Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526058
label
American Association of Industrial Management, Boston, MA, October 31, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526058
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
American Association of Industrial Management, Boston, MA, October 31, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Labor disputes
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526058
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
87f1586bffb04939
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "American Association of Industrial
Management, Boston, MA, October 31, 1967" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Distritution full 20 mr. ford
2:00p.m. 10/31/67
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. TUESDAY--
October 31, 1967
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, House Republican Leader,
before the American Association of Industrial Management, to be delivered
at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 31, at the Sheraton-Boston Hotel, Boston, Mass.
This will be the worst strike year in recent American history.
It may mark the crest of a wave of labor strife that has shown a spectacular
rise since 1963--the year Lyndon B. Johnson became President. Then again, 1968
may even top this year.
In any case, the situation shows no signs of improving. And 1968 will be
marked by potentially explosive contract negotiations between Big Steel and
the United Steelworkers.
The sharply worsened climate in labor-management relations is underscored
by the comparative figures for the years 1963 through 1966 and the record for the
first eight months of 1967.
In 1963 we had 3,362 work stoppages, with 941,000 workers involved and
16,100,000 man-days lost; in 1964, 3,655 stoppages, 1,640,000 workers involved,
and 22,900,000 man-days lost; in 1965, 3,963 stoppages, 1,550,000 employees
involved, and 23,300,000 man-days lost; in 1966, 4,405 stoppages, 1,960,000
workers involved, and 25,400,000 man days lost.
Through August of this year there had been 3,195 stoppages, with 2,080,000
workers involved and 22,000,000 man-houts days lost. But this does not include the
150,000-man United Automobile Workers strike against Ford Motor Co. and the
continuing copper strike. Therefore the indications are unmistakable that 1967
man-hour day losses will far exceed those of 1966 and previous years.
There is a clearly defined trend in recent years toward a steadily worsening
situation in terms of labor strife. And there has to be a reason.
I am not a labor-management relations specialist, nor am I an economist.
But I think it is significant that during the Eisenhower Administration,
industrial output per man hour substantially exceeded compensation per man hour.
(more)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
During the time of the two Democratic administrations beginning in 1961,
compensation per man hour has come to exceed output per man hour. This certainly
leads to severe economic dislocation and inflation.
When output falls behind compensation, we have a condition which con-
tributes to the classic kind of inflation in which too much money chases too
few goods.
Currently the unions are seeking to catch up with the price increases of
1966. This contributes to cost-push inflation. Since the present Administration
overstimulated the economy through excessive federal spending last year, it
seems clear that the Administration must assume the major share of the blame
for the entire cycle of 1966-67 inflation and the inflationary wage settlements
now being negotiated.
Nobody is arguing about the right to strike. This is basic. But certainly
we should seek to avoid strikes whenever possible. After all, a strike hurts
everyone involved. The worker loses wages; the employer, his profits and
possibly some of his before-strike customers; the supplier, his sales to the
employer; the retailer, loss in retail sales to strikers with sharply diminished
income.
We are most concerned, of course, with the national emergency strike.
Refusal by the White House and Democratic Congresses to seek improvement in
the handling of national emergency strike situations is one of the great sins
of legislative omission in this decade.
You all know the story. You know that in his annual message to Congress
on Jan. 27, 1966, President Johnson said: "I intend to ask the Congress to
consider measures that, without improperly invading State and local authority,
will enable us to deal effectively with strikes that may cause irreparable
damage to the national interest."
That was the promise. What has happened? Nothing.
Is it any wonder that labor strife is on the rise in America when the
Administration initially does little to cope with inflation and then seeks
to pile a tax increase on top of price increases?
And is it any wonder that labor strife mounts when the President of the
United States reneges on a solemn pledge to the American people to seek ways to
improve the handling of national emergency strikes?
These are questions for the American people to ponder as the number of work
stoppages in this country continues to rise.
# # #
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. TUESDAY--
October 31, 1967
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, House Republican Leader,
before the American Association of Industrial Management, to be delivered
at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 31, at the Sheraton-Boston Hotel, Boston, Mass.
This will be the worst strike year in recent American history.
It may mark the crest of a wave of labor strife that has shown a
spectacular rise since 1963--the year Lyndon B. Johnson became President. Then
again, 1968 may even top this year.
In any case, the situation shows no signs of improving. And 1968 will be
marked by potentially explosive contract negotiations between Big Steel and
the United Steelworkers.
The sharply worsened climate in labor-management relations is underscored
by the comparative figures for the years 1963 through 1966 and the record for the
first eight months of 1967.
In 1963 we had 3,362 work stoppages, with 941,000 workers involved and 16,100,00
man-days lost; in 1964, 3,655 stoppages, 1,640,000 workers involved, and 22,900,000
man-days lost; in 1965, 3,963 stoppages, 1,550,000 employees involved, and
23,300,000 man-days lost; in 1966, 4,405 stoppages, 1,960,000 workers involved,
and 25,400,000 man hours lost.
Through August of this year there had been 3,195 stoppages, with 2,080,000
workers involved and 22,000,000 men-house lost. But this does not include the
150,000-man United Automobile Workers strike against Ford Motor Co. and the
continuing copper strike. Therefore the indications are unmistakable that 1967
man-hour losses will far exceed those of 1966 and previous years.
A comparison of the eight years of the Kisenhower Administration with the
first six years under Democratic administrations beginning in January 1961
reveals 3,727 work stoppages during the past half dosen years, almost as many
as the 3,889 during the eight Eisenhower years.
There is a clearly defined trend in recent years toward a steadily worsening
situation in terms of labor strike. And there has to be a reason.
I am not a labor-management relations specialist, nor am I an economist.
FORD LIBRARY
-2-
But I think it is significant that during the Eisenhower Administration,
industrial output per man hour substantially exceeded compensation per man hour.
During the time of the two Democratic administrations beginning in 1961,
compensation per man hour has come to exceed output per man hour. This certainly
leads to severe economic dislocation and inflation.
When output falls behind compensation, we have a condition which con-
tributes to the classic kind of inflation in which too much money chases too
few goods.
Currently the unions are seeking to catch up with the price increases of
1966. This contributes to costipush inflation. Since the present Administration
overstimulated the economy through excessive federal spending last year, it
seems clear that the Administration must assume the major share of the blame
for the entire cycle of 1966-67 inflation and the inflationary wage settlements
now being negotiated.
It is interesting to note that a Detroit News writer who coordinated his
paper's coverage of the Ford-UAN contract negotiations reports that the Adminis-
tration views the Ford settlement as "clearly inflationary." He goes on to say
that "privately" the President's economists "are expressing dismay with both
UAW President Walter P. Reuther and Henry Ford II." He adds that "in a period
when inflation is such a national menace, they feel that the settlement was not
a responsible one."
Observe the fact that the White House has said nothing publicly about the
Ford settlement being inflationary. Is this because they are afraid of angering
Henry Ford II? I personally think they are more concerned about Walter Routher's
feelings. They might show a littlerconcern for the consumer, too, because I
feel sure that automobile prices are going to go up substantially by the time
Reuther is through with the auto industry this year.
Mobody is arguing about the right to strike. This is basic. But certainly
we should seek to avoid strikes whenever possible. After all, a strike hurts
everyone involved. The worker loses wages; the employer, his profits and
possibly some of his before-strike customers; the supplier, his sales to the
employer; the retailer, loss in retail sales to strikers with hharply diminished
income.
-3-
We are most concerned, of course, with the national emergency strike.
Refusal by the White House and Democratic Congresses to seek improvement in
the handling of national emergency strike situations is one of the great sins
of legislative omission in this decade.
You all know the story. You know that in his annual message to Congress
on Jan. 27, 1966, President Johnson said: "I intend to ask the Congress to
consider measures that, without improperly invading State and local authority,
will enable us to deal effectively with strikes that may cause irreparable
damage to the national interest."
That was the promise. What has happened? Nothing.
Is it any wonder that labor strife is onethe rise in America when the
Administration initially does little to cope with inflation and then seeks
to pile a tax increase on top of price increases?
And is it any wonder that labor strife mounts when the President of the
United States reneges on a solemn pledge to the American people to seek ways to
improve the handling of national emergency strikes?
These are questions for the American people to ponder as the number of work
stoppages in this country continues to rise.
....
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. TUESDAY--
October 31, 1967
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, House Republican Leader,
before the American Association of Industrial Management, to be delivered
at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 31, at the Sheraton-Boston Hotel, Boston, Mass.
This will be the worst strike year in recent American history.
It may mark the crest of a wave of labor strife that has shown a spectacular
rise since 1963--the year Lyndon B. Johnson became President. Then again, 1968
may even top this year.
In any case, the situation shows no signs of improving. And 1968 will be
marked by potentially explosive contract negotiations between Big Steel and
the United Steelworkers.
The sharply worsened climate in labor-management relations is underscored
by the comparative figures for the years 1963 through 1966 and the record for the
first eight months of 1967.
In 1963 we had 3,362 work stoppages, with 941,000 workers involved and
16,100,000 man-days lost; in 1964, 3,655 stoppages, 1,640,000 workers involved,
and 22,900,000 man-days lost; in 1965, 3,963 stoppages, 1,550,000 employees
involved, and 23,300,000 man-days lost; in 1966, 4,405 stoppages, 1,960,000
workers involved, and 25,400,000 man- days lost.
Through August of this year there had been 3,195 stoppages, with 2,080,000
workers involved and 22,000,000 man- days lost. But this does not include the
150,000-man United Automobile Workers strike against Ford Motor Co. and the
continuing copper strike. Therefore the indications are unmistakable that 1967
day
man-
losses will far exceed those of 1966 and previous years.
There is a clearly defined trend in recent years toward a steadily worsening
situation in terms of labor strife. And there has to be a reason.
I am not a labor-management relations specialist, nor am I an economist.
But I think it is significant that during the Eisenhower Administration,
industrial output per man hour substantially exceeded compensation per man hour.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
During the time of the two Democratic administrations beginning in 1961,
compensation per man hour has come to exceed output per man hour. This certainly
leads to severe economic dislocation and inflation.
When output falls behind compensation, we have a condition which con-
tributes to the classic kind of inflation in which too much money chases too
few goods.
Currently the unions are seeking to catch up with the price increases of
1966. This contributes to cost-push inflation. Since the present Administration
overstimulated the economy through excessive federal spending last year, it
seems clear that the Administration must assume the major share of the blame
for the entire cycle of 1966-67 inflation and the inflationary wage settlements
now being negotiated.
Nobody is arguing about the right to strike. This is basic. But certainly
we should seek to avoid strikes whenever possible. After all, a strike hurts
everyone involved. The worker loses wages; the employer, his profits and
possibly some of his before-strike customers; the supplier, his sales to the
employer; the retailer, loss in retail sales to strikers with sharply diminished
income.
We are most concerned, of course, with the national emergency strike.
Refusal by the White House and Democratic Congresses to seek improvement in
the handling of national emergency strike situations is one of the great sins
of legislative omission in this decade.
You all know the story. You know that in his annual message to Congress
on Jan. 27, 1966, President Johnson said: "I intend to ask the Congress to
consider measures that, without improperly invading State and local authority,
will enable us to deal effectively with strikes that may cause irreparable
damage to the national interest."
That was the promise. What has happened? Nothing.
Is it any wonder that labor strife is on the rise in America when the
Administration initially does little to cope with inflation and then seeks
to pile a tax increase on top of price increases?
And is it any wonder that labor strife mounts when the President of the
United States reneges on a solemn pledge to the American people to seek ways to
improve the handling of national emergency strikes?
These are questions for the American people to ponder as the number of work
stoppages in this country continues to rise.
# # #