Earlier in my remarks I said that much of the activity on behalf of so-called equality had been detrimental. I would point out to you, in this connection, that great damage has already been done to protective labor standards. They are being heedlessly and needlessly eroded by the work of activists who are venting their spleen and search for equality on the most vulnerable, the women who work in the factories, fields, and service trades of the Nation. This has been accomplished largely through application of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There, too, little or no consideration has been given to the continued need for legislative protections particularly in light of the unfortunate fact that so few women workers are unionized; 18 percent in California and 12 percent nationally. Take away their State protective labor standards whether through the proposed constitutional amendment or other means and you leave them totally unprotected.

In concluding, I would like to suggest to those who share my personal wish and that of my union, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, to advance the status of women, make them in fact full partners in the society by giving them equality of opportunity that: 1. They do not need an equal rights amendment to guarantee their rights. I am advised by competent authority that these rights are theirs under the fifth and the 14th amendments; 2. That they seek passage in State or Federal law, whichever is applicable, of legislation in specific areas to right specific wrongs or inequities; 3. That wherever State law grants a benefit or protection to women which improves working conditions that they seek extension of that benefit to the total work force rather than remove it for women.

And lastly, I urge this committee to reject the equal rights amendment because of the grievous harm it would cause in the lives of so many working women and their families.

Senator Scott, I would like also to introduce into the record a copyI am sorry-Senator Cook.

Senator Cook. Perfectly all right.

Miss MILLER. Excuse me, sir.

Senator Cook. Perfectly all right.

Miss MILLER. I would like to introduce into the record a copy of the resolution adopted by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers at their convention in May of this year.

(Resolution follows:)

No. 22

RESOLUTION ON WOMEN WORKERS

Substitute resolution for resolutions submitted by the Chicago Joint Board and affiliated locals 14E, 144, 252 and 270; Midwest Regional Joint Board; and Local 503 (Charleston, S.C.).

The number of women workers continues to increase, and there are now almost 30,000,000 employed women. The majority of them are employed in traditionally low-paying occupations and low-wage industries. Many of them are not covered by either federal or state legislation or collective bargaining agreements.

The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and other labor unions and liberal organizations have sought to advance the standards of women workers, who, as a group, have been particularly subjected to economic exploitation. They have done this not only through collective bargaining, which regrettably covers fewer than 3,700,000 women, but also through federal and state legislation.

Because of widespread public interest in the plight of working women, many states instituted protective provisions even before the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. By the 1950's a majority of the states had such provisions, which minimized physical hazards and the most severe exploitation. The Equal Pay Law, enacted by the Congress in 1963, was a significant gain, as was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, by barring discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, as well as race, creed, color, or national origin, has helped to advance the status of women workers. Unfortunately, Title VII has also been used to overthrow the state protective provisions, those which are not discriminatory as well as those which are questionable. Since the last Amalgamated Convention, the onslaught on state provisions has been accelerated, and not only have a number of courts rendered adverse decisions but also several states have actually invalidated their provisions. There has also been renewed interest in the Equal Rights Amentment, on which a Senate Subcommittee held hearings this month.

There are various types of protection under state laws and regulations, a number of which should not be viewed as controversial and should clearly be preserved. These include restrictions on employment immediately before and after childbirth, seating, rest periods, days of rest and meal periods; all but the first could obviously be extended to men as well as women and would then present no conflict with Title VII. With regard to weight-lifting, the regulations do appear to be obsolete. Weight-lifting standards are appropriate for men as well as women for reasons of health. Present provisions could be revised in accordance with standards set by competent authorities on the basis of physical characteristics, without regard to sex; this would protect men and women equally and would not be in conflict with Title VII. Similarly, the exclusion of women from specified occupations, including those requiring physical exertion, could be reviewed in the light of modern medical knowledge and social attitudes to determine which limitations, if any, are still justified, with a view to eliminating discrimination against women.

But the major thrust of the assault on state protective legislation has been on the limitation of overtime hours. These provisions were originally enacted partly because of the extensive economic exploitation of women and their domestic responsibilities. Both these factors are still very relevant and warrant the maintenance of protection. Almost three out of five women workers are married and living with their husbands. Nearly two out of five are mothers, and many of these-11,000,000-have children under the age of 18. Even with a 40-hour workweek, such women have arduously long work-weeks, between their paid employment and their many hours of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care, and other household duties. Most women are employed at low-paying jobs, so that even those working full-time, including the ones who are the sole supports of their families, have earnings at the poverty level. These women have little protection, apart from the state provisions. More than one-fourth of them are not even covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and only 12 percent of them are unionized and working under collective bargaining agreements. Even those covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act would be at the mercy of their employers with regard to excessive overtime, in the absence of the state hours' limitations.

Relatively few women workers will benefit from a repeal of the hours' limitations. To begin with, in terms of promotional opportunities, many of the states which have hours' restrictions, already exempt administrative, professional, and executive employees. The women who want excessive overtime, who are not in these categories, are generally in higher-paying occupations and are usually protected by union contracts. The major beneficiaries of repeal of the hours' provisions will, in fact, be non-union and anti-union employers who naturally prefer no restrictions on their conditions of employment.

On the other hand, many working women stand to suffer from the repeal of the hours' limitations. This, of course, includes the several million unorganized women who are typically employed in low-wage industries where federal minimum wage coverage is inadequate. In many cases, if they were required to work excessively long hours, they would be unable to meet their home responsibilities and continue to work. This would most likely happen in service industries and certain types of retail trade and would be especially true in times of recession and labor surplus. It is a tribute to the social-mindedness of the Amalgamated and other labor unions that they fought for state protective legislation for these largely unorganized women.

51-146-70-19

But the Amalgamated has an even more direct interest in state protective legislation. A majority of the Union's members are women, and most of them are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some of them may want to work overtime, but many of them, particularly those in non-urban areas, do not want to work excessive overtime, which is not foreclosed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Many of them object to overtime because it disrupts their travel arrangements and requires unexpected baby-sitting provisions. If overtime is required on Saturday it is especially burdensome since this is usually the day when many household chores are taken care of. Another important consideration is that state protective legislation has acted to curtail unfair competition from non-union employers by requiring them to meet at least the minimal state standards.

The question with regard to the hours' limitations in state laws is one of assessing the discrimination against a relatively small number of women workers by virtue of denying them excessive overtime or the far greater, potentially cruel discrimination against the vast majority of working women for whom excessive overtime would be a great hardship and possibly the cause of their having to abandon employment altogether because of their home responsibilities. It is a question of the advancement of a few or the welfare of the many.

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, now under consideration by a Senate Subcommittee, is an even greater threat to the real status of women than Title VII's undermining of state protective legislation. It would completely wipe out much that has been gained through many years of struggle without, in and of itself, advancing the position of women. Apart from equal pay and equal employment opportunity, there are still areas in which women are discriminated against. What is needed here is specific legislation directed at these problems, rather than a constitutional amendment. Such specific legislation is already constitutional. The Equal Rights Amendment would not bring about any of the specific corrections; it would simply have the negative effect of wiping out what we have.

Apart from the problems of equal pay and equal employment opportunity, women workers also need additional opportunities for education and vocational training, particularly for refreshing skills unused during the early years of child-rearing. They are also handicapped in relation to work opportunities by the inadequacy of child-care facilities and the high cost of child care, a paramount consideration for many working women. Further education and vocational training and the extension of child-care facilities would enable women to particpate more fully in our economy and society.

Resolved, that the 27th Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC :

1. Reaffirms its efforts to improve the standards of all workers, men as well as women;

2. Commends the enactment of the Equal Pay Law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

3. Recommends passage of equal pay legislation in those states which do not have it to protect workers not covered by the federal law;

4. Urges, with regard to state protective legislation, that:

(a) Regulations providing for rest periods, meal periods, days of rest, seating, and restricted employment before and after childbirth be retained and, except for the last, be extended to male workers,

(b) Regulations on weight-lifting be revised in accordance with standards set by competent authorities on the basis of physical characteristics, without regard to sex,

(c) Regulations barring women from specified occupations, including those requiring physical exertion, be reviewed in the light of modern medical knowledge and social attitudes, and

(d) Overtime hours limitations be retained.

5. Reaffirms its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution because it would totally destroy state protective legislation, including that which is not discriminatory, and would not correct still existing abuses;

6. Recommends the enactment by the Congress of specific legislation directed toward correcting still existing discriminations against women;

7. Urges the extension and improvement of educational and vocational training opportunities for women; and

8. Supports the appropriation of additional federal funds for the expansion of child-care facilities and a liberalization of tax deductions for child-care expenses, under federal income-tax regulations.

Senator Cook. Thank you, very much, Miss Miller. We appreciate you testimony. I have no questions to ask you really and truly because I think that we have pretty well followed a course through these hearings. I will, however, say that if Professor Emerson and Professor Dorson do not mind at this time, I would like to call before the committee Miss Georgianna Sellers. I stated last week that I would like Miss Sellers to have the opportunity to testify, and I think after the statement of Miss Miller that it might be an opportune time for Miss Sellers to get a very short statement into the record. Thank you all very much.

STATEMENT OF GEORGIANNA SELLERS, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE FOR AMERICAN WORKING WOMEN

Miss SELLERS. Thank you, Senator Cook.

Senator Cook. Miss Sellers, it is nice to have you here.
Miss SELLERS. Thank you.

I am Georgianna Sellers of Clarksville, Ind., speaking on behalf of the Indiana and Kentucky unit of the League for Working Women known as LAWW. I am acting chairman for this organization. We have other chapters in California, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Kentucky, and other States are rapidly forming new chapters. LAWW's basic purpose is to work for and achieve equality of rights for women. It is not confined to workingwomen, although most of our members are factory workers.

The women in our organization wholeheartedly support the equal rights amendment. We do not expect the amendment to do the impossible but we do feel sure that the immediate passage of the ERA would at least knock the props out from under employers who are using the so-called protective labor laws for women only as an excuse to discriminate against women employees.

I agree with Myra Wolfgang, that "sex prejudice does parade in the cloth of tradition and American workingwomen are aware that it is tailored to the patterns of ignorance and special interest." But there the agreement between us ends. Instead of seriously working for the benefits of real workingwomen, she is traveling round sponsored by a male dominated union, overlooking conveniently the fact that the very women she is supposed to be representing are the most underpaid, downtrodden, discriminated against women in the whole work force. Women union officials should be working for the betterment of workingwomen and men instead of trying to kill a constitutional amendment that would be the first step toward a very realistic end of discrimination.

I would like also to put in evidence a letter written by Barbara Ireton which recently appeared in the Washington Post, under the title of "Aunt Tom." I quote:

How strange. While Myra Wolfgang, vice president of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders' Union was busy putting down equal rights for women, waitresses in Coronado, California had to fight to hold their jobs simply