{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/presentation/3/context.json","id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/iiif/3775t3hp3t/manifest","type":"Manifest","label":{"en":["[first labor film], 1959"]},"logo":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/organizations/logo_images/000/000/029/original/uo-logo-hires.png?1580744881","metadata":[{"label":{"en":["Identifier"]},"value":{"en":["Coll 001 (Collection Call Number)","Coll001_24_005 (Digital Object ID)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Description"]},"value":{"en":["Senate Recording Studio film about the Landrum-Griffin Act (Abstract)","16mm film, 800 ft., b\u0026amp;w, sound (Physdesc)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Date"]},"value":{"en":["1959 (Creation)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Source Metadata URI"]},"value":{"en":["https://scua.uoregon.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/673546"]}}],"summary":{"en":["Senate Recording Studio film about the Landrum-Griffin Act","16mm film, 800 ft., b\u0026amp;w, sound"]},"provider":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/aboutus","type":"Agent","label":{"en":["University of Oregon Libraries"]},"homepage":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/","type":"Text","label":{"en":["University of Oregon Libraries"]},"format":"text/html"}],"logo":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/organizations/logo_images/000/000/029/original/uo-logo-hires.png?1580744881","type":"Image"}]}],"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/collection_resource_files/thumbnails/000/261/249/small/001-24-005.mp4_1738350516.jpg?1738350517","type":"Image","format":"image/jpeg"}],"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 1 of 1 - 001-24-005.mp4"]},"duration":1562.38933,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/collection_resource_files/thumbnails/000/261/249/small/001-24-005.mp4_1738350516.jpg?1738350517","type":"Image","format":"image/jpeg"}],"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/content/1/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-universityoforegonlibraries.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/261/249/original/001-24-005.mp4?1738350512","type":"Video","format":"video/mp4","duration":1562.38933,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["AUTO_TRINT_001-24-005.mp4 [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Ladies and gentlemen, it has been suggested by many of my friends that on this telecast I give my reasons for opposing the recently passed Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill on Labor. I'm going to do it because I must agree that the press of the country as a whole has never given to the American people the point of view of those of us that felt that this bill was a great mistake. And of course, do not overlook the fact that many of the senators and congressmen who voted for the bill are telling you now at the grassroots of America that it has many bad features in it. But that was the best bill they felt that could be passed through this session of the Congress. And, of course, I don't share that point of view.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=10.35,55.42015"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/2","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e I feel as a duty as a member of the Congress to follow where the facts lead, not where political expediency leads. I thought it was the duty of members of Congress to vote for what they believe to be good legislation, not legislation with very many bad features in it. And of course, the alibi of many of the politicians that voted for this bill is that labor can live with this bill. And I don't accept that either, because I want to point out to you that there are many things that cannot live with this bill. For example, impartial justice cannot live with it. Equal application of constitutional rights cannot live with this bill. Fair competition on the part of employers against employers in low labor standard areas cannot live with this bill. Government, by just law cannot live with that. In fact, the best interest of the public time will prove cannot live with this bill.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=55.42015,119.97426"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/3","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Let us not forget that the chief architect of this bill in conference, the senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, apparently thinks so little of the bill that he does not want to have his name associated with it. But it is still true, ye shall know them by their fruits. And make no mistake about it, this bill would not have passed the conference or the Congress if the senator from Massachusetts had supported me in my opposition to it.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=119.97426,150.35678"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/4","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Political opportunism rode roughshod over the Congress of the United States in the passage of this bill. I have never seen so much political pressure put on the Congress in my 15 years in the Senate, as I witnessed in connection with this bill. Now, we're all agreed that some labor legislation should have been passed because certainly there was a need for a union reform bill. I supported the original Kennedy Irvin bill. In fact, I was one of its co-sponsors because there are none who can successfully deny, in my judgment, that there was a need for legislation that would protect the rank and file members of American unions from union leaders that betrayed their trust to the membership of the union. There was need for legislation that provided a protection of the funds of the members of the Union. Legislation that would make it a crime for a union leader to embezzle or spend for his personal purposes the funds of a union. Legislation that would require secret ballots in union elections. That would require union constitutions and bylaws that provided for democratic procedures and running the affairs of a union so that the rank and file members of the union would determine the policies of the Union rather than an oligarchy or group of union official dictators sitting at the top.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=150.35678,240.18657"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/5","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e That's kind of the bill I supported in the Kennedy Irvin bill and in a year ago and the Kennedy Ives bill. But this kind of legislation that was passed is going to rise to plague not only labor and industry, but to plague the public, because it's not fair labor legislation. I want to set forth some of my reasons as to why I do not think it's fair Labor legislation. Before I do that, let me warn the rank and file of American Union that one of the chief reasons why the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce and other known anti-labor groups in this country propagandized and lobbied so hard for this bill was because they want to weaken the political strength of organized labor in this country. I'd have the workers remember that every time your leaders sit down at a collective bargaining table, you have great political interests at that table as well, because any city council, any state legislature or any national Congress in one sitting can proceed to wipe out some of your precious hard won labor rights by anti-labor ordinances or state laws or federal law.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=240.18657,319.95284"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/6","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e And I hope that Labor will recognize that it took a serious political beating in the passage of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill and will recognize that in the years immediately ahead, they must exercise greater political activity if they're going to protect their economic rights. I'd have you remember, if you're a worker, that your chief obligation is to your citizenship, not to your union, and only to the extent that you're a good citizen, by participating in the political life of your city, state and nation, can you, in the long run, protect your best interests. Now, you say, Mr. Senator, what do you think some of the main objections to this bill really are? Well, let me mention a few of them.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=319.95284,371.78001"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/7","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e This bill provides that rival candidates for union offices can have available to them for inspection Union lists.  You say, \"What's wrong with that?\" Well, one of the things that labor has had to fight the hardest over the years to protect is the secrecy of its membership, because anti-labor employers would sure like to get a hold of the membership list of union. And there are a good many commercial concerns that would like to operate commercially upon members of unions, that would like to get a hold of them too for business purposes. But the main reason why unions have fought so hard to protect the secrecy of their membership list is because they know that anti-labor employers can put them to anti-labor use.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=371.78001,415.99755"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/8","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Under this bill, all an employer has to do is to get a steward within the union or several stooges within the union to run for union offices and get them to inspect the union list and make available to them what the employer needs for a successful anti-labor drive against the union. Well, you international Union officers tell me that they cannot, in many instances, get the union list of the locals and their own union. And don't forget also that the jurisdictional strikes and strikes that plague American labor involve a protection to union mass because rival unions would certainly like to get the lists of the unions with whom they are opposed in the jurisdictional dispute. And I think it's most important that we protect the union list. And I'm sorry that the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill violates that precious union right.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=415.99755,470.95806"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/9","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Then I would point out that this bill has a very unfair bonding provision. It eliminates so-called position schedule bonding. That is, it does not allow a union to proceed to buy a bond, say, from Lloyd's of London or some other surety bond company for all the offices of the union. Banks can do it. Insurance companies can do it. Other corporations can do it. Why a different role for union? Why did we pass a law that requires the union to get an individual bond for each individual officeholder going to increase the cost exorbitantly? The union just told me the other day that it now has a surety bond arrangement with Lloyd's of London at $0.35 per thousand dollars. Under this law, it would go up to at least $9 per thousand. In fact, unless this section is clarified, there's a great danger that many unions will not even be able to comply with it. This is so unfair. And it also eliminates certain surety bonding companies. It eliminates Lloyd's of London, for example, as I said, on the floor of the Senate. If any politician want to tell me that there's any surety bond company more financially sound and Lloyd's of London, but Lloyd's of London provides for cheap rates in so-called position schedule bonding that's eliminated from this bill.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=470.95806,563.78836"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/10","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, what we should do immediately when we meet in January, now that this bill has been passed, is proceed to correct this unfortunate bonding provision of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill so that we will not have one rule for the banks and other corporations and another rule for the union. I agree that there ought to be surety bond, but the surety bonds ought to cover all of the positions in the union, all the offices in the union, but not be required to be taken out for each individual union officer. Of course, don't forget that by the provision of this bill, you put a private business in a position to conduct an investigation of individuals and then announce to the public that is denying a bond to some particular union officer. If you're going to have an investigation that should be done by the government through the FBI or the Department of Justice or the Labor Department. You shouldn't give this anti-labor weapon over to a bonding company because all they have to do some morning is have a nice headline in your local paper union such and such denied a bond because Mr. Z is president of the union. That isn't required, may I say, as far as banks and corporations are concerned, I agree that the membership of the union should be protected and it's funds. But so-called positional schedule bonding will do it. But that has been eliminated from the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=563.78836,658.64574"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/11","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now I turn to another part of the bill that I think is very unfair. It found to contain the provision in the Kennedy Urban bill that the Secretary of labor could make an exemption to small unions as far as detailed reporting is concerned. Unions under 200 membership would fill out a special form, a short form of reporting required by the Secretary of Labor under the original Kennedy Urban Bill, of which I was a co-sponsor.  Because this reporting requirement of the new bill is also going to cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. And many small unions just can't afford all that red tape detail reporting. But this bill did not make any distinction between small unions and large unions. One of the reasons I voted against the bill was because I thought it was very unfair to small union.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=658.64574,714.91308"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/12","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, another major objection to the bill is its handling of the so-called no man's land cases. That is, those cases in which the National Labor Relations Board has refused jurisdiction. But the United States Supreme Court has held fall within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. And why did the court so hold? Because the cases involved involve interstate commerce. Now don't forget, the federal government jurisdiction in industrial disputes is limited to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. One of the worker works in a plant that's involved in interstate commerce. Then the federal government does have jurisdiction over the Taft-Hartley law of any labor dispute involved in that plant. But under the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill disputes that the National Labor Relations Board doesn't take jurisdiction over are transferred to state courts to be settled by state law in accordance with state procedure. That's one of the most vicious anti-labor features of this bill. It plays right into the hands of the low standard labor state. I don't see, for example, how a senator from New England or the Middle West, with the great breadth of industries moving in the low labor standard state could vote for a bill with this no man's land provision in it.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=714.91308,806.03404"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/13","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e What does it violate? It violates a basic tenet of American justice, namely that there shall be uniform application of the Constitution to all citizens, no matter where they live in this country. We should not segmentize the Constitution of the United States. And I would have voted against this bill if this had been its only bad feature because we all know that many state courts in low standard labor states involve themselves in many anti-labor injunctions. In my speech in the Senate, for example, I discussed at length the record of the Florida Supreme Court in connection with the Florida hotel case. Originally, the National Labor Relations Board did not take jurisdiction over the hotel cases in Florida. But the United States Supreme Court held that they involved interstate commerce and that the National Labor Relations Board should take jurisdiction. But under the Landrum Kennedy Griffin bill now passed by the Congress, it would be possible for the National Labor Relations Board, in effect, to transfer to the state many cases that involve interstate commerce but are in plants where the employees are so small in number or the total business of the plant is so small in amount that the National Labor Relations Board doesn't think it can handle those cases because it has so many larger cases waiting to be handled.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=806.03404,895.80041"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/14","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, what did I support as an alternative? Because I never make a criticism in the field of labor law unless I'm willing to offer an alternative. Senator Proudy of Vermont, a Republican and a very able one, offered what is known as the Proudy amendment. He provided that the National Labor Relations Board could transfer these cases to the state court, but that the state courts would be required to follow federal law. In other words, they would be required to follow the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Law in the settlement of those disputes. And appeals from the decisions of the state court would be to the federal court. I asked the Senate the simple question What's wrong with that? That's a fair provision. That means uniform justice in the United States that ought to be adopted. And let me say, we should have fought until Christmas time, if necessary, in the Congress of the United States to see to it that that provision was written in the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill before it was passed. Time is going to prove I'm satisfied how right I am what I now make as my allegation against the bill. No man's Land section of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Belt is going to prove to be an anti-labor weapon used by anti-labor employers to prevent the organizing of unions in the so called small plant in the low labor standards states of this country.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=895.80041,990.53708"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/15","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now the next objection that I want to make to this bill is in regard to its anti picketing provisions. There are abusive picketing practices, wherever violence exists on a picket line I am for legislation that will prevent the violence. And where an illegitimate picket line is stretched like where a union loses an election one day and almost the next day stretches a picket line in front of that employer. That's unfair. That should be stopped. And I was for legislation that sought to stop it. And the Kennedy Ervin bill had provisions in it that would have stopped. But what the Kennedy Landon Griffin Bill does is outlaw so-called consumer picketing lines. That is where an employer is operating a very low standard store or plant or business under this law, Unions cannot stretch a picket line pointing out to the public on their picket signs that this particular business is unfair to organized labor. This is a great mistake. This is one of the precious free speech rights of organized labor protected by the courts for years and years.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=990.53708,1065.08432"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/16","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Let me take you to just 1 or 2 cases on this matter that I discuss on the floor of the Senate when this issue was before the Senate. I referred to a great case in New York in Goldfinger versus Feintuch, where the court said in 1937, and this was a New York Court of Appeals case, and I quote, The court or the manufacturer disposes of the product through retailers in unity of interest with it, unless the union may follow the product to the place where it is sold and peacefully at the public to refrain from purchasing it. The union would be deprived of a fair and proper means of bringing its plea to the attention of the public. Now, this principle of the consumer picket line was sustained by the United States Supreme Court in the famous Barnhill versus Alabama case. 310 U.S. 88, in which the court said every expression of opinion on matters that are important has the potentiality of inducing action and the interests of one rather than another group in society. But the group in power at any moment may not impose penal sanctions on peaceful and truthful discussion of matters of public interest, merely on assuring that others may thereby be persuaded to take action inconsistent with intent. And in another great case. Chief Justice Stone had this to say insofar as a consumer picketing. A publication unaccompanied by violence of a notice that an employer is unfair to organized labor and requesting the public not to patronize him is an exercise of the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, which cannot be made unlawful by any act of Congress. That's the famous Hutchison case. But in this bill, an attempt has been made to outlaw consumer picketing. I think it was a great mistake. I urge that we only have legislation that made clear that no violence could take place on a picket line, but that Labor should have the right to advertise its point of view in regard to the labor practices of any employer.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=1065.08432,1203.85889"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/17","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now there's another feature of this bill about which there's very much misunderstanding on the part of the public, and that's because a couple psychological terms were used throughout this discussion that scared the public so called blackmail picketing, so-called hot cargo picketing. Now, what's involved in this matter? Of course, nobody wants to support coercive picketing. Nobody's going to support violent picketing. But the so-called hot cargo picketing that has been outlawed in this bill covers this type of a case. Employer X has a labor dispute. He runs very low labor standards in his plant. Employer Y running another business buys goods from employer X. Now, prior to the passage of this law, employer Y could enter into a contract with his union, which he agreed that in case Employer X or any other employer got involved in a labor dispute employer Y would not buy goods from him during the course of the dispute. That kind of a contract has been declared lawful by the courts over and over again. Now, under the old law, the union couldn't strike employer Y If he did buy goods from employer X, the union would have to use other legal processes by way of civil action to try to enforce its contract. But under the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill, if employer y seeks to enter into an agreement with a union that he will not buy goods from employer X while employer X is engaged in a labor dispute that contract becomes illegal. And in effect, you see the law forces employer Y to support employer X engaged in a labor dispute while that labor dispute is carried on. And I think this is very unfair, it's discriminatory, it strikes at law and one of the great freedoms of American labor in the use of economic force in the settlement of this labor dispute. I don't like economic force either, when it is used by labor and inconveniences the public.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=1203.85889,1343.77981"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/18","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But let me say to you, Mr. and Mrs. Consumer, that labor rights happen to be also your rights. Free labor is a part of your freedom. And the protection of the rights of labor are one of the prices we ought to be willing to pay in order to protect our own freedom. We can eliminate labor abuses without adopting this kind of unfair, discriminatory labor legislation. Well, there's another feature of this bill that some unions like, particularly two groups of unions, the garment workers and the construction union, because this bill exempts the garment workers and the construction unions from the so-called hot cargo restriction. And did so on the basis that they are integrated industries that contract out to subcontractors and jobbers. A great deal of work in the garment industry and the building trade industry. That's true. And I think they have had an exemption. But I think all other businesses that meet the same qualifications should have had an exemption too.  I recognize that the garment workers and the building trade workers are politically powerful, But I don't think politics should have ruled the day. I think we should have adopted, and I offered the amendment, that would have required an exemption being granted to any industry that met the same integrated qualifications meant for the garment industry and the building trade industry. Illustrates again my dedication to that American principle of jurisprudence. Namely, there must be uniform application of the law to all life cases in the country if you're going to have just administration of government. And the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill violates it not only in these exemptions to the garment industry and the building trade industry, but violates it also in connection with the no man's land cases, violates it in connection with the hot triangle cases. In fact, it's honeycomb, in my judgment, with a lack of uniformity in the application of the rule of law.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=1343.77981,1484.87059"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/19","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, what do I think we should do about this bill? Well, first, the American citizens better understand its shortcoming. Then come the next session of Congress, a good faith attempt ought to be made to repeal or modify those sections of the law that contain the type of injustices that I've talked about on this telecast. Now, there are many other details that I would mention by way of criticizing the bill as time permitted. What I've tried to do in this telecast in broad brushstrokes is set forth the main reason why I oppose this politically inspired bill.  And to the workers of the country, I say now, look to your political right. Get busy on the political front. Take that political action necessary to produce a modification of this bill in the next session of Congress. Thank you very much for listening to my analysis and criticism of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin and anti labor bill.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249#t=1484.87059,1549.99"}]},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["English [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141307/file/261249/transcript/76213/annotation/20","type":"Annotation","motivation":"subtitling","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/file_transcripts/associated_files/000/076/213/original/transcript_1740167790.vtt20250221-2577-xct6ne.vtt20250221-2577-xct6ne?1740167790","format":"text/vtt","language":"en"},"target":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/file_transcripts/associated_files/000/076/213/original/transcript_1740167790.vtt20250221-2577-xct6ne.vtt20250221-2577-xct6ne?1740167790"}]}]}]}