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.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Colson to George Shultz RE: Jim Suffridge and the attempt to win over prominent labor leaders. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/21/1971
From George T. Bell to Colson RE: Suffridge's advice on how to cultivate labor support for RN. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/20/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144547
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-32
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144547
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-32
description
This file contains:
From Colson to George Shultz RE: Jim Suffridge and the attempt to win over prominent labor leaders. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/21/1971
From George T. Bell to Colson RE: Suffridge's advice on how to cultivate labor support for RN. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/20/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144547
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
af652b3399ada3f9
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
32
9/21/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to George Shultz RE: Jim
Suffridge and the attempt to win over
prominent labor leaders. 2 pgs.
3
32
9/20/1971
Campaign
Memo
From George T. Bell to Colson RE:
Suffridge's advice on how to cultivate labor
support for RN. 1 pg.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
EYES ONLY
September 21, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GEORGE SHULTZ
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Jim Suffridge
Attached is the memo that I referred to during our 8:15
meeting this morning. Suffridge is a very level-headed
fellow and that is what disturbs me most about the memo.
Jim is usually very low key. According to George, he
was very forthright and came on very strong.
I am not entirely satisfied that George has the right approach.
I am completely satisfied, however, that we are not doing
the job properly at the moment with respect to labor. I'm
not talking now about substantive matters, I am talking strictly
about political cultivation.
What is apparently most troublesome is that Suffridge had
some very confidential discussion with us about the possibility
of his coming on board. You will remember that you and I
talked about this sometime ago. I was never able to get Hodgson
or Usery to agree to it but apparently Usery let someone at the
AFL-CIO Headquarters know that Suffridge was interested.
This was the one thing Suffridge asked us not to do and I gather
it has greatly hurt his effectiveness within the AFL-CIO Councils
understandable so, particularly now.
As we head into the campaign we are going to need some people,
either here or at 1701, who can really work extensively in the
political cultivation of labor leaders. I don't think I have ever
succeeded in getting Hodgson and Usery and understand that
there is an important distinction between their substantive rela-
tionships with labor leaders and our political relationships. The
2.
attached memo simply highlights the problem and it is one that
I think you and I should discuss to see if we can't get it resolved
to everyone's satisfaction.
I would prefer that you not send a copy of George's memo to
anyone, especially to Labor in view of the comments about
Hodgson. I might add, by the way, from the contacts I have
had that Suffridge is in no way overstating the case with respect
to Hodgson.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES W. COLSON
SUBJECT:
Contact with Organized Labor
I talked to Jim Suffridge this morning about getting
organized for the campaign, about which I will submit
a separate memorandum. Jim immediately took off,
however, on our situation with organized labor in a
way which was uniquely forthright in contrast with
his usual round-about approach, and made the following
points:
1.
Our relationship with labor leadership has
steadily deteriorated and is now at an all-
time low. Even Lee Minton who is not reluctant
to stand up and be a Republican has taken off
on the President very severely. Jim feels our
communication with labor has been badly muffed.
2.
There seems to be too many fingers in the pie,
no coordination and no security. Jim said he
had been burned up and embarrassed that our
discussions regarding his coming aboard as
liaison with labor had been thrown in his face
from those at 16th Street, who apparently heard
about it he thinks from Bill Usery.
3.
Politically, the Secretary is totally lost to us
with the leadership and can be of no help whatso-
ever. Bill Usery is a nice guy, wants to be
friendly to everyone, but should not be utilized
politically.
4.
There must be continuous contact with top labor
leaders from the White House, and the President
should make more calls. Someone should be invit-
ing every one of the leaders to lunch, visiting with
them, and getting their views. They cannot be won
over, but they become less violent and even
neutralized.
-2-
5.
He is very discouraged and feels we are headed
for further unnecessary trouble.
I could be helpful by doing the same type of thing I
have done with Fitzsimmons, if I were given in-house
(no public) annointment, the mandate were recognized
by the Labor Department, and we had an agreed-upon
strategy. I, or no one else, can do it on a hit-and-
miss basis and without overall mandate and coordina-
tion. Actually, this is a suggestion from Jim Suffridge,
who feels Hodgson is irretrievable, Shultz has other
duties, you are involved, but that I am (he thinks)
unemcumbered and could relate diplomatically with these
people.
As you know, I have long felt we could do better in
communicating with organized labor. I believe our need
has come to a climax; so for the past days I have been
exploring the matter and trying to put other things
aside. This weekend I started formulating a plan
whereby through the RNC and the 1701 operation we could
start working directly with local leadership and the
rank and file. I am turning in this direction, because
I feel our program with the top leaders has come to
something of a grinding halt. I will have the memo
ready for you shortly regarding the local approach,
but wanted to relay to you at once Suffridge's comments,
which certainly jibe with my own feelings, in hope that
we can tackle the national leadership problem and do
something about it. Suffridge feels it will be much
more difficult now than it would have been 6 months ago,
but that we have not quite reached the point of no
return. Can we bite the bullet?
George T. Bell