dents for which the regression was run," except for those living and working in the ring. Even for the latter, well over half the variability is explained; availability of rapid transit remains the most influential determinant.

TABLE 3-PERCENT CHANGE IN PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED SMSA'S AND IN THEIR RING, BY INDUSTRY GROUP, 1959-651

1 Excludes government workers and the self-employed. Employment in the ring is estimated from employment outside of the county in which the central city is located. The central city and county were coterminous in both years in New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington. For the following the ratio of the central city to central county employment in 1960 was 107 in San Francisco-Oakland, 89 in Boston, 70 in Indianapolis, 68 in Chicago, 64 in Detroit, 61 in Atlanta, 53 in Cleveland, and 52 in Dayton. Since the central county was used to establish the central city, the figures for the ring underestimate the subruban trend in all central cities which are smaller than the central city-county.

2 Excludes Los Angeles and St. Louis; for Los Angeles, data for the central city-county do not permit close enough approximation with the city proper, and for St. Louis, data are not yet available for 1965.

* Less than 0.5 percent change.

Source: County Business Patterns (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1959 and 1965).

17 Those living and working in the central city; living in the central city and working in the ring; living in the ring and working in the central city; and living in the ring and working in the ring.

Dependence on public transit among poor and relatively low-paid workers lends importance to the change in public transit costs as well as the level. Fares for public transportation have risen twice as fast as the cost of buying and operating an automobile since 1957-59. The rate of increase is more than for any other group of commodities or services in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, with the exception of medical care, and even exceeded medical care in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia."

Of all who traveled from home to work in 1960, the smallest journey-to-work group (less than 10 percent of the total) commuted from central city to the suburbs. This percentage is surprisingly small, considering that high unemployment rates and low-income populations are concentrated in the city, whereas employment opportunities are expanding in the outskirts.

Of the men who did travel to the ring in 1960, half were craftsmen or production workers and another 13 percent were in professional or technical work. Of the women, about 1 of 5 were clerical or production workers. These occupational distributions for those traveling to the suburbs are not greatly different from those of the major group, which both lives and works in the central city. The occupational distribution of central city-to-suburb commuters varies most from the suburban residents who commute to the city and who are more likely to be in professional and managerial work. The central city-to-suburb commuters' occupational pattern differs little from those who live and work in the ring. Among the latter, the proportions of men and women are about the same, and, as in all four journey-to-work groups, women tend to be much more concentrated in clerical and service jobs than the men. The men predominate in industrial jobs. They are not more professionally oriented than in the other groups and are less so than among the commuters to the city from the ring.

18 Public transit fares outside as well as inside the central city are used in computing the

Even without a detailed occupational classification, it is possible to judge that a great many of those who work in the suburbs (or of those engaged to work in the new job openings there) are paratechnical, subprofessional, clerical, sales, or semiskilled employees in plants, stores, warehouses, hospitals, and the like. These are the kinds of jobs for which the unemployed and underemployed in cities could be hired directly, or trained by employers or the Government with little effort or expense. But these jobs are not accessible or always open to unemployed or underemployed city dwellers, many of whom are Negroes. This significantly limits the contribution expanding job opportunities in the ring could make toward overcoming the competitive disadvantage and unused skill potential of those living in the city.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Javits.

VALIDITY OF APPRENTICESHIP TEST

Senator JAVITs. Mr. Secretary, first, I count it a significant achievement that this report is now available because I think it gives a body and substance to all the things we have been talking about and trying to do.

I think Senator Ribicoff has adequately pursued the connection of education with apprenticeship, but I am interested in another aspect of it which I think is needed to round out the picture, and that is the complexity of the apprenticeship test and whether or not it is reasonably related to the skill to be learned.

Now, my people who have analyzed this report, tell me, for example, that an outfit in Cleveland which worked with apprentices to bring them up to the state where they took the examination in the electrical

Secretary WIRTZ. Local 38, IBEW.

Senator JAVITS. That is right-experimented with 31 trainees processed by this organization called the manpower advancement program. Thirty passed the written test; all failed the oral examination. Now, it seems to me that this is very striking, particularly in view of the fact that an extraordinarily gifted apprenticeship program is being operated by local 3 in the very same field in New York, through Harry Van Arsdale, a very gifted and very constructive and statesmanlike labor leader. Local 3 has gone out and recruited apprentices and made a tremendous job of it, with one-third of its apprentices in the New York area as far back as 4 years ago, beginning then, being Negroes or Puerto Ricans.

Now, could you make any comment on that, Mr. Secretary, and what can be done about it?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes; several.

First, the New York program, in which Mr. Van Arsdale has taken such an active part, I think, is one of the great success stories in this country.

Second, with respect to the Cleveland program, it is one of the notable failure stories in this country. We moved into that situation more rapidly probably than we should have. If we had to do it over, we would know something-some things to do differently about it. The details are, all of them, fairly unsatisfactory, involving both our attempts to get something done and the participation of the local unions.

83-453 0-68-pt. 19- -16

RESULTS OF MANPOWER ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

I should correct the record of the figures to which you refer, Senator Javits, and I can do it with impunity because they are the figures I gave you, but they are wrong only in their detail. It is a smaller number; 17 instead of the 30. I have the record before me now. I am going into it in a good deal more detail. I am not sure the face of the record is a fair reflection of the facts. Specifically, eight of the 17 who were trained by the manpower advancement program did as well on the objective part of the selection process as white applicants who were accepted. After the oral interview, however, none received a passing score. We have got to find out-and this is our continuing problemwhether the face of the record is a fair reflection of the trainees' qualifications or not. We have got to know whether these boys were or were not qualified, and we are going to find out.

Now, I guess those are the principal points to which you refer. I hope there would be no misunderstanding from your statement about this volume now being available. There has, of course, been no attempt not to make it available. I share with you the great satisfaction that there is now, centering on it the attention which they should be, and I assume some responsibility for not having played it up prominently enough before, but, of course, there has been no attempt to hold it back.

Senator JAVITS. But, of course, local 3 in New York City also gives threshold education to the prospective apprentice.

Secretary WIRTZ. They do.

Senator JAVITS. And this apparently makes a very material differ

ence.

Secretary WIRTZ. Well, the other one was done in a hurry, and the New York one is the product of experience. And, as so often happens, the one that was done in a hurry was not done right.

Senator JAVITS. I gather then-to leave this question-I gather that you are looking into this from the point of view of making some recommendations as to what might be done about such situations as developed in Cleveland.

Secretary WIRTZ. Which situations?

Senator JAVITS. The Cleveland situation.

WORKERS' DEFENSE LEAGUE

Secretary WIRTZ. Oh, there is a good deal more subsequent history since the Cleveland case. We have already done a great deal on it. I count one of the most important things that has been done in that area the development of the Workers' Defense League program.

Now, the Workers' Defense League is a group which has won the complete respect of both the employers and the unions. It is a group which is working particularly with minority-group boys who want to move into these apprenticeship programs.

The last development of that program was announced about a month ago with Mr. Haggerty and others from the building trades there. I count that one of the best things that is going on. I think that from the

review we are making of the working of the apprenticeship information centers and the reasons for their not being more effective we will learn a good deal.

I could go on, but there is a good deal being done now, Senator Javits, in trying to move into the area of what was a vacuum before.

PREAPPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Senator JAVITS. Well, now, do you think we ought to have some recital, some orderly statements as to what is being done?

Secretary WIRTZ. Well, I would be glad to give it to you here illustratively or through Mr. Ruttenberg, in detail, and we can supply a list-and it is quite a long list of the preapprenticeship programs of one kind of another. We have recognized that the problem is one of providing the basic qualifications for taking the apprenticeship test before even moving into the next step, and that record now is quite

extensive.

Senator JAVITS. Do you think we need any law on the subject or do you have all the power necessary to deal with the problem?

Secretary WIRTZ. I do not think, in my own mind, that there is that problem, but I would like to inquire of Mr. Ruttenberg, who works much more closely with it, as to whether we feel any legal restrictions at this point.

LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OPERATE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. RUTTENBERG. The statutory responsibility which the Department of Labor has with respect to regular apprenticeship programs flows from the Fitzgerald Act of 1937, which was purely and simply a measure designed to encourage the voluntary establishment of apprenticeship programs across the country, and we have been operating under this authority since. The legal authority which we have in the Department of Labor with respect to discrimination in apprenticeship programs is under departmental regulations which provide that if a union discriminates in its selection of apprentices, we can then move, after voluntary efforts fail, to deregister the program or to have it deregistered. At that point, under the authority of the President's Executive order, contractors can no longer use apprentices from that apprenticeship program on a Government contract.

Secretary WIRTZ. May I interrupt to be sure that we are not talking about two different things? If your question was about the discrimination possibility then my answer was not responsive. I thought it was, rather, about whether there is sufficient authority to develop the preapprenticeship training programs of one kind or another.

Senator JAVITS. That is correct; but to develop them in a nondiscriminatory way.

ENFORCING NONDISCRIMINATORY POLICIES

Mr. RUTTENBERG. If it is the latter, then I should not have gone on with the comment about the enforcement. In our on-the-job training