« PreviousContinue »
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Between $5,000 and $6,000, and they move up then through what we call a career ladder through the GS-1, 9, and 11.
WOMEN AS INVESTIGATORS
Mr. Floop. Tell me about the attitude of the applicant as far as your man is concerned. By the way, are they all men? Do you use women? If not, why not? Mr. LUNDQUIST. We use women and are happy to have women work
We have a positive recruitment program which encourages the opportunities for women and minority group employees as well.
Mr. Floon. It occurs to me in the area covered by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, which includes my area, that women can be a help in this kind of problem.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. They are tremendous in some of these areas.
Mr. Flood. The average girl working in those places is a little gunshy about talking to some white-collar worker behind a desk.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. We don't mind his being white collared.
We do not put up a veil in relation to the complainant. We urge him to come to us. We just use all of our ingenuity, forcefully and with dignity.
Mr. Flood. Do people squawk if they get kicked around by your people or is that an unusual occasion across the board?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. That is unusual. Wherever that occurs I will look into that completely.
Mr. Flood. It is no problem, no great big problem?
Mr. Flood. How many of the violators in the last 2 or 3 years are repeaters? They violate, you give them the treatment, they pay up either in court or by a deal. What happens in the next year? Are they back again?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Unfortunately I do not have the percentage but I would say in answer to your question—more than we like.
Mr. Flood. That would be an important thing. I am not enamored with statistics. I choke on them. It strikes me that would be a very important statistic for you, would it not?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. We are studying this in our compliance survey this year which we hope will be wrapped up in March or April of this vear.
We are studying the incidence of repeaters, the so-called recidivists, the violators on reinvestigation.
Mr. Flood. A character like that I would be a little gun shy of. That is more than bad management.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. That kind of case gets close to going to court very quickly.
Mr. Flood. How do you go to court? You are at the end of the line and nothing works. What happens? How do you get this joker in court?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. We go through the Solicitor's Office, the regional attorney. The Solicitor of Labor is our law officer. We have a firm and standard working arrangement with all regional attorneys.
Mr. FLOOD. Regional attorneys?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. In 11 regions of the country. They work with our regional directors.
Mr. Flood. Will you put in the record the 11 regions?
Note.-Regional offices of the solicitor of labor are located in all above WHPC regional offico cities with the exception of Birmingham, Ala., where there is a branch office.
Mr. FLOOD. Go ahead.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. The regional attorney and a representative of the regional director's staff, Wage and Hour Division. It is a joint review committee, joint representatives of the
Mr. FLOOD. I understand. Then what happens?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. They then decide whether or not the case meets criteria for criminal litigation, injunctive action, or action involving requests for stipulation and compliance without going into court and putting the court's imprimatur on the case.
SELECTION OF DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH TO SUE
Mr. Flood. Then you go into the U.S. district court where the wage earner lives or where the plant owner is, or where the plant is located? Suppose there is a conflict of jurisdiction? Where would you go? If
you do not know the answer to that have the Solicitor reply to this, please.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Yes; the Solicitor would be responsible for determining that.
(The information requested follows:) If the defendant is an individual, he must be sued in the district where he lives. If a corporation, we may sue it wherever it does business. We usually sue corporations in the district where the employment took place.
POSSIBLE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Mr. Flood. Do you want to hazard a guess as to what will happen in your division ? Suppose for the purpose of this question Congress passes, within 60 days, a $1.75 minimum wage plus extended coverage. What will you do next? Don't resign. Anybody can do that.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. I won't do that.
Mr. FOGARTY. It doesn't mean he will get it to Congress, taking a look at this.
Mr. Flood. That is good. You heard him. I am just an old trial la wver. I am not the chairman.
What do you have most trouble with, minimum wage or overtime? I see your figures which speak for themselves. I mean so far as your operations in the field are concerned and not the statistics.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. If we define trouble from the standpoint of investigative trouble, the overtime, particularly the application of overtime provisions to those executive, administrative employees who are not exempt, but the employers think are exempt, those cause the most investigative trouble.
Mr. Flood. There can be an honest difference of opinion about that, can there not?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Yes.
Mr. Flood. Since I mention the record I had better show that in your presentation the amount of underpayments on minimum wages for 1967 are listed at $29 million and overtime $56 million.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Yes.
SURVEY REGARDING EQU'AL PAY FOR WOMEN
Mr. Flood. With reference to the Equal Pay Act, you have completed your survey on that for 1966 ?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Yes.
Mr. Flood. All you do is say you have completed this. What did you find out?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Congressman Flood, we have a report which was submitted to the Congress at the end of January.
Mr. Flood. I must admit I have not read it.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. It has not been given to you yet, sir. We are getting it off the printer's desk. It will be here within the next few days.
Mr. Flood. Let us take for granted it was delivered last night and I didn't have a chance to read it and here you are. In 10,000 or 12,000 well-chosen words what is the conclusion regarding equal pay for women?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Our investigative activity discloses some complaints and some violation findings and a movement into the court in a couple areas where we will get the benefit of court direction on our interpretations of the statute.
In the survey which we made, which involves a survey of collective bargaining agreements and the extent to which they have separate wage rates and wage scales for men and women, we find a high incidence of such situations where contracts do provide rates for male and female.
Mr. FLOOD. Contracts?
Mr. Flood. Why would vour study be basically where there are union contracts? I asked the direct question is it not a fact that the trouble is with plants who are nonunion? You said “Yes." You are in the wrong league.
Mr. LONDOUIST. We were talking then about minimum wage and overtime violations.
Mr. Flood. That is right. I am talking about something else now in the same league.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Equal pay is something that is entirely different where vou might have a $3 rate for men and a $2.75 rate for women.
Mr. Floon. I know that. I voted for the law. I know what the law savs.
I am asking you what does vour survev in 1966 show in the average plant where vou have trouble with minimum wage and overtime. I am talking about the same plant, which vou say is nonunion in the following location, and has the following conditions. You gave an excellent answer.
In reply as part of the next question I ask you this—in view of that answer, which is excellent-in view of your report, what does the 1966 survey show? I find vou never looked at the big problems but at the union plant, which is not the big problem.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. I must try to change your point of view on this. Mr. Flood. Don't change my point of view. I don't have any.