tion with IUE's pregnancy disability case against General Electric. They grossly exaggerated the cost put before this committee relating to the Pregnancy Disability Act and you no longer hear cries after the passage of that act as you heard before, and they are also grossly exaggerating the cost of correcting wage discrimination. They have grossly exaggerated in testimony before Congress, in their briefs, and arguments before the court. Second, although wage discrimination settlements are a substantial benefit, the actual hourly cost as a percentage of overall cost of a unit cost is quite minimal, but irrespective of all of that, I fail to see anything in title VII that says Congress put a price tag on the cost of correcting discrimination. There just ain't no such thing in title VII. Third, employers who are today violating existing law by deliberately paying women less than men doing work requiring no greater effort or responsibility cannot, it seems to me, in good conscience, argue that they should have the right to be unjustly enriched in violation of the law. That kind of unjust enrichment is hardly something that seems to me the courts or the Congress want to perpetuate. Ending discrimination, ending the initial assignment discrimination, is clearly a noncost item. It doesn't cost any more to put a woman over here and a man over there than it does to reverse them. In those cases, the actual rate may not be discriminatory, although I think in most cases, that additional factor is there, at least the initial assignment discrimination can be corrected and the future patterns can be corrected and women can stop getting that subtle message that those particular jobs are not available. It would certainly lessen the disparity. Given the fact that the earnings gap is experienced by minorities and women remains basically unchanged since the passage of title VII, this is hardly the time to think of weakening the law or decreasing the emphasis on affirmative action, especially in view of the Supreme Court's edict that eliminating discrimination was intended by Congress to be given the highest priority. This is the Supreme Court's view of what Congress intended in passing title VII. It is not the time to talk about decreasing the emphasis placed on systemic discrimination and litigation to correct discrimination. Those who now advocate weakening our affirmative action and enforcement efforts can do so only out of the mistaken belief that the same people who brought about discriminatory practices and who continued such practices in the face of laws prohibiting them will suddenly see the light or because they believe that employers and unions should be allowed the freedom to discriminate without Government interference. Since pervasive wage discrimination against women workers exists today in virtually every workplace that hires women on a segregated basis, we respectfully urge the committee to give all assistance to EEOC to make the issues of initial assignment discrimination, occupational segregation, and wage discrimination priority items; to urge and encourage EEOC to take vigorous action in these and other areas of discrimination by initiating a strong law enforcement program to achieve compliance with the law, and to 76-638 0-81--13 see that EEOC obtains the budgetary resources required to eliminate such discrimination. Finally, while I emphasize the enormous need for more effective enforcement, I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of Ellie Smeal regarding the ERA, that she so succinctly set forth, and to those who complain that we already have too many lawsuits on the books, I would respectfully suggest that careful analysis of ERA will demonstrate that it will make some existing laws unnecessary, because it would cover them. But it would also encompass additional laws and thus it would also make it unnecessary to pass additional laws because those additional laws that are so badly needed to correct other aspects of discrimination would be covered by ERA. [The prepared statement of Mr. Newman follows:] STATEMENT OF WINN NEWMAN COALITION OF LABOR UNION WOMEN AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES My name is Winn Newman. I am General Counsel of the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) and the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC (IUE). I appear here with Carole W. Wilson, Associate General Counsel of the IUE, who helped to prepare this testimony. CLUW is a national membership organization of women and men who are members of labor unions. It has a membership drawn from more than 65 International Unions. It has 30 active chapters throughout the United States and a National Executive Board composed of the female leadership of these International Unions. A primary purpose of this national coalition is to unify all union women and men in a viable organization dedicated to the achievement of participation of women within their unions and to removing all forms of discrimination from the workplace. -2 The IUE represents approximately 300,000 employees in the electrical equipment manufacturing industry. More than a million women are employed in this industry. No other durable goods manufacturing industry has any comparable number of women workers. Approximately 40% of the workers in the electrical equipment manufacturing industry are females and approximately 40% of the IUE's membership is female. From its founding in 1949, the IUE has sought through collective bargaining, including legal action where necessary, to eradicate race and sex discrimination in the workplace. IUE's leadership role in attacking employment discrimination was acknowledged by former National Labor Relations Board Chairman Betty Murphy, who stated that IUE "has been a prime mover for equality in the workplace" and "is dedicated to bettering the working conditions of its members and... to wiping out any vestige of employment 1/ discrimination." 1/ General Motors, 243 NLRB No. 19 (1979), 101 LRRM 1461, 1464. -3 Although CLUW and IUE are concerned about all aspects of discrimination against women and minorities, I want to concentrate today on what we perceive to be the most significant consistently neglected aspect of the enforcement of Title VII and E.O. 11246, namely their express prohibitions against discrimination in rates of pay or other forms of compensation because of race or sex. I would like to discuss: I. The growing importance of women in the work force. II. III. IV. V. ул. The earnings gap between women and men. The growing unionization of women and its impact on the wage gap. What unions have done and can do to eliminate The significance of the issue of discrimination experience in litigating wage inequities based on sex. The symbiotic relationship of initial assignment discrimination, occupational segregation, the denial of promotional opportunity and wage discrimination. |