Imágenes de páginas

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Pucinski?

The Chair would like to comment that the committee will stay in session without objection until the next bell that occurs.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Roosevelt, I would like to welcome you to our committee. We certainly bring to the EEOC an impressive family tradition of fighting for the oppressed and those who have been discriminated against, and I think that the President could not have a finer choice in this very important agency.

I was very pleased to hear you say that you think we ought to perhaps proceed with some caution on reducing the number down to eight. It would be in my judgment that we ought to adopt it as a national policy, perhaps over a period of 2 years or so, in order to give these States an opportunity to amend their own respective laws. Do I understand you correctly on that point?

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. That is right.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yesterday we had quite a discussion as to what would be the situation, for instance, in a State like Illinois, which covers employers of 50 or more. Would the Federal Government then assume jurisdiction for all those under 50, and there would be a duplication of activities, and perhaps a duplication of law suits?

I think that your suggestion is a very wise one, and I hope the committee will accept it.

Now the other point that I wanted to discuss with you is the question of age. I don't believe you were here when the previous witness testified, but yesterday, Mr. Fowler, the chairman of the New York Commission, and Mr. Kemp, a member of the Illinois Commission, both indicated that the problem of discrimination because of age, that is, those workers beyond 40, is becoming a very serious problem throughout America.

Mr. Fowler testified that his commission has handled, to date, 649 age complaints. Would you care to comment on whether or not we would be strengthening this bill if, at this time, we did include the question of age?

Mr. Franklin ROOSEVELT. Mr. Pucinski, the Commission has given this considerable thought, We are, at the present time, studying the experience, which is still very limited, of those States which have included age as a basis of discrimination. I would like to also point out that the title VII directed the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study, which he submitted on June 30 to the Congress, and I am sure you have received that report, and, in that, several recommendations have been made that national policy and implementation be established by the Congress.

The report does not go into specific and detailed legislative recommendations. The third point I would like to make is that discrimination due to age is not only a very complicated area, because it may be the result of many different specific situations, but, also, this kind of discrimination is different from the discrimination due to race or creed or color or religion, as these acts of discrimination are really due to prejudice, whereas I think everybody loves older people, and age discrimination, is not an area of prejudice so much as a question of attitude.

So at this point, I am not prepared to recommend that age be included under the jurisdiction of this commission.

It might be handled in quite a different manner for example, the Department of Labor might be given certain jurisdiction in specific cases. So I think that I would prefer to continue to study this, and perhaps come back to the next session of Congress with more detailed recommendations.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Roosevelt, the studies of the Secretary, both the most recent study and previous studies and analyses of the unemployment, chronically unemployed picture in this country, indicates that in the case of the Negro, he experiences his largest percentage of unemployment either at the very young level, under 18, or at the middle age level, beyond 40.

There seems to be less problem with employment in the age between these two extremes. Now what would your Commission do, what attitude would your Commission take, if in the case of the members of minority groups who have traditionally been discriminated against, they experience a continued difficulty in finding employment and an employer makes out a case that he is really not discriminating because of race, religion, or ethnic background, but he merely has a company policy about hiring people beyond 40?

Isn't this, then, indirectly, a very subtle and sophisticated escape clause, and makes this bill so much the weaker in that category of Americans who have suffered a lot of discrimination heretofore because of race, won't they now be discriminated merely because of age, and your Commission is completely helpless to deal with this problem; isn't it?

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. Well, I would like to point out that the two categories, the very young and the over 40, while it is true that unemployment is higher among Negroes in these two categories, this is also generally true of the total employment pattern.

It is true of young whites, of Mexican-Americans, it is true of again older whites and older Mexican-Americans. So this question of higher employment among young people, teenagers, and also older people, is not limited to just the Negro group.

It is generally across the board. Our initial objective will, of course, be to unmask any situation where an employer is discriminating actually because of prejudice against a Negro, for example, but using age as his reason. That, I agree, will be a difficult problem of unmasking and getting at the real cause. But I would like to emphasize that this is an across-the-board problem, and not just limited to one minority group.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Do you know why New York State had to adopt an age provision from 40 to 65 in their fair employment practices commission law ?

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. Why they had to?
Mr. PUCINSKI. Why they had to.

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. Well, New York State did it because of their feeling, the legislature's feeling and that of many of our Governors, that there was actually discrimination due to age.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you.

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. And that is the kind of review that we want to get into in more detail and more depth.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We have had substantial evidence before this committee, both at the time that we held hearings in Chicago and New

up to

York and California, on this subject, before the passage of the 1964 act—and, as late as yesterday—the testimony by Mr. Fowler, was that there is an economic factor involved, and it has been my very strong feeling that you really can't put age into this law, as a bar against discrimination because of age, until you recognize the employer's problem, until you recognize why he discriminates because of

age. And there is evidence before this committee that the high cost of pensions and fringe benefits and all these things have created this problem.

I have introduced a bill which would give employers a tax credit on the difference in cost between hiring a middle-aged worker and a younger

worker capable of doing that job. I feel that that is a companion measure to any effort to put age into this bill.

Now I was interested in the statement made by Mr. Fowler yesterday, and I refer to him only because I believe New York's Commission is the oldest commission, has had the greatest experience, and certainly, has handled a great many cases, and so I respect him for his expertise in this field.

Mr. Fowler admitted yesterday, or at least I should say he said yesterday, that putting age into this bill will hasten the day when the Congress and industry and State legislatures will have to face the economic problems involved, and go about an orderly way of resolving these problems.

Would you share that view?

Mr. FRANKLIN. ROOSEVELT. Well, again, Mr. Pucinski, I am not familiar with your bill.

Mr. PUCINSKI. No, I am not suggesting that you should support my bill. But would you agree that by facing the issue squarely now, and putting age into this act, along with race, religion, national origin, and sex, by closing the last loophole, the loophole of age, we would then compel the legislative bodies of this country, including the Congress and the Ways and Means Committee, to proceed in some orderly way to face up to the economic factors involved in this problem?

Otherwise, there is going to be a case of what comes first, the chicken or the egg. I think that the problem is severe. Mr. Wirtz' report shows it is severe. The Secretary has made his report, acknowledges that the man past 45 today has a tremendously difficult task in getting a job, and therefore, it would seem to me that the place to start is here.

Let us close the gate, and then let industry and Congress and everyone else proceed to bring industry the necessary relief over these additional costs involved.

Now, is there any merit to that statement ?

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. Well, as I understand your proposal, you are saying “Let's start with part of the problem" and you think that by starting there, you will force recognition of the total problem. I would basically feel that the Congress would be wiser if it were to face the entire problem and this would eliminate the dislocations which would result from dividing it into two or three steps.

And I recognize that, of course, this does involve State legislatures, too, but I think the Federal Government has the greater area of facilitation. I think through, for example as you suggested in your bill-through some tax relief, some form of tax relief, and I would think that it would be wiser to attack the entire problem rather than in-t do it piecemeal.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, one more question.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I regret very much to have to do this, but the House is in session, and they are having some very important matters come up, and

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would my colleague yield for a very quick question? Mr. BELL. Raise the point of order.

Mr. Pu SKI. As you know, we have 1 hour left of general debate. It won't be necessary to make your point of order.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Gentlemen, I will state for the information of the members that there is a matter of great importance on the floor at this moment.

Mr. BELL. Perhaps the Chairman of the Commission can come back at another time, when we can hear more about it. I don't want to miss what he is saying, either. Maybe if you could make a very quick question.

Mr. PUCINSKI. One quick question, Mr. Chairman, a question that has never been answered and I have not seen a word in the record.

How are you going to deal with this problem of national origin? What criteria are you going to use to ascertain or establish discrimination because of national origin?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Will the gentleman allow him to answer the question because we have got to adjourn?

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. So far, Mr. Chairman, we have not had any complaint based on national origin, and, therefore, we have no experience. It seems to me that where an allegation is made by a complainant that he was discriminated against because he was of Hungarian or Polish or other ancestry, we would set the criteria at that point.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will meet tomorrow morning immediately following the meeting of the full committee, to mark up the Fair Labor Standards Act bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your colleagues very much for your cooperation. I might add that I wish you would have your staff look into section 203, which is the anti-intimidation section, and applies only to that section of the act, and see whether it would be useful to put it into section 7 also—I mean, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mr. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. Our General Counsel and his staff will be glad to cooperate in any way with the committee.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much, and we look forward to cooperation with you and your staff, and we appreciate very much your being here today.

The committee will stand adjourned until the call of the Chair, immediately following the full committee meeting tomorrow.

(The following letter from Congressman Vivian was submitted for the record :)


Washington, D.C., August 25, 1965. Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Labor. Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Since I have cosponsored your bill, H.R. 9222, the equal employment opportunity bill, I would appreciate it if you would include this letter in the record of the hearings on this measure, as an expression of my support.

[ocr errors]

I am certain that by far the vast majority of responsible union and business leadership would not practice, and would deplore, discrimination in labor and business apprenticeship, and other training programs. However, there is, unfortunately a small, but vocal entrenched minority in both which has historically sanctioned and practiced racial and religious discrimination in job training programs. That this minority has been effective is amply demonstrated by testimony from both Government and labor leaders to the effect that only 2 percent of those enrolled in apprentice programs are Negroes. Negro workers make up far more than 2 percent of our total work force, and I believe, the time is long since past for the enactment of legislation to assure their equal access to industrial and craft training, and other apprentice, programs throughout the Nation.

The provisions of this bill will, if enacted into law, give the Fair Employment Practices Commission the powers which it needs, and does not now have, to curb discriminatory practices in apprentice programs in both labor and industry.

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this measure receives favorable consideration by your subcommittee, by the House Committee on Education and Labor, and that we will have an opportunity during this session of the Congress to act upon this bill on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sincerely,


Member of Congress.




The Civil Rights Act of 1964? is far and away the most comprehensive piece of legislation on this subject ever enacted by Congress. Its 11 titles affect every American and touch virtually every field of human activity, including voting (title I), the sale of goods and services (title II), the use of publicly owned or operated facilities (title III), public education (title IV), and employment (title VII). Although concerned with discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin in one or more of these contexts, the act is, in truth, the key to “many doors long closed to Negroes."'? As described by Senator Humphrey, principal floor leader on the measure:

“The goals of this bill are simple ones: To extend to Negro citizens the same opportunities that white Americans take for granted.” 3

Without minimizing its political and social impact—which appears tremendous-it seems safe to say that the main thrust of the act is in the economic realm, particularly as it relates to jobs and workers. It is widely contended that discrimination in employment is the most pervasive and pernicious practice affecting minorities, above all Negroes, in contemporary American life. In his civil rights message to Congress, President Kennedy referred to the harmful effects of this form of discrimination in the following terms:

"Unemployment falls with special cruelty on minority groups. The unemployment rate of Negro workers is more than twice as high as that of the working force as a whole. In many of our larger cities, both North and South, the number of jobless Negro youth-often 20 percent or more-creates an atmosphere of frustration, resentment, and unrest which does not bode well for the future. Delinquency, vandalism. gang warfare, disease, slums, and the high cost of public welfare and crime are all directly related to unemployment among whites and Negroes alike--and recent labor difficulties in Philadelphia may well be only the beginning if more jobs are not found in the larger northern cities in particular.

“Employment opportunities, moreover, play a major role in determining whether the rights described above (voting, public accommodations, etc.), are meaning. ful. There is little value in a Negro's obtaining the right to be admitted to hotels and restaurants if he has no cash in his pocket and no job.” •

1 Public Law 88-352. 78 Stat. 241 ; 42 U.S.C. Parallel citations to United States Code will he footnoted throughout :H. Doc No. 124, 65th Cong., 1st sess., at p. 2. • 110 Congressional Record, p. 6332 (dalls edition, Mar. 30. 1964). • H. Doc. 124, supra, note 2, at p. 7.

« AnteriorContinuar »