Smith v. Hughes Tool (S.D. Tex., Houston Div.). Smith v. United Papermakers (EEOC) Stebbins v. Nationwide Mutual (E.D. Va., Alexandria Div.) Stewart v. NYC Dept. of Traffic (NYC Comm. on Human Rights) Sullivan v. Stauffer Chemical (E.D. Ark., W. Div.) Taylor v. Armco Steel (S.D. Tex., Houston Div.) Thompson v. Western Electric (S.D. Tex., Hous. Div.) U.S. v. H.K. Porter (5th Cir.) Vaughn v. Riegel Textile (N.D. Ga., Rome Div.) Vigil v. AT&T (10th Cir.) Vogler v. McCarty (E.D. La., New Orleans Div.) Walker v. Keathley's (W.D. Tenn., W. Div.) Walker v. Pilot Freight Carriers (W.D.N.C., Charlotte Div.) Wesley v. Pantaze Drug (W.D. Tenn., W&E Divs.) White v. International Paper (E.D. Ark., Pine Bluff Div.) White v. Western Electric (N.D. Ga., Atl. Div.) Wilkerson v. Woodward Iron (N.D. Ala., S. Div.) Williams v. American Oil (S.D. Tex., Galveston Div.) Young v. Edgecomb Steel Co. (M.D.N.C., Greensboro Div.) - 5a The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mittelman has a question. Mr. MITTELMAN. My question pertains particularly, Mr. Rauh, to your comments on possible amendment similar to what I will briefly describe as, quote, "an amendment," which they said they might accept on the House floor, and its relationship to the affirmative action concept that has been put forward as the basis of the present OFCC program. Particularly, Under Secretary Silberman testified the other day before this committee that one of the primary reasons OFCC should not be transferred is that the concept under the Executive order is substantially different from the title VII concept of nondiscrimination-it goes beyond that-and that if you transferred the Executive order program to the EEOC, it would be in a difficult position of administering programs with different standards. And that was, I think, the main reason he gave for not transferring OFCC at that point. I would like your opinion, first of all, on what you think the amendment that you described would do to the concept of affirmative action, and particularly what it would do to the Philadelphia plan. Mr. RAUH. Simply applying 703 (j) of the existing law to the OFCC transfered functions would not in any way restrict the functions as they exist today. But the addition of the amendment which was considered in the House and never adopted because it never came up, as the chairman pointed out, would prevent affirmative action of any kind. In other words, the precise reason why I suggested that you make clear that 703 (j) applies and does not go farther, is simply not to hobble the OFCC concept when it gets into EEOC. Mr. MITTLEMAN. Do you accept the notion that the executive order program in a sense goes farther than the title VII program? Mr. RAUH. No, because you have never had a title VII program. The point is that up to now title VII has been conciliation, so how can you say what kind of orders they would have issued if it hadn't been just conciliation? In other words, I think you can apply 703(j), which is the present law limiting EEOC without affecting the affirmative action program, and that is what we suggest that you do do. The CHAIRMAN. The voting is on the final passage and I had better vote on this one. I have concluded everything I wanted to ask. We just want to thank you all, gentlemen, for just the kind of record that we need. Thank you. Mr. RAUH. Thank you, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. (Whereupon a short recess was taken.) The CHAIRMAN. Ladies, you are last but certainly not least. Miss Olga Madar, vice president of United Auto Workers, Mrs. Lucille Shriver, director, Business and Professional Women's Clubs: Miss Esther Lawton, president; Miss Judith Wiebe, legislation director Business and Professional Women's Clubs; and Daisy V. Fields, legislative representative, Federally Employed Women; and Doris Meissner, executive secretary, National Women's Political Caucus. Is that right? Did I make any mistakes? Did I leave anybody out? All present and accounted for. I feel a little more relaxed, voting is over today on the floor so we have the rest of the day without interruption. Are you chairman of the board? STATEMENT OF MRS. LUCILLE SHRIVER, FEDERATION DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUBS, AND A PANEL REPRESENTING WOMEN'S GROUPS Mrs. SHRIVER. I don't know if I am chairman, but I am Lucille Shriver and as federation director of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., I am appearing before this subcommittee today to urge the passage of S. 2515, a bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As you know, Senator Williams, we have testified every time on the EEOC, and I am delighted to have with me today Judy Wiebe, our Legislation Director. We have submitted a copy of the complete statement so rather than read that I will ask that it be inserted in the record and I will briefly summarize some of the main points. The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted in the record. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS AND BY MRS. LUCILLE H. SHRIVER, FEDERATION DIRECTOR BEFORE THE LABOR SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE OCTOBER 6, 1971 Speaking for more than 175,000 working women throughout the country, The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., is appearing before this Subcommittee today to urge the passage of S. 2515, a bill to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The members of our organization live and work in every one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. They include secretaries, lawyers, assembly line workers, teachers, clerks, doctors; in short, women engaged in virtually every occupation imaginable. Despite a wide variation in background, education, geographical location, and work interest, these women are united in their commitment to elevate the standards of employment for women and wipe out those barriers which prevent women from achieving an equal status with men in the marketplace. Discrimination against women in the work force is both real and prevalent. This has been abundantly clear by the latest report on the "earnings gap" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. A comparison of the median wage or salary incomes between 1955 and 1969 of men and women who worked full time reveals not only that incomes of women are consistently less than those of men, but also that the gap has widened in recent years. Women's median income in 1955 was $2,719, or 63.9 percent of the $4,252 earned by men. This dropped to a low of 57.8 percent in 1967. In 1969, the most recent year for which figures are available, women's median earnings of $4,977 were only 60.5 percent of $8, 227 received by men -- not even as high as the 60.8 percent figure for 1960. Regardless of the type of occupation, this disparity of incomes remains. Women professional and technical workers had a median wage in 1969 of $7,309, compared with $11, 266 for men. That means these women were being paid only 64.9 percent of the |