EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

HEARINGS BEFORE THE GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND- LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 1746 A BILL TO FURTHER PROMOTE: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICAN WORKERS

HEARINGS HELD IN , D.C. MARCH 3, 4, AND 18, 1971

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 69-949 o WASHINGTON : 1971 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Ohairman EDITH GREEN, Oregon ALBERT H. QUIET, , JR., New Jersey JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania ALPHONZO BELL, ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois OGDEN R. REID, New York DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon JAMES G. Q'HARA, MARVIN b. ESCH, Michigan AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii EARL F. LANDGREBE, Indiana JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York ORVAL HANSEN, Idaho LLOYD MEEDS, Washington EARL B. RUTH, North Carolina PHILLIP BURTON, alifornla EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania VICTOR V. VEYSEY, California WILLIAM1 "BILL" CLAY, Missouri JACK F. KEMP, New York SHIRLEY CHISHOLM, New York PETER A. PEYSER, New York MARIO BIAGGI, New York ELLA T. GRAjSSO, Connecticut LOUISE DAY HICKS, Massachusetts ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky HERMAN BADILLO, New York

GENERAL SUBCOMMrI'EE ON LABOR JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania, Ohafrmn AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii ALPHONZO BELL, California PHILLIP BURTON, California MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan WILLIAM "BILL" CLAY, Missouri EARL F. LANDOREBE, Indiana JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvaia ORVAL HANSEN, Idaho WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin MARIO BIAGGI, New York JACK F. KEMP, New York ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana CONTENTS

Hearings held in Washington, D.C.: Page. March 3, 1971 ------1 March 4, 1971 ------103 March 18, 1971 ------289 Text of H.R. 1746 ------Statement of- Abzug, Hon. Bella S., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ------289 Anderson, Warren, The Black Committee, Maywood, Ill.; also Ruth R. Nordenbrook ------390 Brown, William H. III, Chairman, The Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission ------79 Chisholm, Hon. Shirley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ------302 Glickstein, Howard A., Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; also John H. Powell, Jr., and Jonathan W. Fleming ------103 Harris, Thomas, associate general counsel, AFL-CIO; accompanied by Don Slaiman, director, Civil Rights Department ------176 Kator, Irving, Assistant Executive Director, Civil Service Commis- sion: also James Frazier------308 Mitchell, Clarence, director, Washington Bureau, NAACP, on behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ------153 Norman, Hon. David L., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division Department of Justice; also Hon. David L. Rose and Hon. David B. Marblestone ------32 Nystrom, Robert, representing Motorola, Inc ------421 Shriver, Mrs. Lucille, federation director, National Federation of Business and Professional Women also William Scott, legal counsel. 293 Silberman, Hon. Laurence H., Under Secretary of Labor; also John Wilks, Director of Federal Contract Compliance; and Arthur Fletcher, Assistant Secretary of Labor ------53 White, Donald F., executive vice president, American Retail Federa- tion; also Gerard C. Smetana, Sears & Roebuck ------269 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, and so forth: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO statement by ------463 Anderson, Warren, director, The Black Committee Maywood, Ill.: "Black Employees Expose White Racism at Hines Hospital," a compilation entitled ------392 Glickstein, Howard A., Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights letter to Nicholas J. Oganovic, Executive Director, Civil Service Commission ------419 Kator, Irving, Assistant Executive Director, U.S. Civil Service Commission, letter to Howard A. Glickstein, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, dated October 23 1970 419 Mitchell, Clarence, director, Washington Bureau, National Asso- clation for the Advancement of Colored People, letter, with attachments, to Hon. Augustus Hawkins, dated April 15, 1971.. 387 Oganovic, Nicholas J., Executive Director, Civil Service Com- mission, letter to Howard A. Glickstein, dated November 17, 1970 ------419 Bain, Mrs. Helen P., president, National Education Association, statement of ------466 Brody, David A., director, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, letter to chairman dated March 22, 1971 ------467 (111) Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material. etc.-Continued Brown, Hon. William H., III, Chairman, Equal Employment Oppor- Page tunity Commission, prepared statement by ------79 Dunn, William E., executive director, the Associated General Con- tractors of America: Appendix to statement ------435 Letter to Chairman Dent, dated April 1, 1971, enclosing state- ment ------433 Eastman, Hope, acting director, American Civil Liberties Union, letter to Chairman Dent, dated March 22, 1971, enclosing state- ment ------470 Erlenborn, lion. John N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois: EEOC releases 1969 data on minority union membership, press release ------188 Total and minority membership in referral unions in the United States, by trade or creft, 1969 (table)------190 Glickstein, Howard A., StaqT Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, letter to Chairman Dent, dated March 16, 1971, enclosing additional material ------130 Harris, Thomas E., associate general counsel, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations: Nondiscrimination- equal employment opportunity; policies and procedures, regulation in Federal Register ------186 Statement of ------176 Hawkins, Hon. Augustus F., a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Letter from Irving Kantor, Director, Federal Equal Employment Opportunity, dated May 12, 1970, submitting certain infor- mation about minority and women employment in the Federal Government at certain pay levels------159 Letter from W. P. Mack, vice admiral, U.S. Navy, dated April 11, 1969 ------175 Howe, Florence, chairwoman, Commission on the Status of Women, Modern Language Association of America, letter to Chairman Dent, dated April 4, 1971, enclosing statement ------485 Justice, C. R., Allison Park, Pa., letter to Chairman Dent, dated May 10, 1971 ------521 Kator, Irving, Assistant Executive Director, U.S. Civil Service Commission: Material submitted for the record ------372 Minority employment in the Federal Government, news release- 323 MacDougall, William R., Executive Director, Commission on Inter- governmental Relations, letter to Chairman Dent, dated April 30, 1971 520 National Association of Manufacturers, statement of the ------479 National Council of Jewish Women, Now York, N.Y., statement by- 462 National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, statement by- 461 Norman, lion. David L., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice: Hoffman, Herbert E., chief, Legislative and Legal Section, De- partment of Justice, letter to Chairman Dent, dated March 18, 1971 ------48 Prepared statement of_ 32 Nystrom, Robert, representing Motorola, Inc., letter from Phil S. Shurrager enclosing amendment ------432 Obadal, Anthony J., labor relations counsel, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, statement for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States ------472 Scott, Dr. Ann, Federal compliance coordinator, National Organization for Women: Boyer, Mrs. Burt, chairman, Commission on Status of Women, letter to Elizabeth Duncan Koontz ------506 "Feminism vs. the Feds," article entitled ------507 Hernandez, Aileen, president of NOW, quotation from letter --- 519 Letter to Chairman Dent, dated March 30, 1971 ------501 Silberman, Hon. Laurence H1., Undersecretary of Labor, list of show cause letters issued ------75 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material. etc.-Continued Slaiman, Don, director, Department of Civil Rights, AFL-CIO* Page "Black Ratio Lags in Job-Placing Unions," an article entitle.L 206 "Civil Rights," a pamphlet entitled ------235 "Labor and the Philadelphia Plan," a pamphlet entitled ------262 Letter to Hon. Augustus Hawkins, dated March 24, 1971 ------204 Lyons, J. H., general president, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers: Telegram to lion. George P. Shultz ------254 Letter from Hon. George P. Shultz, dated October 15, 1969- - 255 "Minorities Make Up More Than One-Fifth of Workers Employ- ed in Philadelphia Plan Projects, Hodgson Reports," an article entitled ------255 Order to Heads of all Agencies, dated September 23, 1969 ------245 "Outreach: Skills for Minority Youth," a pamphlet entitled..-.- 230 "Philadelphia Plan Called A Failure," a newspaper article entitled ------256 Report of Civil Rights Department to the Executive Council: February 19, 1971 ------241 February 23, 1971 ------242 "Report on the Journeyman Training Feasibility Study of the Joint Apprenticeship Program," an article entitled ------208 "Statement of Policy of the Building and Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO) on Equal Employment Opportunity," a pamphlet entitled ------258 Summary report on apprenticeship Outreach programs, Decem- ber 1970 ------215 Smetana, Gerard C., counsel, Labor Relations, Sears, Roebuck & Co.: A bill to further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers ------277 "Analysis of Proposed Amendments," an article -ntitled ------280 The League of Women Voters of the United States, statement of .. - 468 White, Donald F., executive vice president, statement on behalf of the American Retail Federation ------269 Wilks, John L., Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, US.. Department of Labor: Letter to Chairman Dent ------519 Letter to Chairman Dent, dated March 26, 1971 ------78 302

Mrs. S1iiIv.R. 'We may have a few in our organization. Mr. DENT. Is that a personal interest there? Mr. Mazzoli? Mr. MALZZOLI. No questions. Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly, Mrs. Shriver, for your very fine presentation. At this time I see our colleague has come into the room and we are happy to have her as the next witness, the representative from the State of New York, Mrs. Shirley Chisholm. Mrs. Chisholm, will you take Dhe witness stand? STATEMENT OF HON. SHIRLEY CHISHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mrs. Ciisnoirf. Gentlemen, I am very glad to have this opportunity to make this presentation this morning. I think it is one of the most vital issues concerning many people in this country today, including men, women, and minorities. I am a cosponsor of 11.1?. 1746, as was last year's bill, H.R. 17555 which, unfortunately, died in the Rules CommitLee. We all know that the price of EEOC's being included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that the agewily would not be accorded enforce- inent powers, quid pro quo. Able and dedicated people have worked at EEOC under both Democratic and Republican administrations, but without enforcement powers the Equal Employment Opportunity CommiIision has been a paper tiger. As Chairiman Brown has re- marked: A respondent determined to mnlntain the status quo need only resist exhor- tations to change his ways and take refuge %i the knowledge that eventually the Commission must withdraw. In most cases, the possibility of a pattern or prac- tice suit being brought by the Attorney General may be discounted for the simple reason that the Justice Department must be very selective In expending its resources. All that an intransigent respondent has to fear is the unlikely pos- sibility that whomever he has discriminated against wil take him to court. This has happened In less than 10 percent of the cases where we forward reason- able cause and attempts at concilliation were unsuccessful. In funding year 1970, the EEOC processed 14,234 complaints and successfully conoiliated only 342 cases during the same period. This quite dramatically illustrates the failure of the voluntary compliance remedy when it is not backed up by stronger authority. EEOC must have cease-and-desist powers. Just having them will create a better mood of voluntary compliance and, of course, will pro- vide an additional remedy in instances of intransigence. The expansion of EEOC's jurisdiction to include Federal, State, county, and municipal employees is important and necessary. There are over 9.5 million persons employed in 81,000 State and local gov- ernmental units. Although the Federal Government has a better record of equal opportunity than the private sector, it only looks good by comparison. Blacks account for only 1.8 percent of Federal employees at a GS-12 level or above. 20.5 percent are concentrated in the four lowest grades. In the beloved Ntional Aeronautics and Space Administration, only 2.9 percent of the employees are black, including 0.8 percent of its em- ployees at the GS-12 level or above. So much for the trickle-down 303 theory. The only jobs created by the Space Agency for blacks are the maid and janitorial jobs in the hotels and motels in Cape Kennedy and Houston. In State and local government units, the situation is much worse. In the U.S. Civil Rights Commission Report "For All People * * * By All the People," they reported that in seven urban areas located throughout the country-north as well as south-discrimination in public employment was serious and pervasive. In six of the seven areas studied, blacks constituted over 70 percent of the common laborers. The extension of authority to employers and unions with eight or more members is another important refinement. Discrimination is not confined to big companies. This amendment will extend coverage to 91/.2 million more workers. The amendment to eliminate the existing exemptions for teachers in educational institutions is especially important to women. Repre- sentative Edith Green, in her excellent series of hearings last year on discrimination against women, carefuly documented the impact this exemption of teachers has had on women as individuals and in the education field. I would like to add at this time that despite the fact that 23 percent of the charges received at EEOC have involved sex discrimination, EEOC, like the OFCC, the Justice Department and the civil rights section of HEW, have been less than aggressive in pursuing sex dis- crimination cases. The conventional wisdom seems to be that racial discrimination is more important than sex discrimination. I think these agencies shmil(l note that one-half of every minority group is made up of women and that women compose slightly more than half of our total population. Discrimination in the marketplace has terri- ble consequences. Women work not because they want to but because they have to work. They are cobreadwinners with their husbands or, in many instances, the sole support of their families. Among black families, over one-fourth are headed by women. If the family assist- ance, plan is successful there are going to be some 2,500,000 more women out there looking for jobs. For those who think that the women's liberation movement is a joke vaguely connected with burning bras and getting in the "men only" bars, may I disabuse you of that notion; it is about equal pay and equal opportunity in the job market. The transfer of EEOC employment opportunity functions of the Civil Services Commission would help to shake up some of the rather stale and rigid personnel procedures which have been ongoing for some time. EEOC would offer a fresh, critical exposure of the state of the Federal Government's own house. As Justice Brandeis put it, "Sun light is said to be the best of disinfectants." Transfer to EEOC the fanctions of the Attorney General with re- spect to pattern or practice suits is logical and necessary. The record of the Justice Department is not impressive. Because of limited man- power and the many responsibilities under the , Equal Employment Opportunity suits are not accorded any kind of priority. Now, we come to the discussion of the most crucial amendment, one which was not. in last year's bill. I am speaking of course of the pro- posed transfer of the functions of the OFCC to the EEOC. BEST COPY AVAILAB-E, 304 The first, Executive order requiring nondiscrimination iii hiring by Federal contractors was issued in 1941 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in response to a threatened march on Washington led by A. Philip Randolph. The authority of now resides in the Office of Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor. Interestingly, that contract termination power has never been used in all the time it has been in existence. As was stated in the testimony of the U.S. Commission Civil Rights: The Federal Contract Compliance program has suffered from the great reluc- tance of administrators to use such an extreme measure as the contract termina- tion sanction. To say the least, that is extremely delicately put,. In point of fact no administration has ever really put'itself on the line and indicated that it was really serious about enforcing the authority of Executive Order 11246. Every administration has played ganes with this issue. If the Government in reality acte1 just three, four, five, or six times and actually terminated or refused to let a few Federal contracts, in- dustry would get the message. There would be a flurry of minority hir- ing. Industry needs to know that the Government is serious. They need a few good examples. Now this administration did take a step in that direction. Although the Philadelphia plan has not been terribly effective-only 41 minority group members have been placed because'of it-it was, nevertheless, a serious step in the right direction. The administration and especially Assistant Secretary of Labor Arthur Fletcher and OFCC director John 1Vilks are to b3e commended. I mean that sincerely. Of course, we also have to realize that it probably wasn't a complete accident that the administration chose to focus its attention on the building trades field. Everyone knows that for many years the labor movement has strongly supported the Democratic Pai'ty and that in the past labor has provided support for Civil Rights legislation. But the Philadelphia plan has alienated labor from civil rights movement in this instance on many levels. Although the Philadelphia plan has not been remarkably successful, it has very much upset the building trades unions and they, in turn have applied pressure on the AFL-CIO to advocate this tran;fer of OFCC to EEOC. I think there are several things that have to be brought out in the open. There are many things we skirt around that we don't bring out in the open. I think we have to do that. Now I, for one, have supported and participated in a number of union management battles. I have stood on the ,picket line with the drug and hospital workers; I have supported Caesar Chavez' farm- workers, but I think we must recognize that there are unions and there are unions. We Members of the House, in my humble opinion, and the Senate must be selective in determining whether every issue raised by labor deserves our support. The labor movement which was young, progressive, and forward- looking in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1640's, has now become part of the establishment. If you attend labor conventions these days the union leaders, with few exceptions, are all dressed in fine suits and have gen- erous expense accounts. Some of the charges of exclusivity and status- BEST 00Y AVAILABLE 305 quoisni which labor has aimed at management can now be aimed at parts of the labor movement. This is certainly true of the building trades. A report by the EEOC last month showed that the rate of black membership in the building trades unions declined from 7.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 1969, a year when the Government sponsored a major push to increase black mem- bership in the building trades unions. We must recognize this move to put, the functions of OFCC under EEOC for what it is: a building trades amenidment which was generated by their outrage over the Philadelphia plan. There are several problems with this amendment. First, OFCC's authority comes from an Executive order by the President. Does Con- gress have the power legally to transfer an Executive order? And if we legislated the authority of this order over to EEOC, could not. the President just transfer it right back to Labor or any other Department that he wished? Second, it is entirely possible that if this amendment is included in the bill that it would generate enough pressure against the bill to defeat the whole package. Even now when EEOC has no real power or clout, it faces a serious fight on ever , appropriations bill. Surely this is a good indication of the attitude of the Congress toward EEOC. Some members of this august body might think that cease and desist pattern and practice suits and contract termination was a bit more than they could swallow. This tactical question must be considered. However, if labor really is serious and sincere about its support of EEOC having the OFCC powers, I ask them if they would support codifying the language in Executive Order 11246 and transferring that codified language to EEOC's mandate? If not, then I submit that labor's support is disingenuous. Thank you. Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mrs. Chisholm. I want to congratulate you on your statement. It is very forthright and, as always, aimed right at the core of the problem. I note on page 4 you call attention to the fact that at no time has the termination power been used nor has the power of refusing to let a contract ever been used. Under this order and preceding orders, not once has the Government used its power to terminate or to refuse to let a contract. The President's order just about 3 weeks ago on Davis-Bacon contracts has already been so effective that I, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the act, have a whole stack of mail pertaining to contracts that have been refused although their bids were put out before the President's Executive order. They say they don't want to use that extreme measure to force compliance with the Federal Government's civil rights and equal opportunities, but they are using it with a vengeance right, at this moment in hundreds of con- struction contracts all over the United States of America'as a so-called anti-inflation measure. The contract termination is exactly the same extreme power in one case as it is in the other. They are saying we are going to force these particular Workers to work at below the prevailing wage by stopping'a contract before it starts. They can do the very same'thing in the case of equal opportunity. And I hola that there has been something lacking in the administra- tive effort. That is one of the reasons we want the transfer. As far as BEST COPY AVAILABLE