Imágenes de páginas

So I think there is an additional reason we should try to have a national law on this.

Mr. HIESTAND. Do you feel there is a danger in putting teeth enough to make this effective and enforcing it that there is a danger to some of our basic freedoms?

Mr. MEANY. I don't think so; 10. I have no worry about that at all.

Mr. HIESTAND. May I again express my highest commendation for the masterly manner and the statesmanlike manner in which you have expressed yourself.

Mr. MEANY. Thank you.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Meany, the Chair would like to say we think you are the best evangelist who has been before the committee yet, in view of my colleague from California's remark.

The Chair would like to express its appreciation at this time for the presence of the chairman of the full committee.

I already explained, Mr. Chairman, that you had to be before the Rules Committee. At this time would you like to make any

statement ? The CHAIRMAN. I was very sorry I could not be here to hear all your statement.

Your statement is an excellent one. We appreciate your cooperation.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Goodell?

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Meany, I echo the statement of my colleagues here. I appreciate your comments.

I note on page 5, however, that you make the statement at the top

of the page :

The employers do the hiring; they choose the workforce. The employers make the decisions on work assignments, promotions, and the like, subject only to protest or challenge by the union where a union exists.

Now, I have no desire to defend employers who are discriminating and I agree that there are many employers who do discriminate, but it seems to me your statement is a kind of whitewash of the unions.

You and I know that in the building trades there are a good many of them where the unions control completely the admission to apprenticeship programs, that they are indentured by contract direct to the unions.

Mr. MEANY. No; you are wrong.

Mr. GOODELL. You say this does not exist, for instance, in the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Mr. MEANY. I say the employer makes the ultimate decision as to who the apprentice is.

Mr. GOODELL. You say it does not exist in the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, say, in the city of Cleveland, that apprentices are indentured directly to the union?

Mr. MEANY. I don't say that it could not exist in a local union here or there, but I say as a general rule the employer makes the decision.

Now, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has incorporated a nondiscrimination clause in the past year in its national agreement with the national association.

Mr. GOODELL. What we are talking about, Mr. Meany, is de facto. In practical application, the union is controlling in many of these areas admission to jobs and they are controlling it completely.

Mr. MEANY. In some areas, yes.
Mr. GOODELL. That is all I want.

You say here that the employers do the hiring, they do the choosing, it is the employers' fault.

Mr. MEANY. That is what I say, and that is generally true.

Mr. GOODELL. But you agree that in many instances it is not true, that the unions control.

Mr. MEANY. In some instances, I do not know how many; I said before we had 60,000 local unions and I surely can't tell you what is happening in each one of them.

I say to you that that statement that you read does not attempt to whitewash the unions because you have to read that statement in conjunction with the rest of my statement, and I think I made it quite clear that the unions had their share of guilt in this area.

Mr. GOODELL. I think you agree that there is discrimination among the unions but then you make the statement that the employer is the ultimate demon here because he always makes the decision.

Mr. MEANY. In most cases; yes.

Mr. GOODELL. As a practical matter from the operation I have seen in the building trades, it is not true, it is usually the opposite, usually it is the union that controls.

At any rate, we agree that we need a law, we are in favor of it and it will help both the unions and employers in this respect to go on and do something:

Now, you do not mention, Mr. Meany, the question of sex. Do you have any comments at all on discrimination on the basis of sex?

Mr. MEANY. I commented on that before to Mr. Dent. I said I deliberately eliminated that because I felt this subject was big enough in itself and I did not want to clutter it up.

I also told him that we are against discrimination of all kinds, and that I would file a memorandum with the committee on the question of sex which he tells me is to be included in the bill.

Mr. GOODELL. Do you think that we should bar discrimination on the basis of age in the same bill that we bar discrimination on the basis of race, color, and religion?

Mr. MEANY. I would like to leave that to the judgment of people who know the mechanics of legislation much better than I do. don't know.

Mr. GOODELL. You are in favor of both of them whether they are separate or together?

Mr. MEANY. Yes; that is entirely up to them.
Mr. GOODELL. Do you agree with

with the overwhelming testimony that we have before this committee that the unions could do a great deal more to eliminate discrimination throughout the country?

Mr. MEANY. I think so; yes.
Mr. GOODELL. You think so?
Mr. MEANY. Yes.

Mr. GOODELL. Do you feel that there is any action the unions can take now to spur this program?

Mr. MEANY. I don't think there is any action they can take at the national level that they have not already taken.

There may be an exception to that but, as I pointed out in my testimony, what do you do with a local union that still practices discrim

[ocr errors]

ination and is making full use of the democratic processes that are in the constitution of the international, without violating the letter of the constitution?

Mi. GOODELL. You have asked the question of me?

Mr. MEANY. What I have said in effect, in my testimony, is that an FEPC law will help us in those instances.

Mr. GOODELL. I agree with you and I am in favor of the FEPC law to help you. But I think we have had rather overwhelming testimony that there is more that could be done from the top all the way down through the union movement.

Mr. MEANY. No; I think the people at the top have done quite well. I think today discrimination mainly reflects a state of mind in various localities.

Do you know that, in 1956 after the AFL-CIO passed a very strong resolution on this subject in regard to the Supreme Court decision on desegregated schools, we got nearly 10,000 letters from our members in the southern part of the country, and practically 9,500 of those letters condemned us. We patiently answered every one of those letters explaining our position. I recall one letter quite well, where the head of à fairly large union, a local union in the South belonging to an international union that has a 100-percent record against discrimination, wrote to me and said, “If I have to choose between being a trade unionist and a southerner, I will vote to continue to be a southerner." This is the kind of opposition we have from our own people.

I will say the membership of a good many of those locals was completely in accord with the people who wrote to us. Still we continued our campaign.

I can show you progress not only in the North in this field but in the South also. We are always making progress.

Mr. GOODELL. The only thing that troubles me about your comment with reference to the unions not controlling these things is that we did have testimony in Chicago and other places in the North, from union leaders in those areas, stating rather blithely that they knew of no discrimination in those areas and in their unions, while we had, prior to those witnesses, a whole series of witnesses telling us of discrimination in these same unions.

They were apparently completely blind in the North to the discrimination that existed even though many witnesses had said it was primarily the unions that were responsible.

Now, one final comment and question. I, too, am very proud of the New York State law. We feel that we are leaders in this respect and are very proud of it.

May I ask what relationship you feel this law should have to the legislation in States such as New York and perhaps Michigan and California and others that have strong laws against discrimination?

Mr. MEANY. I think this law has to confine itself to the industries that affect interstate commerce; Congress cannot otherwise legislate in this field.

Mr. GOODELL. You and I know that that is every industry, under present interpretation of the "all'ecting commerce" clause.

Mr. MEANT. I feel that is so, but a lot of people don't agree with that.

Mr. GOODELL. We have redefined this term.

Mr. JEANY. If it does put practically everything in the interstate category, I wouldn't be mad.

Mr. GOODELL. If there is a New York State law that operates in a given case, would you want our Federal law to permit the State to go a head and solve these problems, or would you want the Federal to work side by side with them, investigating as the State investigates?

Mr. Meany, do you have any suggestion at all in this respect?

Mr. MEANY. I would suggest that the Federal law would work with them but if it became evident that the State law was not effective, was really acting as a coverup, then I think the Federal authorities should be able to step in.

Mr. GOODELL. Would you agree that where a State group against discrimination, whatever it be, ollicial group, is proceeding, that the best plan is to permit them to do it and if they do not implement their laws efsectively against discrimination, then the Federal should move in?

Mr. MEANY. I think that is something that would have to be determined by experience. I think that is fairly sound reasoning, but I would like to see it worked out in actual practice.

Mr. GOODELL. I have no further questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Meany.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Meany, on behalf of the committee again let me thank you for bringing Ir. Biemiller, our former colleague, and Vír. Harris with you. You have been most helpful to the committee.

In view of the fact that following your statement there is another statement, I think this will be the proper time for the Chair to ask consent to enter into the record following your testimony, a letter from Mr. C. J. Haggerty, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, endorsing this legislation; one from Mr. Al Hartnett, international secretary-treasurer of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO; one from Mr. David J. McDonald, president of the United Steelworkers of America, and one from the United Hebrew Trades in the State of New York.

Without objection, these statements will follow Mr. Meany's testimony.

Thank you again for being with us.
Mr. MEANY. Thank you.
(The statements referred to follow :)


Washington, D.C., January 29, 1962.
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN ROOSEVELT: At the time I testified before the Special Sub-
committee on Labor on proposed equal employment opportunities legislation,
I agreed, in response to an inquiry by Representative John Dent of Pennsyl-
vania as to the attitude of the AFL-CIO on inclusion in the legislation of a pro-
hibition based on sex, to submit to your subcommittee a memorandum outlining
the views of the AFL-CIO. This letter sets forth our views on this matter.

As you know, President Kennedy has recently appointed a Commission on the Status of Women, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. This Commission has been given broad responsibility to study the effects of Federal and State legislation on the status of women generally and, particularly, their employment conditions. Pending the results of the Commission's study and

[ocr errors]

recommendations, I do not feel that the AFL-CIO is in a position to be able to evaluate satisfactorily the potential effects of a prohibition of discrimination in employment based on sex, particularly in the light of existing State laws and regulations. Accordingly, we strongly urge you not to include a prohibition of discrimination based on sex in the proposed equal employment opportunities bill.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is, of course, vigorously opposed to discrimination practiced to the disadvantage of women in employment and has long supported enactment of Federal legislation to guarantee equal pay for equal work, regardless of whether such work is performed by men or women workers. While it is true that a number of State fair employment practice laws prohibit discrimination based on age, as well as discrimination based on race, color, creed, or national origin, these laws do not, as far as I am aware, encompass discrimination based on sex. In our view it would only be confusing to include in the presently pending equal employment opportunities legislation a prohibition based on sex. Sincerely yours,

GEORGE MEANY, President.



January 23, 1962.
Chairman, Special House Subcommittee on Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROOSEVELT : In reply to your kind invitation I am pleased to present the views of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, on the subject "Equal Employment Opportunity” which is being considered by your committee.

The department is composed of 18 national and international unions representing approximately 3 million building and construction tradesmen. In my capacity as president I wish to state my support and the department's support for legislation which is designed to eliminate discrimination in employment.

We support this position not only because it may be popular, but we support it because it is the right thing to do.

As stated from my testimony last year in support of H.R. 8219 relating to the apprenticeship program, I have had close contact with the subject on the State level. Before April 1960 I was executive secretary of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, and prior to the merger the California State Federation of Labor, AFL.

In that capacity I initiated, sponsored, and worked actively to secure the enactment of section 1777.6 of the Labor Code of California which provides that “It shall be unlawful for an employer or a labor union to refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on any public works, solely on the ground of the race, creed or color of such employee.”

This legislation was enacted January 11, 1951.

It is of interest to note that the original bill I supported did not limit the legislation to public works. We sought to have the bill apply to all employment in the State.

In 1953 the State Federation of Labor in California caused to be introduced an FEPC bill (No. 917) “relating to prevention and elimination of practices of discrimination in employment and otherwise against persons because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, or ancestry, creating a State Commission on Fair Employment Practices, defining its functions, powers and duties, providing for the appointment and compensation of its officers and employees."

Legislation establishing a State Commission on Fair Employment Practices was finally enacted in April 1959.

Today on the national scene, it is a privilege to state that as an integral part of the AFL-CIO we wholeheartedly subscribed to the policy resolution on civil rights and civil liberties which says in part:

“We renew our support for the passage of an enforcible Federal Fair Employment Practices Act. We also renew our call for the enactment of enforcible fair employment practices laws by all States and cities not having such laws and for strengthening of such existing laws to insure their effectiveness.".

« AnteriorContinuar »