« PreviousContinue »
have 10 percent of the superior grades, GS 16 and above, that are now occupied by women.
Mrs. MINK. What was it 5 years ago?
Mr. CLARK. Additionally at the present time, of the professional positions throughout the whole Department, 20.9 percent of those are occupied by women.
In the area of minorities, for example, the total Federal average is 14.6 of blacks. In the Department of Labor we have 26.7 percent.
So we think we have done a fairly decent job within the Department of Labor. Obviously we are not happy with the totality of what we have done. The Secretary has given this one of his highest priorities as far as my activity is concerned. We do have a very active equal employment opportunity program throughout the Department.
Just recently, for example, out of our own existing resources we established in each of our 10 regions a fulltime equal employment opportunity person who will be responsible to insure that the objectives and the targets and milestones that we have established for the Department will be effective within each of those regions.
Mr. Clay. Who does the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity report to?
Mr. CLARK. To me.
Mr. CLARK. It says it will function under the general supervision of the head of the agency.
Mr. Clay. It says immediate supervision as required by regulation of the Secretary of Labor. Can we check that?
Mr. CLARK. Yes; we can. I am not sure that wording is the way I understand it the last time I read it.
Mr. CLAY. Will you check it for us?
Mrs. Mink. I want to get back to the guidelines on sex discrimination. As I understand it, they were proposed in December 1973, and the new regulations have not yet been promulgated. What is the reason for the failure of the Department to promulgate these guidelines when it is admitted that they are not in conformity with the guidelines that have been established by EEOC?
We talk about the need to coordinate, the need to have similar standards. It seems to me we have been completely neglectful of this issue with which we have been very vitally concerned. It seems to me that since EEOC has enunciated the standards, the Department of Labor should conform to these guidelines and promulgate them, especially as they have been included in these proposed guidelines.
Mr. KILBERG. Interestingly enough, under title VII, and I don't have the statute with me but I can get you for the record the exact citation, but title VII contemplates that in issuing sex discrimination guidelines, the EEOC will attempt to conform with the existing guidelines of the Department of Labor under the Equal Pay Act. They chose to go off in a different direction in regard to the fringe benefit issue.
Because of that rather thin attempt to compel them to agree with us, we thought we ought to review our position to see whether our position in fact is the correct one. It is an enormously complex issue. We found after we got started down the track it involves us not only in questions of EEOC law but the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as well as conflicting positions of HEW and other agencies.
So it seems to HEW, and we are not going to follow that lead, that that matter ought to be referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council, which is where it remains.
The rest of the guidelines are now in the process of being finalized, and some decisions, some policy decisions in the Department, will now have to be made on them.
Mrs. MINK. When can we expect to have these guidelines issued by the Department of Labor?
Mr. KILBERG. It is going to depend obviously, I think, on the policy decisions which are to be made. They have not yet been sent to the Secretary. He has not yet had an opportunity to review them. I am sure he will want to.
There are questions as to whether there are provisions in those guidelines that we will want to go forward with awaiting the decision of the EEOC. There are also questions, I gather, about whether we ought to go forward, given the fact that the Supreme Court has now got the pregnancy temporary disability issue pending before it in the Liberty Mutual case.
Mrs. Mink. You know that HEW, after we passed title IX of the Higher Education Act in 1972, took 3 years to promulgate regulations with respect to those issues affecting education. We are very much concerned that your Department not drag along similarly and fail to come up with regulations which conform with those which we believe are equitable and have already been established by EEOC.
I cannot reconcile the reluctance of your Department to issue these regulations when the standards have already been stated by EEOC.
Mr. KILBERG. Mrs. Mink, I very much share your concern. As an attorney, one of the matters of most concern to me is the uncertainty. The law needs to have a degree of certainty if people are to comply with it. I would hope that we could get these guidelines out on at least those matters on which there is general agreement.
Mrs. MINK. What is the record of the Department on the issue of equal pay for equal work, particularly as relates to male and female employees in specific job classifications?
We have selected job titles provided us by the Civil Service Commission in various occupational series. By way of demonstration, let me give you one of them.
The general clerical and administrative occupational series 301 showed that the average salary for male emplovees is $22,441, for female employees, $11.810. While maybe your rate of employment of female and males over the last 5 vears may indicate some progress, 10 percent does not strike me as being very much. The real heart of the matter is: what do they get paid when they are hired?
Secretary DUNLOP. Does that question refer to Government employment?
Mrs. Mink. In your Department, sir.
Secretary DUNLOP. Employment in the Department of Labor ?
Mr. CLARK. I am not sure I really understand the question because there is no differential between the rate of pay between male and females in the Federal sector.
Mrs. MINK. I will be very happy to turn over these figures to you. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the response of the Department together with this chart be included in the record at this point.
Mr. CLARK. I will be very happy to do that.
Mr. Hawkins. The figures referred to will be included in the record at this point. The response when it is received will be included following that request. Do you clearly understand the request ?
Mr. CLARK. I assume you are going to give us something in writing so that we can respond appropriately, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hawkins. The committee will submit a specific request to the Secretary, and you will respond to that request.
Mr. CLARK. We will be very happy to do that.
AVERAGE SALARY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN 3 PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
Source: Civil Service Commission central personnel data statistics for Nov. 30, 1974.
Mrs. Mink. My final question goes to the private sector which, of course, is our main concern, and to the responsibility under the Executive order of the Department of Labor with respect to contract and contract enforcement.
What kinds of audit procedure does the Department have in effect to ascertain whether, if at all, Government contractors are in compliance with respect to the aflirmative action plans to which they indicate their allegiance when they obtain a Government contract? Is there any audit procedure at all in your Department?
Secretary DUNLOP. As I indicated earlier, the Department has delegated over the 10 years to the Federal agencies, 17 of them, the development of compliance and investigation action. Those delegations are pursuant to general rules which have been laid down by the Department.
I think Mr. Davis might develop a little bit more in detail. The important point is that it is not the Department of Labor that goes into a Government contractor's plant or into a Government contractor's job. It is one of the compliance agencies which has supervision over the Government contracts which that agency holds.
Mrs. MINK. If I might indicate, in the GAO report which I am now holding, on page 50 the Department of Labor in commenting on the GAO report said: "Other compliance reviews are being conducted as outlined in the OFCC program plan."
I would like to inquire what this is?
Secretary DUNLOP. Those are audit reviews as compared to the inspection reviews in particular complaints.
Mr. Davis. Of course my office conducts both continuous and annual evaluations of all of the compliance agencies who are conducting the compliance reviews. Perhaps what I could do is outline for you in general that evaluation procedure.
What is happening is that my office does an annual evaluation on each compliance agency and sends that compliance agency the result of our evaluation. Once they receive the result of our evaluation we have a meeting with that agency to review in more detail what they are doing or what they are not doing.
Once we have those kinds of sessions with respect to the compliance agency what we will do is make recommendations as to what kind of resources we feel that client agency should receive. We do the evaluation of the agencies on an annual basis and again on a continuing basis.
Mrs. MixK. What is the criteria you use for this audit?
Mr. Davis. One of the criteria is that we certainly want to make sure that they are implementing their responsibility and that they select contractors, for example, to do reviews who have the greatest employment opportunities for minorities and women.
Some of the processes used are desk audits, for example, of affirmative action programs that have indeed been accepted by the compliance agencies. My office participates in joint compliance reviews with the compliance agencies. My office conducts onsite evaluations, onsite observation reviews to determine exactly whether those compliance agencies are indeed following regulations of 11246. Observation reviews, desk audit reviews, onsite evaluation, joint compliance reviews in addition to the evaluation process I just outlined.
Mrs. Mixk. In your evaluation of the compliance agencies how many have you had to inspect because of their failure to enforce the affirmative action plans of individual contractors?
Mr. Davis. Of course, we have regular communication with all of the compliance agencies as to outlining their responsibilities. From time to time on a regular basis we would instruct almost all of the compliance agencies on the guidelines themselves.
Mrs. Mink. Do you review on an annual basis all of your agencies then ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, we do. As a matter of fact, we just completed a comprehensive evaluation of each and every agency.
Mrs. MINK. Is that report in written form?
Mr. Davis. I can certainly make those reports available to the committee.
[Information not submitted prior to the time that the hearing was sent to press. ]
Mrs. Mink. Turning to my final question, have any contractors been debarred from participating in any further government bidding in the history of the OFCC program?
Mr. Davis. Yes. As a matter of fact since the inception of the program there have been 10 debarments.
Mrs. Mink. What is the average size of the 10 debarments?
Mrs. MINK. Off the top of your head what is the size of these companies? Small, medium, large, very large?
Mr. Davis. I am advised that they vary from very small firms to medium and large size firms.
Mrs. Mink. If you will provide that information.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246, AS AMENDED, ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
(Contractors debarred from Federal contracts)
Randeb, Inc. and Robert J. Bednar, President, individually Newton Mar. 7, 1972 HUD.
Aug. 29, 1972 HUD. (Reinstated)
Mar. 23, 1973 Edgely Air Products, Levitown, Pa.
Aug. 29, 1972 HEW (Reinstated).
Mar. 23, 1973 McNicol-Martin Co., Clarksburg, W. Va..
March 1973 AEC. Dial Electric. Westminister, Colo.
Nov, 29, 1973 DOT.. (Reinstated)..
May 16, 1974 Harry Myhre, Inc., Harrisburgh, Pa.
Apr. 15, 1974 HEW. Hesse Envelope Co., Dallas, Tex.
Sept. 3, 1974 GSA
sidiaries: Blue Bell Services, Greensboro, N.C.; Blue Bell Boots,
direct or beneficial owners, Amite, La. Stillwater, Inc., its principal officers, directors, direct or beneficial owners, Feb. 3, 1975 DOD.
and its divisions and subsidiaries, Goshen, Va. Edward A. McGuire, Philadelphia, Pa.
July 1, 1972 (Reinstated).
Dec. 31, 1973 HEW.
1 Out of business.
Mrs. MINK. Have any of them been debarred because of sex discrimination?
Mr. Davis. No, they have not been.
Mrs. MINK. Have any Government contract payments been withheld from noncomplying contractors? Mr. Davis. Yes, there certainly have been contracts held
until such time as that contractor does come into compliance.
Mrs. MINK. Do you have a list or report which will give us an overview of that activity of your office?
Secretary DUNLOP. What I wanted to suggest is that those actions are done by the procurement agencies. They may in my experience be held up for varying periods of time. So, if the office has any kind of statistical information of course I want you to have it.
Mrs. MINK. I only ask that question because I was told there is an annual audit every year made on every compliance agency. I would assume the audit would include this information with regard to withholding