Page images

plan and sets priorities, and so on, and receives pressure from many different points to have some of these changed, and this type of thing. But, as I say, it has been our experience that, where you have the thinking and background to set these priorities, they are, indeed, ready and willing to stand up to the practice.

Senator Taft. Just one more question. Apparently, it is your feeling that you are going to be able to work with the cooperation of the mayors, and other officials.

How about the prospects of working, also, with community action agencies, and with groups such as OIC? Do the States feel they can do this without difficulty ?

Miss NEWMAN. Senator, I think this was one of the reasons why the flexibility was given to designate. It was suggested that, in some areas, it might be well that private agencies would have the capacity to act as a local sponsor, if the local people so desired.

I think that there is every opportunity that we could think of provided in this bill for linkages with the private agencies. I think they certainly have an enormous place. It is very important that they be thought of as resources by local officials, and not just thought of as "they" out there.

Miss Davidson. May I add that in Maryland, the office of economic opportunity is in the same department as the State employment security administration and the welfare program. We have found tremendous response on the part of the local CAA to work with us in problems of the unemployed, the underemployed, and the poor.

As a matter of fact, they demanded the right to participate in the reorganization of the department, and to participate fully with us. I think that the CAA's are getting, themselves, a little tired of being outside of the mainstream of Government and, in my State, at least, they welcome the opportunity to participate with the State government in various planning processes that affect the poor and, particularly, in the manpower field itself.

Mr. Koval. Senator, in response to your first question, I would like to say you have raised an interesting point because, in Michigan, at least, I cannot answer the question completely because we really have not had that much experience or exposure with them. They are funded generally, nationally, and they go their own way. You have the Urban League getting funds directly, with no input from the Governor. You have the UMÒI—the United Migrants situation. You have the OIC, and other organizations, that are getting national contracts, and are spending money for manpower training in the State of Michigan, and the Governor has no control over it. He doesn't even know what they are doing.

I think that this is one of the sore points, in terms of that chart; in terms of the proliferation. There is a lack of coordination- liaisonin this area, because of this situation.

Senator Taft. Maybe you ought to get a free outlet, like Maryland.

Mr. Koval. We are attempting to throw out these lines and bring these people in but, presently, it is based strictly on a kind of an ad hoc, informal, you know, friend-kind-of-basis, without any real authority, or legislation, or mandate in this area.

Senator Taft. Thank you very much.
Senator NELSON. Senator Cranston!

Senator CRANSTON. The questions that I had intended to ask have been asked. Because of our severe time problem, I won't ask any at this time, but if any of you have any specific suggestions about public service employment, based upon your experience with the Emergency Act, I wish you would submit your comments: Any specific problems that have arisen in that legislation that you feel could be dealt with by provisions in the new law that we are considering on public service employment.

I think you could render us important help by giving us your thoughts on that point.

I would like to say to you, Mr. Nelson, that I am particularly interested in the concept that public service employment should involve the fiber of the nonprivate sector. I will do my best to see if I can work that into the legislation. Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Senator.

. Senator CRANSTON. I have not studied it with care since Senator Dominick's bill, but I am interested in broadening this program.

Mr. NELSON. I might comment that we did try to consider the potential problems. Of course, the passing off of a large contract to a private organization might create problems, but we think we wrote a provision in the bill providing for a finding by the local sponsor of public benefit and public need before they contract with a private employer; also requiring bidding procedures, and some kind of guidelines for profit and overhead, to avoid some of the dangers that could be there.

Senator Nelson. Thank you all very much for your presentation.

Our next witness is Mr. George Autry, executive director of the North Carolina Manpower Development Corp., of Chapel Hill, N.C.


CAROLINA MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT CORP., CHAPEL HILL Mr. AUTRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have copies of my statement.

I ask that it be printed in full in the record.

Senator Nelson. Your statement will be printed in full, in the record, at the end of your testimony.

Mr. AUTRY. In the event there are questions, I have, accompanying me, the director of planning, Bob Smith, on my left, who has been doing monitoring of the EEA for the National Manpower Policy Task Force in North Carolina, and Tom Faison, who tries to keep one bill straight from another for me, if we get down to specific provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I had a summary ready of what I was going to say now. As I go along, I am going to try to summarize my summary.

Senator NELSON. Is your position basically that of the Governors? Conference, or is there some significant distinction between your presentation and that of the Governors' conference?

Mr. AUTRY. We are not a part of the State of North Carolina. We endorse the central feature of the Governors' Conference bill, but we have a great many problems with the bill.

Senator Nelson. I think it would be most helpful if you would address yourself to those parts which you disagree with, so you can avoid duplication.

Mr. AUTRY. Senator Nelson, I am not here to testify on that bill. I was invited to testify on the variety of manpower legislation that is before you. I think there are a number of good provisions, which are mentioned in my statement, in bills pending in both the House and the Senate.

Specifically, if you like, on the Governors' Conference bill, I believe that the appeals procedures are too cumbersome.

I object to the triggering devices for manpower funds based on unemployment.

There are a number of problems I have with the bill.
The central feature of coordinated State effort, we would endorse.

We feel that you should allow decategorized manpower funds to be used for public service employment, within certain limits-say 50 percent. We endorse, Senator Cranston, permanent public service employment, but not at this time.

We feel that we have learned a good deal from the EEA. We feel it should be treated in separate legislation, after we have had an opportunity to learn more of EEA.

Senator CRANSTON. You feel what should be treated in separate legislation ?

Mr. AUTRY. Public service employment, after we have had the benefit of more study.

In the meantime, decategorized manpower funds should be used for public service employment. I would hope that we could do a better job of coordinating—not only public service employment and its administrative machinery, but, also, the programs and administrative machinery that I see coming with H.R. 1 and its manpower program.

I am afraid that we may erase program fragmentation with manpower reform here, and then, down the road a little bit, increase it again.

We have concerns with several of the bills, including the administration bill, but especially Congressman Daniels' bill on the House side. Each bill would promote geographic fragmentation—a poor substitute for the program fragmentation that we would be ridding ourselves of.

Senator, I will read the last paragraph of my statement, because there is a disturbing provision in Congressman Daniels' bill and in Senator Javits' committee print. It is a small feature, but it is an important one for the State of North Carolina.

In Senator Javits committee print it is on page 52. It is section 606(a) in Congressman Daniels' bill. It provides that:

* * * No authority conferred by this Act shall be used to enter into arrangements for, or otherwise establish, any training programs in the lower wage industries in jobs where prior skill or training is typically not a prerequisite * * *.

Senator Nelson. Where is that?
Mr. AUTRY. It is very badly worded.


What it does is write into law what has been legislative history, made on the Senate floor. That legislative history was intended, I think, to prohibit fly-by-night garment operators from relocating out of the unionized North and taking advantage of cheap labor in the South. This provision is much more broadly worded than that. It would hit the textile industry in North Carolina, and it would hit the furniture industry in North Carolina-long-established industries, places where the most disadvantaged of our people are most likely to find work. If $85 a week is a low wage, it is a much higher wage than a lady can make in seasonal agricultural labor.

Senator Nelson. I think that the ground rules were, years back, where training money was used in the factories, where the job did not require any training, why spend training money training somebody for a job that does not require any training? That is the issue, I think.

Mr. AUTRY. I would certainly think that the Department of Labor needs to take a stronger look at profiteering than it has in the past, especially in the JOBS program. Profiteering does not occur only in something you broadly define as “low-wage industries.”

It certainly does take training for the furniture industry. It is also low wage. In periods of a tight labor market, there is a high turnover. These are where agricultural workers largely, with low literacy rates, find jobs. It is the only place they can turn.

In the past, the Labor Department has interpreted the legislative history to deny training funds only to the garment industry. I would object to that, as a matter of fact. I think you can write in guidelines so that you do protect unionized labor against fly-by-night operators without discriminating against established industry in the South.

Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Autry.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Autry follows:)









MARCH 28, 1972

« PreviousContinue »