St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1949-02-04
THE WEEK
Under Capitol
DONE
By Clifford Fucker

NAASAN @SNSAAS4 Il
Last Saturday in Duluth one of
the persons in the audience stated
that he noted the introduction of
two Fair Employment Practices
bills in the state legislature and
that he would welcome informa-
ton as to the differences in the
bills.
With the thought that some of
the readers of this column might
find such information of value, an
attempt is made here to show the
points of variance between the
two bills.
The Fair Employment Practices
bill introduced in the Senate by
Senators Mullin, Rosenmeier and
VukeIch and in the House by
Representatives Flom, Langley,
Peterson P. K, Podgorsld and
Sheran is the identical bill pre-
sented to the 1947 legislature and
is endorsed by the Governors In
terracial Commission. We will re-
fer to this as the "Old Bill" The
bill introduced in the senate by
Senator Homer Carr of Proctor
and by Representatives Pat Good
in Of Minneapolis, Richard Silvola
Of Virginia, Loren Rutter of Kin
ney, Thomas Letnes of Nielsville
and Vladimir Shipka of Grand
Rapids in the House will be refer
red to as the New Bill"
The title and general purposes
of the two bills are the same ex-
cept that the old bill does not COW
er employers having less than 20
persons employed whereas the
new bill does not include any en-
ployer with less than six persons
employed.
Both bills provide for a COM
mission Of fifteen persons. In
the Old Bill a quorum would be
seven; In the new, three persons
would constitute a quorum and
the members would be allowed
necessary and actual travelling
expenses.
A major difference between the
bills occurs in the section cover
ing the Powers and Duties of the
Commission and Director. The
New Bill would set up local and
statewide Cancellation councils
composed of representative citi-
zens serving without pay but en-
titled to actual expenses.
The New Bill also would give
the Commission the right to sub
poena witnesses, compel their at
tendance, administer oaths, take
testimony and require the produc-
ton for examination of any books
or papers relating to matters I'M
der investigation or in question.
It also lists certain conditions
with reference to testimony and
characterization hereunder.
Another major difference oc-
ours in the definition of Unfair
Employment Practices. The Old
Bill declares it unfair employment
practice for an employer because
of race, religion, color or national
origin to refuse to hire or employ,
to bar or discharge or discrimi-
nate against such individuals in
compensation, terms, conditions
or privileges of employment.
The New Bill adds the words
unless based on a bona fide Oc-
cupatiOnal qualification"
The New Bill also proposed to
make it an unlawful practice for
any employment agency to print,
circulate or cause to be printed or
circulated any statement, adver-
tisement, or publication, or to use
any form of application for en-
ployment or to make any inquiry
in connection with prospective
employment, which expresses, di-
recly or indirectly, any hmita-
ton, specification or discrimina-
ton, unless based upon a bona
fide occupational qualification.
The Old Bill provides that if
any clause, sentence, paragraph
or part Of this act or the appHca-
ton thereof to any person or cir
cumstances, shall, for any reason,
be adjudged by court Of compe-
tent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such judgment shall not effect,
impair or invalidate the remain
der of this act. The New Bill does
not contain this provision.
These are the major differences
between the two Fair Employ
ment Practices bills. It is well to
reemphasize that with the mem
bers Of the legislature rests the
decision as to the content of the
final bill