Monthly Report of Labor Secretary, February 1, 1947

MONTHLY REPORT OF THE LABOR DEPARTMENT

February 1, 1947

The Labor Committee held its quarterly meeting on January 14 in New York. A number of important matters discussed in the meeting have bearing on items in this report and they are mentioned in the appropriate places.

EMPLOYMENT

At the request of the Atlantic City Branch, the Labor Secretary held a conference on January 23 with the Atlantic City Transportation Company. The company indicates that under its policies colored operators will be hired.1 However, because of the seasonal nature of employment in Atlantic City, it will be difficult to test this until the peak hiring period of the company is reached. This will be in May or June, and an additional meeting is planned at that time. The branch is also working on a plan to secure employment opportunities for sales clerks in the 5 and 10¢ stores which are currently advertising for help.

Additional replies have been received from branches on action in the telephone industry. The following branches indicate that operators are now employed: Ventura, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California; Long Branch and Atlantic City, New Jersey; and Reno-Sparks, Nevada. Los Angeles and San Francisco indicate that employment of operators was the result of action by a number of community agencies, including the NAACP. San Jose, California reports that it is still at work on employment of persons in this capacity and the Reno-Sparks, Nevada Branch has obtained an agreement for the employment of operators. The branch reports that in the district covered by the company, colored operators are being used, but an effort is being made to get them in Reno at this time. Replies from the Philadelphia and Blair County Branches state that the telephone company contends it does not discriminate, but it has not yet put women on the job. The Philadelphia Branch stated that an unconfirmed report indicated that a survey was made of operators by the company and they expressed the willingness to work with colored girls but on a segregated basis. Such a plan, of course, would be absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary. The Labor Committee discussed this problem at its meeting and agreed that a subcommittee would visit top officials of the AT & T in an attempt to obtain a positive, clear cut statement of no discrimination. This meeting will be arranged when we have a more complete picture from other branches which have not yet communicated with the National Office.2

In November, the Labor Department requested the National Housing Agency to investigate discrimination against construction workers in Baltimore. At that time we stated, “The Baltimore branch of the NAACP (indicates) that minority workers are receiving no placements in the construction industry through the Maryland Employment Service. The branch also states that approximately 78 firms in the construction industry are accepting apprentices, all of those accepted are white.” On January 23, the National Housing Agency arranged a meeting in Baltimore between community agencies and government representatives. In addition, the National Housing Agency had follow-up conferences with contractors. Baltimore is to be used as a test area by the Housing Agency in attempting to obtain full use of the supply of colored, skilled construction workers.3

Branches in Raleigh, Charlotte, Columbia, Charleston, Spartanburg, Macon, Atlanta, Columbus, and Danville have received the following suggested plan of action on employment in the textile industry: “Since a great part of the textile industry is in your state, it would be a good idea to urge your local state employment service to work for the placement of colored persons in this industry on a non-discriminatory basis. If you do not have any success with the employment service, a visit to some of the leading firms by members of your Labor Committee would be advisable. If these plants are part of national companies, we shall be happy to take follow-up action with their central offices if you request it.” This problem was discussed in the Labor Committee Meeting and it was agreed an effort would be made to concentrate on areas of relatively lower resistance first in any move to accomplish the integration of colored persons in the industry. It was also agreed that we would solicit assistance in selection of the areas from the Textile Workers of the CIO.4

Through the efforts of the NAACP and the United Public Workers, discriminatory tactics which would have barred colored employees from the Federal Trade Commission were stopped.5 These employees were transferred from the Office of Price Administration by an executive order to the Federal Trade Commission. Some of the supervisors in the FTC advised OPA that colored and Jewish employees were not desired. The union began work on the matter immediately and the NAACP also took it up with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. After a conference with the union, the NAACP arranged a meeting with the Chairman of the Commission. In addition to union officials, some of the employees discriminated against were also present at this conference. Prior to the meeting, the Chairman of the Commission informed the NAACP that ten colored persons would be hired. After the conference, eleven additional persons were offered employment. However, four of these declined to accept it. The others went on the job.6

The Labor Secretary also joined the Public Workers as a representative of a veteran who had been dismissed from employment as a dishwasher in the Veterans Administration Facility, Jefferson Barracks, Missouri. The union alleged that there was general discrimination in the Veterans Administration Facility and its charges seem supported by evidence produced before the regional office of the Civil Service in St. Louis which had recommended reinstatement of the employee. At the hearing before the Civil Service Commission, the Labor Secretary made the following statement for the record: “The Veterans Administration was surprisingly vigorous in pressing charges against this man and apparently much less eager to take positive action to remedy discrimination in its St. Louis Facility. Although the Veterans Administration was represented by an official from St. Louis and three other Washington officers at the Civil Service hearing, it could shed no light on the grades of colored employees, but did contend that a great many were employed. Questioning by the NAACP revealed, however, that these persons were all in low grade jobs.7

The general question of discrimination in the federal government was discussed at the Labor Committee Meeting and it was agreed that an effort would be made to get this problem before the President’s Committee on Civil Rights.8

LEGISLATION

The Labor Secretary represented Mr. Walter White at a Policy Committee Meeting of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC.9 The Committee visited Senator Morse who agreed to introduce the revised FEPC Bill on Friday, January 24. Unfortunately, additional Republican sponsors could not be obtained in time for the introduction of the bill on that date.10 The state FEPC legislation was discussed at the Labor Committee Meeting and it was agreed that branches should concentrate on state FEPC in those areas where there is a maximum chance for success. The Labor Secretary was designated to talk with other organizations on which states would be desirable. Since the meeting, I have talked with the AFL and the National Catholic Welfare Conference. It appears that the states in which there is the best possibility are the following: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, California, and Washington. The AFL has prepared a model bill which is being sent to its state federations. Its Washington federation was especially anxious to push this legislation. The CIO also has a model bill which was prepared last year. Word has come from West Virginia that the NAACP is making a vigorous effort to have FEP legislation considered there. The Labor Secretary requested Senator Taft to provide an opportunity for the Association to be heard on the numerous anti-labor bills now under consideration by the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.11

COMMUNICATIONS TO STATE OFFICIALS

The Labor Department requested the FEPC in New Jersey and Massachusetts to seek the elimination of racial discriminatory practices among labor unions in their states. We cited the action of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination which recently announced progress made with unions in New York. While it is never possible to know whether a commitment means anything until it is actually tried out, such action should have important educational value.12

The new Governor of Maryland indicates that NAACP’s request for the adoption of employment service standards against discrimination is under consideration. A similar letter from the new Governor of New Jersey indicates that no discriminatory orders will be accepted by the employment service in that state.13

OTHER ACTIVITY

The Labor Secretary was called on to extend greetings at one of the sessions of the National Farm Labor Union’s Convention in Washington this month.

MS: NAACP II: A-341, DLC.

[1] See the headnote on Street and Local Railways in volume I.


[2] Battling employment discrimination in the telephone industry was an important part of the FEPC’s wartime mission. In addition to Mitchell’s reports and memoranda in volumes I and II, see the headnote on the Telephone Industry and related reports in the appendix there.


[3] See the headnote on Segregation in Federal Housing Programs.


[4] See 12/30/46, 6/2, 7/3, 9/3, and 12/1/47, and 3/1/48 for continuing activities in this area.


[5] See 3/1/47.


[6] Mitchell met with Garland S. Ferguson, chair of the FTC, on February 20, 1947, to discuss the charge by UPW that there had been racial discrimination by the FTC against African American and Jewish OPA employees. In a memorandum to Walter White, he explained that “FEPC records showed that this agency employed only 13 persons and all of these were in CPC (Craft, Protective, and Custodial) classifications.” Earlier, Mitchell had expressed to Arthur S. Flemming, commissioner of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the NAACP’s deep concern about “discrimination against black government employees, who, on being laid off by war agencies, were refused employment in other government establishments solely because of their race.” Mitchell’s letter to Flemming, 1/21/47, and memorandum to Walter White, 2/5/47, both in NAACP IX: 32, DLC.


[7] Despite Mitchell’s involvement here, matters pertaining to veterans were normally handled by Jesse Dedmond, secretary of veterans affairs. His reports were included in Reports of the Secretary to the Board. For a history of the Veterans Administration and for a chronology of veterans’ legislation, see Congress and the Nation 1338–41.


[8] The President’s Committee on Civil Rights was appointed by Truman on December 5, 1946. To Secure These Rights vii. See 11/1/47.


[9] Attached to Mitchell’s report of 2/17/47 to White was a comparison of the new FEPC bill with earlier ones. NAACP II: A-257, DLC.


[10] In a letter of February 5, 1947, to Walter White, Mitchell explained that there had been a hitch regarding the “mechanics” of getting the bill introduced. At a meeting of representatives of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC on January 20, Mitchell explained, Morse said that if the committee got the sponsors for the bill, the committee’s representatives could notify him and he would call the sponsors about attaching their names to the bill. Subsequently, Mitchell said he was informed that Morse stated he did not want to call the bill’s sponsors together. Consequently, it would be necessary for the council to find another senator to call the meeting of the sponsors.

Mitchell directed White’s attention to his memorandum of February 4, in which he provided a detailed report on “Meetings with Senator Taft and Others on FEPC Legislation” on that day. The council’s delegation sought Taft’s support and advice regarding the introduction of the council’s fair employment practices bill. Mitchell reported that although Taft said “he was very much interested in the FEPC idea,” he “could not under any circumstances endorse or sponsor the bill proposed by the Council.” Nevertheless, according to the council’s minutes of its meeting on February 6, Taft said he would appoint a subcommittee of the Senate Labor Committee to hold public hearings on the bill, refrain from introducing a bill himself, and discourage any other bill from being introduced in the Senate. Taft added that he “did not consider that any Republican Senator that would sponsor the bill would be violating the Party platform or loyalties, so that it was okay for the Council to approach any Senator for sponsorship of the bill.”

In a February 3 memorandum to White, Roy Wilkins, assistant executive secretary of the NAACP who was also deeply involved in the struggle for a permanent FEPC, had urged White to have Mitchell represent him at the meeting with Taft because he “would be a good man to sit in since, unlike some other persons on our staff, he is not ‘soft’ on Taft.” That jab was clearly directed at Leslie Perry, administrative assistant in the NAACP Washington bureau, who was also participating in the lobbying for a permanent FEPC. Mitchell’s letter and memorandum to White, Wilkins’s memorandum, 2/4/47, and two sets of the minutes of the council’s meeting on February 6 are among a large file on this struggle in NAACP II: A-266, DLC.


[11] On the antilabor bills, see 3/1 and 6/2/47.


[12] Hailed as a milestone in civil rights legislation, the revolutionary New York State Law against Discrimination in Employment became effective on January 7, 1945. It was sponsored by Rep. Irvin M. Ives and Sen. Elmer F. Quinn and was the first law in the country to outlaw discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin. It had an administrative machinery, the New York State Commission against Discrimination, with power to compel business, industry, employment agencies, and labor unions to end discriminatory employment practices in hiring, firing, promotion, and working conditions and on application forms; if they failed to do so, they would face punishment. Draft Report of the Committee to Support the Ives-Quinn Law to Our Three Sponsoring Agencies, attached to letter by Anne Mather, director, to Marian Perry, 1/6/49, NAACP II: A-194, DLC; New York Times 7/1/45, 10E.

During its first eight months of operation, the commission won a large degree of cooperation in enforcing the law. Turner, “Tolerance on Trial,” 14–15.


[13] See, among others, 8/31 and 11/30/46.