Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I also ask that the Chair have our staff look into this question very closely so that we may be prepared with a good deal of information about what can be done when Secretary Weaver appears.

Senator RIBICOFF. That will be done.

BUILDING TRADES UNIONS OPPOSE DISCRIMINATION

Senator JAVITS. Now, I have just one other question.

There has been a lot of talk about discrimination in the building trades, Negro locals, et cetera. We have seen the arguments break here in Washington. There is a lot of pressure to pass a law with relation-which would tie in the trade unions in questions of discrimination and seek sanctions against them.

Now, could you tell us what is being done in the building trades to deal with this question?

Mr. HAGGERTY. Well, Senator, I think you realize that every general president of the building trades international unions, with the exception of one, possibly, has signed the Presidential document, going on record opposed to discrimination in the admission of members. and retention of members in the respective unions.

As far as I know, they have carried out their oaths that they took and the promise they made when they gave their signature.

Now, you might pick out-of the 8,400 local unions throughout the country, you might find one where a charge has been, or is being, leveled. We do not pretend that every one of those 8,400 local unions and their millions of members are all perfect. They all sometimes want to break the law and bypass it.

Senator JAVITS. But the building trades department will act against them and honor its pledge if the charges are made seriously?

Mr. HAGGERTY. Yes; definitely. The department will refer the matter to the president of the union involved, and he will take action. I would like to have Mr. Schoemann cover that.

EFFORTS OF BUILDING TRADES TO OVERCOME DISCRIMINATION

Mr. SCHOEMANN. Well, I would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, with reference to this question. Let me cite a few things in an effort to dispel this illusion of racial discrimination in the building trades.

On November 15, 1962, most of the international unions affiliated with the building and construction trades department signed the union program for fair practices with what was then the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

On June 21, 1963, the presidents of all 18 international unions affiliated with the department adopted and publicized a policy statement opposing discrimination.

We believe that a significant action was our support of title VII, the equal opportunity title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many political observers believe there would have been no title VII without the solid support of the trade union movement; and it is questionable whether there would have been a title VII if it had been supported by one part of the labor movement and opposed by another part of the labor movement.

Charges filed against building trades unions under title VII, or any other law or public regulation, have been exceedingly few in number. The total of all job discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the first year of its operation numbered 8,600. Of that total, only 10 involved the building trades. Recent experience has proven that racial discrimination is the exception rather than the rule in the building trades.

MONTHLY JOURNAL STRESSES RACIAL EQUALITY

I would like to mention certain efforts made by my own international union. Our best educational instrument is our monthly journal. This is practically the only means our international union officers have of reaching our 280,000 members. Time and again we have used our monthly journal in an effort to put over the message of racial equality. We have said simply that applicants from the minority groups are to be taken into the union, provided they are qualified according to standards uniformly applied, and according to the amount of available work and the skill needs of the industry.

UNION CRITICS HURT NEGRO CAUSE

Yet there are those in positions of influence in government and in the civil rights movement who persist in preaching the gospel that Negroes are not welcome in the building trades. If they really want to help Negroes and encourage whatever ambition some may have to get into the building trades, they should be preaching instead the gospel that they are welcome.

Many of these accusations sound to us for all the world, like other blasts against the building trades in other times, let us say, about 30 years ago. The issue has changed; the object of the abuse and the tone of the voice remain the same. There are some articulate people in this world who just plain don't like craft unionism or the institutions of apprenticeship and the so-called hiring hall. They are not all of the same race or color. Some of them, at least, have other fish to fry and other axes to grind; and their criticisms of us do not proceed from a genuine concern about getting more Negroes into building trade unions.

I have a copy of the article I had in our journal, in fact, I have got enough copies here for the subcommittee, entitled "How About It?" This article was carried in our journal in April 1965. And I go into detail in explaining to our membership-and every member gets a copy of this journal-what they have to do and what we expect them to do.

And as I previously said, there are occasions where somebody steps over the line; and where we have detected that, we have taken steps, drastic steps in authorizing or requiring the local union involved to take the position we have adopted.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Schoemann, thank you very much.

I ask unanimous consent that the article may be made part of the record.

Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, so ordered. (The article referred to follows:)

[Reprinted from UA Journal, April 1965]

EXHIBIT 210

How ABOUT IT?

REPORT TO THE UNITED ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP

From General President Peter T. Schoemann

This month my report takes up once again the subject of equal employment opportunity, or the question of racial justice in employment and union membership.

Many of you, I am sure, are weary of hearing and reading about it, and yet I hope that every member of the United Association will read this report through to the end. I hope every member, whether he agrees with everything in this report or not, will think it over and dicuss it frequently with other UA members at the union meeting and on the job.

For the fact is, Brothers, we have a problem. Despite significant actions taken in some locals, this problem in too many cases has not yet been solved, and the sands of time are running out.

Furthermore, it cannot be solved by your international union officers alone, for we have in our craft union movement a tradition called "local union autonomy." It is a good and necessary tradition, for a large majority of our members work in the construction industry which, because of its economic characteristics, is a highly localized industry. Also, racial discrimination and racial equality have their own local characteristics, and so the initiative called for must be local initative.

Likewise, Brothers, your local union officers cannot solve this problem alone. True, union officers are expected to lead, but they need your encouragement and support. We were a democratic organization long before Landrum-Griffin tried to make us one, and the reason your elected officers cannot go it alone on racial justice or any other issue is that they are not the dictators that the enemies of labor would like you to believe they are.

AND THE LAW

Nor can Title VII of the Civil Rights Act solve this problem alone. Some have said that when that Title becomes effective, July 2, 1965, our people will take care of keeping out of trouble with the law, and so, no sweat. Now this can be a very dangerous attitude.

First of all, the Civil Rights Act does not supersede or render void the rules on Nondiscrimination in Apprenticeship and Training of the U.S. Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (so-called Title 29 Part 30) which became effective January 17, 1964. Our present stand on these rules will be explained later in this article.

An attitude of mere compliance with law can mean simply, "don't get caught" and this is no good. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is almost wholly negative in character. That is, it remedies discrimination after it has occurred, without attempting affirmative control of hiring practices or apprentice selection procedures. The history of such legislation seems to be that it is chiefly good for turning up wrongs and rumors of wrongs, and creating a demand for stricter legislation. This could lead to affirmative control by law.

It is hoped, of course, that no case will ever arise under Title VII involving any of the building trades or metal trades.

Let's do some hard thinking about the gradual change in American public opinion not only regarding civil rights, but also civil rights legislation. The American majority apears ready to support full racial equality in voting, public accommodations and—what concerns us employment and union membership. Do you think Title VII will be the end of equal employment opportunity legislation? It could be more like the beginning.

So, Brothers, lets not blind ourselves to the signs of the times.

AMONG US, TOO

This gradual change in public opinion has not been without effect among our own number, old as well as young, for we are part of that public and subject to the same influences, as our neighbors. On this issue at least, it is not true that "you

can't teach old dogs new tricks." I have heard veteran building tradesmen, union officers and journeymen, saying some mighty strange things about this issue lately.

There are many reasons for this. It might be conscience, for it has been apparent for a long time that many have had an uneasy conscience about discrimination, but might not know how to go about changing things. Our major religions— Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Jewish-have recently thrown greater weight into the equal rights struggle. Most of our members are adherents of one or other of these faiths. I would also like to think our own efforts in the building trades and in the United Association have produced some results.

Someone might ask: Why have the building trades been singled out for special treatment? And someone might answer: Because construction jobs are out in the open where the minority groups can see everybody working.

Well, maybe. And again, maybe not. I'm not so sure we have been too much singled out. The civil rights movement came to government employment long ago, and to such things as department stores, transit companies and professional sports, where the minorities are consumers and have economic leverage.

This issue has come to our doorstep mostly because of public contracts, of which construction is a minor part. A much larger part is defense spending.

And here there is a difference. Suppose a big corporation gets a fat defense contract. Into the plant manager's office walks a federal agency representative, suggesting that non-discrimination might be better demonstrated if that plant, while hiring mathematicians to work on that contract, would hire (say) nine or so Negro mathematicians. The plant manager is a businessman, so a nationwide personnel department is pressed into service to recruit nine Negro mathematicians. It does recruit them, and if others in the plant are unhappy, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Now, a federal building job is in progress and this representative calls on our business agent, suggesting that he doesn't see enough nonwhites among the pipefitters, plumbers and sprinkler fitters. Our business agent says he has no closed shop, only a 7-day union shop, the contractor does the hiring, so he had better see the contractor. So the representative sees the contractor, who tells him that he can't hire anybody except through the union hiring hall. Back goes the federal man to our business agent. Now the business agentas his title implies-is a kind of businessman and has his ideas about what would be best for the local. Then he wonders whether his membership will agree. After all, he has spent all his working life in this local. He knows this local or so he thinks. Or does he? Sentiments of racial bias he has heard, but maybe not too much on the other side. And so begins trouble. . .

This, Brothers, is why I write these articles in our monthly Journal, not so high government officials or civil rights leaders will read nice words and go easy on us, but so UA members will read these words-hard words for some-and do something. Do you think your General President has gone over to the other side? I tell you I am a member of the United Association and very much on your side. So let's see what we have to do.

TITLE VII

As to the new Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it outlaws discrimination of every kind. Avoid discrimination of every kind and you will comply with the law.

The law forbids discrimination not only in employment and apprentice training, but also in union membership. Some have asked, "How can the law force us to admit anyone to membership?" The law does not tell us whom we have to admit as members. It says that we cannot deny membership to anyone for reasons of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. No court will order you to admit anyone under the Civil Rights Act unless it finds that you have kept him out for one of those reasons.

There is a requirement that you keep a record of applications received from anyone who expresses interest in apprenticeship training. This is to be done according to regulations which have not yet been promulgated. When they are, we will keep local unions and apprentice committees informed.

One special kind of legal action under the Act deserves mention. This pertains to the so-called "pattern or practice" cases. Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that your local union or apprentice committee, or

your local together with your employers, is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, he may take you into court on his own motion without waiting for formal complaints from other persons. Now a pattern or a practice of discrimination means a series of repeated acts, or a habit of discrimination, which evidences the intention to deny the full exercise of rights guaranteed by Title VII. It does not consist in a given sociological fact of a certain racial percentage in your local.

On the other hand, we ought to be aware that such sociological facts do sometimes lead others to suspect a pattern or practice of discrimination. Their suspicions are not always quilted by an equal opportunity pledge. This type of situation is usually found in large cities of 100,000 or more population, with a large Negro or other minority, in which our local union might have several hundered members, and either no minority members or at most two or three. This is the sort of situation which could bring the Attorney General knocking at your door in search of a pattern or practice of discrimination.

BAT RULES

Now, for the regulations on nondiscrimination promulgated last year by the U.S. Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT). Since that time, they have been substantially adopted by the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, and made to apply to all apprenticeship programs (registered or not) during the time that a participating employer has a contract for federal or federally assisted work.

Where no federal work is involved, then the BAT regulations apply directly only to registered programs in 21 states which have no state apprenticeship council or agency of their own. In the other 32 SAC states or jurisdictions, the councils or agencies have all been required to adopt their own nondiscrimination programs. Most have adopted the federal regulations practically verbatim. A few of the larger states have adopted different rules.

Let us first consider the regulatory scheme in the 21 BAT jurisdictions and those SAC jurisdictions having substantially the same rules.

You may recall that in this very column about a year and a half ago, some very hard things were said about early drafts of those regulations. Our objections were directed mainly at attempts to impose affirmative regulation on apprentice selection procedures. We opposed the quota system, the civil service merit or "comparative qualifications alone" system, and also a forced choice between those two methods.

In the rules as finally adopted, however, some very important and salutary changes were made. The population quotas were ruled out. Because allowance was made for alternate plans, we now have a whole range of options rather than only two. If your program was already registered when the rules were adopted, you are free to come up with your own equal opportunity plan, but it must be approved by the BAT Administrator.

The United Association therefore advises local unions and apprentice committee members to take these regulations at their face value, and avail themselves of all the latitude which they permit. As thus interpreted, he regulations do afford substantial protection for private programs, and require nothing more than what we should have been doing all along in the absence of regulation, and what both the government and the American public have a right to expect of us in this period of history.

We did not get everything we wanted. We would rather not be regulated at all, of course. The general philosophy of this regulation, however, is fair and reasonable.

We read the "alternate plan" provisions as carrying out assurances given at various times by Labor Secretary Willard Wirtz, that compromise is possible between the custom of giving preference to sons and others, and the legitimate aspirations of the minority groups to end discrimination.

Throughout the discrimination argument, the United Association has not tried to conceal or apologize for the system of preferring sons in the building trades. We have campaigned openly for the right of our programs to select apprentices in the same way that any private business might select employees, or that an elected public official selects his political appointees. This extends all the way to a pure patronage system for those local programs that desire it.

So now the regulations appear to say: "If you want to run a patronage system, then go ahead, but show us what patronage you are reserving for members of the

83-453 0-67-pt. 15- -6