Imágenes de páginas
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Some time limits for the Commission's action should be written into the law.
We suggest a general limitation of 120 days for the Commission to complete in-
vestigation and conciliation of a charge prior to the issuance of a complaint and
a like period for the Commission to act when a complaint has been filed. S. 1308
does not provide any limitation of time. Presently under existing legislation the
Commission has a maximum of 60 days to attempt to eliminate discrimination
through conciliation. We are advised that the Commission has been unable to
comply with the 60 day limitation of time because of its heavy complaint load.
We do not believe, however, that this justifies a complete elimination of a period
of time for the Commission to act. By increasing the period from the present
60 days to 120 days, the Commission should have adequate time to process the
cases without unreasonable delay. According to the Commission's annual report
approximately 22% of the cases filed and recommended for investigation were
iled by persons seeking to be hired. These complainants need a quick remedy.
Thus the bill should not completely remove the limitation of time in which the
Commission is to act.
Section 702 of the existing legislation should be clairified in order to make it
clear that the exemption of employees of educational institutions is limited to
employment that is directly related to the selection, hiring and retention of faculty
members and administrative officials. Said section should be further amended
to clearly express Congressional intention to limit the exemptions to religious in-
stitutions to the selection, hiring and retention of employees directly connected
with religious and educational activities and specifically include in the coverage
of the Act all other employees.

There can be no justification for those who teach and preach in the name of
democracy, equality and love to be exempted from practicing their dogma by
hiring persons without regard to their race or color,

We would hope that the provision giving to the Attorney General the authority and duty to conduct all litigation arising under the EEO Act would be modified to allow Commission to handle its cases at least to the level of the Courts of Appeals. Most Federal regulatory agencies handle litigation of their own cases. We see no reason for an exception here. The Commission will have the benefit of its own investigation of cases and the expertise in the handling the problems of employment discrimination.

The Department of Justice could, of course, retain the right to intervene in cases that it feels relate to issues of national importance.

The Department of Justice has under existing law the authority to institute litigation involving a pattern or practice of employment discrimination. The extremely selective and limited use that the Department has made of this authority indicates to us that it would be wise to allow the Commission to share in litigation as the agency involved in the on-going program to eliminate employ. ment discrimination.

The provision of Section 7(c) of S. 1308, taking from the Commission the right to hire personnel and vesting it exclusively in the Chairman is, we believe, illadvised, and, we hope, unintended by the drafters of the legislation.

The adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the rights now exerçised by the Commission members collectively and seems to imply that they have not exercised it properly. We are sure that this is not the intention of the authors of the bill.

The transfer of exclusive hiring authority to the Chairman could subject him to extreme pressure from patronage--seekers, a situation that should not be allowed in an agency dealing in this sensitive area of national affairs. While we have every confidence in the integrity of the present Chairman to resist such pressures, we do not know what the future may bring in a change of chairman, and we would not wish to run the sk that someone of lesser sensitivity may be exercising this broad grant of power.

The Congress set the Commission up as a bipartisan body. We believe that this spirit of bipartisanship can be best preserved by allowing all members of the Commission to participate in selecting personnel. Further we believe that the existing harmonious relationships among the members could be adversely affected by this proposed change.

All of these proposed changes we consider of importance. But of primary importance to us, as it has been through the years, is the idea of effective administrative enforcement. Therefore we consider the heart of the bill to be the grant of authority to the Commission to enforce its orders.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

Because of their importance to the aggrieved employees or job applicants, we ask that these administrative procedure provisions be amended to afford additional protection. We believe this could be affected by granting to the charging party the same right that is given the respondent the right to be a full party in the procedures before the Commission. If this right is granted to the charging party once reasonable cause is found, it would follow that he would have full opportunity to protect his rights, including the right to be a necessary party to any conciliation agreement, to participate and be representated by counsel in the hearing and to petition for enforcement or review of Commission orders. We respectfully urge that these rights be afforded him.

In advancing these suggested changes, I trust that I have not diverted attention from our basic objective of assuring adequate enforcement of existing prohibitions against employment discrimination. I reiterate our long-standing support of a grant of adequate investigative and enforcement authority to the administrative agency enforcing the basic fair employment law. This is embodied in S. 1308. The enactment of these provisions into law would mark another giant step forward in our nation's continuing effort to extend the benefit of full equality to all of its citizens.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


URBAN LEAGUE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee; my name is Whitney M. Young, Jr., and I am Executive Director of the National Urban League. We appreciate your invitation and the opportunity it provides the Urban League to support this vitally needed legislation. To be effective, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needed enforcement power from its inception.

We also wish to take this opportunity to commend Senators Clark and Javits, who are responsible for introducing this important piece of legislation.

The legislation to which we address ourselves would make an indispensable contribution toward the protection of the equal employment rights of individuals, The major provision is that which grants EEOC the power to issue cease and desist orders.

We believe that President Johnson, in his message to Congress, emphasized the need for cease and desist order power when he stated :

"Unlike most Federal regulatory agencies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not given enforcement powers. If efforts to conciliate or persuade are unsuccessful, the Commission, itself, is powerless. For the individualdiscriminated against, there remains only a time consuming and expensive lawsuit."

It is increasingly apparent, from the EEOC's brief operation, that more effective machinery for enforcement authority must be given to the Commission to bring about conciliation.

We note that of thirty-five (35) States with EEPC laws, twenty-eight (28) provide for enforcement procedures. Of the remaining seven (7) that had initially relied upon voluntary compliance, four (4) have amended their laws to provide for enforcement procedures.

Federal enforcement toward Equal Employment Opportunity continues to be a major issue with minority citizens. While the employment status of Negro workers has improved considerably during the past two decades, there remain significant differentials between white and Negro workers. In spite of the Nation's improved economic status, the employment position of Negroes continues to lag behind their white counterparts.

Nation-wide studies document that they are still confined largely to the unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, when employed. They are employed fewer hours per week and their unemployment rates are twice as high as those of whites. Negro men continue to earn sixty percent (60%) as much as white men, while Negro women earn a little more than half as much as white women. The lower earning power of Negro men makes it necessary for more Negro women to work than white women.

Even more striking data is available on employment and unemployment from a recent study, conducted by the Department of Labor, entitled "A Sharper Look at Unemployment in U.S. Cities and Slums”. Gathered from the twenty (20) largest U.S. Metropolitan areas, it reveals an unemployment rate that varies greatly from two point seven per cent (2.7%) in Washington, D.C. to five point two per cent (5.2%) in San Francisco and six per cent (6%) in Los Angeles.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

In partner AS. TIE IR A signiísanit anong the nationa, arra

ADOWE TREE 5 II for en seni . II. Ereği. Bis about the same, it
ITE OTHERS İ #signiñcntit over

The Do-white menningmer. TIE &Dor: three s time higher than the
Fhite memother, mais il eg Sa Te Arges To 2. mas higher ir

I more and ii le rom higher in Woches this and mastist
Correus. for me is zime á jant. Ich bad tas di and in the 197
(2LSIS-it the missing camerely a large bum STR ane ani
derers si leggo men der weer the ages at TAJ W and this is
This means that masT DOI - Dile unemployment igures have understated the

The Highs unemployment rates II De reite 12 large areas, acresce by the stroy ÍM for teen 041 IC TUNEILL_14 Fear010 DOI-#his range ETATE Betrze point for per rent 15.5 in Washington DC. Thor SIN cent 13. i Priadenia. The rate is avere bin per veni 30% in pren i

Versee the differendas in the employment SIATIS UN TAS AN Ane in their ET I ODTED JODs commenstrETE With their dailing Interis distrimine try bring in adversely afer both the Nesto indiridir and he too SODS. TDe secount to be discopo donate recentior or the puhiin welfare rozis. Discriminado it emtorment bas a seta disat ana ingin impact on the AFOC Program than IT ocber single minonamn inser, DE CETRES desertion, divorce End twee parenthood with all their concomitana in sonal

, social and economie costs. It also has similar significant and vision ships to wempiogmerk.

Title T of the Caril Rights set of 1964. under which the Foral Engineri Opportunity Comission was established, engendered stegi hans het this mechanism wonió deel DeeDiNGDUT with the prontems surrounding digrimina tion in employment. The detta) EgeDCT experience, which has demonsTed that the Commission cannot enforce compiadce bas cren rise te dis asmeni and lack of conhdence. These conditions have led the American Veto sa sus* that legislationsupposed guaranteed to provide equality of annorunt, is full of loopholes and polica) terminology. He is rapiatr losing deith in the democratie process to achieve his goal of equality of opporinniIT.

Within the nest few months, the Federal Gorernment will sponsor * Concen trated Employment Program in nineteen of our major cities thronghat the country. The Government will spend from two and one bali te eight milion dol lars in each selected city. The ultimate objectire of this program is to make i possible for the tunemployed slum residents to obtain and hold regular jos pri marily in the prirate sector of the economy. The immediate short range goul is to provide twenty-fire thousand to forty thousand new jobs for periousir un employed slum residents. Many of the people participating in this crash or will be Negroes, who, because of prior depriration and discrimination, nerd all of the legislative tangibies to assist them in becoming productire and very citizens. They cannot become discouraged, in their desires to attain Pill equality of opportunity, by additional stoken legislation" to appease the wishes of a few while ignoring the crying needs of the disadrantaged poor.

The Urban League's fifty-seren (57) Fears of existence hare betin dedica next to the cause of equality of opportunity. Through our Job Rerelopment Program Skills Bank Program, and more recently, our On the Job Training Program, me have worked with thousands of business and industry personnel.

In these efforts, we hare been and are still being thwarted bir subtle and orort discriminatory practices that are perpetrated by biasxi emplorers who live bye hind the legislative jargon, to deny compliance At present, we are no leverage which requires violators to terminate their unlawful policies and practicus,

We feel that the proposed legislation improres tremendously upon the present Act. Therefore, we are in general agreement with most of its prorisions Home ever, we would like to submit some suggestions regarding the prorisions listed below

It seems appropriate that there should be a provision for the Commission to effect its own litigation. This should also include employers who hold gorernment contracts and are under Executive Order 11246. This would serve as a dual control to insure maximum compliance under the law.

We strongly recommend that greater consideration be given to the "charging party" involved. Under the proposed legislation, the charging party has little involvement with conciliation and agreements can be worked out between gor. ernment representatives and management.

[ocr errors]

We also strongly feel that an aggrieved person should be able to institute a civil action against the respondent named in the charge in the appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any state or local court of competent jurisdiction. This protects the rights of all citizens, regardless of the nature and size of the act.

The National Urban League's experience demonstrates the need for the pending legislation.

I wish to thank you for inviting me to present this testimony, in behalf of the National Urban League. The problems we face in the coming months and years may well rest in your hands.

In addition to the moral implications, there is a dollar-and-cents logic to equal employment opportunity. There are some costs which taxpayers are shelling out, because of Jim Crow, that could easily be eliminated. There are the billions spent on public welfare; there is the cost of public housing, much of which would be unnecessary if more Negroes could buy their own homes; there is the cost of sending thousands of building inspectors into the field every day to ferret out violations of slum landlords; there is the cost of arresting, jailing, trying, and paroling teen-age colored boys for purse snatching because they can't find work.

These items in America's Bigotry Budget cost taxpayers more than twenty billion dollars a year. This twenty billion dollars, which we are virtually throwing away, is equivalent to all U.S. exports abroad with all the one hundredthirty nations of the world.

In the opinion of W. W. Heller, former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, lifting the income of Negroes to that of whites would double their current rate of economic growth. If the non-white labor force earned as much as their white counterparts, Negroes would spend an additional three point six billion dollars on food; one point seven billion dollars on clothing; one point five billion dollars on housing; one point three bi:lion dollars on household operation; one point two billion dollars on cars and transportation; one point two billion dollars on recreation and amusement; five hundred million dollars more on utilities; and eight million dollars more on personal care and miscellaneous items.

You have an obligation, I believe, to give a ray of hope to the deprivedthose who have been deprived, by circumstances, in the past. You must make sure that disadvantaged persons will have the full equality of opportunity, that our economy demands. Thank you.

Senator CLARK. Gentlemen, in addition to your general comments supporting the administration bill, each of you has made specific recommendations for amendments. Mr. Young, as I read his statement, makes three suggested changes, Mr. Greenberg seven, Mr. Wilkins seven, and some if not all of these changes overlap. They are all useful and provocative. Some of them are pretty technical.

I am going to ask counsel for the subcommittee to analyze these proposed amendments and make a report to the subcommittee advising as to which of the amendments should be adopted. I will also ask counsel for the subcommittee to confer with the administration witnesses, Mr. Shulman, Secretary Wirtz and the Attorney General, to see to what extent these changes are acceptable to the administration.

Mr. Rauh and Mr. Mitchell did not submit prepared statements and I would suggest, gentlemen, that you pick a leader and let him start the discussion going forward.

Since, as is sometimes the case, I am the only member of the subcommittee present and I have read the statements, it does not seem to make much sense to read them again; so that I would ask you gentlemen to proceed in your own way. You have plenty of time. On the other hand, I hope we will not go over, to too great an extent, ground which is already covered in the statements.

Mr. Wilkins.

[ocr errors]

Mr. WILKINS. Senator Clark, it is our understanding that the papers
which have been submitted will simply be referred to in the comments
that the organization heads will make. Mr. Rauh and Mr. Mitchell,
who are in supporting roles, are available for what might be called
technical and expert advice to those of us who are, to borrow a phrase
from the underworld, perhaps merely mouthpieces.

Senator CLARK. I hope you are not Hamlet and Rosencrantz and

Mr. WILKINS. But, in any case, we thought we would have just a
brief summary by each person of the paper already submitted and in
alphabetical order that brings Mr. Greenberg to the microphone first.
We would be glad to have him summarize his statement here.
Senator CLARK. Please do, Mr. Greenberg.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


[ocr errors][ocr errors]



[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. GREENBERG, Mr. Wilkins, I am astonished. It is the first time
that “g” has been first in the alphabet.
Senator CLARK. You are lucky you haven't a Clark down there.
Mr. GREENBERG. I would only like to say a word or two to emphasize
several matters in the prepared statement. As you have indicated,
some of the observations in the prepared statements are substantive
and some more or less technical.

I would like to say a word or two about some of the substantive

To me the most important substantive contribution that this new
bill makes is that it gives the power to the Commission to bring cease
and desist proceedings against offenders. Long ago we learned in the
implementation of public law in America the public policy of the
United States cannot be enforced unless it is enforced by the Federal
Government as, for example, with the Securities and Exchange Com-
mission and the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Labor
Relations Act, and so forth, and I think it is entirely appropriate with
so grave a problem as title VII addresses itself to, and at least as
serious, unquestionably more serious than some of the other subjects,
that the EEOC under this new bill would have power to enforce over
a broad scale throughout the country the law far more pervasively
than any private parties can do.

At the same time, we enforce another provision of the law which we
think is equally important and that is that provision of the law that
preserves the right of private suit. Private suit, I should say, has been

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »