Conversation 787-012

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

How you doing?

Good to see you.

Step over here.

Yeah, how are you?

This is a good place to have these.

Thank you very much.

I think it wants to come out.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

uh... uh...

Well, he might invite me, whatever happens.

Now, should we get a group picture?

Should we do that here?

Maybe we should do it right here.

We've met in the camera.

Maybe there's no, I'll tell you what.

Rather than sitting, let's sit because we've evolved.

Let's sit down and have a picture.

We've met in the camera.

Now, let's sit down as well.

No protocol on this matter.

We'll try to put a tree on it.

That's what I think.

You would have a little more.

You have a person sitting out here.

That's right.

Remember that?

The only purpose of that is to be sure that that number is so fast.

And he doesn't get any out of the car.

Six shots, there will be one another way.

Otherwise, there's always a chance that somebody's going to do it six times a year because nobody's going to do it.

That's the purpose of the whole thing.

President, I know there's one group of fellows that really doesn't need any introduction to the Oval Office of the administration.

And because of the presence we have here today, we've worked long with them.

They've worked well with us.

There's probably no better relationship in the administration of any intentions of American leaders than this administration's or this group.

So we're particularly proud when, after some discussions we've had, members announced that they'd like to come forward with

We've had several discussions over a considerable period of time.

They have a statement they're going to be releasing today after this meeting.

opportunities for growth and for stability of employment in this industry.

It's a thing that we've been working on in many different ways, but that we can give new herb and new beer to as we go through the ensuing four years.

So that is particularly the main thing that we've been discussing and that is outlined in our statement.

But there are a few other things that I thought I'd just mention to you that we've had some discussions of that I think that you ought to be aware of.

These discussions have gone on over the last few months.

For instance,

There always has been very concern in this group about a really fair administration of the Davis-Bacon Act, and we've assured them of that.

That we're going to not propose what is traditionally called anti-labor legislation, the kind of thing that we've talked about, you know, that is a divisive kind of thing, and we have that under that name.

Now, there's going to be an attempt on our part in the Department of Labor to get somebody from this organization even higher than we've already made to the point that we have, for instance, in our safety organization, taking in one of the operating engineer staff, one of our principal mentors.

We're going to try to get somebody from out of this contingent, this group of units.

and to a consciously high level position in the organization to make them feel hopefully even more comfortable than we do now.

And that connection is very important.

I mentioned this to others, and I talked to George Meade about it.

We need representation.

We've got philosophy, of course,

He's been invaluable, for example, in postal strikes and some of these other things, because basically he knows business, you know what I mean?

And the difficulty is that he's getting somebody, getting people who, in the government, who can't.

really give us the real feel of the labor side, rather than simply somebody that's going to talk at it, that we're really part of, and this is what we want.

Now the problem, of course, is finding the people, and that's where you cause a lot of conflict with good names.

And as you know, even if you're an organization, there are very few people that do

Gee, we'll go to the top.

Guys, you can do it.

We want them.

We're looking.

In other words, this is not a question of your people asking for something.

It's a question of our seeking it.

Because I want this administration to be broad-based.

So I try to point out when I'm in Miami, which I do not want to.

I do not want to talk business in a luncheon with you.

have Republicans versus the Democrats, and we just don't have Republicans.

We want Democrats rather than Democrats.

We want business versus labor, or labor versus business.

We want both.

And that's why I totally rejected the idea, for example, of what some call quotas.

That, to me, is completely antagonistic to the American idea.

The moment that you get the quote of this, you know, and say because of color or religion or something, you have so many.

You're restricting people.

You're restricting people that you may put a ceiling, a floor on, but you're also putting a ceiling on.

And I'm against it in both areas.

But I digress.

The main point is that in this instance,

the one who follows to be thinking of what we could do.

Take, for example, the commission that we have spoken about in the Laker Day speech.

I deliberately went nuts.

I have not indicated, I have not indicated any membership on that, if it's composition, how many, or who's going to be on it before the election, because that would be considered partisan, Jim.

I mean, you know, it would be considered partisan.

Afterwards, we want your advice as to how many should be on it, and also as to names, and that's what we're looking for.

In other words, we don't look upon this as sort of a one-way street, so we will appreciate your advice on that.

That's one of the things we've been talking about.

So therefore, these cells are for the information.

So if there's any group of you down here in this country that's with or wouldn't join in this group right now, they've done more of it than any other single group that we've worked with.

Well, they set the stage, actually, with the, you know, everybody I remember is...

It's hard to rely.

It was about three years, two and a half years ago.

The biggest beat we had, you know, was the construction stage, you know, the building trades, the wage, and so forth.

And I remember all the jobs in Canada and the rest.

And everybody said that the commission was set up.

It was one of our members.

We had a meeting over there around Japan.

Well, that set the stage.

First, it worked extremely well.

But second, it set the stage for...

what we now are going to try to do here that doesn't mean everything is going to be settled without some disagreement but it does mean that the defaults have really given a

I think they showed it can be done, and that's a launching pad from which we started, necessarily.

And that brings to mind another thing that we've been talking about, and that is that if, as a plan, we start taking controls off there, the Ministry is very concerned about that in that phase that they preserve a kind of relationship that we've been able to develop and make sure that in any kind of adjustment period there that they

We work carefully with them to make sure that it's done in accordance with their interests.

I think it's a real good idea that we would want to because we started with them before the other grant started and we'll probably continue with them in ways of our own dividing afterwards.

That's another thing.

Another thing that we've talked about is we've got a group of people working on a long-range plan for the energy crisis in this country, particularly building the power plants.

Big business.

Big business for all of you.

Well, I don't think anybody even realizes what the crisis is.

I've been looking at some studies here, and it's just, we've just got to get into this.

We've got to get into it in a very big way, or in about 10 years we're going to run out.

We've got a power shortage in our east quite a bit.

We have it here now, right?

Jack, how many billions of dollars, as we were talking about over the next 10 years, in that power industry, it seemed to me that it was 80-some billion.

So it's really something that we can work on very much in connection with this other long range idea of manpower, growth in jobs, and leveling of employment peaks and valleys.

It might seem like a minor detail, but they're very concerned about it.

There's some action going on inside the administration, particularly in HUD, where we've been working on adjustment to building code.

They haven't really had any input into that until recently.

We've now arranged with the secretary in HUD to form a joint effort to involve them.

And so these are the kinds of things that we've been working on and understanding.

They haven't been inhibited.

Well, that's right.

They've been sort of developing this thing to a point where the unions felt it would be a good idea for them to get in and get some, what I would call, practical input.

But they should have been.

You bet.

We've got that all set up now.

So the agency's supposed to do it.

But they're doing that now.

They are.

We've just, in fact, completed the formal arrangements of it in the last ten days.

Mr. Secretary, you've kind of hit my line.

I mean, we've passed three resolutions that I would ask you to mention.

One was well-practiced, the wage and price controls.

One was referenced as hot, and the other was with the sterilization program.

So, you know...

I'm not going to get into psychiatry here, Todd.

I'm going to... No, I was going to ask the President, you know.

I didn't read it, but you weren't told what.

He stole my program.

I'm going to send it to him.

He bought my program.

Frank, maybe you'd like to make some observations this time.

You know, Mr. President, there's been some endorsements from the President's, but the Building Trades Department has a department because of the arrangement that the FLCIO has with regard to neutrality this year.

They have to kind of stay once removed from this, but we wanted, Frank and Bob Turgeon wanted to be

part of this operation so as to get the feeling that they weren't standing outside of this activity?

Well, Mr. President, as usual, Jim does a good job.

He's not said at all.

But as a result of this fine relationship we have with, in particular, with the Labor Department and Secretary Hodgson and Undersecretary Silver, we talk occasionally, not only about Labor Department problems, but we get into other areas of the

for remembering heaven.

And these discussions led to Larry and Jim both saying, well, now look, you know, you fellas think that you want some improvement in some of these other areas.

What are you going to do for us?

Well, that's a pretty good question.

Well, one day we got talking about this situation, and we found out that

Of course, the FLCIO had taken a neutral position.

So had we as a department.

So, the president decided that maybe on a voluntary individual basis we could do something.

And this is the result of it.

Now, I just want to make one other point clear.

There's nine presidents here.

There's eight that are not here.

This does not mean that there's eight that did not want to endorse President Nixon.

Two were absent.

Three had taken a neutral position.

And the other three have decided whether they can or whether they have the authority.

The three that took the neutral position can't back off.

But they will.

I would guess there will be over one or two that won't be actively supporting the administration or here for the re-election.

If you, of course, any administration.

So, this is why we're here.

We want you to know that we're wholeheartedly behind your re-election.

And we expect to help you very, very much.

And let me repeat that this legislative conference that we had in April, we had 4,000 people here.

And this is the second time I've invited you, and the next time you'll be right.

You want me whether I'm in office or not.

Why yes, I certainly hope you're going to be there.

I think the real movers is Jake.

Well, let me just respond by saying I've always valued the relationship we've had in this administration with the building trades.

We've met quite often.

And I remember very well not only some of these matters involving romantic relations, but we had an armistice meeting.

and economic recovery housing built in the left way, right?

We had an armistead that worked in good labor-management relations.

It's quite heartening to know that they've been extremely good and just sold right off.

And you've been responsible for that, Jim, and all the others who've worked with you to help them.

And we want to continue to build on that.

But I'm also deeply aware of the fact that, speaking of what, in terms of a quid pro quo,

that after I made my speech on November 3, 1969, which we had a couple of people demonstrating against the war and lots of other things, I just laid down the fact that without my asking, the people who stood up the strongest were not the business people of this country, but they did.

and they certainly weren't the educators but they were the representatives of American labor.

They call them hard hats.

George E. of course made a statement and so forth and so on.

But many of you fellows were here and whether it was that or the Cambodian decision or the decision on May 8th, the mine bomb, which we had to do in order to protect our own forces and to have some leverage, the point is that the

We're building trades, we're overhauling them in support of our policy, I say our policy.

Somebody, for example, there's a group that's set up that they call the Democrats.

I spoke to their leaders when I was down in Texas the other day.

There's another group that they said they want to set up.

What you're really talking about on this issue, in other words, this has no connotation, question of the loyalty of anybody else, but in this question, whether it's a question of national events,

and keeping the United States first in the world in that respect, or whether it's a question of taking, of having a strong, firm foreign policy in which we don't bug out of our commitments around the world.

The point is that I would say that there is about 80% support in the rank 5 of American labor, I think.

And that's been very encouraging because we need it.

And it's this that I'm most appreciative of, and clearly a part of it.

The political support that we have here, which I am most grateful for and which I trust in the period ahead will be special to you as well as to us.

I want you to make it clear that after November the 7th that we aren't going to say thank you very much and then not hear from us again.

That door is going to be open after there just as it is now.

But I want you to know that apart from that, whatever differences that we may have or may have had in other issues, the fact that you as leaders have stood so firmly on the national security issue has been a great deal over the last four years, and it's been a great deal in the country.

And I think you can be very proud of that, very proud of it.

And some people, I remember at the time, they sort of sneered about the hard hats and all that sort of thing.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'm very happy to have such guys standing with me rather than against me.

Mr. President, can I just say one more thing?

I know you're in a hurry.

Oh, that's right.

What is it, Governor?

We are aware that there are some other people heading up labor committees for the re-enactment of President Nixon.

It has nothing whatever to do with this action.

This is a voluntary action taken by these general presidents.

I understand.

Only outside of Jim Hopson and my sub-competitive partners.

Right.

I'm quite aware of that.

We were not talking to anyone else.

Right.

We realized, too, that I had talked to you.

I had talked to George May, and we were out playing unpublished ISO.

He told me about neutrality, and I'm quite aware of it.

individual support and so forth.

But we will respect that relationship.

But we also, we also figured that when you thought of sticking your neck out, you wouldn't do that unless you had a few followers.

You know, it was the biggest thing.

When I was talking to George and Amy out there, he was, you know,

He gets quite upset when people question whether or not he can, you know, whether he can carry his views and they, you know, hold the board.

And he said, you know, when these fellows forget, he says, I have run for office too.

And he said, the moment that I get too far out or I take a position that is not one of the very honest, they'll throw me out, which is really true.

All of you have run for office, right?

You've really had conventions in the last month.

Sure.

And the point is, the moment that you're out of step with your rank five, I mean, the moment that you rest, they accuse and recognize you sometimes, may not.

But the moment you do, you've got to be, you've got to answer to them.

It's the same as us.

I mean, so the idea that a leader of labor is not responsive to his members is ridiculous.

As a matter of fact, he probably has.

He probably has.

more restrictions on him than a corporation president.

A corporation chief executive officer, of course, must answer to the board of directors.

And the board of directors, ostensibly, must answer to the stockholders.

But how many times do the stockholders throw out a chief executive officer, right?

Whereas in your case, when you talk about what is democratic, I mean, small d, your labor union leader is likely to have

a broader basis of partners be my guest, and that's how I'm selling the business to you.

You're a dear veteran.

I just saw a big corporation man.

You're right, we have to get ourselves involved.

Try sometimes to have wall-to-wall bricklayers, 2,500 of them, and try and tell them what you're trying to do, but have them all say, we'll do it unanimously, it doesn't happen, you know.

But the fact is that the majority make it possible for all of us to be here.

And that's the reason why we can do what we're talking about right now.

Because the majority of our members are for it.

And our convention must stand.

Our actions at this time is a part of our discussion.

We're not standing alone.

And I was reading the memoirs of Winston Churchill.

And I'd rather say a period immediately after World War II, and toward the end of World War II, the memory of Henry Potsdam.

It meant true for the first time.

And it stopped.

Roosevelt had died just two months before.

Two months before, actually.

And then Churchill had to fly back to London.

because the British elections were held right at the middle of the Potsdam conference.

It was widely thought in the world, at least, that he would win, because basically his score, he had been kind of poor on the other hand.

There were great forces underneath him.

His organization was not as interested.

But he recounts the conversation, and Stalin,

Stalin said to him, he said, I said to him, when did the election come?

Stalin told Churchill this.

Churchill said, well, you really can't be sure, because you know, he said, we have, in our country, we have a two-party system.

After the translation, Stalin said, one party is better.

So anyway, we have a two-party system.

Look, uh, most of you fellas have gotten the other version of the, uh, the original, the, uh, Constitutional.

You've had some good ones made with the presidential seal and card.

This is right off, this is like, it appears on the flag.

So I want you guys to have one of these.

And we also have a new hand for you guys, which has a book on it.

This is the presidential seal and card.

That's all you, that's all people got to support them.

Come on.

And also, I promise to attend a bricklayer's two years from now.

I'll have a city conference in April.

Fair enough.

Good.

I appreciate it.

I got to go to New York and California today.

That's right.