« AnteriorContinuar »
It is apparent that in less than 0.3 percent of the cases has it been necessary to carry proceedings through the hearing stage; that in slightly more than 0.1 percent of the cases has it been necessary or appropriate to issue cease and desist orders; and that in less than 0.1 percent of the cases has it been necessary finally for the matter to be adjudicated in State courts.
(3) Since a cease and desist order issued by quasi-judicial bodies has no force and effect, if the respondent chooses not to comply with such order until the matter is taken into court, the committee believes that the procedure may well strengthen the hand of the commission in its efforts to remove unlawful employment practices by conciliation and mediation.
(4) The committee does not feel that the procedure of this section will unduly burden the Federal courts. To obviate such a possibility, however, this section allows the court to
appoint a master to hear actions brought under this act. Discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry is contrary to our national ideals and our national interests. But we will not act wisely if we destroy one fundamental right in our zeal to protect another.
Our heritage is seriously threatened by ever-increasing encroachments on the part of administrative tribunals which too often operate in an atmosphere of political and emotional pressures. Indeed, this process has gone so far that one member of the Committee on Education and Labor looks upon the suggestion of court trials under this legislation as a novel concept.
We believe it would be a serious mistake if this legislation were to deny the right of trial in a court of law, and we believe that such a denial could only serve to undermine and weaken the moral force of this legislation and public acceptance of it.
Accordingly, at the appropriate time we shall offer or support an amendment to reinstate the safeguard of court trials in keeping with the principle of the bill which was reported by the committee in 1962.
PETER H. B. FRELINGHUYSEN.
53-267 0 - 65 - 12
SUPPORTING VIEWS OF FIVE REPUBLICANS This is a bipartisan bill, with substantial bipartisan support. Many Republican amendments were adopted in subcommittee and full committee, significantly improving the legislation. Although some important suggestions were rejected by the Democrats, we feel that the bill in its present form would be fair and effective.
There is no more crucial right than the right of equal opportunity to work for a living and to acquire the material blessings of life for self and family. Equal opportunity in education and training will never be fully attained until racial barriers are breached in the job world. A desirable job opportunity at the end of the line is one of the strong motivating factors for education at the higher levels.
Promises without fulfillment have contributed substantially to the racial crisis we face today. The Federal Government must raise a standard of fair and equal opportunity to which all good citizens may repair. Had such a standard been raised 2 years ago, unblemished by expediency and hypocrisy, the racial torsion of today would never have been
Although the President only lately and reluctantly endorsed fair employment legislation, this bill is of vital importance to all Americans. We urge its passage without delay and with minimal partisan rancor.
WILLIAM H. AYRES,
We believe that it is morally wrong to deny equal employment opportunity to any person because of that persons race, color, religious faith, or national origin; yet we are opposed to the enactment of this legislation for the following reasons:
1. This is not a proper field for Federal legislation. A matter such as discrimination in employment or in labor-union membership is best handled at the State or local level, or through the force of public opinion. This legislation would involve the Federal Government in the most intimate details of the operation of every business enterprise and labor union local in the Nation, and in a matter in which the determinations to be made are extremely difficult. Moreover, there would be a considerable potential for hardships to both employers and workers. General enforcement of such an act would be virtually impossible.
2. The problem of racial and religious discrimination in employment is a problem of morality, in which public awareness and understanding has brought more progress than all the laws we could enact. In fact, without the willingness of individuals to achieve progress in this field, this legislation will be as impossible to enforce as was the prohibition amendment. Our experience with prohibition should be instructive as to the difficulty of trying to legislate morality in fields where there is a large and determined public resistance. The result tends to breed a contempt for the law and a public apathy about moral values.
3. This bill is fatally defective in its failure to provide for court determination of the facts and the law in those cases in which negotiation and arbitration do not lead to a settlement of issues. It is a major mistake to model legislation in this field on the National Labor Relations Board, which has one of the sorriest records of all the Federal agencies for political involvement and for shifting and uncertain decisions.
The vast majority of Americans feel that discrimination in employment opportunities is morally wrong, and most business enterprises and labor unions, who actually control employment, now recognize that discrimination of this kind also is a bad economic practice. Great progress has been made in this field by industry and labor and through the efforts of responsible community leaders. The progress has not been fast enough nor gone far enough, but every sign points to its rapid acceleration without Federal intervention. For these reasons, we feel that this bill should be defeated.
We, the undersigned, wish to associate ourselves with the views of our colleagues, Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen and Robert P. Griffin, with respect to the absolute necessity--if this legislation were to be enacted—of providing for enforcement by an action brought in a U.S. district court.
The right to have disputes at law settled by a trial before an impartial judiciary is fundamental. This principle has been firmly established in our jurisprudence since the 12th century, and it then represented over 500 years of legal development from a state of near savagery. The right to trial has since been maintained only by constant vigilance and by the willingness of freemen to die for it. We do not propose to compromise this principle.
The right to trial has been compromised dangerously in the United States in this century. Every argument advanced against provision in this legislation for a final determination of disputes by court trial would have been applicable in another time to support the arbitrary fiat of king or baron, or to defend proceedings by star chamber or inquisition. We regard the modern development of trial by administrative tribunal as a threat to the liberties of every citizen. It is a reactionary device in the truest sense of that word.
Donald C. BRUCE.
FEBRUARY 21, 1962.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. POWELL, from the Committee on Education and Labor, submitted
[To aceompany H.R. 10144)
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 10144) to authorize establishment of a Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with power to eliminate discrimination in employment opportunity, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PART I. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
H.R. 10144 aims to provide a solution for the problem of continuing arbitrary employment discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, or age, and a remedy against continuation of such practices. The bill gives the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the responsibility to eliminate and prevent unlawful employment practices as defined in the act.
Part II. BACKGROUND
The committee finds that testimony received regarding the need for this legislation could scarcely be more cogent and convincing: The conclusion inescapably to be drawn from 98 witnesses in 12 days of hearings, held in various sections of the country as well as in Washington, and from many statements filed without oral testimony, is that in all likelihood fully 50 percent of the people of the United States in search of employment suffer some kind of job opportunity discrimination because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, or age. It should be made clear that the evidence poured in from all parts of the Nation-East, West, North, and South. This act cannot