Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1428836",
    "label": "Right to Work",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1428836"
}

{
    "id": "1428836",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1428836",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Right to Work",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1428836",
    "collections": [
        "David H. Lissy Files",
        "David Lissy's Labor Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Right to labor"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0103/643772/1428836.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0103/643772/1428836.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0103/643772/1428836.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1428836",
    "naId": 1428836,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-08-31",
        "month": 8,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-11-01",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0103/643772/1428836.pdf",
    "mediaId": "ab73a2b2163f6da6",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 28, folder \"Right to Work\" of the David H.\nLissy Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20530\nAddress Reply to the\nDivision Indicated\nand Refer to Initials and Number\nHEP:TJM:CCD:ph\n72-63-0\nNOV 2 5 1974\nMr. James Scott, II\nPresident, Pennsylvanians\nfor Right to Work\n1801 North Front Street\nHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102\nDear Mr. Scott:\nYour telegram of October 15, 1974, directed to President Ford urging\ninvestigation and prosecution by this Department of cash and in-kind\ncontributions to candidates for Federal office which originate from the\ntreasuries of labor organizations, has been received.\nAs you are probably aware, Section 610 of Title 18, United States\nCode, as amended by Section 205 of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign\nAct, forbids labor organizations and their officers from alienating monies\nrequired as a condition for membership in such labor organizations for\nthe purpose of influencing the public-at-large to vote for particular\ncandidates standing for election to Federal offices. Violations of this\ncriminal statute subject the violating organization to fines of up to\n$5,000 and each officer who willfully consents to such an unlawful use of\nhis union's funds to two years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $10,000.\nYou can be assured that this Division places a high degree of\nimportance on the enforcement of this statute, and that in doing so we\nhave, and will continue to endeavor to enforce it vigorously whenever\nspecific information indicating the presence of a violation is brought to\nour attention and is confirmed by appropriate Federal investigation. In\nthis regard, should you or anyone in your organization be in the possession\nof specific information indicating that any labor organization has contributed\neither directly or \"in-kind\" to a candidate for Federal office out of its\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nREVOLUTION\n1778-1976\n-2-\ngeneral treasury, we would appreciate your making that information\navailable to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose number is\nlocated in the front of your telephone directory.\nSincerely,\nHENRY E. PETERSEN\nAssistant Attorney General\nCriminal Division\nBy:\nTHOMAS J. McTIERNAN\nChief, Fraud Section\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nFYI\nfite - \"Lebriproblems\"\nRIGHT TO WORK\nRIGHT\nNEWS\nFrom the NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE\n1990 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nTELEPHONE: 296-0720-AREA CODE 202\nFOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY\nNOVEMBER 13, 1974\nCONTACT: HUGH C. NEWTON\nRS-1\nElection Analysis\nFORD is LIBRARY 076839\n14 MILLION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FIRST TARGET OF BIG LABOR\nWASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 1974 -- A serious drive in Congress for the\nvast expansion of monopoly compulsory unionism -- with the nation's 14 million\npublic employees as the prime target -- is in the works, according to a leading\npublic interest group.\nReed Larson, Executive Vice President of the National Right to Work Committee,\nin a message to the group's more than 40,000 members analyzing the results of the\nNovember 5 elections said that a year-and-a-half long effort by Right to Work\nsupporters prevented big spending union bosses from gaining the absolute \"veto-\nproof\" Congress they were seeking.\nBut, Larson said, \"the bad news is that union organizers have purchased\nenough new seats in the House and Senate to mount a serious drive in Congress\nfor vast expansion of monopoly compulsory unionism. Thus Right to Work forces\ndefending the public interest will face their gravest challenge since 1965.\" \"\nLarson warned the Committee's supporters that their biggest battle will\nlikely be in the public sector. \"The union hierarchy can be expected to pull\nall stops in its on-going campaign to strap the public sector with legislation\nsimilar to, or worse than, the compulsory unionism-promoting National Labor\nRelations Act.\"\n(MORE)\nTOP PRIORITY\nJust two days after the elections Democratic National Committee chairman\nRobert Strauss named \"public service employment\" as one of the four top-priority\nlegislative items facing the new Congress.\nDiscussing the union hierarchy's public sector campaign, The New York\nTimes (November 10) warned that as a result of such legislation \"the public\ngets kicked around whenever a well-entrenched union in control of an essential\npublic service doesn't get what it wants from the city or state.\" The New York\nDaily News, also recognizing the threat, said (November 11) that \"strikes\nagainst the public should be taboo -- period. And that goes for compulsory\nunion membership. We simply cannot afford these callous, indefensible threats\nto the health, safety and economy of the nation. Nor should civil service workers\nbe compelled to pay tribute to unions to hold jobs won on merit.\"\nThe National Right to Work Committee is a national citizens' coalition\ndedicated to the belief that union membership whould be voluntary, not compulsory.\nThe National Committee believes every citizen shouldhave the right to join a\nunion, but that no one should be compelled to do so in order to get or keep a job.\nA recent public opinion study by Opinion Research Corporation, Princeton,\nN.J., showed more than two thirds of the American people opposed to compulsory\nunionism.\nThe National Committee led the successful fight in 1965-1966 to preserve\nSection 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act and has been largely responsible for de-\nfeating efforts in recent years to impose compulsory unionism on farm workers,\npublic employees and postal workers.\nSection 14(b) is the provision of the Taft-Hartley Act which authorizes state\nRight to Work Laws outlawing compulsory unionism. Nineteen states currently\nhave such laws.\nAccording to Larson, some 48 members of the new Senate have promised to\noppose efforts by union lobbyists to repeal 14(b).\n(MORE)\nTHREAT TO 14(b)\nLarson said, \"While the threat to 14(b) in the new Congress still is\nreal and immediate, a 14(b) repeal drive might also be used as a smokescreen,\nwhile union organizers capture an even more tempting prize -- public sector\ncompulsory union legislation.\n\"The machinery is there for total domination of the legislative processes\nby union lobbyists unless Right to Work supporters rally to prevent it. Union\nofficials are fanatically devoted to the destruction of the Taft-Hartley Act's\nsingle remaining check on their monopoly power, Section 14(b). They're not\ncrazy, however; they know it won't come easy.\"\nLarson said, \"We cannot take the threat to 14(b) lightly. By the same token\nwe cannot lose sight of the fact that the public sector legislation poses a more\nrealistic threat.\"\nKey ingredients of such legislation would be:\nFORD ERALD LIBRARY 07W8\n1) Monopoly bargaining privileges -- Individual public employees would\nbe compelled to accept unwanted union officials as their \"exclusive representa-\ntives\" in dealing with their own government; and\n2) Compulsory union affiliation -- By invoking the long-ago discredited\n\"free rider\" argument, union officials will insist that since they are the\n\"exclusive agents\" of all public employees, including those who don't want\ntheir alleged services, all employees should have to join or pay money to\ntheir unions -- or lose their jobs.\n\"These compulsory unionism privileges would pave the way for city-crippling\nstrikes. Whether or not strikes against the government are illegal would be\nacademic; legal or not, public sector strikes will spread like wild fire,\"\nLarson said.\nLarson warned, \"We face a very real threat. We are going to need the\ncooperation and support of all Americans who feel compulsory unionism is\nwrong. With this support we will thwart the union bosses who have bought\nwhat they set out to buy, a 'veto-proof' Congress with which they intend to\nrun roughshod over the desires and wishes of the people.\"\n#86 MO2, MO3, MO7, MI3, MI4, KO1, K02, K04, CO2, МОб, WNS\nAn Editorial\nAn Editorial\nTHE NEW YORK TIMES\nNEW YORK DAILY NEWS\nNovember 11, 1974\nNovember 10, 1974\nWITHIN 24 HOURS\nThe Fattest Cat\n-after last week's election, big labor moved to cash some\npolitical IOUs of congressmen and governors whom it\nWhen it comes to political spending, trade unions have\nhelped elect. The AFL-CIO chartered a new Public Em-\ndeveloped into the fattest of fat cats in this post-Water-\nployes Department with\ngate period. The upward of $5 million contributed by\na monthly budget allot-\nunions to their 1974 Congressional favorites-90 per cent\nment of $40,000.\nof them Democrats-is only the visible part of their\ninvestment. No less important is the large-scale man-\nTop priority: a drive\npower and other untabulated services they muster in\n1\nthe\n(OVER)\nfinancing of all political campaigns a public responsi-\nbility. Only recently he declared again that labor would\nlike to \"get out of the business of collecting money and\nmaking contributions to candidates.\" The country will\nbe better off if the 94th Congress gives Mr. Meany his\nwish and substitutes public financing for all giving by\ncorporations, unions, professional societies and other\nspecial interests.\nTHE WASHINGTON POST\nNovember 8, 1974\nAsning Controls\nwould\ning for labol\nFrom A1\nucts.\nThe\ncouncil\nsaid it flow back into the U.S. market\ndates. Reformers allege\nwanted controls over the size\nas imports.\"\nStrauss' desire to improve rel-\nemedy the recession. The\nof loans to the Soviet Union\nThe executive council also\nations with Barkan was a con-\nWhite House program has\nand other Communist coun-\nurged the Senate to reject the\ntributing factor to the blow-up\n\"almost\" been one of inaction,\ntries.\npending trade bill, which\nin Kansas City.\nhe charged.\nThe AFL-CIO has long con-\nwould extend new trade con-\nThe labor reformers who\ntended that the ultimate effect\ncessions to the Soviet Union\nmet with Meany include Jerry\nThe AFL-CIO executive\nof many of the bank's loans,\nand others the council said it\nWurf, president of the Ameri-\nboard's official statement said\nwhich finance a one-shot ex-\n\"will result in further job\ncan Federation of State,\nthe President's economic mes-\nport of equipment, has been\nlosses and further impact on\nCounty and Municipal\nsage last month \"offered no\nthe export of technology,\nthe domestic U.S. economy\nEmployees: Floyd (Red) Smith,\n\"which is used abroad to man-\nstruggling to absorb ever-ris-\npresident of the International\nmeasures to halt the recession\nufacture produtes which then\ning imports.\"\nAssociation of Machinists and\nand only promises to curb in-\nAerospace Workers; Paul Jen-\nflation.\"\nnings, president of the Inter-\nMeany said the housing in-\nnational Union of Electrical,\ndustry must be the first to re-\nDemocrats in Congress\nRadio and Machine Workers;\nceive massive aid, and among\nGlenn E. Watts, president of\nthe first places to start would\nthe Communications Workers\nbe to \"crack down\" on Federal\nReserve Board Chairman\nSaid Ready to Act Fast\nof America; Al Grospiron,\npresident of the Oil Chemical\nBurns and the Fed's policy of\nand Atomic Workers: Ken\nhigh interest rates.\nBrown, president of the\nUnited Press International\nLower rates would not only\nGraphic Arts International\nstimulate housing by reducing\nCongressional\nDemocrats,\npublic service employment.\nUnion.\nthe \"absolutely colossal cost of\nbolstered by Tuesday's elec-\n\"I've been talking to the\nAccording to labor sources,\nfinancing\" a home, but would\nalso beln all other industries\ntion victories, will act quickly\nDemocratic leadership. and\nWatts and Bill Lucey, secre-\nthev're ready\" the Demo-\ntarv-treasurer\nof\nAFSCME\nNATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE\n1990 M STREET, N. W.\nWASHINGTON\nU.S.POSTAGE\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20036\nNOV12'74\n10\nD.C\nWHITE HOUSE MAIL\nRECEPTION & SECURITY\nNOV 14 1974\nProcessed by:\nHONORABLE GERALD R. FORD\nK04-001867\nHOUSE OFFICE BLOG.\nWASH.. DC 20515\n\"Americans Must Have the Right But Not Be Compelled to Join Labor Unions\"\nFebruary 24, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nDAVID LISSY\nSUBJECT:\nRight to Work (14B)\nThis is to alert you to the fact that I am told\nBill Usery is annoyed that the White House would\nannounce the President's position on Right to\nWork without someone having first cleared it with\nhim --- or at least advised him of what the position\nwould be. Usery may raise this matter himself and\nI wanted you to be aware of his views.\nRon Nessen announced the President's position on\nFebruary 16 and Usery did not know about it until\nI told his office of it yesterday. (2/23). A copy\nof the Nessen briefing is attached.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nAttachment\nCC: Jim Cavanaugh\nArt Quern\n- 13 -\n#439-2/16\nQ\nWhat is his position?\nMR. NESSEN: I thought you would never ask, Helen.\nHe is opposed to the repeal of (b) of the Taft-Hartley\nAct. He believes that the right to work is a State issue\nand the President's position is that he clearly believes\nthat the States should keep that right. If you repealed\n14 (b) it would take that right away from the States to\ndetermine right to work issues.\n14(b) authorizes the States to have the right\nto determine their own right to work laws and so he is\nopposed to repealing that.\nYou know marijuana, all too well. (Laughter)\nYou know abortion.\nI guess that probably does it for the moment.\nQ\nRon, since he seems to be adopting most of\nWallace's policies, do you think he is picking Wallace on\nthe ticket?\nMR. NESSEN: As I said the other day in relation\nto abortion, Howard, the fact that these things have come\nout and candidates have been asked for their opinions of\nthese issues in the context of a campaign does not mean\nthat he formed these opinions because it is a campaign year.\nI mean, I think the people who have known him over the\nyears know his opinion on abortion, busing, death penalty,\nright to work, and so forth.\nQ\nHow about legalized prostitution? (Laughter)\nMR. NESSEN: I didn't ask him that question.\nQ Ask it. (Laughter)\nQ\nRon, did the President ask Mr. Richardson\nto leave the Commerce Department so early after his taking\nover to go to New Hampshire to campaign?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, he asked him to campaign, yes.\nQ\nDoes this mean anything like that he is\ngoing to be favored for Vice President or something?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, Pete McCloskey has been up\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nthere and Frank Zarb and ---\nQ\nElliott Richardson.\nMR. NESSEN: There have been a number of people\nup there and it does not mean that they are necessarily\nhis choice for Vice President.\nMORE\n#439\nRight to work\n2/16/76\n- 13 -\n#439-2/16\nQ\nWhat is his position?\nMR. NESSEN: I thought you would never ask, Helen.\nHe is opposed to the repeal of 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley\nAct. He believes that the right to work is a State issue\nand the President's position is that he clearly believes\nthat the States should keep that right. If you repealed\n14 (b) it would take that right away from the States to\ndetermine right to work issues.\n14(b) authorizes the States to have the right\nto determine their own right to work laws and so he is\nopposed to repealing that.\nYou know marijuana, all too well. (Laughter)\nYou know abortion.\nI guess that probably does it for the moment.\nQ\nRon, since he seems to be adopting most of\nWallace's policies, do you think he is picking Wallace on\nthe ticket?\nMR. NESSEN: As I said the other day in relation\nto abortion, Howard, the fact that these things have come\nout and candidates have been asked for their opinions of\nthese issues in the context of a campaign does not mean\nthat he formed these opinions because it is a campaign year.\nI mean, I think the people who have known him over the\nyears know his opinion on abortion, busing, death penalty,\nright to work, and so forth.\nQ How about legalized prostitution? (Laughter)\nMR. NESSEN: I didn't ask him that question.\nQ Ask it. (Laughter)\nQ\nRon, did the President ask Mr. Richardson\nto leave the Commerce Department so early after his taking\nover to go to New Hampshire to campaign?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, he asked him to campaign, yes.\nQ\nDoes this mean anything like that he is\ngoing to be favored for Vice President or something?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, Pete McCloskey has been up\nthere and Frank Zarb and --\nQ\nElliott Richardson.\nMR. NESSEN: There have been a number of people\nup there and it does not mean that they are necessarily\nhis choice for Vice President.\nMORE\n#439\nReght to work\n2/16/76\n- 13 -\n#439-2/16\nQ\nWhat is his position?\nMR. NESSEN: I thought you would never ask, Helen.\nHe is opposed to the repeal of 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley\nAct. He believes that the right to work is a State issue\nand the President's position is that he clearly believes\nthat the States should keep that right. If you repealed\n14 (b) it would take that right away from the States to\ndetermine right to work issues.\n14(b) authorizes the States to have the right\nto determine their own right to work laws and so he is\nopposed to repealing that.\nYou know marijuana, all too well. (Laughter)\nYou know abortion.\nI guess that probably does it for the moment.\nQ Ron, since he seems to be adopting most of\nWallace's policies, do you think he is picking Wallace on\nthe ticket?\nMR. NESSEN: As I said the other day in relation\nto abortion, Howard, the fact that these things have come\nout and candidates have been asked for their opinions of\nthese issues in the context of a campaign does not mean\nthat he formed these opinions because it is a campaign year.\nI mean, I think the people who have known him over the\nyears know his opinion on abortion, busing, death penalty,\nright to work, and so forth.\nQ How about legalized prostitution? (Laughter)\nMR. NESSEN: I didn't ask him that question.\nQ Ask it. (Laughter)\nQ Ron, did the President ask Mr. Richardson\nto leave the Commerce Department so early after his taking\nover to go to New Hampshire to campaign?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, he asked him to campaign, yes.\nQ Does this mean anything like that he is\ngoing to be favored for Vice President or something?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, Pete McCloskey has been up\nthere and Frank Zarb and --\nQ.\nElliott Richardson.\nMR. NESSEN: There have been a number of people\nup there and it does not mean that they are necessarily\nhis choice for Vice President.\nMORE\n#439\nINFORMATION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nKathy\nFebruary 24, 1976\nMyan\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nDAVID LISSY My\nImport\nSUBJECT:\nRight to Work (14B)\nThis\nbe\nThis is to alert you to the fact that I am told\nBill Usery is annoyed that the White House would\nUcorded\nannounce the President's position on Right to\nWork without someone having first cleared it with\nhim -- or at least advised him of what the position un\nwould be. Usery may raise this matter himself and\nI wanted you to be aware of his views.\nIssue\nRon Nessen announced the President's position on\nFebruary 16 and Usery did not know about it until\nI told his office of it yesterday (2/23). A copy\nBooh\nof the Nessen briefing is attached.\nIdean is learn of A. until over the\nAttachment\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\nCC: Jim Cavanaugh\nArt Quern\n- 13 -\n#439-2/16\nQ\nWhat is his position?\nMR. NESSEN: I thought you would never ask, Helen.\nHe is opposed to the repeal of 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley\nAct. He believes that the right to work is a State issue\nand the President's position is that he clearly believes\nthat the States should keep that right. If you repealed\n14 (b) it would take that right away from the States to\ndetermine right to work issues.\n14(b) authorizes the States to have the right\nto determine their own right to work laws and so he is\nopposed to repealing that.\nYou know marijuana, all too well. (Laughter)\nYou know abortion.\nI guess that probably does it for the moment.\nQ Ron, since he seems to be adopting most of\nWallace's policies, do you think he is picking Wallace on\nthe ticket?\nMR. NESSEN: As I said the other day in relation\nto abortion, Howard, the fact that these things have come\nout and candidates have been asked for their opinions of\nthese issues in the context of a campaign does not mean\nthat he formed these opinions because it is a campaign year.\nI mean, I think the people who have known him over the\nyears know his opinion on abortion, busing, death penalty,\nright to work, and so forth.\nQ How about legalized prostitution? (Laughter)\nMR. NESSEN: I didn't ask him that question.\nQ Ask it. (Laughter)\nQ Ron, did the President ask Mr. Richardson\nto leave the Commerce Department so early after his taking\nover to go to New Hampshire to campaign?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, he asked him to campaign, yes.\nQ\nDoes this mean anything like that he is\ngoing to be favored for Vice President or something?\nMR. NESSEN: Well, Pete McCloskey has been up\nthere and Frank Zarb and ---\nQ Elliott Richardson.\nMR. NESSEN: There have been a number of people\nup there and it does not mean that they are necessarily\nhis choice for Vice President.\nMORE\n#439\n4.3.76\nGreen hope\nPage 7\nI just use that as an example: to tackle the\nhardest area in the world to achieve success and to\naccomplish peace. He has done it with the direction and\nthe implementation and the support that I have given him.\nI think you don't throw away a winning player, you keep\nhim and that is what he is.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am the vice president\nof the Wisconsin State Employees Union. On behalf of\nour 27,000 members, I would like to welcome you to\nWisconsin.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you.\nQUESTION: As a vice president whose constituency\nis composed entirely of State, county and municipal\nemployees, my question will be in that direction.\nYour opponent in next Tuesday's election, Ronald\nReagan, has stated that if any State, county or municipal\nemployee participates in a strike or a similar job action\nin his opinion he has quite his job. What is your\nfeeling toward a right to strike or a limited right to\nstrike for State, county, municipal employees?\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nI also would like to know what you feel or what\nwould your reaction be to a bill that on a nationwide basis\nwould give State, county and municipal employees a right\nto collective bargaining?\nI also would like to know what your reaction is\nRoth\nto the repeal of 14(b), the right to work legislation?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am vigorously opposed to the\nrepeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. As a\nmatter of fact, in 1950 or thereabouts I participated in\nthe debate and voted on that issue in the House of\nRepresentatives. I think if a State wishes to have the\nright to work, as 19 States do, under our Constitution\nthat is a right that they ought to be able to exercise\nand I would not recommend the deletion of section 14(b)\nof the Taft-Hartley Act.\nNumber two, I don't believe that the Federal\nRuling Bergang\nGovernment either has the authority on the one hand or\nshould exercise it on the other to pass comprehensive\nlegislation involving the labor-management relations of\nState employees and their government or county employees\nand their government or city employees and their government.\nThose are decisions that ought to be made at the local\nor State level and the Federal Government should not get\ninvolved in them.\nMORE\nPage 8\nNow, the first question that you asked. We have\n50 States and we have 39,000 Governmental units below the\nlevel of statehood, I don't think that somebody in\nWashington ought to tell 39,000 Governmental units or 50\nStates how they should handle their labor-management relations.\nThat is the prerogative of those units of Government.\nIf a government in Green Bay wants to handle it\nwith the right to strike -- and I just use that as an\nexample - and Waukesha wants to have a different policy\nor the State of Wisconsin wants to have a different policy,\nthat is the responsibility and obligation of those units\nof Government.\nIf a city council or a State legislature or Governor\npassed some legislation one way and the people don't like\nit, they know who to get rid of, and I think that is the\nway it ought to be handled: Washington should keep its\nfingers out of the situation. The responsibility and the\nobligation rests here, right in your State and your local\nunits of government.\nQUESTION: Thank you.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I was wondering what can\nyou do to help us teenagers get more jobs so we can go on\nto school and make money so we can afford our education?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Would you ask that again? I\nmissed the first part.\nQUESTION: What can you do to help us get more\njobs so we can have enough money to go on to college and that?\nTHE PRESIDENT: You are talking about high school\ngraduates?\nQUESTION: Yes.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, about two million young\npeople enter the labor market every year as they go from\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\neither high school into the labor market or from college\ninto the labor market. As I said a moment ago, we have\npicked up 2,600,000 jobs since last year but that is not\nenough. Our unemployment is still too high and it is still\ntoo high particularly among our young people, and especially\namong our young people in the minority categories.\nNow what we have to do is to stimulate our economy\nprimarily in the private sector where five out of every six\njobs in this country exist today. And how do we do that?\nHe do that by providing an incentive to business to expand,\nto modernize, to improve so that they will be more competitive\nand more jobs will be available in the private sector.\nMORE\nDATE: 4/7/1976]\nTO:\nJim Connon -\nCan anyone lend\nguidance on this\nFORD LIBRARY 076839\nThank you\ncm\nCaron McConnon\nRIGHT TO WORK LAW\nQ. Where do you stand on the right to work law?\nA. I am opposed to the repeal of section 14 (b) of the\nTaft-Hartley Act. I think if a State wishes to have\na Right to Work Law, as many do, under our Constitution\nthat is a right that they ought to be able to exercise.\nGERALD & FORD LIBRARY\nDHL/4/8/76\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nwashington\nDate [circa 4/9/76]\nTO:\nFROM: DAVID LISSY\nFYI\nFor Appropriate Action\nCOMMENTS 065M PMI\n70\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nplease retunto\nmoe\n4.9.76\nRight hork\nDallar, Tex\nPage 15\nQUESTION: Mr. President, the subject that I am\ngoing to touch on in this question is rather delicate and\npossibly controversial in an election year, so please do not answer\nit if you feel the answer might hurt your chances of being\nre-elected. (Laughter)\nTHE PRESIDENT: If I won't answer it, I will get\nBetty down here to answer it. You can count on her to announce\nit. (Laughter)\nQUESTION: It probably is going to destroy any chance\nof my ever holding a public office. (Laughter)\nTHE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead.\nQUESTION: The question is, in view of what is\nhappening in Great Britain and in several of the other nations,\ncould you please consider the inequities that might be\ninvolved in the monopolistic trends that we see in collective\nbargaining?\nTHE PRESIDENT: You mean between labor and management?\nQUESTION: In terms of collective bargaining on the\nlabor side. We have monopolistic controls on the management\nside, but I was wondering if there were any inequities involved\nin giving them laissez-faire in their group going together?\nTHE PRESIDENT: If I understand the question, I\nstrongly believe in the Taft-Hartley Act. And I would vigorously\noppose and not approve the deletion of Section 14(b) of the\nTaft-Hartley Act.\nI voted for, and strongly support, what we call\nthe Landrum-Griffin Act which tried to put more responsibility\nand control over certain practices in labor organizations.\nIt seems to me that with the current court decisions\nand the existing law, we are getting away from monopolistic\npractices and undesirable practices in many of the areas where\nthey were bad in the '30s and the '40s and the '50s.\nNow, it's not Utopia, don't get me wrong, but I\nhonestly think we are making some headway.\nQUESTION: The issue that I was really concerned about,\nwe are far from it here in our country, but looking at Great\nBritain, it could conceivably get to a point where the unions\ncould paralyze the nations operation.\nMORE\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 16\nTHE PRESIDENT: I don't think our situation is\ncomparable to that of Great Britain, and I have been impressed\nwith the restraint under the kind of facts of life that they\nwere faced with, with the attitude in the last few months of the\nmajor labor organizations in Great Britain.\nOf course, it was obvious if they didn't do it, the\ncountry itself would have had serious economic repercussions.\nBut in this country, certainly we are not in that situation.\nI don't think we will ever get there.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, first of all, I wanted\nto thank you for coming to Dallas and spending some time\nhere with each of us. And as a final question, I would like\nto ask, what specific steps has your Administration taken to\nreduce Federal intervention or whatever have you in the life of\nthe average American businessman? What steps have you taken\nor will you take?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Let me give you one or more specifics.\nNumber one, about a year ago, a little less than that, I asked\nthe Office of Management and Budget how many forms go to American\nbusinessmen in every department of the Federal Government.\nThey totaled them up and they were roughly 5,200.\nNow, all of them don't go to all of you, although you\nmay think SO. (Laughter) But that is the total that go to\nAmerican business from all departments.\nWe had a conference, and after that conference I said,\nby July 1 of this year, you have got to cut 10 percent off, and\nwe have now reduced that by about 5 percent, and by July 1, orders\nare to achieve a total of a 10 percent reduction, which is 520\nof them. They are making some headway\nNow, we are trying under the law -- and I know that\nthis may be a sensitive subject -- we have already started\nthe process under Frank Zarb to get rid of the various price\ncontrols under the energy legislation that was passed last\nDecember.\nMr. Zarb has filed the necessary documents in the\nFederal Register to get rid of residual oil controls. He is\nnext going to do it for distillates and for gasoline and shortly\nwe will start under the law as quickly as possible to undertake\na 40-month period of decontrol with 10 percent as the first step.\nThat is something that is on the way.\nAnd if I can say parenthetically, I know that my\nsigning that bill was somewhat controversial last December, but\nI want you to remember this, in January of last year, a year\nago, I proposed the total deregulation of oil as well as natural\ngas.\nMORE\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n4.19.76\naught to hork\nEditors or Harks Hanks\nInterview with\nPage 13\nnewspapers\nSo that Committee recommendation incorporates some\nof those things that I have proposed and it has not called\nfor the registration of the gun or the gun owner and I am\nopposed to that kind of registration.\nQUESTION: Is there anything in the bill that you\nare opposed to?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, to be honest with you, it\nis so early in the legislative process, until it gets further\ndown the road we really don't have the time to tkae a look\nat this because it is at least two or three months away\nfrom any final consideration by the Congress, if ever, in\nthis session.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Carter has\nindicated that he supports repeal of the right to work laws.\nWe have the right to work in Texas and it is a very important\nissue down there. How do you feel about it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have consistenly and vigorously\nopposed the elimination of Section (B) in the Taft-Hartley\nAct. The Section (B) of the Taft-Hartley Act says that\nif a State wants a right to work law it has the right to do\nso and that no Federal law will preempt that right.\nWhen I was in the Congress I was consistently\nopposed to the repeal of the Section (B) and I still am\nand always will be. There are 19 States, including Texas,\nthat have the right to work laws or Constitutional amendments\nand if any one of the 50 States want that, that is the\nprerogative under our system and I would, under no circumstances,\ntake that right away from any State by either law or by\nConstitutional amendment.\nQUESTION: Thank you.\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALD\n#30-76\nDallas, Tex.\nRightto hork\nhork\nPage 8\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am Vice President\nand General Counsel of Texas Instruments. My question\nthis morning is in the event Congress were to enact legis-\nlation repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act\nwhich, as you know, would eliminate the Texas right to\nwork law, would you invoke your power of veto on such\nlegislation?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I certainly would. Ever since I\nwas sworn into the Congress on January 3, 1949, I have\nconsistently taken the position that Section 14(b) must\nbe a part of our labor-management legislation. That is not\nso easy in a State like Michigan. (Laughter)\nQUESTION: That is right.\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is a lot more difficult than\nto say it down here in Texas.\nQUESTION: I used to live there.\nTHE PRESIDENT: In the Congressional district I\nrepresented, there were 35,000 UAW-CIO-AFL families, and I\ntook that issue to them every time for 13 elections, and I\nwould not then and I will not now approve of the removal\nof Section 14(b) from the Taft-Hartley or labor-management\nacts.\nQUESTION: Thank you.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, the New York City\nfinancial situation, that concerns us all, and we would:\nlike to have your views on the appropriate role and respon-\nsibility of the Federal Government in meeting potential\nsituations such as New York City and other cities.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Let me say that the Congress has\npassed two pieces of legislation that I think will handle\npresent and future problems where cities through bad manage-\nment get into serious financial difficulties.\nNumber one, I recommended to the Congress that\nwe amend the Bankruptcy Act so that if a city mishandles\nits financial affairs, it can go into bankruptcy just like\na poorly managed company or a poorly managed individual\nin the handling of his or her or that company's financial\nGERAL FORD LIBRARY\naffairs.\nBelieve me, that is a deterrent as far as cities\nare concerned because they don't like to go into bank-\nruptcy and I think it is sort of a roadblock to them.\nMORE\nRight wat to\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM SHUMAN\nFROM:\nDAVID LISS not\nThe attached answer on the repeal of Section 14 (b)\nis fine as is.\nef we and allowed to expand, & would\nadd one sentence:\n\" \" l believe this is a matter which\neach State should be able to\ne think this the who isinl. do\ndecide for tself.\"\nAttachment not may fully\nCC: Jim Cavanaugh\nFORD & LIBRARY 8740\nand I have sought to use it responsibly.\nveices\nI have vetood up to now 53 bills, and 42, have been sustained.\nThe net result is that we have saved about $13 billion in unnecessary\nexpenditures.\nLissy\nQ: Organized labor would like to strike down Section 14(b) of\nwhich allows\nthat\nthe Taft-Hartley Act clientra states to pass right-to-work laws which\nsay people cannot be forced to join a union to hold a job. What is\nyour position on that?\nFord: I am completely against the repeal of Section 14(b). I\nam today, always have been and always will be.\nwere is\nQ: If the OPEC nations sussid institute another oil embargo,\nas they did in 1973, what should the United States do?\nGERALD LIBRARY\nFord: I don't anticipate that there will be another embargo.\nAlso FOR\nSince 1973, this Administration has taken very major steps to de-\nvelop trust between the United States and the various nations in the\nGENE\nMiddle East, including all of the Arab states as well as Israel.\nWe have been successful as a result of this trust in helping to get\nthe negotiations that resulted in the Sinai II agreement. The pros-\npects for continued progress in the Middle East are such that I just\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nSARAH MASSENGALE\nSPENCER JOHNSON\nDICK PARSONS\nDAVID LISSY\nPAUL LEACH\nFROM:\nJIM CAVANAUGH\nSUBJECT:\nReader's Digest Q&A's\nPlease review the attached answers from the\nedited version of the President's interview with\nReader's Digest, and return to Jim Shuman by 11 a.m.\ntomorrow, Tuesday, August 3. I'd appreciate a copy.\nMany thanks.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRAR 038470"
}