Imágenes de páginas


differences of opinion concerning the possibility of Federal grants in aid to strengthen the functioning of State departments of labor.

These citations provide some of the background for Resolution VII, passed at the 1965 IAGLO convention, commending the Secretary of Labor for assistance to the States and respectfully suggesting that he conduct a thorough study of the problems of dual jurisdiction and the development and financing of legislation for the adequate protection of the labor force in our expanding and rapidly changing economy.

This resolution was the main theme of the discussions between the Secretary and the executive board. The Secretary expressed great interest in the proposal. He properly recognized the importance of proceeding carefully and thoroughly. The idea seems to be progressing and will, I assume, be reported on during this convention by representatives of the Department of Labor. Although the study in depth that was visualized is not one that is done overnight or in a short period of time that envisages a really complete and thorough study of a kind that cost money and takes time and special talents in its preparation.

Also growing out of the discussions of the executive board with the Secretary were collateral ideas with significance to FederalState relationships. After discussions with the executive board, the Secretary called a meeting of various State labor commissioners in Washington, March 17–18, providing a very productive opportunity for discussion of pending legislation.

Also, as a result of our discussions, the Secretary designated our own Secretary-Treasurer, George Brown, to act as liaison between the labor commissioners and the U.S. Department of Labor. This constitutes a further logical step, implementing a field program which the Bureau of Labor Standards has been developing in recent years.

We had no illusions in this regard, nor did the Secretary. Many States have well-established relationships with various bureaus of the Federal Department of Labor in matters of mutual concern. There were no difficulties resulting with any such relationship. But on almost every occasion when we met with the Secretary, questions arose where State representatives on the executive board reported situations of difficulty in getting action or finding out where to go in the Labor Department to get any consideration to their problems. And the Secretary responded in good faith to the problem we presented when he designated George Brown as the liaison person.

From personal experience I can say that within a matter of days after his designation, I telephoned George on a sticky problem and it was resolved within 48 hours. Whether or not George was responsible, I cannot say, but as long as we get that kind of action we won't ask any questions.

I am sure George has plenty of opportunity to keep busy with his more routine tasks, but if any of you have really difficult problems in connection with the Federal Department of Labor, I urge

I you to place them on George's doorstep. IV. Other Major Areas of Concern to State Labor Departments

Time does not permit a detailed discussion of two other broad problem areas which should be of concern to State labor departments. I refer to manpower training and to employment security administration. Due to differences in organization among the States, however, these areas in many States have not received full recognition by their departments of labor.

In connection with manpower training, the Federal Department of Labor, along with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has participated in the administration of the Manpower Development and Training Act. State participation has been largely through the State bureaus of employment security. Due to recognition of the relationship to apprentice training, on-the-job training activities under MDTA has in some States been administered outside the State employment security agency.

In my own opinion, the administration and financing of manpower training are still in the process of development to the point that I have no certainty of how this field will be handled 5 or 10 years from now. I am fearful, however, that State departments of labor will not contribute as much to the solution of problems in this field as I feel they should and are capable of doing. I have the impression that the Provincial labor departments may be ahead of the States.

Without minimizing some of the problems facing the Federal Government in dealing with the States in employment security, those of us from the States are not without our problems in dealing with the Federal Department of Labor. Without detailing these problems, one of the most important is the lack of communication between the Federal Establishment and the State departments of labor, concerning employment security matters—even in those States where the labor department includes employment security.

The Federal Department of Labor needs the point of view, the know-how, and the participation generally speaking, of State departments of labor if the unemployment insurance and the employment service are to play their appropriate roles and are to gain the necessary acceptance.

[ocr errors]

In mentioning this, I do so as I indicated at the beginning with the recognition of a very different degree of present interest on the part of State departments of labor in the employment security as well as in the training activities. Much is cooking in this field and it has many implications and direct impacts, as far as labor programs are concerned. Taking the States collectively, we are letting the resolution go largely by default in the absence of a more positive, broader expression of interest on the part of the States.

[ocr errors][merged small]

As I conclude my remarks, I wish to express my very sincere appreciation to Ernie Webb, as Vice President, to George Brown as Secretary-Treasurer, and to the other members of the executive board, who because of their interest, availability, and competence have been responsible, together with many others of our membership, for such progress as the association has been able to make.

I also express my very sincere appreciation to Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz. Without his recognition of the problems we face and without his interest and understanding, we would not have been able to get the wheels rolling toward what we all hope will be improved and more effective relationships between the Federal Government and the States in the field of labor affairs.

Also, in our dealings with the Federal Department of Labor, special mention is due to Under Secretary John Henning who is aware of the problems and attitudes in the States and is an invaluable friend at court.

It is also appropriate to recognize over the years the constructive role played by the Bureau of Labor Standards and its leadership in constructive work with State departments of labor. My first real acquaintance with the Bureau of Labor Standards was through its then Director Art Motley, who was and is universally recognized as one who not only concedes that State departments of labor exist but recognizes the enhanced role which must be afforded State labor departments, in spite of barriers of policies, bureaucracy, and lack of understanding, if the members of the work force are to have the protections to which they are entitled.

Last, but not least, I recognize the invaluable contributions of Nelson Bortz, Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, to constructive relationships with State departments of labor. By way of illustration: at one of our sessions with the Secretary of Labor concerning the snafu over contracts with the States for safety inspections needed on Walsh-Healey contracts, the Secretary turned to Nelson and asked him to describe the problem. He did so in much more effective fashion than I have ever heard it done by those of us from State departments of labor. I can't help but conclude that his solid, factual description provided the real foundation and start on which the Secretary of Labor and our special committee under Ernie Webb were able to build in working toward solutions.

It has been a pleasure to serve you as your President during the past year, to have the opportunity to report to you at this time, and I will look forward to further communications during the course of this convention.

President CATHERWOOD. I will now call on George T. Brown, Secretary-Treasurer of IAGLO, for his annual report.

Report of the Secretary-Treasurer

GEORGE T. BROWN, Deputy Director, Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S.

Department of Labor Mr. Chairman, members of IAGLO. The report of your SecretaryTreasurer properly opens with reference to the finances of the organization.


During the present audit period, the income of IAGLO amounted to $5,275, and disbursements totaled $4,607.43. The total assets of the association amount to $11,152.01, and consist of $5,440.01 in cash and $5,712 in U.S. bonds.

A detailed report will be presented to the convention by the auditing committee.


For a number of years, Arizona, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah were the only States that did not hold membership in IAGLO. At the direction of the executive board, invitations were extended to these six States to become members. I am happy to report that the States of Utah and Arizona have accepted invitations to membership. Currently, therefore, it appears that the membership of IAGLO will include all the Provinces of Canada, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and 46 States.


Action has been taken on all the resolutions adopted by the 1965 convention.

Resolution I urged the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to eliminate bona fide discrimination based on sex while at the

same time preserving State legislation which establishes standards for employment of women. As directed, a copy of this resolution was transmitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Commission continues to approach the problem on a case-by-case method.

Resolution II was a memorial, paying tribute to the Honorable Adlai E. Stevenson and extending condolences to the President of the United States on behalf of the people of the United States and to the family of Adlai E. Stevenson. Copies of the resolution were sent to the President and to the Stevenson family.

Resolution III was a memorial resolution for Frances Perkins. A copy of the resolution was sent to her family.

Resolution IV supported the principle of expanding services to wage earners by strengthening State labor departments, where needed and requested, through the provision of Federal grants-in-aid. Copies of this resolution were transmitted to Secretary W. Willard Wirtz and to Assistant Secretary Esther Peterson. To date, no bill has been introduced in the Congress which would provide grantsin-aid to State labor departments.

Resolution V supported programs for consumer education and information and supported State legislation directed toward this objective. A copy of this resolution was transmitted to Assistant Secretary Peterson, as Chairman of the President's Committee on Consumer Interests.

Resolution VI, adopted by majority action of the convention, called for a repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. As directed by the convention, copies of the resolution were transmitted to the President, the Secretary of Labor, and to all Members of the House and Senate. Some 16 Senators and 32 Congressmen acknowledged receipt of the resolution. Congressman Brademas (Indiana) described the resolution in the Congressional Record on July 28, 1965. The bill was defeated in the Senate, after having been passed in the House.

Resolution VII was concerned with problems of Federal-State relationships and called upon the Secretary of Labor to conduct a thorough study of these problems. The resolution was transmitted to the Secretary who accepted the proposal. The Department of Labor is now developing plans to make the study.

Resolution VIII supported proposals for improving and updating the Nation's unemployment insurance program, as contained in H.R. 8282 and S. 1991, and directed that copies of the resolution be sent to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance. The resolution was sent and members of


« AnteriorContinuar »