The burden of such past discrimination, and its present remnants, will not simply disappear. EEOC statistics revealed how much progress was necessary before minority participation approaches meaningful levels. Four days of testimony made it clear that progress was occurring only in those firms where the problem was receiving "special" attention. To label such corrective efforts "reverse discrimination" is to evade or distort the issue. The President of Western Union, Mr. Russell McFall, described the situation today in terms of inertia, on the part of the employer and the minority community. He concluded: It is not enough for business firms to send out anouncements from corporate headquarters that, "yes, nonwhites are welcome here, come one, come all." The legacy of the ghetto life must be overcome An extra effort is needed, the little push that will overcome the inertia. And it must come from the employer. Where companies have been more concerned with the slogans of progress than the statistics of minority placement and promotion, their results have been largely rhetorical. The EEOC's study of 100 New York City corporations included a comparison of firms which had joined "Plans for Progress" and similar non-member firms. The "Plans for Progress" firms, each of which had pledged affirmative support of equal employment opportunity, showed consistently poorer records in white collar minority employment, particularly at the higher levels where they were supposedly focusing special attention on the problem. A public posture of concern is clearly appropriate but it is neither a remedy for past failure nor a substitute for present action. The Hearings themselves produced more pledges. Employer testimony included proposed recruiting schedules, predictions of future minority hires and promotions, speculations on industry-wide education programs. Some firms have already stepped up their recruiting efforts and placed minority employees in previously all-white departments and positions. EEOC witness Gilbert Rodriguez was hired by one of the testifying employers. Three firms invited to testify later joined a program initiated by the EEOC with the Urban League and the Puerto Rican Community Development Project, in which the resumes of qualified minority applicants were reviewed by company management for white collar placement. After six months of affirmative recruitment, these companies placed more than 100 minority candidates throughout their organizations. all in positions above the clerical level. The same kind of effort could be made, with or without EEOC guidance, by every New York employer-with results and impact far more significant than this initial project. For too long, employers have ignored the fact that in EEO activities, as in every other business endeavor, results are what count. It is in terms of the number of minority applicants actually hired and promoted that progress will be measured by the EEOC and by the minority community. And employers should judge themselves in these same terms. No company would gauge a salesman's effectiveness by his good intentions or its marketing progress by the sincerity of the advertising campaign; neither should such standards be applied to its equal employment opportunity program. Such a program can be meaningfully evaluated only in the opportunities it has produced for minority candidates throughout the company. Firms committed to success in this area find that employment statistics are the most effective measure of that success, serving to "test the progress that's being made . . . comparing what's going on in all areas," according to the President of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The EEOC looks to these same figures in the EEO-1 reporting forms, submitted annually by employers on their workforce composition. Companies professing a commitment to equal employment opportunity will be judged not by the pledges of concern but by the personnel decisions reflected in those yearly satistical reports. Whether employers choose to draw on the experiences of other firms, as discussed in this pamphlet, or forge their own solutions to the problem, clearly they must move beyond commitment to action-if they hope to effect significant change. In discussing industry's responsibility in this area, David Rockefeller told the Commission: Businesses must be dedicated and enthusiastic activists in the equal opportunity movement. No longer is it enough to say simply, "We do not discriminate against minorities." This must be coupled with strongly affirmative action to attract Negroes and Spanish Americans, and motivate them once they are on the job. This is not an easy task. But I believe business must take the initiative in determining how it can best be done, rather than why it can't. Testimony at the Hearings demonstrated ways in which the task could be done-and documented how few employers were committed to its accomplishment. Until every employer recognizes his responsibility to maintain equal employment opportunity-until he gives this problem the attention and energy and priority its solution requires-little progress can be expected. If industry fails to achieve such progress, with real and meaningful results for the minority workforce, both communities must suffer the consequences. Full utilization of productive resources is prerequisite for a strong economy and a healthy nation; human resources must be mobilized with equal thoroughness and equal concern. U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1968 O 326-830 MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.-Chairman Luther Holcomb-Vice Chairman Vicente T. Ximenes Elizabeth J. Kuck William H. Brown III Editorial note: The verbatim transcript of these hearings exceeds 800 pages. This summary includes highlights of the facts and opinons presented during the four-day session. The full transcript can be purchased through the Superintendent of Documents at the Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. The cost is $2.75 per copy. A complete record of the proceedings is available to researchers at the EEOC, 1800 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C., as are copies of the EEOC research reports on New York City White Collar Employment Opportunities. BLACK EMPLOYMENT IN THREE MAJOR TEXTILE FIRMS 1 Three major textile firms 1 employed 133,421 in 1968 according to EEO-1 Reports filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Black employees comprised 15,602 of the total, or 11.7 percent. As these companies are located predominantly in Southern states, this 11.7 percent represents underutilization of Negroes. What should be underscored, however, is the gross underutilization of Blacks in the higher paying and more prestigious job categories. Blacks hold only 394 of the 24,914 white collar jobs-or a meager 1.6 percent. And all but 66 of the Negro white collar employees are in the category of office/clerical, the lowest paying of the white collar jobs. Thus, while only 45.2 percent of total white collar employees are in office/clerical jobs, 83.2 percent of total Black white collar employees hold these jobs. Blacks hold almost none of the upper level white collar jobs. There are only 16 Black officials/managers out of 8,437 (0.2 percent); 8 professionals out of 2,112 (0.4 percent); 33 technicians out of 1,612 (2.0 percent); and 9 salesmen out of 1,497 (0.6 percent). In looking at blue collar employment, it should be noted that while Negroes comprise 13.5 percent of blue collar workers, they hold only 285 of the 15,984 craftsmen's jobs-a mere 1.8 percent. Craftsmen positions are the highest paying of the blue collar jobs. Blacks are heavily concentrated in the lower paying operatives, laborers and service worker categories. 1 Burlington Industries, Inc., Dan River Mills, Inc., J. P. Stevens Co., Inc. |