« AnteriorContinuar »
an extraordinarily competent job at this point, by a very small staff
I would like to note we are making real gains in that area.
I would like to emphasize your statement that we have gone about as far as the legislative vehicle could carry us. There is still a long way to go; I think the more effective enforcement provisions of S. 1308 are essential. That point was stressed also by Attorney General Clark and by Mr. Shulman and his colleagues on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To me this is very clear.
Now, later on you refer to the fact that of the 38 States which have passed fair employment practice laws, 31 provide for enforcement through administrative agencies. Do you happen to have handy-Mr. Shulman did not--the 12 States that have no State enforceable FEPC laws?
Secretary WIRTZ, Which have no
Senator CLARK. Yes, you have 38 which do, so there must be 12 that do not.
Secretary WIRTZ. We have that list someplace.
Senator CLARK. While they are looking for it, perhaps they will also look for the seven States where there is no adequate enforcement procedure. I would like to have that for the record if I might.
(The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:) STATES HAVING NO FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES STATUTES AND STATES WITH
FDP STATUTES WITHOUT ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE The following 12 States have no FEP statutes : (1) Alabama
(7) North Carolina *(2) Arkansas
(8) North Dakota (3) Florida
(9) South Carolina (4) Georgia
(10) South Dakota (5) Louisiana
(11) Texas (6) Mississippi
(12) Virginia The following seven States with FEP laws do not provide for adequate enforcement procedure (States to which EEOC does not defer): (1) Arizona
(5) Oklahoma (2) Idaho
(6) Tennessee (3) Maine
(7) Vermont (4) Montana
Secretary Wirtz. All right, I would be glad to add to the record, if that would complete that point, Mr. Chairman, a very recent summary of the State fair employment practice acts, which does list them on a State-by-State basis, does divide them into the grouping which you have just requested.
They are listed here in terms of those which do have them, so I would have to go through them and check out those who don't. But I would be glad to add to the record a succinct summary of those laws entitled, “Summary of State Fair Employment Practice Acts."
Would that be helpful?
Senator CLARK. It would be; Mr. Shulman undertook to work up a similar statement and we will see if you agree.
Secretary Wirtz I will see that we do. Laughter.] Senator Clara. Coordination is a great thing in the executire branch of the Government. Secretary Wirtz. Would rou like that list now! Senator CLARE. Yes. I will take a look at its while my colleagues have an opportunity to ask some questions. No, I think that is all, Mr. Wirtz. Senator Prouts! Senator PROTTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have had an opportunity to read your statement and I wish to commend you for it. It is obrious from comparison and from your testimony that many procedures in S. 1308 are parterned after the NLRB. Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir. Senator PROUTY. Under S. 1308, a charging party is giren the right to bring his own suit in the U.S. district court if the Commission has not acted or has refused to act on his charge after 180 days; is that correct?
Secretary WIRTZ. That with some modifications preserves the present opportunity. Senator PROTTY. Isn't that different from procedures under the National Labor Relations Act? Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir; it is. Senator PROUTY. What is the reason for that? Secretary WIRTZ. The Commission would be more competent than Ito answer the question of whether, given the enforcement procedure which is proposed in S. 1308, the other would remain equally important. I can only suspect that it is a matter of preserving what's already there until we are sure of the rest and I could personally not offer you an answer to the question as to why that should be necessary in addition to the others.
You are correct, from my own knowledge, that there is not that as far as the National Labor Relations Act is concerned.
Senator PROUTY. I was unable to be present when the previous witnesses testified, so I was unable to ask this question of the chairman
members of the Commission.
It appears that at least one witness will testify that enforcement powers will decrease voluntary compliance and that public formal hearings will lessen the Commission's effectiveness in obtaining settlements on a voluntary basis.
I know you don't agree with that; you suggest otherwise in your statement. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more on that.
Secretary WIRTZ. Senator Prouty, it would only be an abuse of enforcement authority which would lead to that conclusion. If given enforcement authority and somebody came in with a steel fist, it may have that result. Many would tend not to conciliate, not to mediate, if they knew they were going to be hit over the head, so I am talking about a qualitative judgment and about a responsible use of authority.
Again, with regard to the use of authority with the responsibility of restraint, it is my experience in the labor field (and in other fields,
including this field) that the realization on the part of the parties that you can follow up if they make you, does prompt them to come along, just as if they feel that you are going to exercise your enforcement power without restraint, they will
not come along.
Senator PROUTY. Thank you, I have no further questions.
We noticed that chart in your statement, speaking about the building trades unions, you say, 8.1 percent of all construction craftsmen except carpenters, and so on.
Now, carpenters are one-third of all the construction craftsmen and would really knock a hole in that figure. Now, how about getting the figures for that?
Secretary WIRTZ. I will supply it. I am frank to say that I don't know personally at the moment the reason for the exception, but I would add this, that the carpenters' union is today one of the most completely cooperative in opening up, in most places, its apprenticeship programs and in developing programs of this sort. In fact, I will inquire as to whether there is some reason for not including the figure here.
(The following information was subsequently supplied for the record.)
The only reason for not including the figure for carpenters was that it is collated separately from the other construction crafts. In both 1964 and 1966 the percentage of non-whites among carpenters was about 6 percent.
Senator JAVITs. I am convinced there is something wrong somewhere in this building trades apprenticeship opportunity, because the figures just do not jibe with all the vaselinelike statements we get to justify the situation. Everything sounds very smooth and very kind, but when you
break it down, there are just no Negroes in the construction trade.
Now, would you be good enough to analyze and file a statement for the record on the testimony of the building trades unions before the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization of the Government Operations Committee just here 10 days ago and let us know what you think stops minority people from even applying for apprenticeship trianing, because I am confident that it is wrong and that somehow or other the opportunity is not afforded to the real minority group applicant in this field, but I cannot, frankly, find out what is wrong, and who is responsible.
I think a great job has been done, incidentally, in fuzzing that one up, and I would greatly appreciate it, as one Senator, if you would help us. And I might tell you, too, Mr. Secretary, because I know we are of the same mind—it will help the unions because if there is a clear indication of what needs to be done, then I know there are great influences within those unions that want it done.
There are other influences that do not, and I want to fortify the hands of those who want to give the minorities a break in the building trades.
SarretarT ETZ SO do I SREDSEDSTE
Secord. I come tut the general terminis station, be me
I hare on IT desk dos, baring rere ted nos rery recently are
They took the examination and many of them, who did as well on the
Now, I mention that case Dot 10 escoriate a particular union, but to
If we can just get across the fact that there are still aberrations
(Subsequently Secretary Mirz supplied the subcommittee with a
One is here is an area where the manpower training which you also
That, too, can be discriminatory; you don't need a Ph. D. to be a carpenter or to be a plumber, and the fellows who are there now, who have these vested rights, they were not Ph. D.'s when they got in and their children and their nephews and their cousins who do get in are not Ph. D.'s, so there is something wrong somewhere, and Mr. Secre tary, I am delighted you will attempt to answer some of there ques
will allow me.
tions. I think my colleagues feel this way, too_most of us are very partial to those unions. I know them well, they give me great support, speaking as a politician. But that doesn't change the fact that somehow or other you know that the end-result shows something is wrong, and we have to find out what it is.
Thank you, very much.
Senator CLARK. I would like to have printed in the record the "Summary of State Fair Employment Practice Acts," which the Secretary has handed me. It is Labor Law Series No. 6-A, June 1966, published by the Bureau of Labor Standards of the U.S. Department of Labor. I would like to have that printed at the conclusion of Secretary Wirtz' testimony,
(The document referred to follows:)