Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Jews or members of any other racial, religious or national group. Nor does it require any employer to hire a certain percentage of any group, for there is no quota plan attached to any FEPC legislation.

An employer may hire whomever he pleases, so long as he does not reject an otherwise qualified applicant because of his race, religion or national origin. The same freedom and the same single limitation applies to training,. promotion and discharge. FEPC grants no special privilege to any group; it merely safeguards workers against discrimination.

It is sometimes contended that FEPC creates labor difficulties. Here, again, the facts prove otherwise. The overwhelming majority of labor unions stand strongly behind legislation for fair employment practices. Furthermore, legislation placing the weight of government behind the extension of equality, helps to educate workers and reduce bigotry. Almost always, when difficulty was anticipated in adding members of minority groups to the labor force, such difficulty failed to materialize.

The same experience has been true of stores, hotels and places of public accommodation, many of which feared they would lose customers upon introducing colored workers to their staffs. Almost without exception, such fears proved unfounded.

Americans have always guarded zealously their freedom from government interference, viewing with suspicion-and rightly so-anything which they felt might represent an encroachment. But government interference is not involved here. Fair employment practice legislation puts a few, reasonable limitations upon us, in order to insure greater freedom, greater equality and greater prosperity for all. It was John Foster Dulles who summed up this position so well when he stated:

Most of us in the United States believe strongly in free enterprise but some times we forget that freedom and duty always go hand in hand, and that if the free do not accept social responsibility, they will not remain free. The right of our enterprise to be free will in the long run depend upon whether free enterprise recognizes a duty to provide men with equal opportunities. Industrial freedom cannot indefinitely survive as license to discriminate against men because of their race, color or religion.

That was in an address by John Foster Dulles, New York, March 6, 1948.

I have here a summary of the pending congressional bills for fair employment practices, outlining their basic provisions as the American Jewish Committee understands them. I should like to include this summary in the record, with the statement that, of the bills thus far drafted, the American Jewish Committee considers the Powell bill, H. R. 4453, and its companion in the Senate, the McGrath bill, S. 1728, as preferable. We would, however, like to see these bills amended to include "ancestry" among the grounds of discrimination covered by the statute.

Mr. POWELL. The summary of pending FEPC bills will be included in the record.

(The summary is as follows:)

SUMMARY OF PENDING FEPC BILLS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The proposed "Federal Fair Employment Practice Act," H. R. 4453, introduced by Mr. Powell of New York, declares that it shall be "an unlawful employment practice for an empoyer" who is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and

who employs 50 or more persons, "to refuse to hire, to discharge or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion or national origin" (sec. 5 (a) (1)). In addition, an employer is prohibited from using any employment agency or placement service which discriminates (sec. 5 (a) (2)). Also, labor organizations having 50 or more members may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin in admission or classification of members (sec. 5 (a) (3)).

A five-man Commission is created within the executive branch of the Government to carry out the purposes of the act (sec. 6 (a)). Any person who believes that he has been the victim of an unlawful employment practice may within one year file a sworn charge with the Commission which is then obligated to investigate the charge and, if the charge is substantiated, to attempt to eliminate the unlawful practice "by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion" (sec. 7 (b)). If informal methods fail, the Commission may order a hearing at which the charges of discrimination will be aired (sec. 7 (c)). In the event the Commission is convinced, after hearing both sides, that the unlawful employment practice occurred, it may issue an order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful practice (sec. 7 (j)). If the respondent still refuses to comply with the order, the Commission may apply to the United States circuit court of appeals for an enforcement mandate-in the ultimate form of a contempt of court citation (sec. 8 (b)). Provision is also made for the filing of charges of discrimination by any member of the Commission who has knowledge of an unlawful employment practice. (Sec. 7 (b)).

The bill contains the customary safeguards for separation of the prosecuting and judicial functions of the Commission (sec. 7 (g)), for representation by counsel and protection of the right of confrontation and of cross-examinations, (sec. 7 (d) and for compliance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (sec. 7 (1)). The Commission is empowered to appoint staff members; to cooperate with regional, State, and local agencies; to furnish technical assistance to persons subject to the act and to make necessary studies; to assist employers whose employees "refuse or threaten to refuse to coperate in effectuating the provisions of the act;" to create local, state or regional advisory and conciliation councils for the purpose of fostering community goodwill and coperation in carrying out the purposes of the law; and to help concilate the differences and tensions between various groups and elements of the population. Recognizing the trend of individual States to enact local fair employment practice laws, the act provides that the Federal Commission may, by agreement with any agency of any State, "cede to such agency jurisdiction over cases (which) involve charges of unlawful employment practices" unless the provisions or interpretations of such local statutes are inconsistent with the Federal law (sec. 7 (a)).

Customary provision is made for court enforcement, if necessary, of subpenas issued by the Commission (sec. 9(d)) and for safeguarding the constitutional rights of witnesses not to be prosecuted for self-incriminating evidence given under compulsion (sec. 9 (e)).

If any Government agency is found to have engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the Commission is required to lay the matter before the President for appropriate action (sec. 10 (a)) instead of applying to the circuit court for an enforcement mandate. The President is also empowered to establish regulations to prevent unlawful employment practices by persons entering into contracts with the United States Government or any of its agencies in cases where such contracts involve more than $10,000 (sec. 10 (b)). Such executive regulations will be enforced by the Commission.

Persons subject to the act are required to post a notice giving sufficient information about the law to inform employees and members of labor unions of their rights (sec. 11). Penalties by fine or imprisonment are provided only for conviction for forcibly resisting or interfering with agents of the Commission engaged in the performance of their duties under the law (sec. 14).

OTHER PENDING BILLS

(1) H. R. 192, sponsored by Mr. Javits, is substantially the same as H. R. 4453 except that it covers ancestry as well as race, religion, color, and national origin; it provides for a Commission of seven members instead of five; and the express provision for ceding matters to State fair employment commission is omitted.

The Douglas, Fulton, and Dawson bills are identical with H. R. 192 and are in effect the Ives-Norton bills of the Eightieth Congress.

(2) H. R. 371, sponsored by Mr. Celler, is also substantially like H. R. 4453 except that ancestry is included and the term "creed" is used instead of "religion"; "employer" is defined to mean a person employing six or more persons; a fivemember Commission is established; it contains no provision requiring conference, conciliation, and persuasion prior to the issuance of a complaint by the Commission; it contains a requirement that nondiscriminatory provisions be incorporated in contracts made with the United States Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities; and it prohibits the Government or its agencies, for a period up to 1 year, from entering into contracts with persons who have engaged in unfair employment practices.

(3) S. 1728, sponsored by Senator McGrath, is identical in all respects with H. R. 4453 and is the companion bill in the Senate.

Mr. POWELL. We appreciate your testimony.

Our next witness is Mrs. Dorothy Medders Robinson.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. DOROTHY MEDDERS ROBINSON, CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, WOMEN'S DIVISION OF THE METHODIST CHURCH

Mrs. ROBINSON. I am Dorothy Medders Robinson, speaking for the Christian social relations and local church activities of the women's division of Christian service of the Methodist Church.

The women's division of this church has consistently supported the principles of State and Federal employment-practice legislation. This support was reaffirmed by the division at its annual meeting in December 1948.

We believe in principle in the right of men to find employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Belief in this principle stems from our heritage as American citizens as well as from our Christian heritage of human brotherhood. We are proud, as Americans, of our legacy of freedom and understanding that any infringement of it which affects the integrity of our fellow citizens reflects upon the Nation as a whole.

We hold that this freedom is the greatest safeguard against totalitarianism whether at home or abroad. Infinite care is taken of our atomic weapons and billions of dollars are spent for their creation but this greatest bulwark of all, our freedom, is curtailed in curious ways, some of them conscious, some unconscious.

We find it difficult to understand also, gentlemen, how it is that we can continue to practice discrimination in our domestic life and at the same time support the United Nations Organization and a universal declaration of human rights. Such dualism cannot but undermine our integrity in the eyes of the world. Indeed our very freedom becomes a mockery if such continues to be the case.

We are members of the Christian Church. Our faith is that God is Father of all races; that all men are brothers, each of infinite worth as a son of God. We believe that the personality of each individual is of inestimable value and that all institutions should be tested in the light of their effect upon personality.

Inasmuch as lack of employment, as well as discrimination itself, tends to undermine and cause deterioration in the personalities of all individuals concerned, we believe that it is our Christian duty to do our utmost to provide an equal opportunity for all men to earn a livelihood.

Each of us shares in the guilt for the prevalent violation of these basic rights, consequently, we must all share in the responsibility for their removal. We understand that this removal is twofold: (1) In the minds of men, and (2) by law, on statute books. We are asking you, therefore, to enact a law prohibiting the violation of this basic right to work, and you may rest assured that Methodist women will not cease to work for corresponding change in the minds of men.

Pride in national citizenship as well as the demands of our Christian heritage make it imperative that organized women of the Methodist Church support H. R. 4453, a bill to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Thank you.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mrs. Robinson.

Mrs. Robinson, you speak for the entire body as the result of a meeting at the annual convention of 1948 reaffirming support of FEPC?

Mrs. ROBINSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. POWELL. The Methodist Church used to be divided, and during recent years they have come together?

Mrs. ROBINSON. That is correct.

Mr. POWELL. And now it is a part of the entire division?

Mrs. ROBINSON. That is correct.

And I think I am speaking conservatively when I say that most of the support for such bills as this, or certain legislation as this, or such legislation as this, is coming from the South, from the southern women themselves.

Mr. POWELL. I wanted to ask you that, but you volunteered. I wanted to ask you that because I happened to be a clergyman also, and I know that various women's groups in the South have gone on record in favor of this type of legislation, and it seems to me that the men of the South are trying to hide behind the petticoats of the women but they no longer can do it. The women of the South are away ahead.

I like one sentence you mentioned in the last paragraph of your statement, or next to the last paragraph in your statement, where you

say:

We are asking you, therefore, to enact a law prohibiting the violation of this basic right to work, and you may rest assured that the Methodist women will not cease to work for the corresponding change in the minds of men.

I like that. I know just what you mean.

Mrs. ROBINSON. You can take it both ways, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. I have no questions.

Mrs. ROBINSON. Thank you. You can consider that as a generic term, and also as the people who must be chiefly acted upon, I think. Mr. POWELL. Thank you ever so much.

Our next witness is from the Americans for Democratic Action. Will you give the lady's name who accompanies you?

Mr. SPAETH. This is Miss Ann Pasternack. She represents 180 chapters of Students for Democratic Action, on as many campuses, and I was going to ask if the chairman would graciously give her a few moments.

Mr. POWELL. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF OTTO L. SPAETH ON BEHALF OF AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. SPAETH. I am Otto L. Spaeth. I am a businessman and a member of Americans for Democratic Action. I am testifying on behalf of the organization in support of H. R. 4453, a bill to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Americans for Democratic Action is an independent political organization of progressives, dedicated to the fullest extension of human freedom and economic security. We are not part of any political party. Among our purposes is to insure that the major parties make good on their promises. It is to urge that members of both parties make good on their promise with regard to FEPC legislation that I am appearing here today.

At its second annual convention in Chicago last month, ADA adopted the following resolution:

A prime item in civil rights legislation must be the creation of Federal and State fair employment practice commissions to end discrimination in hiring and working conditions because of race, creed, color or national origin. We reject any compromise which abandons FEPC legislation. Such legislation should provide legal sanctions for violation and effective enforcement machinery.

This convention decision grows out of our deep conviction that equal employment opportunity is basic to the full realization of democracy-not only by the individual to whom the opportunity must be afforded but by the Nation of which the individual is a citizen. The denial to any of its citizens of fullest economic freedom is a denial of the conscience of a democracy.

The records of this committee and of the Labor Committees of both Houses of previous Congresses are replete with statistical evidence of discriminatory employment practices. I am not prepared, nor do I think it necessary, to add to that report. Both major parties have recognized the existence of this national evil by convention resolution endorsing national FEPC legislation.

There are healthful and hopeful signs that the American people are not only aware of this blight on our democracy but are ready to do something about it. The fact that 10 States and a number of cities have passed measures to eradicate the discrimination evil in employment, points up the necessity for the National Legislature also to act, and to act quickly. The problems of discrimination are national.

It may be argued that the gradual adoption of State FEPC laws makes it unnecessary to have Federal legislation. We in the ADA do not believe this to be a valid argument. It is an argument usually put forth by persons from States that do not have such legislation. It is the argument of those who loudly support State rights but choose to ignore State duties.

I have said that the problems of discrimination are national. They are present in all sections of our country. Goods made or handled by discriminating employers cross all our State lines and are exported. Not just one minority group is involved. Negroes, Jews, Catholics, foreign-born-all are discriminated against in their search for employment and on the job. It happens in varying measures in almost every State in the country where such discrimination is not now unlawful.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »