the sexes, and I believe this is a desirable difference and I believe that women should be put in a different category. There is but utter colossal confusion resulting from this requirement that men and women be treated the same.

They are not the same and women don't want to be treated the same as men. They want to be treated with dignity and respect, obviously.

I have some examples stated here on page 12 of my statement that I would refer to you gentlemen. These are just samples of the kinds of questions that come up regularly when an employer is met with this requirement and really does not know how to handle it because it does not make any sense at all, so the one thing we do recommend is that title VII be amended to delete the reference to sex.

So we conclude with this request that the committee accept our very sincere belief that major amendments of the Federal statutory structure at this time would be most unfortunate. Education of the unskilled, improved understanding of the problems by employers, chance for the State commissions to move toward this-forward in the courses they have set-all of this, we believe, will work toward the ultimate and proper solution of these problems and, therefore, we suggest that House bill 9222 not be progressed further.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, and I am sure the committee is very grateful to you for your very forthright discussion of this problem which requires the best that is in all of us to reach the proper legislative ground and legislative action to eliminate discrimination where discrimination specifically exists.

However I note-and I do so with approval of course and commendation—that your State of Illinois and its employers as well as your chamber of commerce had started on this problem some years

ago.

I note also that the one main objection to the enforcement features seems to always stem from the employer contention that trained people are not available. I note also on page 7 you state from your experiences and from your investigations that the greater job opportunities are in the areas of engineers, registered nurses, draftsmen, laboratory technicians, physicial therapists, stenographers, tool and die makers, mechanics, and repairmen.

Now, while you were aware, I believe, in Illinois, of the need for an attack upon discrimination, all of the moves that I see in your testimony and from your discussion were made in the direction of trying to cure discrimination without curing the cause of it.

In other words, testimony shows throughout on other bills that about 70 percent of our job opportunities in the industrial complex are in this so-called skilled work or skilled labor which is exactlyoutside of the registered engineers and nurses and physiotherapists, every one of these other jobs come into technical, vocational trade school training. Yet nowhere in your testimony do we see where at any time your people were aware of the fact that there were no efforts made to increase the opportunities for these untrained people to get into this area of training. It seems that instead of alleviating the situation what we were really doing was, in my opinion, aggravating it because we were promising equal employment opportunity but no

available positions because the people previously discriminated against lacked training:

Today the biggest opposition we get from employers is that this would wipe out merit rating systems by insisting that we give jobs regardless of race, color, creed, or religion and now sex.

What have you done in Illinois? Have you any State laws that have made it possible for untrained persons to go to vocational schools or training schools? Have you made loans available? Have you made a building program of schools for them? Have you done anything to take this great mass of minorities, and provide training for them. You clearly say the minorities are not prepared to take the jobs because 30 percent of all job applicants represent 10 percent of the people and you are speaking of Negroes, primarily, and yet only 25 percent of the job opportunities are open to them.

So you are never going to end discrimination until you find some kind of program so that they will be able to obtain these under degree educational requirements. Am I right or wrong?

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Chairman, you have a couple of questions there.

Mr. DENT. That is right. I would like an answer to both. What have you done?

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. First of all, I did not read the statement as you noted.

Mr. DENT. I have.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. There are references here to work of the Illinois State chamber in encouraging the employment of the vocational aids statute I have forgotten the exact title-which is a Federal statute to apply to the retraining of employees.

The official position of the State chamber is, anything it can do to improve the quality of the untrained work force it will do and is doing. Mr. DENT. But it is dependent upon Federal statute. Your State has not moved ahead in trying to create the training opportunities because, you see, here is the problem.

Most of your trained skilled workers come from two sources— private training schools where they have to have a certain amount of financial assistance unless they have money, and these particular groups do not have money. That is the reason they are in the minorities, to be frank about it. So that door is closed.

The second job opportunity is through on-the-job training, but in most instances this door is closed because in most of the trades persons are admitted to the training programs through being related to those who already have journeyman cards or have the training and are in the skill or they get it through the on-the-job training by being employees.

Unless the minority group persons are trained or have an opportunity to get in and join the union they don't have an opportunity of being trained. They are not skilled. The unions have to have skilled people just the same as the law profession or the medical profession. You can't take a man in just as a bricklayer or plumber if he has no training in the field. If he is not in that field, he does not have any opportunity to get under the so-called programs of apprenticeship.

We have neglected to assist in training these people in the past 10 or 15 years because of the lessening of these job opportunities to train

people. We are today in America at the worst position in our history on trained, skilled workers.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. I think that is right.

Mr. DENT. Has your chamber any program to have the State help out with training programs within the State?

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. Let me say with respect to the last subject you were discussing, Mr. Chairman, the apprenticeship programs, for example, I happen to be familiar with the graphic arts industry. I have some clients in that industry. The graphic arts unions are among the most closed, if I may use that expression, unions in the country.

Mr. DENT. Outside of law.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. In the sense that anybody can get by the bar can practice law, Mr. Chairman, I have to respectfully disagree

Mr. DENT. I am sorry to have to maybe enlighten you on the special fact but in Pennsylvania you can get all the training you want but if the local bar does not allow you to practice in that particular area you cannot take the bar examination although you are a graduate of the law school. That is a rule in Pennsylvania.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. This is moving in an unfortunate direction. Mr. DENT. It has been there for years.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. The employers and the unions are now beginning to talk of apprentice programs. It is true that the unions can't take an untrained man and make him a journeyman but it is quite true that the unions can take an untrained man and make him apprentice.

Here is where there should be wide open opportunities but it requires a change of two viewpoints-the employers and the unions, and this work is going on. I won't say that it has tremendous momentum but it is going on. There are training programs of all kinds going on in the Chicago area. I don't know too much about the rest of the State. The results, I think, are most unfortunate.

I was telling Mr. Perry this morning, I have taken part in a training program at a settlement house. A group of people from the North Shore, from the Winnetka, Wilmette, and Glencoe region have donated their time and their money to teach adult English classes and it is absolutely utterly discouraging.

The classes started 2 years ago and the percentage of men to women was about 4 to 1. After 3 months, there was not a single man in attendance and this was a good program. These were very well-qualified teachers. Some of them were college teachers.

We had businessmen down there. We were trying to train these men in the area of civil service. We wanted to teach them how to write a civil service examination for a common laborer's job. We found that most of them were illiterate and as soon as they were confronted with the fact that they were illiterate they quit and they did

not return.

We continue the school. It is still going. We now have 100-percent female attendance and these women are upgrading their skills.

Now what can we do, Mr. Chairman. These are older men that we were talking about. At the earlier stage of the spectrum, we have the young high school boy who leaves school and won't go back. He is absolutely committing himself to a life of poverty when he does that.

Mr. DENT. I expect that that would be true in almost every instance. However, we always seem to brush over our experience after World War II when we opened up GI training under the GI bill.

While there was some very bad and adverse publicity about the handling of the schools, it is difficult today to find one single GI who graduated from a training school who is unemployed. Probably when history is written and when facts are developed, the best dollar ever spent for education in line with job placement, we will find that the money we spent on the GI training bill was the best dollar ever spent in the American educational system relative to job and education for those who are not in the degree class.

This is a program that I believe your employers have to participate in. There is a bill and it will probably be acted upon within the next week or 10 days which will make Federal Government loans available without any prior educational requirement.

But you are going to have to help with your employers because they are going to have to give them time off or give them loans or give them some kind of on-job inducement to go to a training school, to go to an upgrading school. They do that in some instances in Pennsylvania, in the telephone company and some of the other utility companies.

We graduate 26,000 students from trade schools every year. The only trouble is in Pennsylvania after we train them they go to Illinois or California to get a job.

I think that the basic problem here is you will remove the employment barriers only to find there are no trained people to fill the positions.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. Might Mr. Perry make a statement on that? Mr. DENT. Yes.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. PERRY, MANAGER, LABOR RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE ILLINOIS STATE CHAMBER

Mr. PERRY. I think the chairman's point must be well taken.

I would call your attention to a statement made on page 14 of our testimony which quotes Mr. Bernstein, the employment security administrator in Illinois. He is at this time conducting a survey of the types of things and the particular area you mentioned which are now being done by the business community. It is extensive.

I had hoped to have some of the results today but they are not available at the moment. There are many things that have not been called to public attention. Similarly, things have been done in merit employment which have not been called to public attention and we refer you to our statement for information on this.

Mr. DENT. The committee will be very happy to have whatever information you have.

Now I would like to comment on the sex provision, what little I know of it. We have a lot of problems on this matter of sex discrimination but really what we were primarily concerned with was discrimination against sex for meritorious income or pay or salary and advancement after job placement.

The question of whether a person discriminates on account of sex in a particular field of work is one as you say-and we have had the experience in Pennsylvania-where it is a very difficult line to draw

53-267-65

as to whether an employer turns down a girl for a job in a sawmill or something of that nature and the question becomes involved. However, I believe that any person who has made a review of the subject knows that there has been very serious job discrimination against women on jobs after they are placed in their work, after they have had a job.

Many times they are paid less money by far than the men are. For instance, in glassblowing plants particularly, they pay the girls 35 to 40 cents an hour less than they pay the men.

The reason for many years why men were employed in these glassblowing jobs was in Pennsylvania you could not work a girl after dark. That law has been amended so the job opportunities in the lighter industries for young men have gone begging.

The antidiscrimination against sex was really based on what they were paying women where women were paid a lesser amount than men for the same work.

You bring up questions about women having certain benefits such as fringe benefits which are not given to men. There are cases where they have sick leave which is a wider and broader interpretation of sick leave for women than there is for men. In most States they have rules where they are not allowed to work a female on a production line job more than a certain number of hours and in some instances, minutes, without a rest period in between.

Of course, you have some States like Pennsylvania up until recently which had what was called a pregnancy pay of unemployment compensation during certain periods. Of course, these are not available to men. You note that in your statement. But you ask the peculiar question, is this discrimination? Well, if the employer wants to employ women he certainly has to take into consideration certain physical conditions that apply to women that do not apply to men, but that should not in any way bar the women from job opportunities in the fields in which they have proven themselves adaptable.

That is what we are really aiming at here. I doubt that we are trying to tell an employer that when a female comes up to the employment office and wants a job that, regardless of the type of job, he is discriminating against her because of sex when she is not fit to do the work for which she is applying. I believe your opposition to the sex provisions in this legislation might not be as well founded as some of your other positions.

I believe there is a spot in this legislation for calling attention to discrimination on the grounds of sex because the Fair Employment Practices Act covers more than just color, race, creed, because what we are aiming at is an overall picture that will make employment opportunity available to all of those physically able and trained to take the job.

We are talking about the middle-aged person, for instance. I am surprised we don't have the older worker in this although we tried last year to get him in.

What do they call an older worker, a man who is 40 years old with six children? If he does not have six children he is not considered an older worker under workmen's compensation laws and so forth.

So I don't think we could pass a law without some consideration given to the matter of sex.