 Time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Hardy Burt, noted author and correspondent. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. George Meany, secretary treasurer of the American Federation of Labor. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Meany, many of our viewers, of course, are members of the American Federation of Labor, and they are together with the rest of us, I'm sure, but I'd like to hear some of your opinions tonight on the political situation. Now first, sir, the American Federation of Labor has just broken the precedent of 28 or 30 years by endorsing a presidential candidate. Now, sir, first of all, why did the AFLC fit this year to endorse the candidacy of Governor Stevenson? Well, of course, the American Federation of Labor has been interested in the political scene for many years because of the fact that, to a large extent, the conditions under which we can be determined by legislation. But sir, what's the difference between 1952 and 1948, for instance? Why was this particular year chosen? Because of the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, followed by the establishment of a political arm, an official political arm of the American Federation of Labor that year, and then entry into the political campaign of 1948. Now, since then, in addition to the Taft-Hartley law, we've had 28 state legislatures pass what we consider a repressive legislation insofar as trade unions are concerned. So in order to carry out our objective, our long-range, age-old objective, if you want to put it that way, of improving the conditions under which the great masses of the workers in America work and live, we have to consider the political field more and more. In other words, the people who are opposed to us have chosen the political battleground. Now, would you say that this endorsement is a tactic in your battle to get repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act? Yes, it's part of that because the supporters of the Republican candidate, most of them, favor the Taft-Hartley Act. We feel that Mr. Taft hasn't changed his mind a great deal and that he has still wields a great influence. And then, of course, there is the party platform. The party platform of the Republicans said the Taft-Hartley Act was a good thing for Labor in effect. And, of course, the Democrats have said they think it should be repealed and a new law written that's fair to both Labor. Well, now, I'm sure that there must be even many members of the air for bail who believe that Mr. Samuel Gompers, who was your founder, sort of left a warning to you never to choose a political party. Now, sir, do you think this is a violation of that warning by Mr. Gompers? No. No, you see, Mr. Gompers, there's a great myth about what Mr. Gompers believed in. Mr. Gompers' theory was quite simple, that in the political field, you should reward your friends and try to defeat your enemies. You're exercising, of course, your rights as American citizen. He was quite specific, though, that under no circumstances should the American Federation of Labor tie itself to a political party. And we today feel exactly the same way as he did about that. We are under no circumstances going to tie ourselves to a political party. We don't feel, however, that endorsing a presidential candidate commits us to his party or to all of the candidates of his party. But you are endorsing the platform of the Democratic Party. Yes, we endorse the platform of the Democratic Party. Mr. Mead, I would like to, one thing you suggest now brings this question up. You did not endorse a candidate, you did not endorse a platform in 1948. That's right. Now, do you think that you have the labor movement and the AFL has politically lost ground since 1948, so it requires you to endorse this candidate party? Well, I think that's true. I think we have. I think we've lost ground in the sense that our influence in the national capital, in the legislature, and in the legislatures of the various states, has been lessened since 1948. It's in the states itself, rather than in the federal government. Oh, and both. In the national capital, there's no question our influence has been lessened since 1948. So, with the election of Stevenson, it's with the election of Stevenson that you expect to regain some ground that you think that you've lost. Yes. Stevenson is elected, that he will take in with him, and of course, political history proves that we're right in this, in this instance, that he will take in with him a Congress dominated by his party, and of course, if General Eisenhower is elected, why, he will take in a Republican Congress, and we feel that our chances are better to repeal the Taft-Hartley law and get a law that's fair to both labor and management and the general public if a Democratic Congress is in Washington. Well, now, I'm sure that our viewers would like you to explain just this, sir. Now, first of all, your first objective is to get this legislation that you regard as repressive, to get it repealed, isn't it? You want it repealed outright. We want it repealed in the simultaneous enactment of a fair law. Well, now, it's that business of a fair... That's just a question of, that's just a question of legislative mechanics, Mr. Ewing. You could, in one bill, repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Now, that means writing, eliminating from the statute books the amendments that the Taft-Hartley Act made to the Wagner Act of 1935, to the Norris Lagardia Act, which was enacted, I think, in 1932 regarding injunctions, and to the Corrupt Practices Act, which has to do with the use of finances in campaigns. Now, those are the three laws that the Taft-Hartley amended. And, of course, that's what we call the Taft-Hartley Act. Now, the legislative mechanics would be to eliminate those amendments to those three laws. And then at the same time, in the same bill, enact a new law to cover labor management. Well, now, that's just the point, sir. Now, any new law must exercise some control over labor, shouldn't it? Any new law that's passed would have to exercise some control over labor and of management. Now, it's just that degree of control over labor that the public is interested in, and our viewers tonight. And that's what we're interested in, is the degree of control over labor. I said, well, could you indicate? And we feel that we shouldn't be compelled after all the services labor has given, after labor made it possible for America, for instance, to become the arsenal of democracy as we bragged about, and after labor has fought the communists all over the world, not only in this country, we don't feel we should be compelled to sign a non-communist affidavit in order to operate a trade union under the National Labor Relations Act. Well, getting right down to this one point, sir. Mr. Mead, excuse me. Just getting right down to the roots of the matter, do you believe that there should be any federal legislative control over labor at all? I believe there should be a federal legislative law to control to whatever extent the federal government can control or should control, let me put it that way, relations between labor and management. In other words, this is a free society. And of course, labor is free to work and free not to work. And of course, management is free to pursue their business. The investors are free to invest or not to invest. Now, of course, in a free society such as that, there must be some checks and balances to try to keep the economy moving for the benefit of the country as a whole. But speaking of checks and balances now, there's been quite a lot of discussion because of a steel strike of the question of industry-wide bargaining. The question of a man like John L. Lewis or Philip Murray, this doesn't particularly pertain to the affable, I know, having the power to shut down an entire industry that is called industry-wide bargaining. I know, technically, there is some difference. Well, do you think there should be any control over industry-wide bargaining? Not unless there's control over the industries themselves. The board of directors of General Motors Company could shut down the motor industry tomorrow morning, if they so desire. You say that the head of one union, and you forget there's a democratic process that the head of a union can't do anything unless his members agree with them and unless they give him the power. Now, I don't know of anyone who can stay the head of a corporation or any human society who marches in one direction while his members desire to go another. That don't last very long. Mr. Meany, I'm sure that our viewers would like you to comment on just one thing. Can you tell us just briefly what you are interested in in Europe today, the American Federation of Labor? Well, the American Federation of Labor is interested in the workers of Europe. We've had our representatives in Europe for some years. We have a representative covering Germany and Austria. We have another representative, Mr. Brown, who covers the refugee... How are you fighting communism there? That is what we are there for. We are there to fight communism on the very simple theory that if we can prevent the communists from taking control of the trade unions of Europe, of the great mass of workers of Europe, then we can prevent Europe going communist. Now, a case in point and a very good example is Czechoslovakia back in 1947. The communists didn't own any banks in Czechoslovakia. They didn't own any industries. They didn't own any newspapers except the Prague counterpart to the New York Daily Worker, a regular commy red sheet. They didn't have more than 28% of the legislature of that country. But within seven days after they took control of that free trade union movement, and it was just as free as our movement is today, within seven days after they took control of that movement, they've moved Mr. Benes out and took control of the country. So that's why we're in Europe. Now is the final question, sir. You have, of course, the air for veil, the labor movement. It's made great progress in the last 30 years. Now, what do you foresee for labor? You say you suffered losses in the last four. What do you foresee in the next four to eight years, sir? I say we suffer losses and influence in the legislations. We haven't really suffered any great losses, except the losses due to the rising price structure. I foresee continued progress in America because I feel that the trade union movement has made a great contribution. We're not perfect and everything we do isn't perfect. But we have made a great contribution to this country of building up the standards of life. We'll make some mistakes. And I think in these modern times with modern methods, our way is a little more difficult than it was before. But I'm confident that we'll make our contribution that America has a great future. Well, thank you very much for being with us, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the launch in Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was Mr. George Meany, Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor. Now, as it concerns as a watch, wouldn't you say that prestige is pride of possession? Every owner of a Laun gene watch knows what I mean. A Laun gene watch brings its owner much more than the delight of the beautiful possession, much more than the unsurprised timekeeping of a remarkable watch. It brings him the pleasure of knowing that he owns the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of the world. Laun gene is the only watch in history to win 10 World Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medal Awards. And in observatory accuracy contest, the record of Laun gene watches is unsurpassed. Truly, when you own a Laun gene watch, you're conscious that it is, in fact, the world's most honored watch. So, when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as a gift, remember this fact and remember too that if you pay $71.50 or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Laun gene. And you should insist on getting a Laun gene, the world's most honored watch, premier product of the Laun gene Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun gene and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun gene Wittner Watchers. Remember Sundays, see it now on the CBS television network.