Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

I have been happy in reading the tentative outline of the legislation to discover what seems to me the complete fairness and even patience, at the same time firmness, with regard to the phraseology of the legislation. Your bill is fair to the employer, fair to the union, but, above all, fair to the worker. And it is based by the solid experience of World War II when the doors of opportunity were flung open for the first time to thousands upon thousands of Americans through the Fair Employment Practices Commission of your late great father as President of the United States.

It took a world war and our desperate defense needs of that time to bring action in this vital area of human concern. I hope and pray that without a third world war we can enact this legislation permanently.

The President's Commission on Civil Rights is supportive of your interest. I would hope that the White House will feel that the consensus of opinion is right, yes, even insistent, that this legislation be passed.

The Federal Equality of Opportunity in Employment Act should become law on its own merits because it is the right thing to do, because it is the moral thing to do.

I am proud that the rabbi and priest have spoken before me, as inheritors of the Judeo-Christian tradition, because it is the thing that is our clear duty to do. This action is a necessity for the people concerned. It is a necessity in terms of the affirmation and application of our democracy which will not survive if we do not believe in it and live it.

The rabbi said that no prejudice is in the heart to begin with. It is placed there and we can eliminate it again or eradicate it and good legislation combined with public opinion or expressive of public opinion will help to eradicate prejudice wherever it exists.

I wish to place my personal support behind this great humanitarian proposal.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Dr. Greeley, we want to thank you for your very forceful and, I think, very wonderful presentation.

Incidentally, you have given us a phrase which I think will live for some time with us, "pray on our knees on the Sabbath and prey on one's neighbors the rest of the week" is the kind of phrase which I think will vividly bring the point home to many people.

I would like to just comment very briefly. You mentioned the President and I think it would be a wonderful thing if you and any of your associates could let the President know of your feelings on this subject.

I am sure my friend, Mr. Goodell, will be happy to have you do that, too.

Dr. GREELEY. We shall not fail to do that.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Again I want to express my own personal appreciation to you, Dr. Greeley, because I think what you have said and the fine work which you have done in this area in bringing our attention to the work of the Massachusetts commission points up the very thing which we feel, which is that if we can once enact this into law with the machinery that is provided in this bill, not only will we not overburden

77736-62-pt. 2-18

the courts but we will bring about a situation where, as has occurred in almost every State where so much opposition was originally expressed, once the law became operative, very quickly the benefits deriving from it become so apparent that with a little effort on the part of the legal authorities involved, there never needed to be much more than persuasion.

We think the same thing will be true on the national level but its impact will be so much greater because not only will it give an image to ourselves here in our own country but the tremendous assistance which it will give to our image in all the rest of the world, I think will be a great force which, heaven knows, we need in this time in the struggle in which we are engaged.

Dr. GREELEY. We concur with you entirely.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Goodell?

Mr. GOODELL. Dr. Greeley, we thank you very much for your statement. I take it from your remarks that you agree with us that there is an urgency and an immediacy about this problem that it should not be given a place of second fiddle to anything.

I hope you will follow our chairman's exhortation and in communicating to the President you will convey the urgency and immediacy in this communication.

Dr. GREELEY. Thank you.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Dr. Greeley.

The chair would like to submit for the record a letter from Gov. Otto Kerner of the State of Illinois; a letter from the president of the North Carolina chapter of the Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, Frances Cox; and a letter from James B. Carey, secretarytreasurer of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO. Without objection, they will be placed in the record. (The documents referred to follow :)

Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Springfield, Ill., January 18, 1962.

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have your letter requesting my views on the proposed Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

In addressing the Illinois General Assembly last March in support of enactment of a State Fair Employment Practices Act, I said:

"To deny employment opportunities to a substantial number of our citizens solely because of race or religion is morally indefensible and economically unsound. It belies our traditional belief in individual worth and it confines countless persons to jobs below their capabilities or to no job at all. Unfortunately, many of these same people must then turn to government for assistance.

"The age-old argument that you cannot legislate against discrimination is not borne out in States with Fair Employment Practices legislation. They have realized an encouraging degree of success. To those of you who fear harassment and interference by an army of Government investigators or court proceedings, let me assure you that this has not been the history of fair employment practices enforcement, nor will it be the pattern in Illinois. Perhaps the greatest achievement of fair employment practices legislation to date has been that its successes have been accomplished without fanfare-through conciliation and conference." The legislature responded, and after 18 years of failure, we succeeded in enacting an Illinois fair employment practices law.

I would hope that the principles of fair employment practices will be extended to all other States, and I support any legislation that will enhance equal job

opportunities throughout the country. At the same time I must decline to endorse a particular bill until we in Illinois have secured the hard-fought victory which our own law represents. At that point we will have developed a backlog of experience by which to evaluate other legislative proposals.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

OTTO KERNER, Governor.

CHARLOTTE, N.C., January 17, 1962.

Representative JAMES ROOSEVELT,

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Education and Labor,
U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: I write in my personal behalf and as president of the North Carolina Chapter, Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, in support of the fair employment practice bill on which hearings are being held this week. Dr. Dana McLean Greeley, president of the American Universalist-Unitarian Association, is also speaking for our chapter in his appearance before your committee Friday morning.

In support of such legislation I attach a reprint of a series of articles by Reporter Gene Roberts that appeared in the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer September 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1961. These articles describe in detail how impossible it is for Negro high school or college graduates to find good jobs in North Carolina.

I feel that fair employment legislation is essential not only for the welfare of the Negro but for protection of the businessman himself. In some parts of the country a businessman who wishes to hire Negroes will be put at a disadvantage by competitors who do not. Fairminded businessmen ought not to be penalized for an effort to put democracy into practice. Even where such risks do not exist, a businessman may fear that it does exist and be reluctant to act. Fair employment legislation will put all businesses under the same umbrella and make it easier for them to open up job opportunities to all.

Human fulfillment is the purpose of democracy, and our country is under great obligation to show that it is capable of fulfilling this purpose. The fair employment practice bill is a step in this direction and I urge its enactment.

Sincerely yours,

FRANCES Cox. President, North Carolina Chapter, Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice. (Reprints of series of articles appear in the subcommittee files.)

те

Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT,

ઞ,

INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT,
Washington, D.C., January 17, 1962.

Chairman, House Special Subcommittee on Labor,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROOSEVELT: The Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, extends its congratulations to you on your proposed Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The industrial union department is generally in agreement with the provisions of the act. It is our view that a law prohibiting discriminatory employment practices, with teeth to assure compliance, is overdue in the United States. It is our view also that the bill now before your subcommittee, if enacted into law, will be the most important step forward in civil rights since the Emancipation Proclamation.

No civil right, as your investigations have shown, is more important than the right to hold a job without discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, age, ancestry, or sex. Without this right, all other civil rights tend to have a hollow ring. The right to a job is, after all, the right to live within the mainstream of economic society. It is the key to a decent home, to food, adequate clothing, and education for the children.

Discrimination in employment for reasons of race, creed, and color has been an unending story in America. Minority groups literally have been forced to fight their way up, and have done so in varying degree, depending upon the nature of the handicap they have been forced to hurdle.

The handicap of ancestry and religion still remains a potent factor in the job market. Jews, Catholics, and the foreign born still suffer from discriminatory policies imposed even by our great corporations. It is impossible to wipe out by law all vestiges of such discrimination, but legislation can do much to eliminate discrimination on the job because of such prejudice.

There is little need to recite the long and shameful list of discriminatory practices imposed upon the American Negro, who suffers so shamefully because of skin color.

Recent figures showed that the U.S. Negro today is in a worse relative position than a decade ago. Negro family income is now only 53 percent that of the white family. This is due chiefly to job discrimination. The Negro generally finds only the unskilled jobs available to him and the spectacle of Negro college graduates in menial jobs is not uncommon. The Negro is still last hired, first fired, and last promoted into a better job.

Over the past year, unemployment has been between 6 and 7 percent of the labor force. Negro unemployment has been double that of the white worker. This statistic is eloquent in its description of discriminatory job practices.

"In some cities," the President's Civil Rights Commission reported recently, "more than a third of the Negro work force was unemployed. The old adage that the Negroes are last hired and first fired was all too clearly demonstrated. One of the reasons for this is that, despite an increase in types of employment available to Negroes during the past 20 years, the mass of Negroes are still confined largely to the less skilled jobs. The concentration in the ranks of the unskilled, the areas affected not only by economic layoffs but by technological unemployment, means that Negroes will be in a poor position to fill the future needs of our constantly changing economy."

The costs of discrimination to the Nation are high enough in dollars. The costs in crime, broken homes, privation, and bitterness are more important. America cannot afford a submerged nation of the deprived within its boundaries. Its position of world leadership alone demands an end to discriminatory practices at home, especially in the area of economic opportunity.

The industrial union department recognizes that labor is not without guilt in the maintenance of discriminatory practices. It notes with some pride that industrial unions received a measure of commendation from the Civil Rights Commission for their intraunion practices. But it also knows full well that pockets of discrimination exist even in our industrial unions, and that in some areas serious job discrimination continues to exist despite the union and at times with the tacit assent of local union officials.

The IUD is in full agreement with the approach of the Federal Equal Opportunity Act which would ban discrimination within unions as well as on the job. The IUD has expressed its concern with the problem in convention resolution. It noted at its last convention that labor must put its house in order in the area of civil rights. That convention called for fair employment practices legislation. The AFL-CIO convention, held recently in Miami, renewed its support for legislation "to outlaw discrimination in all employment by employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce, including all employment and training of apprentices and learners, and including all unions which represent employees engaged in employment affecting commerce.”

In our view, the objectives of the IUD and the AFL-CIO itself would be accomplished by enactment of the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The law would require all major employers in virtually all communities to cease discriminatory job practices. It would require an end to discrimination in training programs. It would require an end to discriminatory practices where they exist in labor unions. It is our firm belief that enactment of such a law would do more than any other single thing to break down other ugly patterns of discrimination in American life.

The measure now before your subcommittee would require all employers in interstate commerce having 25 or more employees to comply. It is our belief that the limitation is too great. We are of the view that while the law would largely accomplish its purpose, it should leave no such loopholes when it is fully effective.

The IUD fully endorses the excellent enforcement procedures in the law. We are of the view that this is a meaningful law because it provides for a permanent commission to carry out its intent, and because that commission would be armed with powers to investigate, issue complaints, issue subpenas, seek injunctions, and to prosecute infringement in the Federal courts.

[ocr errors]

The need for such a law is obvious. While 22 States now have antidiscrimination laws, 28 have none. Further, the laws of many States are incomplete, and in some cases simply declarations of intent.

The right of the Congress to legislate in this area is incontestable, since employers are subject to the purview of civil rights legislation where commerce is affected. The law defines the right to employment without discrimination because of race, color, creed, age, and sex as a civil right. In our view, this is a civil right affecting all other civil rights and liberties.

Discrimination because of age is almost as heartless as that due to color or creed. Automation is taking an increasing toll of long-service workers who are not too old to work and who are far too young to be tossed upon the junk heap with other industrial debris. Hiring policies which refuse jobs to workers simply because they are past 35, or 40, or 45, or 50 are far too prevalent.

The experiences of New York State indicate that much can be done by law to minimize, if not eliminate, this kind of job discrimination. The law has ended help wanted ads specifying age. It has ended job orders to employment agencies which specify age. It has ended overt acts of age discrimination in general, although it obviously hasn't ended all such discrimination.

Employers have maintained that the hiring of older workers raises pension costs prohibitively. Jack Elkins, a leading pension consultant, has discussed this problem and found that it "is not a substantial barrier to employment.”

Elkins has found that a number of factors combine to make pension costs for workers hired at age 45 or over not significantly greater than those for younger workers. Elkins has stated that "the differential in pension costs between the older and younger entrants into employment is often exaggerated and, indeed, may not exist at all." He has pointed out that:

(1) Plans seldom provide a flat amount at age 65 regardless of service, and that most plans stipulate the amount of pension per year plus a minimum service requirement.

(2) If retirement is postponed for older employees who need to meet service requirements, many will still be unable to reach the requirement while others will be of such advanced age that the lifetime pension cost will be less than retirement at age 65.

(3) Disability pensions at age 50 or 55 but with some service requirements are becoming more common. The cost of these pensions is attributable to younger employees who alone can meet the service requirement.

(4) The increase in the number of vested pension plans has greatly reduced the pension savings accumulated by the turnover of younger employees.

(5) Multiemployer pension plans are growing in number. In such plans, the cost of hiring middle-aged workers is borne by all participating employers. (6) Future earning formulas in present plans permit a younger worker to increase future costs while the older worker is less likely to have nearly as wide a pay range.

(7) Future mortality improvement will give younger workers a longer life span, causing lengthier pension payments.

(8) Added pension costs that may be brought about by employing older workers are offset by reduced employer corporate or other income taxes.

The McNamara Subcommittee on the Problems of the Aged and Aging 3 years ago showed clearly the awesome human cost of discrimination against older workers. Older workers even now loom large in the makeup of our unemployment figures. Many of these have important skills, gradually being eroded.

Discrimination because of sex also is common in American industry. Promotions are far harder for women to come by than for men. The better and higher paying jobs are all too often denied women simply because of their sex, although they are fully capable of doing such jobs.

A third of the labor force is female, and without women workers our economy would break down. The women denied a job right because of sex are denied a key civil right. The facts of life of the U.S. economy deny that women's place is necessarily in the kitchen, although the housewife remains a central factor in the Nation's economy.

Most gainfully employed women work because they must. This has been proven time and again. The paid work of women has made possible the current high family income of some $7,000 a year. In too many cases, the working woman is the mainstay of the family's income. Millions of women must work to support themselves. In many cases, children obtain higher education because the wife has gone to work.

« AnteriorContinuar »