Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525552
label
Ford Press Releases - Labor, 1965-1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525552
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Labor, 1965-1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Arbitration, Industrial
Insurance
Labor disputes
Legislation
Manpower policy
Unemployment
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525552
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-09-30
month
9
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-05-01
month
5
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
04c019693b310a64
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D8, folder "Ford Press Releases - Labor, 1965-
1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D8 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
May 18, 1965
on President's labor-management message to Congress
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Congress must not rubber-stamp President Johnson's far-reaching
proposals in his labor-management message. Full Congressional hearings must
be held because of the serious issues involved such as the President's
proposed repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.
The President's proposals for extending the minimum wage need careful
analysis as to their impact on inflation, unemployment, poverty, and small
business.
I have serious doubts about the workability of selected application of
double pay for overtime, as does both labor and industry.
Obviously, Republicans will support, or offer as alternatives to, any
proposals that will legitimately strengthen our economy and assist workers who
need a minimum protection of government.
We shall oppose impositions by the federal government that injure our
economy, indirectly hurt our laboring people, or nullify proper responsibili-
ties of the 50 states.
Also, it is regrettable that the President ignored the problems of agri-
cultural labor in his message to Congress. The need for farm laborers in
many parts of our country is acute. The Administration could help alleviate
this situation if it chose.
###
LIBRARY
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
May 18, 1965
on President's labor-management message to Congress
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Congress must not rubber-stamp President Johnson's far-reaching
proposals in his labor-management message. Full Congressional hearings must
be held because of the serious issues involved such as the President's
proposed repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.
The President's proposals for extending the minimum wage need careful
analysis as to their impact on inflation, unemployment, poverty, and small
business.
I have serious doubts about the workability of selected application of
double pay for overtime, as does both labor and industry.
Obviously, Republicans will support, or offer as alternatives to, any
proposals that will legitimately strengthen our economy and assist workers who
need a minimum protection of government.
We shall oppose impositions by the federal government that injure our
economy, indirectly hurt our laboring people, or nullify proper responsibili-
ties of the 50 states.
Also, it is regrettable that the President ignored the problems of agri-
cultural labor in his message to Congress. The need for farm laborers in
many parts of our country is acute. The Administration could help alleviate
this situation if it chose.
###
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Chr. of the Conference
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Issued following a
Bob Wilson,
Leadership Meeting
Chr. Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER:
September 9, 1965
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
If the President insists on Senate consideration of the repeal of
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act this year, the present session
of Congress will end not with a bang in the fall but with a whimper
when the snow falls. Section 14(b) is the provision affirming the
right of the states to forbid compulsory unionism.
The Senate will not act speedily on this issue SO basic to federal-
state relations. Several senators have promised extended discussion
of the subject, and clearly the votes for cloture will not be forth-
coming.
The Congress has done enough for 1965. There is no emergency, no
crisis that requires immediate alteration of a law for which the
President once voted and which he never sought to amend in the course
of his 12 years of service in the Senate.
Undoubtedly there is room for many improvements in labor's rela-
tions with management and management's relations with labor. If the
repeal of Section 14(b) is taken up, it is clear that members of the
Senate cannot be persuaded to refrain from offering numerous and far-
reaching changes in labor-management legislation. It would be far
wiser for the Senate to turn to the task of overhauling such laws next
year after a respite from the hectic pace of the present session and
after consulting the folks back home than to attempt to ram through a
single highly controversial change this year.
There are dangers in the indiscriminate use of presidential power
to compel action from a reluctant Congress - particularly when the
President showed little interest in the legislation until relatively
late in the session.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD
September 9, 1965
The 89th Congress has passed several bills increasing the flow of
federal funds available for education. It has added a cut in excise
taxes to a reduction of income tax rates in 1964.
Because of Administration opposition, the Congress has not, how-
ever, provided tax relief specifically directed toward lightening the
burden of higher education.
More than 5 million students will settle on the campuses of col-
leges and universities throughout the United States this month. In
the course of the next 5 years, college enrollemnt is expected to
increase by an additional 1½ million students.
The average cost of a year of higher education at a public insti-
tution is now $1560; it is $2370 at a private institution. These
costs will continue to rise in future years. It is estimated that
tuition charges will increase by 50 per cent in both public and pri-
vate institutions in the next decade.
The cost of going to college is a severe strain on the resources
of most of the 5 million students now enrolled and on their families.
Millions, who on the basis of ability deserve a college education,
are deprived of one because of the financial burden.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 will provide federal scholar-
ships for fewer than 3 per cent of the college students immediately
and for fewer than 8 per cent eventually. It will make borrowing to
defray educational expenses somewhat easier, but these provisions are
not enough.
The most effective and direct method of lightening the burden of
college expenses formall is to provide for a credit which those who
are paying for higher education may take against their federal income
tax.
Assistance of this kind has been advocated by Republicans for
many years. We shall continue to fight for it.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Chr. of the Conference
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Issued
following
a
20
Bob Wilson,
Leadership Meeting
Chr. Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER:
to
Congressional Committee
September 9, 1965
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman Chr! Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
to
nebrud
a
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
If the President insists on Senate consideration of the repeal of
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act this year, the present session
of Congress will end not with a bang in the fall but with a whimper
when the snow falls. Section 14(b) is the provision affirming sdT the
right of the states to forbid compulsory unionism.
The Senate will not act breedily on this issue so basic to federal-
state relations. Several senators have promised extended discussion
of the subject, and clearl; the votes for cloture will not be forth-
coming
The Congress has done enough for 1965. There is no emergency, no
crisis that requires immediate alteration of a law for which the
President once voted and which he never sought to amend in the course
10
of his 12 years of service in the Senate.
Undoubtedly there is room for many improvements in labor's rela-
E
tions with management and management's relations with labor. If the
of
repeal of Section 14(b) is taken up, it is clear that members of the
Senate cannot be persuaded to refrain from offering numerous and far-
Jon
reaching changes in labor-mahagement legislation. It would be far
to asband Jaom
wiser for the Senate to turn to the task of overhauling such laws next
orlw
year after a respite from the hectic pace of the present session and
after consulting the folks back home than to attempt to ram through a
single highly controversial change this year.
There are dangers in the indiscriminate use of presidential power
fisde
9W
to compel action from a reluctant Congress - particularly when the
President showed little interest in the legislation until relatively
late in the session.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD
September 9, 1965
The 89th Congress has passed several bills increasing the flow of
federal funds available for education. It has added a cut in excise
taxes to a reduction of income tax rates in 1964.
Because of Administration opposition, the Congress has not, how-
ever, provided tax relief specifically directed toward lightening the
burden of higher education.
More than 5 million students will settle on the campuses of col-
leges and universities throughout the United States this month. In
the course of the next 5 years, college enrollemnt is expected to
increase by an additional 1t million students.
The average cost of a year of higher education at a public insti-
tution is now $1560; it is $2370 at a private institution. These
costs will continue to rise in future years. It is estimated that
tuition charges will increase by 50 per cent in both public and pri-
vate institutions in the next decade.
The cost of going to college is a severe strain on the resources
of most of the 5 million students now enrolled and on their families.
Millions, who on the basis of ability deserve a college education,
are deprived of one because of the financial burden.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 will provide federal scholar-
ships for fewer than 3 per cent of the college students immediately
and for fewer than 8 per cent eventually. It will make borrowing to
defray educational expenses somewhat easier, but these provisions are
not enough.
The most effective and direct method of lightening the burden of
college expenses for all is to provide for a credit which those who
are paying for higher education may take against their federal income
tax.
Assistance of this kind has been advocated by Republicans for
many years. We shall continue to fight for it.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
The Republican
National Chairman
Issued following a
Charles E. Goodell,
Ray C. Bliss
Leadership meeting
Chr. Committee on
Planning and Research
March 17, 1966
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In its manpower report of last week the Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
tration offered a politically attractive but far from complete account
of the national economy. The decline in unemployment to 3.7% was
hailed as a milestone on the road to realization of our full economic
potential.
All Americans are pleased that fewer of their countrymen are with-
out jobs. We hope that every American seeking a job finds one at a
decent, living wage. Most of all, however, we hope Americans can find
full and continuing employment in a nation at peace.
A sober examination of figures this manpower report did not in-
clude, however, raises a cruelly serious question. Is this bright
economic picture due to real prosperity as the Administration claims
or is it, rather, due to the bloody facts of war in Viet Nam?
The harshest fact is that during the past 12 months over 268,000
Americans were inducted into the Armed Forces. On the surface, one of
the most heartening statistics concerns the sharp decline in unemploy-
ment among men under 25. The number of unemployed in this age group
dropped by 190,000 in the past year. During this same period 264,757
men in this age group were inducted. Obviously, the total decline in
unemployment in this group can be accounted for mainly by the draft.
This would hardly appear a milestone on the road to national economic
health.
Unemployment always declines during wartime. Without blushing.
the manpower report states it has been more than 12 years since un-
employment was lower than it is now. They chose to emphasize 1953 but
failed to mention that the Korean War was still being fought then.
They could have cited an even more dramatic figure -- the 1.2 per cent
unemployment rate of 1944, when a global war was still being fought.
This is another glaring example of the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion's political double standards. They are claiming credit for giving
the American people prosperity and what they call record peacetime
employment. In this they are playing cruelly cynical politics by dis-
regarding the wartime boom and the wartime draft calls that contribute
so significantly to their statistics.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant John B. Fisher
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
March 17, 1966
A new game has made its appearance in Washington, and the name of
the game is "Statistics." To win, you have to be able to tell every-
body everything they'd like to hear -- and back it up with figures.
Relevancy and accuracy of the figures are not important. The Johnson-
Humphrey Administration plays the game of "Statistics" with consumate
skill.
For instance, a new program is often justified by saying it will
cost less than 1 per cent of the Gross National Product, as though
GNP were some vast kitty upon which we could draw to finance these
programs. And Democratic Administration cohorts point with pride to
a 47.6 billion dollar growth in the GNP for last year. Blissfully,
they ignore the fact that 13.5 billion dollars of this growth is due
to price increase, in other words, inflation. Although of question-
able accuracy, GNP is a useful tcol in measuring national production
of goods and services, but loses its meaning when used for political
purposes.
And the Johnson-Humphrey Administration does conjure with GNP
figures for political reasons. Every supposedly productive dollar
transaction is dutifully tabulated. Notwithstanding the size of the
GNP every time the price of bread and milk goes up it's a bang in
the paycheck. And, of course, GNP goes up, too. Every time rent
goes up, it's a bang in the paycheck, and of course, GUP goes up as
well. What's really happening here is that when CNP goes up infla-
tion is tearing off more of your paycheck.
Republicans have mentioned the Johnson-Humphrey sleight-of-hand
budget. But how about the national debt? How much does the nation
actually owe? Congress and the public know about the $323.7 billion
statutory debt. But there are no accurate reports on the indirect
debt, meaning debt commitments for which no funds have been made
available. This includes the $300 billion owed to the Social Security
fund and the $40 billion owed to the Civil Service Retirement fund.
It also includes $420 billion in contingent liabilities. In all,
they have not accounted for over 1,000 billion dollars -- trillion
to you -- in such indirect debts. Republicans have repeatedly sought
such an accounting without success. Twice bills demanding such re-
ports have passed the Senate.
The game of fiscal and statistical hocus-pocus has become the
rule of the day in Washington. The American people know blarney when
they see it and know they cannot win.
"
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Friday, March 18, 1966
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R- MICHIGAN
"It would be a shame if the presidential presence on television
is blacked out because the White House insists on using Signal Corps'
technicians instead of network union engineers to handle pickups of
Mr. Johnson's TV and radio broadcasts,
GI's are great fellows, but I don't think men in uniform should
be doing jobs that can and should be handled by civilians--and I
believe they feel the same way about it.
I'm surprised that the President does not have more concern
that the contract between the NBC and ABC networks and the National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO) should
be honored.
The union points out that presidential use of Signal Corpsmen
to handle broadcast pickups violates a network-union contract pro-
vision requiring that the union's members handle all technical work
at the "point of origination."
Harry G. Schleggle, director of Network affairs for the union,
contends that non-network personnel have moved into this kind of
work more and more in the past two years.
(MORE)
Friday, March 18, 1966
-2-
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
Unless there are overriding reasons for this--and I can't see
them at this time--I believe the presidential policy is manifestly
unfair to the network technicians,
The White House maintains that security is involved and that
using network engineers would take up some of the President's time.
For Deputy Presidential Press Secretary Robert H. Fleming to
raise the issue of security implies that some of the network tech-
nicians may be disloyal to the United States. I don't believe that
for one minute.
It's difficult to believe the security question is a real
problem. Certainly these men can be screened and given security
clearance.
As for the union technicians unnecessarily taking up the
President's time, we have the word of William McAndrew, President
of NBC news, that their own technicians "can be unobtrusive too."
Surely these matters can be worked out to the satisfaction of
the President while at the same time the livelihood of the men who
work as network technicians is protected."
# # # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Friday, March 18, 1966
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
Since November, the rate of inflation in this country has climbed
at what amounts to an annual rate of 6 per cent.
That is the devastating meaning of the just-released Labor
Department figures pointing to the month of February as showing the
sharpest rise in the wholesale price index for that month since the
Korean War.
Ever since this session of Congress started, I have been talking
about inflation because I believe the people of this country are being
deluded by the Administration into thinking all is well.
High Administration officials for months have been serving as
apologists for inflation, trying desperately to allay the public's fears.
Let them try to explain away the shocking figures in this latest
report on wholesale price increases from their own Bureau of Labor
Statistics--this disclosure that the lid has blown off wholesale prices,
The Democrats, who for months have pooh-poohed the cont inuing
increase in the cost of living and have blithely ignored their wives'
complaints, are now in deep trouble.
Excessive, virtually unrestrained spending by the Democrats on
non-defense programs is a principal cause of inflation. We could cope
with inflation if the Administration and spenders in the Congress would
make cuts in new and failing programs.
Republicans for months have warned of the serious increase in the
cost of living and have urged the President to do something about it.
The inflation we are now experiencing stems from the fact that the
Administration has made only tentative steps to fight inflation for
fear of a rebuke at the polls in November.
Let's take a close look at the Administration's own figures on the
wholesale price rise last month, It was a 7/10ths of 1 per cent increase
(MORE)
INFLATION STATEMENT
Page Two
increase. Doesn't sound like much? It was the biggest January to
February jump since the days of the Truman administration and the
Korean War.
Does the Administration need proof that American families are
worried about inflation?
Gallup Poll results reported Friday indicated it takes a family of
four about $18 more a week to get along this year than it did a year
ago. That's the American public's own view of the climb in living costs.
I'm sure President Johnson is aware that the public's worried. He
not only carries important poll results around in his pocket, he loves to
be the purveyor of good news.
It's interesting that President Johnson proudly pointed to a 13-year
record low in unemployment March 8 but discreetly let the news of the
15-year record high in wholesale price increase emanate routinely from
the Labor Department.
It's difficult to see how high Administration officials can continue
to wish inflation away now that the record wholesale price rise for
February has hit them right between the eyes.
The Administration has cranked some curbs against inflation into
the economy. The latest, of course, is the $6 billion tax bill. But
many of the smartest economists in the country don't think these restraints
will halt the price climb.
If the Johnson-Humphrey Administration does not take effective action
soon, prices are going to rise faster than they have in the past year--
and the February showing is proof of that.
It's a good bet prices will go up faster after the middle of the
year than they have in the last few months, and retail price hikes may
well surpase wholesale prices.
This situation demands that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
force a cutback in consumer spending or hold down government spending.
The President is pretending to do both but is not doing a good job of
either one,
# # #
Re: unemp. Comp.
House Republican Policy Consittee
140 Cannon House Office Blag.
June 21, 1966
Phone: 225-6168
Immediate Release
Statement of John J. Rhodes, Chairman, Republican Policy Committee, on
Unemployment Insurance Amendments of 1966 - H.R. 15119
Rep. John J. Rhodes, (R.-Ariz.), Chairman of the House Republican Policy
Committee, today hailed the action of the Ways and Means Committee in blocking
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's attempt to clamp stiffer Federal controls
on State unemployment compensation programs. The Committee discarded the Adminis-
tration Bill and wrote its own.
For the second time in recent weeks, the Republican minority in the House has
joined with responsible Members of the majority to resist and reject the advances
of the control-happy Johnson-Humphrey Administration, Rep. Rhodes said in
announcing Republican support for the Committee's unemployment compensation bill,
H.R. 15119. He cited the House action on June 16 in rejecting standby controls for
for President Johnson to restrict consumer buying credit.
"In many subtle and devious ways, this Democrate Administration seeks to
strengthen its control over the American people and their State and local govern-
ments, Rep. Rhodes said. The President tries to control farm prices and
industrial prices by manipulating surpluses, to control foreign investment and
foreign travel by everybody except the Federal Government and members of his
family, and to control housewives spending but not to control Great Society
spending. It would appear the only place the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
really wants to relax control S on trade with Communist countries.
The full text of the House Republican Policy Committee statement on H.R.15119
announced by Chairman Rhodes is as follows:
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the committee bill, H.R. 15119.
We commend the Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee for their work
in defeating the Johnson-Humphrey Administration bill, H.R. 8282, and substituting
in its place reasonable and necessary amendments to the present unemployment
compensation law.
As reported, the Committee bill H.R. 15119, preserves the highly-successful
system of autonomous State programs of unemployment insurance. It rejects the
following power-seeking proposals of the Administration bill which would have
federalized and strait-jacketed these programs.
(a) The imposition of federal benefit standards, both with respect to amount
and duration.
(b) The restriction of disqualification to cases of fraudulent unemployment
insurance claims, conviction for a work-connected crime, or labor disputes.
(c) The experience rating system would no longer have been required as a basis
for granting the credit against the Federal tax.
(d) The automatic provision of an additional twenty-six weeks of benefits
irrespective of the state of the economy.
(e) The broad and indiscriminate extension of coverage to employers of one
or more workers, non-profit organizations and farm workers.
(f) The increase in the taxable wage from $3,000 to $6,600 by 1971.
In contrast to the federal dictation and controls contained in the Adminis-
tration bill, the Committee bill, H.R. 15119, would update and improve the
present law as follows.
1. Thirteen weeks of extended unemployment compensation is provided during
periods of recession. This is a refinement and improvement of the unemploy-
ment benefit programs adopted by Congress in 1958 and in 1961.
2. Coverage is extended to those workers who can be generally considered
"regularly' employed and for whom there can be reasonable standards of
availability for work. Thus, employers of one or more workers during 20
weeks of a calendar year, or employers who pay more than $1500 in wages
during a calendar quarter, are covered. Farm workers are not covered.
Certain non-profit organizations are covered if they employ four or more
workers in any quarter, but coverage is restricted to clerical, custodial
and maintenance workers. These workers are also covered in institutions of
higher learning. The primary and secondary schools, however, remain exempt.
3. Non-profit organizations are given the option of participating as self-
insurers. Under this option, a non-profit organization will not be required
to pay any part of the Federal tax and will be charged only with the amount
of unemployment benefits actually paid to an unemployed worker of such
organization.
4. The wage base is increased from $3,000 to $3,900 beginning in 1969 and to
$4,200 beginning in 1972.
5. A judicial review of determinations by the Secretary of Labor with respect to
qualifications of State plans is provided. Thus, for the first time, a
State threatened with the loss of the tax credit as a result of an action on
the part of the Secretary of Labor may appeal to the courts. This system of
court review has been advocated for many years by Republican Members of
Congress and the State administrators. It will enable the States to adapt
their programs of unemployment insurance to meet the needs of their particular
State.
Thus, under the provisions of the Committee bill, H.R. 15119, the States are
permitted to establish benefit and eligibility standards without federal control.
The experience rating concept has been preserved and there is no substantial
change with respect to disqualification criteria. Moreover, the all-important
judicial review concept has been included. As a result of the modifications and
changes that are included in this bill, the present unemployment compensation
system has been strengthened. The role of the States in developing sound unem-
ployment insurance programs will increase rather than diminish. Thanks to the
efforts of the Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee and the many
individuals, organizations and employers who testified before that Committee,
H.R. 15119 presents a fair and forward-looking program.
We believe that the discarding of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration bill
H.R. 8282, is one of the most significant steps taken in this Congress. It
means the preservation of the autonomous State programs of unemployment insurance.
It marks the rejection of the concept of ever more federal controls and
standards. It establishes that the present highly-successful program of
unemployment compensation will continue to provide necessary and essential
assistance to the involuntarily unemployed. It insures that this program will
not become a federalized system that permits abuse and encourages the unemployed
to remain idle the maximum period of time rather than accept suitable employment
cr enter training programs as quickly as possible.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
Congress may have to act to restore airline service while collective
bargaining between the union and the airlines resumes.
But this crisis in labor-management relations and in airline service should
make clear to the American people that there has been a neglect in White House
leadership for too long a time. In January President Johnson promised a
legislative proposal that would tackle national emergency labor-management
problems. No such White House recommendation has come to the Congress in this
seven-month period.
Because the Johnson Administration has allowed inflation to get out of hand,
the machinists have rejected the latest settlement offer emphatically. Members
of the Machinists Union have emphasized that the proposed settlement was defeated
because steadily rising prices and increased taxes will wipe out the offered pay
increase before they can spend it. Because the cost-of-living is continuing to
rise so drastically, there will be still more perilous times ahead in labor-
management relations and still other crises involving the national interest.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
There is good reason to believe the airline strike is practically settled on
a purely voluntary basis. This is a victory for collective bargaining for which
all Americans can be thankful.
It apparently will be unnecessary for the House to act on strike legislation
dealing specifically with the airline strike. I am most happy at this turn of
events. The right to strike is labor's only real weapon, and it should not be
taken away except in a national emergency which specifically affects the health
and welfare. President Johnson declined to label the airline strike a national
emergency.
I think it is significant that the Machinists Union insisted upon a cost-of-
living provision in the settlement package. This reflects the fact that the
Johnson Administration has failed to halt inflation and simply seeks to minimize
a steadily worsening situation.
The Congress can and must make a proper approach to the problem of national
emergency strikes now that the airline strike seems to be settled.
Since the President has failed to send recommendations to Congress for
improved handling of national emergency strikes, the Congress should quickly
begin formulating such legislation.
The best beginning point I have seen in that connection is Sen. Robert P.
Griffin's bill to set up a Joint Committee of Congress to study national emergency
strikes and prepare recommendations for congressional action on a general basis.
It has long been obvious that existing machinery for handling nationwide
strikes of long duration is inadequate. The Congress must act to remedy this
deficiency. It does not make sense for Congress to deal with national emergency
strikes on an individual basis.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., based on remarks prepared for
insertion in the Congressional Record of Friday, Sept. 2, 1966--
On Monday we will pay tribute to the American worker. We will honor him
for the tremendous contribution he has made to America, the building of this
great land of ours, the fruits of his labor which have made life rich in this
nation for all Americans,
It is most appropriate that Labor Day should be a national holiday, for
in the words of the man who originated the observance, Carpenters' Union founder
and American Federation of Labor co-founder Peter McGuire, it honors "those who
from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we know."
We must be ever mindful of the contribution the American worker makes
to the nation-not just on this Labor Day but throughout the year. Nobody
who has not earned his daily bread by the sweat of his brow can know what it
means to work in a paper mill, an automobile factory, an iron, copper or coal
mine, to toil at one of the many jobs that make the wheels of industry turn in
America.
Although the leaders of organized labor have chosen in most instances to
support the Democratic Party, rank-and-file workers know that Republicans have
championed many of their causes.
As we observe Labor Day this year, let the working man be assured that
Republicans in Congress mean to see that he shares equitably in the fruits of
his labors. The goal of all America should be that its workers live their
lives in dignity, accorded their full share of America's abundance.
####
15 March 1967
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES THE ENACTMENT OF
THE HUMAN INVESTMENT ACT OF 1967
In order to meet the growing need for a new approach to the problem of unem-
ployment and underemployment in the United States, we urge the immediate consideration
of The Human Investment Act of 1967. This Republican-sponsored legislation would
encourage American business to invest in our number one resource - the American work-
ing man and woman. For it would stimulate the initiation and expansion of job train-
ing and retraining programs by providing a tax credit for certain expenses of such
programs.
The Republican Members of Congress have long been interested in establishing
a sound program that would solve this Nation's manpower problems by upgrading and
developing the skills of our labor force, The Republican effort in this area began
with Operation Employment in 1961-62. In this study by the Republican Policy Comm-
ittee, leading authorities in the fields of education and on-the-job training were
contacted for their comments and recommendations. The results of this study were
incorporated into the Republican Proposed Manpower and Development Training Act of
1962 which was adopted in great part and enacted into law by the 87th Congress. This
Act has proven to be an important step in a greatly expanded war on unemployment and
underemployment.
Despite the efforts that have been made under the M.D.T.A there remain today
an estimated 2.7 million Americans who are chronically unemployed and hundreds of
thousands of others who are underemployed. It is apparent that to break this chain
of despair, a new and more fundamental approach must be devised. For the most part,
these individuals need only additional training to become employable. At the same
time, there are many skills in serious demand, thousands of jobs are going unfilled
(over)
and the shortage of skilled workers is delaying many business operations. We believe
that the necessary training can be furnished to these unemployed and underemployed
individuals if the Human Investment Act is adopted.
The basic approach of the Human Investment Act is very simple. It is premised
upon the proven fact that the most effective job trainer in the Nation is private
enterprise. Employers and employees working together have conceived and developed
many sound training programs. Our rapidly advancing technology requires many addi-
tional programs of training and retraining. To meet this need, business must expand
its formal and well as informal training capability. Classes must be held during
business hours or after work in plants, offices and nearby classrooms. The skilled
supervisors and the acknowledged experts employed by the various companies as well
as full-time teachers must be utilized to provide the required instruction.
The Human Investment Act is designed to encourage on-the-job training by
private industry and skill development by individuals just as the investment tax
credit encourages the purchase of job creating plant equipment and machinery. It
would offer a tax credit toward certain specified expenses of programs designed to
train prospective employees and to retrain current employees for more demanding jobs.
This credit would be in addition to credits provided for by other sections of the Tax
Code and in addition to the regular trade or business expense deduction.
The following training expenses would be allowed under the Republican Human
Investment Act:
1. Wages and salaries of registered apprentices.
2. Wages and salaries of enrollees in on-the-job training programs under the
Manpower Development and Training Act.
3. Wages and salaries of employees participating in cooperative education
programs.
4. Tuition paid by an employer to a college, business, trade or vocational
school or for a home study course.
5. Expenses of in-plant job training programs.
6. Expenses of job training programs conducted by a trade association, joint
labor-management apprenticeship committee or other similar group.
The Human Investment Act of 1967 has been sponsored and introduced by 149
Republican Members of Congress and has been endorsed by the Republican Coordinating
Committee. It provides a thoughtful and effective method to meet the chronic unem-
ployment and underemployment problem that is posed by the uneducated, unskilled,
untrained worker. We urge its immediate consideration.
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
May 4, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on President's Railroad Wage
Dispute Proposal.
Now that free collective bargaining between labor and management in the
railroad crisis has again failed, I recognize the need for some legislative
action. Because I resent and fear the heavy hand of federal power in this
delicate area, I will support such action with grave misgivings.
The President's proposal, which has an element of compulsory arbitration,
is one approach. The House and Senate should immediately consider the Johnson
recommendation but should explore other alternatives that would include
finality and at the same time give the negotiators an opportunity and incentive
to reach an accord.
Regrettably the Johnson Administration has been tardy in not submitting
overall legislation in this area months ago. We should not continue to
legislate solutions to one national emergency labor-management dispute after
another in an atmosphere of crisis.
####
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
May 4, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich,, on President's Railroad Wage
Dispute Proposal.
Now that free collective bargaining between labor and management in the
railroad crisis has again failed, I recognize the need for some legislative
action. Because I resent and fear the heavy hand of federal power in this
delicate area, I will support such action with grave misgivings.
The President's proposal, which has an element of compulsory arbitration,
is one approach. The House and Senate should immediately consider the Johnson
recommendation but should explore other alternatives that would include
finality and at the same time give the negotiators an opportunity and incentive
to reach an accord.
Regrettably the Johnson Administration has been tardy in not submitting
overall legislation in this area months ago. We should not continue to
legislate solutions to one national emergency labor-management dispute after
another in an atmosphere of crisis.
###
1988817
14 June 1967
IIIII
mmm
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON BAILROAD LABOR DISPUTE
LEGISLATION - H. J. RES. 559
In this period of international tensions and war, we face the decision
of accepting a chaotic nationwide railway strike, a seizure of the railroads by
the federal government or the belated proposal of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
for compulsory arbitration.
It is tragic that the present crisis in the railroad industry, following
on the heels of a major crisis in the airline industry, has failed to spur the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration into meaningful action. Now, as in 1963, the
Administration is handling these recurring crises on a purely ad hoc basis. This
is the case despite the fact that the President in his 1966 State of the Union
Message, promised that legislation to deal with such problems would be submitted
for congressional consideration and to implement this pledge, a Presidential task
force was appointed. However, as of this moment, the results of the deliberations
of the task force are unknown and the President has failed to forward any recom-
mendations. Moreover, the Secretary of Labor has now testified that such legis-
lation may never be forwarded.
In the absence of Administration initiative and proposals with respect
to emergency disputes, Republican Members of Congress have introduced legislation
that would come to grips with this important problem. Certainly full scale
hearings on these and other proposals should be held as soon as possible. It is
absolutely irresponsible to drift from one crisis to another without attempting
to formulate permanent and long-range legislation.
(over)
In the present railroad labor dispute, the Administration permitted
the settlement machinery under the Railway Labor Act to run its course and expire
without taking a strong stand or making a determined effort to bring the parties
together. Incredibly, the Administration engaged in this vacillating performance
even though more than 70% of the railway workers have satisfactorily negotiated
contracts and only six shop craft unions are engaged in the present dispute.
Moreover, it was only when a decision could not be delayed any longer that Congress
was finally requested to provide two separate periods of delay totalling 67 days.
The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Transportation have testified that a nationwide rail strike would cripple our war
effort and inflict incalculable damage to our general economy. Moreover, experts
in the railroad field have stated that in the event of a strike of this type, it
would be impossible to sort out defense traffic for special handling. Thus, a
nationwide strike of the railroads with its serious ramifications must be prevented.
Because of the Administration's failure to deal squarely and in a timely
fashion with national emergency strikes, there is now no practical alternative to
the Administration's proposal. However, let no one be deceived regarding the present
plan. Clever words and semantic gimmickery cannot gloss over or change the compul-
sory nature of the award contemplated by the Johnson-Humphrey proposal. This
country and this Congress should not have to choose between such alternatives as
compulsory arbitration or national chaos. Unfortunately, this is the choice that
has been forced upon us today.
14 June 1967
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON RAILROAD LABOR DISPUTE
LEGISLATION - H. J. RES. 559
In this period of international tensions and war, we face the decision
of accepting a chaotic nationwide railway strike, a seizure of the railroads by
the federal government or the bélated proposal of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
for compulsory arbitration.
It is tragic that the present crisis in the railroad industry, following
on the heels of a major crisis in the airline industry, has failed to spur the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration into meaningful action. Now, as in 1963, the
Administration is handling these recurring crises on a purely ad hoc basis. This
is the case despite the fact that the President in his 1966 State of the Union
Message, promised that legislation to deal with such problems would be submitted
for congressional consideration and to implement this pledge, a Presidential task
force was appointed. However, as of this moment, the results of the deliberations
of the task force are unknown and the President has failed to forward any recom-
mendations. Moreover, the Secretary of Labor has now testified that such legis-
lation may never be forwarded.
In the absence of Administration initiative and proposals with respect
to emergency disputes, Republican Members of Congress have introduced legislation
that would come to grips with this important problem. Certainly full scale
hearings on these and other proposals should be held as soon as possible. It is
absolutely irresponsible to drift from one crisis to another without attempting
to formulate permanent and long-range legislation.
LIBRARY
(over)
In the present railroad labor dispute, the Administration permitted
the settlement machinery under the Railway Labor Act to run its course and expire
without taking a strong stand or making a determined effort to bring the parties
together. Incredibly, the Administration engaged in this vacillating performance
even though more than 70% of the railway workers have satisfactorily negotiated
contracts and only six shop craft unions are engaged in the present dispute.
Moreover, it was only when a decision could not be delayed any longer that Congress
was finally requested to provide two separate periods of delay totalling 67 days.
The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Transportation have testified that a nationwide rail strike would cripple our war
effort and inflict incalculable damage to our general economy. Moreover, experts
in the railroad field have stated that in the event of a strike of this type, it
would be impossible to sort out defense traffic for special handling. Thus, a
nationwide strike of the railroads with its serious ramifications must be prevented.
Because of the Administration's failure to deal squarely and in a timely
fashion with national emergency strikes, there is now no practical alternative to
the Administration's proposal. However, let no one be deceived regarding the present
plan. Clever words and semantic gimmickery cannot gloss over or change the compul-
sory nature of the award contemplated by the Johnson-Humphrey proposal. This
country and this Congress should not have to choose between such alternatives as
compulsory arbitration or national chaos. Unfortunately, this is the choice that
has been forced upon us today.
6 March 1968
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE COPPER STRIKE AND NATIONAL
EMERGENCY DISPUTE LEGISLATION
The copper strike is now in its eighth month. It has seriously affected
the operation of 60 mines and plants in 23 states. The loss in production wages and
tax revenues totals $530 million. The price of copper to domestic users has increased
from 38 cents to a high of 87 cents. According to the Department of Commerce, imports
of copper have deepened the payments deficit by more than $300 million and the current
rate of our loss to foreign countries is approximately $95 million a month.
With more than 90% of the nation's copper production halted, supplies of
refined copper outside the national stockpile have fallen from 221,000 tons to less
than 88,000 tons. The domestic supplies of copper are now so low that production
lines in a number of basic industries may be closed. The Commerce Department has
ordered all U. S. copper producers to halt civilian orders and fill only those carry-
ing a military priority.
This drift to disaster must end. This strike must be terminated before
our economy is crippled and our defense effort is jeopardized.
On October 18, 1967, a charge was filed bv one copper producer with the
National Labor Relations Board. It was alleged that the union violated Sec. 8(b) (3)
of the Taft-Hartley Act in that it refused to bargain in good faith by insisting on
company wide negotiations. However, it was not until February 27, 1968 that the
General Counsel of the Board finally announced that he had completed his investigation.
He found the charge to be valid and authorized the issuance of a complaint. It is
(over)
reported that the General Counsel may ask that the union's illegal action be enjoined.
This is an encouraging step but it does not excuse the inordinate delay and it is
unlikely that this action will terminate the strike.
Recently the President called for the parties to meet with him and begin
'around-the-clock bargaining. We hope this move is successful. However, this
Country has learned from bitter experience that this type of White House intervention,
which has led to inflationary settlements or no settlements at all, is a poor sub-
stitute for real collective bargaining.
In the past, emergency situations of this magnitude have been resolved
through the invocation by the President of the national emergency provisions of the
Taft-Hartley Act. Under these provisions, a strike may be terminated for a period of
80 days. During that period of time, the parties to the dispute must make every effort
to adjust and settle their differences. As part of this procedure, the workers must
be given an opportunity to vote by secret ballot on the employer's last offer.
The national emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act have been invoked
in 28 cases - 10 by President Truman, 7 by President Eisenhower, 6 by President Kennedy
and 5 by President Johnson. The failure of the President to invoke the national
emergency provisions in the present situation is extremely difficult to understand.
In the 1966 State of the Union Message, President Johnson pledged to the
Nation that he would recommend legislation to deal with crippling strikes. 1966 and
1967 have passed and the President failed to forward to the Congress any recommenda-
tions. The 1968 State of the Union Message did not mention this problem at all.
Moreover, this studied inaction is at a time when the President's failure to use the
legislation that is now available indicates that he is either dissatisfied with or
unwilling to use present procedures.
The long copper strike with its serious consequences has dramatized the
problem of national emergency strikes. Certainly, if new legislation is necessary,
the refusal or inability of the Johnson Administration to ask for such legislation
should not block all action. Hearings should be scheduled by the Democratic Congress-
ional Leadership without further delay.
Our defense effort, our growing and critical balance of payments deficit,
the economic stability of this Country, the well-being of millions of Americans are
at stake. Jobs are jeopardized by damaging strikes. Lost wages cannot be regained.
The very ability of Americans to maintain a decent standard of living is eroded by
inflationary settlements.
We support the basic right to strike. We believe the concept of free col-
lective bargaining must be maintained. However, more effective methods for settling
labor disputes involving the national interest must be developed and those procedures
for ending disputes that are presently available must be employed.
6 March 1968
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE COPPER STRIKE AND NATIONAL
EMERGENCY DISPUTE LEGISLATION
The copper strike is now in its eighth month. It has seriously affected
the operation of 60 mines and plants in 23 states. The loss in production wages and
tax revenues totals $530 million. The price of cooper to domestic users has increased
from 38 cents to a high of 87 cents. According to the Department of Commerce, imports
of copper have deepened the payments deficit by more than $300 million and the current
rate of our loss to foreign countries is approximately $95 million a month.
With more than 90% of the nation's copper production halted, supplies of
refined copper outside the national stockpile have fallen from 221,000 tons to less
than 88,000 tons. The domestic supplies of copper are now so low that production
lines in a number of basic industries may be closed. The Commerce Department has
ordered all U. S. copper producers to halt civilian orders and fill only those carry-
ing a military priority.
This drift to disaster must end. This strike must be terminated before
our economy is crippled and our defense effort is jeopardized.
On October 18, 1967, a charge was filed by one copper producer with the
National Labor Relations Board. It was alleged that the union violated Sec. (b) (3)
of the Taft-Hartley Act in that it refused to bargain in good faith by insisting on
company wide negotiations. However, it was not until February 27, 1968 that the
General Counsel of the Board finally announced that he had completed his investigation.
He found the charge to be valid and authorized the issuance of a complaint. It is
(over)
reported that the General Counsel may ask that the union's illegal action be enjoined.
This is an encouraging step but it does not excuse the inordinate delay and it is
unlikely that this action will terminate the strike.
Recently the President called for the parties to meet with him and begin
"around-the-clock" bargaining. He hope this move is successful. However, this
Country has learned from bitter experience that this type of White House intervention,
which has led to inflationary settlements or no settlements at all, is a poor sub-
stitute for real collective bargaining.
In the past, emergency situations of this magnitude have been resolved
through the invocation by the President of the national emergency provisions of the
Taft-Hartley Act. Under these provisions, a strike may be terminated for a period of
80 days. During that period of time, the parties to the dispute must make every effort
to adjust and settle their differences. As part of this procedure, the workers must
be given an opportunity to vote by secret ballot on the employer's last offer.
The national emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act have been invoked
in 28 cases - 10 by President Truman, 7 by President Eisenhower, 6 by President Kennedy
and 5 by President Johnson. The failure of the President to invoke the national
emergency provisions in the present situation is extremely difficult to understand.
In the 1966 State of the Union Message, President Johnson pledged to the
Nation that he would recommend legislation to deal with crippling strikes. 1966 and
1967 have passed and the President failed to forward to the Congress any recommenda-
tions. The 1968 State of the Union Message did not mention this problem at all.
Moreover, this studied inaction is at a time when the President's failure to use the
legislation that is now available indicates that he is either dissatisfied with or
unwilling to use present procedures.
The long copper strike with its serious consequences has dramatized the
problem of national emergency strikes. Certainly, if new legislation is necessary,
the refusal or inability of the Johnson Administration to ask for such legislation
should not block all action. Hearings should be scheduled by the Democratic Congress-
ional Leadership without further delay.
Our defense effort, our growing and critical balance of payments deficit,
the economic stability of this Country, the well-being of millions of Americans are
at stake. Jobs are jeopardized by damaging strikes. Lost wages cannot be regained.
The very ability of Americans to maintain a decent standard of living is eroded by
inflationary settlements.
We support the basic right to strike. We believe the concept of free col-
lective bargaining must be maintained. However, more effective methods for settling
labor disputes involving the national interest must be developed and those procedures
for ending disputes that are presently available must be employed.
Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
90th
CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 114
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1968
No. 50
Senate
The NLRB
The decisions themselves are startling
ness and big unions. Nothing could be
enough. However, when viewed in the light
further from the truth. More often, those
of some
extrajudicial pronouncements
who actually suffer from the distorted and
HON. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN
by Board members, there is reason to wonder
twisted rulings of the Board are the in-
OF MICHIGAN
whether the NLRB-which was created by
dividual workers, small unions, small busi-
Congress-even concedes the Constitutional
nessmen and the public at large.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
authority of Congress to legislate and estab-
Let me turn to some examples:
Tuesday, March 26, 1968
lish policy in the labor-management field.
Richard Price, a 33-year-old veteran and
"For example, my attention has been
father of five children, began working back
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I ask
called to a press release issued February 10,
in 1951 as a helper at Pittsburg-Des Moines
unanimous consent that a statement I
1962, by the National Labor Relations Board.
Steel plant in Santa Clara, California. Price
presented this morning before the Sub-
It is entitled Member Brown Views Labor
did not object when a union shop contract
committee on Separation of Powers of
Board as Policymaking Tribunal.'
required him to join the United Steelwork-
the Judiciary Committee be reprinted in
"The press release referred to an address
ers. Advancing job by job, Price finally be-
the Extensions of Remarks of the
by Mr. Brown in which he said, simply
came a crane operator. But as the years
RECORD.
and plainly: 'In my view the Board is un-
passed, be became disillusioned with the
questionably a policymaking tribunal.'
Steelworkers union.
There being no objection, the state-
"In discussing decisions handed down
Price not only dared to voice his opinion,
ment was ordered to be printed in the
since he came to the Board, member Brown
but one day he drove 50 miles to the Na-
RECORD, as follows:
said on that occasion:
tional Labor Relations Board's San Fran-
STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR ROBERT P.
"The present Board has freed itself from
cisco office seeking some advice. Assured by
GRIFFIN, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
the self-inflicted dedication to per se rules.
a government lawyer at the NLRB that he
SEPARATION OF POWERS, COMMITTEE ON THE
" Fixed rules are easy to apply and pro-
had every right under the law to circulate
JUDICIARY OF THE U.S. SENATE, MARCH 26,
vide the parties with knowledge upon which
a decertification petition, Price returned and
1968
to predicate their actions. These are de-
proceeded to seek support among his fellow
Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-
sirable results and must, of course, be ac-
employees for a move to replace the Steel-
corded some weight. Certainty necessarily
workers local with a different union.
committee, first, let me commend the sub-
committee for undertaking this study. It is
follows from the implementation of mecha-
The leaders of the Steelworkers local re-
long overdue.
nistic rules, but it is a superficial certainty
acted immediately and scheduled a June 1964
I fervently hope that your important work
destined for disrepute.'
meeting to put Price on trial for "under-
will serve not only to focus attention upon a
"When read in the light of its
deci-
mining the union". Gaveling down a request
very serious problem, but also that it will
sions, this extra-judicial pronouncement
for a secret ballot vote, the local president
seems to articulate quite candidly an atti-
called for a show of hands. With less than
prove to be a significant step in reversing
what has become a dangerous trend. I refer,
tude on the part of some Board members
a third of the local's membership present and
of course, to the continuing, accelerating
which indicates very little regard for either
voting, Price was "convicted" by a vote of
usurpation of legislative power by the execu-
the policymaking role of Congress or the
20 to 15.
tive branch and by the administrative agen-
doctrine of stare decisis.
Thereupon, Price was suspended from the
cies in defiance of the fundamental concept
"Let there be no mistake about the funda-
union, fined $500,1 and charged the cost of
of separation of powers which undergirds our
mental issue, then, which underlies our dis-
his "trial." Price then filed a charge with
system of government.
cussion here today. The issue concerns re-
NLRB and asked for its protection. While
Your choice of the National Labor Rela-
sponsibility for determining public policy."
awaiting help from the Board, Price stated
tions Board as the first agency to be studied
Mr. Chairman, in that statement before
that he found himself the target of con-
is particularly appropriate. Since enactment
the House we went on to review a number of
tinued harassment.
of the 1959 Labor-Management Reporting
Board decisions which had ignored or cir-
Finally, Price's case was decided, but the
and Disclosure Act (often referred to as the
cumvented the clear language of the 1959
NLRB gave Price no help and no protection.
Landrum-Griffin law), I have followed the
Act and the intent of Congress in enacting it.
The NLRB's decision conceded that under the
decisions of the NLRB with more than a pass-
On June 18, 1963, Congressman Landrum
law Price had a "right" to file the petition as
ing interest.
and I felt compelled to take the floor of the
he did. Nevertheless, the Board held that the
I regret to say that it became apparent
House of Representatives a second time to
union's "disciplinary action" against him was
to Congressman Landrum and me, soon after
focus attention again upon the obvious and
permissible. Richard Price V. NLRB and
enactment of the bill which bears our names,
determined efforts of the Board to re-write
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO
and particularly after the appointment in
the law which we had co-authored.
# 4208, 154 NLRB 692.2
1961 of two new Board members, that our
Mr. Chairman, I have copies of both of the
As I said in a law review article in 1962:
efforts to close certain loopholes in the Taft-
statements to which I have referred, and
"If there is a single, most important prin-
Hartley Act were being frustrated.
I submit them this morning as part of my
ciple underlying the complex of labor laws
We were SO disturbed, in fact, that we took
testimony before the subcommittee.
enacted by Congress, surely it is the principle
the floor of the House of Representatives on
At that time, our documented charges
that workers should be free to choose collec-
April 10, 1962, and delivered a joint state-
against the NLRB evoked some reactions of
tively whether or not they wish to be repre-
ment to call attention to the developing
surprise and shock. However, since then, I
sented by a particular union, or by any union.
pattern of Board decisions which were so
must say that the attitude and bias of the
"A cardinal objective of the the Wagner
obviously undercutting the purposes of Con-
Board have become almost a matter of com-
Act was to guarantee this freedom from co-
gress. Some of the remarks I made then are
mon knowledge. For example, the well-
ercion on the part of employers. With enact-
just as timely this morning:
known TV newcaster, David Brinkley, made
ment of Taft-Hartley in 1947, Congress evi-
"If the Constitution made anything clear,
this comment one evening in 1966:
denced a balancing concern about coercive
surely it is that policymaking is primarily
"The NLRB is supposed to be an unbiased
union practices which interfere with
the function of Congress.
adjudicating body, something like a court.
the freedom of workers to make such a
"The pattern of
decisions by the
It usually behaves like a department of the
choice."
NLRB has given rise to a serious concern
AFL-CIO, and is about as neutral as George
One would think that where the statutory
that policies laid down by Congress, in the
Meany."
right of employees to choose their bargaining
Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts, are
In the minds of some, any criticism of the
representative came in conflict with the
being distorted and frustrated, to say the
NLRB is casually dismissed as just part of
power of a big union to impose discipline,
very least.
a power struggle going on between big bust-
the Board would recognize the right of the
employees. But Price and a long line of de-
such restraints and coercion as would pre-
found no evidence that anyone had been
cisions has demonstrated that when em-
vent people from going to work if they wished
deceived. Of course, no evidence had been
ployees rights and union power come in
to go to work." 93 Cong. Rec. 4436.
presented to show deception because the
conflict, the employee gets trampled on.
At another point in the debate, referring
statute does not speak of deception-it
Consider the treatment meted out to a
to Section 7 of the Act, Senator Taft said
speaks of truthfulness.
group of United Auto Workers members at
this was amended (to include the right "to
The Board conceded that the picketing
Wisconsin's huge Allis-Chalmers Manu-
refrain" from engaging in concerted activi-
resulted in delivery stoppages but then pro-
facturing Co. On February 2, 1959, thousands
ties)
in
order
to make the prohibition
ceeded to ignore the statute on the ground
left their plant to attend a strike vote meet-
contained in Sec. 8(b) (1) apply to coercive
that there was no showing that the delivery
ing, only to see pickets already marching.
acts of unions against employees who did
stoppages had disrupted business. Again,
There was testimony that the strike vote
not wish to join or did not care to participate
there was no such showing because the test
meeting which followed was a sham, and that
in a strike or picket line 93 Cong. Rec.
laid down by Congress was "delivery stop-
anyone who was opposed to strike action was
6859.
pages"-not disruption of business.
hooted down.3
Obviously, the Board has so twisted the law
The effect of the Board's decision in Barker
When more than 170 union members re-
that it now operates in a way which is exact-
Bros: and other cases has been to virtually
fused to engage in the strike, the UAM pro-
ly contrary to the intent clearly indicated by
repeal Sec. 8(b) (7), legalizing once again
ceeded to place the non-striking workers on
Senator Taft.
the practice of blackmail organization pick-
trial, and assessed fines against them rang-
It is true that in the two cases cited,
eting.
ing up to $100.
Price and Allis-Chalmers, the ruling of the
A more recent example of "legislating"
Non-striking workers then filed charges
NLRB was affirmed upon appeal to the
by the NLRB can be found in the National
with the NLRB against the union for violat-
courts. However, it should be borne in mind
Woodwork decision, 386 U.S. 612 (1967). In
ing workers' rights guaranteed by Section 7
that many Board decisions are never ap-
this case, the Board "legalized" boycott ac-
of the Act. Although the NLRB conceded
pealed because of the expense involved or
tivity which Congress sought in the 1959
that the union's action was "coercive", it
because the issues become moot. Of course,
amendments to prohibit. I refer to the prod-
decided that the union fines were legal and
even when a Board decision is appealed,
uct boycott.
amounted to an "internal matter."
there is no right to a new and unbiased
In the National Woodwork case, a carpen-
As the subcommittee knows, Section 7 of
hearing. On appeal a court is required to
ters Union obtained an agreement with a
Taft-Hartley, as amended specifically gives
sustain findings of fact if supported by
contractors association which provided that
employees the right to engage in concerted
"substantial" evidence. And, too often, the
contractors could not use precut and pre-
activities and
the right to refrain
appellate court defers to the supposed "ex-
fitted doors.
from any and all such activities."
pertise" of the NLRB in the labor-manage-
In order to outlaw such boycotts, Congress
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act makes it an
ment field.
in 1959 added Section 8(e) to the Taft-Hart-
unfair labor practice for a union to "restrain
In 1959, had we any idea that Taft-Hartley
ley Act.⁷ This new section makes it unlawful
or coerce" employees in the exercise of rights
would be construed to permit unions to
to enter. in an agreement requiring an em-
guaranteed by Section 7.
impose coercive fines on workers as a means
ployer to refrain from handling the products
A proviso to Sec. 8(b) (1) (A) preserves the
of nullifying their rights guaranteed by Sec-
of, or doing business with, any other em-
right of a union to prescribe its own
tion 7, we would have attempted to add an
ployer.
rules with respect to the retention
of
appropriate amendment at that time. How-
Although the language of 8(e) is un-
membership therein."
ever, we were certain then, as Senator
ambigous and although the boycott activity
Both the Price case and Allis-Chalmers
Taft was certain in 1947, that the provisions
in Woodwork clearly fell within its terms,
turned on the interpretation of the proviso
of § 8(b) (1) (A) clearly prohibited unions
the Board determined that it should never-
to Sec. 8(b) (1) (A).
from restraining or coercing employees in
theless examine the legislative history to see
In Price, the Board could have ruled that
the exercise of their protected rights. We
if Congress meant what it said. Then, relying
the proviso gives a union the power to pre-
did provide in the Landrum-Griffin Act that
heavily on statements of those who opposed
scribe rules, and to impose discipline for a
it shall be unlawful for a union to "fine,
the 1959 Act-instead of those who wrote
breach thereof, so long as such rules do not
suspend, expel or otherwise discipline" a
and supported it-the Board proceeded to
conflict with rights specifically conferred by
member for exercising any right set forth in
conclude that Congress actually didn't mean
the Act upon employees. In Price, it can be
the "Bill of Rights" of the 1959 Act.
what it had said.
said that there was a conflict between two
There are numerous examples of the way
Section 8(e) was included in the 1959 Act
provisions in the Act, one conferring rights
the NLRB has substituted its policies for
following a decision by the Supreme Court in
on the employee and the other granting
those of Congress. Permit me to focus on two
the Sand Door case' which held that an
power to the union. The Board bowed to
more. I have chosen these two examples be-
agreement allowing a union to refuse to
union power.
cause I am personally familiar with the in-
handle prefabricated doors was a lawful, but
In Allis-Chalmers, there was not a clear
tent of Congress, having participated in the
unenforceable, contract under Taft-Hartley.
conflict between two provisions of the Act.
drafting of the statutory language in 1959.
In 1959, we specifically pointed to the Sand
As already indicated, the proviso to Sec.
The Barker Bros. Case, 138 NLRB No.
Door case, and Section 8(e) was drafted to
8(b) (1) (A) preserved only the power of a
54 (1962), rev. den., 328 F. 2d 431 (9th Cir.
close a "loophole" created by that decision.
union to prescribe its own rules
with
1964), involved an interpretation of Section
The scope of Section 8(e) was discussed at
respect to the retention of member-
8(b) (7), a provision added by the 1959
great length during the debate in both
ship therein."
amendments. This section was written with
Houses. As one kind of a practice we intended
Upon carefully reading the Act, any worker
the well-documented intent of halting a
to prohibit, I recall referring to the Burt
would reasonably conclude that by exercising
practice referred to as "blackmail organi-
Mfg. Co. case, 127 NLRB 1629, which involved
his right "gauaranteed" by statute to "re-
zational picketing", i.e., picketing by a union
a refusal on the part of the Sheet Metal
frain" from engaging in a strike and going
for the purpose of compelling employees to
Workers Union to install products manu-
to work-which at the same time would be
join the union and forcing the employer to
factured by the Burt Co.
a violation of union rules-he might subject
recognize it. By its terms, Section 8(b) (7)
In the National Woodwork case, the Board
himself, at most, to a loss of membership in
prohibits "recognition" or "organizational"
found that the product boycott was legal and
the union.
picketing unless a petition for an election
not covered by Section 8(e) because the
However, in Allis-Chalmers the union did
is filed by the union within 30 days after
object of the agreement was "to preserve
not attempt to expel from membership the
such picketing commences. A proviso to that
work" for employees covered by the agree-
workers who dared to go to work. Instead, it
ment.
section was added in conference to make it
levied fines and brought proceedings in court
But, there is no reference in the statute to
clear that constitutional free speech in the
to compel payment of the fines.
"work preservation" as an exception to the
form of purely informational picketing
In Allis-Chalmers, the Board was con-
ban on boycotts.11 This theory is nothing
fronted with a choice between (1) pro-
would not be affected if the picket signs are
more than a Board-legislated proviso to
truthful and if such picketing does not
tecting the employee's statutory right to
Section 8(e).
refrain from engaging in a strike and going
hinder deliveries to or from the employer.5
The full reach of this theory is not yet
to work, or (2) extending by its own inter-
The essential and undisputed facts in the
fully disclosed for, although the Board ini-
pretation the meaning of "retention of mem-
Barker Bros. decision were that, without
tially talked only of "work preservation"
bership" to give the union the power not
filing a representation petition, the union
in the sense of protecting work traditionally
only to expel from membership but also to
picketed an employer for more than 30 days
performed by members of a particular union,
impose and collect fines. Of course, the
(1) for the purpose of recognition; (2) with
the Board is already busily engaged in broad-
Board bowed again to union power.
signs that were untruthful, and (3) with the
ening the concept to include "obtaining" or
The Board's ruling in Allis-Chalmers is
effect of stopping or delaying deliveries and
"reacquiring" work performed in the past.
particularly disturbing in light of the legis-
services to the employer on at least five (and
See, e.g., United Association Pipe Fitters
lative history indicating clearly what the
probably more than fifteen) occasions.
Local Union No. 455, et al. (American Boiler
framers of the Act intended. As Justice
Even if the picket signs had been truth-
Manufacturers Association), 167 NLRB No.
Black of the U.S. Supreme Court pointed
ful, which they were not; and even if there
79.
out in his dissent, some of the Senators who
had been no interference with the deliveries,
It is important to recognize that in many
opposed Sec. 8(b) (1) (A) expressed their con-
which there was, this organizational picket-
cases where the NLRB "legalizes" the use of
cern during the debate that the provision
ing (which was not informational picketing)
boycotts by certain unions, it does so at the
would impair the effectiveness of strikes.
and should have been enjoined as precisely
expense of other unions. Generally speaking,
Addressing himself specifically to that con-
the type of activity which Congress by Sec-
work that is "preserved" for the members of
cern, Senator Taft replied:
tion 8(b) (7) sought to eliminate.
one union is denied the members of another
"It would not outlaw anybody striking
Nevertheless, the Board ingeniously man-
union who produce the boycotted product.
who wanted to strike. It would not prevent
aged to find a way to excuse the union's
And, of course, the public suffers because
anyone using the strike in a legitimate way
conduct. The Board admitted that the picket
such practices restrain and restrict the use of
All it would do would be to outlaw
signs were not truthful but then said it
more, efficient and less expensive methods of
construction or production.
Over the years, the Board has clearly re-
Mr. Chairman, the NLRB does not act like
porting or otherwise dealing in any of the
vealed a bias which works not only against
a judicial body because it is not a court. It
products of any other employer, or to cease
individual workers and the public, but also
is a politically appointed, politically oriented
doing business with any other person, and
against certain unions if their interests hap-
agency that is too close to political and other
any contract or agreement entered into here-
pen to conflict with favored unions. For ex-
pressures. The terms of its members are too
tofore or hereafter containing such an agree-
ample, an independent union rarely prevails
short. Two of the present Board members
ment shall be to such extent unenforceable
before the Board if it dares to compete with
are not-even members of the bar.
and void. Section 8(e).
an AFL-CIO affiliated union.12
Mr. Chairman, I have concluded that the
8 Mr. Justice Stewart pointed out in the
Mr. Chairman, I hope the subcommittee
time has come to abolish the NLRB and to
dissent that: "The Court undertakes a pro-
will afford spokesmen for some of the fine
replace it with a U.S. Labor Court patterned
tracted review of legislative and decisional
independent unions in this country an op-
after the U.S. Tax Court. As you know, I
history in an effort to show that the clear
portunity to appear because I know their
have introduced a bill (S. 1353) to achieve
words of the statute should be disregarded
testimony would be illuminating.
this purpose. I shall not take time this
in these cases. But the fact is that the rele-
As you realize, Mr. Chairman, I have bare-
morning to discuss its provisions in detail. I
vant history fully confirms that Congress
ly scratched the surface. However, I know
concede its inherent weaknesses, and I admit
meant what it said, and I therefore dissent."
that you have many excellent witnesses
that it may not be the ultimate or perfect
(386 U.S. 612, dissenting opinion.)
scheduled.
answer to all problems in this field. But I
9 Local 1796, Carpenters, V. N.L.R.B., 357
As I have reflected on the pattern of
commend this legislation to your subcom-
U.S. 93.
Board decisions since enactment of Land-
mittee and to the full committee on Judiciary
10 105 Daily Congressional Record 13092,
rum-Griffin, I have come to the conclusion
for consideration.
July 27, 1959.
that the Board, as currently structured, is
Thank you.
11 This term first appeared in Teamsters Lo-
not an appropriate instrumentality to imple-
FOOTNOTES
cal No. 546 (Minnesota Milk Company), 133
ment Congressional purpose in this field.
1 On November 28, 1964, the union with-
NLRB 1314 (1961), and Ohio Valley Carpen-
Perhaps the nature of the problem is best
drew the fine but left in effect all other pen-
ters District Council, etc. (Cardinal Indus-
illustrated by the shifting interpretations of
alties imposed on Price.
tries, Inc.) 136 NLRB 977 (1962). In the lat-
the law which the Board hands down on par-
2 The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board.
ter case, particularly, the Board discussed a
ticular issues. In the Bernel Foam case,13
[373 f.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1967) ] Appeal to the
"work preservation" doctrine, basing its rea-
for example, the Board decided in 1964 that
Supreme Court is pending (No. 399, October
soning on what it termed "fundamental con-
a union which had lost a representation elec-
term 1967.)
cepts of the Act," while disregarding the
tion could nevertheless demand recognition
3 See Local #248-United Auto Workers V.
statutory language and its background.
on the basis of union authorization cards
Benjamin Natzke, County Court-Milwaukee
12 Cf. General Motors Corp., 42 LRRM 1143:
which it had otbained prior to the election.
County, Wisconsin, October 16, 1962, Case
Trico Products Corp., 169 NLRB 58; Associ-
This ruling overruled an earlier Board de-
#514-292. The Union also contended in this
ated Spring, 7 R.C. 7820 (1967). See also
cision in 1954 (Aiello Dairy Farms, 110 NLRB
case that an earlier "blank check" strike au-
House Report No. 3109, 76th Congress, 3d
1365), which in turn had overruled a 1951
thorization vote justified the strike in ques-
Sess. (1941).
decision (M. H. Davidson Co., 94 NLRB 142).
tion.
13 146 NLRB 1277.
Such a trail of confusion and uncertainty is
149 NLRB 67 (1964).
14 See, e.g., "Politics, Policy Making, and the
not unusual in this field presided over by the
5 Section (b) (7) (C) Section 8(b) (7) also
NLRB," by Clyde W. Summers, 6 Syracuse
NLRB.
prohibits organizational picketing (A) if an-
Law Review 93 (1955); "The NLRB Under
One commentator has pointed out that the
other union has been lawfully recognized;
Republican Administration: Trends and
Board's contract bar rule, which applies in
or (B) if a valid election has been held with-
Their Political Implications," Note, 55 Co-
connection with representation elections, has
in the preceding 12 months.
lumbia Law Review 852 (1955); "Policy-Mak-
changed six times in 29 years. [Raoul Berger,
6 The Board openly admitted that it would
ing by the New "Quasi-Judicial' NLRB," by
115 University of Pennsylvania Law Review
not read the statutory language literally as
Mozart G. Ratner, 23 University of Chicago
371 (1967) But the statutory purpose of
this would "do a disservice to Congress."
Law Review 12 (1956). (Eisenhower Board)
Congress has remained constant throughout.
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for
and "The National Labor Relations Board:
I know of no complete and exhaustive
any labor organization and any employer to
Labor Law Rewritten," by Harry L. Browne,
study of the shifts that have taken place in
enter into any contract or agreement, ex-
49 American Bar Association Journal 64
Board decisions from election to election.
press or implied, whereby such employer
(1963); and "The New Frontier NLRB," by
However, it is obvious that they have not
ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or re-
Kenneth C. McGuiness, Labor Policy Associa-
been limited to any one Board:14
frain from handling, using, selling, trans-
tion (1963). Also see "Stare Decisis and the
NLRB," by Robert J. Hickey, 17 Labor Law
Journal 451 (1966); and "Ad Hoc Ad Infini-
tum," by Theodore F. Weiss, 23 Texas Law
Review 215 (1964). (Kennedy Board.)
2254
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
For Release the Week of August 18-24, 1968
and thereafter
New Law
Bars Age
Job Bias
BY JERRY FORD
In this time when so many Americans worry so much about growing old, it seems
appropriate to report that a new Federal law prohibits employers and labor unions
from discriminating against workers on account of age.
Although the law is very new, the U.S. Labor Department states that already
there are workers in the age bracket covered--40 to 65--who have been hired for
jobs that were closed to them before the law against age discrimination went into
effect.
I am pleased to say that I strongly supported this legislation when it was
before the Congress.
The new law does not mean that an employer must hire a person in the 40 to 65
age group regardless of any and all circumstances. But an employer may only
refuse to fill a vacancy with an otherwise qualified older worker in cases where
age is "a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the normal operation
of the particular business. 11
Labor unions may no longer shut out workers in the 40-65 age bracket from
membership or refuse to refer older members to employers simply because of their
age. Employment agencies also are barred from discriminating against older job
seekers.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to some 350,000 employers,
employment agencies which serve them, and to labor organizations across the
country. It involves employers with 25 or more workers and labor organizations
with 25 or more members in industries affecting interstate commerce.
The U.S. Labor Department anticipates investigating 20,000 to 25,000
complaints regarding age discrimination in employment in the 12 months ending
next June 30.
Following guidelines laid down by Congress, the department will seek to
(more)
-2-
remedy all justifiable complaints through mediation. Cases will be taken to
court only where all other attempts to settle the issue fail.
The new law against age bias in hiring and firing is aimed at promoting the
employment of older Americans.
There are 37 million Americans in the age 40-65 age bracket. An average of
850,000 persons in this group are unemployed. These 850,000 account for
27 per cent of all the unemployed in this country and 40 per cent of the longterm
unemployed.
The fact that these people are jobless results in an unemployment
compensation bill of $750 million a year.
For years some employers have been shunning the older worker on the ground
that he or she is physically weaker, has a high rate of absenteeism and is not
adaptable to change. But study after study has shown that older workers
generally have lower absenteeism rates, change jobs less frequently, and do their
jobs more enthusiastically than younger workers.
# # #
4 September 1968
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT OF 1962 - H.R. 15045
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the extension of the
Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 (MDTA). Properly amended and admin-
istered, this Act can play an important role in the fight against unemployment and
underemployment.
The Republican Members of Congress long have been interested in establish-
ing a sound program that would solve this Nation's manpower problems by utilizing
the ingenuity and vast resources of private enterprise to upgrade and develop the
skills of our labor force. The Republican effort in this area began in 1961 with
a study by the House Republican Policy Committee. Leading authorities in the fields
of education and on-the-job training were asked to participate and their comments
and recommendations were included in the report, "Operation Employment." This study
became the basis for the Republican Proposed Manpower Development and Training Act
of 1962, which was adopted in great part and enacted into law by the 87th Congress.
From its inception, the Manpower Development and Training Act has contained
provisions that attempted to make clear the congressional intent that the States
are to be partners in the Federal manpower program. Section. 301 contains an alloc-
ation formula which provides a method of distributing funds to the States. Section
206 encourages and authorizes the Secretary of Labor to enter into agreements with
the States and to utilize the services of the State agencies.
Unfortunately, this intent and these provisions have been downgraded and
disregarded by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. As a result, the States have
experienced delays in funding projects that have met the prescribed standards and
have been accepted by employers. Completely in disregard of Congressional intent,
(over)
the Department of Labor has proposed that the promotion, development and funding of
on-the-job (OJT) projects be assumed by Federal personnel. The State agencies would
retain only the lesser responsibilities of monitoring and servicing.
Furthermore, despite the proven value of on-the-job training, the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration is using MDTA funds to finance new programs under Title I-B
of the Economic Opportunity Act. The result has been the elimination of sound man-
power projects in the on-the-job (OJT) training field.
In order to have an effective training program, States must be permitted
to participate on an active partnership basis. Efforts to involve private enterprise
must be increased. All funds appropriated for MDTA should be utilized for MDTA
programs. Similarly, funds allocated to the States should be released to finance
approved projects. Also, the Secretary of Labor should be required to enter into
appropriate agreements with States and State agencies interested in becoming active
working partners in the Federal manpower program.
Republican amendments rejected in Committee that are designed to assure
these results will be offered again during the Floor consideration of this legis-
lation. We urge their adoption.
The Manpower Development and Training Act can be the basis for a successful
program in a field that has been marked by frustration and futility. Properly
amended and administered, it can utilize the training resources of both private
enterprise and institutions to provide meaningful training for jobs that are waiting
to be filled.
Jobs and hope must be substituted for unfilled promises and despair. Under
a Republican President, the Manpower Development and Training Act can become key
legislation in the fight against unemployment and poverty.
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
July 8, 1969
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on the President's Message dealing
with Unemployment Insurance, July 8, 1969.
President Nixon's proposals to expand, improve and strengthen our unemploy-
ment insurance system clearly constitute one of the most important items of
legislative business on the agenda of the 91st Congress.
It is vital that we extend unemployment insurance to an additional 4,800,000
workers as recommended by the President and that we provide for payment of benefits
during worker retraining and for automatic extension of benefits during long
periods of high unemployment.
I expect that these proposals by President Nixon will be relatively non-
controversial. The fight, if any, will come over the recommendation that states
be given two years to meet the goal of paying unemployment benefits amounting to
at least 50 per cent of a worker's weekly wage.
In this connection, it should be remembered that the unemployment insurance
system is a Federal-State program. Every attempt should therefore be made to
improve the system with the full cooperation of and action on the part of the
respective states.
I subscribe to the concept that unemployment benefits amounting to at least
50 per cent of a worker's weekly pay should be paid in every state. In those
states where this objective is not being met, injustice is visited upon the
unemployed who are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Also, employers
in that state are given a competitive advantage over employers in other states.
But it would be far better to achieve the 50 per cent objective through
federal encouragement than through federal bludgeoning. I therefore feel a
grace period is in order.
Enactment of the other Nixon recommendations into law will greatly
strengthen our unemployment insurance system and improve the health of the
American economy.
###
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
July 8, 1969
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on the President's Message dealing
with Unemployment Insurance, July 8, 1969.
President Nixon's proposals to expand, improve and strengthen our unemploy-
ment insurance system clearly constitute one of the most important items of
legislative business on the agenda of the 91st Congress.
It is vital that we extend unemployment insurance to an additional 4,800,000
workers as recommended by the President and that we provide for payment of benefits
during worker retraining and for automatic extension of benefits during long
periods of high unemployment.
I expect that these proposals by President Nixon will be relatively non-
controversial. The fight, if any, will come over the recommendation that states
be given two years to meet the goal of paying unemployment benefits amounting to
at least 50 per cent of a worker's weekly wage.
In this connection, it should be remembered that the unemployment insurance
system is a Federal-State program. Every attempt should therefore be made to
improve the system with the full cooperation of and action on the part of the
respective states.
I subscribe to the concept that unemployment benefits amounting to at least
50 per cent of a worker's weekly pay should be paid in every state. In those
states where this objective is not being met, injustice is visited upon the
unemployed who are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Also, employers
in that state are given a competitive advantage over employers in other states.
But it would be far better to achieve the 50 per cent objective through
federal encouragement than through federal bludgeoning. I therefore feel a
grace period is in order.
Enactment of the other Nixon recommendations into law will greatly
strengthen our unemployment insurance system and improve the health of the
American economy.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Friday, February 27, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
I congratulate President Nixon for doing what four Presidents before him
talked of doing but never accomplished. He has set forth, in concrete clear
language, sensible ways to improve the handling of national emergency labor disputes.
I am most impressed by the President's recommendations. The general thrust
of Mr. Nixon's proposals is to encourage true collective bargaining and to produce
settlement of national emergency labor disputes without damaging strikes or resort
to binding arbitration.
In my view, President Nixon has submitted historic labor legislation which
signals a return to genuine collective bargaining in this country and the promise
of far healthier labor-management relations in the transportation field.
There has been no important legislation in this critical area of national
emergency labor disputes since 1959. Our objective now must be to strengthen free
collective bargaining and to eliminate unnecessary government interference with
that process. The President's recommendations appear to be ideally designed to
accomplish that objective.
We have recognized in this country that the right to strike is basic to
justice for the American workingman. Let us proceed now on the basis that the way
to avoid strikes is to develop alternate strategies for resolving disputes but at
the same time achieving the justice which would render strikes unnecessary. I
believe prospects for congressional approval of President Nixon's proposals are
good.
###
Distribution Full
Q Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Friday, February 27, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
I congratulate President Nixon for doing what four Presidents before him
talked of doing but never accomplished. He has set forth, in concrete clear
language, sensible ways to improve the handling of national emergency labor disputes.
I am most impressed by the President's recommendations. The general thrust
of Mr. Nixon's proposals is to encourage true collective bargaining and to produce
settlement of national emergency labor disputes without damaging strikes or resort
to binding arbitration.
In my view, President Nixon has submitted historic labor legislation which
signals a return to genuine collective bargaining in this country and the promise
of far healthier labor-management relations in the transportation field.
There has been no important legislation in this critical area of national
emergency labor disputes since 1959. Our objective now must be to strengthen free
collective bargaining and to eliminate unnecessary government interference with
that process. The President's recommendations appear to be ideally designed to
accomplish that objective.
We have recognized in this country that the right to strike is basic to
justice for the American workingman. Let us proceed now on the basis that the way
to avoid strikes is to develop alternate strategies for resolving disputes but at
the same time achieving the justice which would render strikes unnecessary. I
believe prospects for congressional approval of President Nixon's proposals are
good.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
March 11, 1970
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., placed in the Congressional Record of
Wednesday, March 11, 1970.
Mr. Speaker: On Monday the distinguished Majority Leader of the House
informed us that because the unemployment rate rose to 4.2 per cent in January
he had concluded this Nation is in the grip of a recession.
This is a most interesting observation, Mr. Speaker, particularly if you
look at the unemployment rates for the years 1961 through 1965, when Democrats
were in control of both the White House and the Congress.
A look at the unemployment rates for those years tells us that the Majority
Leader is making statements that are indefensible. Apparently he is trying to talk
us into a recession.
If he is not trying to talk us into a recession, then he would have to
assert that the United States suffered through a five-year recession in the last
decade -- because in all of those years the unemployment rate exceeded the current
rate of 4.2 per cent.
In 1961, the unemployment rate was a shocking 6.7 per cent. In 1962, it
was 5.5 per cent. In 1963, it was 5.7; in 1964, 5.2; and in 1965, 4.5.
In 1966, the unemployment rate dropped to 3.8, less than 4 per cent, and it
has remained below 4 per cent until recently.
Now to what can we attribute this drop to less than 4 per cent in
unemployment -- a most welcome decline if viewed as a bit of data unrelated to
other economic factors.
One does not have to hold a doctor's degree in economics to recognize that
the sharp decline in unemployment in 1966 coincided with a sharp surge in the
economy triggered by the Vietnam War.
Conclusion -- the only valid conclusion -- is that we have been experiencing
a false prosperity generated by a war into which we were led by the previous
administration.
That same false prosperity generated inflationary pressures which steadily
pushed up the cost of living for every man, woman and child in America. And, as
(more)
-2-
former President Johnson said in his last Economic Report, transmitted to the
Congress in January 1969: "The problems of rising prices and wages remain intense
as 1969 begins.
The Majority Leader now talks of a recession. In fact, he flatly asserts
that "we are in a recession" because the uenmployment rate has risen to 4.2 per cent.
Would he also say then that the years 1961 through 1965 were recession years?
The Majority Leader talks at the same time of "Nixon inflation," and yet
Lyndon Johnson in his 1969 Economic Report freely admitted that "the first
significant break in relative price stability occurred early in 1965" and added
that "more pervasive inflationary pressures started in the second half of 1965
when the military buildup in Vietnam began." Mr. Johnson went on to say:
"Higher costs had been built into the economy during 1965 and 1966, and when the
economy picked up speed in the second half of 1967, prices and wages again
accelerated." "Union settlements," he said, "which had lagged in the initial
stage of the advance, rose especially sharply in late 1967 and in 1968." And
at that point Mr. Johnson stated that price and wage increases remained a severe
problem at the beginning of 1969.
Mr. Speaker, President Nixon and others of us are fighting the inflation
which was allowed to gather momentum under the previous Democratic administration.
One of the unfortunate consequences of that fight is that we are in a temporary
slowdown and unemployment has risen.
Mr. Speaker, rather than talking us into a recession it would better behoove
the Majority Leader to lend his support to the fight against inflation. He knows
full well that it has been necessary to cool off the economy in an effort to slow
the rise in prices. He knows full well that a rise in unemployment is an
unfortunate but inevitable result of that cooling off.
The Majority Leader has been seeking to blame the present Administration
for the sins of the previous Democratic administration. This kind of "politicking"
is bad for the entire country. And I doubt it is good politics because the
American people know that our inflation problems were inherited from a Democratic
Administration, and our fellow citizens also know that the Nixon Administration
has made sound decisions which will avoid a recession, slow down inflation and
preclude unacceptable unemployment.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE IN FRIDAY PM'
July 3, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
I have sent President Nixon a telegram urging him to call spokesmen for
Chicago area truck drivers and trucking firm operators to the White House in an
effort to head off another general wage increase throughout the trucking industry.
Wage increases at the 12 per cent level agreed to by some Chicago truck
operators pose a sharp and immediate threat to the nationwide fight against
inflation. If truck operators throughout the Chicago area accede to this wage
demand, the pressure will be tremendous on the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters to discard the master contract they have negotiated and to seek a new
contract patterned after the Chicago increase.
Not only would we then experience the impact of higher trucking costs
throughout the economy, but the high wage increase in the trucking industry would
encourage the United Auto Workers and other unions with upcoming contract talks
to hold out for huge pay boosts.
Former Labor Secretary George Shultz and Secretary James Hodgson have
worked hard to bring about a reasonable settlement of the Chicago trucking dispute
but the situation has become SO critical as to require the President's personal
intervention.
Accordingly I have sent the President the following telegram:
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
July 2, 1970
President Richard M. Nixon
San Clemente, California
Chicago area truck strike has had extremely serious repercussions on the economy
of the Middle West. Labor-management negotiations in Chicago now have reached
crucial point, with ramifications going far beyond impact on Middle West economy.
Unfortunately Congress has not enacted legislation recommended by you which would
have been very helpful in seeking a fair and constructive solution. In view of the
regrettable lack of legislation, I urge personal White House involvement to bring
labor and management to a solution which will be in the best interest of the Nation.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
###
Full Distribution
a Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE IN FRIDAY PM's
July 3, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
I have sent President Nixon a telegram urging him to call spokesmen for
Chicago area truck drivers and trucking firm operators to the White House in an
effort to head off another general wage increase throughout the trucking industry.
Wage increases at the 12 per cent level agreed to by some Chicago truck
operators pose a sharp and immediate threat to the nationwide fight against
inflation. If truck operators throughout the Chicago area accede to this wage
demand, the pressure will be tremendous on the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters to discard the master contract they have negotiated and to seek a new
contract patterned after the Chicago increase.
Not only would we then experience the impact of higher trucking costs
throughout the economy, but the high wage increase in the trucking industry would
encourage the United Auto Workers and other unions with upcoming contract talks
to hold out for huge pay boosts.
Former Labor Secretary George Shultz and Secretary James Hodgson have
worked hard to bring about a reasonable settlement of the Chicago trucking dispute
but the situation has become so critical as to require the President's personal
intervention.
Accordingly I have sent the President the following telegram:
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
July 2, 1970
President Richard M. Nixon
San Clemente, California
Chicago area truck strike has had extremely serious repercussions on the economy
of the Middle West. Labor-management negotiations in Chicago now have reached
crucial point, with ramifications going far beyond impact on Middle West economy.
Unfortunately Congress has not enacted legislation recommended by you which would
have been very helpful in seeking a fair and constructive solution. In view of the
regrettable lack of legislation, I urge personal White House involvement to bring
labor and management to a solution which will be in the best interest of the Nation.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
on the floor of the House, Wednesday, July 8, 1970.
Congressional inaction on President Nixon's Emergency Public Interest
Protection Act of 1970 is absolutely incomprehensible.
We have had a sudden strike against the nation's railroads. The President
has, aborted the strike by employing his authority under the Railway Labor Act to
order the men back to work for 60 days while an Emergency Board studies the
situation and recommends a settlement. Now Northwest Airlines has also been
struck.
These actions point up the absurdity of the position in which the Nation
finds itself.
The country is without adequate means to deal with national emergency labor
disputes in transportation and yet hearings have not even been scheduled in
either the House or the Senate on the President's proposed Emergency Public
Interest Protection Act.
It was last Fabruary 27 that the President sent Congress a Message
detailing his proposal covering emergency disputes in the transportation industries.
Why has no action been taken? Why should such disputes reach the point where
Congress has to legislate a special solution which in most cases amounts to
compulsory arbitration? I think these questions demand an answer. I think the
American people will insist upon an answer.
As President Nixon has pointed out, the Railway Labor Act has a very bad
record. It discourages genuine collective bargaining.
The President's Emergency Public Interest Protection Act is designed to
promote collective bargaining -- to promote a solution short of special
congressional action in a crisis atmosphere. This makes sense to me, and it should
make sense to every other member of Congress.
I urge that the Congress move immediately to consider the Emergency Public
Interest Protection Act.
###
Full Distribution
a office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
on the floor of the House, Wednesday, July 8, 1970.
Congressional inaction on President Nixon's Emergency Public Interest
Protection Act of 1970 is absolutely incomprehensible.
We have had a sudden strike against the nation's railroads. The President
has aborted the strike by employing his authority under the Railway Labor Act to
order the men back to work for 60 days while an Emergency Board studies the
situation and recommends a settlement. Now Northwest Airlines has also been
struck.
These actions point up the absurdity of the position in which the Nation
finds itself.
The country is without adequate means to deal with national emergency labor
disputes in transportation and yet hearings have not even been scheduled in
either the House or the Senate on the President's proposed Emergency Public
Interest Protection Act.
It was last Fabruary 27 that the President sent Congress a Message
detailing his proposal covering emergency disputes in the transportation industries.
Why has no action been taken? Why should such disputes reach the point where
Congress has to legislate a special solution which in most cases amounts to
compulsory arbitration? I think these questions demand an answer. I think the
American people will insist upon an answer.
As President Nixon has pointed out, the Railway Labor Act has a very bad
record. It discourages genuine collective bargaining.
The President's Emergency Public Interest Protection Act is designed to
promote collective bargaining -- to promote a solution short of special
congressional action in a crisis atmosphere. This makes sense to me, and it should
make sense to every other member of Congress.
I urge that the Congress move immediately to consider the Emergency Public
Interest Protection Act.
###
Full Distribution
Office Copy
11970]
For Release on Monday, Sept. 7, or earlier
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
On Labor Day we pay tribute to the people who are the backbone of our
Nation the working men and women of America. They are 70 million strong. Their
work is often tough and demands manual skill. These are the Americans who turn
the wheels of industry and perform the services that are essential to our daily
living.
This is the 76th year that America has observed Labor Day. We set aside
this special day to honor our working men and women because it is so easy to
forget the contribution they make to American life. And so we tell them today how
very important they are to America.
In his first annual message to Congress on Dec. 3, 1861, President Abraham
Lincoln said of the Nation's workers: "Labor is prior to, and independent of,
capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor
had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher
consideration.'
I believe as Lincoln did that America should honor her workers not just
one day of the year but all the year through. The Nation should honor her workers
by making their lives more satisfying and more secure.
We must eliminate work hazards to every extent practicable, and we must
raise health standards.
We must continue to provide workers with better protection from the
adversities of temporary unemployment.
We must strengthen the framework of free collective bargaining. We must
provide more channels for the healthy settlement of labor-management disputes
without a resort to crippling strikes.
We must continue to make progress toward elimination of the joblessness
that flows from lack of skills or education.
We must make changes in our economy and in working conditions that will
tend to elevate the quality of life for working men and women throughout America.
This is the best way to pay tribute to our workers and to thank them for
their many contributions to the well-being of America. This is the only worthy
way to do them honor on this Labor Day 1970.
# # #
(IIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
September 22, 1970
Second Session
Statement Number 11
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 19200
THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of effective
occupational safety and health legislation as contained in H.R. 19200.
H.R. 19200 was introduced by Congressmen William Steiger and Robert Sikes as
a substitute for H.R. 16785 which was reported by the House Education and Labor
Committee.
In his message to Congress on August 6, 1969, President Nixon outlined
a 5-point legislative proposal to improve occupational health and safety;
H.R. 19200 embodies the essence of these proposals.
While the Committee-reported bill has several worthwhile provisions, all
of which are incorporated into H.R. 19200, it also has serious deficiencies. It
fails to provide a fair and balanced administrative structure for properly mobi-
lizing a national program and eliciting the best efforts of both employers and
employees toward making working conditions safe and healthful.
H.R. 19200, the Steiger-Sikes bill, provides for the setting of standards
by an independent professional National Occupational Safety and Health Board.
Inspections and citations for violations are under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Labor. Appeals from decisions of the Secretary are to be determined
by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Commission. This is an important
(over)
-2-
distribution of responsibility, and is contrasted with the monopoly given to
the Secretary of Labor under the Committee bill which makes him standard-setter,
prosecutor, judge and jury.
H.R. 19200, the substitute bill, creates a more effective and expeditious
standard-setting process, which will permit the Board to concentrate on those
areas where no standards exist or where existing standards are ineffective.
H.R. 19200, the substitute bill, requires employers to maintain working
conditions which are free "from any hazards which are readily apparent and are
causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm." It emphasizes,
however, that only with precise standards can the best protection for both
worker and employer be provided.
Under H.R. 19200, the substitute bill, the worker and his employer would
be promptly notified of conditions which could cause death or serious physical
injury. The employer would be protected from arbitrary closure of his plant by
the requirement that closure be obtained only through court order.
H.R. 19200, the Steiger-Sikes bill, provides increased protection for
the worker, while assuring fairness, equity and due process for all concerned.
The House Republican Policy Committee urges that it be passed in lieu of
H.R. 16785.
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
October 13, 1970
Second Session
Statement Number 13
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 19519
THE COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER ACT
The House Republican Policy Committee urges passage of H.R. 19519, the
Comprehensive Manpower Act, as reported by the House Education and Labor Committee.
Since 1961, the Federal Government has created a maze of job training and
placement programs, each intended to meet a particular need at a particular time.
As a result, we are today faced with a patchwork of disconnected categorical
programs which has resulted in duplication of services, proliferation of funding
sources, incompatible program standards and overcentralization of program adminis-
tration at the national level--a manpower system competing against itself and fail-
ing the very people it was designed to help.
In August, 1969, as part of his comprehensive package of social reforms,
President Nixon proposed a complete revamping of our manpower system. H.R. 19519
is designed to carry out the President's objectives.
Title I of H.R. 19519 consolidates authority and funds from our two
principal manpower training statutes--the Manpower Development and Training Act
of 1962 and the Economic Opportunity Act. It decentralizes responsibility for
planning and administering manpower programs to governors and community officials,
who are more familiar with local needs and who can be held more directly accountable
to those they serve. It decategorizes major existing programs and provides local
(over)
-2-
planners with the flexibility to shape available resources to meet individual
needs.
Title II of H.R. 19519 establishes a new program for upgrading the skills
of employed workers to place them in more responsible and better-paying jobs, and
thus providing jobs at the entry-level for new employees.
Title III creates, as a supplement to manpower training and placement
efforts in the private sector, a program of public service employment. Its
purpose is to provide meaningful jobs for those who cannot obtain regular
employment in the private or public sector. The bill is designed, not to "make
work", but to develop a participant's skills and then to move him from a federally-
subsidized position to one in the private or public sector which is self-supporting.
Title IV provides for the development of a national computerized job bank,
as well as other activities designed to improve the delivery of manpower services,
to foster our knowledge of manpower needs and utilization and to increase the
ability of States and local governments to carry out effective manpower programs.
Our manpower training and placement programs are today facing their
greatest challenge. As we move from a war-time to a peace-time economy, as we
redesign our welfare system to enable people to substitute meaningful employment
for relief, as we grapple with the problems of inflation and unemployment, it is
imperative that we have a coordinated federal-state-local effort of manpower
planning, training and placement. H.R. 19519, the Comprehensive Manpower Act,
provides that program. The House Republican Policy Committee urges its immediate
passage.
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
December 17, 1970
I strongly support President Nixon's veto of the Employment and Manpower
Training Act of 1970 because the measure adopted by the Congress goes off in the
wrong directions instead of following the path of reform laid down in the President's
original proposals.
The House-approved bill came fairly close to carrying out all of the
President's manpower and employment objectives, and so I supported that legislation.
The task of the Congress now is to rewrite the Employment and Manpower Act
of 1970 in a form that adheres fairly closely to the House bill and the provisions
sought by the Administration.
Our general objectives should be a single, broadly defined manpower program
and a public service jobs program which is a stepping stone to good jobs in the
private sector for the workers involved. Because of changes made by the Senate,
these objectives were lost sight of in the bill sent to the President.
# # #
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
December 17, 1970
I strongly support President Nixon's veto of the Employment and Manpower
Training Act of 1970 because the measure adopted by the Congress goes off in the
wrong directions instead of following the path of reform laid down in the President's
original proposals.
The House-approved bill came fairly close to carrying out all of the
President's manpower and employment objectives, and so I supported that legislation.
The task of the Congress now is to rewrite the Employment and Manpower Act
of 1970 in a form that adheres fairly closely to the House bill and the provisions
sought by the Administration.
Our general objectives should be a single, broadly defined manpower program
and a public service jobs program which is a stepping stone to good jobs in the
private sector for the workers involved. Because of changes made by the Senate,
these objectives were lost sight of in the bill sent to the President.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
February 3, 1971
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford on the floor of the House
MR. SPEAKER: It is time for a showdown. It is time the Congress quit
running away from the question of what to do about national emergency labor
disputes in the transportation industry.
The President has again sent the Congress his proposed Emergency Public
Interest Protection Act, which would bring the railroads and airlines under the
Taft-Hartley Act and amend Taft-Hartley to give the President three additional
options for handling national emergency labor disputes in transportation.
It is possible that none of us agrees word for word with the language of
the legislation being proposed by the President to deal with this pressing national
problem. But it is incumbent upon the Congress to give the President's proposal a
hearing and to formulate a solution.
It is a shameful shirking of responsibility for the Congress to avoid coming
to grips with the critical need for improving the Federal machinery for handling
labor disputes affecting transportation.
Action is needed--and now. The threat of another railroad strike in the
space of just a few weeks points up the urgency of the situation. The American
people should not stand for continued delay.
###
Full Distribution
Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
February 3, 1971
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford on the floor of the House
MR. SPEAKER: It is time for a showdown. It is time the Congress quit
running away from the question of what to do about national emergency labor
disputes in the transportation industry.
The President has again sent the Congress his proposed Emergency Public
Interest Protection Act, which would bring the railroads and airlines under the
Taft-Hartley Act and amend Taft-Hartley to give the President three additional
options for handling national emergency labor disputes in transportation.
It is possible that none of us agrees word for word with the language of
the legislation being proposed by the President to deal with this pressing national
problem. But it is incumbent upon the Congress to give the President's proposal a
hearing and to formulate a solution.
It is a shameful shirking of responsibility for the Congress to avoid coming
to grips with the critical need for improving the Federal machinery for handling
labor disputes affecting transportation.
Action is needed--and now. The threat of another railroad strike in the
space of just a few weeks points up the urgency of the situation. The American
people should not stand for continued delay.
###
HOUSE
NEWS
REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE
1618 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
202/225-5107
JOHN B. ANDERSON, M.C. (ILL.)
CHAIRMAN
FOR RELEASE THURSDAY
CONTACT:
Martha Phillips
Robert Eaton
225-5107
225-3906
April 8, 1971
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
ANNOUNCED IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Washington, D. C.--The establishment of a House of Representatives Republican Task Force
on Rural Development and Land Use was announced today by Congressman Barber B. Conable, Jr.,
Chairman of the House Republican Research Committee. Joining him in this announcement were
Gerald Ford, Minority Leader of the U. S. House of Representatives, and John B. Anderson,
Chairman of the House Republican Conference.
According to Congressman John Kyl (R-Iowa), who has been appointed to serve as Chair-
man of the new Task Force, the chief purpose of the Task Force will be to take a long-range
look at rural needs and rural development, going beyond statistics and studies and
considering actual communities and areas.
"We will try to get as much input as possible from those who daily are involved in
development. This is the untapped source of ideas and a basis for comparative approaches",
Congressman Kyl stated.
The Task Force, in its study of rural development and land use, will emphasize the
comparative evaluation of processes which fail, those which succeed, and those which
"almost make it". From such a survey, the group hopes to identify those ingredients
common to successful rural development.
"We begin with a recognition that development must be considered a continuing process
rather than a program," said Kyl. "The program application has failed, first because
bureaus of government have competed with each other in specific uncoordinated efforts, and
second, because each program result becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end,
Obviously, the chief goal of any process must be 'jobs'. Without genuine economic develop-
ment, the various communities become permanent wards of the government. Local effort then
is concentrated on finding new ways to get help from Uncle Sam."
Joining Congressman Kyl on the Task Force are fifteen other House Republicans who
comprise a broad-based group representing all parts of the country. They are:
Don Clausen (Calif.), Paul Findley (I11.), John Paul Hammerschmidt (Ark.), Elwood Hillis
(Ind.), Carleton King (N. Y.), Delbert Latta (Ohio), John McCollister (Nebr.), Bob Mathias
(Calif.), Wilmer (Vinegar Bend) Mizell (N. C.), Tom Railsback (I11.), Kenneth Robinson (Va.),
Richard Shoup (Mont.), Joe Skubitz (Kans.), John Terry (N.Y.), and Charles Thone (Nebr.).
The Task Force on Rural Development and Land Use is one of several Task Forces being
organized by the House Republican Research Committee, which, in turn, is part of the House
Republican Conference. The Research Committee and its Task Forces serve Republican
Members of the House of Representatives by providing research services and by organizing
Task Forces to undertake long-range studies of important issues.
(30)
HOUSE
NEWS
REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE
1618 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
202/225-5107
JOHN B. ANDERSON, M.C. (ILL.)
CHAIRMAN
FOR RELEASE THURSDAY
CONTACT: Martha Phillips
Paul Winegar
April 8, 1971
202/225-5107
202/225-3011
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ANNOUNCED IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Washington, D. C.--The establishment of a Republican Task Force on Labor-Management
Relations in the U. S. House of Representatives was announced today by Congressman Barber
B. Conable, Jr., Chairman of the House Recublican Research Committee. Joining him in this
announcement were Gerald Ford, Minority Leader of the U. S. House of Representatives and
John B. Anderson, Chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Congressman Sherman P. Lloyd (R-Utah) has been appointed Chairman of the Task Force
for the 92nd Congress. Lloyd chaired a Republican Task Force on Labor Law Review in
the 91st Congress.
The other members of the Task Force are:
Congressmen John Ashbrook (Ohio), Ben Blackburn (Ga.), Gary Brown (Mich.), David Dennis
(Ind.), John Erlenborn (I11.), Stewart McKinney (Conn.), Wylie Mayne (Iowa), Jerry Pettis
(Calif.), Albert Quie (Minn.), John Rhodes (Ariz.), John Schmitz (Calif.), Victor Veysey
(Calif.), Larry Winn (Kans.), and Chalmers Wylie (Ohio).
Congressman Lloyd said that the Task Force expects to devote its energy to such
problems as agricultural farm workers, public employee disputes and the need for
modernizing current labor law, including proposals for a labor court. "The Task Force
also plans to evaluate the need for laws supplementary to the Taft-Hartley Act to handle
national emergency labor disputes", he stated. "In addition, we will have a continuing
interest in the conditions under which Americans work, including such questions as child
labor and minimum wages."
The Labor-Management Relations Task Force is one of several Task Forces being
organized by the House Republican Research Committee. The Research Committee, part of
the House Republican Conference, serves Republican Members by providing research services
and by organizing Task Forces to undertake long-range studies of important issues.
(30)
11111
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
May 11, 1971
First Session
Statement Number 2
THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
ON H.R. 3613, THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971
The House Republican Policy Committee opposes the passage of
H.R. 3613 as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor and urges
the adoption of the Esch substitute, which embodies the principles of the
President's Special Manpower Revenue Sharing proposals.
The nation's manpower programs require immediate reform.
Fragmented, uncoordinated and inflexible, the programs have failed to
meet the urgent needs of the unemployed and the underemployed. H.R. 3613,
as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor, would continue the
shortcomings, the confusions and the failures of existing manpower efforts.
By imposing yet another narrowly drawn manpower program upon the present
profusion of categorical programs, the Committee bill would maximize
the problems of administration while minimizing the benefits.
The Esch substitute provides the fundamental reform required.
It would consolidate existing programs to create a more flexible and
adequately financed manpower delivery system. It would decentralize
administration of our comprehensive manpower efforts to State and local
(over)
- 2 -
governments, thus enabling local authorities with widely differing job
markets and training needs to tailor the programs to their needs.
The substitute would concentrate Federal efforts in those areas
where centralized administration is most needed and is most productive:
in coordinating basic research and demcnstration projects in the manpower
field, in the development of a comprehensive labor market information
system and in the conduct of a nationwide job bank program.
The Esch substitute, as does the Committee reported bill,
provides for public service employment. It contemplates, however, a
flexible mix of programs, including public service employment of limited
duration, adjusted to meet critical needs in high unemployment areas.
The Committee reported bill, in sharp contrast, authorizes funds limited
to a narrow manpower purpose through a complicated and uncertain national
triggering mechanism. Moreover, the Committee bill could allow individuals
to remain permanently in federally-subsidized public service employment.
The Esch substitute affords the fundamental reforms of our
total manpower training and development effort which are so critically
needed. The House Republican Policy Committee urges its adoption and
opposes the passage of H.R. 3613, as reported.
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Monday, May 17, 1971
Congress must act immediately to end the strike which has paralyzed the
Nation's railroads. If the strike is permitted to continue, it will wreck the
economy of the country.
No matter how quickly the strike is ended, the fact remains that it never
should have been allowed to occur. This Nation cannot afford a rail strike, and
the sooner the Congress legislates to provide some other means of settling railroad
labor-management disputes the better.
It is an indictment of the Democratic-controlled Congress that nothing is
being done to deal with the almost annual strikes against the railroads except on
an emergency order-'em-back-to-work basis.
The President has faced up to his responsibility. On Feb. 27, 1970, he out-
lined legislation which would serve as the basis for hearings on the subject. The
least the Democratic-controlled Congress should do is to hold hearings in the hope
of coming up with a solution.
The solution may not be exactly in line with the President's proposals, but
a solution must be found.
Further delay serves no purpose whatsoever. There is no excuse for it.
If the Democratic leadership in the Congress continues to refuse to act, then
they certainly owe the American people an explanation. The present situation is
nothing short of tragic.
###
Fuel distribution
Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Monday, May 17, 1971
Congress must act immediately to end the strike which has paralyzed the
Nation's railroads. If the strike is permitted to continue, it will wreck the
economy of the country.
No matter how quickly the strike is ended, the fact remains that it never
should have been allowed to occur. This Nation cannot afford a rail strike, and
the sooner the Congress legislates to provide some other means of settling railroad
labor-management disputes the better.
It is an indictment of the Democratic-controlled Congress that nothing is
being done to deal with the almost annual strikes against the railroads except on
an emergency order-'em-back-to-work basis.
The President has faced up to his responsibility. On Feb. 27, 1970, he out-
lined legislation which would serve as the basis for hearings on the subject. The
least the Democratic-controlled Congress should do is to hold hearings in the hope
of coming up with a solution.
The solution may not be exactly in line with the President's proposals, but
a solution must be found.
Further delay serves no purpose whatsoever. There is no excuse for it.
If the Democratic leadership in the Congress continues to refuse to act, then
they certainly owe the American people an explanation. The present situation is
nothing short of tragic.
###
00000
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
Statement Number 9
First Session
September 14, 1971
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT NIXON'S
PROPOSAL TO DELAY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASES.
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced a bold new economic policy,
a multipronged attack aimed at curbing inflation, creating new jobs, stabilizing
the dollar and placing American-produced goods on a more competitive basis with
foreign production. The comprehensive program includes a temporary freeze on
wages, prices and rents; a devaluation of the dollar in relation to free world
currencies; a reduction or suspension of federal expenditures; and an increase in
income and excise tax benefits.
It is essential that tax reductions to stimulate the economy, if they are
not to be inflationary in their impact, be balanced by significant reductions in
Federal expenditures. President Nixon has proposed that a substantial portion of
the budget savings be achieved through a six-months deferral of scheduled federal
employee pay increases and a five percent reduction, through attrition, of the
federal work force. Recognizing that the Federal Government, as a major employer,
must exercise responsible leadership, the President has called upon Government
workers to make sacrifices similar to those being made by employees in the
private sector.
The principle of comparability of government salaries with those of private
enterprise will be maintained; the fight against the rising cost of living, how-
(over)
-2-
ever, must be given an immediate preference. The temporary sacrifice of deferred
wage increases represents an investment in the Nation's economic well-being
which benefits all Americans.
The House Republican Policy Committee heartily endorses President Nixon's
economic policy. We support the deferral of federal employee wage increases,
as a significant feature of a coordinated and constructive effort for
"prosperity without war."
01111
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
September 14, 1971
First Session
Statement Number 8
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 9247
A SUBSTITUTE FOR H.R. 1746.
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the enactment of H.R. 9247,
a substitute for H.R. 1746, as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based
upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. To assist those persons
denied employment, promotion, union membership or other job-related opportunity,
an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established; its role is limited
to investigation, mediation and conciliation.
The primary purpose of H.R. 1746 and the proposed substitute, H.R. 9247, is
the same: to provide the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission with enforce-
ment authority. H.R. 1746 would transform the Commission into a quasi-judicial
body with authority to issue cease-and-desist orders. H.R. 9247, in contrast,
would empower the Commission to take its discrimination cases into Federal Courts.
Thus, rather than cast the Commission as investigator, prosecutor and judge,
H.R. 9247 provides a more effective, more expeditious and a more impartial and
fair determination of discriminatory employment cases.
Other detrimental provisions and critical omissions are found in H.R. 1746,
as reported by the Committee:
(over)
1. H.R. 1746 would transfer the function of the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance from the Department of Labor to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, thus combining two distinct programs within an already overburdened agency and
creating an unworkable merger of federal contract compliance efforts and the regula-
tory function of processing complaints of employment discrimination.
2. H.R. 1746 would extend the coverage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to
State and Local employees, an unprecedented interposition of a Federal administra-
tive agency into the internal administration of state and local functions.
3. H.R. 1746 would transfer from the Department of Justice to the EEOC the
authority to try pattern and practice suits, delaying relief to groups which have
been discriminated against by interposing the additional forum of the Commission.
4. H.R. 1746 lacks certain procedural and due process safeguards: a
reasonable statute of limitations on back pay and other liability; a requirement
for timely notice; and the elimination of a multiplicity of statutes or forums to
deal with discrimination in employment.
H.R. 1746, the reported bill, would interpose additional obstacles between
the aggrieved party and effective judicial relief. The expansion of jurisdiction
and the addition of various programs will hamstring the EEOC in its efforts, further
adding to an already massive backlog of cases.
By providing access to judicial enforcement, by providing necessary due
process and procedural safeguards, and by strengthening the present capacities of
those agencies and departments involved in the elimination of discriminatory employ-
ment practices, the substitute bill, H.R. 9247, would give reality to the principle
of equal employment opportunity for all Americans.
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the enactment of H.R. 9247,
a substitute for H.R. 1746, as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor.
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--RELEASED NOVEMBER 20, 1971--
I am amazed by the crude and insulting actions of some labor
leaders, particularly George Meany, toward the President at the
AFL-CIO convention. It was a shocking display of bad manners. I
applaud the President's willingness to go before such a hostile
audience to explain the ramifications of Phase 2 of his New Economic
Policy.
###
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
January 21, 1972
It is mandatory that the Congress act to end the West Coast dock strike.
The emergency solution President Nixon has laid before the Congress appears
to be the only solution now possible.
The present crisis, which demands a crisis solution, points up the pressing
need for the permanent legislation President Nixon recommended to the Congress two
years ago--legislation that would have avoided the very crisis we now face by
giving the President alternative methods for bringing about settlement of emergency
disputes in transportation.
There is no excuse for the failure of the Democratic Congress to act on
this two-year-old legislation.
The present West Coast dock tie-up should prompt Congress not only to enact
the President's crisis measure but also his safeguards against crisis strikes in
transportation.
The key feature of the permanent legislation is a modified form of
arbitration, the so-called final offer feature. This would be a vast improvement
over existing legislation, which allows labor-management disputes in transportation
to wind up periodically in Congress' lap for crisis action.
The latest labor-transportation crisis underscores the urgency of
congressional action on improved permanent legislation.
###
Full Distribution
a office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
January 21, 1972
It is mandatory that the Congress act to end the West Coast dock strike.
The emergency solution President Nixon has laid before the Congress appears
to be the only solution now possible.
The present crisis, which demands a crisis solution, points up the pressing
need for the permanent legislation President Nixon recommended to the Congress two
years ago--legislation that would have avoided the very crisis we now face by
giving the President alternative methods for bringing about settlement of emergency
disputes in transportation.
There is no excuse for the failure of the Democratic Congress to act on
this two-year-old legislation.
The present West Coast dock tie-up should prompt Congress not only to enact
the President's crisis measure but also his safeguards against crisis strikes in
transportation.
The key feature of the permanent legislation is a modified form of
arbitration, the so-called final offer feature. This would be a vast improvement
over existing legislation, which allows labor-management disputes in transportation
to wind up periodically in Congress' lap for crisis action.
The latest labor-transportation crisis underscores the urgency of
congressional action on improved permanent legislation.
###
Q office upy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
February 1, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I fail to understand why Democratic chairmen of House and Senate labor
subcommittees are 30 reluctant to move the Administration bill which would end the
West Coast dock strike through binding arbitration.
This strike has been one of the most costly in our history. It has lasted, with
interruption, for more than 100 days. It has cost workers, farmers and shippers
hundreds of millions of dollars. It has badly damaged the economy. Yet key Democrats
in the Congress are dragging their feet on action to bring the strike to an end.
The only explanation I can see for this attitude is that certain Democrats in
the Congress are fearful of offending some of the leaders of organized labor. In
this crisis, the interests of the people and the Nation should come first.
######
FORD & LIBRARY DERATO
Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
February 1, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I fail to understand why Democratic chairmen of House and Senate labor
subcommittees are so reluctant to move the Administration bill which would end the
West Coast dock strike through binding arbitration.
This strike has been one of the most costly in our history. It has lasted, with
interruption, for more than 100 days. It has cost workers, farmers and shippers
hundreds of millions of dollars. It has badly damaged the economy. Yet key Democrats
in the Congress are dragging their feet on action to bring the strike to an end.
The only explanation I can see for this attitude is that certain Democrats in
the Congress are fearful of offending some of the leaders of organized labor. In
this crisis, the interests of the people and the Nation should come first.
######
FORD & LIBRARY CERRID
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
February 1, 1972
Second Session
Statement Number 1
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE
WEST COAST DOCK STRIKE
The House Republican Policy Committee urges immediate consider-
ation and passage of H.J.Res. 1025, to provide a reasonable settle-
ment of the West Coast dock strike.
This crippling labor dispute has already wrought irreparable
harm to the Nation's health, safety and economic well-being. Millions
of dollars are being lost daily by American farmers as crops for
export pile up in closed ports. Businesses engaging directly or
indirectly in foreign trade are suffering disastrous losses. Supplies
which are vital to the American economy await delivery, and thousands
of jobs are deopardized. Continuance of such "dimensions of
destruction" cannot be permitted.
The resources of the Executive Branch to bring about a just
and equitable solution have been exhausted. There is no further
effective action which can be taken under present law. While we feel
strongly that government intervention in the collective bargaining
process should be avoided whenever possible, this is a critical
(over)
-2-
situation which demands Congressional action. In the present crisis,
President Nixon has called upon the Congress to provide authority to
determine all issues in the present dock dispute and bring the
protracted and paralyzing strike to an end. H.J.Res. 1025, recom-
mended by the President, provides a mechanism for an immediate and
fair solution to this national emergency. We urge its passage.
The Congress must provide immediately the legal resources to
bring the West Coast dock work stoppage to an end; it must then turn
to the pressing issue of the resolution of emergency transportation
disputes, whenever or wherever they occur. The West Coast crisis
dramatizes the urgent need for enactment of; permanent legislation to
provide effective before-the-fact protection against devastating
national emergency work stoppages, as the President has repeatedly
requested.
The country cannot afford continued inaction by the Democratic
majority of this Congress in this vital area of legislation.
office Capitor
IIIII
MIIIII
U.S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
February 1, 1972
Second Session
Statement Number 1
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE
WEST COAST DOCK STRIKE
The House Republican Policy Committee urges immediate consider-
ation and passage of H.J.Res. 1025, to provide a reasonable settle-
ment of the West Coast dock strike.
This crippling labor dispute has already wrought irreparable
harm to the Nation's health, safety and economic well-being. Millions
of dollars are being lost daily by American farmers as crops for
export pile up in closed ports. Businesses engaging directly or
indirectly in foreign trade are suffering disastrous losses. Supplies
which are vital to the American economy await delivery, and thousands
of jobs are deopardized. Continuance of such "dimensions of
destruction" cannot be permitted.
The resources of the Executive Branch to bring about a just
and equitable solution have been exhausted. There is no further
effective action which can be taken under present law. While we feel
strongly that government intervention in the collective bargaining
process should be avoided whenever possible, this is a critical
(over)
-2-
situation which demands Congressional action. In the present crisis,
President Nixon has called upon the Congress to provide authority to
determine all issues in the present dock dispute and bring the
protracted and paralyzing strike to an end. H.J.Res. 1025, recom-
mended by the President, provides a mechanism for an immediate and
fair solution to this national emergency. We urge its passage.
The Congress must provide immediately the legal resources to
bring the West Coast dock work stoppage to an end; it must then turn
to the pressing issue of the resolution of emergency transportation
disputes, whenever or wherever they occur. The West Coast crisis
dramatizes the urgent need for enactment of permanent legislation to
provide effective before-the-fact protection against devastating
national emergency work stoppages, as the President has repeatedly
requested.
The country cannot afford continued inaction by the Democratic
majority of this Congress in this vital area of legislation.
Full Distribution
Olfice Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Wednesday, March 1, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
The action by a House Commerce subcommittee killing crippling strike pre-
vention legislation for this year proves once again that leaders of organized labor
can call the signals on such legislation in a Congress controlled by the Democratic
Party.
The Democrats don't even have the excuse that nobody wants compulsory
arbitration because they rejected a compromise bill by Rep. James Harvey, R-Mich. ,
which provided for selective strikes.
In my view, the final offer feature contained in both the Harvey and the
Administration bills does not constitute compulsory arbitration as such but simply
a last resort alternative which would be used when collective bargaining breaks
down completely.
The fact that crippling strikes prevention legislation now has been ruled out
until at least next year is a shocking development which is manifestly unfair to
the American people.
The crippling transportation work stoppages the legislation was aimed at
preventing are a crushing burden on the country.
Work stoppages such as the West Coast dock strike cause us to lose foreign
markets we may never be able to recover. Strikes of this kind not only cause
massive unemployment but undermine our entire economy.
The refusal of the majority party to permit a vote by the House on this
legislation this year does injury to the whole country.
# # #
MIND
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
May 9, 1972
Second Session
Statement Number 6
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 7130,
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1971
"We support an equitable minimum wage for American
workers--one providing fair wages without unduly
increasing unemployment among those on the lowest
rung of the economic ladder--and will improve the
Fair Labor Standards Act, with its important
protection for employees."
1968 Republican Platform
The House Republican Policy Committee opposes the passage of H.R. 7130, the
Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1971, and urges the enactment of H.R. 14104, a
new minimum wage bill to be offered as a substitute therefor by Representatives
Quie (R-Minn.), Erlenborn (R-I11.), and Fuqua (D-Fla.), amended to extend the
minimum wage increases by steps.
Due to the inflationary spiral since passage of the 1966 Amendments to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the resulting reduction in purchasing power of the
current minimum wage, a reasonable increase in that wage is appropriate. The
manner and scope of the imposition of that wage is critical, if we are to continue
to make progress in reducing inflation while encouraging employment.
H.R. 14104 is designed solely to rectify the inequities of existing minimum
wage legislation. In contrast, H.R. 7130, as reported by the Committee on Education
and Labor, irresponsibly deviates from its intended purpose of remedying the in-
adequacy of current minimum wage scales. It proposes a broad and complicated
(over)
-2-
revision of minimum wage provisions which, by doing too much, for the wrong people,
at the wrong time, can only reduce employment and fuel the fires of further
inflation.
Despite unemployment rates for those under age twenty-one, estimated as
high as thirty percent, H.R. 7130 replaces the existing, wholly ineffective student
differential wage program with equally inadequate measures. It retains most of the
significant defects of the present law as it affects teen-age workers: the wage
differential would apply only to full-time students performing part-time work, thus
favoring the more affluent college student while ignoring the school dropout and
the low-skilled; the bill continues the pre-certification requirement which has
discouraged development of youth employment opportunities; and it prohibits pay-
ments at the differential rate in many industries, including work in factories,
warehouses, mines and construction. H.R. 14104, the substitute bill, would permit
employment of all youths under age eighteen and all students under age twenty-one,
with a reasonable variance in minimum wages; prior certification requirements are
eliminated; and, except where child labor laws pertain, there are no restrictions
as to kinds of industries in which the youth differential may apply.
The committee bill would extend coverage for both payment of the minimum
wage and payment for overtime to Federal, State and local employees, domestic ser-
vice workers, and employees of conglomerates and pre-school centers; it would repeal
overtime exemptions for transit, nursing home, agricultural processing (canneries
and tobacco), sugar and seasonal industry employees, and extend overtime coverage to
maids and custodial employees of hotels and motels. H.R. 14104, the substitute bill,
contains no such broad and costly provisions; it neither extends coverage of, nor
reduces exemptions in, the present minimum wage law.
The committee bill prohibits public employment agencies from referring job
seekers to employers not required to pay the minimum wage. Such restriction would
only make more difficult the task of finding employment, particularly for the low-
skilled.
(more)
-3-
Title III of H.R. 7130, the reported bill, would effectively prohibit the
use of Federal funds, loans, grants, subsidies or guarantees to purchase foreign
goods. The provision would prove highly inflationary, reduce rather than expand
employment opportunities, and destroy competition in many fields where it may be
needed. Such limiting provisions are inappropriate in minimum wage legislation and
are contrary to international negotiations and mutual agreements. The substitute
bill, H.R. 14104, provides no such restrictions upon foreign trade.
Both H.R. 7130, the committee bill, and H.R. 14104, the Quie, Erlenborn,
Fuqua Substitute, increase the minimum wage rate for non-agricultural employees
covered prior to the 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act to $2.00
immediately. For non-agricultural employees first covered by the 1966 Amendments
both bills would raise the minimum wage to $1.80 immediately. Under the substitute
bill a second increase, to $2.00, would be effective one year after the first; the
committee bill, though unclear, could impose the $2.00 minimum wage immediately.
Such precipitous minimum wage increases would, however, jeopardize present full
employment and anti-inflation efforts of the Nixon Administration.
An amendment to H.R. 14104 is thus required to provide a more gradual,
phased increase in the minimum wage scales. The amendment, to be offered by
Representative John B. Anderson (R-I11.), would raise the minimum wage for non-
agricultural workers covered prior to the 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to $1.80 within sixty days of enactment and to $2.00 one year after the first
effective date. In the case of non-agricultural workers first covered by the 1966
amendments, the Anderson amendment would increase the minimum wage to $1.70 within
sixty days of enactment, to $1.80 one year after the first effective date, and
to $2.00 one year after the second effective date. The more gradual increase of
wage rates would minimize adverse price and employment effects.
The House Republican Policy Committee recognizes the urgent need to rectify
the inequities of existing minimum wage scales in such a manner as to reduce the
(over)
-4-
inflationary impact and improve present unemployment conditions. The Congress
must also expand employment opportunities for our young people by providing a
meaningful youth differential wage. H.R. 14104, the Quie, Erlenborn, Fuqua
Substitute for the committee-reported bill, amended to provide more gradual
minimum wage increases, is a reasonable solution to these pressing problems.
official
IIIIIII.
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
May 9, 1972
Second Session
Statement Number 6
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 7130,
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1971
"We support an equitable minimum wage for American
workers--one providing fair wages without unduly
increasing unemployment among those on the lowest
rung of the economic ladder--and will improve the
Fair Labor Standards Act, with its important
protection for employees."
1968 Republican Platform
The House Republican Policy Committee opposes the passage of H.R. 7130, the
Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1971, and urges the enactment of H.R. 14104, a
new minimum wage bill to be offered as a substitute therefor by Representatives
Quie (R-Minn.), Erlenborn (R-I11.), and Fuqua (D-Fla.), amended to extend the
minimum wage increases by steps.
Due to the inflationary spiral since passage of the 1966 Amendments to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the resulting reduction in purchasing power of the
current minimum wage, a reasonable increase in that wage is appropriate. The
manner and scope of the imposition of that wage is critical, if we are to continue
to make progress in reducing inflation while encouraging employment.
H.R. 14104 is designed solely to rectify the inequities of existing minimum
wage legislation. In contrast, H.R. 7130, as reported by the Committee on Education
and Labor, irresponsibly deviates from its intended purpose of remedying the in-
adequacy of current minimum wage scales. It proposes a broad and complicated
(over)
-2-
revision of minimum wage provisions which, by doing too much, for the wrong people,
at the wrong time, can only reduce employment and fuel the fires of further
inflation.
Despite unemployment rates for those under age twenty-one, estimated as
high as thirty percent, H.R. 7130 replaces the existing, wholly ineffective student
differential wage program with equally inadequate measures. It retains most of the
significant defects of the present law as it affects teen-age workers: the wage
differential would apply only to full-time students performing part-time work, thus
favoring the more affluent college student while ignoring the school dropout and
the low-skilled; the bill continues the pre-certification requirement which has
discouraged development of youth employment opportunities; and it prohibits pay-
ments at the differential rate in many industries, including work in factories,
warehouses, mines and construction. H.R. 14104, the substitute bill, would permit
employment of all youths under age eighteen and all students under age twenty-one,
with a reasonable variance in minimum wages; prior certification requirements are
eliminated; and, except where child labor laws pertain, there are no restrictions
as to kinds of industries in which the youth differential may apply.
The committee bill would extend coverage for both payment of the minimum
wage and payment for overtime to Federal, State and local employees, domestic ser-
vice workers, and employees of conglomerates and pre-school centers; it would repeal
overtime exemptions for transit, nursing home, agricultural processing (canneries
and tobacco), sugar and seasonal industry employees, and extend overtime coverage to
maids and custodial employees of hotels and motels. H.R. 14104, the substitute bill,
contains no such broad and costly provisions; it neither extends coverage of, nor
reduces exemptions in, the present minimum wage law.
The committee bill prohibits public employment agencies from referring job
seekers to employers not required to pay the minimum wage. Such restriction would
only make more difficult the task of finding employment, particularly for the low-
skilled.
(more)
-3-
Title III of H.R. 7130, the reported bill, would effectively prohibit the
use of Federal funds, loans, grants, subsidies or guarantees to purchase foreign
goods. The provision would prove highly inflationary, reduce rather than expand
employment opportunities, and destroy competition in many fields where it may be
needed. Such limiting provisions are inappropriate in minimum wage legislation and
are contrary to international negotiations and mutual agreements. The substitute
bill, H.R. 14104, provides no such restrictions upon foreign trade.
Both H.R. 7130, the committee bill, and H.R. 14104, the Quie, Erlenborn,
Fuqua Substitute, increase the minimum wage rate for non-agricultural employees
covered prior to the 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act to $2.00
immediately. For non-agricultural employees first covered by the 1966 Amendments
both bills would raise the minimum wage to $1.80 immediately. Under the substitute
bill a second increase, to $2.00, would be effective one year after the first; the
committee bill, though unclear, could impose the $2.00 minimum wage immediately.
Such precipitous minimum wage increases would, however, jeopardize present full
employment and anti-inflation efforts of the Nixon Administration.
An amendment to H.R. 14104 is thus required to provide a more gradual,
phased increase in the minimum wage scales. The amendment, to be offered by
Representative John B. Anderson (R-I11.), would raise the minimum wage for non-
agricultural workers covered prior to the 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to $1.80 within sixty days of enactment and to $2.00 one year after the first
effective date. In the case of non-agricultural workers first covered by the 1966
amendments, the Anderson amendment would increase the minimum wage to $1.70 within
sixty days of enactment, to $1.80 one year after the first effective date, and
to $2.00 one year after the second effective date. The more gradual increase of
wage rates would minimize adverse price and employment effects.
The House Republican Policy Committee recognizes the urgent need to rectify
the inequities of existing minimum wage scales in such a manner as to reduce the
(over)
- -4-
inflationary impact and improve present unemployment conditions. The Congress
must also expand employment opportunities for our young people by providing a
meaningful youth differential wage. H.R. 14104, the Quie, Erlenborn, Fuqua
Substitute for the committee-reported bill, amended to provide more gradual
minimum wage increases, is a reasonable solution to these pressing problems.
minut
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
93rd Congress
June 5, 1973
First Session
Statement No. 10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON
H.R. 7935, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1973
The House Republican Policy Committee opposes the passage of H.R. 7935,
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1973, and urges the enactment of H.R. 3304, a
bipartisan substitute to be offered by Representatives Erlenborn (R-I11.),
Fuqua (D-Fla.), Quie (R-Minn.), Waggonnor (D-La.) and Anderson (R-I11.).
Inflation has substantially reduced the purchasing power of minimum wage
rates established by the 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. An
appropriate increase in those rates, paralleling the intervening rise in pro-
ductivity and cost-of-living, is clearly called for.
In 1972 the Committee on Education and Labor reported a broad and
complicated revision of minimum wage provisions. The House rejected the proposal
and approved a substitute which rectified the inequities of existing wage scales
in such a manner as to reduce the inflationary impact and improve
employment conditions. Ignoring this precedent, the Committee has reported
H.R. 7935, a bill which repeats the counter-productive proposals of a year ago.
Despite House insistence on gradual wage increases, H.R. 7935, the
reported bill, would raise minimums precipitously -- for non-farm workers
covered prior to 1966, from $1.60 to $2.20 in one year, and for those covered
(OVER)
- 2 -
for the first time by the 1966 amendments to $2.20 within two years. H.R. 8304,
the substitute bill, stretches out these increases, in three annual steps for
the first group, and in four annual steps for the second. For farm workers,
H.R. 8304 proposes a reasonable minimum wage increase, also to be phased over
the next four years.
H.R. 7935 jeopardizes youth employment by providing wage differentials
only for full-time students performing part-time work. The Committee bill
extends minimum wage and overtime coverage to Federal, State and local employees,
domestic workers and all employees of conglomerates; it repeals or reduces
overtime exemptions for transit, nursing home, agricultural processing (canneries
and tobacco) and seasonal industry employees, and extends overtime coverage to
custodial employees of hotels and motels. The substitute bill contains no
such inflationary and job-eliminating provisions.
The precipitous minimum wage increases, the absence of needed differential
wage rates for teenagers, the unacceptable broadening of coverage and the phasing
out of overtime exemptions proposed by H.R. 7935, the Committee-reported bill,
can only contribute to inflation, price increases, and unemployment. Just as
its 1972 counterpart, the Committee bill proposes too much at the wrong time.
H.R. 8304, the substitute bill, provides a reasonable remedy to
inadequacies of current minimum wage legislation. The House Republican Policy
Committee urges the rejection of H.R. 7935, the Committee-reported bill, and
supports the passage of the Erlenborn, Fuqua, Quie, Waggonner, Anderson
substitute.
IIIIIII.
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
93rd Congress
June 12, 1973
First Session
Statement No. 12
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON
H.R. 77, A BILL TO AMEND THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, TO PERMIT EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS
TO JOINTLY ADMINISTERED TRUST FUNDS ESTABLISHED BY
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO DEFRAY COSTS OF LEGAL SERVICES
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 77, a
bill to amend the Labor Management Relations Act, with an amendment to provide
that no labor organization or employer shall be required to bargain on the estab-
lishment of legal services trust funds and that refusal to do so shall not con-
stitute an unfair labor practice.
For purposes other than those specifically excepted, employer contributions
to programs administered jointly by representatives of labor and management are
prohibited by the Labor Management Relations Act. Exceptions include jointly
administered medical care programs, retirement pension plans, apprenticeship train-
int programs, life and accident insurance, scholarships and child day care centers.
H.R. 77 would permit a further exception: employer contributions to jointly
administered trust funds established to defray costs of legal services for
employees, their families and dependents.
Although federally funded legal aid programs are available for the Nation's
poor, adequate counsel is often beyond the means of moderate income working-class
citizens. Prepaid legal service programs, however, supported in part by employer
(OVER)
- 2 -
contributions and administered jointly by representatives of labor and management,
represent a significant opportunity to make available adequate legal counseling.
In many industries such programs are the only vehicle by which this service could
be effectively provided.
H.R. 77 does not direct the establishment of jointly administered legal
service programs nor does it dictate their terms and conditions; the bill brings
such programs within the scope of collective bargaining by removing unwarranted
prohibitions. It fails, however, to specify whether or not legal trust funds are
to be considered mandatory bargaining components in negotiations. To assure that
the establishment of such funds be considered a permissive subject of bargaining,
H.R. 77 should be so amended.
H.R. 77, a bill to amend the Labor Management Relations Act, facilitates
the funding of legal representation for moderate income Americans through the
collective bargaining process. The House Republican Policy Committee supports
passage of the bill, with an amendment to provide that the bargaining not be
made mandatory nor the refusal to bargain be held to constitute an unfair labor
practice.
.....
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
93rd Congress
September 18, 1973
First Session
Statement No. 20
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H. R. 7935,
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1973
The House Republican Policy Committee supports President Nixon's
veto of H.R. 7935, the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973.
Republicans have actively and consistently supported legislative
proposals which would rectify the inequities of existing minimum wage
scales. We have overwhelmingly endorsed those minimum wage increases
which would protect employment opportunities for low wage earners and
the unemployed and which would minimize inflationary pressures. We
still do.
However, H.R. 7935 is both inflationary and job-eliminating. The
precipitous schedule of minimum wage increases, the absence of meaningful
differential wage rates for young employees, the unacceptable broadening
of coverage, including employees of Federal, State and local governments,
negate the benefit provided by proposed minimum wage increases.
President Nixon, while supporting the objective of raising the
minimum wage, has returned H.R. 7935 to the Congress without approval.
He has called upon the Congress to enact moderate and balanced amendments
consistent with the Nation's economic stabilization objectives and which
protect employment opportunities. The House Republican Policy Committee
strongly supports the President's veto of H.R. 7935, the Fair Labor
Standards Amendments of 1973. We urge early adoption of a moderate and
useful increase in the minimum wage.
office Copy
....
anno
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
93rd Congress
September 18, 1973
First Session
Statement No. 20
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H. R. 7935,
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1973
The House Republican Policy Committee supports President Nixon's
veto of H.R. 7935, the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973.
Republicans have actively and consistently supported legislative
proposals which would rectify the inequities of existing minimum wage
scales. We have overwhelmingly endorsed those minimum wage increases
which would protect employment opportunities for low wage earners and
the unemployed and which would minimize inflationary pressures. We
still do.
However, H.R. 7935 is both inflationary and job-eliminating. The
precipitous schedule of minimum wage increases, the absence of meaningful
differential wage rates for young employees, the unacceptable broadening
of coverage, including employees of Federal, State and local governments,
negate the benefit provided by proposed minimum wage increases.
President Nixon, while supporting the objective of raising the
minimum wage, has returned H.R. 7935 to the Congress without approval.
He has called upon the Congress to enact moderate and balanced amendments
consistent with the Nation's economic stabilization objectives and which
protect employment opportunities. The House Republican Policy Committee
strongly supports the President's veto of H.R. 7935, the Fair Labor
Standards Amendments of 1973. We urge early adoption of a moderate and
useful increase in the minimum wage.