In some parts of the country, Mr. Chairman, prejudice is just as violent against Catholics as it is in other parts against Negroes. Since business has become so centralized and fallen more and more into the hands of a few men who control the lives and the welfare of millions upon millions of people, I think it is time that the Federal Government stepped in to see to it that the prejudice of a few does not relegate millions to secondary citizenship. I think that this is a new and basic approach to the need for FEPC legislation. I know, as I studied the testimony before the Small Business Committee, I began to look at it in a little different way than I had before. We are also told that the program of civil rights contravenes the principle of States' rights. Let us put the issue more accurately. The legislation I have proposed and is proposed by the chairman of the committee and the administration, is designed to protect the right of all Americans to earn a livelihood at any trade without discrimination because of race or creed. Surely this is a basic right. Surely this is one of the foundations of the dignity of the human person. And surely it must be preferred over the arid principle of State rights— or, to be more accurate, the principle of State wrongs. For what rights are involved in our opponents' program-the right of States to prevent people from finding jobs because of their color? If this were not a wrong-instead of a State's right-this issue never would have arisen. I have, further in my statement, an analysis of my bill, and that would also apply to an analysis of the bill before you. I will not take time to read it now, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to include it in my testimony. Mr. POWELL. I want personally to thank the gentlewoman from California for a most excellent statement, and, without objection, the material which she asked to include later on this afternoon, is ordered included in the record. (The material referred to is as follows:) ANALYSIS OF THE BILL 1. It is declared to be the policy of the United States to protect the right of employment without discrimination and to eliminate such discrimination in all employment relations within the jurisdicton or control of the Federal Government. 2. The prohibition against discrimination applies to employers and labor organizations. Domestic service and small business are exempted from the scope of the bill by a provision which defines "employer" as a person engaged in interstate commerce who employs 50 or more individuals. Similarly, the only labor organizations covered are those which have 50 or more members in the employ of employers covered by the bill. Also exempted from operation of the act are States, municipalities, and political subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, fraternal, social, educational, or other nonprofit corporations except labor unions. Federal Government agencies are covered by the bill. 3. The heart of the bill defines unlawful employment practices as a refusal to hire, or to discharge or otherwise penalize, any employee with respect to his employment because of his race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Labor organizations are forbidden to discriminate against any individual or to limit, segregate, or classify its members in any way which would deprive or limit an individual's employment opportunities because of his race, etc. It must be noted that the prohibitions do not go beyond saying that there shall be no discrimination because of factors which have no real relationship to an employee's fitness or qualifications. Management is left free to set its hiring practices, organize its internal plant policy, and discharge employees, according to any standard it may adopt so long as there is no discrimination because of race or the other prohibited irrelevant factors. In the same way, organized labor is free to manage its internal affairs according to its own lights, except that it, too, may not deny any of the advantages of union membership or collective bargaining to any person because of race, etc. No group in the American economy is more jealous of its prerogatives and its rights to be free from arbitrary Government restraints. It is altogether signifi cant, therefore, that America's two great labor organizations have endorsed the provisions of this bill. They see in it no threat to their legitimate interests or their legitimate right to be free from unjust Government interference. 4. Administration of the bill is entrusted to a national commission against discrimination in employment composed of seven members to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The members of the Commission hold office for overlapping terms at the outset of 1-7 years, and their successors hold 5-year terms. 5. In order to secure the maximum adoption by industry and labor of the fair employment practices prescribed by the act without invoking legal sanctions, provision is made for the creation on local, State, and regional levels of advisory conciliation councils. The experience of the States that have FEPC laws testifies that impressive results have been achieved through conciliation and media. tion, and that rarely, if ever, are legal sanctions invoked. 6. The conduct of the Commission's enforcement powers are prescribed as follows: First, the Commission shall investigate the sworn, written charges of persons claiming to be aggrieved and shall endeavor to eliminate the practice complained of by conferences or conciliation. If voluntary compliance efforts fail, then hearings shall be held before the Commission, in conformity with the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, and in appropriate cases cease-and-desist orders are to be issued. 7. Judicial review of cease-and-desist orders is provided in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission's orders to cease-and-desist from unlawful employment practices or to take curative action (e. g. reinstatement, or hiring of employees with or without back pay) are legally enforceable only after they have received judicial approval from the appropriate Federal court. 8. Rules and regulations may be issued by the Commission in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act; but the Congress may, by concurrent resolution, disapprove of any regulation issued by the Commission. COMMENTS ON FEPC FROM STATES IN WHICH LEGISLATION IS IN EFFECT From State to State, the same arguments are being used against fair employment practices legislation. It may be helpful to examine these arguments in the light of statements made by business and industrial leaders in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, where FEP laws have been in operation for some time. WILL AN FEP LAW ACTUALLY WORK? Many people express the opinion that a fair employment practices law cannot possibly be an effective instrument for equalizing employment opportunity, in view of the rigidity of discriminatory patterns in many businesses and industries. A measure of the effectiveness of present FEP laws can be arrived at by examination of the annual reports of the administrative agencies in the States where the laws are in force. The reports indicate without exception that, though the process is slow, progress is being made in many areas. * Peter Grimm, former president of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York says: "The * * anti-discrimination law, after 22 years of trial (in New York), appears to have operated effectively, so far as I have been able to judge from talks with men in various lines of business. The administration of the law has been effective and salutary." On February 8, 1948, the New York Herald Tribune bore witness to the effectiveness of New York's fair employment practices law: 66* * * The Ives antidiscrimination program is something that works; in close to 3 years of existence the State Commission Against Discrimination, conceived among great argument and misgivings by many, has quietly shown the way that conciliation and persuasion can establish completely new patterns." R. T. Barker, superintendent of personnel administration, Western Electric Co., Inc., New York, has this to say: "It is my own opinion that the administration of the fair employment practice law in the States of New York and New Jersey has been fair and reasonable and has not entailed any undue hardship on employers who are trying to do a conscientious job in their employee relations situations. We have not experienced any difficulty in meeting the requirements of these laws and so far as I know, they have been accepted generally by our employees." DOES FEPC VIOLATE THE AMERICAN SPIRIT OF FREE ENTERPRISE? One argument commonly raised is that fair employment practices legislation is a violation of the "traditional American spirit of free enterprise" and that it interferes with the exercise of managerial prerogatives. A statement contained in a letter to the New York State Commission Against Discrimination from the head of a State-wide organization of retail merchants bears on this question: "Surely, the present law imposes no hardships on the employer. It simply applies penalties to acts of discrimination when those acts deprive an inhabitant of our State of the fundamental human rights which he has; namely, the right to earn a living. There is nothing involved or intricate about the requirements of the law. The employer is merely asked to hire or retain in employment the best man or woman for the job. It simply says that regardless of race, color, or national origin, he or she cannot be barred from employment so long as he or she meets all of the qualifications which the employer has set for the job." ARE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES A PROPER AREA FOR LEGISLATION? Often the argument is voiced that it is impossible to do away with prejudice by legislation, and that therefore fair employment practices legislation offers no real solution to the problem of employment discrimination. As a matter of fact, FEP measures are not designed to attack prejudice itself, but instead, to prevent overt expression of prejudice as manifested in industrial discrimination. F. Frank Vorenberg, former mayor of Springfield and president of Gilchrist & Co., one of the largest and oldest department stores in Massachusetts, has this to say on this question: "While there is no doubt considerable value to the threat of legal action if fair employment practices are not followed, I like to think that the principal value of the statute and of the constructive activities of the commission has been in offsetting the fears so commonly expressed by employers during the committee hearings on the bill and elsewhere, the fear of legislating in an area where moral principles ought to be the guiding factor, and the fear of the effect of employing members of minority groups in positions where they had traditionally not been employed. The statute and the policies of the commission have gone a long way to prove the truth of the famous phrase used in President Roosevelt's first inaugural. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Commission is in receipt of a letter from Roger L. Putnam, president of the Package Machinery Co., stating the following: "Neither as chairman of you advisory council, here in Springfield, nor as a manufacturer have I ever heard anyone in the last 2 years say that the law ought to be changed. Every one now admits that the principles that FEP legislation is striving for are just." 1 During the month of February, the division against discrimination of the New Jersey Department of Education initiated a survey to ascertain the reactions of industrialists and other employers to the operation of the New Jersey antidiscrimination law. The questionnaire, which was directed to 158 employees in all parts of the State, representing all sizes and kinds of businesses, made the following inquires: (1) Has the New Jersey antidiscrimination law caused any new difficulties or problems in your business or community? (2) Has the antidiscrimination law interfered with your basic right to select the most competent workers for your operations? The division against discrimination is the agency empowered to administer the New Jersey antidiscrimination law. (3) Do you believe that the antidiscrimination law has been fairly and effectively administered by the Department of Education in New Jersey? By mid-March the division against discrmination had receive 65 responses, which, without exception, report reactions favorable to the law. Several of the letters received by the division are attached in full in addition to excerpts from other letters. ROBERT E. SEGAL, FILENE'S DEPARTMENT STORE, Executive Director, Jewish Community Council, Boston 8, Mass. DEAR MR. SEGAL: As a businessman I am in favor of the Fair Employment Practice Act insofar as the act in its administration in Massachusetts in concerned. It is my opinion that under the legislation our State commission is proceeding soundly toward the cooperation of all kinds of business, such action being largely education rather than punitive. Great difficulty and trouble was predicted during the discussions prior to the passage of the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Act and those fears have not materialized. Out of 500 complaints on discrimination during the past 2 years all but 31 have either been withdrawn or settled to the satisfaction of both parties, and the 31 mentioned are now pending and in the process of adjusment. This sounds like real progress to me. Sincerely, H. D. HODGKINSON, Vice President and Manager. ST. REGIS PAPER CO., PANELYTE DIVISION, Mr. HAROLD A. LETT, State of New Jersey, Department of Education, Division Against Discrimination, Newark 2, N. J. DEAR MR. LETT: In reply to your questionnaire concerning the effect of State's antidiscrimination law, we would like to advise you that we have had very little difficulty with it. No problems that have not previously been with us have been raised since the inception of the law, nor has it interfered with our hiring procedure. A few cases which have required investigation by your department have been handled in a very efficient and fair manner. We have previously written your department, setting forth the same opinion. We believe that you are doing your job quietly and well. OSCAR DULL, Jr., Director, Industrial Relations. NEW YORK SHIPBUILDING CORP., State of New Jersey, Department of Education, (Attention Mr. Harold A. Lett, Chief Assistant) GENTLEMEN: In reply to your inquiry of February 24, 1949, we wish to say that the subject law has caused no new difficulties or problems in our business. Regarding this, it may be well to point out that the management of this corporation has always recognized the inherent right of an otherwise qualified individual to be gainfully employed here regardless of race, creed, or color. We are aware of no added problems or difficulties in the community caused by the law. The law in question has not interfered with our right to select the most competent workers for our operations. We have heard no adverse criticism concerning the administration of the antidiscrimination law by the Department of Education in New Jersey. Very truly yours, C. E. SHARP, Industrial Relations Manager. Mr. HAROLD A. LETT, NEW JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE CO., Chief Assistant, Department of Education, State of New Jersey, Newark 2, N. J. DEAR MR. LETT: This is in reply to your questions regarding the effect on employers of the State's antidiscrimination law. In this connection, you have asked three questions and, briefly, the answers are as follows: 1. As this company had made some progress in the integration of racial groups prior to the passage of the New Jersey antidiscrimination law, I would say that no serious difficulties since its passage have been introduced. The question is now taken as a matter of course. 2. The antidiscrimination law has not interfered with our right to select the most competent workers. 3. We believe that the antidiscrimination law has been administered with an unusual amount of understanding by the department of education. Yours sincerely, A. P. MONROE, Vice President. Mr. HAROLD A. LETT, LEA FABRICS, INC., Newark, N. J., March 17, 1949. New Jersey State Department of Education, Newark, N. J. DEAR MR. LETT: While our observation and knowledge of the operation of the States antidiscrimination law is somewhat limited, I am pleased to answer your letter of the 16th. Shortly after the law went into effect, we were charged with discrimination, and one of your representatives called and made an investigation. He was given every opportunity to interview anyone he saw fit, including union officers. His report showed he found no discrimination. The real point is not that the company was cleared of the charge, but that the investigation was made in a fair &nd impartial manner. In answer to your specific questions, I would say that this law has, insofar our company is concerned, introduced no new difficulties in our business or interfered with our selection of the most competent workers. I believe from our experience that the law is fairly administered. Very truly yours, E. K. FILES, President. EXCERPTS FROM LETTERS FROM EMPLOYERS "March 19, 1949. * * * It is a pleasure to hear from you in your letter of March 16. It is certainly a pleasure on my part also to give a testimonial to the fine manner in which Commissioner Bustard and all of you on his staff have handled the assignment here in New Jersey. I don't know that I can say more, but would be glad to write or talk with anyone who might have any questions on the subject. * * * Yours sincerely, W. H. Hill, Baldwin-Hill Co., 500 Breunig Avenue, Trenton 2, N. J." "While we cannot speak from first-hand experience, all that we have learned from observation, discussion, public and private comment, leads to the inference that the department of education of the State of New Jersey, is doing an excellent job in fair and effective administration of the antidiscrimination law. * * The Lionel Corp., 28 Sager Place, Irvington. Anthony Mercolino, assistant to vice president, industrial relations." * "March 10, 1949. * * ** The administration of the antidiscrimination law, to the best of our knowledge, has been fairly and effectively done by the department of education in New Jersey and we have had no trouble nor inconvenience in abiding by the terms of the law. Very truly yours, Sigmund Eisner Co., 240 Bridge Avenue, Red Bank, N. J. C. R. Sellar, controller." "March 14, 1949. * * * It is my opinion that the antidiscrimination law has been fairly and effectively administered by the department of education in New Jersey. We have had several contacts with field representatives of your office, and in every instance have found them to be reliable and open-minded when making investigations. Inquiry on the part of your department has served to point up some of our personnel practices resulting in improved management. |