Page images
PDF
EPUB

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOALS, FISCAL YEAR 1975-Continued
Total employment

Minority employment
Actual Projected Actual Sept. 30, 1974

Goal Sept. 30, 1975 Sept. 30, Sept. 30, 1974

1975 Number Percent Number Percent

Female employment
Actual Sept. 30, 1974

Goal Sept. 30, 1975
Number Percent Number Percent

Officials and managers.
Protessionals.
Technicals
Sales workers
Office and clericians
Cratfsmen...
Operatives.
Laborers and service workers.

60 259 12

5
83

2
31
0

57
293
33

0
45
1
4
0

[blocks in formation]

Total

452

433

16.6

89

20.6

88

19.5

79

18.2

109

90
227
32

1
180
195
482
11

[blocks in formation]

15 4 5 8

13 4 4 7 7 4 59 2

[blocks in formation]

EEO-1 category

LOS ANGELES AIRCRAFT DIVISION

SABRELINER DIVISION

Officials and managers.
Professionals.
Technicals.
Sales workers.
Office and clerical.
Craftsmen.
Operatives..
Laborers and service workers.

275
34

1
201
191
472
14

Total.

1, 297

1, 218

LUBER-FINER DIVISION

Officials and managers.
Professionals.
Technicals
Sales workers
Office and clerical
Craftsmen.
Operatives.
Laborers and service workers

4
59
2

Total.

104

68

65.4

69

69.0

10

18

18.0

Mr. Hawkins. All right. If you would submit that to the committee, we would appreciate it.

Mr. OLES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAWKINS. Unless there are some other questions that would be

Mr. MOSSE. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Mosse has some more questions.

Mr. Mosse. Just one other matter that came to mind. Mr. Oles, we were discussing affirmative action plans, and it occurred to me that Rockwell, as a major Federal contractor, would have significant dealings with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Department of Labor in which this subcommittee is particularly interested. Have you found, first of all, in your general industry that the data used by the Labor Department to determine the acceptability of your affirmative action plans and goals is accurate and sufficient; and second, have you found that the Labor Department is reasonable in its approach and that its demands have, in fact, been realistic in lielping you set your goals in the plans which the Department ultimately reviews?

Mr. OLES. We have over 100 establishments in the United States and spread all over the United States in different parts of our company, and in 90 percent of the cases DCAS is the agency that is the compliance agency that we work with. Now, what we found was as we dealt in different regions of the United States with DCAS, that we were getting different either standards or thrust applied to us, and so Mr. Schrieber and I and Dwight Zuck talked about this several years ago, and we came up with our so-called C-3 agreement, which is an effort to standardize the approach throughout the country in our company so that we would know and have a pretty good idea what the standards were as opposed to having reached agreement in one part of the country and find that because we have another regional director or what have you here, his approach or standards would be entirely different, and we would have to start all over again. So, we did this and as a matter of fact, as I recall, we were the first company that at least in the southern California area, that did reach that agreement with DCAS and in modified form that is still in existence at the present time. So, I would say that agreement has provided a more workable relationship because we can anticipate what the standards are, what the approach is, what the base information is that we would use, and things of this type. I would say that that has been a workable agreement which has improved the relationship. As far as the general approach of DCAS, which is, as I say, our prime compliance agency, we find that their position is tough, that we have to really stretch to accomplish the goals that we finally agreed to on our affirmative action program. But at least we have a better idea of the standards that are expected as a result of the C-3 agreement with DCAS.

Mr. Mosse. Thank you.
Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Oles.

May I, as you leave, indicate that the Chair has had cooperation from one of your associates, Mr. Dwight Zuck, over a long period of

time. He has been helpful in furnishing to the chairman and many other Congressmen, much of the information that we have sought from time to time. I thought I should express my gratitude to him for that cooperation.

Mr. ZUCK. Thank you.
Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Oles.
Mr. OLEs. Thank you.
Panel was excused.]

Mr. HAWKINS. The next panel will consist of a panel of officials, Defense Contract Administration Services Region-Los Angeles, General Michael E. DeArmond, Director, Frederick A. Schrieber, Chief Officer of Contract Compliance, and David Lee, Chief of Civilian Personnel.

General DeArmond, we wish to welcome you as a witness to the committee, and certainly look forward to your testimony. I have a copy of the statement which you have prepared for submission to the committee. It will be entered into the record in its entirety at this point, and I assume that you may care to summarize from it, or to deal with it as you so desire. We would like, obviously, to have the highlights; however, we are not confining you to that.

You may proceed. STATEMENT OF GEN. MICHAEL E. DeARMOND, DEFENSE CONTRACT

SERVICES REGION, LOS ANGELES, ACCOMPANIED BY FREDERICK A. SCHREIBER, CHIEF OFFICER OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, AND DAVID LEE, CHIEF OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

General DEARMOND. Chairman Hawkins, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to appear before your subcommittee to discuss the efforts of the Defense Contract Administration Services Region, Los Angeles, generally known as DCASR, Los Angeles, to implement Executive Orders 11246 and 11375, prohibiting employment discrimination by Federal contractors. In my prepared statements, which would have been approximately 25 minutes in length, I would have discussed the mission of DCASR, Los Angeles, the functions and the responsibilities of our Contract Compliance Office, equal opportunity employment within our region and, in response to conversations with your committee staff, specific cases involving Data Design Corp. in Cucamonga and Rockwell International in Downey. I was then going to summarize my presentation and respond to any questions that your committee might have.

Following your request, I will just briefly cover my introduction in summary, and in a very broadbrush manner, cover what was in the contents of my statement.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

General DEARMOND. The Defense Contract Administration Services Region in Los Angeles, DSASR, Los Angeles, is responsible to the Defense Supply Agency for administering Government contracts in the Southwestern United States. Our area of responsibility includes southern California, Arizona, and Clark County, Nev.

We employ approximately 2,700 people to administer 36,000 Government contracts with a value in excess of $7 billion. We have no procurement responsibilities, rather we administer procurement contracts let by the individual military services, the Defense Supply Agency, NASA, GSA, and other Government activities.

Our responsibilities include conducting preaward surveys to determine a contractor's capability to fulfill the requirements of a proposed contract. Our activities in this area include the performance of quality assurance functions, surveillance of production, safeguarding industrial materials in the case of classified contracts, the timely delivery of products, contractual payments, and other actions essential for contract completion in accordance with specifications.

One of our prime responsibilities is to carry out the Department of Defense's contracts compliance program to expand employment opportunity for the Nation's minorities and women. We have two basic objectives in this program: (1) To increase the general employment of minorities and women in the work force of all of the firms under our cognizance who hold Federal contracts; and (2) to insure these workers are provided opportunity for upward mobility in each of these firms. This program

is carried out by our Contracts Compliance Office, which consists of 46 persons—36 of whom are professionals in the business, and 10 are clerical and supporting staff. Among the professionals, 75 percent are male, 25 percent are female, and 61 percent are minority members. Of the minorities in our Contracts Compliance Office, 39 percent are black, 14 percent are Spanish surnamed, and 8 percent are Oriental. Mr. Schrieber, on our left, is the head of that division.

The Government contracts administered by our Contracts Compliance Office are assigned to the Department of Defense by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Department of Labor, according to standard industrial classifications. About 40 such classifications fall within our jurisdiction. The principal ones in this region are aircraft and aircraft parts, guided missiles, space vehicles, machinery, motor vehicles, fabricated metals, and miscellaneous business services.

To date we have been able to identify 3,573 facilities in this region which fall within our purview, employing approximately 850,000. Because of the large number of facilities, it is necessary to establish a priority for examining the various contractors. We basically select those contractors who employ the largest number of people.

In the body of my comments, Mr. Chairman, we cover the statistics which shows the improvements in employment of minorities, the status of minority employment, the status of female employment in the 222 contractors with whom we keep our records. In addition, we provide the statistics for employment of minorities and females within my command, and the progress or lack of progress that we are making in that area. We also cover the two cases on which you requested comments, Data Design and Rockwell. Rather than cover any of these specific statistics, I think we had rather respond to questions, since we consider them, all of them important, and I would have a difficult time selecting one as being more important than the other. In conclusion, I would state that DCASR Los Angeles and I are very much aware of our responsibility to insure implementation of Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 prohibiting discrimination by Federal contractors. I will be happy to discuss any of the statistics that we have.

Mr. HAWKINS. General DeArmond, I have not had an opportunity to read this statement. With respect to Rockwell International, which you did review at the request of the committee, may I say that this company was singled out because it has been the subject of quite a number of complaints.

Are you satisfied that a good job is being done by the Rockwell International in the furtherance of its affirmative action goals, both with respect to minorities and to women?

General DEARMOND. Yes, I believe they have provided a satisfactory affirmative action program, and I would like to cover some of the reasons from my statement.

Mr. HAWKINS. I wish you would proceed, particularly with respect to the percentage of women because that seems to be a little more glaring in terms of a failure to progress than even with respect to minorities.

General DEARMOND. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAWKINS. Will you proceed?

General DEARMOND. Rockwell International Space Division employs approximately 11,000 people, and that is the case that we were addressing. Our last review of this facility covering achievements under the 1973–74 affirmative action program, which began on September 1, 1973, found their affirmative action performance acceptable for the following reasons:

One: The minority component increased in all major job categories. These included skilled craftsmen, semi-skilled personnel and laborers. The most significant progress was made in the white collar category; officials and managers, professionals, technicians, and office and clerical. The overall result reflected an increase in minority representation from 17.5 percent, approximately 1,308 employees, to 20.4 percent, approximately 2,240 employees.

Two: Apart from technicians and office and clerical categories (where the female components remain substantial), female representation increased in every other category-most significantly in officials and managers from 1.6 percent, 10 people, to 3.1 percent, 27 people, and professionals from 3.1 percent, or 123, to 4.2 percent, or 234.

Three: Of the total number of hires, 33.6 percent or 605 were minority representatives; 50 percent or 111 of all college hires were of minority origin; and 29.9 percent or 619 of all promotions went to minority personnel.

Goals in the current affirmative action program, for the year ending September 30, 1975, project an increase in the representation of women and of each minority group in every job category. The overall goals are: to increase minority representation from 20.4 percent or 2,240 to 21.8 percent or 2,405; female representation excluding office and clerical, from 7.4 percent, or 710 to 8.3 percent or 718. These goals were

« PreviousContinue »