One reason for substandard employment conditions in private household work is the exemption of the occupation from most laws providing labor standards protection. Legislation to improve existing working conditions and bring new status to the occupation would benefit workers now engaged in household employment and would attract new workers to meet the continuing demand for assistance in the home.

The National Committee on Household Employment, other private organizations, and a number of public agencies have expressed interest in developing standards for this occupation. The following information summarizes labor laws currently affecting private household workers and is an indication of areas where programs should be instituted or expanded.

Wages.-The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Federal wage and hour law of most general application, applies to employees engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, as well as certain large enterprises. As presently interpreted, this does not include private household workers who, as a result, are outside the protection of the standards in the act, including the requirement that most covered employees be paid at least $1.60 an hour and not less than 11⁄2 times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 a week.

In 29 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, a minimum wage rate is set by law. Premium pay for overtime is required by law in 12 of these jurisdictions. However, it appears that the provisions in only four of these lawsthose of Arkansas, Michigan, Nebraska, and West Virginia-are sufficiently broad to cover private household workers, and these laws contain numerical exemptions which almost eliminate household workers as a practical matter.

The Arkansas law, which requires the payment of at least $1.10 an hour, increasing to $1.20 on January 1, 1971, does not exclude private household workers from coverage. The law applies only to employers of five or more employees in a regular employment relationship.

The Michigan minimum wage requirement of $1.25 an hour applies to employers of four or more workers at any one time during a calendar year.

The Nebraska minimum wage law, which requires the payment of at least $1.00 an hour, specifically exempts babysitters employed in or about a private home, but not private household workers. However, the law applies only to employers of four or more persons at any one time except for certain specified seasonal employment.

The West Virginia minimum wage requirement of $1.00 an hour, plus 11⁄2 times employees' regular rates for hours worked in excess of 48 a week, applies to employers of six or more workers in any week.

Twelve States have wage board programs under which regulations setting a minimum wage in an industry or occupation, or for a designated group of workers, can be issued pursuant to prescribed administrative procedures. It appears that under existing authority six of these States-California, Colorado, New Jersey, North Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin-could issue orders covering private household workers, and that in most of these States the orders could include premium pay for overtime work. Only Wisconsin actually has issued a minimum wage order covering household workers. In California a wage board has recommended the issuance of a wage order covering women and minors who are domestic employees.

The Wisconsin order requires a minimum weekly wage of $58.50 for adult women and minors 18 years of age and over who are employed in domestic service in private homes for 45 hours or more a week if board and lodging are not furnished; $42.90 if board only is furnished; and $32.40 if board and lodging are furnished. For minors 17 years of age and under, the wage is $49.50 if board and lodging are not furnished, and lesser amounts if board and/or lodging are furnished. If employees are paid on an hourly basis, the rate is $1.30 an hour for adult women and minors 18 years of age and over and $1.10 an hour for minors 17 years of age and under. However, the order excludes from minimum wage coverage casual employment in or around a home in work usual to the home of the employer. "Casual" employment is defined as employment for not more than 15 hours per week for any one employer.

Wisconsin orders must be reviewed periodically and the rates revised, based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. A recent revision, effective July 1, 1970, provides that the minimum weekly wage for adult women and minors 18 years of age and over who are employed in domestic service in private homes for 45 hours or more a week will increase to $65.25 if board and lodging are not

furnished; to $47.85 if board only is furnished; and to $36.25 if board and lodging are furnished. The hourly rate for adult women and minors 18 years of age and over will increase to $1.45. The hourly rate for minors 17 years of age and under will remain at $1.10. The definition of casual employment will change, so that the applicable rate will apply to domestic service in private homes regardless of the number of hours worked by the employee for any one employer. Hours of Work.-There are no Federal laws of general application regulating hours of work, with the exception of the premium pay requirements in the FLSA, previously discussed. Laws or orders in 38 States and the District of Columbia specify that covered workers must not be employed more than a set number of hours a day and/or a set number of hours a week. Only three of these States-Kansas, Montana, and Washington-have laws which either could or do provide protection from excessive hours of work for private household workers.

Under the Kansas law, power exists to issue orders limiting the number of hours women household workers may be employed, but no such orders have been issued. The constitution of Montana appears to set an 8-hour limit on the workday of all workers in all employments except farming and stock-raising, thus covering workers in private homes. The State of Washington has provided by statute that private household workers, both male and female, shall not be employed more than 60 hours a week, except in emergency.

In addition, Industrial Welfare Order No. 33, issued by the State of Washington, recommends that female household workers not be employed in any week for more than 10 hours a day for 5 days, 4 hours a day for 1 day, and 6 hours on the remaining day. The order defines free hours as those hours when the employee is entirely free from any responsibility to the employer or the job; defines an emergency as an unforeseen condition calling for immediate action that is neither continuous nor regular; and states that overtime may be compensated for by extra time off during the same week to keep working time within the statutory 60-hour maximum.

Wage Payment and Collection.-There are no Federal laws of general application regarding wage payment and collection. Many States have comprehensive laws on this subject, and all States have laws relating to one or more of the following:

((1) payment of wages in lawful money or medium redeemable in lawful

money,

(2) establishment of a regular payday, and

(3) prompt payment when a worker is discharged or resigns.

(1) Medium of payment.-These laws generally specify that employees must be paid for their labor in cash or check redeemable in cash. The medium of payment laws are sufficiently broad to cover private household workers in 33 jurisdictions-Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

(2) Frequency of payments.-These laws generally provide that the employer must pay his workers within the time specified in the law-for example, 1 week, 2 weeks, or 1 month-although usually he may pay more frequently if he chooses. The provisions for frequency of payment appear sufficiently broad to cover private household workers in 25 jurisdictions-Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio (if five or more employees), Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee (if five or more employees), Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

In addition to their regular frequency of payment laws, two States-California and Massachusetts-have special provisions relating to private household workers. The California law provides that employees who receive both board and lodging from the employer must be paid at least once each calendar month on a day designated in advance as a regular payday. A Massachusetts law provides that private household workers may be paid monthly.

(3) Termination payments.-These laws provide that an employer must pay a worker at, or within a specified period of time after, termination of employment. The laws requiring termination payments immediately or within a specified time are of sufficiently general coverage to include private household work

ers in 28 jurisdictions-Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Unemployment Compensation.-Under the unemployment insurance program, covered wage earners who lose their jobs are paid specified amounts for varying periods of time. The program is operated jointly by the Federal and State Governments, with the States establishing standards for the payment of benefits. Employers covered by the program are required to pay a payroll tax, and the tax revenues are put into a fund from which the unemployment benefits are paid. In most jurisdictions, employers who are not required by law to participate in the program may do so voluntarily.

Only two States-Hawaii and New York-have unemployment insurance laws with mandatory coverage of private household workers. Coverage in these States is limited, since the Hawaii law covers only those employers who pay $225 or more for household service in a calendar quarter, and the New York law covers only those who pay $500 or more to household employees in a calendar quarter. Voluntary coverage of private household workers is permitted in all jurisdictions (including Hawaii and New York, regardless of the monetary test), except Alabama and Massachusetts.

Workmen's Compensation.-Workmen's compensation programs are established by State law (with some limited exceptions related to Federal employment or property). When covered employees suffer work-related injury or death, benefits are provided for the employees and/or their families. Private household workers generally are excluded from workmen's compensation coverage, although some steps have been taken toward coverage in eight States and Puerto Rico.

The Alaska law covers private household workers except for those employed part time. California covers those who work more than 52 hours a week for one employer. Connecticut covers those who work more than 26 hours a week for one employer. In Massachusetts all seasonal, casual, and parttime (less than 16 hours a week) workers are included in elective coverage, while all other come under compulsory coverage.

The Michigan law covers private household workers employed at least 35 hours a week for at least 13 weeks during the preceding 52 weeks. The New Jersey law covers all private household workers but does not require the employer to insure. The New York law applies to private household workers employed by the same employer at least 48 hours a week in cities of 40,000 or more; however, the law sets no penalty for failure to secure compensation. In Ohio workers are covered when the employer has three or more employees. Puerto Rico covers all workers regularly employed in private household service.

In those jurisdictions which do not cover private household workers, voluntary coverage is permitted in all except Alabama, the District of Columbia, Iowa, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Social Security.-The Federal Social Security Act, which establishes the oldage survivors, disability, and health insurance program, provides compulsory coverage of private household workers who receive the same benefits as other workers covered by the program. For the purpose of determining the insured status of private household workers, a quarter of coverage is credited to a worker who receives at least $50 in cash wages from one employer in a calendar quarter. If the worker meets this test, wages received from all employers are credited for purposes of computing benefits.

It should be noted that some employers of private household workers fail to comply with the reporting requirements of the act. This practice has serious adverse effects on the protection available to those workers.

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES AND PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF MOTHERS (HUSBAND PRESENT), BY INCOME OF HUSBAND IN 1968 AND AGE OF CHILDREN, MARCH 1969

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Monthly Labor Review, May 1970.

Dr. MURRAY. My second question, you raised certain questions on which you wished information the last time. I have some information, particularly on the question of EEO's position on want ads and at the end of my testimony if we have time, I would like simply to place that in the record.

Madam Chairman and Mr. Hathaway, I am Pauli Murray, a professor of American studies at Brandeis University. I must say to the Committee that I put my credentials in my prepared statement partly out of pressure from my colleagues and partly because I hoped they would make the male members of the subcommittee take me seriously. I teach legal studies, civil rights, law and social change, and a course on women in American society. My task in a college of liberal arts is to expose undergraduates to an understanding of the legal system in its various aspects-the judicial process, the legislative process, and the administrative process, and my appearance before this committee is in the nature of in-service training.

Many of my students are headed for law school. Others plan careers in education, community organization, or social work. All of them, however, are asking themselves the question whether our legal system is flexible enough to accommodate necessary social change. What I have to say to this subcommittee is influenced by my own desperate need to answer this question in the affirmative coupled with the apprehension that in the area of women's rights, as in other areas of human rights, our lawmakers will respond only when there is violence and disruption of nationwide proportions.

I appear before this subcommittee, however, as a member of the National Board of American Civil Liberties Union to testify in support of the provisions of H.R. 16098 which seeks to extend protection against sex-based discrimination, particularly in education and employment.

50-147-71-pt. 1—24

The ACLU stands for the principle of equality of treatment under the law and equality of opportunity without regard to sex. It has been active in litigation to apply this principle for the purpose of eliminating sex-based discrimination in jury service, in the criminal law, employment, admission to State universities, and the like, all of which have been fought by ACLU attorneys either representing women or filing amicus curiae briefs.

In its most recent policy statement on academic freedom and academic due process, ACLU has declared:

A teacher should be appointed solely on the basis of teaching ability and competence in his professional field without regard to such factors, as race, sex, nationality, creed, religious or political belief or affiliation, or behavior not demonstrably related to the teaching function. (ACLU Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom, etc., September 1966, p. 8.)

On June 7, 1970, the biennial conference of ACLU overwhelmingly adopted a strong policy recommendation to its national board on the rights of women, including the principle that admission to colleges and universities should not be denied on the basis of ethnic origin, race, religion, political belief or affiliation, sex, or other irrational basis. In ACLU's 50 years of experience seeking to protect individual rights, it has come to recognize that all human rights are indivisible and that the denial of these rights to any group threatens the rights of all. I am happy to espouse this principle here today.

From here on in I am on my own. Some of the views I express may not necessarily reflect ACLU position.

Interrelation of race and sex discrimination:

I have listened to the previous witnesses and wish to associate myself with their testimony which I wholeheartedly endorse, particularly the perceptive comments of Commissioner Wilma Scott Heide and her recognition of the urgency of effective legislative action to remove the barriers to the development of the talents of women in the United States. In view of the thoroughness with which my colleagues have documented widespread discrimination against women in the academic process, in the professions and in other employment, I shall attempt to highlight some areas for emphasis.

As a human rights attorney, I am concerned with individuals as whole human beings, being accorded the respect and dignity which is our common heritage. They are first and foremost persons, quite apart from any other identity they may possess, and as persons sharing our common humanity they are entitled to equal opportunity to fulfill their individual and unique potential.

I think there may be an answer to Mr. Hathaway's question on the probability of women finishing college in what I have just said.

This is our starting point, for in my view it is only as we recognize and hold sacred the uniqueness of each individual that we come to see clearly the moral and social evil of locking this individual into a group stereotype, whether favorable or unfavorable. I have learned this lesson, in part, because I am both a Negro and a woman whose experience embodies the conjunction of race and sex discrimination.

This experience also embodies the paradox of belonging simultaneously to an oppressed minority and an oppressed majority, and for good measure being left-handed in a right-handed world. As a selfsupporting woman who has had the responsibility for elderly relatives,