to success. This is most clearly demonstrated by the rubber industry and the aerospace cases. It is useful at this point to distinguish between EEO policy as a device of description and as one of action. In reviewing Commission investigation files and interviews with respondents it is difficult not to be impressed by the elaborate character of corporate EEO policy statements, especially among firms allocating specialized personnel to EEO activity. However, there are sharp variations between these statements and their translation into affirmative action. It has to be hypothesized that this variation is due in part to how the respondent and its management view EEO policy: a device of description or one of action. While a number of forces over which management has no direct control, including some on both demand and supply sides of the labor market, influence minority employment, considerable flexibility is retained by management to determine utilization of minority groups. Where EEO policy exists, its use depends largely on the emphasis it is given by management. To be effective, it must be communicated to all personnel, and, most important, a means of feedback and accountability must be provided. Too frequently, if the cases in this study are typical, communifeedback to the higher echelons of management occurs cation is one-way: once a year when EEO-1 reports are prepared. Effective EEO policy requires full-time effort: without this, it becomes only a device of description. 1. Although not included in the text of case studies, each conciliation agreement contains 7 standard provisions which are as follows: (a) (b) (c) (a) The Respondent agrees that the Commission, on request of any It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute an admission by any Respondent of any violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Charging Party hereby agrees and covenants not to sue any Respondent with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged as charges filed with the Commission, subject to performance by the Respondent of the promises and representations contained herein. The Commission shall determine whether the Respondent has complied with the terms of this Agreement. All hiring, promotion practices, and other conditions of employment, shall be maintained and conducted in a manner which does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (e) The Respondent agrees that all facilities on the premises shall be available for the use of any employee without regard to race, color, religion or national origin; that there shall be no discrimination against any employee on said grounds with respect to the use of facilities; and that the notice required to be posted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be posted. (f) The parties agree that there shall be no discrimination or retaliation of any kind against any person because of opposition (g) The Respondent agrees to report in writing to the Area Office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, when it has completed the undertaking outlined in the following paragraphs of this Agreement. The report will describe the manner in which the undertaking was carried out. This report shall be submitted not later than ninety (90) days from the date of this Agreement. 2. In another case involving the denial of promotion and supervisory training based on race, the respondent flatly refused to settle through conciliation. It argued that the charging party was not "supervisory material" and toughed it out all the way to court, eventually winning its case. 3. In truth, class action type settlements had occurred in small numbers as early as 1966. 4. Testimony of EEOC Chairman William H. Brown III before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor: H.R. 1746, The Proposed Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1971, March 3, 1971. 5. See the women's apparel case in this study. 6. Testimony of EEOC Chairman William H. Brown III, op. cit. 7. On October 24, 1971, Edgley Air Products, Inc., was debarred as a result of violating the terms and conditions of the OFCC's Philadelphia Plan. 8. Herbert R. Northrup, Negro in the Aerospace Industry, Industrial Research Unit, Department of Industry, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce (University of Pennsylvania, 1968), p. 40. CHAPTER 4 THE IMPACT OF CONCILIATION ON MINORITY EMPLOYMENT In the preceding chapter several determinants of the outcome of conciliation and its impact on minority employment were examined. Those which apparently influenced both the outcome of conciliation and its impact where successful were economic growth, the legal structure of Title VII, the administration of compliance procedures, the form of discrimination, the size of the respondent, the presence under some circumstances of federal contracts and the level of activity of the OFCC, and the attitudes and preferences of the respondent. The impact of conciliation on minority employment varies considerably, or so the evidence in the cases reported in the previous chapter suggests. The purpose of this chapter is to see whether it is possible to account for the impact statistically. Specifically, the aim is to determine whether firms involved in successful conciliation of discrimination with race as an issue show greater improvement in minority employment than do those of similar firms who have not been involved in compliance activities and to see whether the intensity of compliance activity within a labor market is associated with changes in minority employment. Method of Analysis The statistical technique used in the study is straight forward--a paired observation t-test. Each employer respondent involved in successful conciliation (with race as an issue) is paired with a group of firms which draw their labor from the same labor market as the respondent and sell their product within the same product market, but which have not been involved in compliance activities. Pre- and post-conciliation minority employment patterns are measured for each respondent and its parallel group, and the difference between the two becomes an observation in the t-test. The The purpose of the pairing is to hold constant all factors affecting changes in minority employment except one--successful conciliation. end result is a series of tests which show whether the compliance procedure and successful conciliation have exerted any net influence on minority employment of the respondents, all couched in conventional hypothesis test form. The study is restricted to respondents involved in successful conciliation with race as an issue who signed in 1967 or 1968. Pre- and postconciliation minority employment status of the respondents and their peer groups is measured for men and women through the use of 1966 and 1969 EEO-1 data. The study uses the two measures of employment status which representation in the work force and occupational status: capture the minority share of total employment and the relative index of occupa tional position.2/ Six out of 10 charges of employer discrimination based on race in 1970 involved forms of discrimination (hiring, discharge, and job classification) that would have affected one or both of these measures. In order to create a directly comparable group for each respondent involved in conciliation with race as an issue, it was necessary to restrict the study to respondents in metropolitan areas. Sixty-five respondents located in metropolitan areas were involved in successful conciliation of discrimination based on race in 1967 and 1968. An individual metropolitan area (SMSA), which in the short run may closely approximate a labor market, |