would be filed with the Commission. The Commission would turn it over to the State commission. The State commission would fail to act on it and therefore the Federal Commission would get it back again and in this procedure an awful lot of time would go by before the complainant had a determination as to whether the complaint was adequate. Mr. MITCHELL. Again I hate to hog the show but I have lived with this thing so long that I think the public is entitled to know the facts. The only reason for all this deference to these States where there are laws is pure, unadulterated politics. The Federal Government has preemption in our system of government and has the last word on constitutional questions and Federal laws. There is no reason in the world why there should be any statutory requirement which makes it mandatory for this Commission to first clear with some State agency. This Commission ought to have the discretionary right to defer to States but when we were working on this legislation there were a lot of people who had pet State laws who said—"we have to make sure that our State has a full opportunity to exercise its jurisdiction." The result is that the poor complainant is in the shuttlecock position that you so aptly point out, Senator Clark. He gets battered back and forth. If he has the good fortune to be released quickly by the Commission and he happens to fall into the hands of a good ľawyer like Mr. Rauh or Mr. Greenberg he gets redress as they have gotten by taking cases into court very promptly. There is no reason why the Federal Government shouldn't do that and I think it is just foolish to have all this deference paid to the States where there are enforceable laws. Senator CLARK. Mr. Mitchell, let's face it. You did not make your considerable reputation in the civil rights field, by becoming an advocate of States rights. Mr. Young. Senator Clark, I am going to have to ask to be excused. Senator CLARK. Mr. Young, you have been a great help to us. I am sorry you have to leave. Mr. Young. Thank you very much. Mr. GREENBERG. I would like to add to what Mr. Mitchell said that at the State as well as the Federal level the necessity is a good statute but that is only the beginning. If a good statute is not enforced adequately it is perhaps worse than no statute because it breeds cynicism. We have made a study of the New York statute not with respect to employment but with respect to housing which is one of the matters within its jurisdiction and we have found that as far as the New York statute is concerned with respect to housing which is under the same Commission that it is exceedingly inadequate and have filed some complaints with respect to that so that the mere existence of a State law amounts to nothing. I would endorse what Mr. Mitchell said, that there should be some discretionary power in the Commission to evaluate the value of a State law and where appropriate act without reference to the State. Senator CLARK. I would like to have printed in the record at this point pages 58 through 64, inclusive, of the First Annual Report of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which gives at least some of the data the subcommittee has been looking for with respect to the distribution among the States, the different kinds of complaints which have been received. (The material referred to follows:) ANALYSIS OF CHARGES July 2, 1965-June 30, 1966 704 60 TOTAL MATTERS ANALYZED The Office of Compliance has received and analyzed the following matters: 8854 977 1383 No probable jurisdiction 2063 Other (close, withdrawn, pending reanalysis) 658 . 3773 1659 2114 Individual charges. 214 111 45 Individual charges 16 20 7 513 146 Of the 8854 matters received and analyzed, the following have been recom- 3067 64 American Indian 10 Caucasian.. 39 Chinese. 1 Filipino 2 Latin 4 Spanish. 8 Race - Not Specified. 123 National Origin . 131 African 1 Greek 2 Latin American 8 Mexican American. 72 Cuban 2 Italian 3 Slavic . 3 Lebanese 1 Not Specified 39 Sex.. 2053 Religion.. 87 Not Specified 608 EC Pace - Not tonal On Mexican The nature of the employment problem or problems alleged was as follows: 1400 1253 Training and Apprenticeship 184 Segregated Facilities 322 Benefits ... 807 Wage Differential. 679 Seniority 955 Layoff 447 Firing 474 55 2 53 Union - Membership 120 Union - Apprenticeship 9 Other 457 Not Specified 162 The respondents involved in these matters were as follows: Employer 5284 Union... 1347 State Employment Service 89 Private Employment Service 23 Labor-Management Apprenticeship Training Program 2 Not Specified 290 81 10 2 490 18 177 709 2 341 16 14 190 2 132 1 352 45 284 192 5 3 218 24 30 23 3 2 3 Cuban Not: Not Spe Hiring Nc 트 ع The 3773 2026 RECOMMENDED FOR INVESTIGATION. Negro.... 13 Latin 4 818 Race--Not Specified.. 28 National Origin .... 50 Mexican American 25 Cuban 1 Greek. 1 Italian 1 Latin American. 8 American Indian. 1 Hungarian. 1 African 1 Not Specified 11 Sex 1624 Religion.. 14 Not Specified 18 The nature of the employment problem or problems alleged was as follows: Hiring... 828 Training and Apprenticeship 160 Segregated Facilities 279 Benefits 744 Wage Differential 463 Seniority .... 804 Layoff and Recall. 293 Firing 136 State Employment Service - Referral 22 State Employment Service - Testing 6 Union - Referral. 9 Union - Membership 21 Union-Apprenticeship 6 Private Employment Agency Referral 2 Other ... 194 Not Specified 4 The respondents involved in these matters were as follows: Employer 2551 Union... 580 State Employment Service . 42 Private Employment Service 10 Labor-Management Apprenticeship Training Program 1 Not Specified 7 These matters were divided by state as follows: Alabama.. 457 Mississippi 79 Arizona. 2 Minnesota 23 Arkansas 39 Missouri.. 21 Colorado 10 Nevada.. 1 California. 65 New Hampshire. 1 Connecticut 6 New Jersey. 426 Delaware 2 New Mexico 2 District of Columbia. 4 New York, 11 Florida 38 North Carolina, 615 Georgia Ohio 173 Illinois. 55 Oklahoma 6 Indiana 40 Oregon 2 lowa 216 Pennsylvania 44 Kentucky 30 2 Kansas. 488 South Carolina. 88 Louisiana 145 Tennessee 212 Maine. 1 Texas.. 164 Maryland 1 Virginia.. 169 Massachusetts. 3 Washington. 5 Michigan 45 West Virginia 10 Wisconsin 2 70 DEFERRED FOR STATE OR LOCAL FEP ACTION.. Negro ..... 12 5 American Indian. 8 1 17 2 Greek 1 Slavic. 1 19 Mex Sla To the ext em Or PT Hirin Pror Trai Seg The nature of the employment problem or problems alleged was as follows: 224 230 Training and Apprenticeship 8 Segregated Facilities 34 Benefits 13 Wage Differential 70 Seniority ... 23 Layoff and Recall. 39 Firing 176 State Employment Service - Referral 16 State Employment Service – Testing 1 Union - Referral 27 Union - Membership 71 Union - Apprenticeship 2 Other. 94 Not Specified The respondents involved in these matters were as follows: Employer 693 48 These matters were divided by states as follows: 96 Nebraska .... 3 Nevada.. 9 New Jersey Delaware 38 6 New Mexico District of Columbia 26 New York. Illinois. 70 Ohio lowa 1 Oregon Indiana. 36 Pennsylvania Kansas 19 Washington Massachusetts. 13 Wisconsin Maryland 101 Wyoming Michigan 26 Minnesota Missouri. 180 Utah 6 119 87 3 93 11 16 3 2 2 |
0 Opiniones Las opiniones no están verificadas, pero Google revisa que no haya contenido falso y lo quita si lo identifica Escribir un comentario |