{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/presentation/3/context.json","id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/iiif/w66930qx34/manifest","type":"Manifest","label":{"en":["[Senate Recording Studio 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_013 (Digital Object ID)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Description"]},"value":{"en":["Morse in the Senate Recording Studio addressing Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959; previously titled [Labor Film 2] (Abstract)","16mm film, 700 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/673548"]}}],"summary":{"en":["Morse in the Senate Recording Studio addressing Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959; previously titled [Labor Film 2]","16mm film, 700 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/000/261/255/small/001-24-013.mp4_1738351079.jpg?1738351080","type":"Image","format":"image/jpeg"}],"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 1 of 1 - 001-24-013.mp4"]},"duration":1736.10667,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/collection_resource_files/thumbnails/000/261/255/small/001-24-013.mp4_1738351079.jpg?1738351080","type":"Image","format":"image/jpeg"}],"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/content/1/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-universityoforegonlibraries.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/261/255/original/001-24-013.mp4?1738351075","type":"Video","format":"video/mp4","duration":1736.10667,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["AUTO_TRINT_001-24-013.mp4 [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/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 in the last session of Congress. And I'm going to do it because the press of this country, by and large, has really never set forth to the American people the objections to this bill. The press has given the impression that this bill is going to resolve some of the great labor abuses that have faced the American people. It is my opinion that this bill will prove to be a bill that is unfair to Labor, unfair to the public and unfair to management. I was one of the seven Senate conferees that worked on this bill. Our conference met for 12 long days and I wanted to report to you on this telecast some of the things that happened in that conference and some of the reasons why I voted against the bill. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=15.53,71.15115"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/2","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e You'll note that I referred to it as the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill because the man most responsible for this bill in its final form was the senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. He does not even like to have his name connected with this bill. In fact, his speech on the floor of the Senate was rather apologetic in regard to it. And he failed to take up any of the objections to the bill that I had raised in a 4.5 hour speech in which I set forth my reasons for opposing the bill. But, you know, there is an old biblical lesson in Saint Matthew's. By their fruits, ye shall know them. And this bill is really the Kennedy bill, assisted by Landrum and Griffin and bargained in the House of Representatives in drafting the final conference report. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=71.15115,123.04242"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/3","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e It's also interesting that the senator from Massachusetts, in his speeches across the country, and particularly in my state of Oregon, is trying to alibi this bill on the grounds that labor can live with it. Well, let me answer that argument. Impartial justice in America cannot live with it. Equality of constitutional rights cannot live with it. Fair competition for employers and high labor standards states cannot live with it. In fact, the best public interest cannot live with it. And time is going to prove that the senator from Massachusetts made a grievous mistake when he compromised the basic principles of the Kennedy Irvin bill, which I was one of the co-sponsors, and substituted for it the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=123.04242,177.30031"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/4","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e The Senator from Massachusetts has another alibi that is giving the American people or his support of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill. He said in my state recently, before a Labor council meeting that if he hadn't agreed to this bill in conference, if he had followed my motions that sought to have the Senate conferees go back to the Senate for instructions on certain features of the conference report, that he was afraid the Senate would have passed the Landrum Griffin bill without change as it came from the House. As I have said to the people of my state, just pause and reflect on that confession of the senator from Massachusetts. See the real sinister implication of that alibi of the senator from Massachusetts, Because don't forget, seven times in conference, I moved on seven different issues that the Senate conferees stand in disagreement and go back to the Senate of the United States for instruction on those issues. And seven times the senator from Massachusetts threw his vote to the Republicans and prevented my motion from prevailing in camp. And now he alibis by saying that he did that because he was afraid that if we'd gone back to the Senate, the Senate would have adopted the Landon Griffin bill as it came from the House without change. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=177.30031,267.5082"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/5","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Well, his assumption is clearly wrong, but let's assume for a moment his assumption is right and let's reflect on what his assumption really means. What he is saying, in effect, is that as chairman of the conference, he was willing to follow a parliamentary course of action that defeated the will of the majority of the Senate. Because if he really thought that a majority of the Senate would have approved the Landrum Griffin Bill without change, then the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, had the ethical duty to take the bill back to the floor of the Senate for final instruction, because if the Senate really would have passed the Landrum Griffin Bill, then the senator from Massachusetts has the ethical obligation to give the Senate the opportunity to do so. And if he is right in his fear that the Senate would have done that, then I say he's wrong in his ethics in preventing the Senate to have the opportunity to do it. But he's dead wrong in his assumption. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=267.5082,333.67943"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/6","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Because don't forget that the Kennedy Ervin bill passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 1. Don't forget that the Kennedy Ervin bill had many provisions in it diametrically opposed to the Landrum Griffin Bill. Who really thinks that we would have lost a majority of those 90 votes on any issue? In regard to which I move that the conferees go back to the Senate for instruction. The fact is the senator from Massachusetts surrendered Labor's rights in regard to those issues. And the ugly fact is that the senator's course of action in the conference means that Senator Kennedy was willing to compromise these issues for Southern delegates to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles in July. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=333.67943,387.57277"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/7","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e And I refuse to play presidential politics with the rights of free labor in the United States. That's what this all adds up to. But I now propose that for some of the issues that Kennedy voted for in conference that make this bill one of the most vicious anti-labor bills passed to this country in the last quarter of a century. And I take first the so-called no man's land provision of this bill. What is it referred to? It refers to the problems of hundreds of thousands of workers in this country who, prior to the passage of this bill, were denied any forum for the settling of their labor disputes with an employer because the National Labor Relations Board refused to take jurisdiction over their case. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=387.57277,438.44224"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/8","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, to understand this very important problem, you need to keep in mind the fact that the jurisdiction of the federal government over any labor dispute arises from the Interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. It is under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution that the Congress of the United States gets this jurisdiction in the first place over any labor dispute in the field of interstate commerce. Now, the National Labor Relations Board has taken the position for a good many years that it will not take jurisdiction over certain types of interstate commerce cases, including those cases in which the number of employees in the plant is less than 200. Or in those cases in which the plant does not do at least $500,000 worth of interstate commerce business. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=438.44224,487.61439"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/9","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the National Labor Relations Board has the legal responsibility for taking jurisdiction over all interstate commerce cases. And therefore, it has ruled in case after case that the board has jurisdiction and that there is no basis for the board excluding jurisdiction. But in the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill, the Congress of the United States, in effect, has sustained the National Labor Relations Board in the sense that it has authorized it to delegate certain cases to the state courts or the application of state law. Now, these cases involve the so-called no man's land case. And what the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill really means is that now hundreds of thousands of workers in this country working in small plants or working in plants without large businesses in interstate commerce, are going to be subjected not to federal law, not to an equality of interstate commerce rights under our Constitution, but are going to be subjected to state laws in the field of labor relations administered by state courts. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=487.61439,566.70687"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/10","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e I want you to pause and ponder the serious effects of this great defect in the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill. If this were the only defect in the bill, I couldn't have voted for it. And I am at a complete loss to understand how any liberal in the Congress of the United States could have voted for the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill with the no man's land provision in it. Because keep in mind the effect of this provision. There are only 12 states in the country that have a state labor law. Only five of them are recognized by the authorities as being acceptably good and only one of them, the state of New York, is having an outstanding state labor relations act. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=566.70687,612.60845"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/11","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e So this means that most of these employees that are now relegated to the state courts for the handling of their labor disputes are going to be subjected to common law and under common law. What's the standing of a labor union? A labor union is a conspiracy under common law. And they're going to find that state courts will issue injunction after injunction after injunction, denying the Labor the rights that Labor would have if the national law rather than state law, applied. In other words, the no man's land provision which the senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, surrendered to returns hundreds of thousands of workers in this country government by injunction, and you'll have a return. As I pointed out in my speech against this bill on the floor of the Senate, you'll have a return to the kind of abuse that existed in Florida when the courts of Florida finally sustained by the Supreme Court of Florida, issued injunction after injunction against the hotel workers in Florida. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=612.60845,685.41266"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/12","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But when that court got to the, that case, got to the United States Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court and pointed out again that those hotel workers were entitled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. But that's that no longer is going to be true because now similar so-called service industry employees in other parts of the country are going to be subjected to state court decisions. And Congress has delegated that jurisdiction to the state courts. And there isn't anything the United States Supreme Court can do about it. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=685.41266,725.76528"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/13","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e And also, keep in mind the fact that under this provision of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill, the Congress in effect, set aside the The Norris–La Guardia Act protecting labor from injunctions on an ex party basis, from injunctions that had done such a wrong over the decades. So free labor in this country because the lThe Norris–La Guardia Act applies only to federal jurisdiction, not the state jurisdiction. Now, the Kennedy Irvin bill, which I was a co-sponsor, had a provision for handling these no man's land cases. In fact, it had my amendment, which was added to it, as I offered it in the Senate committee, and it provided, in effect, that federal law would apply to any agency, whether it was a state court or a federal industrial labor relations agency that was given jurisdiction over these cases. But any agency or any court that handles these cases would be required by law to follow federal law. That was the essence also of a compromise amendment offered in conference by the Republican senator from Vermont, Mr. Prouty. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=725.76528,801.43064"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/14","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e He proposed as a substitute for the no man's land provision of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill, a proposal that these cases would be assigned to the state courts, but the state courts would be required to follow federal law. And I supported the Prouty amendment as a substitute. And it was one of the amendments on which I made a motion in conference that the conferees stand in disagreement and go back to the Senate for instruction. I want to say to this audience that I'm completely satisfied that if Kennedy had supported my motion and we had gone back to the floor of the Senate of the United States, the Senate would have supported the Prouty amendment and you wouldn't have had at the present time the no man's land provision in the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill passed upon free labor in this country. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=801.43064,852.46578"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/15","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Oh you might say, well, what would the House conferees do? Well, I'm satisfied that the House conferees understood from specific action taken by the Senate of the United States that the Senate said to its conferees, don't yield on this point, the House would have capitulated and we would have adopted the Prouty amendment. Now, this is one of the worst breaches of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill. But it's not the only one. Let me turn to another objection, the bonding provision. One of the objectives of anti-labor forces in this country for years has been to try to weaken the treasury of unions. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=852.46578,895.67363"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/16","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e If a union has a weak treasury, it's not going to be very effective in a strike. The economic power of a union in a labor dispute is dependent in no small measure up on its treasury. And so we have a bonding provision in the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill that is going to be very costly to the treasury of unions and the anti-labor forces of this country know it. And the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, yielded to the House conferees in regard to this and a labor feature of the Kennedy land reform bill. What does it provide? It provides that each union officer, each person in a union that has any jurisdiction whatsoever over union funds must be individually bonded. Now, no one is opposed to unions being bonded. The rank and file members of the unions are entitled to protection of their funds. In fact, most unions carry bonds anyway. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=895.67363,958.25141"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/17","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But I'd have you point out that keep in mind, as I point out, that under this provision of the law, there is no bank, there's no insurance company. There's no corporation, there's no business in America that is required by federal law to have the type of funding that the Kennedy, Landrum Griffin bill requires of trade unions. Because the Kennedy Landrum Griffin bill requires individual bonds and all other concerns in our country are only required to have so-called blanket bonds. They're technically called position schedule bonds. In other words, a bank can buy from a surety bond company, a blanket bond covering all of its officers. And if the president of a bank dies tonight, a blanket bond will cover the new man appointed to fill the presidency tomorrow, or whenever the position is filled. But that's not true of the Kennedy Landon Griffin bill in regard to unions. The president of a union dies tonight, then a new individual bond will have to be obtained for that new president of the union. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=958.25141,1032.08226"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/18","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, what's the effect of this discrimination in policy as far as cost is concerned? Well, under the old policy of blanket bonding, the cost was of some counsel for some of the unions tell me about $0.35 per thousand dollars. But under the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill, labor lawyer, after labor lawyer that has been trying to solve this bonding problem under the new bill, tells me that's the minimum cost they've been able to obtain is $5.10 per thousand. Running up as high as $11.30 per dollar. Just imagine the drain on a union treasury. If you've got a union with a good many millions of dollars of welfare funds, for example. Imagine a union with a large treasury having to pay anywhere from $5 to $11 per thousand in order to get their individual officers bonded. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1032.08226,1091.0069"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/19","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Not only that, but this section of the bill specifically excludes such bonding companies as Lloyd's of London. As I said in my speech on the floor of the Senate in attacking the section, that's the section of the bill. Is there any politician in the Senate that wants to stand up and tell me that Lloyd's of London isn't as financially responsible as any bonding house in the United States? And many unions have used Lloyd's of London because Lloyd's of London give them very reasonable rates, but now they exclude any bonding house that isn't certified by the United States Treasury. And that means the exclusion of a good many responsible bonding houses. And this is a discrimination that's most unfair. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1091.0069,1137.99182"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/20","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e There's another unfair feature of the bonding provision it requires that a private business, a bonding company, shall be given the power to come in and investigate a union. That's what it amounts to. And I don't propose to vote for that kind of a granting of an anti union weapon into the hands of any private business. So I said on the floor of the Senate that you need investigation, the qualifications of the officers of a union, It ought to be done by the Department of Justice, by the FBI or by the Department of Labor. Take a hypothetical example. Suppose that a serious labor dispute is waging in some community. And the president of the union died. And a few days thereafter, the headlines of the paper read President X who is the new appointee denied bond. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1137.99182,1193.91511"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/21","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e What do you suppose the effect of that is going to be on public support of the strike. It puts the labor it puts the union in a very bad light. So I urge that the bonding provisions be changed in order to avoid that abuse. It was another one of the issues that involved my motion to go back to the floor of the Senate for instruction. And Kennedy opposed it. I'm satisfied that if my motion had prevailed in conference, the Senate would have sustained my position. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1193.91511,1235.41729"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/22","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now I'm moving on to another objection to the bill, the picketing provisions of the bill. You know what this bill does? It outlaws, for the first time in the history of the free labor movement in our country, the consumer picket line. And the consumer picket line has been sustained by court decision after court decision. Back in the famous case of Barnhill versus Alabama. The United States Supreme Court sustained the right of a union to stretch a consumer picket line. And in the famous Hutchison case, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court Justice Stone handed down a historic decision, pointing out that the consumer picket line is an essential part of the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely the free speech provision of the Constitution. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1235.41729,1275.02228"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/23","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But under the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill, and the senator from Massachusetts supported this provision, the consumer picket line is outlawed. Now, it is my position that a picket line, which is peacefully conducted, a picket line whose picket signs set forth only a statement of fact is a picket line that ought to be sustained, not outlawed. I have a picket line I'm talking about is a picket line that says this store sells nonunion shows or a picket line that says this restaurant is a nonunion restaurant. A walking picket line setting forth such facts has been one of the most effective weapons Labor has had in order to improve its working conditions in any community. And I agree with the Court's decision. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1275.02228,1331.61946"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/24","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e This right of public information should not be denied free labor in this country. But the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill does it. And by doing it, in my judgment, it sets labor back 25 to 50 years. Now, there's another feature of this bill I want to call your attention to. That is the so-called secondary boycott feature about which there's been so much public misinformation. The president of the United States took to television and talk about blackmail picketing. Well, who isn't opposed to blackmail?  Simply calling something blackmail doesn't make it blackmail. Let me call attention to two types of picket lines that become outlawed under this bill. Here is an employer who is working on struck good. Here's the employer that takes goods from another employer that has bad labor conditions. Another employer, and we'll call him Mr. A, who's involved in a strike. Mr. A sends to employer B the goods that his shop has been working on. And B proceeds to finish those goods. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1331.61946,1404.34975"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/25","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now there is no better way to destroy the precious economic rights of labor and Labor has always taken the position that it should have the right to picket B. They should have the right to protect workers from having, in effect, to scab on the workers for Mr. A. But under this bill, that kind of a picket line is illegal. And once again, the economic power and the economic rights of labor are damaged by the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill. Now, let me call your attention to another type of arrangement that has always been legal, and it's been made illegal under the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill. Prior to the passage of this bill, employer A involved in a labor dispute with Union B would find himself confronted many times with a contract entered into between employer X and Union Y, that employer X would not buy the goods of employer A until his labor dispute was settled. Under the old law, Union X couldn't strike employer...union Y couldn't strike employer X if employer X violated his agreement, but they could sue him. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1404.34975,1483.19439"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/26","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But under the Kennedy Land and Griffith bill, Employer X can't enter into such an agreement. Not only that, but this bill is so cleverly worded that it provides that X cannot enter into an agreement, express or implied. What does that result in? It means that X in effect, will have to continue to take employer A's goods, even though X completely agrees with the union that is striking employer A. Even though Employer X thinks that Employer A is a very bad example of an employer in the field of labor relations.  He's still going to have to continue to take A's goods, because if he doesn't, he may be subject to a suit on the ground that he must have an implied agreement with Union Y or he would be taking A's. goods. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1483.19439,1536.09291"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/27","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e Now, this bill is honeycombed with that kind of an anti labor provision. And I couldn't possibly vote for a bill that is as anti-labor as the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill. Now what should Labor do about it? Of course we're going to have to try to amend this bill and come January I will offer amendment after amendment that will give these liberals who walked out on Liberal policy when they voted for the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill an opportunity to redeem themselves. I shall offer amendments on bonding. I shall offer amendments on no man's land provision and picketing and all the other anti-labor features of this bill, including a point thate time doesn't permit me to cover it, namely making available union list now to the enemies of a union. ","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1536.09291,1585.57266"},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/28","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"\u003cstrong\u003eWayne Morse:\u003c/strong\u003e But labor has to dig in. You have to dig in  now for a course of political action. You have to make clear to the men that violated the precious right to free labor in this country. You have to dig in now and carry the political fight to them. Your first job has become now the job of first class citizenship. You need to recognize that you've got to pay attention to your political responsibility. Those of us that are going to fight to remove the anti-labor features of this bill are going to need the help of employers who are going to learn very soon that this bill is against their best interests of labor, of farmers, of people generally. That in our country we do not want a law that discriminates against this principle, that the law must be applied uniformly to all people, whether they're laborers, farmers, businessmen or any other person from any other walk of life. For these reasons, I shall continue to fight the provisions of the Kennedy Landrum Griffin Bill.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255#t=1585.57266,1653.52"}]},{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["English [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://uoregon.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2300/collection_resources/141311/file/261255/transcript/76215/annotation/29","type":"Annotation","motivation":"subtitling","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/file_transcripts/associated_files/000/076/215/original/transcript_1740439857.vtt20250224-61685-ntwqrb.vtt20250224-61685-ntwqrb?1740439857","format":"text/vtt","language":"en"},"target":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/file_transcripts/associated_files/000/076/215/original/transcript_1740439857.vtt20250224-61685-ntwqrb.vtt20250224-61685-ntwqrb?1740439857"}]}]}]}