« PreviousContinue »
the Executive orders and with the laws pertaining to discrimination in employment and that we need to get on with the business of finding out why and not trying to cover up for them. I know that you are not asking that.
We also recognize this morning that as you are new in the office so we could not hold you responsible for many of the things that have gone on in the Department of Labor. For that reason this committee intends to pursue this hearing in the future. This is only the beginning and I am quite sure that your suggestion of meeting together, maybe at the staff level moreover; submitting to you written questions that you may reply to, will certainly be pursued by this committee.
I can assure you of that because we want results and we don't think we are getting them. Certainly I think that explanation is due you.
We hope that you will enjoy your work as Secretary of Labor. We will try to make it as pleasant as possible but at the same time point out deficiencies where we find them.
Secretary DUNLOP. Fair enough. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HAWKINS. With the understanding that we will submit additional questions and there will be meetings between the staffs to follow up some of the questions on this and future hearings being conducted by this committee we will at this time adjourn the meeting.
Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman, I did want to clarify one point, Mr. Davis, and that is, are you a schedule C appointee?
Mr. Davis. A noncareer executive appointment.
Mrs. MINK. Are you making a determined effort to seek a person to fill this vacancy? Do you have the support of the Assistant Secretary?
Mr. Davis. Yes, we do.
Mr. Davis. We are making an intensive executive search and hope to fill that position in the immediate future.
Mrs. Mink. Are you following the aflirmative action program of the Department in seeking it to fill the position?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
With respect to the approval of the University of California at Berkley's allirmative action plan, may I just for the record ask you whether or not you reviewed that plan and did approve it? Did you find it adequate and sufficient?
Mr. Davis. My stat did review the University of California at Berkeley plan and did express to the Department of IIEW some concerns we had in relation to the program in general.
Mr. HAWKINS. I don't know what you mean by concerns. Did you express concerns about deficiencies or did you express concerns about meeting the guidelines?
Vr. Davis. We expressed some concerns about the plan, itself, totally meeting the guidelines.
vir. HWKINS. Then you have some reservations whether that particular plan which will perhaps serve as a model for other universities and colleges does meet or does not meet the guidelines?
Mr. Davis. Presently it meets the guidelines. Certainly we will be sitting down with the Department of HEW over the next few weeks to review additional submissions that are coming in from the University of California at Berkeley.
Mr. HAWKINS. Is it necessary to meet with them if it meets all the guidelines or are you meeting with them on additional submissions!
Mr. Davis. We are meeting with them on additional submissions that the university is making.
Mr. HAWKINS. You are not suggesting that that is a model which is now going to be cited as
Mr. Davis. I am not suggesting that the University of California, Berkeley, is a model, not at all.
Mr. Hawkins. Why did you foreclose the possibility of doing any. thing about it for 12 months under the law which I understand you can't do anything about if it may raise some questions that should have been settled before now?
Mr. Davis. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize that the University of California at Berkeley's proposal is the responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. HAWKINS. By delegation? It is not their responsibility. Isn't it yours?
Mr. Davis. By delegation they have the responsibility to evaluate and monitor the compliance status of universities and colleges.
Mr. HAWKINS. Doesn't the final responsibility rest with you?
Mr. Davis. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has the right to make the initial determination of the approval of the University of California at Berkeley or any other affirmative action program. My office has 45 days in which to decide whether we should reject or accept the decisions of any other compliance agency.
Mr. Hawkins. The final responsibility, then, is yours. You can disapprove.
Mr. Davis. Yes, the final responsibility would rest with the De. partment of Labor.
Mr. HAWKINS. And it was approved without reservation?
Mr. Davis. The University of California at Berkeley plan was approved, yes.
Mr. HAWKINS. Without reservation ? Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you are aware of the letter of the 14th of April sent to the University of California at Berkeley by Peter Holmes at which time he indicated I did have some concerns about certain submissions to be made by the University of California at Berkeley. Those submissions are now being made.
Mr. HAWKINS. In the meantime a contract that will not be in compliance with the law, may actually be violative, is receiving Federal funds will continue to do so.
Mr. Davis. In a review of the situation again the Government found that the University of California at Berkeley was in compliance.
Mr. HAWKINS. And the Department of Labor did also, is that right?
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subiect to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
SELECTED OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES BY RACE AND SEX-1974 EE0-1 REPORT SUMMARY OF
Eating and drinking places,
8.305 units, 687 employers,
100.0 All (M, PR).
53.2 All (F, PR)
46.8 White (T, PR).
87.2 White (M, PR).
46.4 White (F, PR)
40.8 Minority (T, PR).
12.8 Minority (M, PR).
6.8 Minority (F, PR).
5.9 General building contractors,
808 units, 542 employers,
100.0 All (M, PR)
74.6 All (F, PR)
25.4 White (T, PR).
94.0 White (M, PR)
70.1 White (F, PR)
23.9 Minority (TPR).
6.0 Minority (M, PR).
4.4 Minority (F, PR)
1.6 Food and kindred products,
5,794 units, 1,741 employ-
100.0 All (M, PR).
71.1 All (F, PR).
28.9 White (T, PR)
92. 4 White (M, PR).
66.0 White (F, PR)
26.4 Minority (T. PR).
7.6 Minority (M, PR). Minority (F, PR).
2.6 Health services, 5,960 units,
4.183 employers, SIC-80 Total employees, 2,151,355: Al! (T, PR).
100.0 All (M, PR).
15.9 Al! (F. PR).
84. 1 White (T, PR) White (M. PR)
13.3 White (F. PR)
72.6 Minority (T, PR).
14.1 Minority (M. PR).
2.7 Minority (F, PR).
11.4 Banking, 3,505 units, 1,577
100.0 All (M. PR)
35. 3 A! (F, PR)
64.7 White (T. PR) White (M, PR).
31.0 White (F, PR)
53. 7 Minority (T, PR).
15. 3 Minority (M, PR).
4. 3 Minority (F, PR)
11.0 General merchandise stores,
100.0 74.5 25.5 65.8 47. 3 18.5 34.2 27.2 7.0
6.3 93. 7 85.6
4.6 80.9 14.4
100.0 21.9 78. 1 65.8 13. 3 52.5 34. 2
11.384 units, 629 em-
100.0 All M, PR).
26. 1 All (F, PR)
73.9 White (T. PR).
89.0 White (M, PR)
23.5 White (F, PR).
65.6 Minority (T. P?)
11.0 Minority (M. PR).
2.6 Minority (F, PR).
SELECTED OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES BY RACE AND SEX-1974 EEO-1 REPORT SUMMARY OF
Electric and electronic equip
ment, 3,888 units, 1,361
All (T, PR)
Minority (F, PR).
units, 1,257 employers,
AU (T, PR).
Minority (F, PR)
All (T, PR).
Minority (F, PR).
units, 746 employers SIC-
All (T, PR).
6.3 10.0 7.5 2.5
8.3 91.7 83.7
6.5 76.2 17.3
Note: PR-Percent of total employment in a given occupational category; T-Total of all employees or of subcategories; M-Male; F--Female.
Washington, D.C., March 27, 1975. Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities, Committee on Education and
Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Georgia-Pacific Corporation, as a company doing business with the Federal Government, comes under the regulations pertaining to equal employment supervised by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. Our major compliance review agency is the General Services Administration.
In connection with your Subcommittee's current review of the activities and operations of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, we would like to submit the following for your consideration.
1. As part of our affirmative action program, we are required to analyze the work force at each of our facilities to determine if we are underutilizing minorities or women in any one or more job groups in relation to the availability of minorities or women having requisite job skills in the immediate labor area and the area in which we can reasonably recruit for each facility. Current and ac
curate statistical information on the availability of minorities and women with various job skills in immediate labor or recruiting areas are not available from either public or private sources.
2. In conciliating the deficiencies in a given affirmative action plan, we are required to provide relief for members of an "affected class.” To our knowledge, there are no definitive guidelines available either to compliance personnel or our. selves that enable one to determine on a uniform basis what an "affected class" really is. Consequently, serious and often irreconcilable differences of opinion occur in almost every instance.
We respectfully request that this statement be included in the hearing record of your Subcommittee. Respectfully submitted for,
MEL C. CARPENTER,
THOMAS F. MITCHELL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., July 7, 1975.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In compliance with Public Law 91-510, Section 236, this letter provides you with this Department's response to the recommendations included in the General Accounting Office's report (MWD-75–36), entitled “The Equal Employment Opportunity Program for Nonconstruction Contractors Can Be Improved."
As stated in our earlier response (contained in Appendix IV of the report), the Department acknowledges many of the problems identified. The Department also wishes to point out that prior to and since the September 1974 completion of GAO's study, it has been making progress to reduce the problems and to implement most of the report's recommendations. Although the final report incorporates some of the Department's initial comments, insufficient recognition is given to OFCC's strengthened monitoring role and the progress made by the nonconstruction compliance program in increasing employment of minorities and women. The Department's response summarizes these matters and addresses each of the major issues and recommendations raised by GAO.
REVISED ORDER NO. 4
In the introduction to the report, GAO questions the propriety of Revised Order No. 4 for procurement related considerations by stating that the Order may be in violation of the basic principles of Federal procurement law because the Order fails to “set forth more definite standards and criteria to apprise prospective bidders of the basis on which their compliance with the equal employment opportunity requirements will be judged." This expresses GAO's prior concerns as reflected in its opinion to the Department on Illinois' Fair Employment Practices requirements for federally assisted construction, which are patterned in part after Revised Order No. 4.
The Department believes significant clarification of AAP requirements is contained in the 1974 amendments to Revised Order No. 4. However, the Department is continuing to evaluate and modify, where appropriate, its regulations and procedures to insure consistency with both the Executive Order and procurement regulations.
One of GAO's major recommendations was the establishment of a fully operational system for assessing the progress made by minorities and women employed by federal nonconstruction contractors. The submission of coding sheets under Order 14 procedures (which are intended to measure such progress) has increased substantially since the completion of the GAO stuly. It now covers more than 90 percent of the compliance agency reviews and OFCC is taking steps to insure that all reviews are covered. From this source employment progress by minorities and women will be measured on a quarterly basis.