« PreviousContinue »
Mr. HAMPTON. We have changed our rating schedules on that.
Mr. HAMPTON. We are giving credit, now, in the ratings, for people with those kinds of activities. We are finding many women who raised a family, had a good education, and worked before, had done part-time work, and now want to come back in the work force. They are not like someone who just finished college or high school or starting out; they have had a lot of experience, and we have established rating schedules now to give credit for this. Also, we are trying to get through Congress, if we can get it out of the Office of Management and Budget, a proposal to establish flex-time schedules which will encourage the use of more women particularly, as well as to provide better job satisfaction to the total work force by encouraging agencies to accommodate to people with flexible hours. I think it will have a good impact. We have found the productivity went way up where it was tried.
Mr. BUCHANAN. That is very encouraging.
Mr. KATOR. Could I respond to the new blood. I think it is important. There is some indication we do get a lot of new people into the Federal service. Every year, even if we are not growing in size, which we have not been of recent vears, we are taking in over 250,000 people from the outside coming into the system. These are new people. These are the lower levels.
Mr. HAMPTON. Basically clerical jobs and worker trainee and Vietnam era veterans.
Mr. BUCHANAN. You don't expect those people to reach the supergrades?
Vir. KATOR. Some of them will reach the supergrades. They will reach it-it won't be tomorrow.clearly.
Mr. BUCHANAN. It doesn't operate that way in most entities.
Mr. KATOR. The supergrade level, which is what you are talking about, has not had much overall change. We have had little change occurring at the supergrade level. From 1969 to the present time, the total number of persons in the supergrades increased by 24. It staved pretty much the same. Yet, there was an increase of 115 of minority grades in the supergrade so there is a change in that regard.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Starting from zero, it would have to be.
Mr. HAWKINS. On that point, Mr. Hampton, in vour statement, vou indicated the progress that women had made which seems to be rather substantial, at the GS-13 level and above the number of women had moved from 6.400 in 1968 to over 9,000 in 1973, or from 3.7 percent to 4.5 percent. That is a period of 5 vears. Now, at that rate, I estimate it would take 270 years to reach parity. Certainly, we are progressing, but how fast are we progressing? We are celebrating 200 years of the anniversary of this Nation next year. Over that period of time, if women had started at the beginning, at that same rate, they would not reach parity by 1976. We are talking about 270 added years, from now, for them to reach parity at that rate of progression. I have served under 4 Presidents and each administration has said the same thing, both Republicans and Democrats--we are making progress. I have been hearing this a long time.
Mr. HAMPTON. I have heard the population parity argument that each grade should be reflective of the percentages in the population,
but I think that theory in itself is subject to some debate. I think there is some question about parity because there are people that are not in the work force by their own choosing. I think that what we have to look at very much, and this is something that I think we have needed from BLS for a long time, is, work force data for given geographic areas—who is in the work force and who are available for jobs.
Mr. HAWKINS. I hope you don't look to the Department of Labor because their statistics are completely misleading and false. They don't know who is in the labor force themselves. The official count of women and youths is about 50 percent below the number actually unemployed. When I asked about the unemployment rate, they said women and youths don't count as much as men; that is a very poor standard of data collections. We are trying to get back to the concept of affirmative action. You don't wait for people to catch up. It is the responsibility of the agencies to go out and to train people, to help motivate them and not to wait for them to catch up
Mr. ANDOLSEK. Your work force is a certain number—you can't just fire everybody and start over.
Mr. HAWKINS. Thirty-five million women are not considered to be in the work force; they are counted as housewives. We are content to count them as housewives on the theory they don't want to work. We are not trying to motivate them, just brush them aside. If jobs were available, if they knew they could get promotions, knew the system worked for them, they would be encouraged to do something. If we were in a war with an external enemy, we would be begging them to go get involved.
I have several questions to ask, myself, but I would be quite interested in Mr. Hampton's answering the first question you asked in regards to class action. I don't recall you ever dealing with that subject.
Mr. HAMPTON. We do have class action appeals. Mr. Kator will elaborate.
Mr. Kator. We have no problem with class actions where the class would be appropriate under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I think there is difficulty in finding the class. If persons, generally, as a class, allege an examination has an adverse impact, we have a procedure where those allegations would be heard and a resolution made of that issue. The cases we are talking about here are individual cases of discrimination where one individual did not get hired or was not promoted—and it is his particular situation or her particular situation that there is a concern about, and the purpose of our complaint procedure is to handle these on an individual basis. If there are 10 people similarly involved, they can be handled under the same procedure as well.
Mr. Clay. Individually or as a class?
Mr. CLAY. If one represents a class, why do you prevent a class action?
Mr. KATOR. I don't think we do prevent it. It is finding a proper class situation. There have been class suits that the courts have rejected as not being proper. It is because the class was not proper. I personally, and I am sure Chairman Hampton would join me, have no concern
with the class action concept. I think our concern is with finding the
Mr. CLAY. Are you bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Mr. Kator. They determine a class generally in terms of the Federal
Mr. KATOR. No; they do not.
Mr. Clay. Then, you are not confining it within that little narrow scope, are you?
Mr. KATOR. I suppose, technically, you are right, we are not.
Mr. Clay. What we are trying to do is get at elimination of discrimination against people in the Federal service. Why would you want to impose some strict limitations on yourself so you can't get at the problem?
Mr. KATOR. I don't think we are trying to impose limitations. What we are trying to do is determine whether this particular allegation of an individual can best be handled on an individual complaint basis, and up to now it seemed to us this is the way to solve these kinds of problems. Most are employees in the Federal service. They come to us with matters that are completely dissimilar. The kind of question we get is—I didn't get promoted—and the reason is because I was discriminated against by my supervisor. That is an individual kind of situation, and really doesn't lend itself to the class action kind of relief.
Mr. CLAY. I think I heard in your testimony you have approximately 3,000 of these individual complaints a year?
Mr. Kator. Formal complaints.
Mr. Clay. Have you found any cases of actual discrimination against persons because of their sex or race?
Mr. KATOR. Yes.
Mr. Kator. I don't know that we have fired anybody. We have demoted them. I think we may well have separated some. There is a separation, Mr. Hudson tells me, there are reprimands, there are training
Mr. H.Miron. Last year, we had 88 instances of disciplinary actions taken against government officials.
Mr. CLAY. How many dismissals from service?
Mr. HAMPTON. It doesn't break them down. It just says, the supervisor was given a letter of reprimand, the supervisor was removed, the supervisor was transferred letter of admonishment-apologized suspension-verbally cautioned.
Mr. CLAY. Are you personally satisfied the punishment is fitting the crime, in these instances!
Mr. HAMPTox. I haven't reviewed any of these personally.
Mr. Clay. You have a responsibility to see that people are not discriminated against. Are you perfectly satisfied to sit here, when you find people have been denied employment opportunities in all instances, they are to continue to work for the Federal Government and stay in a position to deny other people those same rights! Mr. HAMPTON. No. Mr. Clay. When are we going to get serious about this business?
Mr. HAMPTON. I agree, where you have a case where the individual has been found to be a discriminating official in terms of promotion or hiring, I think the answer would be separation from the service.
Mr. Clay. You will recommend that as the official policy? Mr. KATOR. I don't think there is any question about that being the official policy. I think many of the cases are cases that are not that clear as to what the official did and what his action was. We have told our complaint examiners that they don't need to find a culpable supervisor in order to give relief such as a retroactive promotion. You don't have to find the individual or supervisor who did it. What you have to do is determine if there was discrimination treatment in terms of that individual, and then provide a remedy for him or her. This doesn't mean we don't look for the culpable individual.
Mr. Clay. If you found the culpable individual and fired him, don't you think that would be a deterrent against other people
Mr. Kator. No question about that.
Mr. CLAY. Why don't we try it because the other system, apparently, has not been working. I have listened for 7 years to you coming before us talking about percentage increase for women and blacks, and I have the record-you testified in 1969 and 1971, and you testified percentages, then, and I tried to break it down into individuals. How many are we talking about? In most instances we are talking about one or two increases for individuals, so I think you are not being honest when you sit here and talk about a 50-percent or 30-percent increase. You should be talking about individuals. In 1971, you sat there and told me how many blacks you had in the supergrades at the Civil Service Commission, and how many women you had. Will you tell me today the answer to that same questionI don't want it in percentages, but individuals.
Mr. KATOR. Chairman Hampton gave that. We have one minority and two women supergrades.
Mr. Clay. In 1971 you said you had one black supergrade and you had one woman, so what is your increase in terms of supergrades for minorities at the Commission level itself!
Mr. KATOR. We have indicated—I think Chairman Hampton didwe are not satisfied at the supergrade level. We have a lot of problems, as indicated, in the number of supergrades available. I am concerned when you say we talked just in percentage terms, because we do, in terms of showing the kind of progress being made, but we have got actual numbers and when we talk at different grade levels, other than supergrades, we will be delighted to give you specific numbers at every grade level.
Mr. Clay. Tell me, I want to know how many minorities work at grade 15 in St. Louis in my district-GS-15, GS-16, or GS-17?
Mr. KATOR. I could tell you back in 1972. I don't have the data
Mr. CLAY. I have got it for 1973 and you have 6/42 percent of that population is black, and we have 6 in the GS-15, GS-16, and GS-17. Now, of course, you and Mr. Hampton have admitted this morning you don't think proportion of the population necessarily has to be reflected in Federal employment, but certainly it ought to be close to it; 6 blacks at the GS--15, GŠ-16, and GS-17 level. Let's see how many are in the pipeline on the way up. We have 21 GS-14's in St. Louis and it is worse in Kansas where there is only 1 GS-15, no GS-16 or GS-17's and only 19 black GS-14's. What are we talking about?
Mr. HAMPTON. We don't have any supergrades in St. Louis. In the St. Louis region we have one GS-16. You are talking about all of the Government agencies in the Kansas City area?
Mr. KATOR. I am sure you could find other standard metropolitan statistical areas that are the same as that. You can find some that are quite different, I think. Overall in Grade 14, we had 44,000 minority employees, and now we have 49,000—these are people, not percentages—5,000 at the Grade 14 level. At the Grade 13 level, we had 91,000. We have 103,000 now.
Mr. Clay. How many of those would be the result of EE positions—positions specifically related to the enforcement of EEO laws?
Mr. KATOR. In my judgment, very few.
Mr. Clay. Most of the blacks I find with top grades in the government are all related to some EEO program.
Mr. KATOR. No question you are going to find blacks working in some Equal Employment-generally, you will find blacks, women and Spanish-speaking distributed throughout the occupational spectrum. There are just not enough EEO jobs when you are talking about 21 percent of the Federal population being minority.
Mr. Clay. Let me ask you this question. You spoke in terms of modifying 39 percent of the affirmative action proposals. I assume that was for last year?
Mr. KATOR. I think so.
Mr. CLAY. Who is responsible for evaluating the agency's EEO programs? Are the CSC Inspectors responsible for that?
Mr. KATOR. Yes. We make actual on site evaluations and it is our inspectors that do that.
Nr. Clay. How many inspectors do you have?
Mr. KATOR. A substantial number—that means more than 50 percent.
Mr. Clay. But you will supply it?
Mr. Clay. The inspectors at CSC are responsible for investigating EEO complaints. Is that correct?
Mr. Kator. Yes; to the extent that they are called on by other agencies to investigate the complaint, we use our investigation personnel to do that. Most agencies are doing their own investigations.
Mr. HAMPTON. Some agencies have investigators of their own.