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
4526350
label
67th Annual Convention, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Washington, DC, February 8, 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526350
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
67th Annual Convention, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Washington, DC, February 8, 1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Agriculture
Economics
Industrial relations
Labor
Labor disputes
Railroads
Transportation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526350
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-02-28
month
2
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-02-01
month
2
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
bff694253280e5ff
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D31, folder "67th Annual Convention, United
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Washington, DC, February 8, 1971" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D31 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
KEYNOTE ADDRESS, BEFORE THE 67TH ANNUAL
CONVENTION OF THE UNITED FRESH FRUIT
AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, 12 NOON
MONDAY, FEB. 8, 1971, WASHINGTON HILTON.
Wade
Congram memores Broad.
IT IS RATHER REFRESHING TO TALK
ABOUT FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLES IN
FEBRUARY, PARTICULARLY SINCE THIS IS THE
WORST MONTH OF THE WINTER IN WASHINGTON.
OF COURSE, WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FRESH FRUIT
Limited
AND VEGETABLES WOULD TAKE UP ABOUT ONE LINE
OF TYPE IN THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
YEARBOOK. BUT I REALLY DO NOT THINK THAT
DISQUALIFIES ME TO BE YOUR KEYNOTE
SPEAKER.
YOUR KEYNOTE
WHAT SHOULD THE
KEYNOTE OF YOUR CONVENTION BE? + THINK
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS REALLY
QUITE OBVIOUS. IT IS AN ANSWER THAT IS
-2-
A BIT "IFFY" BECAUSE IT INVOLVES SOME
CRYSTAL BALL-GAZING. BUT I THINK THE
ANSWER IS ONE THAT CAN BE COUNTED UPON
BECAUSE, TRULY, THE CRYSTAL BALL IS NOT
TOO CLOUDY.
Pichagas
WHAT I AM LEADING UP TO IS SOME
ECONOMIC FORECASTING AND SOME PREDICTIONS
OF LEGISLATIVE EVENTS TO COME OR ARDENTLY
TO BE WISHED.
WHILE FEBRUARY IS A BIT LATE
FOR 1971 FORECASTS, THIS JUST MEANS I HAVE
HAD ALL THE MORE TIME TO POLISH UP MY
CRYSTAL BALL AND MORE TIME TO LOOK INTO
IT. LET'S HOPE THAT MY READING THEREFORE
HAS ALL THE MORE VALIDITY.
FIRST OF ALL, I LOOK FOR THE
ECONOMY TO REBOUND IN 1971. I ALSO LOOK
FOR THE RATE OF INFLATION TO CONTINUE TO
RECEDE
-3-
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION HAS BEEN
CLIMBING SINCE THE HARD BLOW DEALT THE
ECONOMY BY THE GENERAL MOTORS STRIKE LATE
LAST FALL. WE CAN NOW LOOK FORWARD TO
STRONGER GAINS IN OVERALL OUTPUT, LARGER
INCREASES IN PRODUCTIVITY, A SLOWER RISE
IN THE PRICE LEVEL AND IN LABOR COSTS PER
UNIT OF OUTPUT, AND FURTHER GAINS AGAINST
INFLATION
WE ARE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A
FRESH SURGE IN THE ECONOMY. THE BASIC
ECONOMY SHOWS ALL THE EVIDENCE OF RENEWED
EXPANSION
I PERSONALLY EXPECT THE
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE
STIMULI NEEDED TO KEEP US ON A COURSE OF
RENEWED ECONOMIC GROWTH -- AT A REAL RATE
OF ABOUT 4 PER CENT. THE RECENT
ADMINISTRATION DECISION TO SPUR INVESTMENT
-4-
IN PLANT AND EQUIPMENT THROUGH PROVISION
RS
FOR FASTER TAX WRITE-OFFS IS SOLID
EVIDENCE. OF THIS So IS PRESIDENT NIXON'S
1
FULL EMPLOYMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL 1972.
WE ARE ALREADY SEEING A SPURT
IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, NOTABLY IN HOUSING.
NATIONALLY, HOUSING STARTS SHOULD REACH
OR BETTER
1,650,000 TN 1971 -- DUE IN PART TO TWO
NEW FEDERAL PROGRAMS. THESE NEW PROGRAMS
ARE THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION'S MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITY
PROGRAM AND THE EMERGENCY HOME FINANCE
ACT OF 1970, WHICH I WILL NOT ELABORATE
ON AT THIS TIME.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE
FORMATION OF NEW HOUSEHOLDS IS
SIGNIFICANT FOR THE ECONOMY GENERALLY
AND THE FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET
SPECIFICALLY.
I THINK WE CAN ALSO EXPECT THE
-5-
AMERICAN PEOPLE'S SPENDING TO GO UP IN
1971, AND THIS OF COURSE WILL HAVE A
SALUTARY IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY. REFUSAL
TO SPEND OVER THE PAST YEAR HAS HAD A
DEADENING EFFECT ON THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF
THE NATION. A LOOSENING OF THE PURSE
STRINGS IS ESSENTIAL TO ECONOMIC REVIVAL.
WHAT WE NEED, IN SUM, IS A RESURGENCE OF
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE -- AND I THINK IT IS
ON THE WAY.
I STRONGLY BELIEVE WE ARE HEADED
TOWARD A MORE STABLE ECONOMY AND A MORE
STABLE PRICE LEVEL -- AND I SEE THE ONSET
OF A VIGOROUS EXPANSION WHICH WILL PRODUCE
JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND GREATER ABUNDANCE
FOR ALL OUR PEOPLE.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRESIDENT
IS PURSUING VIGOROUS MEASURES IN A
CONTINUING FIGHT AGAINST INFLATION. HIS
-6-
ACTION ON OIL IMPORTS, HIS COUNTER TO
THE TREMENDOUS PRICE BOOSTS ORIGINALLY
ANNOUNCED BY BETHLEHEM STEEL, AND HIS
PRESSURE ON THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TO
HOLD COSTS DOWN ARE AMPLE EVIDENCE OF A
STRONG ANTI-INFLATION EFFORT. I SEE THE
PRESIDENT OPERATING IN A ROLE OF ECONOMIC
STATESMANSHIP WHICH WILL BE IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF ALL OF OUR PEOPLE.
THERE IS OTHER MEDICINE REQUIRED
TO CURE SOME OF THE ILLS OF OUR ECONOMY.
I REFER TO THE OBVIOUS NEED FOR
MACHINERY TO HANDLE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE.
I KNOW THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS HAVE BEEN GOING
THROUGH AN AGONIZING SITUATION DUE TO LACK
OF AN AGRICULTURE LABOR LAW. IT IS THE
GROSSEST KIND OF NEGLECT THAT CONGRESS HAS
-7-
NOT YET SET UP GUIDELINES AND MACHINERY
FOR THE HANDLING OF REPRESENTATION AND
OTHER FARM LABOR DISPUTES.
IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT SPECIAL
MACHINERY IS NEEDED TO DEAL WITH LABOR
PROBLEMS IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE. IT
IS GOOD TO KNOW activity THEREFORE, THAT THE LABOR
DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON SUCH LEGISLATION
AT THE PRESENT TIME
I HAVE SOME GENERAL IDEAS AS TO
WHAT FORM SUCH LEGISLATION SHOULD TAKE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT FARM
WORKERS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
BUT A BOYCOTT DESIGNED TO FORCE AN
EMPLOYER TO SIGN A UNION CONTRACT IS AN
UNSATISFACTORY WAY TO SETTLE A
REPRESENTATION DISPUTE IN AGRICULTURE.
AGRICULTURE IS UNLIKE INDUSTRY. ITS
PRODUCTS ARE HIGHLY PERISHABLE.
-8-
WHAT WE NEED IS A SPECIALLY
DESIGNED LABOR POLICY FOR THE NATION'S
FARM WORKERS.
THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE BUT EVERY POSSIBLE MECHANISM SHOULD
BE SET UP TO AVOID STRIKES SINCE A VITAL
PART OF THE COUNTRY'S FOOD SUPPLY WOULD
BE AFFECTED. BINDING ARBITRATION BY A
NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY WOULD BE ONE ANSWER.
AND IT SEEMS LOGICAL THAT COVERAGE OF A
NEW FARM LABOR LAW SHOULD BE RESTRICTED
TO THE LARGER FARMS.
THE NEED FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RULES IN AGRICULTURE IS
UNQUESTIONABLE, JUST AS IS THE NEED FOR
IMPROVED METHODS OF HANDLING NATIONAL
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS IN THE AREA OF
TRANSPORTATION.
IN TRANSPORTATION. FRUIT AND
-9-
VEGETABLE GROWERS AND DISTRIBUTORS ARE
PERIODICALLY CONFRONTED WITH SHUTDOWNS
THAT CREATE CRISIS CONDITIONS AND
THREATEN TO DEPRIVE AMERICAN FAMILIES OF
THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE.
CONGRESS MUST FACE UP TO THE
NEED TO IMPROVE THE HANDLING OF LABOR
DISPUTES IN TRANSPORTATION. THE PRESENT
MACHINERY FOR DEALING WITH SUCH SITUATIONS
IS UNDENIABLY INADEQUATE. THE CRISIS
ATMOSPHERE UNDER WHICH WE NOW ARE
OPERATING CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT WHEN THE
RAIL UNIONS DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO
CALL A NATIONWIDE STRIKE LAST DECEMBER 10
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD EXHAUSTED ALL
EXISTING PROCEDURES FOR ATTEMPTING TO
BRING ABOUT A SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE.
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR HAD SOUGHT A
-10-
VOLUNTARY EXTENSION OF NEGOTIATIONS BUT
WITHOUT SUCCESS.
HOW DID CONGRESS DEAL WITH THIS
NATIONAL EMERGENCY? BY PROHIBITING A RAIL
STRIKE UNTIL MARCH 1 AND BY GIVING THE
RAILROAD WORKERS A RAISE. THAT ACTION WAS
THE CL I MAX OF A SERIES OF IRRESPONSIBLE
ACTIONS ON THE PART OF THE CONGRESS -- AN
INCREDIBLE SERIES OF DELAYING MANEUVERS
WHICH SPELLED REFUSAL TO FACE UP TO
RESPONSIBILITY.
I AM AMAZED THAT THERE HAS NOT
BEEN A PUBLIC OUTCRY OVER THE DEMOCRATIC
Marrity Partys
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP'S REPEATED
INSISTENCE ON AVOIDING A RESPONSIBLE
SOLUTION TO OUR LABOR-MANAGEMENT
DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSPORTATION.
AFTER ALL, THE DECEMBER STRIKE
CRISIS DEVELOPED LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER
ART
-11-
A SIMILAR EMERGENCY HAD SURFACED AT THE
END OF JANUARY 1970.
WHAT DID THE CONGRESS DO TO DEAL
WITH THAT EMERGENCY? FIRST THE CONGRESS
LEGISLATED A 37-DAY DELAY IN THE STRIKE
DEADLINE. THEN WHEN THIS DID NOT PRODUCE
A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT THE CONGRESS
IMPOSED ON THE RAIL UNIONS THE AGREEMENT
WHICH HAD BEEN ENDORSED BY ALL OF THE RAIL
UNIONS BUT ONE.
THE MOST RECENT ACTION TAKEN BY
THE CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH A RAIL STRIKE
WAS FAR WORSE THAN THAT OF LAST APRIL 9.
INSTEAD OF IMPOSING A SETTLEMENT, THE
CONGRESS GAVE THE UNIONS PART OF WHAT THEY
WERE SEEKING AND THUS DESTROYED MUCH OF
THE BARGAINING POWER OF RAILROAD MANAGEMENT.
WHAT CAN ONE SAY ABOUT THE FACT
THAT RAIL DISPUTES REPEATEDLY ARE WINDING UP
-12-
IN THE LAP OF CONGRESS? I THINK ONE MUST
CONCLUDE THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HAS
BROKEN DOWN IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND
THAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN
THE DESTRUCTION OF IT.
WHY HAS CONGRESS FAILED TO
LEGISLATE AN IMPROVED WAY OF DEALING WITH
LABOR DISPUTES IN TRANSPORTATION? HAS
THE CONGRESS LACKED FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH
GUIDANCE? NOT AT ALL. FOR NEARLY A YEAR
THE CONGRESS HAS HAD BEFORE IT A LIST OF
CAREFULLY PREPARED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
BY PRESIDENT NIXON LAST FEBRUARY 27.
I PERSONALLY INTRODUCED THE ADMINISTRATION
BILL IN THE HOUSE.
WHY HAS NO ACTION BEEN TAKEN?
WHY HAVE WE NOT EVEN HAD HEARINGS ON THE
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVED HANDLING
OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY DISPUTES IN
TRANSPORTATION?
THE ANSWER IS THAT THE majority DEMOCRATIC
-13-
LEADERSHIP IN THE CONGRESS CONSIDERS IT
MORE IMPORTANT TO KEEP LABOR LEADERS HAPPY
THAN TO KEEP THE TRAINS RUNNING WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION. THAT MAKES FOR AN
INTOLERABLE SITUATION.
LABOR LEADERS ARE OPPOSED TO A
NIXON RECOMMENDATION WHICH THE AFL-CIO
LOOKS UPON AS COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.
THIS SHOULD NOT MEAN THAT
CONGRESS SIMPLY SITS BACK AND DOES NOTHING
TO IMPROVE THE MACHINERY FOR HANDLING
RAILROAD LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES. THE
NET RESULT OF THIS INACTION IS THAT
CONGRESS IS PERIODICALLY FORCED TO STEP
IN ON THE EVE OF A STRIKE AND SUBSTITUTE
ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PROCESS
NOBODY IN CONGRESS -- INCLUDING
-14-
ME -- IS WEDDED TO THE PRESIDENT'S
PROPOSALS. BUT THEY ARE AN EXCELLENT
BEGINNING POINT, AND HEARINGS ARE VERY
MUCH IN ORDER.
WHAT POSSIBLE EXCUSE CAN THERE
BE FOR NOT HOLDING HEARINGS ON THE
PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS? NONE, OF
COURSE. AND YET WHEN I DEMANDED LAST
DECEMBER THAT HEARINGS BE HELD IN 1971,
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE MERELY SAID HE
WOULD "CONSIDER" IT. THIS IS THE ATTITUDE
THAT HAS SUBJECTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
TO ONE RAIL CRISIS AFTER ANOTHER.
SUCH AN ATTITUDE IS ALL THE MORE
ASTOUNDING WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT NOBODY
IN THE CONGRESS CAN ARGUE THAT THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926 IS WORKING.
NEITHER IS THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT ADEQUATE
-15-
FOR HANDLING TRANSPORTATION LABOR DISPUTES.
IN A WORD, EXISTING LEGISLATION FOR
DEALING WITH NATIONAL EMERGENCY DISPUTES
IN TRANSPORTATION IS SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT
AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS ASKED THAT
THREE ADDITIONAL OPTIONS BE MADE AVAILABLE
TO HIM WHEN THE EXISTING COOLING OFF
PERIOD EXPIRES WITHOUT A SETTLEMENT IN
A RAIL OR AIRLINE LABOR DISPUTE.
THE FIRST OPTION WOULD BE TO
EXTEND THE COOLING OFF PERIOD FOR UP TO
30 MORE DAYS. THIS WOULD BE THE MOST
ATTRACTIVE OPTION IF THE DISPUTE APPEARED
VERY CLOSE TO A SETTLEMENT.
THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE
PARTIAL OPERATION OF THE TROUBLED INDUSTRY.
THIS WOULD ALLOW THE MAJOR PART OF A
STRIKE OR LOCKOUT TO CONTINUE, ALONG WITH
-16-
A STEPUP IN NEGOTIATIONS. THIS PROCEDURE
COULD BE INVOKED FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS.
THE THIRD OPTION WOULD BE WHAT
IS KNOWN AS THE "FINAL OFFER" PROCEDURE.
UNDER THIS PROCEDURE EACH OF THE TWO
PARTIES WOULD SUBMIT FINAL OFFERS AND
THEN HAVE FIVE DAYS TO BARGAIN OVER THESE
FINAL PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT. IF NO
AGREEMENT RESULTED, A FINAL SELECTOR GROUP
OF THREE NEUTRAL MEMBERS WOULD BE APPOINTED
BY THE TWO PARTIES OR, IF THEY COULD NOT
AGREE ON THE APPOINTMENTS, BY THE PRESIDENT.
THIS GROUP WOULD CHOOSE ONE OF THE FINAL
OFFERS AS THE FINAL AND BINDING SETTLEMENT.
THE COURTS COULD DECLARE EITHER
PARTIAL OPERATION OF AN INDUSTRY OR A FINAL
OFFER SELECTION INVALID IF THIS WERE FOUND
TO BE EITHER ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. AND
IF NONE OF THE OPTIONS WORKED, THE PRESIDENT
-17-
COULD THEN SUBMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER TO
CONGRESS AS HE DOES UNDER PRESENT LAW.
THE PRESIDENT IS SEEKING TO BE
FAIR AND TO ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE NATION. HIS RECOMMENDATIONS SHOW
COURAGE, SINCE THE ENTIRE AREA OF
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IS MOST
SENSITIVE POLITICALLY. IF ONLY CONGRESS
WOULD DISPLAY THE SAME BRAND OF COURAGE
!
I HAVE RANGED OVER A BROAD AREA
TODAY, COVERING THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY
AND THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION
DEALING WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION.
LET ME REITERATE THAT I THINK
THE BASIC ECONOMY IS NOT ONLY HEALTHY BUT
EAGER TO RESPOND TO IMPROVING CONDITIONS.
AS TO THE PROSPECTS FOR NEW
LABOR LEGISLATION, I CAN ONLY STATE FLATLY
-18-
THAT THE NEED IS THERE AND CONGRESSIONAL
COURAGE HAS BEEN THE MISSING INGREDIENT.
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IS GENERALLY
ACCEPTED IN AMERICA, AND THIS IS HEALTHY.
BUT LET US BE HONEST ABOUT IT. A
NATIONWIDE RAILROAD STRIKE WILL NEVER BE
COUNTENANCED BY THE CONGRESS. IN VIEW OF
THAT, WE HAD BETTER ACT TO IMPROVE THE
EXISTING MACHINERY FOR SETTLEMENT OF RAIL
DISPUTES
I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PRESENT INACTION IN CONGRESS CAN
CONTINUE. THE REASON IS THAT I BELIEVE IN
THE GREAT GOOD SENSE OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. I BELIEVE THEY WILL DEMAND THAT
SOMETHING BE DONE
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE CONGRESS, BUT I WILL GLADLY RELY
ON WHAT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA FEEL IS THE
-19-
RIGHT THING TO DO. I HAVE GREAT CONFIDENCE
IN WHAT I CALL OUR NATIONAL CONSCIENCE
IF THE CONGRESS WILL HEED THE CALL OF THAT
CONSCIENCE, AMERICA CANNOT GO WRONG.
I
FREELY LEAVE THE NATION'S FUTURE IN THE
HANDS OF ITS CITIZENS.
-- END --
Distribution Full
Halleries 2/6/91 a.m.
M office Copy
Mail
a.m. 2/8/71
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE 67th ANNUAL CONVENTION
OF THE UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
12 NOON, FEBRUARY 8, 1971
FOR RELEASE IN PM's OF MONDAY, FEB. 8, 1971
It is rather refreshing to talk about fresh fruit and vegetables in February,
particularly since this is the worst month of the winter in Washington.
of course, what I know about the production and distribution of fresh fruit
and vegetables would take up about one line of type in the Agriculture Department
yearbook. But I really do not think that disqualifies me to be your keynote
speaker.
Your keynote. What should the keynote of your convention be? I think the
answer to that question is really quite obvious. It is an answer that is a bit
"iffy" because it involves some crystal ball-gazing. But I think the answer is
one that can be counted upon because, truly, the crystal ball is not too cloudy.
What I am leading up to is some economic forecasting and some predictions
of legislative events to come or ardently to be wished.
While February is a bit late for 1971 forecasts, this just means I have had
all the more time to polish up my crystal ball and more time to look into it.
Let's hope that my reading therefore has all the more validity.
First of all, I look for the economy to rebound in 1971. I also look for
the rate of inflation to continue to recede.
Industrial production has been climbing since the hard blow dealt the
economy by the General Motors strike late last fall. We can now look forward to
stronger gains in overall output, larger increases in productivity, a slower rise
in the price level and in labor costs per unit of output, and further gains against
inflation.
We are in the early stages of a fresh surge in the economy. The basic
economy shows all the evidence of renewed expansion.
I personally expect the Administration to provide all of the stimuli needed
to keep us on a course of renewed economic growth-at a real rate of about
4 per cent. The recent Administration decision to spur investment in plant and
equipment through provision for faster tax write-offs is solid evidence of this
(more)
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
-2-
We are already seeing a spurt in economic activity, notably in housing.
Nationally, housing starts should reach 1,650,000 in 1971--due in part to two new
Federal programs. These new programs are the Government National Mortgage
Association's mortgage-backed security program and the Emergency Home Finance Act
of 1970, which I will not elaborate on at this time.
Suffice it to say that the formation of new households is significant for
the economy generally and the fresh fruit and vegetable market specifically.
I think we can also expect the American people's spending to go up in 1971,
and this of course will have a salutary impact on the economy. Refusal to spend
over the past year has had a deadening effect on the economic life of the Nation.
A loosening of the purse strings is essential to economic revival. What we need,
in sum, is a resurgence of consumer confidence--and I think it is on the way.
I strongly believe we are headed toward a more stable economy and a more
stable price level--and I see the onset of a vigorous expansion which will produce
greater job opportunities and greater abundance for all our people.
At the same time, the President is pursuing vigorous measures in a
continuing fight against inflation. His action on oil imports, his counter to the
tremendous price boosts originally announced by Bethlehem Steel, and his pressure
on the construction industry to hold costs down are ample evidence of a strong
anti-inflation effort. I see the President operating in a role of economic
statesmanship which will be in the best interests of all of our people.
There is other medicine required to cure some of the ills of our economy.
I refer to the obvious need for machinery to handle labor-management
relations in the field of agriculture.
I know the fruit and vegetable producers and distributors have been going
through an agonizing situation due to lack of an agriculture labor law. It is the
grossest kind of neglect that Congress has not yet set up guidelines and machinery
for the handling of representation and other farm labor disputes.
It seems obvious that special machinery is needed to deal with labor problems
in the field of agriculture. It is good to know, therefore, that the Labor
Department is working on such legislation at the present time.
I have some general ideas as to what form such legislation should take.
There is no question that farm workers should have the right to organize
but a boycott designed to force an employer to sign a union contract is an
unsatisfactory way to settle a representation dispute in agriculture. Agriculture
is unlike industry. Its products are highly perishable.
(more)
-3-
What we need is a specially designed labor policy for the Nation's farm
workers.
They should have the right to strike but every possible mechanism should be
set up to avoid strikes since a vital part of the country's food supply would be
affected. Binding arbitration by a neutral third party would be one answer. And
it seems logical that coverage of a new farm labor law should be restricted to the
larger farms.
The need for collective bargaining rules in agriculture is unquestionable,
just as is the need for improved methods of handling national emergency situations
in the area of transportation.
In transportation, fruit and vegetable growers and distributors are
periodically confronted with shutdowns that create crisis conditions and threaten
to deprive American families of the necessities of life.
Congress must face up to the need to improve the handling of labor disputes
in transportation. The present machinery for dealing with such situations is
undeniably inadequate. The crisis atmosphere under which we now are operating
cannot be allowed to continue.
You will recall that wehn the rail unions declared their intention to call
a nationwide strike last Dec. 10 the Federal Government had exhausted all existing
procedures for attempting to bring about a settlement of the dispute. The Secretary
of Labor had sought a voluntary extension of negotiations but without success.
How did Congress deal with this national emergency? By prohibiting a rail
strike until March 1 and by giving the railroad workers a raise. That action was
the climax of a series of irresponsible actions on the part of the Congress--an
incredible series of delaying maneuvers which spelled refusal to face up to
responsibility.
I am amazed that there has not been a public outcry over the Democratic
congressional leadership's repeated insistence on avoiding a responsible solution
to our labor-management difficulties in transportation.
After all, the December strike crisis developed less than a year after a
similar emergency had surfaced at the end of January 1970.
What did the Congress do to deal with that emergency? First the Congress
legislated a 37-day delay in the strike deadline. Then when this did not produce
a negotiated settlement the Congress imposed on the rail unions the agreement which
had been endorsed by all of the rail unions but one.
(more)
-4-
The most recent action taken by the Congress to deal with a rail strike was
far worse than that of last April 9. Instead of imposing a settlement, the Congress
gave the unions part of what they were seeking and thus destroyed much of the
bargaining power of railroad management.
What can one say about the fact that rail disputes repeatedly are winding
up in the lap of Congress? I think one must conclude that collective bargaining
has broken down in the railroad industry and that Congress has been instrumental in
the destruction of it.
Why has Congress failed to legislate an improved way of dealing with labor
disputes in transportation? Has the Congress lacked for Executive Branch guidance?
Not at all. For nearly a year the Congress has had before it a list of carefully
prepared recommendations made by President Nixon last Feb. 27. I personally
introduced the Administration bill in the House.
Why has no action been taken? Why have we not even had hearings on the
President's proposals for improved handling of national emergency disputes in
transportation?
The answer is that the Democratic leadership in the Congress considers it
more important to keep labor leaders happy than to keep the trains running without
interruption. That makes for an intolerable situation.
Labor leaders are opposed to a Nixon recommendation which the AFL-CIO looks
upon as compulsory arbitration.
This should not mean that Congress simply sits back and does nothing to
improve the machinery for handling railroad labor-management disputes. The net
result of this inaction is that Congress is periodically forced to step in on the
eve of a strike and substitute its judgment for the collective bargaining process.
Nobody in Congress--including me--is wedded to the President's proposals.
But they are an excellent beginning point, and hearings are very much in order.
What possible excuse can there be for not holding hearings on the President's
recommendations? None, of course. And yet when I demanded last December that
hearings be held in 1971, the chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee merely said he would "consider" it. This is the attitude that has
subjected the American people to one rail crisis after another.
Such an attitude is all the more astounding when you consider that nobody in
the Congress can argue that the Railway Labor Act of 1926 is working. Neither is
the Taft-Hartley Act adequate for handling transportation labor disputes.
In
a
FORD
(more)
GERALD
-5-
word, existing legislation for dealing with national emergency disputes in
transportation is seriously deficient and everyone knows it.
The President has asked that three additional options be made available to
him when the existing cooling off period expires without a settlement in a rail or
airline labor dispute.
The first option would be to extend the cooling off period for up to 30 more
days. This would be the most attractive option if the dispute appeared very close
to a settlement.
The second option would be partial operation of the troubled industry. This
would allow the major part of a strike or lockout to continue, along with a stepup
in negotiations. This procedure could be invoked for up to six months.
The third option would be what is known as the "final offer" procedure.
Under this procedure each of the two parties would submit final offers and then
have five days to bargain over these final proposals for settlement. If no
agreement resulted, a final selector group of three neutral members would be
appointed by the two parties or if they could not agree on the appointments, by the
President. This group would choose one of the final offers as the final and
binding settlement.
The courts could declare either partial operation of an industry or a final
offer selection invalid if this were found to be either arbitrary or capricious.
And if none of the options worked, the President could then submit the entire
matter to Congress as he does under present law.
The President is seeking to be fair and to act in the best interests of the
Nation. His recommendations show courage, since the entire area of labor-management
relations is most sensitive politically. If only Congress would display the same
brand of courage!
I have ranged over a broad area today, covering the health of the economy
and the need for Federal legislation dealing with collective bargaining in
agriculture and transportation.
Let me reiterate that I think the basic economy is not only healthy but
eager to respond to improving conditions.
As to the prospects for new labor legislation, I can only state flatly that
the need is there and congressional courage has been the missing ingredient.
The right to strike is generally accepted in America, and this is healthy.
But let us be honest about it. A nationwide railroad strike will never be
(more)
-6-
countenanced by the Congress. In view of that, we had better act to improve the
existing machinery for settlement of rail disputes.
I find it difficult to believe that the present inaction in Congress can
continue. The reason is that I believe in the great good sense of the American
people. I believe they will demand that something be done.
I don't know about other members of the Congress, but I will gladly rely on
what the people of America feel is the right thing to do. I have great confidence
in what I call our national conscience. If the Congress will heed the call of
that conscience, America cannot go wrong. I freely leave the Nation's future in
the hands of its citizens.
###
Full Distribution
a office Copy
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE 67th ANNUAL CONVENTION
OF THE UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
12 NOON, FEBRUARY 8, 1971
FOR RELEASE IN PM's OF MONDAY, FEB. 8, 1971
It is rather refreshing to talk about fresh fruit and vegetables in February,
particularly since this is the worst month of the winter in Washington.
Of course, what I know about the production and distribution of fresh fruit
and vegetables would take up about one line of type in the Agriculture Department
yearbook. But I really do not think that disqualifies me to be your keynote
speaker.
Your keynote. What should the keynote of your convention be? I think the
answer to that question is really quite obvious. It is an answer that is a bit
"iffy" because it involves some crystal ball-gazing. But I think the answer is
one that can be counted upon because, truly, the crystal ball is not too cloudy.
What I am leading up to is some economic forecasting and some predictions
of legislative events to come or ardently to be wished.
While February is a bit late for 1971 forecasts, this just means I have had
all the more time to polish up my crystal ball and more time to look into it.
Let's hope that my reading therefore has all the more validity.
First of all, I look for the economy to rebound in 1971. I also look for
the rate of inflation to continue to recede.
Industrial production has been climbing since the hard blow dealt the
economy by the General Motors strike late last fall. We can now look forward to
stronger gains in overall output, larger increases in productivity, a slower rise
in the price level and in labor costs per unit of output, and further gains against
inflation.
We are in the early stages of a fresh surge in the economy. The basic
economy shows all the evidence of renewed expansion.
I personally expect the Administration to provide all of the stimuli needed
to keep us on a course of renewed economic growth-at a real rate of about
4 per cent. The recent Administration decision to spur investment in plant and
equipment through provision for faster tax write-offs is solid evidence of this
(more)
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
We are already seeing a spurt in economic activity, notably in housing.
Nationally, housing starts should reach 1,650,000 in 1971--due in part to two new
Federal programs. These new programs are the Government National Mortgage
Association's mortgage-backed security program and the Emergency Home Finance Act
of 1970, which I will not elaborate on at this time.
Suffice it to say that the formation of new households is significant for
the economy generally and the fresh fruit and vegetable market specifically.
I think we can also expect the American people's spending to go up in 1971,
and this of course will have a salutary impact on the economy. Refusal to spend
over the past year has had a deadening effect on the economic life of the Nation.
A loosening of the purse strings is essential to economic revival. What we need,
in sum, is a resurgence of consumer confidence--and I think it is on the way.
I strongly believe we are headed toward a more stable economy and a more
stable price level--and I see the onset of a vigorous expansion which will produce
greater job opportunities and greater abundance for all our people.
At the same time, the President is pursuing vigorous measures in a
continuing fight against inflation. His action on oil imports, his counter to the
tremendous price boosts originally announced by Bethlehem Steel, and his pressure
on the construction industry to hold costs down are ample evidence of a strong
anti-inflation effort. I see the President operating in a role of economic
statesmanship which will be in the best interests of all of our people.
There is other medicine required to cure some of the ills of our economy.
I refer to the obvious need for machinery to handle labor-management
relations in the field of agriculture.
I know the fruit and vegetable producers and distributors have been going
through an agonizing situation due to lack of an agriculture labor law. It is the
grossest kind of neglect that Congress has not yet set up guidelines and machinery
for the handling of representation and other farm labor disputes.
It seems obvious that special machinery is needed to deal with labor problems
in the field of agriculture. It is good to know, therefore, that the Labor
Department is working on such legislation at the present time.
I have some general ideas as to what form such legislation should take.
There is no question that farm workers should have the right to organize
but a boycott designed to force an employer to sign a union contract is an
unsatisfactory way to settle a representation dispute in agriculture. Agriculture
is unlike industry. Its products are highly perishable.
(more)
-3-
What we need is a specially designed labor policy for the Nation's farm
workers.
They should have the right to strike but every possible mechanism should be
set up to avoid strikes since a vital part of the country's food supply would be
affected. Binding arbitration by a neutral third party would be one answer. And
it seems logical that coverage of a new farm labor law should be restricted to the
larger farms.
The need for collective bargaining rules in agriculture is unquestionable,
just as is the need for improved methods of handling national emergency situations
in the area of transportation.
In transportation, fruit and vegetable growers and distributors are
periodically confronted with shutdowns that create crisis conditions and threaten
to deprive American families of the necessities of life.
Congress must face up to the need to improve the handling of labor disputes
in transportation. The present machinery for dealing with such situations is
undeniably inadequate. The crisis atmosphere under which we now are operating
cannot be allowed to continue.
You will recall that wehn the rail unions declared their intention to call
a nationwide strike last Dec. 10 the Federal Government had exhausted all existing
procedures for attempting to bring about a settlement of the dispute. The Secretary
of Labor had sought a voluntary extension of negotiations but without success.
How did Congress deal with this national emergency? By prohibiting a rail
strike until March 1 and by giving the railroad workers a raise. That action was
the climax of a series of irresponsible actions on the part of the Congress--an
incredible series of delaying maneuvers which spelled refusal to face up to
responsibility.
I am amazed that there has not been a public outcry over the Democratic
congressional leadership's repeated insistence on avoiding a responsible solution
to our labor-management difficulties in transportation.
After all, the December strike crisis developed less than a year after a
similar emergency had surfaced at the end of January 1970.
What did the Congress do to deal with that emergency? First the Congress
legislated a 37-day delay in the strike deadline. Then when this did not produce
a negotiated settlement the Congress imposed on the rail unions the agreement which
had been endorsed by all of the rail unions but one.
(more)
-4-
The most recent action taken by the Congress to deal with a rail strike was
far worse than that of last April 9. Instead of imposing a settlement, the Congress
gave the unions part of what they were seeking and thus destroyed much of the
bargaining power of railroad management.
What can one say about the fact that rail disputes repeatedly are winding
up in the lap of Congress? I think one must conclude that collective bargaining
has broken down in the railroad industry and that Congress has been instrumental in
the destruction of it.
Why has Congress failed to legislate an improved way of dealing with labor
disputes in transportation? Has the Congress lacked for Executive Branch guidance?
Not at all. For nearly a year the Congress has had before it a list of carefully
prepared recommendations made by President Nixon last Feb. 27. I personally
introduced the Administration bill in the House.
Why has no action been taken? Why have we not even had hearings on the
President's proposals for improved handling of national emergency disputes in
transportation?
The answer is that the Democratic leadership in the Congress considers it
more important to keep labor leaders happy than to keep the trains running without
interruption. That makes for an intolerable situation.
Labor leaders are opposed to a Nixon recommendation which the AFL-CIO looks
upon as compulsory arbitration.
This should not mean that Congress simply sits back and does nothing to
improve the machinery for handling railroad labor-management disputes. The net
result of this inaction is that Congress is periodically forced to step in on the
eve of a strike and substitute its judgment for the collective bargaining process.
Nobody in Congress--including me--is wedded to the President's proposals.
But they are an excellent beginning point, and hearings are very much in order.
What possible excuse can there be for not holding hearings on the President's
recommendations? None, of course. And yet when I demanded last December that
hearings be held in 1971, the chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee merely said he would "consider" it. This is the attitude that has
subjected the American people to one rail crisis after another.
Such an attitude is all the more astounding when you consider that nobody in
the Congress can argue that the Railway Labor Act of 1926 is working. Neither is
the Taft-Hartley Act adequate for handling transportation labor disputes. In
a
(more)
-5-
word, existing legislation for dealing with national emergency disputes in
transportation is seriously deficient and everyone knows it.
The President has asked that three additional options be made available to
him when the existing cooling off period expires without a settlement in a rail or
airline labor dispute.
The first option would be to extend the cooling off period for up to 30 more
days. This would be the most attractive option if the dispute appeared very close
to a settlement.
The second option would be partial operation of the troubled industry. This
would allow the major part of a strike or lockout to continue, along with a stepup
in negotiations. This procedure could be invoked for up to six months.
The third option would be what is known as the "final offer" procedure.
Under this procedure each of the two parties would submit final offers and then
have five days to bargain over these final proposals for settlement. If no
agreement resulted, a final selector group of three neutral members would be
appointed by the two parties or if they could not agree on the appointments, by the
President. This group would choose one of the final offers as the final and
binding settlement.
The courts could declare either partial operation of an industry or a final
offer selection invalid if this were found to be either arbitrary or capricious.
And if none of the options worked, the President could then submit the entire
matter to Congress as he does under present law.
The President is seeking to be fair and to act in the best interests of the
Nation. His recommendations show courage, since the entire area of labor-management
relations is most sensitive politically. If only Congress would display the same
brand of courage!
I have ranged over a broad area today, covering the health of the economy
and the need for Federal legislation dealing with collective bargaining in
agriculture and transportation.
Let me reiterate that I think the basic economy is not only healthy but
eager to respond to improving conditions.
As to the prospects for new labor legislation, I can only state flatly that
the need is there and congressional courage has been the missing ingredient.
The right to strike is generally accepted in America, and this is healthy.
But let us be honest about it. A nationwide railroad strike will never be
(more)
-6-
countenanced by the Congress. In view of that, we had better act to improve the
existing machinery for settlement of rail disputes.
I find it difficult to believe that the present inaction in Congress can
continue. The reason is that I believe in the great good sense of the American
people. I believe they will demand that something be done.
I don't know about other members of the Congress, but I will gladly rely on
what the people of America feel is the right thing to do. I have great confidence
in what I call our national conscience. If the Congress will heed the call of
that conscience, America cannot go wrong. I freely leave the Nation's future in
the hands of its citizens.
###