programs involve some 40,000 new entrants per year nationwide, whereas industrial unions involve millions and millions of people. The bite that is involved in the building trade program is perhaps the hardest bite, because it determines whether the person discriminated against will have the opportunity of working or will be unemployed. That does not mean that on the industrial union side where minorities can be employed there is no problem. That is what we are trying to emphasize.

Now, quantitatively, there is a larger discrimination problem on the industrial union side because it is dealing with a larger base.

Senator JAVTTS. Now, relative to the number of operators in total, in each category, that is the industrial union side and the building trade side, can you give us any concept of the percentage of complaints? Mr. SHULMAN. I cannot do that off the top of my head. I would be delighted to give you something for the record. Commissioner Jackson apparently would like to add to this.

Mr. JACKSON. I would just want to say this, Senator, in regard to the building trades versus industrial unions.

The Commission will be in a much better position to give you the specifics once we have these reporting forms EEO-2 and EEO-3, which we propose to mail out this year and we will have the actual statistics on the building trades.

From the information called to us by letters, we would have to say that the Negro community considers the building trades to have a more egregious situation than the industrial unions, but in terms of formal complaints filed with us or the actual statistics we have before us, we cannot support that. We do not now have sufficient complaints or information to determine a trend.

From those cases that we have investigated, there is no question but that there exists a major practice of exclusion on the part of many building trade unions; not all, but many.

Senator JAVITS. Now, Mr. Shulman, would you be good enough to do the following? I hope you will agree to this, because I think it is very helpful.

The building trades unions testified before us some couple of weeks ago. Would you be good enough to read their testimony and to give us any comment based upon the experience of the Commission that you think is warranted by its experience, whatever that experience may indicate, because they gave us very blanket assurances and it left us very skeptical because it simply seemed to defy everything which we I am wrong about the source of the testimony-it was before our Committee on Executive Reorganization of the Government Operations Committee, Senator Ribicoff's subcommittee. I am a member of that, too, and we will give that testimony to you.

For this record would you give us a comment on it? Because, as I say, it left even the members of that committee very skeptical, but nonethless there it was, flatly out, that they had minority groups and they welcomed them and didn't discriminate against them and yet when you looked at the figures, it was absolutely miniscule, the number that got in their apprenticeship programs, and they had us pretty much stymied.

Would you undertake that?

80-226 0-67- -6

Mr. SHULMAN. Certainly, we would like to.

Senator CLARK. Without objection, that may be done. (The information subsequently supplied follows:)

STATEMENT BY STEPHEN N. SHULMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, CONCERNING TESTIMONY GIVEN BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BUILDING TRADES AND CONSTRUCTION UNIONS BEFORE THE SENATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION—APRIL 18, 1967

The two main relevant points of the testimony appear to be: (1) that minority group applicants are welcome in but not attracted to the building trades, and (2) that they frequently lack qualifications required to enter apprenticeship programs. The first point underscores what the Commission has found in its experience to be a most fundamental problem. Minority groups, accustomed to being unwanted, do not seek out opportunities previously closed without substantial recruitment effort being expended to attract them. The building trades were traditionally closed to minority group applicants. Practices as stringent as the ones employed cannot be discounted simply by stating that they are discontinued. It would not be surprising at all if minority group applicants failed to show interest in the building trades.

At the same time, the apprenticeship programs have become a major symbol of discrimination in the minds of minority group persons. As an avenue to journeyman positions which they have traditionally not been allowed to fill, apprenticeship programs expectably are a focal point for minority groups.

But apprenticeship programs are small, and do not constitute the sole route to the journeyman position. Indeed, the majority of journeymen today did not or could not have been graduated from apprenticeship programs.

With so large a proportion of journeymen who are white not having been required to complete apprenticeship programs, the validity of the standards required for apprenticeship is understandably questioned by minority group persons. The testimony in question brings out that it is these standards that serve as the major barrier to minority participation in the journeyman ranks. Yet, the minorities see a majority of the journeymen not having met these standards themselves.

In order to gain far more information than we now have, the EEOC is planning to require reports on apprenticeship programs and on labor organization information. These reports are designated EEO-2 and EEO-3, respectively, and will be maintained concurrent with EEO-1 which is now being implemented to obtain relevant information from employers.

The EEO-2 will be filed annually by all joint labor-management apprenticeship committees in all industries and by employers and labor organizations in the construction industry which operate unilateral apprenticeship programs.

The new Form EEO-3 is designed to obtain information about discriminatory patterns in labor organizations. It will furnish data on the membership and job referral practices involved.

Senator JAVITS. I would like, first, to thank the Chair for the Chair's customary cooperative and gracious spirit in being willing to consider the bill which was introduced only yesterday by Senators Case and Kuchel and myself as a bill which I would not say is in any way oppositional to the administration's bill. We think it goes further in a number of respects which are essential, and the Chair was kind enough to put in my statement as well as the bill.

I am very grateful.

Now, one of the key things in the bill which we have sponsored is that you should have, this Commission of yours should have, the authority to utilize the services of the Department of Labor, especially in its regional wage and hour enforcement offices, for investigations, for initial hearing and for voluntary compliance efforts.

Now, do you have any opinion as to the desirability of that or is it too early? If you do not feel you can answer it, I will of course understand.

Mr. SHULMAN. Well, I would say this. First, we have used persons from the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division in the past. In the early days of the Commission which, of course, preceded my chairmanship, all investigators were loaned from the various departments. We feel that the investigations that we undertake involve special training and special aptitudes in the field that we cover, and would not expect that the Wage and Hour Division people would have those aptitudes or that training necessarily.

Obviously, in a backlog condition we are anxious to get help wherever we can get it and would not be inclined to want to discard any help of manpower that was tendered. However, our experience has been that our investigations are improving within our own resources by our own people as they become better and better trained and I don't see any reason to believe that the Wage and Hour Division experience would necessarily contribute toward an expertise of the type we need. Senator Javits, I regret the length of this, but if the result were that our resources were held back in the appropriations process by reason of the availability of the Wage and Hour Division people, I think that would be an unfortunate impact. If the result were that we had an opportunity to get more people whom we could train ourselves to use, that would be a happy effect.

Senator JAVITS. It seems to me, Mr. Shulman, that we will have to hear from the Department later. I appreciate your desire to control your investigators, et cetera, and to give them your own expertise. What we must determine is whether the amount of service which you will need is available in governmental surplus, as it were, so we could use it and thus effect a real economy and give you a very much broader ranging staff than you are very likely to get.

As for the appropriation problem, as you well know, you are a much stickier agency than many others for very obvious reasons. There are some friends of ours who don't like what you do, and who are in large and powerful numbers in both the Senate and House.

You ought to bear that in mind.

Mr. SHULMAN. Senator Javits, if I may, I notice that Commissioner Jackson would like to make an input into your question. If it is all right, I would like to have him do it.

Mr. JACKSON. I just wanted to state, Senator, that our experience in using investigators from other agencies suggests that we had to have cases reinvestigated at the rate of about 40 to 45 percent. Therefore, we find that really it adds very little to the reduction of our backlog to borrow them in great number. Not only is there a difference in expertise, but we have found on our overall experience that all do not have an empathy with our program.

We cannot always assume we can pick up people from other agencies who have necessarily an empathy for the program we are administering. That led in large part to reinvestigation of numerous cases. I would just say we would want to carefully examine whether or not we would actually aid in the reduction of our backlog by the use of investigators from other agencies on a regular basis.

On a backlog basis it is good; in fact, I believe we are using approximately 20 investigators that we have borrowed from other agencies, but on a regular basis it would not be the appropriate way to handle our backlog.

製造

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Shulman, would you tell us now whether you feel your agency is able to do the job assigned to it by the Congress unless you get the new powers, to wit, the cease-and-desist powers, et cetera, which are contemplated by our bill and the administration bill?

Mr. SHULMAN. The answer to that question is, no, we are not able to do the job that the Congress has assigned to us without having cease-and-desist order power.

Senator JAVITS. So that flatly, if we expect the mandate of the Congress to be carried out, we must give you this additional type of power? Mr. SHULMAN. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. And that is the reason it is the breaking point, you either do the job because we give you the power or you cannot do an adequate job because you do not have the power?

Mr. SHULMAN. Correct.

Senator JAVITS. And this is now based upon your experience in actual operation?

Mr. SHULMAN. Our experience in actual operation, Senator Javits, demonstrates that our effectiveness through conciliation, which has been greater than we would have expected, is diminishing. We have succeeded in a lesser percentage of cases this year than we succeeded in the first year, and there is every reason to believe that we will succeed in a still lesser percentage of cases in a future year.

Senator JAVITS. Now, do you believe that the range of coverage of the act should also be extended to employees of State and local governments, including State employment agencies?

Mr. SHULMAN. It is difficult for me in a context of a backlog of the type we have to want to reach out for any additional coverage. We do, however, receive a number of complaints against State and local government agencies which, of course, we do not handle by reason of not having jurisdiction over them.

Senator JAVITS. So that from the demand there would be an indicated need; is this right?

Mr. SHULMAN. There is an indicated demand; yes, Senator.

Senator JAVITS. Now, I notice in that same connection that 38 State laws are presently on the books, with 25 of the 38 having cease-anddesist order procedures. That is your testimony.

Senator CLARK. Thirty-one. The Secretary of Labor says 31. We went into this before you came in. Thirty-eight have FEPC laws, 31 have powers to issue cease-and-desist orders; Mr. Shulman didn't have which State has what and is going to furnish it for the record. Senator JAVITS. Fine.

Now, can you tell us the effect upon your operation of such a widespread net of State laws? Does it make your operation less necessary, more necessary? Are you just a tail on the kite? What effect do you feel the State law network has on your operation?

Mr. SHULMAN. Senator Clark had asked me earlier to provide a breakdown of our complaints, determinations of probable cause, and conciliation successes that would indicate whether or not there was a trend that could be discerned with regard to States which had fair employment practice laws and States which did not.

If I may, I would prefer to answer that question through that breakdown rather than try to do it off the top of my head.

Senator JAVITS. That would be fine. Could you give us any general observation as to what happens as you meet the impact of State law ! If you cannot. don't do it. I want you to answer these questions, if you would please.

Senator CLARK. I asked him that.

Sentor JAVITS. There is nothing in opposition to this, too. We want to get from you the best possible analysis of the case.

Senator CLARK. We already covered that.

Senator JAVITS. Let's see if he has it.

Mr. SHULMAN. The best general feeling that I could give you, Senator Javits, is that we do not notice a particular difference.

Senator JAVITS. Between the States that have such laws and the States that do not?

Mr. SHULMAN. That is correct. But I would very much want the opportunity to refer to our actual experience before I confirm that view. Senator JAVTTS. We agree.

Now, do you feel any need in respect of your activities for time limitations to be introduced in the various processes which you carry on! For example, under existing law you have 60 days to investigate and conciliate a charge.

Now, that may be too little. At the same time there are other-there is an omission of any time limit by which you are required to make a decision once a complaint has been filed.

Now, do you think that it would be desirable to beef up the administration bill by dealing with the question of time limits and can you make us any recommendations on that score?

Mr. SHULMAN. Again I have to begin my comment by acknowledging an inadequancy within the Commission, and that is that we have failed to live up to the time limits that we already have, and that, of course, creates a reluctance in my mind to ask for any more.

The bill, S. 1308, does contain a time limit with regard to the issuance of the complaint in that the private party is authorized to bring a suit after 180 days if the Commission has failed to file a complaint. The only remaining aspect where a time limit might appropriately be introduced as a result of that would be through the conciliation process or up to the issuance of a complaint.

Our experience has been such that the time limits that we currently work with are too short. A time limit on the order of 120 days from the filing of a charge through conciliation might be a workable time limit. In the absence of such a time limit in the bill as it now stands, we might well introduce such a time limit administratively.

Senator JAVITS. Now, I notice that there is a difference in type of enforcement between S. 1308 and the Civil Rights Act, the discrimination in employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that under S. 1308 the Attorney General is given complete discretion and selectivity. He can take and reject what he pleases, whereas in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 706, he has the right to intervene in all cases, whether filed by an individual or whether filed by the Commission, whenever there is an issue, you know, of real public importance, et cetera.

Do you feel, comparing the two provisions, assuming that you may not get the cease-and-desist order authority, that you would like to