Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

(Critics also poinfèd out that the New York commission was appointed by the Governor "by and with the advice and consent of the senate.' Senate bill 984 similarly provides that the members of the proposed "National Commission Against Discrimination in Employment" shall be "appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.")

(3) The measure ignored the California Administrative Procedure Act of 1945.

(The board of trustees of the Los Angeles Bar Association, "without expressing any opinion as to whether it is desirable or practical that legislation be enacted embodying the major objective of the proposed Fair Employment Practices Act (proposition 11 at the coming general election," attacked the measure because the procedure which it provided for did not conform to the Adminis trative Procedure Act adopted by the legislature in 1945 after intensive study by the judicial council, many State agencies, and the bar. Senate bill 984 provides for complete adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Public Law 404 of the Seventy-ninth Congress.)

(4) The proposition deprived the State courts of power to stay any order of the commission or grant other temporary relief, pending review.

(Proposition 11 declared in its section 10 that, "The filing of a petition for review shall not operate as a stay of the commission's order. No court of this State shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, or preliminary or permanent injunction, or any other restraint preventing the commission from performing any of its functions. Nor shall any court have jurisdiction to make any order affecting the commission or its orders, except as specifically provided in this act."

(Both the New York law and Senate bill 984 expressly confer upon the reviewing court "power to grant such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper." Section 8 (i) of Senate bill 984 also provides that, by order of court, the commencement of review proceedings may operate as a stay of the Commission's order.)

III, GOVERNOR WARREN, ALL LABOR GROUPS, CIVIC GROUPS, AND CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSED THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LEGISLATION

At the opening of the Fifty-seventh California Legislature in 1947, our distinguished Republican Governor, Earl A. Warren, transmitted a message to the members of the senate and assembly containing the following statement relative to fair employment practice legislation:

"Every war has its aftermath of hatred, discrimination, and persecution. World War II is no exception. Even now, as people of good will strive to prepare a world order based upon justice and fair dealing, we find race hatred disturbing world peace. Here in free America fanatics are already at work to divide us by preaching that doctrine. I am sure that cosmopolitan California does not condone such practices, and I also feel certain that in rejecting proposition No. 11 at the recent election our people intended only to withhold their approval from a measure they consider unworkable. I believe they would like - to eliminate discrimination so far as is humanly possible."

Significantly enough, in view of the left-wing sponsorship of the defeated proposition, Senator Jack B. Tenney, chairman of the joint fact-finding committee on un-American activities, introduced senate bill 80 into the fifty-seventh legislature at the instance of the Governor. This bill called for the establishment of a commission on political and economic equality to investigate the extent of job discrimination and similar conditions and recommend remedial legislation to the legislature and Governor. Like a similar measure introduced on behalf of the Governor 2 years previously, this bill (to use Earl Warren's own words) "failed of passage because there were on the one hand those who were unwilling to take any action and on the other hand those who insisted on doing more."

At the forty-fourth annual convention of the California State Federation of Labor held at San Francisco, four resolutions were submitted favoring permanent antidiscrimination legislation. At the afternoon session on June 21, 1946, the State federation convention reaffirmed its consistent position "as being opposed to any discrimination against anyone exercising the right to make a living to the fullest degree of his capabilities, regardless of race or national origin" (convention proceedings, p. 311).

With respect to the measure which later came to be designated as proposition 11, the resolutions committee of the California State Federation of Labor

observed that "it had some objectionable features" but endorsed the principle of the measure with those reservations "in order not to put the convention on record as opposed to antidiscrimination [legislation]" (convention proceedings, p. 312).

The Los Angeles Central Labor Council, representing 500,000 A. F. of L. members in that county, has specifically endorsed Senate bill 984, and other labor bodies throughout California have done likewise.

The Welfare Council of Metropolitan Los Angeles, a department of the Community Welfare Federation, representing some 35 cities and towns, which has conducted welfare planning and research and the annual Community Chest appeal for some 21 years, reaffirmed its position in favor of a Fair Employment Practices Act in a social legislation bulletin issued in October 1946. The council even endorsed proposition 11 in lieu of any other legislation.

The principle of fair employment practice legislation has been endorsed by outstanding religious leaders of our community, Archbishop John J. Cantwell, of the Roman Catholic Church; Bishop W. Bertrand Stevens, of the Episcopal Church; Rabbi Edgar F. Magnin; and Dr. E. C. Farnham, of the Protestant Church Federation, with the statement: "We must put upon our statute books the legal guaranty that * the American concept of human equality, to which men look for guidance in the principles and practices of liberty, shall become at last more than a hope and a desired end

**

[ocr errors]

*

*

The Church Federation of Los Angeles endorsed "The Fair Employment Practices Commission in principle as a progressive step toward interracial understanding."

There is no need to burden this statement with a recapitulation of the dozens of endorsements of Senate bill 984 which have already been forwarded to the committee by leading citizens, labor organizations, YMCA and YWCA branches, religious bodies, civic organizations, and the like from Los Angeles County and other places in California. It is sufficient to state that the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC has copies of numerous endorsements of the bill in its files, and would have been pleased to list them for the record at the hearing in Washington if its representative had been afforded an opportunity to testify orally.

IV. IF THE CALIFORNIA VOTERS HAD NOT BELIEVED THAT PROPOSITION 11 CONTAINED LEFT-WING IDEOLOGIES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED BY THE OVERWHELMING SENTIMENT IN FAVOR OF ANTIDISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION

The communistic connection of many members of the sponsoring committee for proposition 11 made the measure a ready target for attack, particularly by extreme right-wing groups.

A so-called Committee for Tolerance was set up to bring about a "No" vote on the measure, posing as a "cross section of Southern California citizenry.” The board of directors of the California Retailers Association announced that it was "opposed to discrimination in any form" but condemned proposition 11 because "it has gone far beyond the very desirable objective." Three highly conservative Los Angeles churchmen branded the proposed initiative as "unChristian and un-American"-Rev. James W. Fifield, Jr., Rev. Paul C. Johnson, and Dr. Willsie Martin. The Committee for Tolerance echoed with the charge that it was "a Communist-inspired scheme." Another reactionary front, the so-called Women of the Pacific denounced the proposal as "advocated by Communists, left-wingers, and racial pressure groups seeking special privileges." A summary of the arguments pro and con distributed by the Pacific Southwest Area Council of the YMCA raised the question, "Is not the proposition Communist-inspired and an aid to subversive borers from within?"

It is easy to understand why proposition 11 was defeated last November 5. It is important to understand that the responsible and loyal citizens who favored antidiscrimination legislation before the defeat of proposition 11 still favor the general principle of fair employment practice laws, and specifically Senate bill 984 as originally drawn.

Moreover, the same voters of southern California who voted against proposition 11 elected Congressmen who were on record favoring a national, act against discrimination in employment.

Both Senator Sheridan Downey, a cosponsor of Senate bill 984, and Senator William F. Knowland voted in favor of cloture to end debate and permit a vote on FEPC legislation in the Seventy-ninth Congress. The junior Senator from California was reelected at the 1946 balloting.

A poll of opposing candidates for Congress from southern California conducted by the Church Federation of Los Angeles contained the following answers to the question, "Should the wartime Fair Employment Practices Commission be made permanent?" by successful office seekers:

Twelfth District-Richard M. Nixon (Republican): "Yes; with necessary modifications in administration and policy."

Thirteenth District-Norris Poulson (Republican): "Yes."
Fourteenth District-Helen Gahagan Douglas (Democrat): "Yes."
Sixteenth District-Donald L. Jackson (Republican): "Undecided."

Eighteenth District-Willis W. Bradley (Republican): "lieve in fair practices. Would be glad to have a commission authorized to enforce such practices

[ocr errors]

Twentieth District-Carl Hinshaw (Republican): “Yes.”

Of the three unopposed Members of the House, Cecil R. King (Republican), of the Seventeenth District, and Chet Holifield (Democrat), of the Nineteenth District, were clearly on record for legislation such as Senate bill 984.

These Members of Congress truly represent the pronounced views of their constituents in favor of this vital legislation. In California, today, 11 percent of the total labor force are unemployed, but 30 percent of the nonwhites are without work. A check of the employment offices in the city of Los Angeles, for example, shows that Negroes, who constitute 8.6 percent of the population, comprise about 45 percent of the job applicants. Discrimination is prevalent, running from 20 percent on common-labor jobs to 100 percent in many skilled trades.

California cities cannot afford to maintain a permanent class of unemployed citizens because of discriminatory job practices. The price of maintaining such a group is too high in terms of public-welfare costs, police-protection costs, fireprotection costs, health risks, and injury to the public morals.

We urge the passage of Senate bill 984, therefore, in its original form, and without weakening modifications.

Senator DONNELL. Our next witness is Mr. Salert.

STATEMENT OF IRVING SALERT, FIELD DIRECTOR, JEWISH LABOR COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. SALERT. I am Irving Salert, field director, Jewish Labor Committee. I am testifying for Mr. Adolph Held, national chairman. Senator DONNELL. We have both of you listed, but you will present it.

You are field director?

Mr. SALERT. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Where is your home?

Mr. SALERT. My home is in New York.

Senator DONNELL. Do you mind telling us where you were born and where you have lived during your lifetime?

Mr. SALERT. I was born in New York City. I have lived in Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, and Brooklyn. I have traveled over the 48 States of our Union and the Provinces of Canada.

Senator DONNELL. You have never lived in the southern portion of our country, however, except Virginia and Maryland; is that right? Mr. SALERT. That is right, sir.

Senator DONNELL. NOW, what is the Jewish Labor Committee?
Mr. SALERT. May I read the statement, sir?

Senator DONNELL. Yes; but could you not just tell us?

Mr. SALERT. The Jewish Labor Committee, in whose behalf I am appearing here today, is a national organization consisting of over one-half million Jewish working men and women, and has affiliated with it every AFL and CIO union with a substantial Jewish membership.

Senator DONNELL. Now, Mr. Salert, I am not clear as to just what a commitee of over half a million people is; it may be just the name, the Jewish Labor Committee, that leads to that confusion in my mind, but I would like to ask you what is that organization. Is it a corporation; is it a voluntary organization?

Mr. SALERT. It is a voluntary organization of national unions, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union; the United Retail and Wholesale Employees, CIO; United Hatters and Millinery Workers, AFL; Textile Workers, CIÓ; the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO; Workmen's Lodges, a fraternal order in America and Canada with over 70,000 members; the United Hebrew Trades, AFL; and other local unions that are predominantly Jewish in character.

On our board, Mr. Adolph Held is chairman: Mr. David Dubinsky is general secretary; Mr. Joseph Baskin is general secretary of the Workmen's Lodges. There are also 35 vice chairmen who are top leaders in AFL and CIO unions in the United States.

Among them are Mr. Louis Hollender, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America; Abe Miller; Mr. Jacobs, president of the hat and millinery workers; and other such leaders.

Senator DONNELL. Would you tell us something, Mr. Salert, of Mr. Held, who was also to have been here this morning?

Mr. SALERT. Mr. Held for 20 years was with the Amalgamated Bank of New York. At present he is director of health and welfare for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union of the AFL, which takes care of approximately 400,000 working men and women in the United States and Canada.

Senator DONNELL. The bank to which you refer is one organized by the unions?

Mr. SALERT. The bank is the institution owned and controlled by the Amalagamated Clothing Workers of America.

Senator DONNELL. I see.

Do you speak of this Jewish Labor Committee as consisting of over one-half million men and women; do you mean that each one of those belongs to the Jewish Labor Committee or just the organizations to which they belong?

Mr. SALERT. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. How many organizations actually belong to the Jewish Labor Committee?

Mr. SALERT. About 117.

Senator DONNELL. About 117. Then the membership of those 117 organizations is the one in excess of one-half million.

Mr. SALERT. The membership of the 117 organizations make up about 3,000,000 men and women. The Jewish members

Senator DONNELL. Of those 3,000,000, one-half million are Jewish

men and women. I see. All right; proceed, Mr. Salert.

Mr. SALERT. We believe in the American principle that every person willing and able to work has the right to a job commensurate with his ability. When this right is denied, then the confidence of our people in the efficiency of democratic government is weakened and the foundations of our democracy are undermined. How much more dangerous to American principles is the practice which one finds in some places of employment, of distinguishing between one group of persons who are hired, promoted, and paid on the basis of ability, and

other groups who are denied jobs or the pay to which their ability entitles them because they belong to a disfavored religious, racial, or national grouping.

It is unnecessary for me to argue the justice of the Ives-Norton bill, or the fact that its passage is in the interest of the groups now suffering from discrimination. I am rather more concerned to point out that its adoption is in the interest of every productive American citizen. Discrimnation in employment strikes, to a greater or lesser extent, at every working member of the community. The cases of discrimination which have been handled by the Federal and State commissions prove that there is no group that is immune from discrimination. While substantial numbers of cases are recorded of discrimination against Negroes, Mexicans, and orientals, against Jews and Catholics, against Italians, Irish, and Slavs, the records also show that some members of any group you can name have been discriminated against in certain situations by one employer or another, so that even in the narrowest sense the proposed bill serves as protection for all races, religions, and nationalities.

In a broader sense, however, our whole history and the experiences of the war period has taught us that the attack on the rights of one group is a menance to the entire community; that when the rights of one section are denied, the rights of all others are in danger. For the majority of the American people who work for wages or salaries, the low standards and evil conditions which result from discrimination against one group continuously depress and menace the standards of all wage and salary workers in the Nation.

Our wartime experience proves that the employment of persons on the basis of ability, and regardless of nationality, race, and creed, is in the economic interests of the entire country. At no time has production been so great or efficient. There is no evidence that at any period in our history has there been greater harmony among workers in plants and offices. The evidence proves what common sense should have taught us, that if we draw our workers from the total labor force, entirely on the basis of ability, we will get the most efficient possible production and lower prices resulting from this greater efficiency.

The question of the preservation of peace in the world and the protection and extension of democracy abroad will be determined in part by the comparative world support which the United States will achieve as opposed to the U. S. S. R. The totalitarian forces of the world are working overtime at extending their influence. Arms play only a minor role in the extension of totalitarian influence today. The major role is played by propaganda. Throughout Central and South America, in India, Japan, and other Asiatic countries, in Africa, in Italy, in France, totalitarian expansion and the struggle against democratic forces is closely allied with anti-American propaganda. Every item. of discrimination which can be shown to exist in the United States serves as fuel for the totalitarian propaganda machine. This propaganda machine, the most powerful in the world, rejoices at every discriminatory practice, at every racist influence which they can truthfully describe as present in the United States. We cannot fight propaganda with arms. We must fight it with truth.

We must be able to say and to demonstrate that in the United States, it is illegal to discriminate in employment against any individual because of his race, creed, color or national origin. Job discrimination

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »