Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1515868",
    "label": "Labor (7)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515868"
}

{
    "id": "1515868",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515868",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Labor (7)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515868",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 4/28/1971-",
        "CETA",
        "Labor",
        "Labor disputes",
        "Legislation",
        "Manpower policy",
        "Presidential campaign, 1976"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515868.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515868.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515868.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515868",
    "naId": 1515868,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-11-30",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-08-01",
        "month": 8,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515868.pdf",
    "mediaId": "773637853b390d1f",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 21, folder \"Labor (7)\" of the James M. Cannon\nFiles at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 21 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 5, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nJIM CAVANAUGH\nFROM:\nDAVID LISSY ones\nSUBJECT:\nRubber Strike\nFYI -- Bill Usery is calling the parties in for negotiations\nin his office starting Saturday morning. Jim Hogue tells\nme that Usery is going to take a tough stance that it is\ntime to settle.\nfile\npena\nwaiting f\nresponse Lissy. for\na\nBeard The done him.\nraput sis: sis to\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 5\nJMC:\nI spoke with David LIssy re:\nthe attached.\nHe wants you to know that his\nattached memo was written\nbefore he knew of the Presi-\ndent's interest in Beard's\nletter.\nHe will followup his memo to\nMoskow with oil. a phone call today.\ncameron\nDavid\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n8/6/16\nDavid -\nwe valley\nNeed to\nget OSHA\nto come into\nthe val world.\nfow do we\ndo it ?\nFORD y LIBRARY 9ERALD\nfor\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 3, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF w.b-\nSUBJECT:\nLetter to the President from Rep. Robin\nBeard dated July 21, 1976, re: OSHA\nThe President noted the referenced letter on his mail log and asked\nfor immediate action. This letter, together with a copy of Charlie\nLeppert's acknowledgement, was referred to you on August 2 for\nappropriate handling.\ncc: Jim Connor\nFORD LIBRATY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 4, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nJIM CAVANAUGH\nFROM:\nDAVID LISSY\nOSHA Farm OMAL Regulations -- Toilets\nSUBJECT:\nAttached is a memo I have sent to Mike Moskow along with\na letter to the President from Congressman Beard. I thought\nyou should be aware of this issue.\nI have tried without success on several occasions to get\nDOL to admit with some candor its error. The response to\nBeard's letter may be a good vehicle for going public in\nacknowledgment of the error, but only if we get DOL's\ncooperation.\nAttachment\nCC: Paul Leach\nBill Diefenderfer\nFORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 4, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMICHAEL H. MOSKOW\nFROM:\nDAVID H. LISSI SMAY\nThe attached letter from Congressman Robin Beard to the\nPresident relates to the proposed OSHA regulations on\nfarms which we have previously discussed.\nAs I understand the Department's position there is\nagreement that parts of the proposed regulation were\nwrong and should not become final -- particularly the\nsection dealing with toilet facilities.\nI still believe this is an appropriate opportunity for\nthe Department to get good marks for candor by saying\nnow -- and not weeks from now -- that it agrees with\nits critics.\nIn any event, could you please review Beard's letter\nand then discuss with me this week how we might answer\nit.\nAttachment - copy of incoming\nCC:\nJim Cannon\nJim Cavanaugh\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nROBIN\nDISTRICT OFFICES:\n6TH DISTRICT, TENNESSEE\nDSO\nSUITE 401\nFIRST AMERICAN BANK BUILDING\n5384 POPLAR AVENUE\nMEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38117\nCongress of the United States\n(901) 767-4852\nWASHINGTON OFFICE:\n124 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING\nhouse of Representatives\n710 NORTH GARDEN STREET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20515\nCOLUMBIA, TENNESSEE 38401\n(202) 225-2811\n(615) 388-2133\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nJuly 21, 1976\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nPresident\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nSince I have been in Congress, I have been an active critic of the\nOccupational Safety and Health Administration and a strong proponent\nNP\nof a thorough and comprehensive reevaluation of the Occupational Safety\nand Health Act. This legislation and a seemingly endless stream of\nrules and regulations has had a substantial and adverse impact on\nbusiness, and especially small business in this country. While that\nimpact is well-documented, we have been relatively unsuccessful in\nachieving any substantive form of relief.\nHaving successfully intimidated the small business community of\nthis country, the events of the last few months indicate that the OSHA\nadministration intends to embark on a new frontier--the American farm.\nThe OSHA administration has issued regulations requiring the almost\nimmediate installation of costly guarding and shielding devices on ALL\nfarm heavy equipment. They have taken the initial steps to promulgate\na regulation requiring portable toilet and hand-washing facilities. The\nsubstance of this regulation is as ludicrous and unreasonable as any\nthe federal bureaucracy has produced. Perhaps the most offensive of\nall was the expenditure of a half a million dollars for a number of farm\nsafety pamphlets which are down-right insulting to farmers.\nIt was obvious to me that the OSHA administration lacked even the\nmost simplistic understanding of what is involved in making a living\nin agriculture. Therefore, in cooperation with the Tennessee Farm\nBureau, I arranged for a special hearing to be held in Columbia,\nTennessee. The object of the hearing was to allow active farmers\nto address their complaints directly to the OSHA administration.\nI brought with me to that hearing Maynard C. Dolloff, the Agricultural\nAdvisor to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. Morton\nCorn.\nThe hearing was held on June 25th, and I have listed a number of\nexcerpts from the original transcript in order to provide you with a\nfeeling of the sentiment that was expressed by farmers at that hearing.\nFORD\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJuly 21, 1976\nPage 2\nI live on a farm, and I understand farming. And one of\nthe reasons I like to farm is because it is a place where\nwe can be without having someone to tell us how to run our\nbusiness. And I think this is the attitude that most of us\nhave; otherwise we wouldn't be in farming. There is not\nmuch money in it\nAnd it is something that gives us a\nlittle bit of a sense of doing things our way. And as long\nas we have farming in this country as a business, we're\ngoing to be more productive, provided we are allowed leeway\nto make decisions on our own.\nBill Richardson: State Representative; Farmer.\nNow, I'm of the opinion that if we're going to have better\nrepresentation at any level of government, that whatever that\nlevel of government does, it needs to be responsible to the\npeople and to answer directly to them\nIf exemptions are\nnot put in for the farmer and the small businessman you are\ngoing to drive them out because they can't afford to comply\nwith some of the requirements that are being enacted.\nCletus McWilliams: State Representative.\nYou are going to have to go build or manufacture some kind\nof toilet facility out there, when most of us have got the\nnatural facilities growing right around the place that we've\nbeen using all our life in five minute walking distance; and\nit don't cost anything\nI think it is extremely important\nthat we have some workable and practical regulations in these\nareas where we do have to apply it.\nCharles DuPriest: State Representative; Farmer.\nThese proposals apparently have been written by looking only\nat a very small segment of the United States agricultural\neconomy and not at agriculture in general. Tennessee has a\ndiversified agriculture owned largely by part-time farmers\nin small tracts of land. Our agricultural operations vary in\nsize and scope and consequently there should be provisions\nbuilt into the regulations for small and part-time farmers.\nThese proposed regulations will not be acceptable to\nTennessee farmers. And, further, should they be implemented,\nit would be impossible to police and enforce these proposals.\nFurther, I am of the opinion that employers should be\nmeasured on performance and safety records rather than how\nwell they can follow bureaucratic mandates.\nEdward Porter: Commissioner of Agriculture.\nIt would be an impossibility to take the conditions in\nSan Joanquin or Imperial Valley of California where there\nFORD\nmay be hundreds of people working in a given field these\nmay be perfectly alright there and transport these and say\nBERALD\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJuly 21, 1976\nPage 3\nthat these regulations should be in the State of Tennessee.\nWe must recognize there is quite a diverse amount of agriculture\nacross this country\nWe're talking about the back forty\nwhere we're clipping pasture, we're only there for a day or two\na year, to construct hundreds or thousands of dollars worth\nof facilities, and maybe use them only one day out of every\n365 days this is just not economical. And if you have\na tractor that is old out here and have no shields on it to\nstart with you're supposed to put safety shields on it.\nAnd that's going to cost you a pot of money. And in all\nprobability, if this fellow has been working with a tractor\nwith no shield on it the first chance he gets---on the\nother side of the field he will take them off and drop them\nin the fence row\nUnder the administrative rulings, you,\nas a farmer, are held responsible for what that employee\ndoes. And I think this is an unfair ruling.\nBob Carter: Tennessee Farm Bureau.\nOr if I'm sending I happen to have a few yearlings,\nand if I send the men in the back pasture, which is about two\nmiles, on a couple of horses to round up some cattle, now\nhow am I going to keep up with those fellows with a portable\ntoilet?\nBill Cobb: Hardin County.\nIt seems to me that the problem is or trouble is that\nCongress has created so many Commissions, and the members of\nthose Commissions have the authority to make rules and\nregulations, and yet the members of the Commissions who make\nthose rules and regulations are not responsible to the people.\nDoss Frierson: Maury County.\nCongressman Beard, Mr. Dolloff, I would like to suggest that\nwe abolish the whole thing and start over.\nClement Marshall: Maury County.\nIt don't make any difference what kind of safety equipment\nyou've got if you just put somebody out here who won't take\ncare of themselves I don't care whether their on a pen of\ncattle, or a piece of machinery or whatever it is. And the\npurpose of this thing is putting more expense on the farmers\nthese shields and all this equipment to put on this old,\nold equipment that we have, I would say would be a minimum\nof ten thousand dollars which increases my expenses\nJust\ndo away with the whole thing.\nBill Walker: Giles County.\nFORD\nLots of us have farms that we rent and own, and they might\nbe twenty or thirty miles apart. And some of these farms are\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJuly 21, 1976\nPage 4\ntwenty miles away from a water system. They don't have any\nwells or anything. So, we don't see how it would be possible\nto work for us down there because we are so spread out in our\noperations.\nJack Marshall: Tipton County.\nI'm tired and fed up with things being rammed down my\nthroat\nI'm sure others feel the same way I do\nThe good\npeople in this country is not doing the harping the ones\non the other end are doing the harping and they're getting\nthe results. And I think a lot of people in Washington think\nwe are the dumb ones and they are the smart ones, and that we\nhaven't got sense enough to do anything on our own.\nJames Hickman: Maury County.\nA new tractor well let's say---a 70 horsepower tractor\nwill cost anywhere from ten to twelve thousand dollars. So,\nwhat's the use you know, that's enough expense. And we're\ntalking about the consumer the consumer has got to pay.\nGeorge Brooks: Maury County.\nThere wasn't a line in that Declaration of Independence that\nwent like this, \"He has created a multitude of new offices\nand sent forth swarms of officers to harass our people.\"\nBack in the thirties when the insurance companies and it\nwas the insurance companies at that time rather than the\ngovernment were foreclosing on the farms out West. When\na farmer's farm was going to be put up and sold at auction, it\ngot to the point that his neighbors all came to that auction\nfrom miles around with their shotguns. Maybe that is what we\nneed today when one of these federal bureaucrats goes out and\nstarts harassing a farmer\nToday it is the farmer. A few\nweeks ago it was the undertakers. Prior to that it was the\nmanufacturers and so on and so on.\nJames Underwood: Maury County.\nMr. President, I hope this serves to demonstrate the ground swell of\nopposition that has developed in this country to unreasonable regulations\npromulgated by uninformed and insensitive bureaucrats. The poor performance\nof these agencies, headed by your appointees, reflects adversely on you.\nThe attitudes expressed here are festering, and strong action is required\nto reverse the feeling among farmers that this Administration is unable to\neffectively oversee and control the activities of the executive agencies.\nIt is my hope that you will assign someone close to you, and not associated\nwith the agency, to keep a close watch on its activities in the future.\nSincerely,\nFORD\nRobin Beard, M.C.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFor meeting\nw/Pres. on\nofed.\nFORD DEPARTMENT\nLabor\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 5, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nPublic Employee Coverage\nAngew\nUnder Fair Labor Standards\nAct (FLSA)\n541/2\nJune 24'76\nIn a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court recently held\nthat the minimum wage and overtime provisions of\nthe FLSA cannot constitutionally be applied to\nState and local government employees. The Court,\nin National League of Cities, et al. V. Usery, not\nonly invalidated the 1974 FLSA amendments insofar\nas they extended the Act's minimum wage and overtime\nprovisions to such employees, but it also expressly\noverruled the 1968 decision in which the Court\nupheld the 1966 extension of the Act's minimum wage\nand overtime provisions to employees of State\nschools and hospitals (Maryland V. Wirtz).\nPublic employee unions and the AFL-CIO Executive\nCouncil are firmly committed to overturn this\nRelenguit\ndecision through legislative action, including\nefforts to \"assure that every Federal grant carries\nwith it the requirement that the State and local\ngovernments observe the provisions of the Fair\nLabor Standards Act.\" \"\nstrong\nThe nature and scope of the General Revenue Sharing\nprogram ensures that the renewal bill will be a\nprimary target of this effort.\nBeigen\nAttached for your information is a newspaper article\non this subject.\nAttachment\nFORD is LIBRARY 01V830\nTHE WASHINGTON POST, MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1976\nA19\nNeal R. Peirce nottons OORT 6VD2\nPublic Worker Unions: 'Season of Darkness\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\n1mc Rile\nLabor\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nCoal strike\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 10, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN\nJAMES CANNON\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nFROM:\nROGER PORTER RP\nSUBJECT:\nCoal Strike\nThe Department of Labor has prepared a draft memorandum on\nthe coal strike situation which is attached. There is no\nintention of sending the memorandum forward to the President\nat this time, but Secretary Usery wanted the Counsel's Office,\nthe Domestic Council, and the Office of Congressional Liaison\nto be aware of the options that he is suggesting for possible\nconsideration. I am also attaching an information memorandum\nfrom the Solicitor of Labor regarding the authority of the\nExecutive Branch in the strike.\nAttachments\nCC: David Lissy\nFORD & LIBRARY\nPerrett 52524\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR\nSUBCITOR\nD.C. 20210\nAUG 10 10:6\nINFORMATION\nMEMORANDOM FOR:\nTHE SECRETARY\nFROM:\nWILLIAM J. KILBERG\nSolicitor of Labor\nSUBJECT:\nAuthority of the recutive Branch in\nthe Mine Workers W ldcat Strike\nWe have been asked two questions related to the Wildcat\nStrike of the mine workers in West Virginia. First, does\nthe President (i.e. the Executive Branch) have any\nrespo sibility to enforce the injunction issued by the U.S.\nDistrict Court which was obtained by private parties?\nSecond, does the President (i.e. the Executive Branch) have\nany authority to provide protection to a private individual\nwho has been threatened because of his efforts in attempting\nto settle the dispute.\nWe have discussed these questions with Philip Wilens, Chief,\nGovernment Regulations and Labor Section, Criminal Division,\nDepartment of Justice, and he has responded in the negative\nto both these questions. He stated that, without a request\nof the court, the Government has no responsibility in enforcing\na court order in such a suit. Ordinarily, the appropriate\nprocedure would be for the private party which sought the\ninjuncision to enquest is contempt citation and, if granted,\nit would be properly enforced by the U.S. Marshalls.\nWith respect to the second question, Mr. Wilens stated that\nthe Federal Government has no authority to protect private\nindividuals in cases such as these. This is the proper role\nof the States and local Governments under their police\npowers. Although Section 610 of the Labor-Management\nReporting and Disclosure Act provides that it is a criminal\noffense to threaten force or violence for the purpose of\ninterfering with a union members' rights under the Act, it\ndoes not authorize the Federal Government to provide pro-\ntection to any person so threatened. If merely authorizes\nthe Federal prosecution of any person who violates this\nprovision.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nDRAFT\nPRESIDINT\nFROM:\ni. J. USERY, JR.\nSUBJECT:\nCoal Strike\nA wildcat strike in the coal industry which began as a local\ndispute in mid-June has spread to seven states idling\nroughly 87,500 members of the United Mine Workers. This\nmemorandum reviews the background to the strike and discusses\nalternative responses open to the Administration.\nBackground\nLocal 1759 of the United Mine Workers, which represents\nminers at the Cedar Coal Company near Charleston, West\nVirginia, demanded that the firs create the position of\n\"communications man.\" The incumbent would be positioned\nat the mouth of the mine and be in touch with the under-\nground. The company refused and the issue was taken to\narbitration, which ruled for the union. The company then\nasked that the arbitrator clarify whether or not the company\ncould essign other duties to the communicator, and the arbi-\ntrator said that this was permissible. The union, demanding\nthat the position be full-time, struck in protest on June\n22, by-passing the grievance procedures and violating a\nno-strike provision.\nOn July 13, Cedar Coal won a back-to-work injunction\nfrom Judge Dennis Knapp of the Federal District Court in\nCharleston, which was ignored despite the request of DMW\nPresident Arnold Miller that the strikers return to work.\nThe injunction against Local 1759 was appealed and affirmed\nby the Fourth Circuit; the company's unsuccessful contention\nthat the injunction should be extended to other locals will\nbe argued before a three-judge panel of the Pourth Circuit\non August 10. The court imposed a $50,000 fine to be\nincreased by $25,000 for each day the strike continued.\nMore than 200 members of the local have been ordered into\ncourt on August 17 to show cause why they should not be held\nFORD\n&\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n- 2 -\nin criminal contemnt for failure to comply. In reaction to\nthe injunction, members of the local spread out across seven\nstates and set us nickets; this shut down a large cortion of\nthe industry as miners traditionally will not cross picket\nlines even if there is only one picket and they are not\ndirectly involved in the dispute. President Miller, on\nAugust 4, sent telegrams to ONN district presidents declaring\nthat they were \"hereby instructed and directed that all\nmembers of the DMW engaged in these work stoppages return to\nwork.\" Earlier, he had personally appeared before local\n1759 and urged them to return to work, but his request\nwas ignored. On August 3, the Situminous Coal Operators\nAssociation, the bargaining arm of the coal industry, turned\ndown requests by Local 1759 to meet with the striking miners\nto discuss grievances saying that this would undermine the\nprocedures agreed to in the contract.\nLast Friday, fewer than 1,000 miners turned out for a rally\nin Charleston, West Virginia, which had been called to\ndemonstrate support for the strike; leaders had hoped\n10,000 would attend, and this small showing could be inter-\npreted as a lessening of rank-and-file support. It was\nreported on Honday that the number of striking miners had\ndeclined for the first time (from 90,250 on Friday to\n87,500). This decline was due largely to back-to-work\nmovements in Kentucky where local union members demanded\nthat stranger pickets identify themselves and then requested\nthat they leave.\nOn Sunday, Arnold Miller canceled a meeting with strikers in\nCharleston because of a bomb threat. Miller also said that\nminers supporting a return-to-work movement were threatened\nwith being shot. On Monday, the OMW Executive Board net and\nagreed to a resolution which would substantially increase\nthe power of the International over the affairs of the\nlocal. Members of the Executive Board are on their way to\nCharleston to a meeting with Local 1759 on August 10.\nFORDO & LIBRARY GERALD\n- 3 -\nOPTIONS\nSecretary Usery and your other advisors have met to discuss\nthe situation and to consider the various options open to\nyou. It appears that Presidential action would be premature\nuntil the Court hearings and meeting of the UMS Executive\nSoard with striking miners in Charleston take place. However,\nthe Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA) is running\nadvertisements (Tab A) in The New York Times, The Wall Street\nJournal, The Washington Post and other papers on August 10\ndenouncing the strike. This pay lead to pressure for some\nkind of Presidential response.\nOPTION ONE: Appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel to study the\nproblem and make recommendations. Alternatively, you could\ninstruct the Secretary of Labor to appoint a panel.\nPro:\n1. There is precedent for using a voluntary\npanel; in the past, appointment of such\na panel has been used by responsible union\nleadership as an argument to get the rank-\n-and-file to go back to work.\n2. This would demonstrate the Administration's\nconcern, while keeping Presidential distance.\n3. Could help develop long-term solutions to\nthe problems behind the dispute.\nCon:\n1. The Bituminous Coal Operators Associa-\ntion (BCOA) is opposed to the appointment\nof a panel until the strike is settled.\n2. A penel would deal with longer-term problems\nin the industry, but would not be particu-\nlarly effective in dealing with the\nshorter-term concerns related to this\nwalk-out.\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\n* 1 I\nOPTION TND: Issue 2 statement orging the miners to raturn\nto work.\nPro:\n1. would desonstrate Presidential concern.\nCons\n1. May be intercreted 0,0 pro-menayement,\nsince the enclovers' basic position is\nthat the-strike is illegal.\n2. Further Pederal intervention (in support\nof the injunction against the striking\nminers) may increase tensions and lessen\nthe likelihood of a settlement.\nOPTION THRSE: The President and the Hest Virginia Congres-\nsional delegation, especially Senator Byrd who has special\ninfluence with the tank-and-file, would issue a neutral statement\ncalling on the striking minars to return to work. You would\nmeet with the delegation for the purpose of developing a\njoint statement. Alternatively, the West Virginia officials\ncould issue the statement unilaterally.\nPro:\n1. A bi-partisan statement would exert the\ngreatest moral suasion.\n2. It would demonstrate the President's concern.\n3. Would avoid more drastic means of interven-\ntion which night backfire and increase\ntension.\n4. Lack of action may lead to criticism.\n5. Byrd's identification with the rank-and-file\nwould minimize any chence of the action\nseeming to be pro-company.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n- 5 -\nCod:\n1. deat Virginia \"exhers of Congress say not\nhe willing to participate, Senator Byrd has\ncarefully refused any involvement 30 far,\nand declined to recommend any course of\naction through staff channels.\n2. Further government intervention (which has\nbecome the focus of the dispute) may\nincrease tensions but not persuade many\nstrikers to return to work.\nOPTION POUR: The Department of Labor would informally\nencourage the trustees of the union pension and health and\nwelfare funds (who are independent of the union) to inform\ntheir beneficiaries of the impact of the strike on the\nfunds' solvency, and urge them to put pressure on striking\nminers to return to work. The funda are financed in large\npart by royalties from coal production and are presently\nalmost exhausted.\nProt\n1. 80,000 beneficiaries who live in mining\ncommunities could exert substantial pressure\non striking miners. They vote in elections\nfor district and international union\nofficials. Their predicament--which will\nbecome severe shortly--may persuade strikers\nto reassess the benefits and objectives of\nthe strike.\nCon:\n1. May backfire and be interpreted 35 government-\nunion collusion against the rank-and-file.\n2. There are practical problems in getting\nthe message to the beneficiaries.\n3. There is no assurance that pensioners would\ndo anything, or that they would be effective.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\n- 6 -\nOPTION FIVE:\nThe President could issue a statement\nassuring locals who vote to return to work that protection\nagainst violence would be provided by the States or by the\nFederal Government. (Draft statement attached at Tab B).\nPro:\n1. Would remove the excuse of some union\nleaders that a return to work would involve\nrisk of personal injury for members.\n2. May inspire the majority of miners-who\nreportedly wish to return to work-to do\nso.\n3. Would be a. neutral action in support of\nlaw and order, and would leave the next\nstep up to the miners.\nCon:\n1. It would be difficult to enforce.\n2. May backfire and incite dissidents.\n3. Would involve delicate issues of\nState/Federal relations in several states.\nRecommendation\nI recommend that no action be taken at this time. Governor\nMoore's office feels that a Presidential statement would be\npremature. However, these options should be reviewed\nfurther by your immediate staff and by the Justice Department.\nDRAFT\nFORD i LIBRARY 07V8\nTAB A\nLIBRARY\nFORD\n1\n-\nMINE WORKERS, THEY DEMAND\nInines\ntlocals\nSUIT THE MINE WORKERS,\nITS PROTECTION.\nTHEY SCORN IT.\nJournal\nThe United Mine Workers of America\nHow has the Union satisfied its\nmarshalled the law and demanded its\nno-strike requirement? During the\nstrict enforcement to:\n1974 contract:\nconstitute itself a Union,\nThere have been- 4,355 illegal\nwildcat strikes.\nproperly remove its former\nPresident from office,\nThe Nation has lost over\n27,000,000 tons of coal.\nproperly convict the Yablonski\nassassins,\nWelfare Funds which finance\nminers' pensions and benefits\nelect a new UMW President,\nhave lost $43,000,000.\npass the new Federal Coal\nMiners have lost $141,000,000\nMine Safety Act,\nin wages.\npass liberal Black Lung Benefits,\nThe Nation has lost badly\nneeded energy.\ndemand the new Pension Reform\nAct be enforced rigidly,\nMine workers struck against the Sta\nof West Virginia in 1974, when its\ndemand that Coal Companies\nGovernor tried to allocate gasoline\nbargain exclusively with the UMW,\nfairly during the oil embargo.\nand\nMine workers recently picketed a\ndemand an entirely new labor\nSubcommittee of the United States\ncontract from the Coal Companies.\nSenate, threatening another strike\nIn 1974, the UMW bargained the\nif a fatter Black Lung Bill was\nrichest package of wages and\nnot passed.\nbenefits in its history. (It\nhas properly boasted of that\nWhen the Cedar Coal Company sought\ncontract, including its new\ncourt removal of illegal pickets\nGrievance Procedure, in all the\nlast month, mine workers cried\nUnion journals.)\n\"Foul\" and struck the entire\nindustry to support its unlawful\ncoercion of one employer.\nThe Coal Companies get one commitment\nin return that there will be no\nWhen two respected Federal Judges\nstrikes; all unresolved disputes\nin Charleston upheld the no-strike\nwould be arbitrated. If that bargain\nrequirement, mine workers demanded\nwere kept by the Mine Workers,\nthey be investigated for bribe-\ncourts would not be needed to deal\ntaking.\nvith strikes over grievances.\nE.R.A.O. FORD VIBRARY\nSpreading the Cedar strike was designed to intimidate Federal Judges from\nexercising their judicial function, and companies from seeking their right\nto relief in those courts.\nif a large industrial corporation were to cut off half the Nation's energy\nsupply; insult and ignore the Federal Court, lock out thousands of\nloyees illegally, shut off their wages, and jeopardize their insurance\nand pensions, the outrage of Government and political leaders would be\nmultuous. But when a big labor union fails utterly to prevent that very\nconduct, the country is without an effective remedy.\nSurely the great. majority of coal miners, who have testified in open court\nthat they are ready and willing to work, could be given some basic personal\nsecurity. Are gangs of pickets, some brandishing shotguns, roving across\nstate lines beyond the reach of Federal and state police powers? Can a\nInion with SO much political and economic influence be allowed to escape\nall accountability? Are Federal Judges in Southern West Virginia helpless\nagainst raw intimidation, and without recourse to Federal Marshals?\nSurely the Nation and the economy need not suffer these mindless losses\nyear after year. Federal, State, and Congressional leaders have a clear\nresponsibility to end coal field chaos.\nTAB B\nLIBRARY\nQues\ni\nDRAFT\nI 22 Scanly concerned of the effects of the contin-\nsing strike by sone members of the United Nine Workers on\nthe States and localities involved, on the oeneficiaries of\nunion pension and weltare Sunds, and on the economy generally.\nPresident Arnold Miller of the OMW and the union's Executive\nBoard have ordered an end to the strike. There are indica-\ntions that many miners wish to return to work, but have been\nprevented from doing so by threats from = small group of\ndissidents. I an asking the Governors of the seven affected\nstates to provide special protection to miners who wish to\nreturn to work where the union local requests such protection.\nWhere state protection is inadequate or not forthcoming, I\nwill take appropriate steps to see that the Federal Govern-\nment provides protection. lie must not tolerate small\nnumbers of extremists who wish to prolong this walk-out\nthrough intimidation and violence.\nDRAFT\nFORD & LIBRARY\nLabor-CETA\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 10, 1976\nDear Marvin:\nThe President asked me to express his particular appre-\nciation to you for your letter about the Detroit city\nemployees who had been laid off because of a ruling by\nthe Regional Office of the Department of Labor.\nI know you are familiar with how the President directed\nthe Secretary of Labor to work with officials of the\ncity of Detroit so that Detroit could re-hire vitally\nneeded police officers and pay them with Federal funds\nunder the CETA Program.\nWe very much appreciate your counsel and assistance on\nthis important matter. Let me assure you that the\nSecretary of Labor will continue to see that Detroit's\nparticular problem receives every appropriate considera-\ntion.\nSincerely,\nJames M. Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nHonorable Marvin L. Esch\nU.S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nFORD is LIBRARY arvi\nL. ESCH\nDISTRICT OFFICES:\nREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS\n200 EAST HURON\nto DISTRICT, MICHIGAN\nANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48108\nPHONE: (313) 665-0618\nCOMMITTEES:\nEDUCATION AND LABOR\nCongress of the United States\n9 EAST FRONT STREET\nSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY\nMONROE, MICHIGAN 48161\nHouse of Representatives\nPHONE: (313) 242-7580\nWASHINGTON OFFICE:\n2353 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING\n15273 FARMINGTON ROAD\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20515\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nLIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48154\nPHONE: (202) 225-4401\nPHONE: (313) 261-6080\nJuly 29, 1976\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. President:\nI am writing to express my concern about the conflict between\nthe Department of Labor and the City of Detroit on the question of\nrehiring laid off city employees under the C.E.T.A. program. The Chicago\nRegional Office of the Department of Labor has issued an arbitrary\nruling limiting the number of city workers who can be rehired. This\nruling will require the phaseout of 1200 essential police, health and\nsafety workers in Detroit and has potentially disasterous effects on\nthe services of the city of Detroit.\nThis ruling which sets an arbitrary ceiling on the rehiring\nof laid off employees is in clear contradiction with the intent of the\nCongress. The Conference Report on the C.E.T.A. program, House Report\n93-1621 says:\n\"The strong feelings of the conferees in opposition to\n'paper layoffs' should in no way be construed to mean\nopposition to rehiring of laid-off workers per se. The\nrehiring of former employees who have lost their jobs\ndue to bona-fide budgetary reasons has always been\npermitted and is permitted here\nit should also be\nnoted that the provisions of Section 205 (c) (7) prohibiting\nthe hiring of any persons when another person is on\nlay-off from the same of equivalent job still applies.\" \"\nIn addition, the House has approved H.R. 12987 and action on\nthis bill in the Senate is imminent. This bill clearly state the\nintent that the Department of Labor 1) cannot issue specific criteria\nand 2) could not prevent the hiring of those who are bona-fide layoffs.\nIt is clearly the intent of the law that the only issue under contention\ncan be whether layoffs are bona-fide or not.\nI have urged Secretary Usery to meet personally with representatives\nof Mayor Coleman Young in an effort to clarify the conflict. I hope that\nyou will encourage the Secretary to set up such a meeting and that the\nWhite House will be represented at such a meeting as well. The citizens\nof Detroit cannot afford to lose the essential services which the arbitrary\nDepartmental ruling will entail.\nFORD & LIBRARY 9ERALD\nLabur\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 11, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nDAVID LISSY my\nSUBJECT:\nCoal Strike\nWith regard to the options which Bill Usery has\nidentified, I would be disinclined to recommend\nany Presidential action. There is no indication\nthat Presidential involvement of any kind would\nhave any positive result.\non\nFORD\nRile\nLabor\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n8/12\nDear Congressman Beard:\nI have discussed with Secretary Usery your recent\nletter to the President concerning proposals of\nthe Occupational Safety and Health Administration\nwhich relate to the farming community.\nSecretary Usery assures me he is very aware of the\ncriticisms directed at the proposed OSHA regula-\ntion. He says that OSHA officials recognize that\nthe proposed regulation pertaining to portable\ntoilet and hand washing facilities will need\nextensive revision before any final rules are\npromulgated.\nThe President appreciated receiving your letter.\nI believe you raised a number of pertinent points\nand I am sure that the OSHA review of the proposed\nregulation will focus on the issues you addressed.\nAssistant\nfor Domestic Affairs\nThe Honorable Robin Beard\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nGERALD FORD LIBRANT\nfile\nEmployment ple\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\n(Labe.)\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 20, 1976\ngut\nZile\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nART QUERN\nSUBJECT:\nEEOC Backlog\nYou asked whether Duval's memo regarding a backlog at\nEEOC was related to a management or a personnel problem.\nIn brief, it is a management problem which can only be\nsolved by appointing a strong, managerially sound\nchairman.\nThere\nTORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFURD is LIBRARY GERALD\nART - -\nNo, I haven't talked\nto Cannon about This.\nF4I, however, Duval's\nidea surfaced about 3 mos.\nago and was rejected\nby The solous (Buchen,\nMarsh, O'nerll, etc.). The\nproblem is really a management\none and the solution his in\nputting in a strong, mayagesially\nsound Chairman. Dick\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDick Parsons\nshare you halked\nwith I'm Cannon\nabout this\nArt ex\nGERALD FORD LIERARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nA Equal Commission. JMC: EEO Emp does loyment stand for\nOpportunity\nArt Quem -\ngo This 0-7 ?\nproblem\npersonnel or management? Jun Jun\nCC: Dick Parsons\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nMIKE DUVAL\nD\nSUBJECT:\nPROBLEM ON THE HORIZON\nThere is a major EEO backlog.\nHill study planned for release in October.\nWe should put up some defense -- set up a Review Committee?\nBob Brown as Chairman?\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\npending\nCC: Dick Parsons\nTHE WHIT HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nMIKE DUVAL\nD\nSUBJECT:\nPROBLEM ON THE HORIZON\nThere is a major EEO backlog.\nHill study planned for release in October.\nWe should put up some defense -- set up a Review Committee?\nBob Brown as Chairman?\nnote to Ant sent\nFORD i LIBRARY AERALD\nCETA\nAnsteyment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 24, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES M. CANNON\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJOHN O. MARSH\nFROM:\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\nhis\nSUBJECT:\nMemorandums for the President on the Tax\nReform Bill and Extension of Public Service\nJobs\nTwo draft memorandums for the President on the tax credit for\npost-secondary education and on extension of the public ser-\nvice jobs program are attached. They are designed to reflect\nthe discussion of these issues at this morning's EBP Executive\nCommittee meeting.\nI would appreciate very much your comments and recommendations\non these two memorandums as soon as possible and not later than\n8:30 a.m. , Wednesday, August 25, 1976 in order that we may\ntransmit them to the President tomorrow morning.\nAttachments\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 24, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\nSUBJECT:\nConference Committee Action on Extension\nof Public Service Jobs\nIn late 1974, in response to your October request, Title VI was added\nto the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) authoriz-\ning an emergency public service employment (PSE) program in addi-\ntion to the limited PSE program provided for in Title II of CETA. At\nthe present time there are approximately 260,000 persons employed\nunder the Title VI emergency program and 50,000 employed under the\npermanent Title II program. The Administration's budget calls for\nphasing out the emergency program by the end of FY 1977. Money is\nalready appropriated to fund the emergency jobs through the end of\nJanuary. Funding of the Administration's phase-out proposal will\nrequire submission of a $500 million supplemental.\nOn April 30, 1976, the House passed H.R. 12987 by a vote of 287-42.\nFORD\nThis bill would extend Title VI through the end of the transition\nquarter and authorize \"such sums as may be appropriated. 11\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nOn August 10, the Senate passed its substitute for H.R. 12987 by a\nvote of 67-11. The Senate bill would extend Title VI through the end\nof FY 1977 but contains provisions limiting new employees under the\nprogram to low income individuals who have been unemployed for 15\nor more weeks, including those who have exhausted unemployment\nbenefits, or are receiving unemployment compensation or public\nassistance and are members of low income households. Language in\nthe Senate report indicates an intent to double the size of the program,\nbut the bill itself merely authorizes \"such sums as may be appropri-\nated. 11\nThe conference originally was scheduled for August 24, but efforts are\ncurrently underway to postpone it until August 26.\n2\nIf the Administration maintains its current opposition to the legisla-\ntion, Al Quie believes that Title VI will be extended through FY 1977\nat current levels without the Senate limitations and that a veto would\nbe overridden. He also believes that if the Administration supports\nan extension of Title VI at its current levels, the conference probably\nwould support the Senate language limiting the new employees to the\nlong-term unemployed.\nThe Economic Policy Board is currently in the process of refining\nseveral alternatives for addressing the persistent problem of reducing\nthe number of long-term unemployed and will be prepared to present\nthese for your consideration within the next two weeks. One of these\nalternatives is supporting the extension of Title VI at current levels\nso long as new employees are limited to the long-term unemployed.\nHowever, the Administration will be pressed to take a position on\nH.R. 12987 before the Conference Committee acts this week. This\nmemorandum requests your decision on what position the Administra-\ntion should take on H.R. 12987.\nIssue: What position should the Administration take on H.R. 12987?\nOption 1:\nIssue a Presidential statement as soon as possible express-\ning support for an extension of Title VI at current levels\nas long as new employees are limited to the long-term\nunemployed.\nFORD\nAdvantages:\nThis would demonstrate leadership in addressing the problem\nof the long-term unemployed rather than reacting to congres-\nsional initiatives.\nThis is consistent with a position that the recovery is progress-\ning well and that it is appropriate to turn our attention to deal-\ning with long-term structural employment and away from\ntemporary emergency programs.\nThis approach would increase the chances of getting the Senate\nrestriction targeting the program on the long-term unemployed\nin the bill while leaving you free to veto any bill lacking the\nrestrictions. In the absence of any such signal, an extension\nof Title VI at current levels probably will be enacted without\nthe desirable restrictions limiting the program to the long-term\nunemployed.\n3\nDisadvantages:\nSupport for H.R. 12987 would represent a major change from\nthe proposal in the budget and would cost $700-$900 million\nmore than a phase out.\nFollowing an announcement of Presidential support, the con-\nferees could greatly increase the program size.\nOption 2:\nMaintain the current position of opposing the extension of\nTitle VI. Do not signal a veto. Signing an extension could\nbe justified on the grounds that such an authorization is\nconsistent with phasing out the program.\nAdvantages:\nDoes not put the Administration in the position of pressing for\nthe Senate amendments which are opposed by many mayors\nbecause the amendments would limit flexibility to rehire laid-\noff municipal workers.\nDisadvantages:\nThis approach would lessen the chances of getting the desirable\nSenate limitations and would deprive you of getting any credit\nfor the virtually certain extension.\nOption 3:\nMaintain the current position of opposing H.R. 12987.\nBALD FORD LIBRARY\nSignal a veto of any extension of Title VI.\nAdvantages:\nThis is consistent with your commitment to opposing excessive\nspending and with your warnings that emergency, counter-\ncyclical programs tend to become permanent because the\nCongress lacks the courage to phase them out.\nDisadvantages:\nSome additional action is necessary to fund the Administration's\nown phase-out proposal and thus we are not really in a position\nto oppose any congressional action on PSE.\n4\nDECISION\nOption 1\nIssue a Presidential statement as soon as possible\nexpressing support for an extension of Title VI\nat current levels as long as new employees are\nlimited to the long-term unemployed.\nSupported by:\nOption 2\nMaintain the current position of opposing the\nextension of Title VI. Do not signal a veto.\nSigning an extension could be justified on the\ngrounds that such an authorization is consistent\nwith phasing out the program.\nSupported by:\nOption 3\nMaintain the current position of opposing\nH.R. 12987. Signal a veto of any extension of\nTitle VI.\nSupported by:\nFORD :- LIGRARY GENALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\nSUBJECT:\nTax Reform Bill: Tax Credit for\nPost-Secondary Education\nSection 2601 of the Senate version of the Tax Reform\nBill (HR 10612) provides credit for certain post-\nsecondary educational expenses. This provision,\nsponsored by Senator Roth and others, was added to the\ntax reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee and is\nnot part of the House bill. No hearings have been held\non the provision. The Treasury has never formally\nexpressed an Administration position on the provision,\neither in testimony before the Finance Committee or in\nany written submission. Traditionally, the Treasury has\nopposed such specialized use of the tax system and the\nrecent proliferation of tax credits. However, the 1976\nRepublican platform states: \"We recommend tax credits\nfor college tuition (and) post-secondary technical train-\ning. This memorandum seeks your decision on the position\nthe Administration should take in the Conference Committee\non the Senate amendment providing a tax credit for certain\npost-secondary educational expenses.\nBackground\nGERALD, FORD\nSenator Roth's amendment would provide a non-refundable\ntax credit for expenses for tuition, fees, books, and\nsupplies for full time college programs or secondary\nvocational education. The credit would equal 100 percent\nof such payments by an individual for himself, his spouse,\nor his dependents up to a maximum per student of $100 in\n1977, $150 in 1978, $200 in 1979 and $250 in 1980 and\nsubsequent years.\nThe credit would not apply to graduate studies or to\nelementary or secondary education. It would not apply to\nexpenses for meals, lodging, or other personal items. The\ntax credit would apply to expenses for courses beginning\n- 2 -\nafter June 30, 1977. Treasury estimates the revenue\ncost during the next 5 fiscal years as follows:\n1977\n0\n1978\n$475 million\n1979\n$700 million\n1980\n$925 million\n1981\n$1.1 billion\nDuring Senate floor consideration of the Roth amendment,\nSenators Buckley, Taft, and Durkin sponsored an amend-\nment which would have substituted a tax deduction of up to\n$1,000 for college tuition, $500 for secondary or vocational\nschools, and $250 for elementary schools. This amendment\nwas defeated 52 to 37. Senator Muskie's motion to postpone\nindefinitely further consideration of the Roth amendment\nwas defeated 60 to 20.\nSince there is no similar provision in the House bill, the\nConference Committee is free either to drop the entire\namendment, to adopt the provision in toto, or to redesign\nthe provision within the parameters of the Senate version.\nTreasury anticipates the House conferees will oppose in-\ncluding the Roth amendment in the Conference Committee\nReport on budgetary grounds and the fact that there has been\nno House consideration or hearings on the amendment.\nIssue: What Position Should the Administration Take on the\nConference Committee on the Senate Amendment Pro-\nviding a Tax Credit for Certain Post-Secondary\nEducational Expenses?\nOption 1: Oppose the tax credit for post-secondary educational\nexpenses\nAdvantages:\nOpposition to the Roth amendment is consistent with\nopposition to further specialized use of the tax\nsystem and the proliferation of tax credits and with\na preference for targeting assistance to students in\nthe form of scholarships, grants, and loans.\nEnactment of the Roth amendment entails considerable\nrevenue losses in out years rising to over $1 billion\nannually for FY 1981.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n- 3 -\nDisadvantages:\nOpposition to the Roth amendment would be perceived\nas inconsistent with the 1976 Republican platform.\nOption 2: Support the Senate provision for a tax credit for\npost-secondary educational expenses\nAdvantages:\nSupport for the Roth amendment is consistent with the\n1976 Republican platform.\nThe amendment enjoys widespread popular appeal since\na great many people view themselves as either current\nor potential beneficiaries.\nOption 3:\nExpress support in the Conference Committee for\nthe principle of tax credits for college tuition\nand post-secondary technical training while in-\ndicating that we believe the specific provisions\nof such a credit -- amount, phase-in, floor, and\nqualifying expenses -- requires further study.\nAdvantages:\nThis position is consistent with the language in the\n1976 Republican Platform.\nThis provides an opportunity for further study and\nconsideration of such a tax credit and for congressional\nhearings on the issue.\nThis approach would permit consideration of a specific\ntax credit provision during the Administration's\nbudget process.\nDECISION\nOption 1\nOppose the tax credit for post-secondary\neducational expenses.\nSupported by:\nGE3L0 FORD VIBRAET\n- 4 -\nOption 2\nSupport the Senate provision for a tax\ncredit for post-secondary educational\nexpenses.\nSupported by:\nOption 3\nExpress support in the Conference Committee\nfor the principle of tax credits for college\ntuition and post-secondary technical train-\ning while indicating that we believe the\nspecific provisions of such a credit --\namount, phase-in, floor, and qualifying\nexpenses -- requires further study.\nSupported by:\nFORD is LIBRARY GLHALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAAL ore\nAugust 25, 1976\nThank\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nART QUERN\nSUBJECT:\nEPB Decision Memoranda\nFor your information, we indicated that the Domestic Council\nsupported:\nA.\nIn Regard to Extending Public Service Jobs:\nOption 1, which recommended a Presidential\nstatement supporting an extension with new\nlimitations on who could be employed.\nB.\nIn Regard to Tax Credits for Education:\nOption 3, which would have us express our\nsupport for the principle of tax credits for\neducation.\nThoto\n& FORD\nNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MANPOWER POLICY\nyouth Employment\nleuonery\nHonorable James M. Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nfor\nThe White House\nManpower\nPolicy\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nEnclosed is the most recent publication of the\nEli Ginzberg\nCommission, From School to Work: Improving the\nChairman\nTransition. The book reflects the continued\nefforts of the Commission to solicit expert\nSecretary of Defense\nadvice from nongovernmental sectors and to\nSecretary of Agriculture\ncontribute to the national dialogue on\nSecretary of Commerce\nimportant manpower issues.\nSecretary of Labor\nSecretary of Health, Education,\nThe volume is a collection of ten expert policy\nand Welfare\npapers and one staff report on issues related to\nAdministrator of Veterans Affairs\nyouth transition and employment problems. These\nTimothy A. Barrow\npapers describe the labor market experiences of\nRudolph A. Cervantes\nnoncollege youth; assess the competencies of\nDorothy Ford\nyouth to locate, obtain, and perform adult-type\nJohn V. N. Klein\nwork; review the youth hiring practices of three\nJuanita Kreps\nlarge corporations; and examine the impact of\nJohn H. Lyons\ntraining and employment programs for youth. They\nWilliam G. Milliken\nalso report on community efforts to link education\nJohn W. Porter\nand work, informational and counselor needs in\nMilton L. Rock\nthe transition process, the potential impact of\nLeon H. Sullivan\napprenticeship programs, problems faced by rural\nyouth, and foreign policy initiatives dealing with\nRobert T. Hall\ntransitional problems.\nDirector\nThe Commission is pleased to make available this\nvolume which is an important part of its work in\nexamining critical manpower issues and in developing\nrecommendations for national manpower policy.\nSincerely,\nDirector\nEnclosure\nFORD LIBRARY\n1522 K STREET, N.W.\nSUITE 300\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20005\n(202) 724-1545\nfile\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nImp Labor cogment-\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 26, 1976\nDear Harold:\nPresident Ford has asked me to thank you\nfor your letter of July 23, representing\nthe Fifth Annual Report of the Equal\nEmployment Opportunity Coordinating Council.\nHe appreciates your courtesy in making the\ninformation available to him.\nSincerely,\nJames M. Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nThe Honorable Harold R. Tyler, Jr.\nDeputy Attorney General and\nChairman of the Equal Employment\nOpportunity Coordinating Council\nWashington, D. C. 20530\nFORD i LIBRARY OF\nTHE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20530\nSEQUITY\nJUSTITIA\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nRever\nDear Mr. President:\nThis letter represents the Fifth Annual\nReport of the Equal Employment Opportunity\nCoordination Council in accordance with Sec. 715\nof Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as\namended, which requires an annual report from the\nCouncil to the President and the Congress concern-\ning Council activities.\nThe statute creating the Equal Employment\nOpportunity Coordinating Council designated as\nmembers the Secretary of Labor, the Chairman of\nthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the\nAttorney General, the Chairman of the U.S. Civil\nService Commission, and the Chairman of U.S. Com-\nmission on Civil Rights, or their respective\ndelegates.\nThe Council was assigned responsibility\nby the Congress for:\n\"\ndeveloping and implementing\nagreements, policies and practices\ndesigned to maximize effort, promote\nefficiency, and eliminate conflict,\ncompetition, duplication and incon-\nsistency among the operations, func-\ntions and jurisdictions of the various\nFORD is LIBRANY\n- 2 -\ndepartments, agencies and branches\nof the Federal government responsible\nfor the implementation and enforce-\nment of equal employment opportunity\nlegislation, orders, and policies. \"\n1. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection\nProcedures\nThe Council continued to treat as a matter of\nhigh priority the development and publication of\nuniform guidelines on employee selection procedures.\nAs indicated in our last annual report, based on\ncomments received both orally and in writing the\nCouncil had instructed the staff to prepare a new\ndraft of uniform guidelines which would deal with\nthe issues raised by state and local governments,\nprivate industry and other commentators.\nA draft \"Staff Committee Proposal, Sept. 24,\n1975, \" for Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection\nProcedures was agreed upon by the designated re-\npresentatives on the Staff Committee of the four\nagencies having operational responsibility -- the\nDepartment of Labor, the Equal Employment Opport-\nunity Commission, the Civil Service Commission,\nand the Department of Justice -- for purposes of\ninternal agency review, Council consideration, and\nfor circularization for analysis and comment.\nA majority of the Council believed that the\nStaff Committee Proposal, Sept. 24, 1975, should\nbe widely circulated for comment, pursuant to the\nprocedures set forth in OMB Circular A-85.\nThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\nreceived the Staff Committee Proposal, and determined\nthat it did not represent the position of that\nagency, and for that reason opposed circulating the\nStaff Committee Proposal for prepublication comment\npursuant to the A-85 procedure.\nFORD\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 136-WEDNESDAY. JULY 14, 1976\n- 3 -\nThe Staff Committe Proposal, September 24,\n1975 was accordingly circulated for prepublication\ncomment pursuant to the A-85 procedure. Substantial\nadditional comments were received, and modifications\nof the proposal were made.\nSubsequently, a majority of the Coordinating\nCouncil determined that the proposed guidelines\nshould be published for comment as a step toward\nachievement of the goal of uniform guidelines on\nemployee selection procedures.\nBecause one of the roles of the Civil Rights\nCommission is to analyze critically the efforts\nof Federal agencies in the enforcement of civil\nrights law, the Coordinating Council did not seek\nor receive the concurrence of that agency in the\ndecisions to circulate and publish the proposed\nguidelines.\nBecause a majority of the Coordinating\nCouncil determined to publish the guidelines in\nthe Federal Register for comment, they were so\npublished on July 14, 1976. 41 Fed. Reg. 29016.\nA copy of the proposed guidelines is attached\nto this report. Comments on the draft are due\nwithin 45 days of the date of publication. The\nCoordinating Council will take final action with\nrespect to the proposed guidelines after the com-\nments have been received.\n2. Alleged Discrimination on the Grounds\nof Sex in Retirement Benefits.\nAs indicated in our Fourth Annual Report,\nthe Coordinating Council had determined in May,\n1975 to consider the issue of different obliga-\ntions imposed on employers regarding sex discri-\nmination in retirement and other fringe benefits.\nThe difference concerns whether an employer must\nprovide equal periodic benefits to employees re-\ngardless of their sex, or whether the employer\ncan choose between providing equal periodic\n4\nbenefits or making equal contributions to the plan.\nThere is agreement that any employee contributions\nto retirement plans must be made without regard to\nsex. You had to consider this issue together\nwith your approval of the Title IX guidelines; and\nyou directed the Council to develop a uniform\nfederal position and to report to you no later than\nOctober 15, 1975.\nAfter analyzing the problem the Coordinating\nCouncil determined that the data previously developed\nwere insufficient to provide a basis for a uniform\ngovernment position. Accordingly, the Coordinating\nCouncil requested that our reporting time be extended\nto April 15, 1976, and you granted the extension.\nIn the intervening months, substantial\nactuarial information was obtained and analyzed\nand the Coordinating Council met several times on\nthe issue and submitted to you on April 15, 1976,\nrecommendations on the development of a government\nposition on this issue.\n3. Affirmative Action\nA number of officials of state and local\ngovernment have written either to the Coordinating\nCouncil or to individual members thereof bringing\nto our attention situations alleging possible\nconflict between the positions of different federal\nagencies on the extent of required and/or permissible\naffirmative action voluntarily to eliminate employ-\nment discrimination on the part of employers.\nThe Coordinating Council has been working\ntoward the development of a uniform federal position\non this issue.\nFORD\nRespectfully submitted,\nGERALD R.\nCharle\nHarold R. Tyler, Jr.\nDeputy Attorney General and\nChairman of the Equal Employment\nCoordinating Council\nMichael H. Moskow\nUnder Secretary of Labor\nEthel Bent Walsh\nActing Chairman, Equal Employment\nOpportunity Commission\nRobert Robert E. Hampton Hampton\nChairman, Civil Service\nCommission\nArthur S. Flemming\nChairman, Commission on Civil\nRights\nFORD LIBRANT & 07V838 9778\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nwashington\nJim-\nI have Not prepared\nan into memo to the President\nbecause I don't think one\nis necessary. There's really\nNothing to report. However,\nif you disagree, let me\nknow al I'll get a memo\ntogether.\nR. FORD\nDick"
}