'y 4 /4*-3

. L /42_

N 12.151

9,74,I pt NOMINATION

GovERNmEN-qA/1 EN TS

Storage

PR 28 1916

KANSAS E

IkRY

VERSITYHEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

)R AND PUBLIC WELFARE

NITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

W. J. USERY, JR., OF GEORGIA, TO BE SECRETARY OF

LABOR

JANUARY 28, 1976

Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

•

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1976
•

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS,

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri

ALAN CRANSTON, California

WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine

JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire

DONALD ELISBURO, General Counsel

MARJORIE M. WHITTAKER, Chief Clerk

JAY B. CUTLER, Minority COUn8Ot

Ja., New Jersey, Chairman

jACOB K. JAVITS, New York

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania

ROBERT TAFT, JR., Ohio

J. GLENN BEALL, JR., Maryland

ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada
NOMINATION

WEDNESDAY, SANITARY 28, 1976

COMMITTEE ON

The committee met, pursuant

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

chairman, presiding.

Present: Senators Williams,

Laxalt.

Committee staff present: Donald Elisburg, general counsel; and

Don A. Zimmerman, minority labor counsel.

Opening Statement of Senator Williams

The CHAIRMAN. A meeting of the Senate Committee on Labor and

Public Welfare will come to order.

This morning, the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is meeting to hear testimony on the nomination of W. J. Usery, Jr., to be

Secretary of Labor. If confirmed by the Senate, he would be the 15th

person to hold this important position—the third in the last 20 months.

Mr. Usery comes before the committee as a renowned and respected

member of the administration. He is a Special Assistant to the President for labor-management concerns, but he is better known as the

Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In recent

years, his success in mediating many difficult labor disputes has made

his name virtually a household word, and his performance in this

position has been outstanding.

In the past, his distinguished career has encompassed leadership

in the labor movement, as well as government service—with the Missile Site Labor Commission and as Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Labor-Management Relations, to name two. Mr. Usery, a copy of

your complete biographical sketch will be placed in the record of

these hearings.

[The duties of the Secretary and the biographical sketch referred

to follows:]

U.S. SENATE,

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in room 4232,

Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr.,

Randolph, Javits, Schweiker, and

[Excerpt from the Government Organization Manual]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

SECRETARY.—The Secretary is the head of the Department of Labor and the

principal adviser to the President on the development and execution of policies

and the administration and enforcement of laws relating to wage earners, their

working conditions, and their employment opportunities.

(1)
2

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH, W. J. USER, JR., DIRECTOR, FEDERAL MEDIATION AND

CONCILIATION SERVICE

W. J. (Bill) Usery, Jr., was nominated by President Nixon as Director of

the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service on February 15, 1973. On March

14, 1973, the Senate unanimously confirmed the nomination and Mr. Usery took

office March 29, 1973.

President Ford appointed Mr. Usery on April 17, 1975, as his Special Assistant

for Labor-Management Negotiations. As Special Assistant, he coordinates the

Government's mediation and other labor-management relations activities involving the public and private sectors of the economy, including airlines and railroads, and Federal, State and local governments.

As Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, he is in charge

of the agency's activities in providing mediation assistance to labor and management in the resolution of disputes.

He directs activities authorized under Title II of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1974, which gives to FMCS the responsibility of preventing and

minimizing interruptions of the free flow of commerce growing out of labormanagement disputes and of assisting the parties in the settlement of disputes

through the use of mediation and conciliation. The FMCS is also responsible

for carrying out portions of Executive Order 11491, as amended, relating to the

resolution of collective bargaining disputes in the Federal service.

Mr. Usery served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management

Relations from February 1969 until he became Director of the FMCS in 1973

and he has served as a member of the National Commission for Industrial Peace

and as a member of the Collective Bargaining Committee in Construction. He is

chairman of the Working Party on Industrial Relations under the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

From 1956 to 1969, Mr. Usery was Grand Lodge Representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (TAM). AFL—CIO,

and participated in most of the national labor-management negotiations in the

areospace industry, frequently serving as chairman of the union's negotiating

committee.

From 1961 to 1967, he was the industrial union representative on the President's

Missile Sites Labor Committee at the Kennedy Space Center and at the Marshall

Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Born in Hardwick, Georgia, on December 21, 1923, Mr. Usery attended Georgia

Military College from 1938 to 1941, and Mercer University in 1948-49. He received

the Distinguished Alumni Award from Georgia Military College in 1971 for his

work in labor-management relations. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1943 to

1946 and he received the dezree of Doctor of Social Science (Honoris Causa) from

the University of Louisville in May 1975.

The CTTATTuvrAN. If confirmed. Mr. Usery will take office at one of the

most difficult times since the Department of Labor was created.

Frankly, in his new capacity he will have to draw upon all of his

great experience and call upon all of his many talents to meet the

challenge.

Events of recent weeks have widened the breach between the Congress and the Administration and ruptured relations between the

'Administration and organized labor. I, for one, will do all that I reasonably can to clear the air and repair the damage.

But reason does riot dictate that we can acquiesce in unemployment that exceeds 7 percent for the -rest of this decade. Reason

demands, instead, that we make an urgent and determined effort to

insure that jobs are provided for as many of the 9 million unemployed

as possible.

As Secretary of Labor, Mr. Usery will have unique opportunities

for formulating and advocating those policies by which the Nation

can foresee the day that full employment will be realized. He will

also be in the best position to preserve and strengthen the many Fed-
3

eral programs for improving conditions in the workplace. I have not

been entirely pleased with the Department's administration of such

programs as the Davis-Bacon Act, Employment Standards, migrant

workers, occupational safety and health, pension protection, and Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's compensation.

With Secretary Dunlop, we made headway toward improving the

administration of these programs and the enforcement of the national

policies they embody. The process of revitalizing these basic workerprotection programs must continue—with adequate funds and with a

determination to carry out the mandates of the law fully and justly.

You will have our support and assistance in these endeavors, Mr.

Usery, because they are important endeavors in difficult times and

because we know how vital it is to the Department and to the American

people that we find common ground and join together in making it

bear fruit.

We will turn immediately to Senator Randolph who is due to chair

another meeting at this time.

Senator RANDOLPII. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, with the

understanding that this statement, or perhaps even the addition of

a quick colloquy, would follow your formal statement, which certainly

should precede whatever I might say or whatever we might discuss.

I do thank you for accommodating me because of the fact that the

other committee, which I must chair, is scheduled at this time.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege for many, many years to know W. J. Usery—and we say Bill Usery, Jr.

In his service in the Federal Government he has been without doubt,

at least in modern times, a most persuasive individual who has brought his expertise, his knowledge, his understanding, his fairness, and even'

at times his compassion into those conferences between labor and management. His diligence in these matters, of course, is recognized and generally applauded by those who know the difficult problems with which he has been associated in our Federal Mediation and Concilia- tion Service.

I have wondered at the vigor with which he has approached these tasks because, very frankly, in the conferences in which he has been the peacemaker, in a sense, which is a difficult role, the hours involved

were 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, and 6 and continuing often, not only during the day, but far into the night and into the early morning. This is just by way of indicating the personal and official esteem which I have for Bill Usery.

I will, Mr. Chairman, with your consent, involve myself in other expressions of this formal statement which will come following your statement.

One question, Mr, Usery.

You will be, in a sense, looking beyond the problems that you have had between management and labor in the private sector. By the very duties that you will assume, you will be moving into the public sector

as well.

This question which I ask you I asked of Secretary Dunlop, and I

have asked it of all of those who come and hold positions of this type

or others in our Federal structure.

Do you believe that public employees have the right to strike?
4

STATEMENT OF W. J. USERY, JR., NOMINEE FOR SECRETARY OF

LABOR

Mr. USERY. Senator, first may I say I very much appreciate your

very generous and kind words to me.

In my opening speech, I speak briefly to public sector bargaining.

Public sector bargaining has been the fastest growing area of collective

bargaining in the country in the past 2 years. In fact, the unions have

grown enormously in this area. I have stood very strongly for trying

to find ways to promote collective bargaining in the public sector and

to avoid the strike.

I have never advocated the strike in public service.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is essential that we find

ways to redress grievance. I have participated in a number of public

sector disputes. I think in a free society people should have the right

to withhold their services. At the same time, the public's interest in the

public sector is very serious for us and a matter of great concern to

me as to how we work it out.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject and I think

it is a subject that deserves consideration very soon as how we allow

and how we promote free collective bargaining in our public sector. I

include in this the Federal sector, Senator, because it has been so fast

growing.

Certainly, as I said, in a free society you have to defend the right

to strike, and at the same time you have to protect the public's interest.

We must find ways to resolve impasses in negotiations hopefully

without having to resort to strike. It is very hard to try to accomplish

that.

Senator RANDOLPH. You said "hopefully" without resorting to the

strike.

That brinfrs me back to the very point of the question.

Do you believe public employees have the right to strike?

Mr. USERY. I never advocated that right, Senator, since I have been

in the public sector. I have never advocated that at all. I have tried to

not only fully appreciate and understand the public sector bargaining,

but also the essential services in the private sector, such as transportation, and our essential defense efforts. I have constantly said we should

find ways to settle disputes in the public sector without having to resort

to the strike.

Out of the 50 States, there are 38 States that have some legislation in

this field. Twelve States have no legislation whatsoever. Seven States

have granted some form of the right to strike.

I think again this is another reason why it is a serious subject that

we must be very concerned about as we see the legislation grow in the

various States.

We have had recently as you know, a very serious teachers' strike

in Pittsburgh where that State has a limited right to strike. We have,

and I have observed, Senator had problems where people have been

arrested—I have tried to bargain with people who were in jail after

injunction. I think I fully appreciate and understand all the problems

there.

But we must find a way for people to have redress to their problems and hopefully without having to resort to the strike.
5

Senator RANDOLPH. You come back to that "hopefully" again, having the strike as a weapon. I have no desire to go further. I think

this is a well-reasoned statement of the Secretary-to-be.

I believe in collective bargaining by public employees. I have advocated it over and over again, so I do not want to be misunderstood on

that course. I want to proceed in every way.

I think Mr. Usery's challenge to us to try to bring forth some modus

operandi by which bargaining with public employees, including Federal employees, can be handled without, as you say, hopefully a strike,

such as we have had in Pittsburgh with almost 9 weeks of no operation of the school system.

These are matters of concern.

I again commend you, Mr. Usery, for the well-reasoned approaches

that you have constantly made during your career in the settlement of

disputes. I have not pressed the point unduly here today, but I think

it simply points out the need for us to arrive at some methodology by

which these strikes within the public framework of employment and

the Federal structure will not be able to erupt, we will say, into an

actual strike itself.

Mr. USERY. Mr. Senator, I would add this.

I certainly concur with you. I would like to make one other point

though that even in places where the strike is illegal in the State,

there have been strikes. And just to say that strikes are illegal and

finding no other course for the resolution of impasses is not satisfactory. So that is why I say we must do everything we can to find

ways of resolving impasses and coming to agreements without having

to resort to the strike.

Senator RANDOLPH. I completely agree with what you are saying.

Mr. USERY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to turn for any other opening statements here from our other members, Senator Javits and Senator

Schweiker.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Usery, we are very, very pleased with your nomination. As ranking member, I would like to join the chairman, in our pledge of cooperation. I hope you will feel as a Government servant that we are

not just critics. We can be great advocates and friends and strong

proponents of what you believe in if you are persuasive. I hope you

will take the time to try to persuade us.

There is a very fine line to your loyalty to the President and your

duties to the country through the Congress. We understand that. I

know of few men who could tread it as wisely as you.

I will be asking you, when the time for questions arrives, about how

you are going to wear two hats; Assistant to the President in labor

matters, Special Assistant to the President, and the other as Secretary

of Labor. It involves a lot of things because we have had the same

questions with Secretary Kissinger, and they have not been finally

resolved. I hope they will be in your case.

You will be administering laws where you have the mandate of the

country. You have to compare that with the mandate of the President.

You are a man of innovative ideas—so was John Dunlop. That is

why we liked him so much. We want the benefit of those ideas un-
6

screened by the Budget Director or even the President. You owe it to

us to give us your best expertise.

Similarly, we also hope the Federal Mediation Service will remain

an independent agency and not an agency ordered to carry out the

President's policy.

I have cast you on a bed of nails, I realize that. But the time to tell

you is before rather than after you are sworn in.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take any more time except to hope that

when the question period comes that Mr. Usery address himself to

those points.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schweiker.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say that I think the President made an outstanding selection, Mr. Secretary-designate, for this position. I think you come

with exceedingly high qualifications and are probably one of the few

people who can meet the rather serious situation in which the new

Secretary finds himself, in view of Mr. Dunlop's retirement.

I think you are the one person who could meet the criteria of all the

parties, maintain your credibility, and do a good job. I think that is

a tribute to you and your background, so I am very pleased to see

President Ford's selection of you for this post.

One of the areas I would like to question, when it gets around to

questioning, is the new mechanisms for solving some of our labor

problems in the collective bargaining area. I will not get specific right

now, but I would just like to touch on that a little bit when it gets

around to questions.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, for now.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Laxalt.

Senator LAXALT. I do not have anything at the moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Nunn regrets he cannot be here. He did

write a letter of strong endorsement.

We will include that in the record at this point, Mr. Usery.

[The letter referred to follows:]
7

JOHN C. STCNNIS. MISS.. CHAIRMAN

MVAMSVMNGTO,MD.

INENRY M. JACKSON. WASH.

NOWA.* W. cam... Nev.

THOMAS J. NC INTTRII.

IHARRY F. aro.. JR.. VA.

ISAM HUN, GA.

0014. C. C.I,VC14. IOWA

WARY coLo.

!PATRICK J. LEAH, VT.

STROM THURMOND, S.C.

JOHN TOWZR. TEX.

PARRY GOLDWATER. ARIZ.

WILLIAt I L. SCOTT. VA

POSEN1 TA,. JR., OHIO

DEWEY T. DARTLCIT.

Ito Emma. liPASWELL. JR., v.v.cannel. ANN STAFF Dingcre•

?Anita) Zfateo Zenate

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

January 27, 1976

Honorable Harrison Williams,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare)

4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. W. J. Usery, Jr.,

President Ford's nominee for the position of Secretary

of Labor, to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

I sincerely regret that a longstanding commitment prevents%

me from appearing in person this morning; however, I do

want to express my support for the nomination of this

distinguished Georgian.

Mr. Usery possesses the qualifications and background

which indicate that he will serve with distinction in

this important cabinet post. Prior to his assuming the

directorship of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service he served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Labor - Management Relations for a period of four years.

I believe that Mr. Usery's career of experience in

the labor - management relations field will enable him

to ably serve the President and the Nation as Secretary

of Labor. I apologize that I could not be with you this

morning and I hope that the Committee will move expeditiouSly

to confirm this nomination.

Sam Nunn
8

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. T-sery we would like to hear from you.

Mr. USERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a statement. But

I would like to thank Senator ,Tavits and Senator Schweiker for their

comments. I would be glad, after finishing my statement, to discuss

it further.

Before reading my statement, Mr. Chairman, if I may say this—

and I say it quite frequently—I think that no one is more concerned

about the welfare of this Nation than I am or has a firmer belief

in our system than I have.

We have a great Nation, and I welcome the opportunity now to serve

it in this role. I assure this committee that I will work with you as

close as I possibly can as I have tried to do in the past 7 years. And I

do appreciate the cooperation of the Senate Labor Committee and you,

Mr. Chairman, and Senator Javits, the ranking member. And I look

forward to it in the future.

I have an opening statement. Mr. Chairman. It is about 8 minutes.

With your permission, I would like to read it.

It comes after I have spent considerable time thinking about the

job myself, and I use the word "job" because it is a tough job this year.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. USERY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear

before you today as the President's nominee to become the 15th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor. I consider this occasion to be

the highest honor that I have ever achieved. At the same time, I recognize that I face great new challenges and tremendous responsibilities.

If confirmed by the Senate. I pledge that I will do my very best

to carry out the mission of the Department of Labor, which is "to

foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the

United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance

their opportunity for profitable employment."

In appearing before you today, I am following in the footsteps of

a man I have known and admired personally and professionally for

more than 20 years; a man who has shown that he, too, is dedicated to

that same mission. I know that in the future John T. Dunlop will

continue to render an outstanding service to his country.

Because of my long association with John Dunlop and my close

working relationship as Assistant Secretary of Labor, under Secretaries George Shultz and Jim Hodgson, I feel that I understand well

the responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor.

Yet I am fully aware that the challenge is not going to be an easy

one to master. A growing concern for the economic and social wellbeing of our Nation is reflected in the expanded activities of the

Department. Even in the 7 years since I first became Assistant Secretary of Labor, many massive and complex programs have been enacted

for the benefit of the Nation and the American worker.

Still the events of the day. including our uncertain economic climate,

cause me great concern. This is particularly true in the area of

employment.

It is my intention to see that the Department continues to work in

every possible way to stimulate job creation, to help relieve the hardships of those displaced from work, to help prepare those who seek
9

employment and to help people find work. My personal knowledge of

the many hard-working, talented and devoted employees in the Department convinces me that together this will be done.

President Ford, in his State of the Union message, said, and I

quote, "Government exists to create and preserve conditions in which

people can translate their ideals into practical reality."

The President added that one test for a healthy economy is "a job

for every American who wants to work." As we know, five out of every

six jobs in America today are provided by the private sector of the

economy. It is there that the major opportunity for additional employment lies.

I realize that while we work to revive the economy to the point

where the private sector again can provide the necessary gainful employment, the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist those

who are not fortunate enough to have jobs.

A number of Federal and State programs have been implemented

to meet this need, including those of the Employment and Training

Administration.

I assure you that I will just as quickly as possible, become fully

acquainted with all of these programs. I am determined to see to it

that they meet the objectives intended by Congress when they were

adopted.

In recent years, we have accepted the fact that in assisting workers

and those who wish to work, the Department has further responsibilities. An important responsibility is to insure that the workplace is safe

and free of known health hazards. In this regard, I will make every

effort to meet the intent of Congress that is expressed in our Occupational Safety and Health Act.

I will work diligently to insure that the Federal programs of workers' compensation in the Department are administered in such a way

that workers injured on the job will receive the benefits to which they

are entitled.

I am equally committed to continuing the administrative system to

implement the Department's responsibility under the Pension Reform

Act, ERISA, to achieve the purpose outlined by the Congress. We

must see to it that wo,rkers have faith in the financial integrity of the

pension benefits they have earned.

I also recognize the importance of the many laws on the books which

deal with wage and employment standards.

Mr. Chairman, as vital as these programs are, they are only part

of the task that I see before me.

We must continue our efforts to erase discrimination in employment

as it relates to sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, and

handicap. I consider it a serious responsibility to see to it that the

Department pursues vigorously its commitment to eliminate such

injustices.

In addition, the Department must take every reasonable and responsible action required to carry out its commitment to all veterans

who have faithfully and selflessly served their Nation in the Armed

Forces.
10

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have devoted myself to resolving Jabor-management misunderstandings, which lead to disruptions of the economy and the American workplace.

During our Bicentennial year, we are facing a heavy and difficult 'schedule of collective bargaining. Nearly 900 labor-management con- tracts each affecting 1,000 or more employees will be renegotiated this year.

In the vital construction industry alone, bargaining will be con- ducted on some 3.000 contracts.

We all know that strikes cause hardships for employees, employers, communities, and, in many cases, for the entire Nation. Not infre- luently a strike in one industry will lead to unemployment among suppliers, retailers, and others who rely upon the purchases and the Payroll of the struck facility. We know, too, that a prolonged strike in a major industry carries the danger of slowing our economic

recovery.

For these reasons, I believe that everything possible must be done

in this critical year to promote the peaceful resolution of labor-management differences.

If confirmed, I will continue to serve the President as his special

assistant in these matters, in addition to my duties as Secretary of

Labor during this crucial time. This does not mean that I will be involved in any way in the day-to-day operations of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In this role. the President has asked me

to coordinate my activities with the various mediation functions of

the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have a deep and abiding faith in our system of

economic democracy. That faith extends to our system of free collective bargaining. I believe that it is essential to support and defend the

collective barrraining process, recognizing the legal right of workers

to withhold their labor but, at the same time, working tirelessly to

avr,id conflict and to promote labor-management peace.

In this general area, and of serious concern to me, are the problems

that have come with the fairly recent emergence of thousands of

bargaining units among public sector employees at the State, local, as

well as the Federal level. I am convinced that we must increase our

search for methods that will allow the collective bargaining process

to best serve the cause of peace and reason, and avoid strikes against

vital Government services.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I a npreciate having

had this opportunity to express some of my views. While I am not yet

fully versed in all the details of the Department's many programs and pending legislation. I will do my best to respond to your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Usery.

Senator Javits does want to raise a question on the positions you

will hold and other responsibilities

'

as special assistant to the President, and this will have to be further developed as we go along.

To begin with, I would like to get your attitude on some of the

things that our committee has discovered and very troublesome findings they are.

For example, the Davis-Bacon Act, one of the basic programs designed to protect the standards and conditions of working people

through Government contract. We have seen and I have seen, par-
11

ticularly in hearings in the State of New Jersey, that there seem to be widespread violations in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. I am just wondering, I have raised this with you informally, and I

just wonder how we can have greater vigilance in making sure that the provisions of Davis-Bacon Act are complied with?

Mr. USERY. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that there were serious com- plaints in certain areas about the administration of Davis-Bacon Act. L

have heard this in collective bargaining meetings I have attended. Only recently, as you stated, you and I discussed it briefly. I know that the contracting agencies themselves, and the procurement officers, have a responsibility there. The problem is probably caused by their giving higher priority to their procurement mission than to DavisBacon compliance. I can assure you that I not only recognize your con- cern, but I recognize the seriousness, and I will do my very best to look into it and see what can be done about it after I get to the Department. Going back many years of my life before I came into the Govern- ment, I was in and around and involved in the work of Davis-Bacon and the administration of that act. I think I am fully aware of the purpose of the act. Certainly during the time when there .are fewer jobs in construction, we must do our very best in this area. I assure you I will look into this as soon as I get into the Depart- ment.

I am not completely versed on what has been taking place there recently. I understand they are working to improve it at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will want to follow this with you and see what progress you make. I would like to see in this area where work- ing conditions are concerned the same kind of vigilance the Govern- ment applies to contracting in other areas.

In other areas I have observed, too, contracts can be put out to bid and the lowest bidder, all things being equal, gets the bid, gets the job. Notwithstanding that, they do not go behind to see whether even then it is a reasonable price. We have seen in this area where labor costs is a

big factor in the contract, that there is only one way that price could be put into the bid, and that is if they were paying substandard wages. under Davis-Bacon Act. A red flag should go up immediately, and it should be looked at.

Some of these seem obvious to me that there is a violation. Others,, perhaps, are more subtle. But it is most essential, and particularly

now in a recession period when all the pressures are affecting the standards of the working people. We will want to be in communication

on this and other matters.

I appreciate your statement where you ran the list of programs that we work on here, some that were created more recently here, pen- sion programs and others. Your statement certainly was responsive to the whole range of our concern.

We have been through a rather traumatic period as everybody knows in dealing with construction labor and with the veto of the situs picket- ing legislation that had as the companion measure the Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Act. We are now without the benefit of that provision in dealing in what we thought would be an intelligent

way with the fragmented bargaining situation in construction.
12

You mention in your statement that there are 3,000 contracts coming

'I) vet this year in construction.

SI r. USERY. Yes, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wonder what can be done without the law

that we hoped we would have to aid this fragmented system of collective bargaining now that we do not have a structured new method in

law?

Mr. USERY. Mr. Chairman, since the veto of the common situs picketing bill, and the events of the recent few weeks, I have not had an opportunity to sit down with either the contractors or the unions to talk

this through to see what can be done.

I have spent 7 years with various people, and Secretary Dunlop has

contributed many of the ideas, to try to find answers to serious problems in the construction industry, the fragmentation of bargaining in

the industry and the problems that it has caused. I, too, had looked

forward to title II of the act, a point of trying to have a way to better

promote understanding and bring about better collective bargaining in

the construction industry.

I have some views and thoughts about how we might proceed. I think

I should sit and maybe talk with the unions and talk with the contractors and see how we might bring it together. I would like to think,

Mr. Chairman, there is a genuine desire on the part of the organized

labor leaders and the industry to find some answers to the serious problems of how to negotiate a construction industry.

The CHAIRMAN. The problem has been compounded, I would

imagine, because of the exodus from the Labor-Management Collective

Bargaining Committee. I gather all the labor members, following the

action of the President—well, I do not know if they formally resiomed—but what was the reasoning, the nature of labors withdrawal?

USERY. For the past 7 years we had a series of different committees meet in construction. The latest one, I thought, was becoming the

most effective one to seek to promote better understanding between

labor and management, and also how to get at the serious problems of

negotiation. We have had some very good meetings and, unfortunately,

as you have said, recently the labor members walked off the Committee

as a result of recent events, and it now leaves us with no forum to bring

the parties back together. I would hope very much to try to develop

some forum that we can get them back together.

On the date they left, Mr. Georgine, speaking for the building trades,

in his statement he said it is a sad day to have to walk off the Committee where we all know we need a basis to work not only for the interest

of their needs themselves, but the needs of the Nation.

I am very hopeful we can find some way to get back together soon.

I would like to think that there is a desire on the part of both labor and

management to find a way to work out some of these problems. There

are serious concerns by the union leaders themselves in this area and

how they might get a better handle or hold and foster -What I would

like to think is good, true collective bargaining in the construction

industry.

The CHAIRMAN. This had the formality of a committee that was

named or created by Executive order; am I right?

Mr. USERY. That is right.
13

The CHAIRMAN. It was not an informal grouping. It was formalized

by Executive order?

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Executive order has not been rescinded, so it

is there. It just has some absent members; is that right?

Mr. USERY. That is right. Absent the labor members. We have not

had a meeting or even tried to have a meeting—it would be useless to

try to have a meeting to foster and promote understanding between

labor and management without the labor members being there.

I have not had any knowledge myself or any conversation with the

leaders. I will, if confirmed by the Senate, very quickly try to ascertain

how we might proceed. -With their resignation from this committee, I

do not expect them to come back and serve on that committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Certainly you come to this nomination and

position with the highest respect of leaders of labor as well as those

who have positions of responsibility on the management side.

If anybody can put something constructive together, I would suggest

that you can, as we also felt John Dunlop could. I will take a break

now in the questioning and come back to a few other questions later.

Senator Schweiker.

Senator SCHWEIHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Usery, do you have any thoughts or ideas as to what we might

be doing in the collective-bargaining area to improve the process?

Now, granted the situation the chairman talked about with Secretary

Dunlop and the building trades thing is down the drain. I am not referring to that segment per se. However, is there any other area of

legislative interest that either this committee or you as Secretary of

Labor might focus on to solve some of these tougher problems before

they occur? You have an excellent background in mediation. You have

the ability to do this at the bargaining table.

I am wondering if there is any possibility of any legislative innovation, or further refinement of the processes we have, that maybe we

ought to be thinking about as a committee or that you have in mind. I

realize it is a pretty broad question and it may not be fair to ask you

without a great deal of thought. I thought I would at least try it out

on you this morning.

Mr. USERY. Senator Schweiker, I do not think that I have any

thoughts I would pursue here this morning. I have spent considerable

time over the years-32 years—in one fashion or the other, I have spent

in labor-management relations. I appreciate what Senator Williams

said.

I would like to think I have a lot of friends in labor and management that would try to work together constructively to bring about

not only better understanding for the promotion of industrial peace,

but also stability for the whole area. I appreciate the offer there, and

may I assure you that I will be talking with you on the committee, yourself and others, about how we might foster something.

But at this moment I do not have any definite plans to lay forth as

to how we should proceed. I think if you consider our collective-bargaining process against other nations of the world, it has been my

privilege to serve on industrial relations committee that meets in Paris

each year for 23 nations to try to better understand their industrial
14

relations. After studying all of theirs we are very fortunate in this

country. At the same time, we must continue to work at it and must

continue to seek better ways to make the process work.

, I think there are a number of areas we should seriously look at in

the not too distant future in the whole area, how to foster and promote

our free collective-bargaining process.

Senator SCHWEIKER. One thing I sense, and I am sure you know this

better than I do, is that in recent years a real desire has developed on

the part of those who are close to the labor scene as well as those close

to the management scene to try to make the system work better. The

attitude and desire is there, but we lack the mechanism and focus.

I believe the Dunlop bill per se is a focus on one segment of the area.

I see across the board there is a desire here—both the side of labor and

management, to do this, with nobody quite knowing where and how to

focus or proceed. And I think if we could come up with some innovative ideas it would be a very receptive field. You would know that

better than I.

I think that is the challenge to this committee and our system and

to our local collective bargaining way of life. So I think it really is

worthy of support by this committee.

In the other areas, one of the areas, I guess where you have done a

lot, and you did mention it in your opening statement, pension reform.

I realize it is probably a little bit early to ask you for too much on that,

because you have not been on that particular side of it in terms of your

recent work. However I do feel that, at some appropriate time we

would like to sit down and go over with you how the new act is doing

and what some of your views are on it, and also what we might be

looking at here.

Senator Javits and Senator Williams, in particular, are very sensitive to this area. I am sure I express their interest, too. But I think this

is something we ought to take a hard look at it, at a later date, when

you are well into your job.

Mr. USERY. I would just comment, Senator, I had some meetings with

Mr. Hutchinson, who is the Administrator of Pension and Welfare

Benefit Programs, because I was looking forward, prior to the confirmation, as to how the whole area of ERISA would affect collective

bargaining this year.

I have been tremendously impressed with Mr. Hutchinson, and I

will certainly, just as soon as I can, sit down and become better acquainted with him and the program and how we best can make it

work, when we think about upwards around $200 billion in private

pension plan and all of the various plans that we have in the country.

The Department of Labor, as you know, is primarily responsible for

reporting and disclosing fiduciary responsibility, sharing in part with

IRS the plan participation and, of course, IRS has the funding and

vesting. Then there is the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. It

is complex. I think it is a great piece of legislation. I hope we can have

time to really take a good look at it to see how it can work before we

venture to any amendments or any changes to it at this time.

I think as soon as we can get started, it is going to be a great piece

of legislation. I believe we are very fortunate to have Mr. Hutchinson

run it at this time. I recognize in a new program there are lots of questions and a lot of misunderstanding. I know that the Department had
15

over 600, I think, meetings and seminars last year to try to help

educate and get people to understand.

I will make every effort I can to step up what I call the understanding process with the clientele out there as to how they might meet

the requirements of ERISA. I think we also have responsibility to

try to minimize the burden as much as we can on the business community and still accomplish what the Congress intended, that is to

protect the integrity of the pension plans and the funds in the pension

plans.

Senator SCHWEIKER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Laxalt.

Senator LAXALT. First of all, as I indicated, I enjoyed our discussion yesterday.

Mr. USERY. Thank you, sir.

Senator LAXALT. I would like to pursue some of the subjects we discussed yesterday so your views can be placed on the record.

In the last few months we have had extended discussions concerning situs picketing. It has been highly controversial and, of course,

finally resulted in a veto on the part of the President.

For the benefit of those of us who are vitally interested in your

philosophy concerning situs picketing, may we have the benefit of

your views?

Mr. USERY. Senator, as I stated to you yesterday, and may I sayalso I enjoyed very much our discussion yesterday, I supported common situs picketing. I supported both title I and title II, even though

in my work as Director of the Service, I was more interested in

title II.

I regret that the American people, I think, generally did not fully

appreciate or understand the substantive issue. It is a highly emotional

issue; it has been around for 25 or 30 years. I was not deeply involved

in its planning before, but when it came time, I did support it for a

number of reasons.

I would think that matter is behind us now. It has been vetoed, and

I look forward to trying to bring together the organizations and

management under some other way to foster and promote collective bargaining in the construction industry. I do not see that matter

certainly from my point of view and from the viewpoint of the ad- ministration

'

coming back.

What the future might hold, I do not know. I think there is, as you and I discussed yesterday, a lot of emotions, a lot of misunderstand- ing. I thought there were a number of safeguards—enough safe- guards in the act that it could have been effective. But you are correct, there are a lot of people who feel that this legislation should

not be enacted.

Senator LAXALT. Has your position changed any in light of the debates?

Mr. USERY. Pardon me?

Senator LAXALT. In the event common situs should be revised here in Congress, in view of the great controversy generated in a Presiden- tial veto would you still support it?

Mr. IlsERy. I could not visualize myself, in light of recent events, taking a position in this area that would get us right back to where

we are.

68-812-76
16

I would hope so, as I said, to go on with the work that we have to do.

As I have told many of my friends in the labor movement, you did

not have it before, you do not have it now, so we must get on with the

job we have to do to try to make the present system work.

I do not visualize in any way where I will be coming back before this

committee or any other committee with a common situs bill. Certainly

not in this Congress this year. No one knows what the future will be.

Senator LAXALT. Am I to understand then that if this type of legislation should be introduced independently of the administration or

of organized labor that you would, in your position as Secretary,

you would support it?

Mr. USERY. I have stated that I supported in the past but again,

Senator, serving for the President in this high office, the President has

vetoed this legislation. I do not see my coming before this committee

working for this legislation in light of the past events. I think the

position has been made known, and I would not see myself in that

posture at all.

Senator LAXALT. I wanted to tie that down for the record.

Beyond that, getting to the fundamentals of philosophy of the legislation, what is your philosophy concerning the imposition of secondary boycott in the construction industry?

Mr. USERY. I think, Senator, that we have a good set of basic laws

interpreted both by the National Labor Relations Board and by the

courts as it deals with secondary boycott. Certainly when you start

talking about this particular area, you have to go more to instances

that you might be talking about.

I have always felt that you have no real right to be seeking to get a

secondary person involved for the primary objective you are trying to

achieve, whatever it is.

If you are trying to achieve something, it is the primary person you

are trying to achieve it with, and you must be careful not to hurt a secondary person.

Senator LAXALT. Would you agree with the manner with which the

Board has approached the problem philosophically: that it resists the

imposition of the secondary 'boycott ?-

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

Senator LAXALT. There has been a good deal of discussion concerning

a speech that was made by you to the Federal employees in Salt Lake

City in May of last year concerning the rights of Federal workers in

relation to collective bargaining, and more particularly the right to

strike.

I have a text of that particular speech before me here, but I would

like to have you summarize in your own words what you intended to

convey to those Federal employees through that speech at that time.

Mr. USERY. I might say, smilingly, I probably got more attention out

of my Salt Lake speech than I have anything else that I have performed in Government in 7 years.

I guess, looking back, I do not know why I chose Salt Lake City

anyway.

Senator LAXALT. Neither does Senator Garn.

Mr. USERY. I was invited to address the statewide meeting of AFGE.

It was Federal employees for the most part.
17

I spent considerable time, I might say, on this speech'. After I made

the speech, and I will come back to it, I believe it was Thursday

night or Friday night in Salt Lake City, it was picked up in a local

paper here on Tuesday of the following week, I think it was, in part

by a Federal writer here and, unfortunately for me, that day there

were no other good lines, so "Ford Aide Calls for Legislation."

I did not only upset some people in Congress, I upset some people in

the White House and elsewhere, that they did not know what I was

calling for.

My speech in Salt Lake City, Senator—I hope you read it fully in

its entirety—I stand fully on the text but I might add, in making it, I

added to it and modified some.

In that speech I said we, as Federal employees, have the greatest employer in the world, the American people.

I was concerned about how are we doing to foster and promote collective bargaining with two and a half million people that worked with

the Federal Government and delivered the goods, so to speak, for the

215 million Americans.

When I came into Government in 1969, I was appointed on a task

force to look at the Executive order that had been signed in 1962 by

the late President Kennedy. There was a lot of debate about this in

President Johnson's administration.

Later in 1970, I believe it was, our task force reported—well, the

President signed a new Executive order. Subsequently, that Executive

order was modified by another Executive order. And then, subsequently, when President Ford came in, it was modified again.

My whole point is that we have come to the point in the Federal

sector bargaining where more than 68 percent of the people belong to

unions. I would not recommend to the President again to modify an

Executive order. I do not think that we should venture any further into

an Executive order. It is a matter that needs to be discussed, debated,

and I think at the proper time Congress must look at how we handle

the whole area of collective bargaining with Federal employees.

Now, I have never called for a strike by Federal employees. I have

never, as I said earlier, advocated as such, a strike by public employees,

and certainly by Federal employees.

I believe in a free society, and you have to constantly protect the

right of people to withhold their services. As I talked to you yesterday, certainly I did not call for any right to strike and still do not. I

think our whole Federal sector labor-management relations has grown,

as unions have grown, and unions have become stronger and we must

be sure that we allow the flexibility of the bargaining process to work

at the same time we protect the interest of the employer which, in this

case, is the American people.

That is what my speech was seeking to get across at that time in

that day.

I did speak in part to what I called a crazy quilt of laws growing up

in the States. To me, as a southern boy, a quilt is different colors all

over and can be sometimes very beautiful. When you have a nation

such as ours, as I said, with 38 States with some legislation from full

comprehensive laws to just an Executive order, 12 States having .no

legislation, seven States giving the limited right to strike, in different
18

forms, that makes the administration of our labor relations in this

country more complex, more difficult, and very difficult to work, because these unions—the unions themselves have members in many,

many States.

So I was seeking, Senator, to do two things. One, to try to set forth

some views. Second, to fret people to start to think about what we

should do in this area. And just this past week, the Chairman of the

Civil Service Commission almost covered some of the same points that

I covered in the same area as I did as it related to the Executive order

and the other things.

I certainly feel very strongly, one, about collective bargaining but,

at the same time, finding the procedures in which it can function and

which it can work, and work effectively, both for the organization

but more especially to try to protect the interest in this case of the

American people who are paying us to work for them every day.

Senator JAvrrs. Would the Senator mind if we put the speech in

the record ?

Senator LAXALT. I think we should.

Senator JAvrrs. I ask unanimous consent.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

[The article referred to follows:]

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

"COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CHALLENGES IN THE FEDERAL SzaroR"

(An Address by W. J. Usery, Jr., Special Assistant to the President and Director,

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service)

Presented to: Sixth Annual Utah Federal Employees Banquet, Salt Lake

Hilton Hotel, May 16, 1975

Being asked to speak to a gathering of Federal Employees—and especially those

represented by the American Federation of Government Employees—brings

particular pleasure to me.

As a Federal employee myself, I have the comfortable feeling that I'm one of

the family.

When Bill Wade invited me to join you for the sixth annual Utah Federal

employees banquet, it rang a bell with me. For you see, I came to the Federal

Government as Assistant Secretary of Labor in February of 1969—the same year

that you held the first of these magnificent banquets.

I had a chance to reflect on those six years of service last Sunday when the

University of Louisville inflated my ego by awarding me an honorary doctorate in

social sciences.

As I received that high honor, I thought about all of the opportunities that

I have received during these half-dozen years of Federal service. Through our

Federal Government, I have been able to fulfill some life-long ambitions to promote

our system of free collective bargaining . . . to contribute to the development of

labor-management peace.

And I am both proud and humble to say "thank you" to a system and a Government that has made it possible for a boy from the small town of Milledgeville,

Georgia, to chase, and catch, his fondest dreams.

I know there are many people in this audience who share my feeling toward

our Federal Government—and who do their very best to serve their Nation as

Government employees.

Hundreds of times during the past six years I have taken a few minutes before

beginning the formal part of a speech to tell the audience how fortunate they are

to have a dedicated army of two-and-a-half million Federal employees serving

their interests.

I say such things because I believe them. And I believe them because they are

a true reflection of my own personal experience in working side-by-side with

you.
19

The response of the audiences has been gratifying to a degree that has sometimes surprised even me. That response has shown me that the American people

know that you are faithfully performing the services they expect of you.

I don't mean to imply that we have reached a state of perfection—we haven't;

or that we can't do more—we can.

Now I'll admit that there are some who contend that their government does

too much—A condition that has led to the expected outpouring of stories.

I heard one recently from a businessman—or maybe I should say businessperson—who was fussing about his obligations to the IRS, the EEOC, the FEO,

the EPA, DOT and the SBA.

The story he told takes place in biblical times:

Moses is leading his people out of Egypt with the Pharoh and his army in

hot pursuit. Suddenly, Moses finds himself cut off by the Red Sea.

He raises his eyes to heaven. "Oh, Lord," he says, "Help thy people pass this

great barrier."

A voice answers from the heavens. But it isn't the thundering voice of authority Moses knows so well. In a rather mild way, the voice said:

"Er, ah, Moses, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that as

far as the sea is concerned, it's no problem. I can part those waters as clean as

a whistle with a flick of my finger."

"The bad news is that, ah, I need a permit from the Environmental Protection

Agency."

There are others who claim that government doesn't always practice what it

preaches. We all know of examples of this. One that comes to my mind involves

an agency of the Government which found fit recently to de-sex some 3,500 job

titles.

You probably read about it. From now on, a seamstress will be known as a

custom sewer . . . a brewmaster is now a brewing director . . . a governess

has officially become a child mentor . . . and an animal husbandman is now

an animal scientist.

Do you know the title of the agency that took this action to remove sexual connotations from job descriptions?

That's right. The Manpower Administration.

Yes, it's true that we haven't reach the blessed state of perfection.

One area where a great deal of improvement can be made involves our world—

the world of collective bargaining.

We have been slow to bring the collective bargaining processes, which have

proven to be so flexible and rewarding to labor and management in the private

sector, to our sphere of operations.

The plight of the Federal employee for many years was pointed to by the

trade union movement as an example of just how tough things could be.

When the American Federation of Labor began to assign organizers to help

white collar federal employees form unions in 1917, Samuel Gompers was

moved to write in the American Federationist—and these are his words:

"It is claimed that Government employees have foregone the right to strike.

The Government has restricted their political rights—political activity is not

tolerated in the " service. Many employees are women and therefore have not

even the right to cast a ballot."

Mr. Gompers drew a lesson for private-sector workers from their less-fortunate

brothers and sisters who were employed by the Government.

"It is well for all the workers to seriously consider the plunge into Government

ownership; whether after all it would not involve the plight of jumping from

the frying pan into the fire," he warned.

While Mr. Gompers tended to blame Government department heads for stymieing the desire for full collective bargaining among Federal employees, the truth is

that no one in particular was responsible.

The uncertainty about the proper boundaries for Federal unionism is reflected

in the union movement itself. Your own AFGE constitution, for example, contained a popularly supported no-strike clause until just three years ago.

I can understand the long-term reluctance of the members of your organization and other unions representing Federal employees to repeal the no-strike

clause.

—Federal workers for nearly a century have had rather substantial success in

lobbying for decent wages, adequate fringe benefits and good conditions of work.

—The law said that anyone engaging in a strike against the Federal Government could wind up in jail.
20

—In truth, strikes are no more popular with workers than they are with

management.

Why, •then, have we seen an abrupt change in posture? Why are so many

people, like myself, calling for the implementation of legislated collective

bargaining rights for Federal employees?

There are a number of reasons. But two are outstanding.

First in the growing belief of our Nation's official commitment to collective

bargaining as the preferred method for resolving disputes between labor and

management.

Second is the growing awareness that the present system is cumbersome, uneven and totally frustrating for unions and their members.

Let's take first things first. From the day 38 years when the Supreme Court

laid its hand of approval on the National Labor Relations Act until today, collective bargaining has been the legally sanctioned catalyst for the development

of labor-management peace.

This was reiterated in the Taft-Hartley Act nearly three decades ago. Let me

read you the exact words.

". . . It is the policy of the United States that sound and stable industrial

peace and the advancement of the general welfare, health, and safety of the

nation and of the best interest of employers and employees can most satisfactorily

be secured by the settlement of issues between employers and employees through

the processes of conference and collective bargaining between employers and the

representatives of their employees."

Certain groups of employees were excluded from the act—including those who

toiled in the public sector, on the farms and in most of our health-care facilities.

A multitude of reasons was given for those exclusions. But to my mind, the

overriding reason was that these groups of workers simply didn't have the political clout required to be included in the club.

After an, there were fewer than five million public employees at the Federal,

State and local levels at that time. And only a relative handful were paying

dues to any union.

Farm workers and those in our hospitals and nursing homes were, for the most

part, quietly trying to simply survive at the bottom end of our economic pyramid.

Let's look at what has happened since. Today more than 15 million Americans—

nearly one of every five workers—receive their paychecks from governmental

agencies. And the number of public employees paying union dues exceeds the

entire public payroll of 30 years ago. By any standard—manpower, money or

talent—that represents a great deal of clout.

We're all familiar with what has been happening down on the farm. Agricultural workers have effectively used economic weapons—strikes and boycotts—in

a long, brutal and costly crusade to gain the same rights as other workers in the

private sector.

In the private-sector health-care industry—which has a payroll exceeding two

million employees in 23,000 separate facilities—workers in growing numbers

organized unions that were committed to achieving the better life through collective bargaining.

Now let's look at the results.

In the private health-care industry, they are clear-cut.

Congress last year adopted a law that placed health-care operators and their

employees under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act. Literally

hundreds of organizing campaigns have been launched by a dozen or so unions.

And during the first nine months under the law, more than 11 hundred contracts have been negotiated with only 31 strikes, nearly all of which were of

short duration.

Agricultural workers are making a strong bid for membership in the collective

bargaining club. Governor Brown of California has submitted a proposal to the

State's legislature that would cover farm workers in that state with legal rights

and obligations similar to those of the National Labor Relations Act.

While this effort to bring a structure of reason to an area of Chaos is commendable, I am convinced that the final answer here, too, lies in following our

national policy—in bringing agricultural employees and employers under the

tent of the National Labor Relations Act.

Among public employees, the picture is just mind boggling.

States have reacted to the militant expressions of unionism by enacting a

crazy-quilt of laws that, when placed end-to-end, reach nowhere.
21

This is not to imply that State leaders have failed to do their duty as they have

seen it. They have.

But the results: Well, let me describe them with a story told to me by a friend

of mine in Georgia.

It seems his preacher was pressed for a dollar and decided to sell his mule.

The preacher explained to my friend that the mule had been taught to go when

the rider said "Praise the Lord," and to stop when the rider said "Amen."

My friend mounted the mule and said "Praise the Lord !" Sure enough, the

critter raced away.

In trying to stop the mule, my friend got excited and started shouting "whoa,

whoa." The mule raced on.

Finally, the rider remembered and said the magic word, "Amen !" Sure enough,

the mule pulled up abruptly—right at the edge of a certain-death cliff.

My friend looked down, sighed, wiped his brow, looked to the heavens and

said:

"Praise the Lord !"

Well, not infrequently state laws—sincerely meant to create a smooth course

of labor-management relations—have instead brought everyone involved to, and

sometimes beyond, the edge of a brink.

The solution in this case, too, rests in extending our national commitment to

collective bargaining.

There are more than 78,000 recognized jurisdictions of government in the 50

States. The employees in nearly 20,000 of them are organized.

Most of the employee organizations are national in scope. A sizeable share of

the funds and, increasingly, the jobs involved are made available through

Federal programs.

The sequence of common sense—or pragmatism, if you like—indicates that in

the not too distant future Congress will be convinced that State and local labormanagement relations would be vastly improved by applying one set of rules for

what is becoming one common game.

The Federal sector—your ballpark—presents a slightly different puzzle.

As I said earlier, our employer is a good employer. Congress has reacted to the

lobbying efforts of federal unions.

The executive orders have established a mechanism under which management

and labor have been able to build at least a tenuous relationship that has helped

to resolve internal conflicts.

And yet everyone in this room knows that an executive order, in the minds of

many, is a weak substitute for law. An executive order—whether from the hand

of a republican or a democrat—bears the inescapable mark of management.

From President Kennedy's pioneering effort—executive order 10988 which

sanctioned Collective bargaining—through President Ford's sincere effort to make

the system work better, our leaders have displayed a recognition of the problems

encountered by unions and agency officials.

And still the truth remains that there is precious little collective bargaining

in the federal sector.

And so long as unions are restricted from bargaining on all of the vital economic

issues—wages, pensions, medical care, vacations, holidays, insurance . . . and

many aspects of a multitude of noneconomic issues—seniority, job transfers,

discipline, promotion, union security . . . there can be no fulfillment of our

national policy in the government's own house.

The end product, all too frequently, is a contract that simply restates what

management says management will do—and providing only the protection to

grieve should management violate its own rules.

I believe that this condition, in itself, can be and should be relieved through

the adoption of Federal legislation bringing true collective bargaining to your

members.

The history of the development of collective bargaining legislation leads me

to conclude that delay carries with it some inherent dangers.

Let's look to the record.

The National Labor Relations Act itself came in response to severe economic

turmoil and human suffering.

Collective bargaining legislation at the State level has traditionally come in

the wake of militant strike action.

Last year's extension of the national labor relations act to the private healthcare industry was aimed at cooling a simmering trouble spot before it boiled

over.
92

And the campaign to place agricultural workers under the NLRA comes after

years of nasty battling.

I believe that it is appropriate to mention that passage of the Postal Reorganization Act coincided with the first major strike by Federal employees in the

history of our Nation.

Now I certainly am opposed to any illegal strike by Federal employees—and I

am convinced that everyone in this room is in agreement with me.

But I do feel that we would do well to heed the lessons of history.

I feel that it is incumbent on each of us to do everything within our power to

make the system that exists—even with its shortcomings—work to the highest

possible degree.

And that brings me to the final point I want to discuss—the expanding relationship between the AFGE and the Federal mediation and conciliation service.

Soon after I became director of the FMCS, I noticed the long delays--sometimes three years and more—between the certification of a union of Federal employees and the consummation of an agreement.

To me, this was a red flag. I knew that such delays could only result in bitter

frustration by employees who had placed their faith—and their dues dollars—

in a union in the hopes of alleviating some serious problems.

There were many reasons for the delays. Inexperience in the fine art of negotiations by both labor and management representatives was one. Deep-seated dependence on lobbying by the unions was another. A combination of resentment

and reluctance by Government managers was a third.

It was obvious to me that Someone had to become an aggressor.

Now being an aggressor is a strange role for a mediator to play—except when

the goal is the development of a reasonable, responsible climate between labor

and management.

So I assembled several members of my team, and we started on a campaign of

pushing both unions and managements toward fulfilling their obligation of negotiating contracts.

With the cooperation of the parties, we have had some success that can be

reflected in these numbers:

In 1972, before we assigned mediators to watch every Federal case, agreements

covering 46,000 employees were concluded. That number was doubled in 1973, and

last year it jumped to nearly 150,000.

Through the first 10 months of FY 1975, our mediators closed 398 cases—

nearly double the number of cases closed during a comparable period in the previous year.

During the past 10 months, we had conducted 456 joint meetings—where mediators were at the bargaining table with the parties. That is far above the 279

joint meeting cases we recorded during the same period in the previous year.

Of all of the cases our mediators are involved in, 77 percent are resulting in

agreements.

To be sure, this is progress. But we are still a substantial distance from the

goal line.

A recent cheek showed us that there are nearly 300 Federal-sector cases that

have been dragging on for months.

It won't surprise you to know that a good portion of them involve the largest

union of Federal employees—and you know who that is.

I must say, though, that you're obviously doing an outstanding job here in

Utah. That list included only one of your units—the 10 people at agriculture's

western aerial lab here.

Others range in size up to the 12,340 people represented by AFGE at an Air

Force installation at Warner-Robins, Georgia.

The total cooperation we have received from AFGE officials—from Clyde

Webber and Nick Nolan and John Mulholland right on up to the local level—

makes me confident that we can bring in contracts in every AFGE local.

The commitment to cooperation that I have received from your union has

been comforting.

It has been comforting because it has made me aware that when the day of

Federal legislation does come, the AFGE will be ready. You will have the dedicated, talented people who will be needed to make it work—to the benefit of

Federal employees, of management and of our ultimate boss—the citizens of this

great Nation.

Senator LAXALT. The things that were mentioned in the speech,

you have already addressed yourself to. Referring to the crazy quilt
23

of the State legislation and looking at relief from that problem, I

gather from what you have said here, that you are not talking

about preempting existing State legislation in favor of uniform Federal legislation?

Mr. USERY. There have been several States, as I mentioned to you

yesterday, the State of Florida, Governor Askew, with whom I have

worked and talked with, we have encouraged the States to enact

legislation for themselves in the State, fitting to the State, fitting to

their constitution, and the way they go about doing things in the State.

I have been trying to think through about how does the whole

Federal structure fit into this, Federal versus State. We are seeking in

our Nation in every way, to provide not only equal opportunity but

basically equal rights. We have so many Federal laws that spread

across the working conditions for the people of this land, then I

think this is one area that deserves, as you and I talked yesterday,

some reasonable rational thinking as to what is best for the Nation

in carrying out and allowing the collective bargaining process.

I believe, too, as I said in my speech in Salt Lake City, as I read

title II of the Labor Management Relations Act, that I felt as Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, my role is—

I am not quoting from the law now—to foster and promote the settlement of disputes through the process of mediation and conciliation,

without having to resort to the strike.

I think title II is pretty clear in this area.

When I was speaking out, I was speaking out, yes, as an official, but

more to try to find a way that we can resolve these problems.

Senator LAXALT. Again, are we talking about preemption of States

in this area?

This is of great concern to a number of our people within these

various States.

Mr. USERY. As I said to you earlier, Senator, I have been working

with States for States to enact their own laws.

Senator LAXALT. In making the statement you did, so we can clear

this record and clear the minds of a lot of people sitting out there

concerned about this position, you are not for a moment contending

that the State laws in this area are outmoded to the point that we

should preempt on this level, are you?

Mr. USERY. I am trying to say that as we have other laws, there may

be the necessity. and I think probably there are, in certain areas certain Federal help, assistance or laws.

Let me give you an illustration.

Senator LAXALT. To posture that, if I may 

Mr. USERY. Can I just give you a basic illustration to the point?

That when the Taft-Hartley Act was amended in 1947, it specifically

excluded public employees.

Now, in recent years, we have, I think it is 19 States that have some

effective mediation service, but by statute the Federal mediators would

not normally get involved in public sector bargaining. However, there

are a number of States that do not have any mediation agencies at all,

where we have proffered our services to help in this.

In the statute in the State of Florida, they have written in mediation service as mediation for the State of Florida. That raises a question for us: Do we use funds in the mediation process? There are a
24

number of areas that I believe, Senator, that it has been our experience over the years that we have gained in collective bargaining that

would be of great help to the States.

As I have said, State constitutions are different, and the whole

framework within a State is different. There may be necessity for certain minimum standards. Whether we have some procedure for elections or not, I am not sure. This is something 

Senator LAXALT. As a supplement to State procedures, not a

preemption?

Mr. USERY. That is right. I do not believe in preemption of State

rights.

Senator LAXALT. You made the statement in that speech to the

effect that the reason agricultural workers and Federal workers were

exempted from the provisions of Taft-Hartley was because they did

not have sufficient political clout.

Do I understand from that statement that you feel philosophically

they should have been included?

Mr. USERY. Of course, I have endorsed and supported some legislation in the whole farm area. Let me say that in 1947, there were very

few public sector unions in 1947. No one even thought about it. In

194-7. there were family farms much more than they are today.

The whole farming area in all these years has changed. There was

not, and maybe I did not choose the right words, but in 1947 there

was not the clout by the farmers, farmworkers to get involved into

that. Today, where you have larger farms and have a number of

employees, it is changed over that period of time.

I come to your point on secondary boycott, and I felt all the time

in the California farm labor crisis that we should have had some way

to resolve that dispute without having to boycott grapes or to resort

to other processes to arrive at an understanding. I was speaking of

farmworkers at that time.

Senator LAXALT. Do I understand presently you feel they should be

included?

Mr. USERY. Farmworkers ?

Senator LAXALT. Yes, and Federal employees if they have sufficient

political clout at the present time.

Mr. USERY. Well, in fact there have been several bills, and I personally support inclusion of farmworkers under the act in some

fashion. I recognize that perhaps you cannot just say the act is extended to farmworkers. It may not be that simple.

Senator LAXALT. And Federal employees?

Mr. USERY. No, sir, not Federal employees.

Senator LAXALT. A:3 I said yesterday, I come from a right-to-work

State, and our people passed on it five times, and it is a rather emotional issue. You do not, for a moment, contend that the Federal

Government should preempt or obviate 14(b) of Taft-Hartley do you?

Mr. USERY. As I told you yesterday, Senator, I also come from a

right-to-work State, and most all of my early work was in a right-towork State. I know the emotional problem of 14 (b) .

We have adjusted to that. I have not in 7 years gone around

saying anything about 14(b) repeal or anything else in that area.

Senator LAXALT. Do I understand from that that you would be

opposed to any attempt to repeal 14(b)?
25

Mr. USERY. No, sir, I will not say that.

If you are asking me what my position would be on repeal of 14(b),

I would have to say it would be to repeal it. But I do not foresee that

coming. I am not advocating that. I never have as far as in the position

I am at the present time. And I think we have adequate laws today to

try to adjust to that.

Let me give an illustration.

Almost 17 years of my life was in the labor movement in right-towork States. In right-to-work States we also knew the Railway Labor

Act, and as to the airlines and the railroads, they could have union

shops in those States. It is an emotional issue, and it is one I do not

think we have to be leading any fight for.

I think we have adjusted to it and we will continue to work with it,

as I told you yesterday. I do not see myself coming here, asking the

committee to repeal 14(b).

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Laxalt, we have had to pass over Senator

Javits.

Senator LAXALT. I will yield. I just had a few more questions. I will

be happy to yield to Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. My only concern is we have a lot of votes, and why

do you not go ahead, though.

Senator LAXALT. I just have a couple other questions.

There are people concerned 

The CHAIRMAN. A lot of these measures I do not think we are

going to have before us unless you introduce them, Paul.

Senator LAXALT. That is somewhat unlikely.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I thought.

Senator LAXALT. I think it is important, though, Mr. Chairman,

so the people in this country are fully aware of the philosophy of the

Secretary of Labor in this area. I think it is important. It is a legitimate line of inquiry in my opinion to this committee.

Just a few questions in connection with your philosophy with regard

to the rights of Federal employees in respect to collective bargaining.

Do you advocate that under any conditions a public employee should

have the right to strike?

Mr. USERY. Will you rephrase your question, Senator?

Are you speaking of Federal employees?

Senator LAXALT. Federal employees.

Mr. USERY. I have never advocated for Federal employees the right

to strike, no, sir.

We should find ways and means to avoid it. We have said that all

the time.

I was called upon by the President to mediate the Postal strike that

we had with Federal employees. I know the problem we got into when

we had nearly 400,000 people out on strike.

When Congress wrote the Postal Reorganization Act to bring about

the Postal Service, they wrote into it a means of how an impasse

should be settled.

I have never advocated that, Senator, in any way whatsoever.

Senator LAXALT. You cannot conceive of any circumstances where

that right is accorded to a Federal employee?

Mr. USERY. No, sir, I cannot conceive of it. This whole area, you

know, many things in this Government today, subcontracts, procure-
26

ment policies, that are essential to us also, and as I said to you yesterday, I have worked for all my life practically, and certainly the last 18

years, to try to find ways to avoid the strike.

I have worked 18 years—and totally 7 years to try to bring an understanding between labor and management, and to make productive

work force.

I will try to do that as I try to move forward in this job. The strike

is the last thing we need. It is one thing on right and another thing

whether you strike or not.

We have laws, Senator, and it bothers me in this country that says

people cannot strike, but we have strikes. And the worst thing I have

got into is to go settle a strike, and all the officers are locked up in jail.

You go to the judge to let the judge get them out, but there is a law

that says you cannot strike, but we have people out on strike. It is not

whether we have that right, but it is whether we provide a forum and

a mechanism that we can allow the processes to work.

That is what I have been trying to preach and sell.

Senator LAXALT. Your philosophy is that public interest dictates

that public employees in the Federal Government not have the right

to strike?

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

Senator LAXALT. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Laxalt.

Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Usery, to restore a sense of balance, a great

many people agree with the thrust of questioning of Senator Laxalt,

but I would like to ask you if you are going to place in proper perspective the views of those persons who are vocal in their support of State

right-to-work laws. They are, as you know, in the minority. There is a

majority who feel quite differently. Are you going to pay as much

attention to that, or are you going to fall over backwards to satisfy

those who do not agree?

I agree they should be suitably respected, but let us not make commitments because you are here for confirmation and commitments here

will absolutely shackle you when you become Secretary of Labor.

Mr. USERY. Senator, I believe in collective bargaining, and I believe

in the right to strike, and I would support the repeal of 14(b) if it

came about. I do not see it coming about. As I said to the Senator yesterday, I worked in a right-to-work State all my life.

I understand it. I would certainly defend those things which I have

stood for for all the years I have been working in labor-management

communities.

Senator JAVITS. I am glad to hear you say that. We, too, try to be

conciliatory. We must understand each other.

You are on the block, as it were, for confirmation, and you cannot

expect us necessarily to be unanimous.

We are for you, because you are a man of character. You have a.

record. You know what you are going to do in the sense of your philosophy, and you will stand by it.

I happen to agree with you about Federal employees' riat to strike.

I am sure we may have to deal with that question for public employees

generally, and we may indeed, as time goes on, find it necessary to

legislate in the area of public sector pensions.
27

I do not want to see any doors locked, I will take my chances, but

you must be willing to also take that chance.

Mr. USERY. Senator, I certainly will.

As I have said in my opening statement, and I think every place,

I do not believe anybody believes in this country any stronger in free

collective bargaining process, and that goes to withholding service,

and at the same time trying to protect the interests of all concerned.

I think that we have to also, if we are going to bargain, I was going

to say to Senator Laxalt a while ago, if you are bargaining, you

should be able to allow to bargain the things that the public policy

says you can.

One of those would be union security. In certain States you cannot.

I do not see that issue as an issue before us at this time, or will be.

Senator JAVITS. We have a bill before this committee concerning

Agriculture Labor Relations. This area of labor relations has been tumultuous. Realizing the myriad of complex issues involved in this

area of labor relations, I would hope that you have an open mind on this subject.

Mr. USERY. I hope that I said that I support farm labor legislation.

I have ever since I have been here.

Senator JAVITS. I do not want to commit you in any way.

Mr. USERY. I appreciate that.

Senator JAVITS. The other question I would like to ask you is this. Are you going to back up the action of Mr. Hutchinson respecting the

Teamsters' pension fund, which was reported on this morning in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent that that news story be made a part of my question.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the Stetson story.

[The news article referred to follows:]

[From the New York Times, Jan. 28, 1976]

TEAMSTERS FUNDS UNDER AUDIT

LABOR DEPARTMENT IS INS,ESTIGATING MIDWEST PENSION DATA

By Damon Stetson

The United States Labor Department has sent a team to Chicago to audit and investigate the Central States pension funds of the International Brother- hood of Teamsters.

The group, headed by Lawrence Lippe, has been at work for several days at the offices of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas, Health and Welfare and Pension Funds, at 4550 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago, a depart- ment spokesman said yesterday.

The audit was begun after the Labor Department completed what it called "an exhaustive review" of records regarding the funds that were already in government possession.

The department said that it was seeking to determine "if there is a basis for •current allegations involving the funds' activities and whether corrective action or enforcement proceedings are warranted."

USES IN- CRIME HINTED

The spokesman did not specify what the allegations were regarding the funds, but there have been numerous reports over the years that the funds were sources of funds for organized crime and for questionable enterprises. Earlier investiga- tions by the Internal Revenue Service and the Justic Department have raised questions about finders' fees and kickback payments resulting from pension fund loans.
28

James D. Hutchinson, administrator of the Labor Department's pension and

welfare benefit program, said that Mr. Lippe, formerly assistant chief of the

frauds section of the Justice Department's Civil Division, was named last week

to direct the program's special investigative staff.

The investigation, a department spokesman said, is being undertaken initially

without the use of compulsory process and with the cooperation of fund officials.

It will continue on that basis as long as a "climate of reasonable cooperation" is

apparent.

Frank E. Fitzsimmons, the teamsters' president, said in a news conference last

month that the union had nothing to hide on the Central States funds. He said

that he knew the allegations about the fund were false.

The Labor Department; which administers the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, said that in the interest of an impartial

and effective investigation it would not be appropriate to give any further

information.

Mr. USERY. I certainly will, Senator.

Senator JAVITS. You will continue the policy of Secretary Dunlop on

that score?

Mr. USERY. I certainly will. As professionally as I possibly can, yes,.

sir.

Senator JAVITS. You have noted for all of us, and it is critically important, the number of negotiations that will take place next year. You

have a particular expertise in mediating difficult negotiations and

the country will be fortunate to have a man of your experience as

Secretary of Labor.

Do you feel that any Federal guideliness would be useful in setting a

standard which men could consult in terms of the economic future of

the country? Have in mind some possible standard so that negotiations

might follow some pattern?

Mr. USERY. No, sir, I had not, Senator. I started last year with

some of our big negotiations this year, and there are so many involved

in negotiations, as you are certainly aware of.

There is the catchup, there is the cost of living. There are so

many things in industry that I would not subscribe to Federal guidelines for myself.

Senator JAVITS. There is a stabilization committee, functioning now.

Would you feel it consistent with your authority and responsibility to

consult with that council as to what their ideas are on what ought to

be the pattern of the way to negotiation?

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir, and I have.

Senator JAVITS. It is the Council on Wage, and Price Stability.

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. Do you feel the same way about the President's

Economic Advisors?

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. I am glad you will extend your consultations to

them.

Specifically on the construction industry we have heard your testimony on situs picketing. There was a title II to that bill respecting,

a new stabilization committee, that is, the Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Committee. A good deal of what that committee

was to do does not necessarily depend on a statute. Is it fair to ask

you, and again, please do not answer if it is not, what you would suggest we install in the place of this highly desirable dispute settlement

mechanism.
29

Mr. USERY. I too supported the bill, and particularly title II. I

think it was not only good for the unions, but was good for the

industry, and good for the country.

In that same vein, as I said earlier to Senator Schweiker, I have not

had enough time since I have been appointed to have any discussion

with labor leaders generally about how we might proceed or what

we might do.

Certainly, I will seek again to try to pull together some forum where

we can begin again to talk where we might proceed in this year's

negotiations. It is essential we get it back together.

It was also important that union leadership have something that

they could use to bring their locals into, shall I say, more reasonable,

responsible manner in some of these areas.

It is a very difficult role, but I am hopeful that we can do something

in this area.

Senator JAVITS. I just have two other questions, Mr. Chairman.

You and I have talked about ERISA, which is of particular interest to the whole committee. Would you undertake some process of

direct assistance to management and labor in order that regulations be

as simplified as possible and that labor and management be given

guidance and advice on how to carry these regulators into effect.

Mr. USERY. My answer is yes. And then I would like to say, Senator,

one thing I should have mentioned to you yesterday as we were talking. I did say I have great confidence in Mr. Hutchinson. I have talked

to him about this year's bargaining, and how we might get the mediators that would be involved in negotiations fully knowledgeable in this

area.

I went back to check up, and found that the Department of Labor,

with, I think partly Secretary Dunlop's urging, and Mr. Hutchinson's

they held over 600 seminars and meetings last year in trying to get the

word out.

I will assure you, as we talked the other day, that I will make every

effort in this area. I think it is essential that we get people to know

what it is all about, and further, we must keep it as simple as we

possibly can, and reporting in other areas.

Senator JAVI'PS. My last question relates to the sticky unemployment

situation we are engaged in, and the very discouraging forecast by the

administration itself.

Will you, and if you hive any idea, in what way, apply the expertise

of the Department and yourself to finding some better way of attacking the unemployment problem; a problem which is multifaceted.

Unemployment compensation, which we have extended to 65 weeks,

is now exhausting for 100,000 individuals a month. A shocking situation. Our CET program is, because of the budgetary ceiling by

the President, unlikely to be expanded, although we are going to still

try for a million new lobs.

There is a need to coalesce our thoughts on the unemployment

problems. Would you get a task force of the best brains together on

both the labor management side to come up with some ideas and recommendations concerning some better way to deal with this seemingly

impossible problem?

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir, I certainly will.
30

The CHAIRMAN. We will also probably run out of time here in the

full inquiry, Mr. Usery, and therefore I would like to submit some of

the unasked questions to you in writing for an early reply so we

can be sure to deal with your nomination at the earliest possible time.

Senator Cranston has indicated an interest in asking some questions

in written form. I think I will have some that will remain when we

get called to vote, and maybe Senator Laxalt and others.

We have nine members on the majority side. You have noticed, I am

sure, Mr. Usery, that only two have been here. This is the silent

majority.

Now, that silence does not indicate anything, I am sure, other than

that they are pleased that you have been the nominee. And the absence

supports rather than boycotts in any way. You know the competition

around here, and why they have not been here.

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Our colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Magnuson, has written me a letter. He is chairman of the Commerce Committee. It spells out a situation in an industry which is also

a growing sport, athletic event in our country, North American Soccer

League.

It is a relatively new professional sport, I gather.

In this connection he raises—and this is a situation similar to

hockey, where a new professional sporting activity has depended, in

good measure, for excellent players, upon the immigration from other

countries, where soccer has longer standing as a professional sport.

Their problem is with immigration, and there is a Department of

Labor input into findings to make it possible for these players from

other lands playing in this country, in part of the organized sport in

this country to stay here through their period, and remain beyond the

league season, so that they can be part of the promotion of others

fretting interested in soccer.

I will include the entire Magnuson letter in the record, and I am

sure you are familiar with this situation, but Senator Magnuson's

question is, provided that such arrangement could be made within

the confines of the immigration laws, would you be willing to actively

support these efforts for a longer period stay for the players, and

would you inquire on the responsible officials in the Department as to

the status of the discussions that are now underway, and convey to

them your support for a general objective of permitting these players

to remain during this period where they can be useful to the American

industry of soccer.

[The letter referred to follows:]
31

WARREN G. MAGNUSoR, cHAIRMAN

JOHN O. FASTORE, ELL JAMES 11. pEARSON, KANS.

VANCE HARTKE. ROBERT p. GRIFFIN, MICH.

PHILIP A. HA, MICH. TED STEVENS. ALASKA

EDWARD W. CANNER, NEV. J. GLENN MALL, JR., MO.

RUSSELL a. LoNO. LA. LOWELL P. WE,CKER, JR.. CONN.

FRANK E. MOSS. UTAH JAMES L. BUCKLEY. N.Y.

ERNEST E. HOLLINGS, S.C.

DANIEL K. INOklyE, HAWAII

JOHN V. TuRNEy. CALIF.

ADLAI E. STEVENSON. ILL.

WENDELL H. FORD, KY.

FREDERICK J. LORDAN. STAFF DIRECTOR

MICHAEL pERTscHuK. CHIEF cOUNSEL

ARTHUR pANKopF, JR., MINORITY COUNSEL

Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.

Chairman

Labor and Public Welfare Committee

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Zfate",; ,Zenale

COMMITTEE ON COM MERGE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510

January 27, 1976

For several years, I and a number OT other Senators have been

interested in the growth of soccer in this country. Recently, the

North American Soccer League, the preeminent American professional

league, has been engaged in a series of negotiations with the

Department of Labor and the Immigration Service in an effort to foster

the development of this increasingly popular sport here. I would

appreciate your raising this issue with Mr. W. J. Usery when he comes

before your Committee as the nominee to be Secretary of Labor.

Professional soccer, for the short term, is dependent upon the

importation of foreign players. This is because the sport is

relatively new to this country and has not been widely enough played

to have fostered many American-born players of professional quality.

Of course, as the sport becomes more popular and is played more and

more by American youngsters and students, it will become entrenched

and the need for foreign talent will diminish and, eventually, may

disappear altogether. The North American Soccer League is dedicated

to this objective. As part of its plan to establish soccer •in this

country, the League needs to use its professional players in sport

promotion efforts and training sessions for American youngsters

interested in the game. In a sense, these activities are every bit

as important a part of these athletes' job descriptions as playing.

Certainly, you are aware that literally hundreds of thousands of young

Americans across the nation are playing organized soccer and participating in such training sessions.

The major difficulty the Leaguehas experienced with the Department

of Labor and the Immigration Service has been its inability to convince

these agencies of the teams' need to retain their foreign players in

this country beyond the duration of the professional playing season

so that they may engage in these sport development activities. There

are two ways by which a player may stay here longer than the playing

season. If he truly is an exceptional player, he may qualify for a
32

Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr. - 2 - January 27, 1976

special visa (the H-1) which wOuld give him this flexibility. The

statutory authority over the admission of these players rests

principally with the Immigration Service. Labor does have a role

with respect to the second possibility, however. The League is

trying to obtain length-of-contract or year-round certification

for other players (those who may not qualify as exceptional). The

League, the Service and Labor currently are discussing ways to provide

this flexibility. I should mention that progress is being made with

the agencies and the League is hoping it will continue to make headway.

I should think a question or two for Mr. Usery focusing on this

problem would be very helpful to the League and me. I attach for

your convenience my suggestioned questions. They are general in

nature and should not require Mr. Usery to be very familiar with the

details of the problem.. They are intended only to. give the problem some

visibility.

Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Chairman.

Sincerely,

WWARREN. 

I A A 2. 

MAGNUS 

j 

U.S.S. ataYZ-)

WGM:gjw

Att.
33

Mr. USERY. I think I would have to look into that and talk with the

appropriate officials and get back and answer Senator Magnuson's

point in his letter.

I am generally knowledgeable of what he is talking about, but I am

not sure that I have kept abreast of the present procedures and so

forth.

The CHAIRMAN. He obviously has a great interest. I will give you

a copy of his letter, and make a copy for you as you leave. I knew

this same situation applied in hockey. I was exposed to it sometime

last year, so it might be worthwhile to look at it.

I know that the farmworkers situation was raised, and I am not

exactly clear just what your attitude on the best approach to the

exemption of farm labor from the National Labor Relations Act is.

We had legislation some years back to remove the exemption of

farm labor under coverage, and resistance to that came from organized labor, organized farm labor.

Without the spokesman, or the organized groups of farmworkers,

why we just—well, we just stopped pursuing what we thought was

a worthy objective to bring this kind of industrial labor, farm labor,

under the same coverage.

The ice was broken with the California law. Leaders of organized

labor there supported it, and they are working under it now.

I wonder if you have any judgment of attitudes among organized

fari'n labor now about national coverage under the National Labor

Relations Act, and this might be a repeat on something you said

earlier, this might—there might be something I missed, on what your

attitude is on farmworkers.

Mr. USERY. It rose in the context of my so-called Salt Lake City

speech. I talked back in 1970 supporting legislation covering farmworkers, bringing them under the act.

In recent months, I think it was generally felt that, the prime problem has been in California. Now they have a California law, and let

us see how the California law works generally.

I think I heard people say that generally, even in the labor movement I have understood that. I have not been able to follow California

law as closely as I would like to. I think there are some problems, but

I think generally they have been holding elections out there, and so

forth.

Other than that, I do not have any specifics at this time, Mr.

Chairman.

Going back, with, what I thought for years was a most unfortunate

situation in farm labor, that there was no process to work out the

difficult problems of recognition, certification, and the other things

with it.

I have constantly, as I have said earlier, been trying to watch all

types of people, to try to find orderly processes to let collective bargaining process work. The collective bargaining process, national

policy, adopted in the thirties, and I have tried every way I could to

make it work with small groups of people.

The CHAIRMAN. Another area. In 1974 we amended the Fair Labor

Standards Act and scheduled increases in the minimum wage, the step

in the escalating increases occurred January 1, this year, at $2.30 an

hour. There are two additional schedules to make but they will occur
34

next year. That is now $2.30 an hour. That is a wage, regular hours, without overtime, a wage that is, for a family of four,-less than the poverty level.

I notice some of these economic issues have not been your concern

as Director of the Service, but do you have any attitude about the adequacy and the desire of the present minimum wage structure, and the adequacy and desirability of any change?

Mr. USERY. I have not spent much time in this area, as you know,

recently, Senator.

I have thought about this recently. Certainly it is a potential thing that we would want to look at. and I would like to think I will need time to maybe meet with the Fair Labor Standards people and see what their experience and advice are.

I have not spent enough time in this area to recommend what we

should do.

I will say to you, if I might, I was thinking last night as I was

reading some of the things about the Department, that I went from

15 cents an hour, when I was 17 years old, to 30 cents an hour, whenminimum wage came in.

The CHAIRMAN. When minimum wage came in, you were 5 cents

over, it was 25 cents an hour.

Mr. USERY. It came in, and in the first year I was not covered under

it. The second year, 1939, I was covered. I went to 30 cents. I got $11.88.

The interesting thing was, it was on a public works project that I

got $11.88. I had not thought about this until last night. but I also

went to the National Youth Administration, where I started my schooling. I remember what the minimum wage did for me as a kid.

It certainly is an area that has meant much to us. I will assure you

that I will spend considerable time in the near future thinking and

discussing this subject with people in the Department, and seeking to

formulate what I would hope would be a decision that would keep

people working, and to see that they get minimum wage that they deserve, and certainly a living standard in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Frankly, I had not read your biography closely

enough, evidently. I did not know you were out at NYA. Some of the

people I have respected most in life were graduates of CCC or NYA.

It leads me to a final question at this time. One part of our program

is to deal with this tragically high unemployment rate, and that is

public employment programs, and we are at a point now where we

have to have, or I think it is necessary to have significant infusion of

new resources for the program. We are running out in many areas.

What is your attitude about this part of our effort to meet the high

level of unemployment rate now?

Mr. ITSERY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance to closely

look and to know about title I and title II and title VT of CETA.

I have not had an opportunity to formulate any views. I was not a

party to the planning of the budget this year in the Department of

Labor.

I know that in title VI those jobs will be phased out this year. I

think I would need some time to talk with people in the Department

and then the administration before could talk about really what my

thoughts and thinking would be in this whole area.

Senator J-AviTs. Would the Senator yield?
35

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

about 

Senator JAVITS. That was the same thing you discussed with me a task force.

You will consider that?

Mr. USERY. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. I think whatever may be our views on trade union- ism this is one thing which I probably feel all members would be very anxious to have, a very professional analysis and recommendation. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Laxalt ?

Senator LAXALT. I do not have any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one question we will have time to ask before the voting comes up.

I am sure you are familiar with the Commission that was created way back to study workers' compensation throughout the country. It was created by former President Nixon. It was the formation of the Commission which was provided for by legislation that came from this conimittee.

Now, that Commission reported and described the full inadequa- cies of present workers' compensation programs in the States. There were none that the Commission—and this was a Commission of ex- cellence who worked with great efficiency and reported on time and found total inadequacy in our State-by-State approach now. Recom- mended minimum national standards for workers compensation gave a time period. And said if the States do not come to these minimum standards, the Commission recommends national legislation by a point. The time they selected was June 1975. 

We have not obviously •

passed the National Standards Compensation. Act. I just want to get your basic feeling about the need foi• this mini- mum standard legislation for workers' compensation.

Mr. USERY. Senator, I guess I would have to say, as I said earlier, I

would- have to spend some time thinking about this. I am not sure today.-I know in this whole area it is so essential to us and so important. I would like to think on what you have said and to reason out a little bit.

I am not sure I have been that close to it and where it stands. I know about the task force. I have not taken the time to read any of their reports or anything else, where it stands. I would like to get more familiar with it if I possibly could.

Senator JAVITS. This is a joint venture of Senator Williams and myself, and we are very devoted to it. In our opinion it is really en- titled to very high priority.

The CHAIRMAN. I had a whole area dealing with equal employment, those protected under the Executive order and law, and we have just run out of time.

We will submit some questions in this area to you, Mr. Usery. We might just get your appreciation for the inequalities and prob- lems we face in this country by asking you about the employment of women and particularly what would be your approach to the enforce- ment of the Executive Order programs to bring more women into the construction industry?

Mr. USERY. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly do all that I could. As I said earlier, we certainly have equal rights, that goes for women in all walks oilife, including construction.
36

I would like to think my record, both prior to and after coming to

Government, has been a good one in this area. I have tried to bring

women into positions, and I have gotten women in as mediators. I

certainly believe we must do everything we can to enforce the policies

and the laws that we have in this area to see that truly we have equal

employment for all people.

That goes very strongly for women also.

The CIIAIRMAN. Your sincerity is felt and is known. We appreciate

that.

We are going to move as rapidly as we can here to let the Senate

have your nomination. Good luck.

Mr. USERY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point we will insert all material supplied

for the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

[TELEGRAM]

Hon. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Public Employee Department, AFL—CIO applauds the nomination and urges

the confirmation of William Usery as Secretary of Labor. Mr. Usery's experience

in Government and in labor management relations and particularly his understanding of public employees qualifies him for this high post.

Sincerely,

L.

WILIAM H. MCCLENNAN,

Presid'ent, Public Employee Dept. AFL—CIO.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the committee adjourned.]

0