The 1970 census shows that 52.7 percent of Puerto Rican families in Boston had incomes below the poverty level. There was an income deficit of $1.872. According to a study in Boston, 61.2 percent of those responding were employed at $129 or less a week; 31 percent believe that obtaining adequate nourishment is a problem. These figures should be seen as conservative since most Hispanics who migrate to Boston come from even worse conditions. We believe that any full employment bill must encompass provisions for day-care facilities, job training and placement, especially for heads of households. English as a second language must be expanded. There must be quota systems to insure employment opportunities for minorities. Thank you very much. [Applause.] Mr. LOPEZ. I will send you a copy of this prepared statement. Mr. HAWKINS. Do have you a copy you can give to the reporter to assist him? We will have the record kept open for your statement. The next witness on this panel is Mr. Chuck Turner. STATEMENT OF CHUCK TURNER, DIRECTOR, THIRD WORLD JOBS CLEARINGHOUSE, BOSTON, MASS. Mr. TURNER. Gentlemen, my name is Chuck Turner. I am a public aid representative for the task force for community construction. I don't have prepared testimony but I will speak very slowly so and briefly. The point I would like to begin with is that while I support H.R. 50 one of the problems in the past is that the reality of implementation is devastatingly destructive. If you look at the transportation policies of the 1950's that could be applauded at that time but when an attempt is made to implement them in Boston in the 1960's and the 1970's the results are devastating. They resulted in a major area movement that overturned major aspects of the community. In Boston I have personally witnessed communities destroyed, ethnic communities destroyed by policies that presumably were meant to be a mechanism through which those communities were to be redeveloped. Most recently I was president of a community development organization which tried to provide a comprehensive approach to the problems of a typical community here in the Boston area. However this year the programs are being destroyed. I was president of an organization which applied to the Federal Government for funds in the 1960's. In 1975 those programs-the Government said, "We will fund those programs but not fund the parent organization." The consequence of that is where we had to face a situation where the individual programs were set up by the central organization. The reason why I came today is that H.R. 50 in its broad conceptual outlines is a very important step for the future. However my concern and the concern of many in the community from which I come is that that program not result in a further weakening of the community development structures as the Government programs have done in the 1960's and 1970's. We think it is vital that Congress insure that the people in the community play a crucial role in the handling of those funds and the public sector jobs and be protected from the Federal bureaucracies, protected from the various State bureaucracies, so that the communities across the country will be the first line of planning and implementation. We don't want a situation where people say in the 1980's, "Yes, it was a fine bill. But wasn't it unfortunate that one of the byproducts was the level of bureaucracy that made it even more difficult for those community agencies that have stood the test of time to survive into the 1980's." None of us want to see a situation where we have no control at the local level over that process. H.R. 50 does not have to have that kind of situation. Thank you. [Applause.] Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much. I certainly agree with you. You have, I suppose, read those sections of the bill that allow for local participation. I am sure you are aware of the administrative appeal that is provided in the bill, and the judicial appeal as well. It is your intention that these sections be safeguarded in the bill. Mr. TURNER. I don't have with me a specific protective mechanism. One concern is how those councils are formulated, to make sure that the public bureaucracies are not the only source through which agencies go or the councils, the process by which the community agencies can more on without having to have political approval from the local structures. Whether they are white, Chinese, what have you, they are faced with programs that say, "Do this job" but provide no administrative overhead to do it. Or it gets siphoned off by the bureaucracy before it gets down to the agencies. The agencies need the administrative money to be sure it can be done effectively. The fight that goes on for money should not be going on. It is a needless kind of struggle. H.R. 50 should take heed of those kinds of experiences so that we don't wind up creating more frustration. [Applause.] Mr. BUCHANAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel. Mr. BENITEZ. Thank you very much. Mr. HAWKINS. Apparently, you have done such an excellent job that the members have no questions. I thank the witness. The subcommittee appreciates the very fine contribution you have made. Some additional material is requested. We hope you will make arrangements with the clerk to make sure that that material is forwarded to the subcommittee. Mr. Benitez. Mr. BENITEZ. May I ask the members from the Puerto Rican group to stay? I would like to see them after the hearing is over. [Applause.] Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much. The next panel consists of Mr. Bertram Farnham, executive vice president, Massachusetts State Labor Council; Mr. James M. Kane, president, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Boston, Mass.; Mr. Frank Martin, Masachusetts Federation of Teachers, Lynn; Mr. William J. P. Cleary, building and construction trades, Boston. I understand Mr. Kane is the only member of the panel present now. We will have to concentrate on you. Mr. Kane, do you have your prepared statement? We will enter it in the record in its entirety at this point. You may read it or proceed as you desire. STATEMENT OF JAMES KANE, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT 2, UNITED Mr. KANE. I would like to read my statement. Mr. KANE. I would first like to apologize for the rest of labor not showing up at this meeting. I am disturbed by that. Mr. HAWKINS. It upsets us when we don't hear from labor. All the subcommittee can do is give them the opportunity. We are pleased to have your testimony. Mr. KANE. My name is James Kane, president of District 2, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. [Applause.] Mr. KANE. Which represents 25,000 workers in 75 plants in the electrical and machine industry in New England. I appear here to give our union's support to the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act and urge its adoption by Congress. The need for jobs for all now is indeed great. While the national rate of 8.6 percent unemployment, 8 million workers, is deplorable, the rates of 14 percent, 391,000 workers for Massachusetts, 11.7 percent for Connecticut and 10 percent for Vermont are truly a burden the workers of our area must no longer endure. Since January of 1974 almost 300,000 electrical equipment workers in the Nation have been laid off or 14 percent of the industry. In the same time period the shops of our union in this district have had a decrease in employment of 27 percent. In the last year alone G.E. in Ashland laid off 31 percent of our workers with other G.E. locations hit in a similar manner. GTE Sylvania, Salem, 25 percent; Westinghouse, Bridgeport, Conn., 30 percent; United Shoe Machinery, Beverly, 36 percent and Morse Cutting Tools, New Bedford, 25 percent. Both have had 4-day work weeks for those that were working. The list could go on and on. As bad as all these figures are, they fail to tell the complete story. They don't tell you that the blacks and the teenagers are the hardest hit. The Government fails to count among the unemployed such groups as discouraged workers who have given up the search for jobs because none are available, part-time workers who can't find full-time jobs and women with children who can't find day-care facilities or jobs. It is estimated that if all these groups were counted as unemployed the rate would be 25 percent. The fundamental obligation of Government to guarantee workers a decent job was first expressed by President Roosevelt in his annual message to Congress on January 11, 1944. In this message he recommended that the Nation adopt an "Economic Bill of Rights," including The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; The right to a good education. The President called upon the Congress "to explore the means for implementing this economic Bill of Rights for it is definitely the responsibility of Congress so to do." Thirty-one years have elapsed since President Roosevelt called upon Congress to enact this economic bill of rights but progress in achieving any one of these rights has been pitifully small. In dealing with the right to a job Congress did enact the Employment Act of 1946. But this was a watered-down loop-hole-ridden bill which did not pledge the Government to pursue full employment but "to promote maximum employment." Even this promise was hedged with so many qualifications as to render it meaningless. Nevertheless, despite this law, both Democratic and Republican Presidents have been willing to promote substantial unemployment based upon their wrongful belief that the wages of working people case inflation and, therefore, the way to control inflation is to curb the militancy of working people by throwing them out of work. In their drive to control inflation by socking it to working people, President Ford and his big business advisers have made a mockery of the Employment Act of 1946 and adopted budgetary and monetary policies which they estimate would result in a frightening unemployment rate averaging 8 percent over the next 3 years. This shameful policy of deliberately forcing millions of workers to face deprivation has proved utterly incapable of curbing inflation. In October 1975 even as unemployment jumped to 8.6 percent of the labor force the wholesale price index nevertheless surged to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 21.6 percent. This increase in wholesale prices took place although productivity in the private economy climbed at a seasonally adjusted rate of 9.5 percent in the third quarter of 1975 and unit labor costs fell by 2.4 percent. It is not working people whose real wages have been falling for the past 3 years that are responsible for inflation. It is the huge monopolies that dominate American industry who are price-gouging the public even though their labor costs are falling. [Applause.] Mr. KANE. Our union has always fought against this use of unemployment as a government policy to combat inflation. We have always fought for a policy of full employment. We, therefore, appland wholeheartedly and pledge our full support to H.R. 50, the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act, introduced by Congresspersons Hawkins and Reuss. We especially applaud your use of a 3-percent, full-time unemployment rate as the initial standard which the Government is required to attain. The times cry out for this bill. Unemployment, feeding on unemployment has risen so rapidly as to reach a 34-year high. Although the Ford administration claims the country is well on the way to recov 62-586-76- -22 ery, the dreadful unemployment figures for October make a mockery of this claim. We note with approval that in setting the initial goal in H.R. 50 of an unemployment rate of no more than 3 percent, you adjust for parttime unemployment. We also note with approval that you recognize for purposes of full employment goals that discouraged workers and housewives are to be counted as potential workers for whom jobs must be found. We know that this bill which establishes as an inalienable right the opportunity for American workers to a useful and rewarding job, will be strongly opposed by American corporate enterprises. Its passage would require a major mobilization of working people and we pledge ourselves to be in the forefront of such actions. But while we fight for this fundamental bill we cannot neglect our responsibilities for immediate legislation to provide jobs and help the unemployed. We hope that speedy passage of this bill can be achieved along with other measures such as the $5 billion public works bill passed by the House but now bottled up in the Senate, H.R. 5247. The UE believes that far more is needed if we really are going to put America back to work. It will do no good to pass the Full Employment Act if the money to finance it is going to come out of the pockets of Americans who are working and struggling to make ends meet. It will do no good to pass a massive public works program if working Americans will have their purchasing power reduced by taxes needed to pay for public works. It is necessary to shift the tax burden on to those most able to pay: the wealthy and the corporations. We must reverse that trend to regressive taxation that has been undermining the purchasing power of the American people for a good many years. All taxes must be based on the ability to pay. All income below the amount necessary for a moderate standard of living-$15,121 for a family of four in June 1975-should be tax-free. All tax dodges for the wealthy and the corporations must be eliminated and all of their income must be taxed on a progressive tax rate schedule. Young people are becoming nonexistent in many of our plants. Our older members are now seeing their children unable to find work. It is our opinion that there is no way to reach the initial 3 percent unemployment goal of the proposed Full Employment Act without reducing the work week to 35 hours, with very strict restrictions on the use of overtime. [Applause.] Mr. KANE. I would like to conclude by adding that I am really concerned about the safety of the people in our area when unemployment benefits run out and welfare benefits continue to be slashed. People will eat one way or another. If they don't get it through employment or unemployment benefits or welfare they are going to have to go out and get it any way they can get it. I am worried. [Applause.] Mr. KANE. Our union has been involved in circulating a petition and helped sponsor a petition that was instituted by the task force of unemployment. Bring up the petitions to the committee. [Applause.] Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Kane, will you introduce the lady? |