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
1515868
label
Labor (7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515868
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Labor (7)
citationUrl
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
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
773637853b390d1f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 21, folder "Labor (7)" of the James M. Cannon
Files 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. Gerald Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 21 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 5, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
DAVID LISSY ones
SUBJECT:
Rubber Strike
FYI -- Bill Usery is calling the parties in for negotiations
in his office starting Saturday morning. Jim Hogue tells
me that Usery is going to take a tough stance that it is
time to settle.
file
pena
waiting f
response Lissy. for
a
Beard The done him.
raput sis: sis to
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 5
JMC:
I spoke with David LIssy re:
the attached.
He wants you to know that his
attached memo was written
before he knew of the Presi-
dent's interest in Beard's
letter.
He will followup his memo to
Moskow with oil. a phone call today.
cameron
David
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
8/6/16
David -
we valley
Need to
get OSHA
to come into
the val world.
fow do we
do it ?
FORD y LIBRARY 9ERALD
for
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF w.b-
SUBJECT:
Letter to the President from Rep. Robin
Beard dated July 21, 1976, re: OSHA
The President noted the referenced letter on his mail log and asked
for immediate action. This letter, together with a copy of Charlie
Leppert's acknowledgement, was referred to you on August 2 for
appropriate handling.
cc: Jim Connor
FORD LIBRATY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
DAVID LISSY
OSHA Farm OMAL Regulations -- Toilets
SUBJECT:
Attached is a memo I have sent to Mike Moskow along with
a letter to the President from Congressman Beard. I thought
you should be aware of this issue.
I have tried without success on several occasions to get
DOL to admit with some candor its error. The response to
Beard's letter may be a good vehicle for going public in
acknowledgment of the error, but only if we get DOL's
cooperation.
Attachment
CC: Paul Leach
Bill Diefenderfer
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MICHAEL H. MOSKOW
FROM:
DAVID H. LISSI SMAY
The attached letter from Congressman Robin Beard to the
President relates to the proposed OSHA regulations on
farms which we have previously discussed.
As I understand the Department's position there is
agreement that parts of the proposed regulation were
wrong and should not become final -- particularly the
section dealing with toilet facilities.
I still believe this is an appropriate opportunity for
the Department to get good marks for candor by saying
now -- and not weeks from now -- that it agrees with
its critics.
In any event, could you please review Beard's letter
and then discuss with me this week how we might answer
it.
Attachment - copy of incoming
CC:
Jim Cannon
Jim Cavanaugh
FORD
LIBRARY
ROBIN
DISTRICT OFFICES:
6TH DISTRICT, TENNESSEE
DSO
SUITE 401
FIRST AMERICAN BANK BUILDING
5384 POPLAR AVENUE
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38117
Congress of the United States
(901) 767-4852
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
124 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
house of Representatives
710 NORTH GARDEN STREET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE 38401
(202) 225-2811
(615) 388-2133
Mashington, D.C. 20515
July 21, 1976
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Since I have been in Congress, I have been an active critic of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and a strong proponent
NP
of a thorough and comprehensive reevaluation of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act. This legislation and a seemingly endless stream of
rules and regulations has had a substantial and adverse impact on
business, and especially small business in this country. While that
impact is well-documented, we have been relatively unsuccessful in
achieving any substantive form of relief.
Having successfully intimidated the small business community of
this country, the events of the last few months indicate that the OSHA
administration intends to embark on a new frontier--the American farm.
The OSHA administration has issued regulations requiring the almost
immediate installation of costly guarding and shielding devices on ALL
farm heavy equipment. They have taken the initial steps to promulgate
a regulation requiring portable toilet and hand-washing facilities. The
substance of this regulation is as ludicrous and unreasonable as any
the federal bureaucracy has produced. Perhaps the most offensive of
all was the expenditure of a half a million dollars for a number of farm
safety pamphlets which are down-right insulting to farmers.
It was obvious to me that the OSHA administration lacked even the
most simplistic understanding of what is involved in making a living
in agriculture. Therefore, in cooperation with the Tennessee Farm
Bureau, I arranged for a special hearing to be held in Columbia,
Tennessee. The object of the hearing was to allow active farmers
to address their complaints directly to the OSHA administration.
I brought with me to that hearing Maynard C. Dolloff, the Agricultural
Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. Morton
Corn.
The hearing was held on June 25th, and I have listed a number of
excerpts from the original transcript in order to provide you with a
feeling of the sentiment that was expressed by farmers at that hearing.
FORD
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
July 21, 1976
Page 2
I live on a farm, and I understand farming. And one of
the reasons I like to farm is because it is a place where
we can be without having someone to tell us how to run our
business. And I think this is the attitude that most of us
have; otherwise we wouldn't be in farming. There is not
much money in it
And it is something that gives us a
little bit of a sense of doing things our way. And as long
as we have farming in this country as a business, we're
going to be more productive, provided we are allowed leeway
to make decisions on our own.
Bill Richardson: State Representative; Farmer.
Now, I'm of the opinion that if we're going to have better
representation at any level of government, that whatever that
level of government does, it needs to be responsible to the
people and to answer directly to them
If exemptions are
not put in for the farmer and the small businessman you are
going to drive them out because they can't afford to comply
with some of the requirements that are being enacted.
Cletus McWilliams: State Representative.
You are going to have to go build or manufacture some kind
of toilet facility out there, when most of us have got the
natural facilities growing right around the place that we've
been using all our life in five minute walking distance; and
it don't cost anything
I think it is extremely important
that we have some workable and practical regulations in these
areas where we do have to apply it.
Charles DuPriest: State Representative; Farmer.
These proposals apparently have been written by looking only
at a very small segment of the United States agricultural
economy and not at agriculture in general. Tennessee has a
diversified agriculture owned largely by part-time farmers
in small tracts of land. Our agricultural operations vary in
size and scope and consequently there should be provisions
built into the regulations for small and part-time farmers.
These proposed regulations will not be acceptable to
Tennessee farmers. And, further, should they be implemented,
it would be impossible to police and enforce these proposals.
Further, I am of the opinion that employers should be
measured on performance and safety records rather than how
well they can follow bureaucratic mandates.
Edward Porter: Commissioner of Agriculture.
It would be an impossibility to take the conditions in
San Joanquin or Imperial Valley of California where there
FORD
may be hundreds of people working in a given field these
may be perfectly alright there and transport these and say
BERALD
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
July 21, 1976
Page 3
that these regulations should be in the State of Tennessee.
We must recognize there is quite a diverse amount of agriculture
across this country
We're talking about the back forty
where we're clipping pasture, we're only there for a day or two
a year, to construct hundreds or thousands of dollars worth
of facilities, and maybe use them only one day out of every
365 days this is just not economical. And if you have
a tractor that is old out here and have no shields on it to
start with you're supposed to put safety shields on it.
And that's going to cost you a pot of money. And in all
probability, if this fellow has been working with a tractor
with no shield on it the first chance he gets---on the
other side of the field he will take them off and drop them
in the fence row
Under the administrative rulings, you,
as a farmer, are held responsible for what that employee
does. And I think this is an unfair ruling.
Bob Carter: Tennessee Farm Bureau.
Or if I'm sending I happen to have a few yearlings,
and if I send the men in the back pasture, which is about two
miles, on a couple of horses to round up some cattle, now
how am I going to keep up with those fellows with a portable
toilet?
Bill Cobb: Hardin County.
It seems to me that the problem is or trouble is that
Congress has created so many Commissions, and the members of
those Commissions have the authority to make rules and
regulations, and yet the members of the Commissions who make
those rules and regulations are not responsible to the people.
Doss Frierson: Maury County.
Congressman Beard, Mr. Dolloff, I would like to suggest that
we abolish the whole thing and start over.
Clement Marshall: Maury County.
It don't make any difference what kind of safety equipment
you've got if you just put somebody out here who won't take
care of themselves I don't care whether their on a pen of
cattle, or a piece of machinery or whatever it is. And the
purpose of this thing is putting more expense on the farmers
these shields and all this equipment to put on this old,
old equipment that we have, I would say would be a minimum
of ten thousand dollars which increases my expenses
Just
do away with the whole thing.
Bill Walker: Giles County.
FORD
Lots of us have farms that we rent and own, and they might
be twenty or thirty miles apart. And some of these farms are
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
July 21, 1976
Page 4
twenty miles away from a water system. They don't have any
wells or anything. So, we don't see how it would be possible
to work for us down there because we are so spread out in our
operations.
Jack Marshall: Tipton County.
I'm tired and fed up with things being rammed down my
throat
I'm sure others feel the same way I do
The good
people in this country is not doing the harping the ones
on the other end are doing the harping and they're getting
the results. And I think a lot of people in Washington think
we are the dumb ones and they are the smart ones, and that we
haven't got sense enough to do anything on our own.
James Hickman: Maury County.
A new tractor well let's say---a 70 horsepower tractor
will cost anywhere from ten to twelve thousand dollars. So,
what's the use you know, that's enough expense. And we're
talking about the consumer the consumer has got to pay.
George Brooks: Maury County.
There wasn't a line in that Declaration of Independence that
went like this, "He has created a multitude of new offices
and sent forth swarms of officers to harass our people."
Back in the thirties when the insurance companies and it
was the insurance companies at that time rather than the
government were foreclosing on the farms out West. When
a farmer's farm was going to be put up and sold at auction, it
got to the point that his neighbors all came to that auction
from miles around with their shotguns. Maybe that is what we
need today when one of these federal bureaucrats goes out and
starts harassing a farmer
Today it is the farmer. A few
weeks ago it was the undertakers. Prior to that it was the
manufacturers and so on and so on.
James Underwood: Maury County.
Mr. President, I hope this serves to demonstrate the ground swell of
opposition that has developed in this country to unreasonable regulations
promulgated by uninformed and insensitive bureaucrats. The poor performance
of these agencies, headed by your appointees, reflects adversely on you.
The attitudes expressed here are festering, and strong action is required
to reverse the feeling among farmers that this Administration is unable to
effectively oversee and control the activities of the executive agencies.
It is my hope that you will assign someone close to you, and not associated
with the agency, to keep a close watch on its activities in the future.
Sincerely,
FORD
Robin Beard, M.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
For meeting
w/Pres. on
ofed.
FORD DEPARTMENT
Labor
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 5, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Public Employee Coverage
Angew
Under Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA)
541/2
June 24'76
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court recently held
that the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the FLSA cannot constitutionally be applied to
State and local government employees. The Court,
in National League of Cities, et al. V. Usery, not
only invalidated the 1974 FLSA amendments insofar
as they extended the Act's minimum wage and overtime
provisions to such employees, but it also expressly
overruled the 1968 decision in which the Court
upheld the 1966 extension of the Act's minimum wage
and overtime provisions to employees of State
schools and hospitals (Maryland V. Wirtz).
Public employee unions and the AFL-CIO Executive
Council are firmly committed to overturn this
Relenguit
decision through legislative action, including
efforts to "assure that every Federal grant carries
with it the requirement that the State and local
governments observe the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act." "
strong
The nature and scope of the General Revenue Sharing
program ensures that the renewal bill will be a
primary target of this effort.
Beigen
Attached for your information is a newspaper article
on this subject.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRARY 01V830
THE WASHINGTON POST, MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1976
A19
Neal R. Peirce nottons OORT 6VD2
Public Worker Unions: 'Season of Darkness
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
1mc Rile
Labor
THE WHITE HOUSE
Coal strike
WASHINGTON
August 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
JAMES CANNON
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
ROGER PORTER RP
SUBJECT:
Coal Strike
The Department of Labor has prepared a draft memorandum on
the coal strike situation which is attached. There is no
intention of sending the memorandum forward to the President
at this time, but Secretary Usery wanted the Counsel's Office,
the Domestic Council, and the Office of Congressional Liaison
to be aware of the options that he is suggesting for possible
consideration. I am also attaching an information memorandum
from the Solicitor of Labor regarding the authority of the
Executive Branch in the strike.
Attachments
CC: David Lissy
FORD & LIBRARY
Perrett 52524
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SUBCITOR
D.C. 20210
AUG 10 10:6
INFORMATION
MEMORANDOM FOR:
THE SECRETARY
FROM:
WILLIAM J. KILBERG
Solicitor of Labor
SUBJECT:
Authority of the recutive Branch in
the Mine Workers W ldcat Strike
We have been asked two questions related to the Wildcat
Strike of the mine workers in West Virginia. First, does
the President (i.e. the Executive Branch) have any
respo sibility to enforce the injunction issued by the U.S.
District Court which was obtained by private parties?
Second, does the President (i.e. the Executive Branch) have
any authority to provide protection to a private individual
who has been threatened because of his efforts in attempting
to settle the dispute.
We have discussed these questions with Philip Wilens, Chief,
Government Regulations and Labor Section, Criminal Division,
Department of Justice, and he has responded in the negative
to both these questions. He stated that, without a request
of the court, the Government has no responsibility in enforcing
a court order in such a suit. Ordinarily, the appropriate
procedure would be for the private party which sought the
injuncision to enquest is contempt citation and, if granted,
it would be properly enforced by the U.S. Marshalls.
With respect to the second question, Mr. Wilens stated that
the Federal Government has no authority to protect private
individuals in cases such as these. This is the proper role
of the States and local Governments under their police
powers. Although Section 610 of the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act provides that it is a criminal
offense to threaten force or violence for the purpose of
interfering with a union members' rights under the Act, it
does not authorize the Federal Government to provide pro-
tection to any person so threatened. If merely authorizes
the Federal prosecution of any person who violates this
provision.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
DRAFT
PRESIDINT
FROM:
i. J. USERY, JR.
SUBJECT:
Coal Strike
A wildcat strike in the coal industry which began as a local
dispute in mid-June has spread to seven states idling
roughly 87,500 members of the United Mine Workers. This
memorandum reviews the background to the strike and discusses
alternative responses open to the Administration.
Background
Local 1759 of the United Mine Workers, which represents
miners at the Cedar Coal Company near Charleston, West
Virginia, demanded that the firs create the position of
"communications man." The incumbent would be positioned
at the mouth of the mine and be in touch with the under-
ground. The company refused and the issue was taken to
arbitration, which ruled for the union. The company then
asked that the arbitrator clarify whether or not the company
could essign other duties to the communicator, and the arbi-
trator said that this was permissible. The union, demanding
that the position be full-time, struck in protest on June
22, by-passing the grievance procedures and violating a
no-strike provision.
On July 13, Cedar Coal won a back-to-work injunction
from Judge Dennis Knapp of the Federal District Court in
Charleston, which was ignored despite the request of DMW
President Arnold Miller that the strikers return to work.
The injunction against Local 1759 was appealed and affirmed
by the Fourth Circuit; the company's unsuccessful contention
that the injunction should be extended to other locals will
be argued before a three-judge panel of the Pourth Circuit
on August 10. The court imposed a $50,000 fine to be
increased by $25,000 for each day the strike continued.
More than 200 members of the local have been ordered into
court on August 17 to show cause why they should not be held
FORD
&
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
in criminal contemnt for failure to comply. In reaction to
the injunction, members of the local spread out across seven
states and set us nickets; this shut down a large cortion of
the industry as miners traditionally will not cross picket
lines even if there is only one picket and they are not
directly involved in the dispute. President Miller, on
August 4, sent telegrams to ONN district presidents declaring
that they were "hereby instructed and directed that all
members of the DMW engaged in these work stoppages return to
work." Earlier, he had personally appeared before local
1759 and urged them to return to work, but his request
was ignored. On August 3, the Situminous Coal Operators
Association, the bargaining arm of the coal industry, turned
down requests by Local 1759 to meet with the striking miners
to discuss grievances saying that this would undermine the
procedures agreed to in the contract.
Last Friday, fewer than 1,000 miners turned out for a rally
in Charleston, West Virginia, which had been called to
demonstrate support for the strike; leaders had hoped
10,000 would attend, and this small showing could be inter-
preted as a lessening of rank-and-file support. It was
reported on Honday that the number of striking miners had
declined for the first time (from 90,250 on Friday to
87,500). This decline was due largely to back-to-work
movements in Kentucky where local union members demanded
that stranger pickets identify themselves and then requested
that they leave.
On Sunday, Arnold Miller canceled a meeting with strikers in
Charleston because of a bomb threat. Miller also said that
miners supporting a return-to-work movement were threatened
with being shot. On Monday, the OMW Executive Board net and
agreed to a resolution which would substantially increase
the power of the International over the affairs of the
local. Members of the Executive Board are on their way to
Charleston to a meeting with Local 1759 on August 10.
FORDO & LIBRARY GERALD
- 3 -
OPTIONS
Secretary Usery and your other advisors have met to discuss
the situation and to consider the various options open to
you. It appears that Presidential action would be premature
until the Court hearings and meeting of the UMS Executive
Soard with striking miners in Charleston take place. However,
the Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA) is running
advertisements (Tab A) in The New York Times, The Wall Street
Journal, The Washington Post and other papers on August 10
denouncing the strike. This pay lead to pressure for some
kind of Presidential response.
OPTION ONE: Appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel to study the
problem and make recommendations. Alternatively, you could
instruct the Secretary of Labor to appoint a panel.
Pro:
1. There is precedent for using a voluntary
panel; in the past, appointment of such
a panel has been used by responsible union
leadership as an argument to get the rank-
-and-file to go back to work.
2. This would demonstrate the Administration's
concern, while keeping Presidential distance.
3. Could help develop long-term solutions to
the problems behind the dispute.
Con:
1. The Bituminous Coal Operators Associa-
tion (BCOA) is opposed to the appointment
of a panel until the strike is settled.
2. A penel would deal with longer-term problems
in the industry, but would not be particu-
larly effective in dealing with the
shorter-term concerns related to this
walk-out.
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
* 1 I
OPTION TND: Issue 2 statement orging the miners to raturn
to work.
Pro:
1. would desonstrate Presidential concern.
Cons
1. May be intercreted 0,0 pro-menayement,
since the enclovers' basic position is
that the-strike is illegal.
2. Further Pederal intervention (in support
of the injunction against the striking
miners) may increase tensions and lessen
the likelihood of a settlement.
OPTION THRSE: The President and the Hest Virginia Congres-
sional delegation, especially Senator Byrd who has special
influence with the tank-and-file, would issue a neutral statement
calling on the striking minars to return to work. You would
meet with the delegation for the purpose of developing a
joint statement. Alternatively, the West Virginia officials
could issue the statement unilaterally.
Pro:
1. A bi-partisan statement would exert the
greatest moral suasion.
2. It would demonstrate the President's concern.
3. Would avoid more drastic means of interven-
tion which night backfire and increase
tension.
4. Lack of action may lead to criticism.
5. Byrd's identification with the rank-and-file
would minimize any chence of the action
seeming to be pro-company.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 5 -
Cod:
1. deat Virginia "exhers of Congress say not
he willing to participate, Senator Byrd has
carefully refused any involvement 30 far,
and declined to recommend any course of
action through staff channels.
2. Further government intervention (which has
become the focus of the dispute) may
increase tensions but not persuade many
strikers to return to work.
OPTION POUR: The Department of Labor would informally
encourage the trustees of the union pension and health and
welfare funds (who are independent of the union) to inform
their beneficiaries of the impact of the strike on the
funds' solvency, and urge them to put pressure on striking
miners to return to work. The funda are financed in large
part by royalties from coal production and are presently
almost exhausted.
Prot
1. 80,000 beneficiaries who live in mining
communities could exert substantial pressure
on striking miners. They vote in elections
for district and international union
officials. Their predicament--which will
become severe shortly--may persuade strikers
to reassess the benefits and objectives of
the strike.
Con:
1. May backfire and be interpreted 35 government-
union collusion against the rank-and-file.
2. There are practical problems in getting
the message to the beneficiaries.
3. There is no assurance that pensioners would
do anything, or that they would be effective.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
- 6 -
OPTION FIVE:
The President could issue a statement
assuring locals who vote to return to work that protection
against violence would be provided by the States or by the
Federal Government. (Draft statement attached at Tab B).
Pro:
1. Would remove the excuse of some union
leaders that a return to work would involve
risk of personal injury for members.
2. May inspire the majority of miners-who
reportedly wish to return to work-to do
so.
3. Would be a. neutral action in support of
law and order, and would leave the next
step up to the miners.
Con:
1. It would be difficult to enforce.
2. May backfire and incite dissidents.
3. Would involve delicate issues of
State/Federal relations in several states.
Recommendation
I recommend that no action be taken at this time. Governor
Moore's office feels that a Presidential statement would be
premature. However, these options should be reviewed
further by your immediate staff and by the Justice Department.
DRAFT
FORD i LIBRARY 07V8
TAB A
LIBRARY
FORD
1
-
MINE WORKERS, THEY DEMAND
Inines
tlocals
SUIT THE MINE WORKERS,
ITS PROTECTION.
THEY SCORN IT.
Journal
The United Mine Workers of America
How has the Union satisfied its
marshalled the law and demanded its
no-strike requirement? During the
strict enforcement to:
1974 contract:
constitute itself a Union,
There have been- 4,355 illegal
wildcat strikes.
properly remove its former
President from office,
The Nation has lost over
27,000,000 tons of coal.
properly convict the Yablonski
assassins,
Welfare Funds which finance
miners' pensions and benefits
elect a new UMW President,
have lost $43,000,000.
pass the new Federal Coal
Miners have lost $141,000,000
Mine Safety Act,
in wages.
pass liberal Black Lung Benefits,
The Nation has lost badly
needed energy.
demand the new Pension Reform
Act be enforced rigidly,
Mine workers struck against the Sta
of West Virginia in 1974, when its
demand that Coal Companies
Governor tried to allocate gasoline
bargain exclusively with the UMW,
fairly during the oil embargo.
and
Mine workers recently picketed a
demand an entirely new labor
Subcommittee of the United States
contract from the Coal Companies.
Senate, threatening another strike
In 1974, the UMW bargained the
if a fatter Black Lung Bill was
richest package of wages and
not passed.
benefits in its history. (It
has properly boasted of that
When the Cedar Coal Company sought
contract, including its new
court removal of illegal pickets
Grievance Procedure, in all the
last month, mine workers cried
Union journals.)
"Foul" and struck the entire
industry to support its unlawful
coercion of one employer.
The Coal Companies get one commitment
in return that there will be no
When two respected Federal Judges
strikes; all unresolved disputes
in Charleston upheld the no-strike
would be arbitrated. If that bargain
requirement, mine workers demanded
were kept by the Mine Workers,
they be investigated for bribe-
courts would not be needed to deal
taking.
vith strikes over grievances.
E.R.A.O. FORD VIBRARY
Spreading the Cedar strike was designed to intimidate Federal Judges from
exercising their judicial function, and companies from seeking their right
to relief in those courts.
if a large industrial corporation were to cut off half the Nation's energy
supply; insult and ignore the Federal Court, lock out thousands of
loyees illegally, shut off their wages, and jeopardize their insurance
and pensions, the outrage of Government and political leaders would be
multuous. But when a big labor union fails utterly to prevent that very
conduct, the country is without an effective remedy.
Surely the great. majority of coal miners, who have testified in open court
that they are ready and willing to work, could be given some basic personal
security. Are gangs of pickets, some brandishing shotguns, roving across
state lines beyond the reach of Federal and state police powers? Can a
Inion with SO much political and economic influence be allowed to escape
all accountability? Are Federal Judges in Southern West Virginia helpless
against raw intimidation, and without recourse to Federal Marshals?
Surely the Nation and the economy need not suffer these mindless losses
year after year. Federal, State, and Congressional leaders have a clear
responsibility to end coal field chaos.
TAB B
LIBRARY
Ques
i
DRAFT
I 22 Scanly concerned of the effects of the contin-
sing strike by sone members of the United Nine Workers on
the States and localities involved, on the oeneficiaries of
union pension and weltare Sunds, and on the economy generally.
President Arnold Miller of the OMW and the union's Executive
Board have ordered an end to the strike. There are indica-
tions that many miners wish to return to work, but have been
prevented from doing so by threats from = small group of
dissidents. I an asking the Governors of the seven affected
states to provide special protection to miners who wish to
return to work where the union local requests such protection.
Where state protection is inadequate or not forthcoming, I
will take appropriate steps to see that the Federal Govern-
ment provides protection. lie must not tolerate small
numbers of extremists who wish to prolong this walk-out
through intimidation and violence.
DRAFT
FORD & LIBRARY
Labor-CETA
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 10, 1976
Dear Marvin:
The President asked me to express his particular appre-
ciation to you for your letter about the Detroit city
employees who had been laid off because of a ruling by
the Regional Office of the Department of Labor.
I know you are familiar with how the President directed
the Secretary of Labor to work with officials of the
city of Detroit so that Detroit could re-hire vitally
needed police officers and pay them with Federal funds
under the CETA Program.
We very much appreciate your counsel and assistance on
this important matter. Let me assure you that the
Secretary of Labor will continue to see that Detroit's
particular problem receives every appropriate considera-
tion.
Sincerely,
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
Honorable Marvin L. Esch
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
FORD is LIBRARY arvi
L. ESCH
DISTRICT OFFICES:
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
200 EAST HURON
to DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48108
PHONE: (313) 665-0618
COMMITTEES:
EDUCATION AND LABOR
Congress of the United States
9 EAST FRONT STREET
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MONROE, MICHIGAN 48161
House of Representatives
PHONE: (313) 242-7580
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
2353 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
15273 FARMINGTON ROAD
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Washington, D.C. 20515
LIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48154
PHONE: (202) 225-4401
PHONE: (313) 261-6080
July 29, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing to express my concern about the conflict between
the Department of Labor and the City of Detroit on the question of
rehiring laid off city employees under the C.E.T.A. program. The Chicago
Regional Office of the Department of Labor has issued an arbitrary
ruling limiting the number of city workers who can be rehired. This
ruling will require the phaseout of 1200 essential police, health and
safety workers in Detroit and has potentially disasterous effects on
the services of the city of Detroit.
This ruling which sets an arbitrary ceiling on the rehiring
of laid off employees is in clear contradiction with the intent of the
Congress. The Conference Report on the C.E.T.A. program, House Report
93-1621 says:
"The strong feelings of the conferees in opposition to
'paper layoffs' should in no way be construed to mean
opposition to rehiring of laid-off workers per se. The
rehiring of former employees who have lost their jobs
due to bona-fide budgetary reasons has always been
permitted and is permitted here
it should also be
noted that the provisions of Section 205 (c) (7) prohibiting
the hiring of any persons when another person is on
lay-off from the same of equivalent job still applies." "
In addition, the House has approved H.R. 12987 and action on
this bill in the Senate is imminent. This bill clearly state the
intent that the Department of Labor 1) cannot issue specific criteria
and 2) could not prevent the hiring of those who are bona-fide layoffs.
It is clearly the intent of the law that the only issue under contention
can be whether layoffs are bona-fide or not.
I have urged Secretary Usery to meet personally with representatives
of Mayor Coleman Young in an effort to clarify the conflict. I hope that
you will encourage the Secretary to set up such a meeting and that the
White House will be represented at such a meeting as well. The citizens
of Detroit cannot afford to lose the essential services which the arbitrary
Departmental ruling will entail.
FORD & LIBRARY 9ERALD
Labur
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 11, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
DAVID LISSY my
SUBJECT:
Coal Strike
With regard to the options which Bill Usery has
identified, I would be disinclined to recommend
any Presidential action. There is no indication
that Presidential involvement of any kind would
have any positive result.
on
FORD
Rile
Labor
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
8/12
Dear Congressman Beard:
I have discussed with Secretary Usery your recent
letter to the President concerning proposals of
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
which relate to the farming community.
Secretary Usery assures me he is very aware of the
criticisms directed at the proposed OSHA regula-
tion. He says that OSHA officials recognize that
the proposed regulation pertaining to portable
toilet and hand washing facilities will need
extensive revision before any final rules are
promulgated.
The President appreciated receiving your letter.
I believe you raised a number of pertinent points
and I am sure that the OSHA review of the proposed
regulation will focus on the issues you addressed.
Assistant
for Domestic Affairs
The Honorable Robin Beard
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
GERALD FORD LIBRANT
file
Employment ple
THE WHITE HOUSE
(Labe.)
WASHINGTON
August 20, 1976
gut
Zile
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
EEOC Backlog
You asked whether Duval's memo regarding a backlog at
EEOC was related to a management or a personnel problem.
In brief, it is a management problem which can only be
solved by appointing a strong, managerially sound
chairman.
There
TORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FURD is LIBRARY GERALD
ART - -
No, I haven't talked
to Cannon about This.
F4I, however, Duval's
idea surfaced about 3 mos.
ago and was rejected
by The solous (Buchen,
Marsh, O'nerll, etc.). The
problem is really a management
one and the solution his in
putting in a strong, mayagesially
sound Chairman. Dick
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dick Parsons
share you halked
with I'm Cannon
about this
Art ex
GERALD FORD LIERARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
A Equal Commission. JMC: EEO Emp does loyment stand for
Opportunity
Art Quem -
go This 0-7 ?
problem
personnel or management? Jun Jun
CC: Dick Parsons
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL
D
SUBJECT:
PROBLEM ON THE HORIZON
There is a major EEO backlog.
Hill study planned for release in October.
We should put up some defense -- set up a Review Committee?
Bob Brown as Chairman?
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
pending
CC: Dick Parsons
THE WHIT HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL
D
SUBJECT:
PROBLEM ON THE HORIZON
There is a major EEO backlog.
Hill study planned for release in October.
We should put up some defense -- set up a Review Committee?
Bob Brown as Chairman?
note to Ant sent
FORD i LIBRARY AERALD
CETA
Ansteyment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES M. CANNON
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JOHN O. MARSH
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
his
SUBJECT:
Memorandums for the President on the Tax
Reform Bill and Extension of Public Service
Jobs
Two draft memorandums for the President on the tax credit for
post-secondary education and on extension of the public ser-
vice jobs program are attached. They are designed to reflect
the discussion of these issues at this morning's EBP Executive
Committee meeting.
I would appreciate very much your comments and recommendations
on these two memorandums as soon as possible and not later than
8:30 a.m. , Wednesday, August 25, 1976 in order that we may
transmit them to the President tomorrow morning.
Attachments
FORD
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
SUBJECT:
Conference Committee Action on Extension
of Public Service Jobs
In late 1974, in response to your October request, Title VI was added
to the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) authoriz-
ing an emergency public service employment (PSE) program in addi-
tion to the limited PSE program provided for in Title II of CETA. At
the present time there are approximately 260,000 persons employed
under the Title VI emergency program and 50,000 employed under the
permanent Title II program. The Administration's budget calls for
phasing out the emergency program by the end of FY 1977. Money is
already appropriated to fund the emergency jobs through the end of
January. Funding of the Administration's phase-out proposal will
require submission of a $500 million supplemental.
On April 30, 1976, the House passed H.R. 12987 by a vote of 287-42.
FORD
This bill would extend Title VI through the end of the transition
quarter and authorize "such sums as may be appropriated. 11
GERALD
LIBRARY
On August 10, the Senate passed its substitute for H.R. 12987 by a
vote of 67-11. The Senate bill would extend Title VI through the end
of FY 1977 but contains provisions limiting new employees under the
program to low income individuals who have been unemployed for 15
or more weeks, including those who have exhausted unemployment
benefits, or are receiving unemployment compensation or public
assistance and are members of low income households. Language in
the Senate report indicates an intent to double the size of the program,
but the bill itself merely authorizes "such sums as may be appropri-
ated. 11
The conference originally was scheduled for August 24, but efforts are
currently underway to postpone it until August 26.
2
If the Administration maintains its current opposition to the legisla-
tion, Al Quie believes that Title VI will be extended through FY 1977
at current levels without the Senate limitations and that a veto would
be overridden. He also believes that if the Administration supports
an extension of Title VI at its current levels, the conference probably
would support the Senate language limiting the new employees to the
long-term unemployed.
The Economic Policy Board is currently in the process of refining
several alternatives for addressing the persistent problem of reducing
the number of long-term unemployed and will be prepared to present
these for your consideration within the next two weeks. One of these
alternatives is supporting the extension of Title VI at current levels
so long as new employees are limited to the long-term unemployed.
However, the Administration will be pressed to take a position on
H.R. 12987 before the Conference Committee acts this week. This
memorandum requests your decision on what position the Administra-
tion should take on H.R. 12987.
Issue: What position should the Administration take on H.R. 12987?
Option 1:
Issue a Presidential statement as soon as possible express-
ing support for an extension of Title VI at current levels
as long as new employees are limited to the long-term
unemployed.
FORD
Advantages:
This would demonstrate leadership in addressing the problem
of the long-term unemployed rather than reacting to congres-
sional initiatives.
This is consistent with a position that the recovery is progress-
ing well and that it is appropriate to turn our attention to deal-
ing with long-term structural employment and away from
temporary emergency programs.
This approach would increase the chances of getting the Senate
restriction targeting the program on the long-term unemployed
in the bill while leaving you free to veto any bill lacking the
restrictions. In the absence of any such signal, an extension
of Title VI at current levels probably will be enacted without
the desirable restrictions limiting the program to the long-term
unemployed.
3
Disadvantages:
Support for H.R. 12987 would represent a major change from
the proposal in the budget and would cost $700-$900 million
more than a phase out.
Following an announcement of Presidential support, the con-
ferees could greatly increase the program size.
Option 2:
Maintain the current position of opposing the extension of
Title VI. Do not signal a veto. Signing an extension could
be justified on the grounds that such an authorization is
consistent with phasing out the program.
Advantages:
Does not put the Administration in the position of pressing for
the Senate amendments which are opposed by many mayors
because the amendments would limit flexibility to rehire laid-
off municipal workers.
Disadvantages:
This approach would lessen the chances of getting the desirable
Senate limitations and would deprive you of getting any credit
for the virtually certain extension.
Option 3:
Maintain the current position of opposing H.R. 12987.
BALD FORD LIBRARY
Signal a veto of any extension of Title VI.
Advantages:
This is consistent with your commitment to opposing excessive
spending and with your warnings that emergency, counter-
cyclical programs tend to become permanent because the
Congress lacks the courage to phase them out.
Disadvantages:
Some additional action is necessary to fund the Administration's
own phase-out proposal and thus we are not really in a position
to oppose any congressional action on PSE.
4
DECISION
Option 1
Issue a Presidential statement as soon as possible
expressing support for an extension of Title VI
at current levels as long as new employees are
limited to the long-term unemployed.
Supported by:
Option 2
Maintain the current position of opposing the
extension of Title VI. Do not signal a veto.
Signing an extension could be justified on the
grounds that such an authorization is consistent
with phasing out the program.
Supported by:
Option 3
Maintain the current position of opposing
H.R. 12987. Signal a veto of any extension of
Title VI.
Supported by:
FORD :- LIGRARY GENALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
SUBJECT:
Tax Reform Bill: Tax Credit for
Post-Secondary Education
Section 2601 of the Senate version of the Tax Reform
Bill (HR 10612) provides credit for certain post-
secondary educational expenses. This provision,
sponsored by Senator Roth and others, was added to the
tax reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee and is
not part of the House bill. No hearings have been held
on the provision. The Treasury has never formally
expressed an Administration position on the provision,
either in testimony before the Finance Committee or in
any written submission. Traditionally, the Treasury has
opposed such specialized use of the tax system and the
recent proliferation of tax credits. However, the 1976
Republican platform states: "We recommend tax credits
for college tuition (and) post-secondary technical train-
ing. This memorandum seeks your decision on the position
the Administration should take in the Conference Committee
on the Senate amendment providing a tax credit for certain
post-secondary educational expenses.
Background
GERALD, FORD
Senator Roth's amendment would provide a non-refundable
tax credit for expenses for tuition, fees, books, and
supplies for full time college programs or secondary
vocational education. The credit would equal 100 percent
of such payments by an individual for himself, his spouse,
or his dependents up to a maximum per student of $100 in
1977, $150 in 1978, $200 in 1979 and $250 in 1980 and
subsequent years.
The credit would not apply to graduate studies or to
elementary or secondary education. It would not apply to
expenses for meals, lodging, or other personal items. The
tax credit would apply to expenses for courses beginning
- 2 -
after June 30, 1977. Treasury estimates the revenue
cost during the next 5 fiscal years as follows:
1977
0
1978
$475 million
1979
$700 million
1980
$925 million
1981
$1.1 billion
During Senate floor consideration of the Roth amendment,
Senators Buckley, Taft, and Durkin sponsored an amend-
ment which would have substituted a tax deduction of up to
$1,000 for college tuition, $500 for secondary or vocational
schools, and $250 for elementary schools. This amendment
was defeated 52 to 37. Senator Muskie's motion to postpone
indefinitely further consideration of the Roth amendment
was defeated 60 to 20.
Since there is no similar provision in the House bill, the
Conference Committee is free either to drop the entire
amendment, to adopt the provision in toto, or to redesign
the provision within the parameters of the Senate version.
Treasury anticipates the House conferees will oppose in-
cluding the Roth amendment in the Conference Committee
Report on budgetary grounds and the fact that there has been
no House consideration or hearings on the amendment.
Issue: What Position Should the Administration Take on the
Conference Committee on the Senate Amendment Pro-
viding a Tax Credit for Certain Post-Secondary
Educational Expenses?
Option 1: Oppose the tax credit for post-secondary educational
expenses
Advantages:
Opposition to the Roth amendment is consistent with
opposition to further specialized use of the tax
system and the proliferation of tax credits and with
a preference for targeting assistance to students in
the form of scholarships, grants, and loans.
Enactment of the Roth amendment entails considerable
revenue losses in out years rising to over $1 billion
annually for FY 1981.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
- 3 -
Disadvantages:
Opposition to the Roth amendment would be perceived
as inconsistent with the 1976 Republican platform.
Option 2: Support the Senate provision for a tax credit for
post-secondary educational expenses
Advantages:
Support for the Roth amendment is consistent with the
1976 Republican platform.
The amendment enjoys widespread popular appeal since
a great many people view themselves as either current
or potential beneficiaries.
Option 3:
Express support in the Conference Committee for
the principle of tax credits for college tuition
and post-secondary technical training while in-
dicating that we believe the specific provisions
of such a credit -- amount, phase-in, floor, and
qualifying expenses -- requires further study.
Advantages:
This position is consistent with the language in the
1976 Republican Platform.
This provides an opportunity for further study and
consideration of such a tax credit and for congressional
hearings on the issue.
This approach would permit consideration of a specific
tax credit provision during the Administration's
budget process.
DECISION
Option 1
Oppose the tax credit for post-secondary
educational expenses.
Supported by:
GE3L0 FORD VIBRAET
- 4 -
Option 2
Support the Senate provision for a tax
credit for post-secondary educational
expenses.
Supported by:
Option 3
Express support in the Conference Committee
for the principle of tax credits for college
tuition and post-secondary technical train-
ing while indicating that we believe the
specific provisions of such a credit --
amount, phase-in, floor, and qualifying
expenses -- requires further study.
Supported by:
FORD is LIBRARY GLHALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
AAL ore
August 25, 1976
Thank
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
EPB Decision Memoranda
For your information, we indicated that the Domestic Council
supported:
A.
In Regard to Extending Public Service Jobs:
Option 1, which recommended a Presidential
statement supporting an extension with new
limitations on who could be employed.
B.
In Regard to Tax Credits for Education:
Option 3, which would have us express our
support for the principle of tax credits for
education.
Thoto
& FORD
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MANPOWER POLICY
youth Employment
leuonery
Honorable James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
for
The White House
Manpower
Policy
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
Enclosed is the most recent publication of the
Eli Ginzberg
Commission, From School to Work: Improving the
Chairman
Transition. The book reflects the continued
efforts of the Commission to solicit expert
Secretary of Defense
advice from nongovernmental sectors and to
Secretary of Agriculture
contribute to the national dialogue on
Secretary of Commerce
important manpower issues.
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health, Education,
The volume is a collection of ten expert policy
and Welfare
papers and one staff report on issues related to
Administrator of Veterans Affairs
youth transition and employment problems. These
Timothy A. Barrow
papers describe the labor market experiences of
Rudolph A. Cervantes
noncollege youth; assess the competencies of
Dorothy Ford
youth to locate, obtain, and perform adult-type
John V. N. Klein
work; review the youth hiring practices of three
Juanita Kreps
large corporations; and examine the impact of
John H. Lyons
training and employment programs for youth. They
William G. Milliken
also report on community efforts to link education
John W. Porter
and work, informational and counselor needs in
Milton L. Rock
the transition process, the potential impact of
Leon H. Sullivan
apprenticeship programs, problems faced by rural
youth, and foreign policy initiatives dealing with
Robert T. Hall
transitional problems.
Director
The Commission is pleased to make available this
volume which is an important part of its work in
examining critical manpower issues and in developing
recommendations for national manpower policy.
Sincerely,
Director
Enclosure
FORD LIBRARY
1522 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(202) 724-1545
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
Imp Labor cogment-
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1976
Dear Harold:
President Ford has asked me to thank you
for your letter of July 23, representing
the Fifth Annual Report of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council.
He appreciates your courtesy in making the
information available to him.
Sincerely,
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The Honorable Harold R. Tyler, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General and
Chairman of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Coordinating Council
Washington, D. C. 20530
FORD i LIBRARY OF
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
SEQUITY
JUSTITIA
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Rever
Dear Mr. President:
This letter represents the Fifth Annual
Report of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Coordination Council in accordance with Sec. 715
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, which requires an annual report from the
Council to the President and the Congress concern-
ing Council activities.
The statute creating the Equal Employment
Opportunity Coordinating Council designated as
members the Secretary of Labor, the Chairman of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Attorney General, the Chairman of the U.S. Civil
Service Commission, and the Chairman of U.S. Com-
mission on Civil Rights, or their respective
delegates.
The Council was assigned responsibility
by the Congress for:
"
developing and implementing
agreements, policies and practices
designed to maximize effort, promote
efficiency, and eliminate conflict,
competition, duplication and incon-
sistency among the operations, func-
tions and jurisdictions of the various
FORD is LIBRANY
- 2 -
departments, agencies and branches
of the Federal government responsible
for the implementation and enforce-
ment of equal employment opportunity
legislation, orders, and policies. "
1. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
The Council continued to treat as a matter of
high priority the development and publication of
uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures.
As indicated in our last annual report, based on
comments received both orally and in writing the
Council had instructed the staff to prepare a new
draft of uniform guidelines which would deal with
the issues raised by state and local governments,
private industry and other commentators.
A draft "Staff Committee Proposal, Sept. 24,
1975, " for Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures was agreed upon by the designated re-
presentatives on the Staff Committee of the four
agencies having operational responsibility -- the
Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opport-
unity Commission, the Civil Service Commission,
and the Department of Justice -- for purposes of
internal agency review, Council consideration, and
for circularization for analysis and comment.
A majority of the Council believed that the
Staff Committee Proposal, Sept. 24, 1975, should
be widely circulated for comment, pursuant to the
procedures set forth in OMB Circular A-85.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
received the Staff Committee Proposal, and determined
that it did not represent the position of that
agency, and for that reason opposed circulating the
Staff Committee Proposal for prepublication comment
pursuant to the A-85 procedure.
FORD
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 136-WEDNESDAY. JULY 14, 1976
- 3 -
The Staff Committe Proposal, September 24,
1975 was accordingly circulated for prepublication
comment pursuant to the A-85 procedure. Substantial
additional comments were received, and modifications
of the proposal were made.
Subsequently, a majority of the Coordinating
Council determined that the proposed guidelines
should be published for comment as a step toward
achievement of the goal of uniform guidelines on
employee selection procedures.
Because one of the roles of the Civil Rights
Commission is to analyze critically the efforts
of Federal agencies in the enforcement of civil
rights law, the Coordinating Council did not seek
or receive the concurrence of that agency in the
decisions to circulate and publish the proposed
guidelines.
Because a majority of the Coordinating
Council determined to publish the guidelines in
the Federal Register for comment, they were so
published on July 14, 1976. 41 Fed. Reg. 29016.
A copy of the proposed guidelines is attached
to this report. Comments on the draft are due
within 45 days of the date of publication. The
Coordinating Council will take final action with
respect to the proposed guidelines after the com-
ments have been received.
2. Alleged Discrimination on the Grounds
of Sex in Retirement Benefits.
As indicated in our Fourth Annual Report,
the Coordinating Council had determined in May,
1975 to consider the issue of different obliga-
tions imposed on employers regarding sex discri-
mination in retirement and other fringe benefits.
The difference concerns whether an employer must
provide equal periodic benefits to employees re-
gardless of their sex, or whether the employer
can choose between providing equal periodic
4
benefits or making equal contributions to the plan.
There is agreement that any employee contributions
to retirement plans must be made without regard to
sex. You had to consider this issue together
with your approval of the Title IX guidelines; and
you directed the Council to develop a uniform
federal position and to report to you no later than
October 15, 1975.
After analyzing the problem the Coordinating
Council determined that the data previously developed
were insufficient to provide a basis for a uniform
government position. Accordingly, the Coordinating
Council requested that our reporting time be extended
to April 15, 1976, and you granted the extension.
In the intervening months, substantial
actuarial information was obtained and analyzed
and the Coordinating Council met several times on
the issue and submitted to you on April 15, 1976,
recommendations on the development of a government
position on this issue.
3. Affirmative Action
A number of officials of state and local
government have written either to the Coordinating
Council or to individual members thereof bringing
to our attention situations alleging possible
conflict between the positions of different federal
agencies on the extent of required and/or permissible
affirmative action voluntarily to eliminate employ-
ment discrimination on the part of employers.
The Coordinating Council has been working
toward the development of a uniform federal position
on this issue.
FORD
Respectfully submitted,
GERALD R.
Charle
Harold R. Tyler, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General and
Chairman of the Equal Employment
Coordinating Council
Michael H. Moskow
Under Secretary of Labor
Ethel Bent Walsh
Acting Chairman, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Robert Robert E. Hampton Hampton
Chairman, Civil Service
Commission
Arthur S. Flemming
Chairman, Commission on Civil
Rights
FORD LIBRANT & 07V838 9778
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
Jim-
I have Not prepared
an into memo to the President
because I don't think one
is necessary. There's really
Nothing to report. However,
if you disagree, let me
know al I'll get a memo
together.
R. FORD
Dick