Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Increasingly women are testing the validity of these laws since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination by sex. The State Attorneys General in six states (S. Da., N. Da., Ohio, Pa., Mich., Okla.) have said they will not enforce Hours Laws for women in view of that conflict. In the Rosenfeld and the Richards case two federal district courts have rendered decisions against state protective laws (Oregon and California). The hours laws and weight-lifting regulations were deemed superseded by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.15

When the District of Columbia's chief legal officer ruled this March that the D.C. "8 Hour Law for Females" conflicts with the sex discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he explained his position in detail :

It is apparent therefore, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the "Female 8 Hour Law" are in conflict-the former among other things, requires that there be no discrimination in employment based on sex, the latter operates to deny to females employment opportunities available to males, with respect to working more than eight hours a day, six days a week, or forty-eight hours a week.

Regardless of the protective purpose for which the "Female 8 Hour Law" may have been originally enacted, the fact is that today the law tends to result in adverse discrimination against women, insofar as certain employment is concerned, rather than to protect them. On the other hand, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted with the liberal objective of alleviating just such discriminatory practices. In light of this, it is obvious that well-established principle of statutory construction favoring statutes enacted to alleviate discriminatory conditions should be applied in favor of the later and more general Civil Rights Act of 1964 as against the earlier "Female 8 Hour Law." 16

He concluded that, to the degree the 8 Hour Law results in adverse discrimination, by denying to women employment opportunities available to males, it is superseded by Title VII. Thus for all practical purposes the Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, which enforces this legislation has determined that the hours law for women is superseded by Title VII.

We believe if any of these cases reaches the Supreme Court that body will determine that all such special labor legislation just for women irreconcilably conflicts with Title VII and thus is void. We need passage of the Equal Rights Amendment however, to speed the process, more than that, to help insure the end result: namely, nullification of special labor legislation for women alone: assurance that labor legislation will affect workers regardless of sex.

We hope this Congress will pass this historic legislation-the Equal Rights Amendment enabling women to assume their full rights and responsibilities.

Senator Cook. I want to thank you for a very fine statement.

I might say for those parts that were deleted during the course of the statement, they will be included in full into the record.

Mrs. SHRIVER. Thank you.

Senator Cook. We have discussed this before in the earlier hearings, and I really have no questions except to thank you very much for your statement, with the hopes that we can continue to move on and come to a conclusion sometime before this day is over.

Mrs. SHRIVER. We thank you for your time.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much.

I am wondering, maybe we have somebody here who might like to have some kind of a bite of lunch. I am willing to limit it to 30 minutes if everybody else is, and be back here at 2 o'clock.

We have one, two, three, four, five, six, and possibly seven more witnesses. I might say that I would hope that if some have statements they would like to put into the record in toto, and then make any comments they might like to make, that it might speed up the afternoon's

15 See Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Company 293 F. Supp. 1219 (C.D. Calif., 1968) appeal pending Nos. 23, 983 and 23, 984 (C.A. 9); Richard v. Griffith Rubber Mills, 300 F. Supp. 338 (D.C. Oregon, 1969).

16 Opinion of the Corporation Counsel at 7.

proceedings, so that we could come to some conclusion before the day

is over.

However, if it is the desire of witnesses to read their statement in full, I want you to know that I will be here, and we will treat it on that basis.

Suppose we recess until 2 o'clock.

I might also say that if there is anyone who wishes to submit their statement to be put directly into the record, they may certainly do so and it will be put into the record as if given before the committee, because I am the only one here and I will read it.

So we will be back here at 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator Cook. We will come to order, if we may.

I would like at this time to put into the record the 1960 Bill of Rights of Canada. Under part I, I would like to read, it says as follows:

It is hereby recognized that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms; namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

(The document referred to follows:)

WE ARE 10 YEARS BEHIND CANADA

THE 1960 CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS-8-9 ELIZABETH II

CHAPTER 44

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. [Assented to 10th August, 1960.]

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada;

Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

PART I

BILL OF RIGHTS

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist wtihout discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namley,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the indivdual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights of freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;

(b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained

(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest
or detention,

(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of
validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not
lawful;

(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;

(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights obligations;

(f) deprive a person charged wtih a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or

(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

3. The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the Clerk of the Privy Council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. 4. The provisions of this Part shall be known as the Canadian Bill of Rights.

PART II

5. (1) Nothing in Part I shall be construed to abrogate or abridge any human right or fundamental freedom not enumerated therein that may have existed in Canada at the commencement of this Act.

(2) The expression "law of Canada" in Part I means an Act of the Parliament of Canada enacted before or after the coming into force of this Act, any order, rule or regulation thereunder, and any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.

(3) The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.

6. Section 6 of the War Measures Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"6. (1) Sections 3, 4 and 5 shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the Governor in Council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.

(2) A proclamation declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists shall be laid before Parliament forthwith after its issue, or, if Parliament is then not sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.

(3) When a proclamation has been laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (2), a notice of motion in either House signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within ten days of the day the proclamation was laid before Parliament, praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that House the the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.

(4) If both Houses of Parliament resolve that the proclamation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect, and sections 3, 4 and 5 shall cease to be in force until those sections are again brought into force by a further proclamation but without prejudice to the previous operation of those sections or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any penalty or forfeiture or punishment incurred.

(5) Any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of this Act, shall be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian Bill of Rights."

Senator Cook. I would next like to call Mrs. Gladys O'Donnell, who is president of the National Federation of Republican Women.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GLADYS O'DONNELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN

Mrs. O'DONNELL. Senator Cook. First I want preliminarily to my statement, which I will read, to express appreciation for women who have devoted a lifetime to getting recognition and equality for women. Senator Cook. I don't think this is on and we will get it turned on for you so you might have a little bit more of that water and get yourself straightened out.

Mrs. O'DONNELL. Thank you.

Well, preliminary to making my statement, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express appreciation to women like Mrs. Alice Paul who have devoted so much of their lives to securing equality and recognition of women. Especially I would like to express the appreciation and the indebtedness we all have to Congresswoman Martha Griffiths whose ability and perseverance and courage has brought us to this point in time toward the inevitable and I would like also to say about Senator Scott and many of the other Senators and Congressmen whose fine support have brought these proceedings about, how much we appreciate them.

My name is Gladys O'Donnell. I am president of the National Federation of Republican Women.

On behalf of our board of directors and half million members I express appreciation for the opportunity to present the following statement for the National Federation of Republican Women.

I am not an attorney, I am not a member of a labor union. I bring no particular professional expertise as a witness. I was a flight instructor during World War II under the Civil Aeronautics Authority— training instructors for the primary air corps training detachments. I have been a wife, a mother, a homemaker, a secretary, a bookkeeper, and active in civic, community, and philanthropical organizations. Most of my life I have worked closely with women and I feel I know them well enough to speak with some competence in their behalf.

Not as an exhibit, but as a proof of the interest of our women in the equal rights amendment I have brought with me a part of the many petitions that Republican women across the country have circulated in its behalf. I have no idea of the number of signatures representedwe stopped counting after 10,000. The important point I would make is that these names represent not labor unions, not trained legal minds, not even business and professional women. They are just women who have no interest other than simple justice.

The equal rights amendment has long been supported by our organization, and on January 23 of this year, to reemphasize its importance, it was again approved by the unanimous vote of our board of directors.

One hundred and ninety-four years ago the Declaration of Independence set forth the philosophical tenets of a young nation-"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ***” Beyond all doubt the word "men" is used in its generic sense and women were not excluded, but as it has worked out men are much more "equal" than women.

In this presentation it is my wish to approach the subject as a matter of the heart and spirit and then as an economic and political reality.

This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 19th amendment which gave American women the right to vote. Last year our organization honored the State of Wyoming which, as a territory, gave this recognition to women 100 years ago. Mrs. Esther Hobart Morris of South Pass, Wyo., guided the victory. Shortly thereafter she was appointed justice of the peace of South Pass, an honor the West bestowed for a quality it admires most-true grit.

In preparing a suitable tribute to the pioneer women who carried the crusade for the right to vote, we did considerable research. To know the story of America's women is to be acutely aware of the enormity of their legacy, their unwavering selflessness, purpose and courage. The settlement of the West, or any other part of this country for that matter, owes more to the endless toil of these pioneer women than to all other factors in its history. A character in Edna Ferber's "Cimarron" tells it this way:

You can't read the history of the United States, my friend *** without *** women learning of the great story of those thousands of unnamed women

in mud caked boots and calico dresses and sunbonnets, crossing the prairie and the desert and mountains, enduring hardship and privation. Good women with a terrible and rigid goodness that comes of work and self-denial. Nothing pictureseque or romantic about them, I suppose *** No, their story's never really been told, but it's there just the same. And if it's ever told straight, you'll know it's the sunbonnet and not the sombrero that's settled this country. The greatest of all observers of the American scene mid-19th century, Alexis de Toqueville said—

If I were asked *** to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of the United States ought mainly to be attributed, I should have to reply "To the superiority of its women."

Granddaughters and great-granddaughters of those pioneers are now in the forefront. Our quest is the equal rights amendment as embodied in House Joint Resolution 264-just as it passed the House of Representatives-without amendment and without change.

The extraordinary anachronism of this hearing is that it is taking place in the early twilight of the 20th century and that it finds women

« AnteriorContinuar »