« AnteriorContinuar »
see at least the enforcement provision as far as the Attorney General is concerned beefed up?
Mr. SHULMAN. I am really not sure that I can answer that question, Senator. As matters now stand, the Attorney General has the capability of intervening in a private suit or he can bring a pattern or practice suit. If we were to get cease-and-desist order power, the question of intervening in private suits would not be a terribly relevant need, because the governmental determination would have been not to pursue the subject of the private suit since the pursuit would be by cease and desist if there was to be one.
Senator JAVITs. Will you consider and give us for the record a statement in the alternative, should you not get cease-and-desist power, how you suggest the authority of the Attorney General may best be strengthened to serve you better if the Congress should decide it will not give you cease-and-desist authority?
Mr. SHULMAN. Certainly.
Senator Javits. Now, I am getting to the end of these questions. I just have one or two more.
Do you consider that the administration bill, if you got cease-anddesist power, would give you the authority to order affirmative action on the part of an employer so that damages could be ordered or an on-the-job training program could be ordered as well as a reinstatement or hiring with or without back pay!
In other words, do you feel that you should have and do you get under the bill as filed a flexibility of remedies such as I have described?
Mr. SHULMAN. Yes, we do.
Senator JAVITS. Under the bill as filed, under the administration bill?
Mr. SHULMAN. Yes, Senator Javits.
Mr. SHULMAN. We have no power now at all. What we have is the flexibility that comes from a capability to ask only and we can ask, if you will, for whatever we want, but we are not likely to get it.
Senator Javits. Now, in the enforcement procedure by the Attorney General, to what extent does he have of flexibility of remedy under your statute ?
Mr. SHULMAN. I would, if I might, like to answer that question at the same time that I answer the one that you asked earlier through a submission regarding what improvements might be made in the powers of the Attorney General. Senator JAVITs. Very good. Thank you very much. (The information subsequently supplied follows:)
RESPONSE OF CHAIRMAN SHULMAN TO REQUEST THAT HE PROVIDE THE SENATE
EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER AND POVERTY SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WAYS THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD BE STRENGTHENED IF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DID NOT RECEIVE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER POWERS
There are several devices that might be employed to strengthen the powers of the Attorney General, if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were not given cease and desist order powers:
1. The powers given to the Attorney General in Section 707 (c) of S. 1308 to obtain necessary records should be broadened to enable him to obtain all relevant
documentary evidence insani i sme
2. The opportunity tzat Dzi: 7 de
IE I Attorney General 330 Frid je izumi DC is 1 tanes respondents on bezatie JESEN
Senator JAVITS. V.5 TON 17 18 5* L injunction not in the use of 11 - II
Mr. Shtlys. Their 295,252 er,
was I am in ure
WIE Eerdination of probable esase be ESX 12 letter, as I gather you woza u EET 3RD. Mr. Stva. Biz (The informata
ASIDI 71 IN772-
26 2425"Igrier, at any
Now, do you have any opinions on that, or again would you rather comment later!
Mr. SHULMAN. Well, I might comment at more length later, but I could say right now that we believe that we should conduct such surveys
and that is why we have gone into our EE0-1 form which has been issued and the two and three forms, which we hope will be issued later this year.
If the Congress were to make it mandatory for us to do so, that would remove all questions of our authority to do so and so I would think that is something we would welcome.
Senator Javits. I thank you very much, Mr. Shulman.
I gather it is implicit in all of this discussion that you feel that the functions which are being performed by this Commission which you now wish to have strengthened represent a really major need in terms of implementing the guarantees of the 14th amendment to the Constitution and the Nation. Would you care to say anything about that?
Mr. SHULMAN. Yes; we feel very srongly that that is so. We feel that it is essential that individuals who have a right not only to general due process and equal protection under the 14th amendment, but to specific equal employment opportunity under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, have that right vindicated by the Government that extended it to them, and in the absence of our having cease-and-desist order power, the only vindication that comes to the individual is a lawsuit he can bring for himself.
Senator Javits. And you feel there is widespread denial of that right in the United States?
Mr. SHULMAN. Yes.
Senator Javits. Would you wish to characterize the extent of that denial as representing a crisis in the civil rights field or a widespread injustice or in any other way, because as you know, all these things carry tags and that is the only way they become meaningful to people?
Mr. SHULMAN. Well, I would say that in a free-enterprise society, where work is essential to dignity, the existence of discrimination in employment is a fundamental sickness in the country and it is something that we would like very much to be able to cure, and cannot in the absence of having cease-and-desist power.
Senator Javits. Do you have any figures on how many individual suits have been filed under the law?
Mr. SHULMAN. I will supply you with figures, Senator. I believe it is on the order of 50.
Senator JAVITs. Thank you, that will be fine.
(The information subsequently supplied by Chairman Shulman follows:)
MEMORANDUM FROM EEOC RE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL SUITS FILED UNDER
The law does not require notification of the Commission when a private suit is brought under Section 706. In the absence of a requirement that it be notified, the Commission has been able to find out about approximately fifty individual suits filed under this section.
The Attorney General has brought five suits based on the pattern or practice provisions of Section 707. Two of these had been referred by the Commission.
Mr. SHULMAN. Commissioner Jackson would like to say one thing.
Mr. JACKSON. I wanted to respond to the question regarding the seriousness of the problem. I would say as related to teenagers, those
between the ages of 14 and 19 especially, that the crisis in unemployment is of major proportions and indeed, it is the largest contributory factor to the tensions and disorders that have occurred in our cities in the last 2 years and could rery well occur in our cities this summer and future summers.
It is of such grare nature that we feel this power that we are asking the Congress to gire us certainly is a major remedy toward making job opportunities available on an equal basis to them.
Senator Javits. I will tell you gentlemen I am certainly with you, as indicated by the introduction of the bill. I think a majority of Congress is with you, in both Houses, and again you will be up against this dreadful filibuster and if the people of the Nation are aroused, the filibuster will yield to cloture; and if the people are not aroused, it will not.
It is simply a question of the alertness of the people of the Nation and letting their legislators know that they understand that the principal civil rights vote is not a vote for your bill, but a vote for cloture in the Senate. That is where it will make it or break it. Thank you.
Senator CLARK. Let me suggest to the Senator, as I am sure he agrees, that the critical civil rights rote comes every other year on changing rule 22.
Senator Javits. There is no question about that.
Senator CLARK. Thank you, gentlemen. You have been on the defensive for a little over an hour now. I don't want to hold you any longer, because the Secretary of Labor is here. Perhaps one or all of you would like to make a brief statement with respect to your aspirations, hopes and goals, if you get this legislation which you have recommended passed.
Mr. HOLCOMB. May I commend for the record the statement of Senator Kennedy this morning on this question of cease-and-desist.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. Mr. SHULMAN. I would say, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to emphasize the point we made at the outset: We feel that giving us this power, which will enable us to do the job, will in reality enable us to do the job through increased conciliation.
Senator ČLARK. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your coming here.
Our next witness will be Secretary of Labor Wirtz. We will take a 5-minute recess.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) Senator CLARK, The subcommittee will resume its session. Our next witness is Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz. Mr. Wirtz, we welcome you here. We are happy to have your views. I have had an opportunity to read your statement, so I think it is unnecessary for you to repeat it and I will ask to have it printed in full in the record at this point in my remarks. (The prepared statement of Secretary Wirtz follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee: Three years ago, the queslion before the country was whether we were willing to write our conscience about the equalness of people into our laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave history the answer. We were.
Today the question is whether we mean what we said-enough to provide for the effective, hard-muscled enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.
S. 1308 says that we do. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify in support of it.
The Attorney General has already testified and the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will testify regarding the detailed provisions of S. 1308 and with respect to the enforcement problems which these amendments will meet.
My purpose is to provide, as context for that more specific testimony, the fullest possible picture of the unemployment situation as it exists today, the extent to which it shows a disproportionate burden upon minority groups, and the degree to which this may be attributable to discriminatory employment practices which S. 1308 would help reduce and eliminate. This is the general picture :
There has been a significant reduction in unemployment during the past three years.
There remains, however, a substantial amount of unemployment, and it is increasingly clear that most of this remaining unemployment will not be eliminated or materially affected by the increasing growth rate of the economy.
There is a materially higher rate of unemployment among non-white and Spanish-speaking minorities than among others; and a higher unemployment rate among women than among men.
These differences result from past as well as current discrimination, and it is difficult to distinguish—at least statistically-between the two.
There is a distinctly reduced amount of deliberate "discrimination" in the hiring at entry-level jobs of non-whites, Spanish-speaking, and female members of the work force; but a good deal of this remains.
There is much less evidence of substantial improvement so far as the up-grading and promotion of minority group members (and women) is
concerned. The net of it is, relying on facts, statistical evidence and firsthand experience, that there is substantial violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and that its amendment as provided in S. 1308 is almost a test of our sincerity in passing that Act.
Here are some of the relevant statistics :
Non-white workers coinprise over 10 percent of the labor force, but about 22 percent of the unemployed, they are 25 percent of those jobless for 6 months or longer, and 18 percent of those working part time involuntary. In general, the rate of unemployment among non-white workers is twice or more the rate for white workers.
The March, 1967 unemployment rate for men 20 years old or over was 2.0 percent for whites, 5.0 percent for non-whites. Among teenagers (16 to 19 years) the unemployment rate is 23.6 percent for non-white youth compared to 9.1 for white youth.
For women, the story is the same with both white and non-white unemployment levels standing higher than male rates.
Adult white women currently have a 3.6 unemployment rate; for non-white adult women the rate is at 7.0 percent. The rate is 10.0 percent for white teenage girls and 23.5 percent for non-white teenage girls.
A most discouraging fact is that education is frequently not reflected ade quately in occupational progress. For example, over 10 percent of all non-white men with a college education were in blue-collar or service work in March 1966 twice the proportion ol college educated white men.
In addition, since 1964, surprisingly little progress has been made in the range of jobs held by non-whites. While they represented 10.6 percent of the work force in 1964 and 10.8 percent in 1966, they were:
5.8 percent of the Nation's professional and technical workers in 1964 and 5.5 percent in 1966 ;
3.1 percent of salesworkers in both 1964 and 1966;
8.1 percent of all construction craftsmen (except carpenters) in 1964 and 8.2 percent in 1966; and
6.6 percent of mechanics and repairmen in 1964 and 6.7 percent in 1966. Finally, in 1966 as in 1964, this group still provided over 40 percent of our private household workers, over 25 percent of our nonfarm laborers, over 25