I believe there must be a control over the rate of retention. We keep getting reports that there is a constant turnover of trainees and it makes fine statistics, but it doesn't provide very many jobs or job readiness. I know, gentelmen, you have been asking about statistics and it is very frustrating not to be able to get hard statistics, but unfortunately there are really no hard statistics because in this area there is so much of a numbers game.

Five or six different agencies may count the same placements. We don't know when a person finishes his training program and he gets on a job how long he stays on that job. How many single individuals fill that same job over the course of a year or to how many different jobs one person will be sent to. So I don't think you will be able to get very hard statistics because this is one of our problems in this

area.

Another thing we are concerned with is that trainee specifications be realistic in that the degree of training required should relate to the nature of the occupation. We run into 3-month and 6-month and 9-month courses to train somebody to do a job that just about anybody ought to be able to learn to do pretty effectively in 2 or 3 days on the job but as long as the Government assistance money is there and the people are paid at a training rate, rather than in a regular employment rate, if there weren't some kind of control there would be more and more of this kind of training.

Then we are also very concerned that wage rates during the period of the training yields enough to the trainee so that he can afford to stay in the program. You are not going to do any good to somebody and say all right, we will give you some training but he can't support his family. Then we certainly feel very strongly that wage rates at the job entry level must be appropriate. Again you are not doing anybody a favor by dooming him indefinitely to working at a lesser rate of pay than other people doing the same kind of work.

In other words, what I am saying to you is that the term "hard core" must not be synonymous to substandard pay.

We have been working in this area for a long time, as I said, and we have had a lot of trouble with many of the agencies and many of the private individuals who seem to be reluctant to involve unions and union employers in the program. They feel that if this is possible it should be avoided and I would imagine that the reason for this is that so often the job is so on a low, wage level, that where union employees are involved, there can't be this kind of a wage differentiation.

Until very recently there was a real conscious effort, I think, to shut out union employers in some of the programs in Los Angeles and I am happy to say that in the last few months I have seen some amelioration of this problem.

Now it is tragic if this takes place, not only because people then are put into lower paid jobs, but there is a union know-how developed over all of these years in placing the programs and understanding what goes into the job and I believe that where there is union involvement, the level of training is superior and the worker when he gets on to the job not only is paid better, but he also is a better worker. Now one of the agencies that we work with in our share of this program is the Human Resources Development Institute funded by

the U.S. Department of Labor. This is not to be confused with the new State department of the same name. This Institute serves as a liaison between the various programs and the labor movements which involves local labor unions, get union employers, works with consortiums, and helps develops the programs and see to it that they, the people, remain in the training program and remain on the job. One of the devices that has developed is what we call a buddy system. We feel that an individual worker brought into a new job situation, is strange, is unsure of himself; not too certain of how well he is going to be received and so we seek to develop a program where a worker already on the job, sort of adopts the new worker as a buddy. He pays some attention to him. He calls him up in the morning and if possible picks him up and goes to work with him. He has lunch with him. He makes him feel as though he is part of the whole work force. We have barely begun to get moving in this concept. A lot of the unions are interested. We are having some difficulty, even though there is Government money to assist with this program, of getting too many employers who want to take a chance with the buddy system.

Now in conclusion I would like to comment briefly-I did not have a prepared statement, I didn't have the opportunity since I am kind of engaged in trying to get horse racing back for the people of California, I have been kind of tied up and haven't been able to prepare a written statement, but I think we have just barely begun to do the things that have to be done to train for employability and to develop employment. There is going to have to be a massive expenditure of funds, not only to develop more programs, not only to involve more people, but I think that massive expansion of funds is necessaryexpenditure rather-in order to expand our economy. If everything we are trying to do with the economy continues to shrink, we will just go down the drain. We must plan for expanded economy and I think that it is necessary in working with the private sector that there be a tripart effort of the Government, industry, and the labor movement. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator MONDALE. Thank you very much, Mr. Arywitz.

Senator CRANSTON. Do you have any comments on the specific bill that is before the committee? Have you had time to look at it?

Mr. ARYWITZ. I looked at it some time ago-if we could go off the record a minute.

Senator CRANSTON. Your own experience in this area of Government leads you to feel that, even with the best of intentions that, it would be difficult from the State level to be close enough to the needs in a given community somewhere else in the State?

You are expressing concern about the city and county involvement control as well as State involvement?

Senator MONDALE. I wish we could go further, but it is getting late and we thank you very much, Mr. Arywitz, for your most useful testimony.

Our next witness is Mr. Baltimore Scott who is chairman of the board of the Los Angeles Urban Coalition. Mr. Scott, we are delighted. to have you with us here this afternoon.

40-963-70-pt. 1- -25

STATEMENT OF BALTIMORE SCOTT, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, MONOGRAM INDUSTRIES, INC., AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MARTIN STONE, CHAIRMAN OF LOS ANGELES URBAN COALITION

Mr. SCOTT. I am appearing here as the representative of Martin Stone, chairman of Los Angeles Urban Coalition.

Senator MONDALE. We will include the letter from Mr. Stone in the record, indicating his inability to be here and you may proceed as you wish.

(The letter referred to and the prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:)

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,

GREATER LOS ANGELES URBAN COALITION,
Los Angeles, Calif., January 7, 1970.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment on Manpower, and Poverty, Los Angeles,
Calif.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Coalition is pleased to have been invited to testify on the proposed Administration Manpower Legislation. I regret that prior commitments will prevent my personal appearance.

The Los Angeles Urban Coalition is composed of representatives of leading industry, organized labor, the professions, religion, education, minority groups and local government. The Coalition's effort in Los Ángeles and across the Nation attempts to bring together the best thinking from every segment of the community on the vast array of problems which have become an integral part of urban living today.

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee in developing workable solutions to the chronic problems of unemployment and underemployment in the Country and more specifically in the Los Angeles area.

Very truly yours,

MARTIN STONE, Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT BY BALTIMORE SCOTT ON BEHALF OF MARTIN STONE CHAIRMAN OF THE LOS ANGELES URBAN COALITION

Mr. Chairman, my name is Baltimore Scott and I am the Corporate Director of Industrial Relations for Monogram Industries, Inc. I am here to present the follow ing statement on behalf of Martin Stone, Chairman of the Los Angeles Urban Coalition and Chairman of the Board of Monogram Industries, Inc.

I have been requested by Mr. Stone to convey his regrets that he is unable to personally testify on this vital issue of manpower.

We thought the Committee might be interested in some of the things we have observed first hand in our own company, and in the private and public sectors of the economy in Los Angeles.

First, we would like to share with you some of our experience at Monogram Industries. We employ approximately 10,000 employees and are located throughout Los Angeles and several other states. Our first effort at recruiting from the so-called disadvantaged communities in Los Angeles occurred in June of 1965. This effort involved the recruitment of both blacks and Mexican-American trainees from the Los Angeles community to work in the Monogram facilities located in the Culver City area of West Los Angeles.

The Company had no difficulty in finding prospective trainees. Some difficulties encountered were (1) inadequate transportation (public transportation from the predominately Black and Mexican-American communities leading into West Los Angeles was and is extremely poor); a minor problem of language affecting the Spanish speaking trainees and acquainting the in-plant supervision with the value and potential of this new source of manpower from the community.The transportation problem was solved when the Company provided leased automobiles for several of the new employees, who in turn provided transportation to and from work for three or more of the other employees. The language problem was met by Spanish speaking Monogram employees who were supervisors resulting in no difficulty whatsoever in training those employees who spoke no English. The

Union cooperated fully with the program, but the key to success rested with the SE plant supervisors who saw the need for the program and worked diligently to make

it a success.

Recently, Monogram participated in a youth employment program which may be defined as an on the job training effort, wherein approximately twenty-five young people were hired as trainees. By the end of the training period, only two trainees had successfully completed the program. In evaluating the results of the program, the company concluded that a major deficiency in the program was, and still is, the absence of adequate supportive services for the trainees, such as: (1) lack of sufficient world-of-work orientation prior to coming on the job; (2) deficiency in computational and English language basics; (3) not enough follow-up counseling while on the job. Other company experience would indicate that the lack of adequate day care services at reasonable rates prevented many young mothers from working.

In addition to continuing employment training programs at the entry level, Monogram now sees the urgent necessity of developing additional in-plant training programs that will encourage greater opportunities for upward job mobility of new employees.

Turning to the private sector, Los Angeles industry (working through such effects as the JOBS program of the National Alliance for Businessmen, The Management Council for Merit Employment, Training and Research, and by individual initiative) has done a very creditable job in utilizing the skills that have been development through the current manpower programs.

Notable advances have been made during the past four years in industry's willingness to hire individuals with serious arrest and conviction records. A significant number of companies have revised long-standing personnel procedures and testing practices that had previously served to bar many members of disadvantaged groups. A number of companies have developed special programs in language adjustment to meet the problems of the Spanish speaking employees. In the public sector, there have been several efforts by local governments, specifically the New Careers program by the City and County in hiring trainees for the Police Department, Department of Social Public Services and other public sector positions. While the initial concepts that have been innovated are encouraging, the number of persons actually affected by the City and County manpower programs have been relatively minor considering the total public service needs of the community.

In spite of the above activities which do not begin to tell the whole story of efforts in the Los Angeles area, the response from the "employer community" (labor unions, educational institutions and local government) and the scope and effectiveness of existing manpower programs have been insufficient thus far in meeting the serious and chronic problems of unemployment and underemployment in the community. In fact, recent data concludes that the unemployment situation today in the Watts community is numerically higher than it was on the eve of the Watts explosion in August 1965.

Three examples which help to account for the lack of greater success in the manpower programs may be cited as follows:

(1) Lack of effective coordination between Federal and Local officials involved with manpower programing. The particular needs and characteristics of the unemployment problem in Los Angeles have often been ignored or unrecognized in devising certain federally-funded programs. The unemployment problem in urban Cleveland or Detroit with the majority of the unemployed heavily concentrated in easily identifiable Black communities is not the same as the unemployment problem in Los Angeles with its mixture of Mexican-Americans (some of whom are non-English speaking) and Blacks who are located in several major geographic locations. At the same time, the problems of a recent non-English speaking arrival from Mexico in Los Angeles are somewhat different from those of a recent non-English speaking Black arriving from rural Mississippi. Yet, frequently the federal programs are applied the same in each of these three cities and without regard to differences within major cities.

(2) Inadequacy of the level of funding of manpower programs and training provided. Many manpower programs have been doomed from the start because of inadequate funding and poor provisions for the continuity of funding. One recently closed training facility opened and shut its doors before much of the heavy training machinery received by the program from the Department of Commerce was put into operational use because no provisions were made for funds to install the necessary electrical wiring for the equipment. Other training programs, notably the Multi-occupational Training Centers, have experienced great difficulty in

continuing many programs and keeping experienced training personnel because of the lapse in time between federal funding periods for such training programs. In terms of inadequate training, one program produced soldering trainees for an aerospace firm only to find out that the trainees could not do the job because the soldeing irons they were trained with were quite different from the irons being used by the industry.

(3) Inadequate provisions for effective evaluations and monitoring of manpower programs. For example, a number of government-assisted training programs have received substantial start-up funds for a training program but after these funds were spent no training facility or program resulted. The lack of effective evaluation of many manpower programs has resulted in both unreliable statistics on the success of the program and unaccountability from the standpoint of view of those empowered with the administration of the program.

In viewing the efforts of current manpower programs, it has become increasingly evident that the unemployment and underemployment problems cannot be solved by the private sector alone. Several voices have been raised recently calling for a major program of public service employment that would provide positions in sufficient numbers that would be effective in meeting the public services needs of our cities. We would add our voices to the many others that would call for a substantial new Federal program in this area.

Such a program must provide meaningful jobs, not dead-end, make-work projects. To place the disadvantaged unemployed in meaningless activities with no future (as we, unfortunately have in some of the present training programs) would merely reaffirm their hopelessness and dispair. In addition, there is clearly sufficient meaningful work to be found in the public for workers to perform a multitude of jobs in the public sector of our economy (e.g. education and health services, police and fire protection). Many of these positions could provide an opportunity for the disadvantaged to render useful services as well as becoming productive members of the society.

A major reason that local governments are not providing such positions is restricted revenues and inadequate budgets. Federal funding assistance is clearly needed before local government can make these jobs available.

Building training into a public service employment program is also essential if persons so employed are to be given the opportunity to advance to higher skilled and/or better paying jobs.

We would urge that any new legislation in the manpower area not only increase the present private sector efforts but move deliberately to provide Federal assistance to State and local governments so that employment in public service areas can be greatly expanded. Such an expansion in the public sector will help to insure that all those who are ready, able, and willing to work be provided with the opportunity to do so. Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to present our views on manpower problems.

Mr. SCOTT. I don't think I will read the statement, Mr. Chairman. Senator MONDALE. We will include the statement in the record as though read and you may make such observations as you deem appropriate.

Mr. ScoTT. I think a number of the previous speakers have already covered some of the subjects in Mr. Stone's statement.

I think in a way it is appropriate for the urban coalition to be represented at the very end of the testimony today because the coalition represents the kind of cross section or at least in part, the kind of cross section you have heard from today, namely organized labor, private industry, some nonprofit agencies like Ted Watkins' group, some community representatives and so forth. That embodies what the urban coalition is: a representative of the various community interests who are attempting to bring the best thinking to bear on the urban problems today.

One of the reasons Martin Stone wanted me to testify, in addition to representing him today, is the fact that during the past 5 years my own experience here in Los Angeles has been in practically every aspect of the manpower program. I have been a director of a privately supported agency involved in the program; I helped set up some of