Union of Europe.

And the office of Union for Switzerland has been...

There's 32 countries that participate with this federation of the home paper industry.

My objective is to see that their standards of living are raised somewhat so that they become less and less competitive.

Sure.

So they are building more.

It might not be in my lifetime or your lifetime, but at least we're trying to see and ultimately

the workers of Europe, particularly those of three nations.

And even Japan.

Japan, yes.

They're all coming up.

They just have a long way to go.

I've got to go to Japan on November the 5th.

Oh.

The paper industry is founding a pulp and paper union.

So on November the 5th, I've got to go there to make a speech at the founding of the union of the pulp and paper industry.

President, you would be interested, last month we attended his convention, and he just merged with the book, paper, and so on, you know, as a combined union.

And the secretary spoke, and I think it was one of the secretaries spelled out, your program, the administration program, probably got one of the finest receptions that we've got in any liberal administration.

It's different.

And I'm just telling you something about Jim.

We have about 2,700 delegates to the end.

I was not listening to that.

Yes, sir, you were.

At the morning that I heard James spoke, we must have at least 70,000 people in the arena.

That's tremendous.

And really, James did a tremendous job.

And I don't think that in all of his experience, he received as welcome an ovation as he did there.

He was buoyed by that.

I wanted me to say to you, Mr. President, that Joe Tinelli has been of great support over the last ten and a half, three years on a broad range of matters.

And Jim deeply appreciates the support of the personnel that he has received.

Well, there's not only been support there, but I'm also aware of the funding for other matters.

is a national offense and that counts a lot.

I was talking to Jenny Wiesen yesterday, and I see Peter Vernon later today, and I think about those thoughts and it's very, very impressive.

The majority of what he was saying is that whatever areas of disagreement on some end we have when it comes to national offense, they know where the country

Absolutely, 101%.

Absolutely.

Your foreign policy is just great.

It couldn't be any better.

You have done everything humanly possible.

And your posture on foreign matters, on foreign policy, I think, is just superb.

And this is the thinking of our rank and file members of our board.

You know, it's an interesting thing I hear people often say.

They say, well, when your leader comes up, they agree.

You know, he's just being himself.

Well, to an extent, you are.

But on the other hand...

a labor leader like anybody else is going to run for office.

And if you don't, if you get out of step with your record file, you're out of your can.

You're out of office.

That's right.

Absolutely.

So therefore, it's really when mentors and everything go out there that they put this up, you know.

Of course, he's quite a fightsy guy.

Well, he's got a pretty good .

But I do appreciate the fact that, truly, these years, I've had times not having too much support from people on the labor side, really something .

I don't know what they're wearing, but I appreciate it.

We're going to try to do a good job for you.

Well, I think you're doing your job.

And I'll do it after the election as well.

That's the important thing.

Well, you know, your Labor Day speech, you know, on the point of your commission.

Right.

You know, I think, Mr. President, this is one of the most important things that you've done.

I'm for that 100%.

We are living in the 20th century.

And to think that every time an agreement expires...

that we are going to use the conference table as the battlefield for industrial warfare.

This is sheer nonsense.

We've got to be able to find methods and means and ways of resolving our difference without resorting to economic pressure.

Here in New York, the building trades on strike for three months.

Over what?

This is sheer nonsense.

I mentioned to Jim on Friday night at dinner, I said, you know, we deal with big complexes, and you can't build a building that will pay less than $100 million.

$100 million.

Well, you know, it really gets down to areas where it really disturbs people, too.

People would understand, for example, if you're in New York City, and so forth, and the right of course is not in that.

You take these teachers, things that are going on now.

That's right, people are at the wall.

Terrible, terrible.

They have the kids at home.

You know, they had a small soccer team.

They didn't have a good job.

They didn't go to school.

The teachers strike.

Oh, boy.

We don't do it.

You can't question, I think that teacher is making a mistake because they go just too far.

And then the Congress will want to go too far the other way.

Right.

That's what happens, you know, from one extreme to the other.

That's right.

You're pushed to not be here as a teacher, you know.

Well, the need for responsible leadership in labor is, we found out, for example, when we settled the postal strike in the middle of the street, there's my credit for that.

and I do, those people, but what we, and so does George Lee, but what really happened there was that we had first to recognize, first, the right of the government union, I mean, they were extraordinary, right?

Second, that they could bargain, that they must be given fair treatment.

But then we have to work out some method whereby we can sell that dispute without stopping the mails, because people will not let the mails be stopped.

You know?

Exactly.

And they didn't.

But the counterpoint of that is that if they're going to give up their right to a work stoppage, then they have to be given fair treatment in return.

Right.

At least that's our philosophy.

Well, it has to be done.

It's going to work.

So I don't know whether you know, the president spoke of that, the president signed soon after he was in office, he said he was looking for a broad range of federal employees to work with.

That's right.

We've come a long way, it's been eight years since he came here.

That's right, we've got some of those here.

We've got Ryan.

Well, John Granville, I mean, he is.

Right, right.

He's a good man.

Yes, he is.

He's strong.

Yeah, he's strong.

John is very strong.

He's a southerner.

Yes, sir.

He's a Georgia boy.

Yeah?

Yeah.

But I say to the other guy, whatever he's in, I'm close to him.

He had a little opposition to this last convention.

Father, Jim, please, Jim, please, is there any answer to that?

No, at least two males we've adopted.

I told this to Jim Friday night.

They do classification.

They did a way for this other man to call the crossing of crabs.

We still operate all the operations.

We have to have welders, electricians, tight fitters.

They're all right.

They all work seriously?

Yes.

In some situation, the IAM have a little portion of the festival workers.

So what we've done is adopted a new classification called across the press, and we've taught these men to perform three or four functions.

So the companies will give these men a dollar or a dollar more, but they will not have to have a man standing there for three hours waiting for something great to happen so that he can go to work.

Smart.

That makes it better.

We'd like to talk to you after the election, brother.

I'd like to.

I did say about the commission that we didn't want to, we literally have not talked about membership on it before the election because the people that, after the election, I want to consult with some top people on this thing and, you know, as to who ought to be on it.

Because we want to be sure we have the right to have people on it.

We want to be sure it's properly balanced.

The commission isn't worth a dime unless it's balanced and can accomplish something.

If you just have the commission on this one side and the other side is going to walk out and charge you.

So did you give that some thought?

I did, and I tried to give him some idea.

I just mentioned to the president about crossing the cracks.

We haven't actually, I'm on that commission, we haven't even decided the number yet, have we?

No.

About all we can say, I believe we've decided that the composition is going to be labor and land management and some tri-government part of it.

But you see, your number, we didn't, we ought to get this from, we'll let the number somewhat be determined by how many we think are needed to get the proper representation.

But if you'll give, as a matter of fact, we don't have to wait long, but if you talk privately with the chair about what you feel on this, because we want to get going on that and have that in place whenever we need.

Jim, I had some discussion on it already, so we pursued it.

We were just talking about the reception you got out there when you spoke at Denver.

Joe's always a great father.

He's a labor secretary.

He knows how to get around everybody.

But we were glad to see you.

There's a lot of union conventions in the last two weeks, more than I've ever been to in the previous three years.

And it seems to me, Bill, that each one of the receptions gets just a little bit

You know, after the convention was over, I went down to see Jim at the hotel for a few minutes, and then I stopped off to make a tape at the studio to play it on paper today.

And while I was there waiting to make this tape, they were putting the news together for the evening news broadcast.

And they were playing Jim Hudson's speech at my convention.

And they were dubbing it in, and they were saying that although the Secretary of Labor received a warm welcome when he walked in, that during the speech, the delegates sat on their hands.

And I said to myself, my God.

Now, I saw this with my own eyes.

Just an hour and a half ago was the kind of reception and applause that Hudson got at least a half a dozen times during the course of his speech.

And here the press is just...

They were trying to pick up something.

And as a matter of fact, you know, you can make a speech sometimes and nobody pause during it.

That doesn't mean that they don't like it.

You know, cheer lines can be put in here for that purpose.

The main question is, what do they think after the speech?

And after the speech, they report it.

That's what counts.

Oh, they stood up and they gave a standing ovation.

That's what counts.

Well, I'll show you what these plants can do.

I know.

Well, I can't.

Oh, thank you.

Now, we want to give you a small little memento.

And this is the, these are the, this is a new presidential costume with the, with the seal in color right off the flag.

Well, thank you very much.

And for your wife, this is the same thing, but with the seals taken from the floor, see, there's what you want to see there.

And then it's in the form of a little pen sheet.

Well, we should cherish these the rest of our lives.

I'm sorry to not be on the paper, but we could do that.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

No.

Don't take it out.

No.

He has enough trouble with his cabinet.

Don't take it out.

No, I don't have time for it.

That's right.

Well, thank you so much for coming in.

I appreciate your time.

You have a lot of sense.

It means a lot.

Thank you.

A great deal.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

Nixon, Tonelli & Hodgson on Labor Relations and Foreign Policy

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on September 26, 1972

Cite this conversation