Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

safeguarding and improving labor standards and working conditions. We have branches in eight States.

Senator DONNELL. What is the total membership?

Mrs. WUBNIG. We have about 3,000 members.

Senator DONNELL. What are those States, if you can name them? Mrs. WUBNIG. New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Florida, Ohio; does that make eight?

Senator DONNELL. That is six.

Mrs. WUBNIG. Washington, D. C.

Senator DONNELL. You count that as one of the States.

Mrs. WUBNIG. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. That leaves one; do you recall what that one is! Mrs. WUBNIG. I cannot offhand; I am sorry.

Senator DONNELL. Is the other one a southern State, do you recall? Mrs. WUBNIG. Nebraska.

Senator DONNELL. Florida is the only southern State?

Mrs. WUBNIG. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. How large a membership does your organization have in Florida?

Mrs. WUBNIG. I do not know the individual break-up of the membership.

Senator DONNELL. You have no idea as to approximately how many members?

Mrs. WUBNIG. No; I do not.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know how many chapters of the organization you have in Florida?

Mrs. WUBNIG. I think that our major chapter is in Miami.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know whether you have any other chapters in Florida?

Mrs. WUBNIG. Yes; but I do not know where the membership is drawn from.

Senator DONNELL. You have only that one chapter in Florida?
Mrs. WUBNIG. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. Will you proceed?

Pardon me just a moment; is your membership confined to the members of any one race or is it nondiscriminatory?

Mrs. WUBNIG. We have no bars upon our membership. We make no distinction as to race, creed, or color.

Senator DONNELL. Very well; will you proceed with your testimony? Mrs. WUBNIG. And with reference to our program and our policy, if I may quote from the prospectus in which is the definition of our program and policies, fighting discriminatory employment practices has always been a major part of the league's activity.

So that we know that all our members are supporters of this work. They would not be members otherwise because it is a major platform in our work.

Senator ELLENDER. How do you maintain yourselves?

Mrs. WUBNIG. Only by the membership dues.

Senator ELLENDER. Were you born in Washington?

Mrs. WUBNIG. No, sir: in New York City.

Senator DONNELL. Have you ever lived in the South except as Washington may be considered South?

Mrs. WUBNIG. No, sir; I have not.

Senator DONNELL. Very well.

Mrs. WUBNIG. We endorse S. 984 because we believe that discrimination against any minority depresses the standards of living for all; that it wastes human resources, and that it threatens the moral basis of the American concept of liberty and justice. We endorse with profound gratification the statement of policy expressed in this bill, and the recognition in that statement that the United States must take positive steps to safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms by declaring the right to employment without discrimination as to race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry as a civil right.

The significant results that can be achieved through education and conciliation have been demonstrated by the experience of the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practices. But we recognize, also, that some cases of discrimination in employment will not yield either to education or conciliation, so that enforcement measures are necessary. To strengthen both education and enforcement we would like to suggest revisions that would more fully implement the purposes of this bill.

And gentlemen, I would offer this purely as sugestions; we are not legal experts so you very easily trip me on legal technicalities.

Senator DONNELL. We shall not endeavor to do so.

Mrs. WUBNIG. But these are suggestions that have occurred to us that we would like to offer for your consideration and they are not in any way to be considered, I hope, as criticisms of the bill or its

purposes.

These are suggestions to strengthen both the enforcement and the education provisions that are included in the bill. The definition of employers, labor organizations, and contractors with the United States in this bill are those with 50 individuals or more. Such a definition seems to us eliminates labor groups of enterprises and organizations that would be unnecessarily relieved of responsibility. An enterprise of 25 workers is already beyond the size that the average family enterprise employs and is an establishment where impersonal relationships already obtain. It seems to us, also, that it might provide a possible loophole for evasions, by encouraging breaking up larger units into units of less than 50. We recommend that the individuals in a unit, therefore, be 25 rather than 50.

Senator IVES. May I raise a question there, Mr. Chairman? I can understand your reasoning in that connection; if you are going to be perfectly logical in this, you should not have any exception at all. We ran into this whole controversy in the State of New York in the consideration of this particular type of legislation.

Finally, as a workable approach we selected six. The question arises, of course, as to what is workable.

It has been thought in the determination here of 50 that if we get it down to include 50 we are going to include a vast majority of all the workers in this country and that once you get the thing established on that basis the rest almost automatically fall in line; therefore the arbitrary 50 is on the basis of workability.

Mrs. WUBNIG. We understand the problems.

Senator IVES. I answer some of these things as we go along. These have been explored not so much by this committee but in years gone by. Mrs. WUBNIG. As I say, Senator, we understand the problems and difficulties that have been faced in the drafting of this legislation and

as I say, these are just suggestions for whatever use you may feel they have for you.

We regret that the exemptions include precisely those employers whose position in the community requires that they set the example of just and democratic principles.

Senator DONNELL. Those exceptions are the ones set forth in section 4?

Mrs. WUBNIG. Yes, sir.

There is no question that bona fide occupational requirements are valid in specific cases, but it is anomalous to free from responsibility those bodies which govern and those institutions which provide the cultural patterns of the community.

Would the Senators care to comment on that?

Senator IVES. Those exceptions were made for the very same reason that the limitation of 50 was placed on them, a matter of workability. The minute you get into that group you are talking about, you are going to run into a terrific amount of difficulty because of conditions within the groups wherein there would be natural resistance and inasmuch as the general pattern is established by eliminating them and including all the rest, it was thought advisable here just as with the New York law-these same exceptions are in the New York law-to eliminate those particular groups.

Mrs. WUBNIG. As I say, we recognize that and

Senator IVES. It is a question of the practical approach.

I mean, if you want to be perfectly literal about this, you can go down and say that every last single individual and every last single organization in this country should be included. But I am afraid you would have something there that would not be workable.

Mrs. WUBNIG. As I say, we merely wish to insert that for establishing our own standard and we recognize, of course, the good will and the intelligence and capacity of the drafters of the bill; I am sure you have faced most of these problems and recognized

Senator DONNELL. Some of us have explored them very deeply and thoroughly over a number of years.

Mrs. Wubnig, you would advocate, I take it, making it mandatory upon a State, municipality, or a political subdivision there to observe the same requirements as this bill imposes upon other employers; is that right?

Mrs. WUBNIG. I think in principle, and with recognition of Senator Ives' position in terms of workability.

Nonetheless, in principle we think it would be a wise and sound procedure to have all the organs, particularly of Government, which does set the example, and which acts as the governing body, to be subjected and to accept the principles of nondiscrimination in employment. Senator DONNELL. Senator Ives.

Senator IVES. I think that it is diminishing this and if it is not, it should be. It is in the New York law, I know. I cannot tell you what part of this bill.

Senator DONNELL. This bill, as I see it, did not apply to every State, municipality, or subdivision-political subdivision.

Senator IVES. You cannot get down to the State angle very well.

Senator DONNELL. I was asking about the State or municipality or political subdivision, for instance, to make it concrete. Would you advocate that it should be obligatory upon the authorities of the State

65936-47-34

of Maryland and of every other State to observe these same requirements that private employers are required to observe under the terms of the bill to observe?

Mrs. WUBNIG. Well, it seems to us that it would be sound and just to require the official bodies to accept the principles of the laws that are administered for the private groups.

Senator DONNELL. Of course, you would have then the situation in which the Federal Government might be called upon to impose penalties upon officials of the State governments; of that I am not sure; I have not thought that through. But you can obviously see the problems that immediately present themselves as between the States and the Federal Government.

Mrs. WUBNIG. I realize that and I realize that these problems have been explored by the gentlemen who drafted the legislation, but we are expressing the hope that these States will either through further Federal legislation or through their own legislation accept the principles of such a bill.

Senator DONNELL. Very well; proceed.

* *

Mrs. WUBNIG. With reference to section 5, line 1, one of the serious forms of discrimination in employment is the refusal to grant the rewards earned by a worker by ability or seniority. We suggest that this line be amended to read "to refuse to hire or promote, to discharge *" There may be a question that it is implicit in the bill that promotion is part of the practices that are included, but it seems to us wise to include very specifically the fact that promotion is also part of the unfair practices in which discrimination should not be practiced.

In section 5, all and any attempts to determine the race, religion, or national origin of a job applicant should be spelled out as an unlawful employment practice, in order to clarify and define one of the most vicious methods of discrimination. The language of the New York law against discrimination, section 131, paragraph 3, covers this admirably:

It shall be an unfair employment practice for any employer or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication, or to use any form of application for employment or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, creed, color, or national origin, or any intent to make such limitation, specification, or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.

We think it is particularly significant that the law exists in New York, that the section exists so that enforcement agencies know precisely what they can do for their investigation and that employers know precisely what prohibitions exist for them to abide by.

We urge that this be incorporated in S. 984, to assist in enforcement and to make clear to employers what specific prohibitions they are bound by.

Section 6 (g) says that the provisions for studying the problems of discrimination in employment and for cooperation of local advisory and conciliation councils in the process of education and fostering good will are excellent. We suggest, however, in addition to these activities that the Commission be directed to initiate educational programs designed for these same purposes as well as to support efforts undertaken

by interested groups. An indifferent community or one unaware of this act and its implications-that is, communities where education efforts are most needed-may be just those where educational efforts are not undertaken and where the Commission could suitably initiate programs with the advice and cooperation of local advisory councils. Senator DONNELL. Pardon me, what I think you are driving at is more or less understood in this whole procedure in that section. I know that that has been carried on in the State of New York without any mandate in the law.

Mrs. WUBNIG. Well, it seemed to us significant.

Senator DONNELL. It would be a natural part of it, it would go with it. It is just as well when in the field of informal education, to limit it, as we are doing in this instance to this field of discrimination and employment, not to be too ironclad in the specifications which we put down, and allow greater elasticity there in the carrying out of the processes.

Mrs. WUBNIG. Well, it seemed to us that it might be useful to suggest in a positive sense that-

Senator IVES. The trouble in putting that in a positive sense is that it may be construed-that is where you are limited. If you do not make those suggestions, the field is open.

Mrs. WUBNIG. Frankly, I had not thought of it in those terms.

In section 11 (a) conspicuous posting of notices or provisions of this act is important not only in the establishment of an employer or of a labor organization, but even more so where a large part of hiring takes place the employment agency. Evasions of the act become more difficult where job applicants are aware of their rights under this act. We strongly recommend, therefore, that line 1 be amended to include "Every employer, labor organization and employment agency shall post

* * * 99

The National League of Women Shoppers commends the sponsors of S. 984 for this wise and enlightened legislation. Our recommendations are brought forward for the consideration of this committee not as criticisms but as proposed revisions we feel would more firmly implement the purposes of the bill. The National League of Women Shoppers urges prompt and favorable action by your committee and urges that every effort be made to have this bill passed by both Houses of Congress. Now is the time for this great democracy of ours to reaffirm and give reality to the principles which we so nobly profess. Senator DONNELL. Are there any questions, gentlemen? Senator Smith, I know you have not heard the testimony

Senator SMITH. I have no questions.

Senator DONNELL. We appreciate very much your attendance, Mrs. Wubnig, and your giving us your testimony.

We thank you for coming.

Mr. Schottland.

STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES I. SCHOTTLAND, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator DONNELL. Please state your name, address, and something of the organization for which you appear.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »