In their discussion of Directive 10-289, Fred Kinnan said the following:
"Well, if you want to talk practice," said Fred Kinnan, "then let me tell you that we can't worry about businessmen at a time like this. What we've got to think about is jobs. More jobs for the people. In my unions, every man who's working is feeding five who aren't, not counting his own pack of starving relatives. If you want my advice - oh, I know you won't go for it, but it's just a thought - - issue a directive making it compulsory to add, say, one-third more men to every payroll in the country."
"Good God!" yelled Taggart. "Are you crazy? We can barely meet our payrolls as it is! There's not enough work for the men we've got now! One-third more? We wouldn't have any use for them whatever!"
"Who cares whether you'd have any use for them?" said Fred Kinnan. "They need jobs. That's what comes first - need - doesn't it? - not your profits."
A few things here: first, the formula "it's just a thought" is used quite regularly by looters who are afraid to take a firm stance on anything. This seems somewhat out of character for Fred Kinnan.
Secondly, is Fred Kinnan actually accepting part of the Looters' creed here? He doesn't seem to make any pretense of accepting their ideas later in the same meeting - for example, he openly admits that he's going along with Directive 10-289 because he's a racketeer, not because he thinks (or pretends) that he's acting in the public interest. How much of their philosophy does Fred Kinnan accept at this point?