« AnteriorContinuar »
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HEATH WAKELEE, DIRECTOR, ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Electronic Industries Association (EIA), a trade association representing about 300 members companies in the electronics industry, whose members are located throughout the United States, has given careful and thoughtful consideration to the provisions of S. 1308, “The Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act”.
EIA and its members strongly endorse the principles set forth in Title VII, the effective implementation thereof and constructive improvements therein, and wish to hereby reaffirm, for the record, our continued support for equal employment opportunity. Many of our members are actively engaged in providing equal employment opportunity through individual programs and broader programs, such as Plans for Progress. It is also our belief, however, that the proposals contained in $. 1308 are premature (e.g., less than two years have elapsed since the effective date of Title VII), that they are not based on experienced deficiencies in the administration of Title VII, and may be harmful to the voluntary programs in effect at this early stage of Title VII's administration. For this reason, and until such time as the administration of Title VII clearly demon. strates that the lack of the proposed enforcement powers constitute a deficiency in the existing concepts of Title VII, we urge that legislation such as that proposed in S. 1308 should not be adopted. As such time as it is evident that deficiencies exist in the enforcement area of title VII or other aspects thereof, which can only be demonstrated after a reasonable period of administration thereof, we will constructively support corrective legislation addressed to and necessary to remedy actual deficiencies in the administration of Title VII of the Act. The aforesaid EIA position is premised on the following facts:
a. The existing conciliation and mediation efforts of the Commission have resulted in significant voluntary programs for equal employment opportunity founded in voluntary and mutual concern principles. Because they are voluntary and encompass meaningful guidance by cooperative effort with the Commission, they have resulted in a more widespread effort by employers to adopt these principles than could possibly be achieved through cease and desist orders.
b. Because of its relatively short period of existence, the policies of the Commission, in the implementation of Title VII, are still in their infancy and formulation stage, with new and more meaningful guidelines being issued now more frequently and on an expanding basis. There is no real indication, as yet, that these policies need implementation on a cease and desist basis and, indeed, this cannot even be determined until the Commission has had a full opportunity to define the parameters of compliance.
c. We believe that the addition of the subject powers at this time could run counter-productive to the many affirmative and self-initiated employer programs in the area of equal employment opportunity.
d. At the present time, there is not a glaring deficiency in the enforcement procedures with respect to equal employment opportunity. On the contrary, if anything, there is current approliferation of overlapping jurisdictions, providing multifold areas for relief. For example, the majority of the States have adopted nondiscrimination statutes with enforcement procedures, which, in the first instance, take precedence over Federal jurisdiction, the NLRB has taken jurisdiction in this area; substantial numbers of employers are subject to the provisions of the President's Executive Order, and virtually all organized employers have comparable non-discrimination
provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. For the aforesaid reason, EIA urges that the proposals contained in S. 1308 not be adopted and that any corrective legislation, if necessary, await such time as deficiencies are demonstrated in Title VII to which meaningful amendments in Title VII can be directed.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. DUNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED
GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA We appreciate the opportunity of filing a statement for the record on S. 1308. First, we would like to note the kind of experience in the field of nondiscrimination on which we based our comments. Our experience comes from the fact that
b Fould also (the chara xas outline a porernmer
many of our members perform Federal construction contracts, and for many years have been subject to nondiscrimination requirements applicable to gov. ernment contractors imposed by Executive Orders. These experiences go back years before there was any Congressional action in this field, to the days of the F.E.P.C. of the 1940's. They include the time of the Government Contract Committee of the 1950's, and the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, and now the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. In recent years, the Executive Orders have encompassed federal-aid contracts as well.
Our record with all of these agencies indicates that the Associated General Contractors and its members have always had relationships of cooperation, and that our policies have always been to support the principles of nondiscrimination,
rof the yea ime from go
no curious 2, hiring
am Fears lat
whed. ie are fan x with so-1 Form 100 sinority wommitte 3 and lo 1123 S. 13
From this experience and this background, we have come to see certain basic problems as contributing to, and perpetuating, racial and minority discrimina. tion in the construction field, which we will point out below. Howėver, S. 1308 fails to deal with the basic problems as we see them, and we believe what is need at this time is not patchwork but solutions.
The basic problems, as far as discrimination in construction is concerned, are the hiring halls, complex seniority systems, union referral arrangements, closed shops, and secondary boycotts, among others.
These basic problems stem from legislation already passed by the Congress, particularly section 8(f) of the Taft-Hartley Act, and we believe it would be well to re-appraise these existing provisions of law in the light of present-day realities. Section 8(f) is attached.
puting Our ex file us tnews instruct kke ere part of the leas watribu n bill f
We FOODS BIS t
The seriousness of hiring halls and related arrangements practiced by the Building Trades Unions has come to our attention painfully on government contracts, where the Executive Orders hold the contractor alone responsible, and apply sanctions to him only—not the Building Trades Unions, even where their guilt on discrimination is evident. While construction contractors, for this reason, resist the inclusion of hiring halls and related provisions at the bargaining table, another arm of government gives no support or recognition to the nondiscrimination objectives of the other arm, but practically forces contractors to enter into hiring hall agreements by holding them mandatory subjects of bargaining. Perhaps the NLRB feels the act passed by the Congress gives them no other way. In any event, the man at the receiving end of the Federal establishment at the grass roots must get a very bad impression to see Washington blowing hot and cold on the same issue.
So here is a very substantial step towards the promotion of equal employment opportunity in construction, which your Subcommittee might tackle, namely:
(1) to make Building Trades Unions solely responsible for unlawful discrimi. nation, racial and otherwise, that occurs as a result of their operation of hiring halls, and similar referral arrangements, and
(2) to make hiring halls and related conditions a permissive, rather than a mandatory subject of bargaining. (That would preclude strikes and picketing to obtain them in labor agreements.)
() this indu their wit mer SAC sta of 12 tic
Secondary boycotts pose a similar problem for minorities in construction. These are strikes and picketing to force one company to quit doing business with a Negro subcontractor or other firms employing Negroes or other minorities. The deadly impact of secondary boycott attacks on minorities in construction is documented in the St. Louis Arch case, an excerpt of which is attached.
While secondary boycotts are illegal today under Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Taft-Hartley Act, they may be legalized this Session by S. 1487 now before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. If that happens, we would advise your Subcommittee that the cause of nondiscrimination in construction would be set back a great deal farther than it would be advanced by S. 1308. While S. 1487 is not directly related to S. 1308, they are, in fact, related to the same thing. Again, we believe it would be prudent for the Congress and its committees to avoid getting into conflicting positions on the same issue, and that your Subcommittee should carefully study the adverse impact S. 1487 would have on nondis. crimination in construction and do your utmost to defeat it.
SHOT IN THE DARK
We would also suggest that the Subcommittee first obtain a better understand. ing of the character of the problem before embarking upon as revolutionary a course as outlined in S. 1308. The lack of contribution of knowledge on this score from government spokesmen appearing before your Subcommittee is curious, in view of the years of accumulation of voluminous surveys under the Executive Orders from government contractors on minority aspects of their employment. It is also curious in view of the mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to canyass unions, biring halls, and training groups for information on minorities. Nearly three years later, no such survey has yet been made but is, however, about to be launched.
We are familiar with voluminous surveys under the Executive Orders begin. ning with so-called Form 41 in 1963, 1964, and 1965, and then Form 100 in 1966, and Form 100 revised in 1967. These reports must literally fill warehouses of data on minority aspects of employment in the construction industry. We believe the Subcommittee would be prudent, indeed, to first obtain available statistical dimen. sions and locations of the nondiscrimination problem before shooting as big a shot as S. 1308 into the dark.
A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH
A final suggestion, while not involved in S. 1308 but related, would be to seek for ways of taking a positive and constructive position, rather than banking on the perennial "thou shalt not” approach. As a practical constructive approach, we would urge your Subcommittee to consider ways of curing the anemic climate now blighting training in construction.
Our experiences with the Federal apprenticeship and training programs convince us that they will not permit the kind of breakthrough of large numbers of new skilled construction workers in time to meet the great demands in the construction industry. We are also convinced that government can and should take every practical step to make participation in training programs, on the part of the trainee and employers, as attractive as possible. Certainly, one of the least difficult steps would be to provide tax credit for employers' inancial contributions to training programs. This idea has already been far developed in bill form in committees of this Congress.
We would urge your earnest consideration of our views, and your thorough reconsideration of this entire complex but serious problem before reporting S. 1308 to the full committee. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
SECTION 8(f) FROM THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS Act, AS AMENDED, 1959
(f) It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act as an unfair labor practice) because (1) the majority status of Buch labor organization has not been established under the provisions of section 9 of this Act prior to the making of such agreement, or (2) such agreement requires as a condition of employment, membership in such labor organization after the seventh day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later, or (3) such agreement requires the employer to notify such labor organization of opportunities for employment with such employer, or gives such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified applicants for such employment, or (4) such agreement specifies minimum training or experience qualifications for employment or provides for priority in opportunities for employment based upon length of service with such employer, in the industry or in the particular geographical area : Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall set aside the final proviso to section 8(a) (3) of this Act: Provided further, That any agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 9(c) or 9(e).*
[An excerpt from the NLRB decision in the St. Louis Arch case]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1, AFL-CIO
(E. SMITH PLUMBING COMPANY)
PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 562, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES
OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
LOCAL 36, SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, AFL-CIO 1
CASES NOS. 14-cc-348, 14-CC-349, 14-00–350, 14-C0—352, 14-00-358
CASE NO. 14-CC-357
LOCAL 42, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND
ROBERT F. HOEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCE-
CASE NO. 14-CC-359
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, AFL-CIO (E. SMITH
PLUMBING COMPANY), AND CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS, LOCAL No. 99
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in these cases, including the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below.*
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and orders that the Respondents, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1, AFL-CIO; Pipefitters Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 36, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO; Local 42, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and Building and Construc. tion Trades Council of St. Louis, AFL-CI0, their officers, agents, and representa. tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1 of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and substi. tute the following:
"1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Hoel-Steffen Construction Company, Sachs Electric Company, St. Louis Sheet Metal Company, Lorain Engineering Company, or any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to perform services for his respective employer, or threatening, coercing, or restraining the above-named employers, or any other person or employer engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require them, or any of them, to cease doing business with E. Smith Plumbing Company, or any
This case arises from the answer is tuis ts44*1144 1 tional Erterson Vemorial in comment in a **** Hitriinit founding of the city. Prominent as a restaurant Nem**** antifi in at its aper some feet above ground level sistema ita******** and like other features of the Memerial it is in prawd wat mint help of the Federal Gorernment. One of the studimeve po Hip pa bi in Executire Order 11246 is that there shall l'est app afforded to all persons on the project. In che viene insemdam nie te