assumption have no basis in law and certainly not in any concept of morality. For many long, hard years black workers have disproportionately shared only unemployment. The time has now come for Negro workers to share fully in whatever employment opportunities there are at present and will be in the future.

The model cities program provides municipalities with an excellent opportunity to put into effect these and other proposals which could have much meaning for the ghetto unemployed and underemployed. It is therefore very sad to note that the great possibilities contained in the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-754), known as the model cities program, are now being scuttled.

Section 101 of title I of the act states that "the purposes of this title are . . . to expand housing, job and income opportunities."

Section 103 (a) states that "a comprehensive city demonstration program is eligible for assistance . . . only if the program is of sufficient magnitude . to make marked progress in reducing social and educational disadvantages, ill health, underemployment, and enforced idleness . . . to serve the poor and disadvantaged in the area."

Section 103 also requires "maximum opportunities for employing residents of the area in all phases of the program and enlarged opportunities for work and training."

It is clear that the purpose of the Model Cities Act is not simply to construct buildings, but also to provide gainful employment for unemployed or underemployed ghetto residents. We believe that the unemployed residents of the areas affected by the Model Cities Act have immediate rights to the jobs created by the expenditure of public funds in the model cities program. This includes new construction as well as rehabilitation work. The wording of the act is very specific on this point as it requires "maximum opportunities for employing residents of the areas in all phases of the program and enlarged opportunities for work and training." The act also states that local residents must be given "priority for jobs created by the expenditure of program funds."

As an example of the failure to implement these provisions of law, we cite the model cities labor agreement for the Boston area which makes it clear that Negro workers will again be denied their rights in this federally sponsored and financed program. For all practical purposes the Boston labor agreement, which will probably be the prototype for many other cities, turns over control of hiring to those contractors who have exclusive hiring and referral arrangements with discriminatory building trades unions.

No provision is made for giving contracts to the black-owned construction companies who employ the majority of black building craftsmen who are denied membership in the AFL-CIO construction unions. Local labor organizations are permitted to determine who will be employed and who will be admitted into union membership. There is no guarantee that those entering the new classification of "trainee" will be ever permitted to become journeymen union members or work at full wages.

Contrary to the intent of the Model Cities Act, the Boston labor agreement specifically limits so-called "trainees" to residential rehabilitation work and new residential work up to but not exceeding four stories. That part of the act which requires "maximum opportunities for employing residents of the area in all phases of the program and enlarged opportunities for work and training" is negated by the agreement which could only have been negotiated with the complicity of Government agencies.

Furthermore there is no indication that the provisions of title I of the demonstration cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 will be enforced. Under this provision all construction and rehabilitation programs and all other services carried out by cities, State, counties or other jurisdictions under the provisions of the act must be operated in compliance with the requirements of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Federal Executive Order 11246.

It is evident that the agreement constitutes a direct negation of the concept of equal employment opportunity under the law and the specific requirements of the Model Cities Act.

We believe that the labor agreement entered into between the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts and the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Council in regards to the Boston-Cambridge model cities program violates the declared purposes of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-754). If this type of agreement is approved by Government agencies and is utilized in other cities funded by the U.S. Depart

ment of Housing and Urban Development, the NAACP will have no choice but to initiate litigation in U.S. district courts for the purpose of preventing the expenditure of all Federal funds in model cities programs. The decision of the U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio, on May 17, 1967, in the case of Ethridge vs. Rhodes as well as other decisions, provides a clear legal basis to enjoin Government agencies from spending Federal funds to subsidize racial discrimination in employment.

In my letter of May 2, 1969, to Floyd Hyde, assistant secretary for Model Cities of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, I stated:

"The model cities program with its vast potential for social change in the urban ghettos of our country is perhaps the last chance this Nation will have to prove that there is still some relevance to social legislation and that the Federal Government has the will and the ability through orderly legal procedures to alter the lives of those who are forced to live in a permanent condition of poverty and despair.

"Administration nullification of the possibilities inherent in the model cities program, together with the failure to enforce civil rights laws and executive orders, may have dire consequences for urban communities. Given the growing racial crisis of America's urban centers, the continued failure of Government agencies to take decisive action in these matters constitutes nothing less than complicity with racist institutions and jeopardizes the future stability of the entire Nation."

I hope that this subcommittee will concur with this observation and will use all its influence to seek the implementation of the recommendations I have made in this statement, rather than engage in a policy of attempting to negate the constructive features of the Philadelphia Plan.

Respectfully submitted.

STATEMENT OF FRED L. MADDISON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MISCELLANEOUS, ORNAMENTAL AND ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS CONTRACTORS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON THE "REVISED PHILADELPHIA PLAN"

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The National Association of Miscellaneous, Ornamental and Architectural Products Contractors welcomes the opportunity to present its views on the "Revised Philadelphia Plan". I would like to first state that our Association fully supports each and every plan or effort undertaken to assure each and every man or woman the right to obtain and employ a trade regardless of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Members of our Association have worked and continue to work throughout the country with Federal, State, local, minority group, union and other employer representatives to develop local and National programs with this as the objective. With the foregoing as background and in light of the experiences our Association members have had and are continuing to have in the development of programs throughout the country, we feel compelled to raise several questions concerning the workability of the Revised Philadelphia Plan. The Plan or Order requires that any bids on federal or federally-assisted projects where the estimated total cost of the project exceeds $500,000.00 include an "affirmative action program" for minority manpower utilization in the following trades: ironworkers, plumbers and pipefitters. steamfitters, sheetmetal workers, electrical workers and elevator construction workers. The employer of ironworkers will be deemed to have an acceptable affirmative action program if he employs minority group ironworkers in the following ranges during the indicated years: 5-9% until December 31, 1970; 11-15% in 1971; 16-20% in 1972; and 22-26% in 1973. The bidder is required to set forth with his bid the estimated total employment for each of the abovementioned trades and the number of minority group employees for each of these trades he will have in each of the periods indicated. "No bidder will be awarded a contract unless his affirmative action program contains goals falling within the range set forth . . ., provided, however, that participation by the bidder in multi-employer programs approved by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance will be accepted as satisfying the requirements [of the order]."

The public hearings and statements given at that time thoroughly considered, amongst other legal problems the question of whether the percentage set forth in the Order are "quotas" in violation of Section 703 (j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, we will not dwell on the legal aspects of the Plan other than to point out that ironworker employers who have entered into agreements with

the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers may very well find themselves involved in legal proceedings.

The Appendix attached to the September 23, 1969, Order, and made a part thereof, provides that "an acceptable affirmative action program for the trades specified below will result in minority manpower utilization within the ranges set forth next to each trade . . ." The employer of ironworkers must make immediate good faith efforts to employ 5-9% minority group representatives. He will apparently be in violation of the Plan if the union is unable to provide him with sufficient minority group ironworkers for each of the projects covered by the Plan that he is working on. It appears that he must then actively recruit, and employ, non-union ironworkers which would result in possible violation of his International agreement. He would then be subject to cancellation of his International agreement and/or legal proceedings.

In addition to problems concerning the status of International agreements, inadequately trained ironworkers would give rise to inestimable situations dangerous to themselves and their fellow employees. The dangers inherent in any construction project are especially so to the ironworker. While there are dangers to the plumbers and pipefitters, steamfitters, sheetmetal workers, electrical workers, and elevator construction workers on any construction site, the dangers to the ironworker are equal to or greater than for any of these other trades. Without detailing the various types of training provided ironworker apprentices, it is obvious that an important element of that training is, of necessity, safety. This is essential not only to the apprentice's well-being but also that of his fellow employees. This is a practical problem which must be considered in the formulation of any employment plan.

As I have indicated, our Association supports endeavors to obtain for every man or woman the right to obtain and employ a trade regardless of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This support is evidenced by our continuing work to develop local and National "Plans" with this objective. We do think, however, that the several practical problems we referred to above should be resolved in any future "Plans." Attached is a copy of an article appearing in the November 11, 1969, Washington Post indicating that a "Boston Plan" is being developed which we hope will thoroughly consider the problems we have briefly outlined,

We appreciate the opportunity to have presented our views on the Revised Philadelphia Plan. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1969]

U.S. SETS BOSTON PLAN ON MINORITY HIRING

(United Press International)

The Labor Department said yesterday it will establish a "Boston Plan" for increasing the number of minority-group members in higher paying jobs on federally funded construction projects.

A department spokesman said the Boston Plan would not necessarily be like the "Philadelphia Plan" which requires bidders on construction projects involving federal funds to set and meet goals for minority hiring.

The Afro-American Society at Tufts University held sit-ins last week at a dormitory construction site demanding that the John A. Volpe Construction Co. (founded by the present Transportation Secretary) meet a demand that 20 per cent of its workers be members of minority groups.

The company hired two of six black workers the students brought to the site yesterday, but the blacks said they were not satisfied and would continue their fight in the courts to force the company to comply.

Assistant Labor Secretary Arthur A. Fletcher said he sent two department representatives to Boston to explore "what shape the Boston Plan will take and how soon an affirmative action program can be initiated" for contractors to increase minority employment.

The Labor Department's campaign to get more Negroes and other minorities into the higher paying construction jobs is taking different forms in different cities.

A specific plan for contractors to hire minimum numbers of minority workers has been adopted for Philadelphia, but the department to date has relied on mediation efforts in Pittsburgh, where Negroes are demanding more skilled construction jobs.

[The Civil Rights Office of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare told a Pittsburgh hospital yesterday not to open bids on a $6-million project until it can be sure the contractors will hire enough minority-group workers. The order applies only to the project at Allegheny General Hospital. But it could conceivably be applied ultimately to about $55 million in federally financed construction projects in the Pittsburgh area.]

At the request of Labor, the Justice Department has filed a suit against several building trades unions in Seattle accusing them of discriminating against Negroes. Fletcher's Office of Federal Contract Compliance has notified 17 Chicago contractors they are suspected of discriminating against Negroes.

Meanwhile, the General Accounting Office said Comptroller General Elmer B. Staats planned to send letters this week to Executive Department heads and congressional appropriations committee reiterating his earlier ruling that the Philadelphia Plan set racial hiring quotas in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. Ross, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REINFORCING STEEL CONTRACTORS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE "REVISED PHILADELPHIA PLAN"

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We apreciate the opportunity to submit to your Subcommittee our views on the "Revised Philadelphia Plan.” The members of the National Association of Reinforcing Steel Contractors (NARSC) employ ironworkers as a substantial part of their work force.

I would like to preface our remarks by stating that we wholeheartedly support any and all legel and practical efforts to insure every person the opportunity to acquire and utilize a work skill regardless of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Our members have devoted countless hours towards this end in the past and are today continuing their work on the local and national levels with Federal, State, union and minority group representatives.

I

The Philadelphia Plan is an Order which requires that bids on construction projects in the Philadelphia area involving Federal or Federally-assisted projects where the estimated total cost exceeds $500,000.00 include an "affirmative action program" for the utilization of minority manpower. An acceptable affirmative action program for the ironworker employer will exist if he employs the following percentage of minority group ironworkers during the respective years: 5-9% until 1971; 11-15% in 1971; 16-20% in 1972; and 2226% in 1973. Beginning immediately, contractors employing ironworkers covered by the Order must make good faith efforts to employ 5-9% minority workers.

II

Questions concerning the legality of the Philadelphia Plan were explored during your recent public hearings. The limited purpose of this statement is to indicate that there are several serious practical problems confronting the contractor who employs ironworkers, which now appear insolvable, and not to repeat the arguments pro and con on the Plan's legality. The Order requires both contractors and subcontractors to comply with its terms, the prime contractor being required to include his goals in any subcontract: this is intended to bind the subcontractor to the prime contractor's goals. While the prime contractor is not accountable for the failure of his subcontractor to meet his goals or to make every good faith effort to do so, he is required to give notice to the Area Coordinator of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Department of Labor if there is a refusal or failure of any subcontractor to fulfill his obligations under the Order. Through a literal interpretation of Section 6. of the September 23, 1969, Order, the prime contractor must oversee the operations of the subcontractor beyond his results on a particular phase of the construction. He must oversee the minority group makeup of the subcontractor's work force and programs to hire more minority group representatives. The cost for this to the employers are presently indeterminable. It also appears that the employer of ironworkers who has an agreement with the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers whereby the union is to supply ironworkers cannot rely on a

lack of minority group assignments by the union to his particular job as a basis for non-compliance with the Order. From all indications, the employer would be compelled to seek non-union minority group ironworkers to have an acceptable affirmative action program. The ramifications of this to the employer may be disastrous.

Three consequences are obvious. The employer may find himself in violation of his agreement with the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers. This conceivably would result in cancellation of his International agreement or his being involved in protracted litigation. Secondly, the Department of Labor seems to have ignored the dangerous situations which obviously would result from inadequately trained ironworkers being employed on the projects contemplated as being covered by the Order. The employer of ironworkers has an obligation to make all reasonable efforts to assure the safety not only of new employees, but also of his existing employees. The Plan requires the ironworker employer to assume the responsibility and liability for injuries and deaths caused through any rapid assimilation of inadequately trained men on the job. It is ironic that Congress itself is currently conducting hearings on standards for occupational safety and health. (Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Education and Labor Committee.) Thirdly, many ironworker employers throughout the Country experience a seasonal slowdown of work due to weather conditions. It is logical that under the Plan the employer will have to adjust his work force during the slack season to maintain "acceptable" percentages of minority group employees. This relates again to the safety problems where the best workers may have to be let go and inadequately trained ones sought to fill their place.

Finally, there are many aspects of the Philadelphia Plan which minority group representatives, union representatives and management representatives are working together to resolve in other parts of the country. The development of these other programs are being encouraged, supported and developed by several Federal agencies, including the Department of Labor. While we fully support efforts to give each and every man or woman the opportunity to acquire and utilize a work skill regardless of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, we feel that coordination of all the Federal agencies' efforts in this area would produce more practical results. In this connection, I attach a copy of the October 28, 1969, Detroit News citing the overwhelming endorsement of a "Detroit Plan" developed with the assistance of Samuel J. Simmons, Assistant Secretary For Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development. In addition, an article from the November 9, 1969, Washington Post referring to a "Chicago Plan" is also attached.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present our views on the Revised Philadelphia Plan.

[From the Detroit News-the Home Newspaper, Oct. 28, 1969]

BLACKS ENDORSE "DETROIT PLAN" FOR TRADES HARMONY

(By Jack Crellin, Detroit News Labor Editor)

An overwhelming endorsement by key black trade unionists today raised expectations that a government-devised "Detroit plan" may avert conflict between blacks and whites in the local construction industry.

Spurring the belief that the plan, originated to meet the Detroit situation by Samuel J. Simmons, assistant secretary for equal opportunity of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), may be acceptable were attempts by building trades unions and contractors to implement it.

The contractors named five members to a joint committee to explore Simmons' program. The building trades unions named four and said a fifth would be added

soon.

Leaders of the black community said they were drafting a position paper endorsing the "Detroit plan" and announced they plan to designate a five-man representative group.

After a long and heated Sunday meeting, they said they hoped to agree on a committee that would represent the NAACP, the Trade Union Leadership Council (TULC), the Urban League, model cities group, and the Ad Hoc Construction Coalition.