View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF WOMEN

HEARING
BEFORE T H E

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
N I N E T Y - T H I R D CONGRESS
SECOND

SESSION

PART 4
J U N E 17, 1974

P r i n t e d f o r t h e use o f t h e J o i n t E c o n o m i c

Coniuiittee

U.S. GOVERNMENT P R I N T I N G OFFICE
79-970

W A S H I N G T O N : 1976

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402 - Price 75 cents
There is a m i n i m u m charge of $1.00 f o r each mail order




JOINT ECONOMIC

COMMITTEE

(Created pursuant t o sec. 5 ( a ) of Public L a w 304, 7 9 t h Cong.)
W R I G H T P A T M A N , Texas,
Chairman
W I L L I A M P R O X M I R E , Wisconsin, Vice
Chairman
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SENATE
R I C H A R D ROLLING, Missouri
H E N R Y S. REUSS, Wisconsin
M A R T H A W. G R I F F I T H S , M i c h i g a n
W I L L I A M S. M O O R H E A D , Pennsylvania
H U G H L. CAREY, New Y o r k
W I L L I A M B. W I D N A L L , New Jersey
B A R B E R B. C O N A B L E , JR., New Y o r k
C L A R E N C E J. B R O W N , Ohio
B E N B. B L A C K B U R N , Georgia

J O H N S P A R K M A N , Alabama
J. W. F U L B R I G H T , Arkansas
A B R A H A M R I B I C O F F , Connecticut
H U B E R T H . H U M P H R E Y , Minnesota
L L O Y D M. B E N T S E N , JR., Texas
J A C O B K . J A V I T S , New Y o r k
C H A R L E S H . PERCY, I l l i n o i s
J A M E S B. PEARSON, Kansas
R I C H A R D S. S C H W E I K E R , Pennsylvania

J O H N R . S T A R K , Executive

LOUGHLIN F. MCHUGH, Senior
RICHARD F. KAUFMAN, General

Director

Economist
Counsel

ECONOMISTS
WILLIAM A. Cox
JERRY

L U C Y A . FALCONE

J. JASINOWSKI
COURTENAY M .

JOHN R. KARLIK
SLATER

SARAH JACKSON
LARRY

L . DOUGLAS
YUSPEH

LEE

MINORITY
L E S L I E J . BANDER




GEORGE D . K R U M B H A A R , J r . ( C o u n s e l )

(li;

WALTER B.

LAESSIG

(Counsel)

CONTENTS
WITNESSES

AND

STATEMENTS

MONDAY, J U N E 17,

1974

Javits, Hon. Jacob K., member of the Joint Economic Committee, presidi n g : Opening statement
M c C l a u r i n , B e n j a m i n F., president. Professional Household Workers
Association
Cunningham, Evelyn, director, Women's U n i t , State of New Y o r k
T o r t o n , I n a , director, New T i m e
Epstein, Cynthia, professor, Queens College, New Y o r k , N.Y
Norton, Eleanor Holmes, chairperson, Commission on H u m a n Rights. New
York, N.Y
Peratis, Kathleen, director. Women's Rights Project, Women's C i v i l
Liberties Union
Seifer, Nancy, director. Community Relations, A m e r i c a n Jewish Committee
P i a t t , Marguerite, president. W o r k i n g Mothers f o r F a i r T a x Treatment—
McCaffrey, Carlyn, assistant professor. New Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y L a w School__
Betanzos, A m a l i a V., vice chairperson, New Y o r k C i t y Housing A u t h o r i t y .
Shack, B a r b a r a , assistant director, New Y o r k C i v i l Liberties U n i o n
DeSaren, Carol, vice president f o r employment legislation and education,
M a n h a t t a n N a t i o n a l Organization of Women ( N O W )
Hodges, Gertie, director, Seabury D a y Care Center
W i l l i a m s , Lucille, Seabury D a y Care parent. B r o n x , N . Y
Radcliff, Dolores, East H a r l e m D a y Care parent
Fasteau, Brenda Feigen, director, American C i v i l Liberties U n i o n




(111)

Page
581
582
585
588
592
595
599
601
603
604
613
616
619
623
625
626
631




ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF WOMEN
M O N D A Y , J U N E 17, 1 9 7 4
CONGRESS OF T H E U N I T E D
J O I N T ECONOMIC

STATES,
COMMITTEE,

'Washrngton^ D.G.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 305,
26 Federal Plaza, New York, N.Y., Hon. Jacob K . Javits (member of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Javits.
Also present: Leslie J. Bander, minority professional staff member.
Senator J A V I T S . The Joint Economic Committee w i l l come to order.
The Chair would like to state that Congresswomen Griffiths, who is
a member of the f u l l committee, regrets very much that she is unable
to attend today and has asked me to carry on the hearing on the economic problems of women on the part of the committee; Mrs. G r i f fiths having been designated by Chairman W r i g h t Patman to conduct
these hearings on the subject wherever they may be held.
The Chair wishes to make an opening statement.
O P E N I N G S T A T E M E N T OP S E N A T O R

JAVITS

One, to express my pleasure at being i n my home city, and being
authorized to conduct the hearing on so important a subject.
I n light of the trend reflected by the Bank of America agreement
in California last week, major corporations are busying themselves
for purposes of righting the balance i n employment and advancement
opportunities for women, before they are hauled into court.
Although there is a common belief that i t is becoming easier for
Avomen to make their way i n the economy, the most recent figures
available from the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor show
that exactly the opposite is true: I n 1971 the median earnings of all
women as a percentage of all men's earnings was 59.9 percent. However, i n 1972, the latest date for which statistics are currently available, this percentage actually declined to 57.9 percent—showing an
increase i n the differential pay between men and women. Now, there
are already laws on the books which are supposed to correct this
inequity. I believe that the statistics prove that existing legislation is
either insufficient or that there are too many loopholes i n these laws
which allow their intent to be circumvented.
Women face a frustrating situation when deciding whether or not
to enter the labor force. The treatment of women, for example, under
our current tax laws and social security and private pension plans provides little incentive for many women to become employed. Child care
deductions are limited. They are not considered a business expense.
Now f u l l deductions are permitted for those earning joint incomes of



(581)

582.
$18,000 per annum and 50 cents of every dollar may be deducted for
those who earn under $27,000. Inflation lias driven up the dollar figures
of salaries and wages, while at the same time keeping real income either
the same or lower. Additionally, there are an inadequate number of day
care centers, both i n quality and quantity. Women whose working years
are interrupted by childbirth are penalized i n social security benefits.
Contrary to popular opinion that most women work to bring i n
money for extras, outside the normal course of life, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics reveals that 42 percent of all women workers are single,
widowed, divorced, or separated from their husbands. Nineteen percent
of the women workers in this country have husbands whose incomes
are under $7,000. These women—the ones who must shoulder either all
or a significant part of the financial responsibility for the entire households—are the same people who find i t difficult to obtain credit to buy
a home, who pay higher rates and receive less coverage from many
insurance companies, and who may be denied the right to have a major
credit card.
This State, I am pleased to say, has just passed a most progressive
law to deal wdth many of these problems. There is still a need for
national legislation which would correct many inequities. Last week
I voted for a b i l l which prohibits discrimination based on sex or marital
status in connection w i t h any consumer or commercial credit. We are
now waiting for action by the House.
Some of today's witnesses w i l l address the important issue of the
woman who works a lifetime i n the home, providing services of recognizable necessity and importance, yet who has no opportunity to be
covered by either a private pension or social security.
Our purpose i n today's hearing is to air suggestions for national
legislation which would address the important issues I have nientioned,
and also to discover loopholes i n the existing Federal legislation which
must be corrected i n order f o r Federal laws to be t r u l y effective.
Legislation must insure that discrimination is no longer allowed;
and enforcement is needed to continue at much more rapid and effective rate. The Department of Labor has found that less than half of the
back pay owed to women, because of violations of the Equal Pay Act,
has been paid. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must
be adequately staffed and funded to prevent a backlog of compliance
cases for fiscal year 1974. We must remain vigilant as we t r y to continue
i n the tradition of the 1967 C i v i l Eights Act, the Bank of America
agreement, and the Equal Eights Amendment.
That ends the Chair's statement.
The Chair would appreciate i t i f witnesses w^ould l i m i t themselves
to 5 minutes i n a direct statement leaving some time for questions.
A n d we w i l l start from left to right.
M r . McClaurin, who is an old friend, very distinguished New
Yorker, president of the Professional Household Workers Association, would you proceed.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN P. McCLAURIN, PRESIDENT,
PROFESSIONAL HOTISEHOLD WORKERS ASSOCIATION
M r . M C C L A U R I N . Thank you.
The Household worker occupation is one that cries out for sustenance and continued development at city. State, and the national
level. A dual need for our entire society is represented here: (1) The



583.
employer needs competent, trained household workers, and (2) the
employees are seeking the ways i n which they may develop careers
of both distinction and dignity w i t h i n the frame of their chosen
occupation.
Over the years, this society has witnessed a declining number of
much-needed household workers. Conversely, the need—the demand—
for competent, well-trained household w^orkers has been sharply increasing for the past quarter of a century. Twenty-five years ago, the
ratio of working women i n this country was one out of nine. The
immber of working women has steadily increased u n t i l now the ratio
stands at one out of three. That singular statistic is just one of the
major indicators of why the demand for competent, well-trained
household help is on the increase. As there are more and more working
mothers in the business and commercial job markets, there is an everincreasing, corresponding need for household workers.
For decades—even generations—^the household worker occupation
has suffered i n terms of its image. I t has traditionally been degraded,
discriminated against, downtrodden, and made to appear servile and
unwanted. This image—this general attitude—has produced within
this much-needed occupation generations of frustrated and lowly paid
workers. Thu§ the diminishing numbers w i t h i n the occupation.
This image—this general attitude—has put untold- thousands, and
perhaps even hundreds of thousands, on welfare relief roles. And,
therefore, our total society suffers not only the loss of household workers, but our economy suffers the increasing burden of welfare costs.
Most household workers have never known the benefits which most
other workers take for granted. Such benefits as health, accident, and
life insurance—sick leave—vacations w i t h pay—retirement benefits;
these are practically unknowns in the lives and careers of household
workers. A n d I emphasize most strongly that household workers suffer
the most blatant of economic and social discrimination. There is indeed an ongoing and dastardly irony in the plight and suffering of the
household workers of this city, this State, and this Nation: While
there is an ever-increasing cry—growing louder w i t h each passing
day—for competent, well-trained, household help; the affluent in our
society cry for such help, the ever-increasing numbers of working
motliers cry for such help, the aged—the handicapped—all constitute
an ever-growing demand for such help; and yet the numbers of w^orkers diminish because of discrimination and lack of any semblance of
parity w i t h other workers i n the labor force.
Clearly, this Nation can no longer afford to ignore the ever-rising
demand for the services of household workers and simply offer conscious sympathy for their plight. The cost to this Nation in terms of
pure economics and loss of jobs that need to be filled is much too great
a price to pay—and the resulting loss and suffering accrue to all segments of our society. Eather than witness a decreasing number of
much-needed household workers, the leaders of this Nation should feel
constrained to move away from the rhetoric of the past and start now
to make powerful efforts to attract and help to provide additional
workers i n this increasingly essential occupation.
The Professional Household Workers of America, whom I serve
as president, has set f o r t h a plan—a d e s i ^ — a structure that would
upgrade, professionalize, give dignity and economic gain to an entire



584.
vocation while simultaneously giving ever-growing support to the
ever-increasing needs of employers.
The Professional Household Workers of America has set forth
objectives for the express purpose of designing a structure for the
economic and social upgrading of an entire vocation having a membership of more than l i ^ million i n this country; a design that would
give an economic u p l i f t , not only to that vocation, but to other tangential business interests; a design which gives to the members of
that vocation economic benefits which, as a group, they have never
had: A design that gives to that vocation—and to its people—a sense
of dignity, pride, and statute which they have never enjoyed; a design
that would pose no threat to the employer, but rather work i n behalf
of both the worker and the employer.
The design of the Professional Household Workers of America is
two-pronged:
(1) A multicourse training program for household workers structured to afford the worker the opportunity to climb a career ladder
within the frame and scope of the vocation.
(2) A society of peers would be formed for household workers in
order to bring about the accrual of economic benefits to be derived
from group health and accident insurance, group l i f e insurance, bonding, pension plans, and public recognition of the household worker as
an individual skilled i n an honorable occupation.
The training program for household workers is a most important
vehicle i n the development of skills and professional attitudes. The
program further serves to add to the numbers of competent and muchneeded household workers. As pointed out earlier, the demand for
competent household workers is high and increasing out of proportion to other ccupations. A n effective training program directed especially to include the young and unemployed produces dividends i n
all sectors of our society.
Skills and competency relating to the upkeep and maintenance of
the home or apartment are essentials valued most highly by the employer. The p r o f e s s i o n a l l y trained household worker more f u l l y develops and understands wise budgeting and shopping, the use of the
most effective cleaning compounds, oils, polishes, and other household cleaning agents. The well-trained worker more f u l l y relates to
the needs and the well-being of the elderly, the handicapped, and
children i n the home. The trained household worker has knowledge
of safety factors and precautions to protect the health and well-being
of both children and adults.
I t should also be emphasized that few employers of household help
have a clear understanding of either the skills or the time required
to complete tasks. I n addition, relatively few employers of household
workers have the desire and required competence to teach and train
household workers. Generally, the household worker is deprived of
the opportunity to learn the basic and upgrading skills while being
tutored and trained on the job. Further, the household worker is normally subject to the appraisal of an employer who may neither know
how to perform household tasks nor wish to instruct the worker. The
training program thus serves a real need for both entry-level workers
and for those who wish to upgrade their occupational skills.
Should governmental agencies at city, State, and national levels aid
in the subsidization of career ladder training programs for household



585.
workers for a period of not less than 1 year and no more than 3 years,
the Professional Household Workers of America could then be given
the opportunity to formulate a society of peers. That grouping would
be developed for the express purpose of creating and sustaining a selfhelp benefit program that would give to household workers that which
they have never had as a group: Insurance programs, bonding, retirement plans, their own credit unions, and a host of other self-help
benefits to give the household workers of this city, this State, this
Nation, a greater sense of economic and social status.
Should we poll this public forum on this occasion to determine the
most debased, the women i n our society who encounter the adverse
effects of discrimination every day of their lives, that most downtrodden of women would most likely be the 93 percent of the labor
force of the household workers of America. I t is ironic that this is
one of the most essential vocations w i t h i n the frame of the entire
labor market. These women are representatives of a vocation who hold
the responsibility f o r the most valued and prized possessions we have:
our homes, our children, parents, grandparents, our sick, our handicapped, and such tangibles as our prized paintings, antiques, and
other accoutrements to be found i n our homes.
A n d now i n concluding this presentation on behalf of household
workers, allow me to present to this committee a format—a methodology—for governmental agencies to help to advance the economic
status of household workers.
A most logical and economically sound beginning would be to allocate funds at city. State, and national levels to establish research and
demonstration programs of outreach, training, and placement of
household workers. Offer programs of training that would both upgrade and professionalize the skills of household workers; programs
that foster and develop a society of professionals, having the respect,
the admiration, and the economic benefits which they have never
had but which is r i g h t f u l l y theirs. I would urge you to profoundly
consider the plight of w^omen who know the meaning of economic discrimination better than most; those who simply choose homemaking
as a career.
This country badly needs household workers; and the need grows
greater every day.
Give them career ladder training programs to upgrade and professionalize their skills. Give them an opportunity to formulate a society
of well-trained professionals. Give them a chance, for the first time
in their lives, to be a part of the American dream. Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much, M r . McClaurin.
Ms. Cunningham, would you come forward. 5Is. Cunningham is
director of the Women's U n i t , Office of the Governor of New York.
Would you please make your statement now.
STATEMENT OF EVELYN CUNNINGHAM, DIEECTOE, WOMEN'S
UNIT, STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . Thank you.
Senator Javits, I deeply share your concerns w i t h the economic
problems of women, and I welcome your invitation to testify specifically in the area of employment.
79-970—76




2

586.
Mucli research and reading, many interviews w i t h knowledgeable,
well-informed people have made one strong point w i t h me. Everybody
is in favor of job training for women. The who, what, when, where,
how of this training is not as clear as the declaration of support.
What is quite clear, as Edmund Burke said, is that ''The only thingnecessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I
would add that the triumph of evil is doubly assured when good women
do nothing.
A n d there is no question that too many good women are doing
nothing—in the job market.
Grim pictures were drawn last year during a seminar of the Council
of Economic Advisers, by a number of distinguished economists.
H i l d a Kahne, assistant dean of the Radcliffe Institute, reported that
"Relatively few companies include women in their training program
and many entry level jobs open to women do not permit an evaluation
of managerial capability."
She pointed out that the qualities and skill growths needed to
justify advancement for w^omen are still demonstrated only in recognized, traditional Avays—that criteria from work and life experience
to permit identification of talent have not been set—that little i f any
use has been made of the application of the role model concept in recruiting and training women.
A t the same symposium, E l i Ginzberg, another proixiinent economist,
noted t h a t :
. . . since you move to middle management and f r o m middle management to
top management, through education and t r a i n i n g opportunities w i t h i n an organization, and t h r o u g h t h e e x t e r n a l t r a i n i n g programs, I have been very distressed
over the years t h a t I have been doing e x t e r n a l t r a i n i n g t h a t you almost never see
a woman at the senior management seminars.
For 10 years, I h a d a l l the technical personnel i n one o f the largest chemical
companies i n t h i s country come through m y hands, about 1,100, and we h a d
one women i n those 10 years. I have been a member of the f a c u l t y of the Graduate
School of Business, we r a n a big in-house management p r o g r a m f o r 22 years, and
we have h a d t w o women i n 22 years.
So I submit, t h a t unless the question of t r a i n i n g , both i n the more i m p o r t a n t
i n t e r n a l company programs a n d i n t h e m o r e i m p o r t a n t e x t e r n a l t r a i n i n g programs, are opened u p to women, women are not going to be available f o r senior
appointments, because a large number of the companies choose their appointments f r o m these programs.
Despite the f a c t t h a t employers are required to develop w r i t t e n affirmative
action plans f o r recruiting, h i r i n g , t r a i n i n g and promoting women, f e w have
even reviewed the access of women to management t r a i n i n g programs, as w e l l
as to jobs at a l l levels.
Neither i n d u s t r y nor government have made many efforts to r e c r u i t f r o m the
existing sources where women are l i k e l y to be trained. They have not really
opened up their occupational structures. Top management has not yet become
seriously involved i n the task o f communicating t o lower management t h a t i t
take this seriously.
Meanwhile, the cost of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n employment and promotion is high.
I n the last 7 years, t h e Department of Labor has collected f r o m employers about
$56 m i l l i o n i n job d i s c r i m i n a t i o n cases. I n the last year and a h a l f they have
collected $31 m i l l i o n . Court decisions have shown t h a t good intentions are not
enough.
The E q u a l Pay A c t of 1963 notwithstanding, women are s t i l l earning only 59
cents f o r every dollar earned by men i n comparable f u l l - t i m e positions.
The class of persons most deeply affected by such employment d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
consists of m i n o r i t y women—who suffer f r o m d u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by v i r t u e o f
both t h e i r race or ethnic background and t h e i r sex.
I n t h e words of Commissioner F r a n k i e M . Freeman, of the U.S. C i v i l Service
Commission, "Sex and race u n i t e to render m i n o r i t y women most discriminated




587.
against. T h i s doesn't, of course, deny the severe d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w h i c h b o t h
m i n o r i t y mfen a n d w h i t e women also suffer H o w e v e r , f u r t h e r d a t a reveal t h a t —
i n a d d i t i o n t o h a v i n g l o w e r i n c o m e s — m i n o r i t y women a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o be i n
t h e l a b o r force a n d to have higher, .rates of u n e m p l o y m e n t t h a n any other group
of persons. T h i s is especially d e v a s t a t i n g to black f a m i l i e s , as 32 percent of our
f a m i l i e s are headed by women. Because o f the double j e o p a r d y w h i c h m i n o r i t y
women face i n r e g a r d to employment, education, a n d t h e g r a n t i n g of credit, 54
percent of these f a m i l i e s m u s t e x i s t a t or below the poverty level.

The number of employed women has increased h j 6 million since
W o r l d W a r I I , while the number of licensed day care centers has
decreased by 83 percent. This clearly has a serious impact on the
m i n o r i t y woman who must work to support her children—or accept the
welfare system, without adequate provisions for the care of those children, and without adequate income to provide for them.
The advancement of the most qualified people, women as well as men,
black as well as white, into managerial, professional, and technical positions w i l l be the key advantage of tomorrow's whinners over tlie losers
who remain locked i n r i g i d , traditional notions about the roles of
women and the roles of blacks i n the w o r l d of work.
The w o r l d of work is an ideal testing ground to assess one's personal
worth, and this w o r l d desperately needs women—inot only for their
potentials, their special skills and talents, but also f o r their special
spirits.
I find l i t t l e evidence that women are being encouraged to plan and
t r a i n f o r better jobs, that there is any real effort to speed up the process
of eliminating the discriminatory and illegal sex labels attached to
jobs, that some job t r a i n i n g is not farcical, and that women are being
prepared f o r nonexistent jobs.
I am especially depressed and concerned about black working women
who seem to be caught i n the middle of a hurricane of white women's
rights rising on one side—and a tornado of black men's rights blowing
up a storm on the other side.
They know the possible tragedy of black women w o r k i n g side by side
w i t h black men to achieve c i v i l rights, only to discover that they are still
second-class citizens w i t h i n their own race because of their sex. Black
women, perhaps more than any other American women, need and seek
the instruments that can assure their personal worth. They have the
most to gain f r o m the equality of opportunity f o r women and they
recognize their potential f o r b r i n g i n g both tlie w^omen's grouj)S and
m i n o r i t y groups together f o r unified approaches around basic issues.
T h a n k you.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much, Ms. Cunningham.
The Chair has some questions of the witnesses.
Ms. Torton, I ' d like to point out, for the record, that we have a letter
f r o m the Office of Management and Budget, which commits the Federal
Government to part-time employment as a matter of Federal policy,
so the Tunney b i l l , which I support, simply tries to implement a policy
which we have already adopted.
M y suggestion would be that i f you have had actual places i n the
Federal Government called to your attention where part-time work
could be a factor, that you call i t to our attention. A n d I w i l l undertake
to pursue i t and find out whether part-time work could suffice.
W o u l d you be good enough to do that ?
Ms. TORTOIST. Surely.




588.
Senator J A V I T S . Second, what is the impact of day care on the parttime employee business, and is the day care network adequate?
You just W r d testimony from the State level that day care centers
have decreased 83 percent.'I assume you meant day care slots; is that
right, Ms. Cunningham ?
Ms. CuxNiNOHAM. Yes.
Senator J A V I T S . I t is a long standing grievance of mme, I have
worked w i t h Eleanor Guggenheimer, who is the angel of day care, 20
years ago, and I thought we had made considerable progress. Obviously, we haven't.
W o u l d you give us your view on it, Ms. Torton?
TESTIMONY OF INA TORTON, DIRECTOR, NEW TIME
Ms. T O R T O N . I would say that the progress is actually negative. For
one, the slots have been cut back terribly. They are insufficient to fill
all the needs of women going to work.
Day care is terribly inad^uate i n all subburban communities. I t is
terribly inadequate i n the inner cities. I t just doesn't even begin to
account for the needs of women who must go to work and yet w i t h
children that would be left unattended, and therefore job possibilities
are impossible for them.
But beyond the issue of day care is the whole issue of school-age
children, 'whose school schedules end at 3 o'clock or somewhere around
there, and at the same time the regular work schedule runs from 9 to
5 o'clock.
Senator J A V I T S . N O W , we have the elementary and secondary education bill, which is i n conference right now, a provision for community schools, which is designed to keep schools open 24 hours a day,
including weekends. Now, has any t h i n k i n g been done as far as you
know as to how this type of plan might be utilized for the children
who go to school and then are free to roam after 3 o'clock?
Ms. T O R T O N . I think that is a very touchy sort of issue. I mean, I
don't know how people w i l l really respond to that notion, the idea
that school is a place children go all the time.
I t seems a little frightening to me, and not terribly realistic i n
terms of solving real needs, needs for parents to be w i t h their children
and to participate i n other activities i n their community together.
I still think that time needs to be allotted for the adult world and
child's world to come together at normal periods of time such as afternoons and early evenings. I think that would really be the most effective measure for most people except i n times of dire necessity.
Senator J A V I T S . W h a t does the organization do, New Time, that you
are connected w i t h ?
Ms. T O R T O N . I t is an employment agency, basically, which I stcrted
in 1970, dedicated to the idea that part-time employment is a necessity for w^omen, i n particular, i f they are to reenter the labor maiket and for men i n order to have access to alternatives to full-time
employment.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d your testimony is based on that experience?
Ms. T O R T O N . That is right.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you.




589.
M r McClaurin, I gather that the organization t h a t you head, Professional Household Workers of America, does not have a large membership; is that correct?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . T h a t is correct.
_
Senator JAVITS. I don't want t o restrict J^our opportunities by aski n g you how many members you have, but i f i t would not embarrass
your organization, we'd apj)reciate knowing the percentage of the
universe being served, the universe being all of the household workers
i n a given area.
A r e you national i n scope or are you local t o this area?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . A t the moment we are confined to the area, and
the reason f o r that is the fact that we have not been able to establish
a full-time staff to service these people. W e are hopefully expanding
our program i n the State.
There are 160,000 of these people i n the State. There are l i ^ m i l l i o n
i n the country as such. A n d what we are hoping t o do is to devise a
program that w i l l relate to the needs of these people around the Nation.
Senator J A V I T S . Have you gotten any foundation support f o r your
organization?
M r . McCiAtmiN. As of this time, no.
Senator J A V I T S . A r e you seeking any?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . W e are seeking funds f r o m both the foundation,
State, city, and Federal level. W e have had a 13-week pilot project
that has been most successful. As a matter of fact, we think we have
the answers to the needs t o improve the lot of household workers.
Senator J A V I T S . Y o u say a pilot project. Could we have a detailed
description i n w r i t i n g concerning the number of people, what you
have done, precisely how you have operated, and any end results?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . W e ' d be very happy to.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U know I was the chief proponent for household
workers getting the m i n i m u m wage, so I am very deeply interested.
M r . M C C L A U R I N . One of the reasons we are not proposing new
legislation i n the field is we would like to apply the legislation that
is now on the books. A n d , t r u t h f u l l y , w i t h a l i t t l e help f r o m the
Federal, State, and city governments, and sufficient funding, we
believe this group w i l l be i n a position to f u n d its own programs
i n a year or two and actually become a part of the job market.
Senator J A V I T S . Have you tried getting other unions to support
any organization drive? O f course, I have known you for years i n
the trade union field—^liave any unions shown any interest i n giving
you some backing?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . This is a long story, too long to tell. A t this point
the trade union movement as such, I don't believe, is particularly
concerned about this group. A n d one of the reasons f o r i t is that they
don't see at the moment how they can get a quick return on their
investments, because they are dealing w i t h individuals. A n d they
have not been close enough to us to know that once we are organized,
we w i l l have a sustained organization that w i l l be comparable to the
trade unions as we know it.
I believe that i n time we w i l l get support f r o m our friendly unions,
but as of now; no.




590.
Senator J A V I T S . The manpower training programs, and I have been
associated w i t h them for at least 15 years or more, which included
household training; did they not? What's happened there?
Mr. M C C L A U R I N . The pilot project w^as sponsored by the manpower
training program.
Senator J A V I T S . That is the M D T A ?
Mr. M C C L T A U R I X . That is right. We are now seeking long-range
support. Hopefully this w i l l come quickly, because we want to maintain the momentum that was generated as a result of our pilot project.
Senator J A V I T S . That is, your pilot project was done under a manpower training program of the Federal Government?
M r . jVrcCLAURiN. That was done under the city agency w i t h city
funding.
Senator J A V I T S . W i t h any Federal help?
M r . MCCLAURIN. No.
Senator J A V I T S . Has the

Federal comprehensive manpower training program been i n this field ?
M r . MCCLAURIN. A s o f n o w ; no.
Senator J A V I T S . Well, i t was.
M r . M C C L A U R I N . Some time before,

but in recent years almost
nothing has been done.
Senator JAVITS. I w i l l look into that. I am very interested i n what
you say, but there are so many aspects in the Federal establishment
that even we who are very active don't always keep up w i t h all of
them, but I promise you that we w i l l take a good hard look at this
to see why, what there was, why i t was phased out, and whether i t
should be phased back in.
M r . MCCLAURHST. I think one of the important things that we must
keep i n mind here is the fact that u n t i l very recently there's been very
little organization i n this field. I think the time has come, I think
the idea's ripe, I t h i n k overnight we could have thousands of these
people i n an organization. A n d w i t h an organized group, they would
certainly be i n a better position.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U know, household work is by no means low pay
now, unless people are being cheated. L i k e so many other families
we have a good deal of part-time help, and i t is quite expensive. That
is fine, and I have no quarrels w i t h it. B u t i t seems to me that whereas
you dealt w i t h people who were really very marginally skilled, today
i t doesn't have to be that way.
M r . MCCLAURHST. The real truth. Senator, grows out of the fact
that there are very few skilled workers i n the field. Those that are
skilled are being well paid, but the majority of them are not.
We have had a very recent situation where people i n Miami, for
instance, were getting as low as $3 a week. These were the Cubans
who came over from Cuba. And, of course, food, and a place to stay,
and $3 a week meant a livelihood.
B u t even i n our own city, we have had a great deal of exploitation
in this field, w i t h the aliens who come in. O f course, the people who
hire them understand that they are here illegally, and they exploit
the aliens because for them a job paying a dollar a day is better than
going back to someplace where they^ get almost nothing.
B u t I do think the key to all the ills of this forgotten group lies
in the success of an organized group.



591.
Senator J A V I T S . Alien domestic workers—are they a major problem
for you ?
M r . M C C L A U R I N " . I t is a major problem.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U have no estimate of the number of thousands
who might be around?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . I t is difficult to estimate.
Senator . J A V I T S . The immigration authorities might be able to help
us w i t h that.
M r . M C C L A U R I N . They have some estimates, but I doubt that they
Avould have any up-to-date figures.
Senator J A V I T S . W h a t about the minimum wage, you haven't had
a chance to appraise the effect of the minimum wage yet, have you ?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . The minimum wage i n New Y o r k certainly has
been helpful outside of the city of New York. I n New Y o r k most
of the household workers are getting a minimum of $2.50 to $3, but
upstate i t has definitely helped because though we had a State minimum wage of $1.85, most of the workers were getting $1.50 to $1.75.
The $2 minimum certainly changed the lifestyles of a lot of workers.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d w i l l i t result i n bringing more people into the
household work force ?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . I t definitely will.
Senator J A V I T S . I t should.
M r . M C C L A U R I N . I t definitely should.
Interestly, our pilot project gave us some inside information which
we didn't expect. Most of the people in our organization, some 700 or
more, have been 40 and over. But in the pilot project, the majority
of workers were 25 to 30, which indicates that i f we improve the
conditions under which these people work, a lot of young people w i l l
return. This is very definite.
Senator J A V I T S . Of course, I personally feel that the "call me
Mister" aspect of i t is the most important of any; that is, the dignity
of this work.
M I \ M C C L A U R I N . That is important. That is why the training program must be tied up w i t h any effort we make at this time. One of
the most exciting things that came out of our pilot project was the
fact that at the end of 2 weeks we gave a certificate, and many of
these workers felt as i f they were getting degrees i n a college. I t was
just that important to them. A n d so we are hopeful of getting the
State to set up training criteria and give certificates. The certificate
w i l l improve the attitudes of the people who hire them, because i t
w i l l indicate that these people have skills and have been trained i n
certain fields, and can assume certain responsibilities.
Senator J A V I T S . M y last question relates to social security, to the
deduction for domestic workers from taxes. Has that had any effect?
For example, the child care deduction ?
M r . M C C L A U R I X . This has been one of the most important aspects
of our program.
As you perhaps are aware, many household workers have been a
little leery about giving a social security number, largely because they
have not been paying Federal income taxes.
They are now beginning to realize that they don't make sufficient
funds to pay income tax. They also are beginning to realize that pensions and the unemployment insurance is also tied up w i t h paying into



592.
the fund, and we are having no problems attempting to get social
security numbers and to relate to the workers the importance of paying
into the fund.
As a matter of fact, one of the aspects of our program is to assist a
lot of employees i n helping to keep records for them. This, too, w i l l
also enhance the mutual benefits that w i l l come f r o m a program such
as we have outlined here.
Senator J A V I T S . I forgot one question that I ' d like to ask you. Have
you tried getting bonding for household workers ?
M r . M C C L A U R I N . Not at the present time, but we have been i n touch
with bonding companies. I t is not going to be a difficult task.
One problem now is to maintain the kind of organization that w i l l
relate to the workers' needs. One of the reasons why we have hesitated
to get bonding is because there is such a shortage of good help i n this
field. We didn't w^ant the public to know we were training people u n t i l
we had adequate funds to develop the training. As soon as we know
that we have long-range funding, we w i l l go the bonding route.
We w i l l also inform the people who hire workers as to the k i n d of
social security benefits and the other aids which should go to workers.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank 3^ou, M r . McClaurin.
Professor Epstein, we'd like to ask a couple of questions of you.
Is there any Federal law or any strengthening of the Federal law
that you could suggest, either now or give us a memorandum for the
record, to deal w i t h what you call informal employment discrimination and all the subtle ways which you have described ? For example,
I have little doubt that the reason for the good settlement of Bank of
America, that they had a pretty good idea that the proof against them
on that very point would be very strong, and so the law^yers undoubtedly did a very good job. I just wondered i f there's anything
other than the actual practice i n the case that you could suggest to us.
TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA EPSTEIN, PROFESSOR, QUEENS COLLEGE,
NEW YORK, N.Y.
Ms. E P S T E I N . Well, I think that there are no laws at this time that
actually ^ a r d against the informal kinds of discrimination other
than the insistence on goals and timetables. A n d the goals, for instance, which were part of the legislation i n the case of the telephone
company, should be made i n order to promote women from w i t h i n the
company, and bring i n women into managerial levels w i t h i n some kind
of minimum number.
But, of course, these efforts have been very limited, and as I mentioned i n my testimony, there seem to be infinite ways of getting
around those various kinds of job titles and job designations. One
thing that can be done is to insist that companies devise job j)rofiles
and perhaps work definitions which could be objectively appraised to
see whether or not the job changes were real moves toward actual
promotion rather than just being changes i n titles.
Senator J A V I T S . Have you any direct relationship w i t h the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission by way of experience or consultant work ?
Ms. E P S T E I N . I have had a peripheral relationship w i t h them, just
i n testimony and in conferences on research.



593.
Senator J A V I T S . I would like to inquire of the Commission on that
score and I w i l l tell you why. Because, really, what you are saying, and
please tell me i f you disagree, is that once you establish a basic case
for discrimination that you can design remedies which w i l l meet certain criteria. B u t u n t i l you get the companies into court, or somehow
get them to face the basic problem, the remedies become very elusive
themselves.
I n other words, i f you prove any discrimination against women,
then one can cover your subject very well by fashioning appropriate
remedies, but u n t i l you do get them into court, or, to a point where
they have got to admit basic discrimination, i t is very difficult.
Would you agree w i t h that?
Ms. E P S T E I N . Yes; I do. I think what strides we have made have
come from the fact that some teeth were put into EOC's ability to
confront companies.
But, of course, the backlog is so huge, perhaps additional funding
might be considered, and additional staffing for agencies such as that.
E i g h t now they are carrying, as far as I know, the major burden
which is—as you pointed out—fashioning guidelines for people i n
other industries. B u t I think the minute that policing of incentive is
let down, evidence shows that corporations feel a change in the wind
and nothing more has to be done.
So the minute you find the decisions are not coming through i n a
fast and furious rate, then generally the companies deintensify their
own efforts to conform to the guidelines, for example, as on Federal
contract compliance.
Senator J A V I T S . We tried the so-called Philadelphia plan, which
is similar to what 3^ou are talking about and I argued for its constitutionality against the General Accounting Office. Of course, their
view prevailed.
B u t the plan is not popular enough that i t could be easily extended
to the women's field. No one has tried.
W i l l you be good enough, i f we arranged it, to confer w i t h the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and be a consultant
for me or for all of us i n our committee, and see what they are doing,
and how you could help them ? Would you do that ?
Ms. E P S T E I N . Sure.
Senator J A V I T S . M S . Cunningham, one thing I ' d like to ask you, and
that is, where are we failing i n the minority women's classification?
A f t e r all, that is about the clearest law we have i n the C i v i l Eights
Act. Where are we failing ?
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . I think
Senator J A V I T S . When I say "we" I mean federally, where are we
failing?
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . O K . I think generally we are just not taking
the law seriously as i t applies to minority women. Eeally, I hate to
oversimplify, but increasingly, i n my encounters w i t h people from
the Federal Government, they do not seem to take i t seriously.
On the other hand, I believe minority women need to know a little
more about what their rights really are. This is a problem.
Senator J A V I T S . B u t you are connected w i t h a State agency.
Ms. CUNNINGHAM.

79-970—76-




Yes.

594.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d our State certainly is very favorable to this
general policy.
Is there anything we could do to beef up the State's furnishing of
information, and so forth ?
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . Well, the State right now has a working task
force which was appointed by the then Governor Rockefeller, a task
force on equal employment opportunity for women i n State government. I t is composed of about nine heads of State agencies. A n d I
happen to be a member of the task force. A n d we are delving intimately into the problems, the psychological problems, the philosophical problems, not only of women, but minority women. A n d I think
because we have uncovered many new problems we are able to more
clearly define what the current problems are.
I think we are going to come up w i t h a task force for what w i l l
be a national model.
Senator J A V I T S . Could you then undertake to keep us apprised of
whatever recommendations the task force has regarding: Federal lesfislation and Federal practice?
Ms. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Senator J A V I T S . W i l l you do that?
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . Indeed I will.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d then we w i l l

t r y to profit from that experience.
Is there anything about day care that ought to be said i n the particular area i n which you testified, Ms. Cunningham ?
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . N O more than what I testified. I think that is
rather devastating.
Senator J A V I T S . I t is devastating.
Well, i t has been a long-standing campaign of mine, and we thought
we had made considerable progress under the amendments to the
Social Security Act, but obviously u n t i l we have something like family
assistance plan or an intelligent universally applicable program that
puts money i n the hands of the client, as i t were, I gather the problems w i l l only diminish slowly. Have head start and all those things
helped particularly ?
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . They have helped. The demise of them certainly—^not head start—has been very, very painful.
Senator J A V I T S . There won't be any demise for head start.
Ms. C U N N I N G H A M . I do understand that.
Senator J A V I T S . The jeopardy is to the community action agencies
of day care programs, and even there I am confident that for the next
few years we w i l l carry them on somewhere. I want a separate agency
instead of plunging them into Health, Education, and Welfare. B u t
they w i l l be carried on whether I win or not, or people like me
w i l l win.
Thank you all very much. You have been very gracious. I appreciate
it.
Your testimony w i l l be extremely helpful.
Now Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton, you have been a great leader i n this field w i t h the New
York Human Relations Commission, and I appreciate very much your
general knowledge of what we can do i n the Federal Establishment
regarding these questions of discrimination, and so forth, as they
affect women, i f you please.



695.
STATEMENT OP ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, CHAIRPERSON,
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, NEW YORK, N.Y.
Ms. KORTON. When I was first appointed chairperson of the New
Y o r k City Commission on Human Eights 4 years ago, the caseload
barely reflected women's concerns. Only one or two complamts a
month were brought by women. The overwhelming ppponderence of
cases were brought by blacks. Eace cases still comprise the majority
of complaints received by the commission, perhaps reflecting the 300
years of conscious-raising i n the black community made virtually unavoidable by the oppressive nature of American racism. But i t is sex
discrimination cases from women that have accelerated most rapidly,
reflecting the coincidence of the commission's own outreach efforts and
the phenomenal growth of the movement for women's equality.
Women's complaints continue to be the fastest growing category of
complaints received at the city commission, with, i t would seem, no
end i n sight.
Though these complaints are brought under the city human rights
law, our interpretations of municipal law must be consistent with title
V I I of the Federal C i v i l Eights Act. The Federal courts have made
title V I I a new and useful tool, redefining discrimination to reflect
modem understanding of the causes of exclusion. Exclusion of entire
groups such as women does not flow from malevolent design against
individuals nearly so much as i t is the product of artificial barriers
that exclude entire groups. Non-job related tests and qualifications,
recruitment f r o m narrow pools, and failure to consider skills and onthe-job experience are examples of barriers that work against entire
groups and must be broken i f we are to have any impact on millions of
people locked out by discriminatory systems.
The courts d i d not reach this more complex plateau of interpretation all by itself. The credit for this leadership must go to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission whose own regulations, guidelines, and briefs filed before the courts have been the single most
important impetus to improved enforcement of equal job opportunity
i n the United States i n the past 8 years.
Considering the greater impact of enforcement as against other
strategies, the single most important t h i n g this joint committee can
do is to reinforce and strengthen the EEOC. Under Chairman W i l liam Brown, the Commission for the first time became a national force
i n dismantling discrimination, end the record and forthrightness of
Chairman John Powell would seem to indicate a continuation of high
quality leadership.
The fact is that the Nixon administration, whose record on matters
of equality is generally dismal, has nevertheless made the EEOC and
employment discrimination an exception to the backward civil rights
direction i t has generally chartered. The administration must be
credited w i t h perfecting "affirmative action," the only tool thus far
developed that has a reasonable chance of eliminating discriminatory
h i r i n g and promotion practices. Affirmative action requires Government agencies and contractors as well as private employers to remedy
systems that are neutral i n appearance but discriminatory in effect,
such as recruitment only f r o m white male sources or the use of a
masters of business administration degree as the only entree for women



596.
to corporate employment at the upper levels. Affirmative action
technology calls for monitoring the results often through goals and
timetables, used where a finding of discrimination has been made;
it remedies the legal wrong of exclusion by gaging the available work
pool among the excluded groups and encouraging remedial recruitment for a stated period, usually 2 years. B y that time the excluded
group should be included i n sufficient numbers so that most neutral
practices such as word-of-mouth recruitment no longer have a discriminatory effect.
Commission-initiated affirmative action has had a greater impact on
the employment of women and minorities in New Y o r k City in the
past 4 years than all the individual complaints brought during the
entire history of the commission. Figures show a doubling and t r i p l i n g
of minority and female workers in companies which the New Y o r k
City commission has sued, i n all cases by initiating complaints against
the largest companies without waiting for a complainant. This work
lias been done pursuant to grants from the EEOC.
Ironically these highly successful results are threatened because
E E O C is under pressure to revert to the case-by-case approach to
relieve its burdensome caseload. The caseload problem should not be
underestimated, and i t must be relieved i f complainants are to be
afforded justice before the Federal commission. But i t would be tragic
to accomplish the reduction of the caseload by a complete reversion
to the slow 1950's and 1960's case-by-case approach. This approach
guarantees that we w i l l reach no more than a t i n y fraction of the
excluded. Pattern and practice remedies, as contrasted w i t h individual cases, necessarily have impact on the entire class, wiping away
whole systems of inequality.
This is especially true of sex discrimination. What keeps women
in the lower reaches of the job market are barriers that cannot be
touched except through systemic pattern and practice agency-initiated
complaints. Such discriminatory barriers as the failure to provide
maternity leave, the clustering of women i n clerical jobs w i t h no
mobility to other categories, and the use of unjob-related credentials
are systemic problems that require reform of the entire personnel
system, not the ad hoc case complaint procedure.
I urge this committee through its influence on funding and emphasis to help E E O C find a balance between case complaint handling
and systemic pattern and practice work. Grantees such as the city
commission should be encouraged to do both, including systemic work
in a job market such as New Y o r k City i n which agency-initiated
pattern and practice work has been highly successful.
Finally, on another important matter, the commission is seriously
concerned that most Federal money comes to this and other cities w i t h
only the vaguest requirements for its use i n a f a i r way to avoid discrimination. Only L E A A has issued formal regulations requiring affirmative
action plans to be submitted for the receipt of Federal money. Most
other agencies rely only upon an innocuous statement of nondiscrimination. This can only reenforce discriminatory patterns i n local and
State governments. These patterns are hard enough to dismantle without reenforcement by Federal money. Something similar to revised
order 4, the Presidential Executive order relating to the construction
trades, is i n order f o r all Federal agencies who disburse Federal funds
to cities and States.



597.
111 summary, let me urge that Congress and the Senate give greater
oversight to enforcement practices and priorities. There are, of course,
areas of needed legislation, and enabling legislation w i l l be necessary
even when the E E A is passed. B u t increasingly, legislation is not where
the action is.This does not mean that the legislative process has no role.
On the contrary, legislative input into enforcement concerns can mean
the difference between rigidification and elimination of job barriers.
Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
How do you work w i t h the E E O C ? How does your agency work with
them?
Ms. N O R T O N . M y agency is a contractor of the E E O C , and we receive
about $200,000 a year to do equal opportunity work. We have recently
become the first city agency i n the country to get so-called 706 status,
meaning we are a deferral agency.
Normally Federal complaints are deferred to the specific State agency
before the E E O C then looks at the complaint. I think New York City is
now the only city to have that same deferral status along w i t h our own
State agency here i n New York.
U n t i l this time our Federal money has gone exclusively into aflirmative action work. We have sued the largest companies i n New York
and almost none of them, upon being sued by commission, have chosen
to go to public hearing. Instead they conciliate the complaint and the
results of this conciliation and monitoring have been spectacular in
some cases.
Companies that didn't believe there was a pool of minority people
i n women soon had sufficient impetus to find them, because they would
have been subject to sanctions and hearings i f they did not.
Moreover, we recently had hearings on integration, i n which we
are grateful that you were able to testify, Senator Javits, and we heard
from a vice president of A.T. & T. who testified that the recent affirmative action, rather extensive affirmation action of E E O C on that company had not been burdensome to the company, had caused no reduce
tion i n standards of employment, and i n many ways had a salutory
effect upon the personnel of the company.
Now that E E O C i n fact does have such a burdensome caseload,
agencies like our own are under pressure to use the Federal money to
process cases on the case-by-case basis.
We certainly believe i t is f a i r for deferral agencies such as the city
and State commissions, to use some of their Federal money i n this
way, but i t would be tragic i f we were to undermine the efforts of
the sixties i n creating the affirmative action technology which alone
has impact upon large numbers of people, because the caseload had
forced us to throw away that technology and revert to the case-by-case
process entirely. This means that i f someone comes in—with a complaint i n a company where there are 5 people, that the agency's time
and effort goes as much on that case as i t did when we were suing
companies where we'd have impact on 5,000 people. That's wasteful,
and some balance has got to be found.
We, of course, are always ready and anxious to receive complaints
from the public, but the public is increasingly sophisticated about
where effective remedies are to be found, and the public knows f u l l
well that its affirmative action reaches to large numbers of people that
has produced the gains we have seen i n the last 5 or 6 years.



598.
Senator

JAVITS.

What proportion of your total operation is this

$200,000?
Ms. N O R T O N . Well, this—a budget of the commission is something
like a miUion dollars w i t h accruals of about $800,000. The E E O C
money has been extremely helpful because i t has meant that no city,
-tax levy money, had to go into aflSirmative action work.
Senator J A V I T S . M r . Mercado, I think is here, the Eegional Director
<of the E E O C , i n the back of the room. I just wondered, have you as
yet worked out a close liaison w i t h their local office ?
Ms. N O R T O N . Very close, and very cooperative one. Indeed, I think
New Y o r k City i n working w i t h its region is one of the few cities or
States that was doing affirmative action work, that was able to keep
a significant amount of E E O C funds devoted to affirmative action
work during this funding year, and that was entirely because of the
cooperation of the regional office.
Senator J A V I T S . So, really your recommendations are t w o : one that
the efforts to clean up the tremendous backlog of the EEOC—and i t
is an enormous backlog; some 60,000 cases—should not i n the case of
local applicability preempt the pattern and practices which you are
engaged in, which have much more widespread effect.
Ms. N O R T O N . That is precisely right.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d second, that you would like to get us to t r y to
get a Federal order relating to all agencies, not just the L E A A , which
w i l l give considerable care to the same policy respecting the contractors w i t h which they operate.
Ms. N O R T O N . B u t beyond that, Senator, I think no Federal money
should come into New Y o r k City unless the agency receiving the
money is required to present an affirmative action plan.
Fortunately, this city is doing that i n a comprehensive way, since
Mayor Beame signed an executive order i n May that requires every
city agency to come up w i t h an affirmative action plan, and the city
w i l l produce a comprehensive one, under the direction of the city commissioner, and the law department and the personnel department.
But what bothers me is that i f Federal agencies don't reinforce the
city initiative, then a lot of my work is going up the h i l l only to be
pushed back down again.
Senator J A V I T S . I t is going to d r i f t ?
M s . NORTON. Y e s .
Senator J A V I T S . What

is the effect on your work of this recent Bank
of America agreement?
Ms. N O R T O N . The Bank of America agreement, I think, takes us two
or three steps beyond where we were. We work i n the same way that
the agreement was achieved, i n the sense that we initiate a complaint
and normally an agreement comes out of i t rather than having to go
to hearing and have a remedy enforced i n that way.
A n d normallv the agreement is as efficacious as would have been the
result of a hearing.
I think such parts of the agreement that have indicated steps to
make up for the failure of providing women w i t h training opportunities are an important new ingredient of i t and that would be very
helpful to us i n this city.
Seiiator J A V I T S . M y last question. Ms. Norton, IS what type of firms
and businesses do you find are the greatest offenders which need
affirmative action plans? You mentioned the telephone company.



599.
where apparently considerable progress has been made. Do you find
any other areas of business which cry out for the application of this
k i n d of approach?
Ms. N O R T O N . Yes. I could list some^ although I don't want to, because by listing some gives anyone the impression that the problem
isn't extraordinarily across the board. I would say that the worst
offenders are companies that already have large numbers of women
employees. Because the pool is there and easily reachable.
We find that people like banks and stock exchange companies are
special offenders because they do not have the same k i n d of problems
that architectural firms or law firms, hospitals, and other places, where
even the educational apparatus has tended to exclude women. The
only way that women could have failed to achieve vice presidency
status, in, for example, banks, would have been through deliberate
discrimination.
Senator J A V I T S . SO that you would say that our target should be,
i n New York, of course, the principal banking center today of the
world, those banks
Ms. N O R T O N . Banks and other financial institutions.
Senator J A V I T S . Which have huge numbers of women emplo^^ees and
have really not given them the chance they should have?
M s . NORTON. Y e s .
Senator J A V I T S . Are

you going after any of those ? Do you have any
pending cases, without reviewing any?
Ms. N O R T O N . Yes. We could let your office confidentially know precisely where we are working. The Federal law keeps us, of course,
from disclosing.
Senator J A V I T S . Very good. Thank you so much.
Is there anything else you wish to add?
Ms. N O R T O N . N O , thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Well, you are very able, and we all owe you a great
debt of gratitude for the job you do.
Ms. N O R T O N . Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Our next panel w i l l please step up. Carlyn McCaffrey, Nancy Seifer, Kathleen Peratis, and Marguerite Piatt.
Could we identify you from left to right.
Ms. P E R A T I S . Kathleen Peratis.
Senator J A V I T S . Next to Ms. Peratis is Ms. Seifer.
Ms. S E I F E R . Nancy Seifer, director of community relations, American Jewish Committee.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d Ms. Piatt.
Ms. P I A T T . President of W o r k i n g Mothers for Fair Tax Treatment.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d Ms. McCaffrey.
Ms. M C C A F F R E Y . Carlyn McCaffrey, assistant professor of law. New
Y o r k University Law School.
Senator J A V I T S . Would you proceed, Ms. Peratis.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN PERATIS, DIRECTOR, WOMEN^S RIGHTS
PROJECT, WOMEN'S CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Ms. P E R A T I S Thank you.
I am director of the Women's Eio-hts project of the Women's Civil
Liberties Union. One of the goals of the project is to achieve equality



600.
between the sexes through various means. One, unfortunately, is litigation, which is often necessary.
We have identified as one of our priority matters the elimination
of unfavorable sex discrimination on the social security laws as well
as the discriminatory effects of social security laws. Among the more
obvious examples of sex discrimination i n social security laws, is official sex discrimination which discriminates both against men and
Avomen.
The social security laws provide that husbands, fathers, divorced
husbands, and widowers can often not obtain social security benefits
on their wife's account even though they are identically situated to
women who would be able to receive such benefits. The only reason
that men i n these positions are not permitted to receive benefits is
because of their sex.
This not only discriminates against the men, i t also results in discrimination against the women; women whose contributions to the
fund did not purchase the same protection to the family as similar
contributions by a male wage earner.
I n addition to this sex discriminatory effect upon men and women,
the system reflects a traditional and often inadequate attitude about
the status of women and the role of women i n the society. This attitude is that women are typically dependents and no heed is paid to
the possibility and often the probability that women are not i n that
traditional role any longer.
There are a number of discriminatory effects of neutral policies i n
the social security laws. For one thing, the contribution structure of
social security is regressive and, therefore, tends to f a l l more heavily
on people who make less money. Contributions to social security are
only made up to the first $12,000 of earned income, and because women
typically earn less than men, the burden of social security contributions falls more heavily upon them and other low-wage earners than
people who make more money.
Another effect of the social security system is that benefits are based
largely upon contributions. Women, because they earn less than men,
end up being entitled to less social security benefits than they seek to
recover under the system. Women often have a higher entitlement to
social security benefits as wives and dependents than they do as
workers, largely because they earn less money and work more sporadically than men do, as the system tends to encourage that k i n d of work.
Disability benefits under social security are also directed to male
employment patterns. That is, disability benefits are based upon current employment, and because women tend to be employed more sporadically in order to serve the traditional function which many women
often and continue to do, a worker who works for years, then drops
out of the labor force for a while, and then becomes disabled is not
entitled to disability benefits under the social security system.
Women tend to recover under social security as dependents i f they
recover at all. This dependent status of women has a number of negative effects.
For one thing, people recovering as dependents have no survivorship rights in their social security entitlement. A n d dependents are
entitled to no disability benefits.
Finally, I ' d like to mention that two-income families, families in
which the husband and the wife both work, often end up receiving



601.
less in social security benefits than a one-income family making precisely the same total amount of money, and having made precisely the
same social security contributions.
Senator, I think the whole contribution system and the whole benefits system should be based upon need rather than based upon sex,
as it currently is, and should be addressed to the needs of the people
of this country, and not reinforcing and supporting a traditional
notion of a family structure which does not exist for many people.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much.
Ms. Seifer.
STATEMENT OF NANCY SEIFER, DIRECTOIt, COMMUNITY
RELATIONS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
Ms. S E I F E K . Thank you very much.
M r . Chairman, committee members, let me first express my appreciation for your invitation to address the Joint Economic Committee
today on the issue of pensions for housewives. The concerted attention, which your committee is serving to bring to this issue, w i l l help
both to impress its urgency on the public mind and to lend added
impetus for the passage of badly needed legislation—legislation embodying provisions such as those i n H . E . 12645, introduced by
Congresswomen Jordan and Griffiths i n February of this year, which
would amend the Social Security Act to assure that retirement income,
disability insurance, survivor, and medicare benefits be provided to
homemakers.
I speak to you today from a background i n social policy. I am not
an economist, and therefore cannot offer assistance i n solving some of
the many avowedly complicated economic problems which the need
for pensions for housewives gives rise to. There is, however, clearly
no dearth of economists, many of them women, who have already
done sipiificant work i n this area. Several, I believe, have spoken before this committee in the past. I f I may, I would like to address myself solely to the social policy aspects of this issue.
For the past 2 years, I have been on the staff of the National Project on Ethnic America—a project of the American Jewish Committee,
designed i n 1968 to explore means of depolarizing the growing tensions between minority and neighboring lower middle income white
ethnic communities i n our cities. I have concentrated much of my
effort during this period on the problems of working class women i n
America—a group which constitutes between 40 and 50 percent of
American women, whose problems have grown i n severity over the
past decade, but who u n t i l recently were quietly tucked away under
labels such as the "Silent Majority."
Prior to joining the project staff, I was on the staff of the Lindsay
administration i n several capacities, the last of which was as aide to
the mayor for ethnic affairs. I established a small office designed primarily to provide linkages between highly alienated white working
class communities throughout the city, sorely i n need of a variety of
programs and services, and the agencies of government which could
provide those services. I t was i n working w i t h those communities
that I first became highly conscious of the needs of working class
women.
79-970—76




4

602.
M y work at the project, which has involved travel throughout the
country, meetings, and conferences, where the needs of lower income
women have been focused, have reconfirmed the extent and the remarkable similarity of problems.
A t several of these meetings, the discussion has revolved around a
series of some 80 recommendations to government, educational institutions, corporations, labor unions, foundations, the media, and other
institutions, listed i n a booklet I wrote, entitled "Absent from the Maj o r i t y : W o r k i n g Class Women i n America." Eepeatedly, i n Philadelphia and Dallas, i n New York and Chicago, and elsewhere, the
issue of greatest concern to the many working class women I have
spoken w i t h was pensions for housewives. Most had never thought i t
would be possible. Once they learned i t might be—the intensity of support, enthusiasm for the concept, and willingness to do whatever had
to be done to get such legislation passed was remarkable.
These are women who may have worked a few years i n a factory, as
a clerk or i n a typing pool before getting married, and then spent the
majority of their lives as housewives, unless, once the kids were i n
school, the added income that they could provide was absolutely essential to making ends meet. Abundant evidence now shows that particularly i f they worked part time, they w i l l receive no support from
private pension plans i n their own right, no matter how many total
years they may have worked.
These are women who w i l l suffer f r o m the cruel inequities built into
most pension plans, particularly those affecting their husbands who
are blue collar and lower level white collar workers, and w i l l most
likely be among the 98 percent of women who never receive the survivors' benefits to which they should be entitled.
They are women whose lives are the pawns of the vicious cycle of
inflation, who live i n constant fear of not being able to pay their bills,
who live w i t h the knowledge that i n the economic crunch, they, i f they
work, and their husbands are likely to be the first to be laid off.
Finally, they are women who, like the affluent and the poor, are
increasingly affected by the social disintegration which has pervaded
our society—and by divorce. They, like the poor, are unlikely to receive
alimony, because they lack the funds to hire lawyers to press their
case i n court. They, like both poor and rich are not entitled to share
i n their husbands' social security retirement pensions, unless they have
been married for 20 years—a law which is easily one of the most outmoded on our Federal books.
Whether they are i n the labor force as presently defined or not,
during much of their lives—and 9 out of 10 women spend about 25
years i n the labor force, I think and hope that perhaps we have progressed as a society to the point where the work that women contribute
as homemakers w i l l finally have the chance of receiving due
recognition.
I t is true that homemaking as a full-time and life-time career is
likely to become more the exception than the rule among all economic
groups, given the likelihood that current trends towards fewer children, longer lives, and greater educational opportunities continue.
But i t is equally true that a large percentage of American women w i l l
continue to feel that homemaking and mothering are the most important contributions they can make to their family and to our society.



603.
I t is time that our society stop penalizing women for that choice and
find the means of assuring them financial security for their later years,
based on a lifetime of hard labor i n the home.
The Chase Manhattan Bank was one of the first institutions to point
out just how much that work was worth i n terms of dollars and cents
and the results were astonishing. I submit for the record, along w i t h
this testimony, an article excerpted f r o m my booklet which appeared
on the op ed page of the New Y o r k Times on this and related subjects. B u t I would like to point out that the figures I used have since
been updated. According to Chase Manhattan, which is now i n the
process of again updating its figures, the monetary worth of the 12 or
so different jobs performed regularly by the average housewife for
nearly 100 hours each week is currently i n the neighborhood of $14,000
a year. I f included i n the gross national product, the total would increase by over 35 percent.
Eegardless of which figures are eventually utilized by the Government as a base on which to calculate an equitable pension for housewives, i t should no longer be a question i n anyone's mind that the need
is pressing. As social institutions, particularly the family, crumble
around us, the anxiety and insecurity of lower income women about
their old age is severely enhanced. I am not now talking about low
self-esteem, and feelings of worthlessness experienced by so many
older women due to the lack of value which society presently attaches
to the housewife's contribution. I am talking about fear. Fear of lack
of food and shelter. The fear of a mother having to burden and often
move i n w i t h her children i n difficult circumstances, but having no
choice but that or taking welfare. I am talking about the fear of being
left alone late i n life, totally alone, w i t h no pension, no savings, and
perhaps even no social security. A n d I am also talking about pride—a
great deal of pride i n providing for a family for a life time which
leads millions of women to say: " I won't go begging for handouts. I
only want what is mine. B u t shouldn't I be entitled to some income i n
my own right, based on my own work all of these years?"
As for the Government's response and our economy as a whole, i t
seems to me there is little choice. The average income for women over
65 is less than $1,800 a year. That is the average. Six out of every ten
older women and widows have incomes well below the poverty level.
They are the most destitute segment of the entire population. As long
as we continue to ignore the monetary value of the work of homemakers as a r i g h t f u l base for a pension later i n life, we, as a society^
w i l l be straddled w i t h a welfare system for the aged, which forcibly
denies from large segments of our population, men as well as women,
the kind of dignity they deserve.
Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you, Ms. Seifer.
Ms. Piatt.
STATEMENT OF MARGUERITE PIATT, PRESIDENT, WORKING
MOTHERS FOR FAIR TAX TREATMENT
Ms. P L A T T . Thank you, Senator. A n d thank you for allowing me to
testify on behalf of working mothers for f a i r tax treatment.




604.
Our organization is composed of working or would-be working
mothers opposed to the discrimination i n the tax code which limits
deduction for work-related child care expenses.
Section 214 of the current tax code limits deductions for all working mothers to some extent, but i t totally excludes from any deductions
for child care married mothers who work part time and married
mothers whose incomes jointly w i t h their husbands exceeds certain
levels.
The hard facts are that without tax deductions for working related
child care, i t simply does not pay for most women to work.
This is easily documented and illustrated i n a married couple's income statement which I offer herewith. I t is that of a professional
couple whose income is $28,000, above the maximum for child care
deduction. The husband earned $16,000; the wife $12,000, but subtracting from the wife's income taxes, the cost of child care and
minimal other costs of work in New York City, the wife realizes no
net gain for her labor.
The current tax law is wrong on three counts. One, i t discriminates
against women because they have the child care responsibility i n
society.
Two, i t results i n lost jobs, both for mothers and for the child care
workers they would hire, and some of these are on welfare.
And, three, i t results i n lost tax revenues because of the lost jobs.
The laws now provide for equal opportunity i n employment regardless of sex. Yet, the tax laws make these opportunities meaningless for
married mothers.
We urge legislators to eliminate discrimination against working
mothers i n the current tax law by recognizing work related child care
as a necessary and ordinary business expense.
Senator JAVITS. Thank you.
Ms. McCaffrey.
STATEMENT OP CARLYN McCAPFREY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Ms. M C C A F F R E Y . Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity of speaking to you today about one aspect of the economic problems confronting women. I have been asked to speak about the ways i n which the
income tax laws contribute to these economic problems.
The tax law has long provided different tax treatment for married
and single taxpayers. U n t i l the Tax Eeform Act of 1969, this disparity
in treatment generally worked in favor of married taxpayers. Married
taxpayers were permitted to aggregate their incomes and file a joint
return computing their tax liability at twice the tax that would he
imposed on a single taxpayer who had half of their combined taxable
incomes. This process primarily benefited the married couple that fell
into the traditional pattern—a husband who earned the family income
and a wife who remained at home caring for the children and performing housekeeping chores. I t was of little, i f any benefit, however, to
the two-earner family, particularly i f the spouses' incomes were approximately equal. Because of legislative changes i n 1969 and 1971, the
two-earner married couple now finds itself at a substantial tax disadvantage vis-a-vis single taxpayers.



605.
A t least 40 separate provisions of the Internal Eevenue Code provide disparate treatment for married and single taxpayers. W i t h the
exception of the joint return, which continues to provide substantial
benefits to the one earner married couple, the vast majority of those
provisions work to the disadvantage of all married taxpayers. These
provisions can be divided roughly into three categories: (1) those
that alter the tax consequences of a particular transaction because i t
occurs between spouses or between one spouse and an economic entity
such as a corporation or trust i n which the other spouse has a substantial interest; (2) those that deny or l i m i t deductions and credits;
and (3) those that provide different tax rates.
The first category of provisions is the most easily justified because
most of these provisions do not single out the marital relationship.
They apply equally to transactions that take place between the taxpayer and other members of his family such as his children or his
parents. Section 267 is an example; i t disallows a loss deduction for
sales between a taxpayer and his spouse and for sales between a taxpayer and his/her brothers, sisters, parents and children. The disallowance reflects a legislative determination that a taxpayer who makes
a sale to a close relative does not actually terminate his economic
interest i n that asset because of his assumed close family ties w i t h the
purchaser. This assumption may or may not be true i n a particular
case but is arguably true i n the majority of cases that f a l l w i t h i n the
provision. The other provisions i n this category are based on the same
k i n d of rationale. Since the spousal relationship is at least as likely
to result i n a close family tie as are filial and sibling relationships, the
inclusion of spouses w i t h i n the list of related taxpayers to which these
provisions apply sems justifiable. The provisions within the other
categories, however, apply only to spouses and are difficult i f not impossible to justify.
I n the second category, denial or limitation of deductions and
credits, the two most important provisions are sections 141 and 214,
the standard deduction and the child care deduction, respectively. Section 141 gives every single taxpayer, except certain dependents, the
benefit of a $1,300 low-income allowance ora 15-percent standard deduction up to a maximum of $2,000. The same section goes on to provide that the low-income allowance of a married taxpayer filing a separate return is limited to $650. Similarly such taxpayer's maximum
standard deduction is limited to $1,000. I n addition, i f one spouse uses
the percentage standard deduction, the other is not permitted to use
the low-income allowance; i f one spouse chooses to itemize, the other
is not permitted to use either the low-income allowance or the percentage standard deduction. These provisions alone can result in a loss ta
a married couple of up to $200 worth of deductions.
Section 214, since its revision by the Eevenue Act of 1971, permits a
taxpayer to deduct up to $400 per month for expenses for the care of
certain dependents and, i n some cases, expenses for household services,,
when these expenses are incurred to enable the taxpayer to be gainf u l l y employed. This provision, I believe, goes a long way toward removing some of the tax disincentives many mothers face when deciding whether to remain at home and care for their families or to return
to the labor force. Prior to the 1971 revision, the maximum deduction
permitted by section 214 was $900 and, i t was unavailable to married
taxpayers w i t h combined adjusted gross incomes of $6,900 or more.



606.
As a result, i f a wife stayed at home and produced services worth
$5,000 for her family, neither she nor her husband paid any tax on the
value of these services. I f she went to work outside the home, earned
$8,000 and paid someone else $5,000 to perform the household services
she had previously performed, she would have to pay tax on the f u l l
$8,000 even though $5,000 i n a sense represented the cost to her of earning the $8,000. Her problem of course can be seen as part of a much
larger problem—the exclusion f r o m the tax base of all types of imputed income. The ideal solution is perhaps to tax everyone on the
value of services he performs for himself, but such a solution is probably unworkable i n the real world. Section 214 attacks the problem
from the other side; instead of taxing the housewife on the imputed
value of her services, i t gives some employed wives and husbands a
deduction which is roughly equivalent to the replacement cost of
home services.
Nevertheless, the availability of section 214 is significantly more
limited w i t h respect to married taxpayers than i t is to single ones. A
f u l l $400-per-month deduction is permitted to all single taxpayers
whose adjusted gross incomes are $18,000 per year or less. Above that
point i t phases out at a rate of $.50 for each additional $1 of adjusted
gross income, disappearing completely at $27,600. For a married taxpayer to get the f u l l deduction however, the combined adjusted gross
incomes of both the husband and wife must be taken into account i n
calculating the $18,000 limitation. While you may not have much
sympathy for taxpayers whose incomes reach this level, i t does mean
that the tax law continues to act as an economic barrier to a married
woman's employment i f her husband's earnings are much over $18,000.
Moreover, i t may act as a disincentive to marriage itself. A woman
w i t h a small child and an annual income of $15,000 a year who is contemplating marriage to a man earning $13,000 or more might, I suppose, take into account the fact that marriage w i l l result i n the loss
of a $4,800 deduction.
Section 214 discriminates against marriage i n another significant
way. A single taxpayer is entitled to the deduction regardless of how
many hours during the week he or she is employed. F o r a married taxpayer to get a deduction, both husband and wife must be employed on
a substantially full-time basis.
The other provisions that fit w i t h i n the second category are less
dramatic but probably equally unjustifiable. Section 217 limits the
deduction for certain kinds of moving expenses to $2,500. Married
taxpayers who both move to the same new principal place of employment are limited to $1,250 each. Section 1211 gives single taxpayers
the right to deduct $1,000 of capital losses against ordinary income.
Married taxpayers get only $500 each. Section 1201(d) limits the rate
of tax imposed on the first $50,000 of a taxpayer's net long-term capital
gain to 25 percent. A married taxpayer gets the 25 percent rate only
on the first $25,000. Similar kinds of limitations apply w i t h respect
to the investment credit, sections 46 and 48, the minimum tax on tax
preference items, section 58, the credit provided for wages paid to
work incentive program employees, section 50A and the deduction permitted for excess investment interest, section 163 ( d ) .
Once the married couple has computed their taxable income, they
rnay find that the limitations imposed on the use of the rate schedules
similarly work to their disadvantage; their tax liability may be equal
to a greater percentage of taxable income than i t would be i f they were



607.
single. The rate schedule differentiation is a f a i r l y recent phenomenon.
I n 1969 Congress acted i n response to complaints they had heard for
years from single taxpayers. A single person w i t h a taxable income
of $28,000 paid a tax of $10,090, whereas a married couple w i t h the
same taxable income paid only $7,190. The single person at this level
paid 42.1 percent more than the married taxpayer. Congress felt that
some differential was justifiable because the married couple's income
had to support two people while the single person's income had to
support only one. They decided, however, that the then existing discrepancy was too large. Their solution was to create a new, lower, rate
schedule for single taxpayers which now appears i n section 1(c) of
the code. Under this schedule, single taxpayers pay a maximum of 20
percent more than the tax payable on a joint return showing the same
taxable income. Married individuals were not given the privilege of
using this rate structure. Nor are they permitted to use head of household rates even where there is a dependent in the household. Accordingly, i f a married taxpayer wants to file separately, he or she must
use the rate structure that applied to single taxpayers prior to the
1969 reforms.
Chart 1 illustrates the potential extent of the tax cost of marriage
due to the combined effect of the rate tables and the limitations imposed
on the standard deductions. The figure indicated is the amount by
which the tax b i l l is higher because the two taxpayers are married. I t
is assumed that the husband and wife have no dependents and that
they both use the standard deduction.
CHART 1

Husbands adjusted gross income
$5,000

$15,000

$20,000

200
130
203
110

Wife's adjusted gross income:
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000

$10,000

130
350
633
780

203
633
1,155
1,508

110
780
1,508
2,055

Chart 2 illustrates the potential extent of the tax cost of marriage
attributable to the combined effect of the rate tables, the standard
deduction, and the child care deduction. The chart makes the following
assumptions: (1) The husband and wife have one dependent child
under 15; (2) they spend $4,800 for child care; (3) i n addition to the
child care deduction, they have itemized deductions equal to 15 percent
of adjusted gross income, i f adjusted gross income is less than $20,000;
18 percent, i f adjusted gross income is $20,000 or more. The figures
indicated in the chart are the amounts by which the tax liability is
higher because the two taxpayers are married. I f the figure is in
brackets, i t represents the tax savings of marriage.
CHART 2

Husband's adjusted gross income
$5,000

Wife's adjusted gross income:
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000




(283)
117
268
821
595
80

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

117
155
929
1,459
1,042
1,080

268
929
1,363
1,621
1,815
1,904

821
1,459
1,621
2,158
2,418
2,632

595
1,042
1,815
2,418
2,370
2,711

80
1,080
1,904
2,632
2,711
2,909

The provisions that provide differential tax treatment for married
taxpayers work to the disadvantage of taxpayers w i t h low incomes
as well as to the disadvantage of middle- to high-income taxpayers.
The limitation w i t h the greatest impact on low-income taxpayers is
probably the one imposed on the low-income allowance. Two single
taxpayers w i t h adjusted gross incomes of $2,000 each pay no tax
because of the combined effect of the $1,300 low-income allowance and
the $750 personal exemption deduction. I f these two individuals get
married, their tax liability w i l l increase from $0 to $170, because of
the loss of one $1,300 low-income allowance.
While the provisions dictating disparate treatment for married and
single taxpayers have the potential for adversely affecting all married
taxpayers, since the one earner family benefits substantially from the
joint return, i n reality, the adverse impact of these provisions is limited to the two earner family. This pattern of tax discrimination
against two earner families appears to reflect the failure of Congress
to recognize the economic characteristics which distinguish these
families from one earner couples rather than a conscious decision to
impose higher tax burdens on them.
The two earner family is probably closer, from the standpoint of
ability to pay, to unmarried taxpayers than to one earner rnarried
couples. While married taxpayers may be more likely to enjoy the
economies of shared household expenses than are single taxpayers,
the two earner family and the single taxpayer generally do not enjoy
the benefit of the household services performed by the nonemployed
spouse i n the one earner family. Nevertheless, the two earner family
is treated for tax purposes not as i f each spouse were single but as i f
only one spouse produced the income despite the extra work related
expenses generally incurred by two earners and despite the loss to
the two earner family of the economic value of services that the second
member of the one earner family usually performs at home.
The principal justifications offered for the status quo stem from an
arguably reasonable assumption that spouses perceive themselves as
single economic units. The joint return is necessary because husbands
and wives pool their resources and separate returns would represent
an economically artificial allocation of income and deductions between
them. The fact that a joint return and the other provisions described
above may produce a greater combined tax liability than the husband
and wife would have i f single is justified because of the assumed economies of sharing a household. While the first point may have some
validity, i t is arguably possible to require husbands and wives with
separate sources of income to maintain separate records not only in
income but also o f those expenditures that give rise to deductions. Such
a requirement would impose little i f any burden on the one earner
family and would be a relatively minor burden for two earner families
i f i t were imposed as the price for their attaining the right to
be treated as individual entities for tax purposes. The second point
seems to be less substantial. Although there are undoubtedly economies
achieved by sharing households, the relationship of such economies to
the scope of the higher tax burden imposed on married taxpayers is
unclear. Moreover, a substantial number of single taxpayers do not
maintain their own households but achieve these same economies by
sharing their homes w i t h other relatives or friends.



609.
The solution to the problem depends on one's perception of its scope.
I f the increased tax burden on two earner families is seen as one aspect
of the larger problem of the proper choice of the economic unit to be
taxed and i t is decided that the individual rather than the spousal unit
is the proper unit, the solution to the problem would be to eliminate
from the code all provisions which provide differential treatment because of marital status. Marriage would be neither a tax advantage
nor a tax disadvantage. I n my opinion, this is the appropriate long
range solution. I t recognizes the individuality of each spouse and
eliminates the present tax disincentive faced by a second earner whose
income is now effectively taxed at rates at or above his or her spouse's
highest marginal rate.
Since, however, this would mean the elimination of the joint return
and a rather substantial tax increase for all one earner families, this
solution may be politically infeasible. A n intermediate step, which
I support, is to give married taxpayers the option of being treated for
tax purposes as i f they were single. This solution would eliminate the
tax disadvantage of marriage and would also eliminate much of the
second earner's tax disincentive. Taxpayers who so elect, however,
should be required to conduct their financial transactions as i f they
were actually single. Accordingly, each should be permitted to take a
deduction on his or her separate return only for his or her actual
expenses.
There are three important exceptions to this broad option that I
would also suggest.
First, all provisions which apply to other family members as well
as to husbands and wives should continue to apply to married taxpayers whether or not they elect to be treated as single.
Second, residents of community property States who elect to be
treated as single taxpayers should be required to report their own
earnings.
Third, to eliminate tax-motivated interspousal property transfers,
income from property gratuitously transferred from one spouse to another for the purpose of minimizing taxes thereon should be reported
by the spouse who made the transfer.
Senator J A V I T S . M S . McCaffrey, that is very excellent testimon^^, and
we are really grateful to you.
The Chair has some questions for the witnesses.
Ms. Peratis, earlier you said that social security tax was a regressive
tax. I agree with that, and, as a matter of fact, one of the elements of
the tax reform with which I am going to be concerned is the effort to
make the social security tax progressive, like the income tax. A n d that,
I gather, you would feel would be of considerable help, w^ould i t not ?
Ms. P E E A T I S . Yes, Senator. I t would be of considerable help, but i t
is only half of the economic problem. The other problem is that benefits
are not keyed to need, but to the regressive contribution structure.
Senator J A V I T S . We w i l l look at that very carefully too, the benefit
side, and when I come to Ms. Seifer, please break i n i f I say something
that interests you.
Ms. Seifer, I was very interested in your presentation for this reason.
I am the author, with Senator Williams of New Jersey, of the private
pension reform bill. That bill is now i n conference, and w i l l undoubt-




610.
edly result in law sometime within the next, oh, I ' d say as little as 2
months. I t is well along and looks very good.
Now, of course, that w i l l go a long way toward dealing with the
woman who has worked for short times, because vesting begins at 5
years.
A n d i n view of the fact that there are also funding provisions and
insurance, the situation for her brightens very considerably.
Now, under those circumstances; that is, with a material reform and
private pension plans, i t has, nonetheless, been charged that our legislation does not do all i t should for women who worked i n bits and
pieces of time, much more than men do. I would like to tell you that
we have stren^hened the part-time aspects of the measure, taking the
best out of House and Senate bills, so that in that regard i t is improved.
Ms. S E I F E R . I n terms of pensions, are you dealing w i t h any other
benefits ?
Senator J A V I T S . We are dealing only w i t h private pensions.
The real problem there, of course, is that essential conditions
respecting private pensions are still made by employer-employee
under collective bargaining, or even just by the employer alone, i f
i t is, what, you know, we call a fixed benefit plan. B u t there is some
improvement. A n d I would just like to suggest to you that there is
no use i n t r y i n g to do anything now. I t is pretty late.
B u t when we come out w i t h the law, i f you would study i t caref u l l y and let ns know what you see there which could stand additional
legislation, this law w i l l be constantly amended and changed because
i t is about the biggest t h i n ^ that's happened since social security.
So there w i l l be an opportunity to stren^hen the provisions respecti n g women as we go along.
B u t I w i l l be the first one to tell you that i t has been charged that
we are not doing enough.
Ms. S E I F E R . Can I ask you one question?
Senator J A V I T S . Yes.
Ms. S E I F E R . Does i t address itself at all to women's work i n the
home, known as housework?
Senator J A V I T S . N O ; i t cannot do that, and I am coming to that
i n a minute.
Now, as to the 20-year proposition, you have to be married for 20
years, I am going to I O O K into seeing what amendment is possible.
I have just given those instructions. As a matter of fact, we w i l l
examine social security very carefully, and Professor McCafoey, also
taxes. I w i l l see what amendments I ought to sponsor respecting that.
Ms. P E R A T I S . Senator, divorced husbands are not permitted to
receive social security on the wife's account at all. So you can consider
that problem.
Senator J A V I T S . I ' l l tell you, we have to be realistic and practical.
The Congress is not nearly as favorable toward buttoning this thing
up f o r men—you know, they are not nearly as interested i n the
principles involved as we are. I ou and I and others like us.
B u t , nonetheless, let me look at that. I can only sponsor so many
amendments, but I w i l l look at it.
The question I ' d like to ask you about pension plans is this: We are
providing i n the new pension reform b i l l the opportunity of each




611.
individual worker not under a pension plan, that means half the
workers—^roughly 35 million—to build his own pension plan. This
same right to have $1,500 a year tax-free to build up a pension plan
we now give the professional. That is, the so-called Keogh business.
Now, that w i l l introduce a new equation altogether, a new opportunity for banks to aggregate these funds and invest them, a new
opportunity for insurance companies to sell annuities on the same
basis, conditioning the premium on the deductibility of the individual
f r o m his wages or salary.
That could be conceivably, Ms. Seifer, analogized to the housewife.
Using your work and research, can you comment on the legal possibility and collectibility of these payments f r o m housewives? This is
critically important when you are dealing w i t h such enormous
numbers.
Ms. S E I T E R . Unfortunately, as I said i n my testimony, I was invited
here as a social policy person and not an economist. I have read
something about different proposals for plans which include the
$1,500 coming out of the husband's salary as the wife makes i t possible
for the husband to work. I really don't have any idea about what the
possibilities for collectibility would be.
Senator J A V I T S . H O W would husbands feel about it?
Ms. SEIFER. Obviously, a good percentage of them would be against
it, you know, at first for obvious reasons, u n t i l they saw the benefits
that might accrue to them and, obviously there would be benefits to
them.
I could look into that and see i f there is any work done on that.
B u t at this point I don't know anything that would indicate
Senator J A V I T S . O f course, the husband has the solace today of
feeling that his wife w i l l get social security benefits.
Ms. S E I F E R . I f she is married to h i m f o r 20 years, she can share
as a dependent i n his benefits. She gets nothing i n her own right.
I n other words, a woman who works, according to Chase Manhattan
Bank, for 100 hours a week i n her own home, at age 65, can end up
w i t h nothing that she can say she has achieved or accomplished.
Senator J A V I T S . B u t she gets survivorship benefits.
Ms. SEIFER. Ninety-eight percent of women apparently don't,
through private pension plans. Through the social security system,
yes. But, then again, $1,800 a year is the average income for women
over 65. So, you know
Senator J A V I T S . Entirely inadequate.
Ms. SEIFER. Eight.
Senator J A V I T S . A S I say, I w i l l scrutinize this b i l l when i t comes
down as law. There is no use fussing w i t h i t now. I t is just too far along.
A n d let me have your views on what could be done to amend it.
That law w i l l be like Magna Carta.
B u t beyond that, there w i l l be changes, and I appreciate your letting
us know what changes you feel would be helpful i n this field. I am very
sympathetic.
Ms. SEIFER. Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . M S . Piatt and Ms. McCaffrey, I think you really have
dealt w i t h two parts of the same problem. We have been frustrated
i n this effort. I t was very hard to get the child care deduction, and the
compromise on the whole was pretty fortunate.



612.
I t was so difficult to get i t at the start. Now, I think i t should be
easier, progressively easier, although we have had a lot of trouble,
to get a reform of the tax law as to women.
I really believe that the heavy discrimination comes i n the areas
which you have mentioned. I don't think too many citizens are going
to lose too much sleep over the $28,000 couple earners limitation of
their child care deduction.
I don't say i t is f a i r or unfair, but just the facts of life.
JBut I do think that you are absolutely right when you couple that
contributing factor, w i t h the real tax disadvantage of being married,
and I have heard, and all of us in Congress have heard, people seriously
discussing whether they should be married at all or just live together,
because i t didn't make any economical sense because of the tax laws.
That is a very countersocial stability factor. A n d so I really am
deeply impressed w i t h the clarity w i t h which you have laid this before
us, and I Vvdll do my best to see what we can do about it.
Now, do I gather correctly from you that the key two points are
the standard deduction factor, which you feel is highly invidious, and
the option for the married couple to take the single rate, i f that works
out better?
Ms. M C C A F F R E Y . I think that those tAvo provisions coupled w i t h the
discrimination built into the child care deduction w i l l do.
Senator J A V I T S . Yes; I said that.
Ms. M C C A F F R E Y . They w i l l probably do 90 percent of the job.
Senator J A V I T S . Fine.
Ms. M C C A F F R E Y . There are 40 some-odd other provisions, however,
i n the law that provide the same kind of discrimination, w i t h a smaller
economic impact.
Senator J A W T S . B u t these are the highlights?
M s . MCCAFFREY. Yes.
Senator J A V I T S . W o u l d
Ms. P L A T T . I would.

you agree with that, Ms. Piatt?

May I ask you a question ?
Senator J A V I T S . Please.
Ms. P L A T T . I am distressed to hear you say that not too many people would lose sleep over the couple that earns $28,000.
I n addition, is work a privilege for women ? How about the women,
such as I myself, who struggled through much education to become a
professional, went through 12 years of a career, and now w i t h a child
finds that I simply cannot make enough money by going back to work.
Is that something that you say, well, no one should lose sleep over i t ?
We need the money. This is the middle class that is always being
squeezed out.
Senator J A V I T S . M S . Platt, i f I may say so, I find this disadvantage
always w i t h me. I f I lay a proposition before a witness to get that
witness' reaction, I am always accused of being the author of the
proposition, which is untrue i n my case.
I told you to begin w i t h that I am looking at the realistic facts of
the Congress, not at me. I wouldn't be here i f I didn't agree w i t h you.
B u t to look realistically at Congress, what I have said is true, and,
therefore, the case has to be extremely strong. A n d that is really what
you and Ms. McCaffrey are asking me to take back to my colleagues,
that you do make a very strong case. A n d I am just t r y i n g to get the
highlights from both of you.



613.
But what I told you about the normal outlook by my colleagues is
correct. A n d that is why I was so tough to get this child care deduction to begin with.
So I appreciate what you say.
Ms. P L A T T . Thank you very much.
Senator J A \ ^ T S . I t doesn't apply to me. I am not insulted about it,
but I just say that I cannot always remedy the difficulty. When you
examine the witness, the witness always identifies you w i t h the
problem you put up to your witness.
Ms. M C C A F F R E Y . Maybe some of your colleagues would lose some
sleep i f they took into account the fact that the same $28,000 a year
couple, instead of getting married, decided to live together unmarried
so they could enjoy the benefits of these deductions.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U are right. I have said that.
We are not children, and we understand that these t h i ^ s go on i n
tliis life. But i t certainly should not be at the direction of (xovernment
policy.
One of my staff suggests also, which I think is very sensible, i f we
had more jobs like that available, they would tend to attract a higher
level of compensation and a higher level of person and more people.
That's an advantage based upon the testimony that we have heard
about domestics.
We certainly thank you very much, and what you have done w i l l
be extremely helpful, and I w i l l do my best to use i t very well.
The committee w i l l take a 5 minute recess, but i t w i l l be strictly 5
minutes.
Before we take the recess, may the Chair announce that we w i l l
not break for lunch. We are going to go r i g h t through and finish all
of our work before we break, 'and then we w i l l adjourn the hearing.
I have other problems of time i n New Y o r k , so witnesses, please
don't go away as you w i l l be recalled.
[Whereupon, a short recess was taken.]
Senator J A V I T S . The hearing w i l l come to order.
We have now a panel on credit and insurance, and the members are
Amalia Betanzos, Barbara Shack, and Carol DeSarem.
Would you proceed, Ms. Betanzos.
STATEMENT OF AMALIA V. BETANZOS, VICE CHAIRPERSON,
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Ms. BETAN-ZOS. Certainly. Thank you.
M r . Chairman, members of the Joint Economic Committee of the
Congress, my name is Amalia V . Betanzos, and I am the vice chairperson of the New York City Housing A u t h o r i t y , the agency i n New
Y o r k which builds and maintains low-income public housing.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to testify briefly on the
question of sex discrimination i n the general area of housing. Most of
my comments w i l l be directed to the problems encountered by women
i n the private housing market.
Housing discrimination has many dimensions; i t extends into such
fields^ as credit, insurance and pensions, and raises some very basic
questions as to whether this country seriously intends to alter the
courtly bigotry that characterizes its public and private view of
women.



614.
Social movements i n this country, particularly those which raise
the question of group discrimination, have common histories. Eegardless of the righteousness of the cause, these movements appear to be
sharply limited i n their duration. The classic example, of course, is
the black civil rights movement which began in earnest i n 1960 and
was virtually extinct by 1966. The reasons for these limits appear
historically to have something to do with the public's ability to sustain
an interest i n social tragedy and social change, and the attention-span
of the public media. As far as government is concerned, all social
movements are largely painful interruptions which must be waded
through so that government can get back to the business of governing.
The hope, of course, is that the social movements leave behind them
fundamental changes, both i n legislation and attitude, that w i l l i n the
course of time set things right.
Another common characteristic of social movements i n this country
is that they begin on a highly unsubtle level i n that much of the
precious time we are allotted by history is consumed by the high drama
of violence and confrontation. We are now almost 3 years into the
current edition of the movement for women's rights. The incredible
fact of the matter is that for all of the consciousness-raising, for all
the high dudgeon about politics, stereotyping and abortion, virtually
nothing is known i n any systematic way and very little has been done
i n the field of housing discrimination. I f history tells us anything, we
have used up half our precious time already, and the deep substrata
of sex discrimination as i t manifests itself i n housing, employment
and education has been largely ignored.
Let me tell you how I know this. I n preparing this document, T
made inquiries at the appropriate human rights agencies and organizations. A n analysis of the New York City Commission on Human
Eights housing complaints i n the year 1973 shows that there were
exactly 11 complaints filed by women and adjudicated by the commission charging discrimination i n housing accommodations. That i n
itself speaks volumes about the degree of consciousness that women
generally have about their housing problems. The fact of the matter is
that hundreds of thousands of single women are systematically discriminated against i n New Y o r k City and State i n a variety of ways.
Getting apartments i n the first place is difficult and hazardous.
Being treated f a i r l y on leases is rare. This is to say nothing about the
efforts of any single woman i n actually purchasing an apartment or
a house. Attempts at home ownership by single women are met w i t h a
barrage of discrimination that starts with the landlord (note that the
second syllable is " l o r d " not "lady") and ends at the bank, where an
affable official w i t h courtly manners insists on a male cosigner. I t is
not too much to say that any woman over the age of 15—regardless
of who she is, suffers some form of sex discrimination i n the housing,
credit and related fields.
Do you know, for example, that there is a Federal regulation which
prohibits my own New Y o r k City Housing Authority from making
federally-subsidized public housing available to single people u n t i l
they reach the age of 62 ? E i g h t y percent of the impact of this regulation is on women.
Divorced and widowed women simply disappear into a kind of
housing purgatory i n this country. Regar&less of their personal standing i n the community, most divorced and widowed women are without



615.
credit standing and are considered ipso facto poor risks. A n d this is
only the t i p of the iceberg.
Male oriented insurance handcuffs the widow. Employment discrimination ultimately lowers incomes and results i n small pensions—
i f retirement benefits are provided at all.
When women t r y to deal w i t h their problems of low income and low
pensions i n creative ways, they are often met by new and different
obstacles. The Supreme Court's decision, upholding the village of
Delle Terre's zoning regulations against more than two unrelated
people living together was discussed i n terms of communes, but w i l l
probably have its most substantial impact once again on women.
Sometimes I wonder i f the men who r u n this country believe that
when they die or are divorced, their wives simply disappear f r o m the
Earth. Further, the housing and real estate industries employ a vast
labor force that reflects the classic discriminatory pattern against
women, and all of this is deeply ingrained into the American psyche.
T h i n k for a minute; the word "landlord" evokes a picture of ownership, while the word "landlady" evokes a boarding house matron
serving cold soup.
H a v i n g painted this rather g r i m picture, let me amend my own
argument to some degree by suggesting to the committee that they
study local law No. 7 of the city of New Y o r k for the year 1973, which
was passed unanimously by the New Y o r k City Council and signed
into law on February 7,1973. The law goes to some of the questions I
have raised in this paper, namely, the very serious matter of direct
discrimination against women, most specifically, single women, i n
acquiring apartments i n the city of NeAv York. I t is a remarkably
enlightened law which also addresses itself to discriminatory practices on the part of banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and so forth.
I have, however, serious doubts as to whether or not this law constitutes a real force for change i n the city of New York, and would
warmly recommend that comparable, even stronger, Federal legislation be drafted and passed paralleling this document.
I f I may, let me give you just a little chapter and verse about housing discrimination against women i n the city of New York. A year
ago, i t was shown that over one thousand buildings on the East Side
of Manhattan had a clear record of discrimination against women
tenants and would-be tenants. There are even cases on record where
a woman tenant who is divorced or widowed is refused lease renewal
when her lease expires. Because of the complicated systems of maximum and minimum incomes used i n much of the publicly subsidized
housing i n the city of New York, a host of discriminatory devices
have surfaced to prevent women, particularly single women, f r o m
getting a decent home. A n d I could go on, but as I have said before,
there simply isn't sufficient public attention being paid to these more
subtle forms of sex discrimination i n our society. I must say i n all
candor, that I believe that despite the current official vogue i n women's rights, despite this excellent hearing, nobody is going to do i t
for us. No government official, no public agency is going to settle this
question without enormous pressure f r o m organized women. A n d the
work we have to do is not all picket sign art and opening all male
saloons. Right now, without a moment's delay, we need an army of
analysts to identify our targets; and we must understand the subtle


616.
ties that centuries of mindless bigotry about the role of women in this
society has produced.
I can only hope that you w i l l respond.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much.
Ms. DeSarem, w i t h your permission we w i l l go right to Ms. Shack.
MS. Shack is the assistant director of the American C i v i l Liberties
Union.
S T A T E M E N T OF B A R B A R A SHACK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES

NEW

UNION

Ms. S H A C K . New Y o r k C i v i l Liberties Union, Senator, and I direct
the women's rights project of that organization.
The insurance industry, on its own and in conspiracy w i t h employers, has systematically discriminated against women and denied
women and their families the economic security that equitable and
humane insurance practices should provide.
The protection of l i f e and property that insurance provides is so
fundamental to economic security and well-being that discrimination
i n its availability represents a serious deprivation.
I n July 1973, I testified before this committee on the same subject
and presented substantial documentation of discrimination i n insurance. That f u l l statement and exhibits appear i n the record of the
hearings. I w i l l only summarize them today.
Two-thirds of the population have health, accident, and l i f e insurance coverage through plans partially or wholly paid for by
employers as a salary fringe benefit. Federal and New Y o r k law
require that equal fringe benefits be provided regardless of cost and
without discrimination because of race, creed or sex. Yet a recent
survey of the 50 largest employers i n New York State revealed that
discrimination against female employees exists i n each plan—that
employers and insurers are accomplices in devising insurance plans
that discriminate.
^luch of the inequity i n insurance coverage i n group plans is the
result of agreement between employers and insurers to formulate
plans that cost less by reducing the coverage for women.
F r o m complaints received by the N Y C L U and other groups and
agencies, i t is possible to identify more than 30 common insurance
practices that discriminate against women.
Since the hearings last summer, the problem has become noticeably
more miserable and as a result women from all over the country have
been contacting us and other agencies complaining that they are not
getting a fair share, so we have been able to categorize them.
Senator J A V I T S . Has there been any improvement?
Ms. S H A C K . Yes. I n one particular area, and I think that is the
result of a lawsuit that was brought in New York and Pennsylvania,
challenging the unavailability of disability income protection insurance to women on the same conditions as to men. So a lot of companies i n the past few months have changed their policies dramatically
and made available some of the coverage that was not available before.
That is the only area that I sense any real nervousness.
I n the area of disability income policies, males are offered coverage
to the age of 65, and females can often by policies that w i l l only give



617.
them benefits for 1 year or 2 years or 5 years, but many companies
won't offer them coverage to age 65. Premiums for women i n that
area are often as much as three times higher than men.
L i m i t s on the amount of insurance a woman may buy are lower
than men of similar age and occupation and salary.
I n the area of health insurance—I am just picking up a few samplers—females may be restricted f r o m including husbands as dependents even though males are permitted to include their wives i n many
plans.
Maternity benefits are not provided on the same terms and conditions as the male employee spouses, and maternity related coverage
is often sharply limited.
Prenatal and postpartum care is not covered by insurance i n most
instances. Maternity coverage may be subjected to a flat maximum
benefit unrelated to true expenses while other conditions are covered
on an indemnity basis.
Annuities and pensions, individual annuity programs are sexsegregated, leading to lower monthly benefits for women, based on the
longer life expectancy of the female group, even when they have made
equal contributions to those made by men.
I n life insurance, the most dramatic discrimination is that i n the
one area where women would benefit f r o m the actuarial benefits
where they live 6 to 8 years longer, the average setback i n rates is
only 3 years.
I n automobile insurance, women, divorced and widowed, often find
i t very difficult to purchase policies, and i n New^ Y o r k are put in
assigned risk pools, or their rates go up.
Senator JAVITS. What about no-fault, w i l l that help ?
Ms. S H A C K . I don't think so. I t doesn't seem to have helped. That
is a more subtle kind of discrimination.
I t is more the judgment of the individual broker than a divorced
woman has, after he checks through his manual and discovers the
warning, "Watch out for divorced folks."
The other problem is that married women are covered under policies that are owned by their husbands. I f the husband dies or leaves
the family, she goes out as a first time consumer w i t h no insurance
history, and since the policy was never j o i n t l y owned, she's treated
almost as a new driver, so her rates go up.
Forty percent of all women over 16 hold jobs—41 percent of these
are single, widowed, or divorced, and another 21 percent have husbands whose income is less than $7,000. So, f o r a majority of working
women and their families, health care costs and loss of earnings could
mean financial disaster. Yet, the underwriting manual of the N o r t h
American Re-Assurance Company warns :
• * • women's role i n the commerical w o r l d i s a p r o v i s i o n a l one * * * t h e y
w o r k n o t f r o m financial need, b u t f o r personal convenience. T h e s u b j e c t i v e
circumstances w h i c h create "convenience" t e n d t o change, a n d i f a w o m a n has
d i s a b i l i t y coverage, the t e m p t a t i o n exists t o replace h e r earnings w i t h a n i n s u r ance income once w o r k loses i t s attractiveness.

The attitude that women are too risky or too expensive to insure
prevails i n the industry and underwriting manuals f o r many companies warn brokers about female risk. The insurance industry also
reflects the societal view that a woman's anatomy is her own destiny



618.
and that the risks inherent i n childbearing are her own responsibility
and not an insurable interest.
Maternity coverage is usually excluded from coverage or severely
limited i n most group policies, and so expensive i n individual policies
that the costs are prohibitive.
Insurance premiums excluding maternity coverage are usually
higher for Avomen, sometimes three times higher, than for men because the industry has the historical habit of using the convenience
of sex-based actuarial tables to predict risk and set rates. Whether
or not these tables are really accurate is a matter of great dispute.
However, assuming their accuracy, I believe that the convenience of
sex classification does not justify the resulting discrimination.
I f , for example, 0.5 men and 1.5 women out of 1,000 claims disabili t y benefits, i t means that all women w i l l be charged a premium three
times higher than their male equivalent. I t places the f u l l cost of the
statistical difference on every woman simply because she is a member
of the female class.
Senator J A V I T S . So you want the men to share the actuarial load
really ?
Ms. S H A C K . Well, I am saying there are other criteria that more
accurately predict disability or i l l health, such as smoking, alcohol
habit, weight, prior medical condition, family history.
I point out that i n many States, historic concern for protecting
racial minorities against insurance discrimination was not qualified
by permitting statistical differences between the races to justify different premiums. I n 1970, the life expectancy of whites was 7.1 years
longer than blacks. Yet i t has been the public policy of New Y o r k
since 1892 to prohibit different premiums for life insurance based on
actuarial computations of black and white longevity. Therefore, just
because sex classifications based on actuarial computations are statistically valid, i t does not mean they ought to be legal. There is no
business necessity that would be severely compromised i f sex classifications were replaced w i t h other classification schemes which do not
compromise economic rationality.
U n t i l now, there has been no Federal regulation of the insurance
industry. The McCarran-Ferguson A c t of 1945 exempts the insurance
industry f r o m Federal antitrust laws and leaves regulation entirely
to the States. State insurance departments have been negligently lax
i n requiring f a i r treatment for women and are usually without any
legislative mandate to do so.
F o r example, the New Y o r k Civil Liberties Union recently filed a
class action i n Federal court against the superintendent of insurance of the State of New Y o r k for systematically approving the sale
of insurance policies that discriminate against women.
One insurance writer points out:
T h e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of insurance regulation, then, is t o recognize t h a t
changes i n a n d o u t of i n s u r a n c e a r e constantly a l t e r i n g t h e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
o f i n s u r a n c e r e g u l a t i o n ; t h a t i t s goals should change a c c o r d i n g l y ; t h a t somet i m e s i t f a l l s t o government t o lead the i n d u s t r y t o w a r d c h a n g e ; a n d t h a t i t
a l w a y s f a l l s t o g o v e r n m e n t t o m a k e t h e conscious effort t o order i t s o w n house
by current thought and not by habit.

I n closing, we would like to suggest that the Federal Government
order its own house by at long last regulating an industry that obviously cannot regulate itself.



619.
We urge the enactment of an Insurance Equality A c t which would
prohibit any discrimination or distinction because of race, religion, national origin, sex or marital status i n the sale of insurance w i t h
respect t o :
One, the availability of insurance; two, the scope of coverage or the
terms and conditions of any policy; three, the cost of premiums.
This legislation should also spell out that equal coverage for women
means that maternity-related care should be as f u l l y covered as all
other kinds of medical care and should include:
One, treatment associated w i t h voluntary control of reproduction;
two, normal obstetrical care; three, all complications o f obstetrics;
four, pre-natal care; five, labor and delivery; six, newborn care f r o m
moment of birth through first year of life.
Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you, Ms. Shack.
I gather you are late for an appointment and want to go, and I have
asked you the questions I had i n mind to ask you, so i f you wish to
leave, please do.
Ms. S H A C K . Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . M S . DeSarem, would you please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CAROL DeSAEEM, VICE PRESIDENT FOR EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION AND EDUCATION, MANHATTAN NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN (NOW)
Ms. D E S A R E M . M r . Chairman, members of the Joint Economic Committee, my name is Carol DeSarem, vice president of N O W . New Y o r k
and National Task Force Eepresentative on Credit for the New Y o r k
C i t y chapter. I w i l l speak to you on discrimination against women i n
the extension of credit and employment.
Women are 40 percent of the work force and 53 percent of the population; therefore, we feel that women should have their own credit
rating when they are employed or choose to do so. Discrimination i n
employment and credit makes the women of this country second-class
citizens.
Denying credit prevents women f r o m owning businesses or property
therefore, becoming women of "no property."
I have received over 100 case histories f r o m women across the
United States on credit discrimination. Some illustrations how a female is discriminated against is as follows:
I n the case of a married woman who was told by a bank her income
w^ould be counted i f she produced medical papers to prove she had a
hysterectomy. When she stated she could produce papers her husband
had a vasectomy she was told she still could become pregnant, insinuating she would commit adultery. This attitude affects the lower-middle
income class the most because w i t h a combined income o f husband and
wife, a family can own a home, otherwise they are forced to live i n
lower income neighborhoods or slums.
The National Health Services were given a Federal grant to set up
a clinic to help women i n b i r t h control, pap tests, and self-examination,
et cetera. I t is housed in the New Y o r k Stock Exchange. The banks
and the brokerage firms have refused to n o t i f y the women i n this
area that these services are available by the U.S. Government at a



620.
low cost of $10 for a f u l l examination and $2.50 for pregnancy tests,
the reason being that they consider this controversial. I t is controversial to them to deny women i n New York City this service given
by the Government, but i t is not controversial for them to give women
mortgages or, say, a husband and wife.
Home improvement loans are denied to widows or divorced women
which prevents them from maintaining their property, and i n some
cases lack of maintenance forces these women to sell their homes at a
loss.
A female editor w i t h an income over $10,000 and a $5,000 savings
account applied for a car loan and was told her husband would have
to cosign plus she would need another cosigner. They would not accept
her sister-in-law who had a personal worth of $900,000 because she
was a woman, but they accepted her father whose income was $15,000.
A woman was denied a loan to start a small business, while men
offering the same amount of collateral were accepted. Most banks w i l l
not even offer to f i l l out an application.
A dean of a college whose income is $30,000 plus, sought a home
improvement loan of $3,000, was given a runaround and insulted
later when she found out they were waiting for her husband to return
from vacation to approve the loan even though they were divorced.
These are just a few of the many ways a female is discriminated
against i n credit. This type of discrimination makes i t impossible for
women of this country to become financially independent. What we
have now i n this country is the select few deciding who should make
i t and who should not. Women receive the lowest paying jobs. They
are hired last and fired first. Women and children make up the group
of poverty i n this country. A major department store i n this country
who, by the way, is under investigation by the E E O C leads women
to think i f they pay the outstanding bills their husbands left they can
still keep their credit cards. A f t e r they pay the bill out of their small
source of income their credit is canceled. This leaves these women who
live i n the rural areas of this country without the service of ordering
f r o m the catalog for inexpensive quality goods. Now they either do
without clothing for their children or are forced to buy at high prices.
I request that this committee issue guidelines and regulations as
well as enforcement provisions that w i l l make i t unlawful to deny
credit to qualified women. There are no statistics that show women are
credit risks. This whole attitude is based on myths that women's role
is to bear children. This is not so today. Women have control over
their bodies and on the average spend 43 years i n the labor market,
according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Women have helped build this country from the sweatshops i n New
Y o r k to the building of the West. I t was women who went to the factories during W o r l d W a r I I . Yet they are denied free opportunity i n
employment and credit.
I f you allow this system of discrimination to continue that excludes
53 percent of the population, then the United States can no lonjo^er be
called a democracy—^because democracy is the absence of arbitrary
class distinctions or privileges.
I urge prompt action on this issue which subjects women to these
demeaning standards.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much, Ms. DeSarem.



621.
Ms. Betanzos, about the housing, your purpose i n directing our attention to local law No. 7 of 1973,1 gather, was as a model leading to
possible amendment of the Federal antidiscrimination and housing
laws; is that correct ?
Ms. BETANZOS. I t certainly is. Senator. We feel that this is something that should be done.
I t was a grievous omission, and hopefully w i l l be corrected as soon
as possible.
Senator J A V I T S . What precisely would this law do i f followed on the
Federal level?
Ms. B E T A N Z O S . I t would prohibit discrimination of renting, because
of sex, which is something I alluded to i n the testimony, and is just so
prevalent in the whole State of New Y o r k and probably i n the whole
country.
Senator J A V I T S . But mainly its impact w i l l be on rental housing?
Ms. B E T A N Z O S . Yes, i t w i l l be.
Senator J A V I T S . What about the various cooperative programs which
give some kind of subsidy, have you
Ms. B E T A N Z O S . Yes. The subsidy programs, of course, the regulation that single people under the age of 65 cannot be given apartments is particularly damaging to women. We would like to see this
regulation done away with. I t affects both men and women who are
single, unless they are handicapped. B u t certainly women are the ones
who suffer most by this regulation.
The State regulation, incidentally, provides for under 50 years.
Senator J A V I T S . SO we should check into that. Thank you very much.
We w i l l study that local law very, very carefully.
Ms. B E T A N Z O S . Thank you. Senator.
Senator J A V I T S . M r . Shackeuer raises this question, Ms. Betanzos,
maybe you could help us with it. Is the reason for the Federal housing
discrimination against single people because there is not enough to
go around, so, for example, would such an apartment be available to
two single people living together?
Ms. B E T A N Z O S . I t would seem to me that whether or not an apartment
is available in federally subsidized housing to single people under 65
should be determined by their housing priorities, which includes housing that they are presently l i v i n g in, whether they are being displaced
because of governmental action, and whether the housing is substandard rather than by the person's age.
Senator J A V I T S . Rather than existing criteria which is strictly the
physical standard?
M s . BETANZOS. Y e s , s i r .
Senator J A V I T S . M S . DeSarem,

there is a b i l l which passed the Senate
relating to credit discrimination. I supported i t and joined i n it—the
Fair Credit B i l l i n g Act.
Now, there is also a b i l l in the House of Eepresentatives sponsored
by Representative Griffiths, who was supposed to be here this morning
w i t h me. I t is the b i l l of Mrs. Sullivan, of Missouri.
Have you studied those bills? Can you give us any views on them?
Ms. D E S A R E M . Yes. A lot of my documentation went down to Washington that aided i n this b i l l w i t h Senator Brock and Senator Williams
from New Jersey, because the letters that I received f r o m hundreds
of women across the United States brought this type of problem to
the surface.



622.
Now, what has happened is, this b i l l has gone through the Senate
90 to 0 which everybody said was great. However, the rest has been
tied up i n committee. There have been lobbying groups exercising a
great deal of pressure on this committee to water down this b i l l w i t h
amendments that make i t totally unworkable, the lobbying groups bei n g mainly businesses and banks.
This is what we could now consider a serious economic threat to
women, because i n New Y o r k State the credit b i l l was just recently signed by Governor Wilson. Already we are getting now complaints still i n granting women loans and mortgages through banks.
They have devised, now, a new system of discrimination. They w i l l not
come forward and say to a woman, " W e w i l l not give you a loan or
count part of your income for a mortgage on a home because you are a
woman." W h a t a major bank i n New York City that already has cases
filed against them i n the courts for this type of practice is doing is
that they are counting only half of the husband's income.
Well, when we sat down and we figured out the total loan, we found
out what they were really doing was counting the husband's income
100 percent and only half of hers.
This woman, by the way, happens to be assistant controller of one of
the largest department stores in New York City whose income is well
over $25,000. So even w i t h individual State laws we have what is
commonly known i n National Organization for Women a running
battle against these financial institutions.
We are now equipped to handle this. We are not funded by anybody. This is all volunteer work. And, therefore, this legislation is
extremely important to women in the United States because the women
are the poverty group i n this country.
^ A n d , O K , women i n New Y o r k City can stand up and fight for their
rights, but what about the women who live i n Alabama, Texas, and i n
the ghetto areas of California ? They are the ones that suffer the most.
Because where i t affects them is mostly their children.
Senator J A V I T S . W h a t really you waiit me to do is
Ms. B E S A R E M . We have to have Federal legislation. As Barbara
Shack pointed out, these industries w i l l not police themselves. They
w i l l not do their own internal housecleaning on their own. The only
t h i n g they w i l l listen to is Federal legislation.
Senator J A V I T S . We w i l l get the record of the hearing that you have
just referred to, and we can t r y and use them in the House to push for
action. A n d I w i l l advise Representative Griffiths about your
testimony.
Ms. D E S A R E M . Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . I am sure we can call that to your attention. A n d we
w i l l put i n the record your testimony so as to form some k i n d of incentive to the House to move.
B u t your complaint now, really is not against ns i n the Senate; i t is
i n the House.
Ms. D E S A R E M . Yes. I would be glad to supply any of these letters, by
the way, i f you are interested.
Senator J A V I T S . Ms. Bander w i l l discuss that with you.
Ms. D E S A R E M . Thank you.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you so much, ladies.
W e now have a panel of parents mainly directed to the day care
issue; would you mind coming up. Gertie Hodges and Dolores Radcliff, Lucille Williams w i l l sit w i t h the panel.



623.
A n d , Ms, Hodges is the director of the Seabury Day Care Center.
Ms. Hodges, would you proceed i n your own way.
STATEMENT OF GERTIE HODGES, DIRECTOR, SEABURY DAY CARE
CENTER
Ms. HODGES. M r . Chairman, members of the Joint Economic Committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee.
W i t h me at the table is Ms. Lucille Williams, a parent whose child is i n
our school-age program.
This hearmg, like others that have gone before and others that are
sure to follow, demonstrates not only heightened public awareness to
the needs of women and children, but also official awareness of Government's responsibility for meeting those needs.
The New York City day care program is the largest publicly subsidized program in the country. I t is administered by the agency for
child development whose fiscal year 1974 budget is $124 million. Federal funds account for half of the budget. State and local funds each
account for 25 percent.
The group day care program serves approximately 35,000 children i n 426 centers; 25,800 are preschool children, 8,600 are school
age and 360 are infants. Family day care serves approximately 6,000
infants, preschool and school-age children i n approximately 1,500
family day care homes.
When you consider that i n 1966 there were only 93 publicly funded
day care centers i n New York City serving only 6,700 children, the
significance of title I V - A funding becomes obvious. Indeed, only the
continued flow of Federal funds allocated under the Social Security
Act has made this growth possible.
M y day care center, Seabury Day Care, serves 85 preschoolers and
40 school-age children.
Traditionally, publicly subsidized day care i n New Y o r k City has
been provided as a service to the working poor f o r no fee or for a
fee ranging between $2 and $25 graduated scale. The fees, as mandated
by the New York City fee schedule established i n 1965, are based
on an analysis of a family's income, taking into consideration such
costs as food, clothing, shelter, medical and other work-related
expenses that are absolute necessities.
B y basing the fee schedule on a family's disposable income after
deductions for basic expenses, what the family pays reflects its real
ability to pay. I n this way, we maintain the p r i o r i t y of low-income
families for day care services and, at the same time, do not penalize
the upwardly-mobile family.
A n analysis of the incomes of the families served and the fees they
pay, indicates the following: 42 percent of families are public assistance recipients and pay no fee at all. Most of them work but still need
supplemental assistance. Another 40 percent pay $2 because they earn
less than $8,000; the remaining 18 percent pay anywhere froni $3 to
$25 a week, depending on their income which may go up to $13,000.
I n all, there are probably no more than 600 children out of the
42,000 served in the group and family day care program that are at
the $25 level and the State and city share the cost of their child care
services.



624.
Senator J A V I T S . H O W many did you say? What was that last figure?
Ms. HODGES. 42,000 served i n the group and family day care
program.
Senator J A V I T S . N O , that last figure.
Ms. HODOES. Six hundred.
These are families where the child's need outweigh the family's
financial status.
Of the 87 families Seabury serves, 73 are working, 6 are i n training
and 35 receive some f o r m of public assistance. Of the remaining 6
families, 5 mothers are looking for work and one child was placed w i t h
us because the mother is an addict. I n this case, as in most of the cases
where the child is placed i n the program because of social needs, day
care is an alternative to foster care; a service which keeps families
together instead of pulling them apart. As you know, day care is less
expensive than foster care, often one-fifth the cost.
A t Seabury, most of our families pay $2 per week. The highest fee
paid is $13.75.
The average cost of child care i n the private market is about $95 to
$105 per week under the minimum wage requirements. I n most cases
child care i n the private market i n New York City can be defined as
being in-home care of the child by a neighbor or relative, or outside
care i n an unlicensed facility that provides little more than custodial
or babysitting services. I n the latter case, i t must be noted that most
privately-funded child care centers are not open for the f u l l work day.
A t present, there are only about 20 privately-funded, licensed child
care centers open f r o m 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The problems we face here in New York City, and I am sure every
woman faces, w i t h regard to day care, concern the following: One,
assuring an adequate supply of day care service; two, determining
who is going to be eligible for publicly-subsidized day care; and, there,
assuring child care services provided are quality services.
I n New Y o r k City there are approximately 300,000 children that
are currently eligible for the day care program, but w i t h the ceiling
that was placed on title I V - A funds i n October 1972, the City's efforts
to expand the program beyond the current level of enrollment has
been curtailed.
Senator J A V I T S . W h a t was that figure, of how many needed ?
Ms. HODGES. 300,000.
Senator J A V I T S . 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 as against 3 6 , 0 0 0 spots?
Ms, HODGES. Right.
Senator J A V I T S . About 1 to 10 ?
Ms. HODGES. Eight.
Senator J A V I T S . Where do you get the 300,000 figure, Ms. Hodges?
]Ms. HODGES. Well, f r o m the different day care centers.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U mean to the number of applicants, et cetera ?
Ms. HODGES. That is right. Those who have applied.
Senator J A V I T S . O K .
Ms. HODGES. Last year the State gave the city $10 million to make up
for the loss of Federal dollar. This year Governor Wilson refused to
reappropriate the special appropriation. The city, unlike the State
which has a budget surplus, is strapped for funds.
I n view of this and the need for publicly subsidized services for
those mothers who cannot afford i t i n the private market, I recommend



625.
that t i t l e I V - A be exempt f r o m the f u n d i n g ceiling on social services
spending.
D a y care is an essential service, especially f o r women who want to
go to work. I n fact, i t is as much an income maintenance program as
public assistance itself i n that New Y o r k C i t y day care offers publicly
subsidized health, nutrition, educational, and social services as well
as child care to families who cannot otherwise afford them.
Though many mothers w i l l not be able to go to w o r k i f they cannot
get child care, some mothers who have to w o r k because they are the
sole support of the f a m i l y or because their f a m i l y income is below the
m i n i m a l level needed to survive, w i l l have t o go to work anyway, and
may leave their children i n inadequate child care arrangements or
home alone. This i n iteelf is discrimination against women. As you
know, most poor families are headed by women. One-half the families
using publicly subsidized child care services i n NCAV Y o r k are oneparent families.
This brings us to the second problem, who should be eligible to receive
publicly subsidized child development services. T h o u g h most of us
would agree that the Government should provide subsidy f o r the poor,
there seems to be a wide disparity as t o how you define poor.
As you know, H E W , and i n fact New Y o r k State department of
social services as well, have proposed regulations that would severely
l i m i t the access of poor women t o child care services. The financial
eligibility criteria they established was nationwide and this d i d not
take into account the differences i n the cost of l i v i n g i n different parts
of the country. The income cutoff levels were so low t h a t i n New Y o r k
City where the cost of l i v i n g is high, matiy w o r k i n g women, especially
the upwardly mobile families, would be penalized. I n many cases, a
woman who had received a job and thus gone off welfare as a result
of day care would then become ineligible f o r day care services under
the proposed H E W guidelines. W e won the battle temporarily against
H E W ; the regulations were postponed. B u t weH^e not b&en so fortunate
vis-a-vis the State department of social services. As of J u l y 1, 1974,
the State has mandated that the city w i l l have to conform to the statewide fee schedule.
The day care community as a whole i n New Y o r k has been fighting
this because the State eligibility criteria, unlike the city's, does not take
into account the cost of l i v i n g i n the city. A b o u t 13 percent of the
current families Avould be ineligible f o r Federal and State
reimbursement.
Therefore, I would recommend that e l i g i b i l i t y f o r publicly subsidized day care be based on the families' true ability to pay and thus
take into account the cost of l i v i n g i n the area.
Senator Javits, w i t h your permission, Ms. W i l l i a m s , a parent at
Seabury Day Care, would like to take a minute to tell you what day
care has meant to her.
Senator J A V I T S . Please.
STATEMENT OF LUCILLE WILLIAMS, SEABTTRY DAY CARE PARENT,
BRONX, N.Y.
Ms. W I L L I A M S . M y name is L u c i l l e W i l l i a m s and
school-aged child.



I

am a mother of a

626.
Senator J A V I T S . Where do you live ?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . I live at 1555 Seabury Place, i n the Bronx.
Senator J A V I T S . G O ahead.
Ms. W I L L I A M S . A n d I am the mother of a school aged child enrolled i n the Seabury Day Care Center.
M y daughter's name is Cheryl Williams, and when she was admitted
to Seabury on December 1970, she w^as 4 years old—not exactly 4.
I must say that I can t r u l y be proud of the progress that Cheryl
made as a result of being i n Seabury. When she graduated from the
kindergarten at Seabury, she was reading on a first grade child's level.
Now Cheryl is i n the second grade at P.S. 61 in the Bronx, and receiving above average grades.
She still attends Seabury Daycare after school. She w i l l attend
after that for the summer program. She is also receiving tutorial
services from the teachers there.
Before Cheryl was admitted to Seabury, I was unable to work as
a result of not having anyone to care for her. I was completely supported by the department of social service.
A f t e r receiving proper child care service for Cheryl, I applied to
the board of education for a job and got it. I am now employed by
the board as a paraprofessional at the early learning center number 2,
also i n the Bronx.
A f t e r a short training period, I am proud to say that I am now^
the main source of income for my family.
I f day care had not been available, 1 am sure I would not have been
able to work.
K n o w i n g there are many other mothers i n New Y o r k faced w i t h
the same sort of situation, I have more friends that would be able
to be available for the day care program. Without the Government
subsidy, many mothers like myself would not be able to afford day
care.
Finally, I feel that day care is to all mothers who use i t and the
ones that should have the use of it been allowed—if allowed to use it,
I am sure i t would be like light is to darkness, what water is to thirst
and, last of all, what food is to hunger.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you very much, Ms. Williams.
Ms. Radcliff, you have been patiently sitting by. We don't want to
deprive you of the chance to say a word i f you want to.
STATEMENT OF DOLORES RADCLirP, EAST HARLEM DAY CARE
PARENT
Ms. R A D C L I F F . M y name is Dolores Eadcliff, and I live in the East
Harlem area, and we are not as fortunate as the people i n the Bronx
because I am here to testify about more money for day care facilities
i n Harlem which we need desperately.
When a child becomes 8 years old, or in the t h i r d grade, day care
no longer provides service for that child. We are saying i n east
Harlem that an 8-year-old need^ some kinjd of supervision becajuse he
cannot carry a key around his neck, and, he is not old enough to take
care of responsibilities such as opening a door, and taking care of
himself, u n t i l the parents come home.
We are i n desperate need of day care money for an extensive comprehension after school program for children from 8 to 12 years old.
East Harlem does not have that, and we need i t so desperately.



627.
Because when I came home 2 weeks Sigo, I had to go to tlie nearest
police precinct to pick up my kids f r o m w^indering around the street,
whereas i f I liad day care service for my Sfyear old, I wouldn't have
had any need to do this.
We need extensive day care planning immediately for the children
of east Harlem, and this is what I would like to see i n the next session
of the Congress and the Senate.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank ypu. I w i l l be back to you w i t h a question or
two i f you w i l l just stand by.
Ms. Hodges," do you have any official responsibility for all the day
care centers ? You testified to some broad figures. I just wondered how
you came by those figures.
Ms. HODGES. Well, I got this from different sources and f r o m the
agency for child development.
Senator J A V I T S . But really you are confined to your particular
center as far as official responsibility is concerned; isn't that true?
Ms. HODGES. Right.
Senator J A V I T S . M y office tells me that I am on the board of your
center.
Ms. HODGES. That is right. You are.
Senator J A V I T S . I am an honorary member.
Now, the main question I ' d like to ask you, Ms. Hodges, is this:
There are two types of day care centers now. One you have described.
That is, i t is partially supported by social security. The other, a community action agency center which get their support under the
poverty program.
Do you have any acquaintance w i t h those at all ?
Ms. HODGES. N O . I think you are referring to the head start
programs.
Senator J A V I T S . Well, the head ^ a r t and other community action
agency programs.
Ms. HODGES. N O . I work with the " D a y Care."
Senator J A V I T S . SO that your program is a social security program
essentially ?
M s . HODGES. Y e s .
Senator J A V I T S . A n d you are not
M s . HODGES. N O .
Senator J A V I T S . There is another

oriented to the other?

program, and we are now engaged
i n an enormous effort to be sure that the community action agencies
which conduct day care centers are kept alive.
Now, the $25 that is the maximum pay that centers like your own,
that is, $25 a week
Ms. HODGES. That is right.
Senator J A V I T S . Does that pay the cost fully?
Ms. HODGES. N O ; i t doesn't.
Senator J A V I T S . W i t h i n that group. I am talking now not o f what
.vou saicl about $95 to $100 a week i f you brought somebody i n your
home, minimuui wage, et cetera. I am talking now only about a group
operation.
W i l l $25 a week per child pay for a group operation w i t h , let's say,
the same number of children you have, roughly a hundred?
Ms. HODGES. N O ; I wouldn't think i t would.
Senator J A V I T S . What do you think i t would cost to really pay its
way ?



628.
Ms. HODGES. I would not be able to say offhand. B u t the services
that we offer, we have certified group teachers; that is, the pe^on
w i t h a B.A., maybe an M . A . and this person would have to consider
the salary of these teachers by three per class.
We have a group teacher, assistant, and aide. Then you have a l l of
the other staff like family counselors and bookkeepers, cooks, janitors,
besides the services that the children get, which includes one hot lunch,
three snacks, including breakfast, and materials to work w i t h i n the
classroom.
I Avoukl sny that the $25 would not
Senator J A V I T S . What would you think i t would be? What's your
estimate ?
Our figures show that i t would be $ 3 , 3 0 0 a year, i n round figures, to
look after a child i n a day care center.
Ms. HODGES. Well, I would hate to give a figure not being sure of
myself, but I know the $25 would not cover it.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U see, the figure we have would be a very sizable
figure, you know. Almost three times that. But you are not prepared
to give us a figure ?
M s . HODGES. N O .
Senator J A V I T S . D O the parents take kindly to the sliding scale ?
M S . HODGES. Y e s .
Senator J A V I T S . The figures you gave us were 1 9 6 5 fees. And,

of
course, the dollar is worth probably 50 percent of what was i n 1965.
Shouldn't those fees now be readjusted ?
Ms. HODGES. Well, i f you consider who is paying those fees, and
what they are making, you know, their income, I don't know i f i t
would be worthwhile to have it.
Senator J A V I T S . Then i t is a fact, is i t not, Ms. Hodges, that fees
which are the result of political decisions, you find i t very hard to increase, and people complain?
Ms. HODGES. Right.
Senator J A V I T S . That is a very real problem for us, i t really is. Because i f we could get more money, we could take more children and
have a bigger operation. B u t somebody has to have the courage to do
it. F o r those who could afford to pay.
A r e you a professional yourself?
Ms.

HODGES. Y e s , I a m .
J A V I T S . A n d this is your sole job?
M s . HODGES. Y e s , i t i s .
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U are a very intelligent

Senator

woman and we should
all be very grateful to you for undertaking it.
W i l l you have any suggestions for Federal legislation aside from
the increase i n coverage?
O f course, the key to i t is, you know, one slot for 10 children.
Ms. HODGES. Well, that is the main thing. I f we could get this
increase and maybe if—more of you were really aware of what's
going on i n the day care centers and the services that are being
provided, then maybe we'd get this i n right away.
Senator J A V I T S . S O i t is the increased number of slots or places
that you feel is the key ?
Ms. HODGES. Eight.
Senator J A V I T S . Ms. Williams, you raised a very interesting question. Could you calculate for us how much per week, per month, or
per year you were getting when you were on welfare?



629.
M r . WiLUA3i:s. Oh, I could
Senator J A V I T S . Just give us an approximate
Ms. W I L L I A M S . A rough figure?

figure.

S e n a t o r JAVTTS. Y e s .

Ms. W I L L I A M S . W h a t I was getting f r o m social services when I
started was around $56 f o r myself and a c h i l d when I first started.
Senator J A V I T S . Then what has t h a t g r o w n to?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . Then i t went up t o $ 6 4 . A n d f r o m $ 6 4 to $ 8 6 , and
at the top scale, i t went f r o m $100 a n d — I t h i n k i t was $120 to $134.
Senator J A V I T S . T h a t was the most you got, $ 1 3 4 ?
Ms. W I L L I A M S , That's the most.
Senator J A V I T S . T h a t was $ 1 3 4 what?
Ms. W I I X I A M S . Dollars, biweekly.
Senator J A V I T S . Every 2 weeks?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . Right.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d what year was that?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . I t started I ' d say i n 1961.
Senator J A V I T S . W h a t year d i d you get the $134?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . T W O years ago.
Senator J A V I T S . N O W , then you got a job?
Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Senator J A V I T S . Plus

day care made that possible. W h a t do you
earn on the job?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . W i t h getting m y h i g h school equivalency diploma
last year, I go now to $96 biweekly.
Senator J A V I T S . You get $ 9 6 every 2 weeks ?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . Right.
Senator J A V I T S . Does that have to be supplemented now by any
k i n d of public welfare?
Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Senator J A V I T S . H O W much do you get i n public
Ms. W I L L I A M S . $ 1 3 8 biweekly.
Senator J A V I T S . SO you are getting about the

welfare?

same as you d i d
before?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . Right.
Senator J A V I T S . Except that i f you had only that to depend on,
you couldn't live on it?
M s . WILLIAMS. NO.
Senator J A V I T S . S O

that w i t h the improvement of your situation
you didn't have to get an increase over the last 2 years and, s t i l l w i t h
your job, you can live on what you have; is that correct?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . W e l l , I am managing on what I have.
Senator J A V I T S . I realize that. N o one says you live opulently. B u t
I am just t r y i n g to figure out, so i t is f a i r to say, therefore, that day
care has helped you to the extent of $50 a week which, otherwise, would
have to come f r o m welfare?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . Right. A n d which I couldn't get f r o m welfare.
L e t me say this: W i t h as much as I make as do other people, I can
see that unless people are taught how to use the money, they are not
surviving. I see i t every day.
Senator J A V I T S . Y o u r high school equivalency you got i n the adult
education program?
Ms. W I L L I A M S . Right.



630.
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U w i l l be interested to know that I am the
author of that j)rogram, and just the other day, after a terrific struggle
i n the conference committee on this subject, tvhich fih'ally w i l l make
the law, we succeeded i n getting what New York needs arid what more
r u r a l alreas of the country didn't want to let us have.
Ms. WiLL^MS. Thank you. We need more people to be encouraged
to get into i t now. '
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U encourage me too.
Ms. Radcliff, about the situation i n east Harlem, aren't the schools
open after hours f o r exactly the purpose that you named?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . Certain schools. But, again, a child must be recommended to go there for one reason or another, such as i f he's a slow
reader or i f he is a slow learner, but that's an after school program.
B u t i f a child is used to being i n day care, from age 3 u n t i l 8 years
old, I t h i n k some provision should be made i n that same day care
center to give adequate service. Because I have ^een many after school
programs which are good, and I am not knocking them.. I t is other
teenagers who need this service in reading, writing, and so f o r t h /
B u t I think younger children need a much more sophisticated kind
of supervision.
Senator J A Y I T S . Than they would get in the after school program ?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . R i ^ h t . More than a more mature kind of child.
Senator J A Y I T S . A r e you acquainted with any community action
agency operation of that k i n d in east Harlem ?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . Yes. The church has one. The Protestant Parish
Church.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d what about joining into that ?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . They are always overcrowded.
Senator JAVITS. Too few of them ?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . Right.
Senator J A V I T S . I n other words, i t is a good idea, but there is just
not enough of them?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . That is right. They don't have the space.
They have the space; they don't have the teachers. There is always
some problem. They don't have the money.
I t is something that they just don't have to make this service—and
this is a most needed service.
Senator J A V I T S . A n d when you had to go to tlie police station to
pick up your 8-year old you probably shuddered thinking that would
h appen to h i m as he got older.
Ms. R A D C L I F F . Well, when I got there, an hour later, they were on
their way to the shelter, and I wanted to know wfiat for. You know,
I am a neglected mother who when I was sent to work, an assistant
knew that I had these difficulties, because they knew I had these children, but I was still forced to go to work.
There are many mothers that are still forced to go to work, but there
are no k i n d of provisions made for them.
I was home, but I was told I had to go to work at this point. Now
that I am working, they don't make the provisions for the children's
need.
Senator J A V I T S . D O you still get any welfare ?
M s . RADCLIFF. N O ; I d o n o t .
Senator J A V I T S . Y O U are f u l l y




employed ?

631.
M s . RADCLIFF. Y e s .
Senator J A V I T S . D O you do fairly well ?
Ms. R A D C L I F F . Not really. I go to school

part time. I am the mother
of three and I work f u l l time.
Senator J A V I T S . You are quite a girl.
Well, thank you very mtich, ladies. We greatly appreciate your testimony. You have been very helpful.
Our final witness of the day, to conclude the hearing, is Ms. Brenda
Feigen Fasteau.
W i l l you take the stand, please.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA PEIGEN FASTEATJ, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Ms. F A S T E A U . I would like to ju«t present some, more or less
random points mostly by way of summary of the hearings and also because there is really no coherent way to tie together some of the things
I would like to touch on.
One of the issues I have been working on as a lawyer and as director
of the women's rights project of the American C i v i l Liberties Unions
has to do with a man who suffers discrimination on the basis of sex
and-employment. The reason I ' d like to mention i t briefly to you is
because I think i t highlights the k i n d of damage that sex role stereotyping can produce for both women and men, and how i t really is two
sides of the same coin and really a double-edged sword.
The man is Gary Ackerman who applied for a child care leave. He
was a schoolteacher in the New Y o r k City school system. The board of
education informed him, through its officials, that he was ineligible for
such a child care leave because he's a man.
We went into Federal court here i n the southern district to t r y to
get the court to make a statement that such a policy by the board was
unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, we also filed a complaint w i t h the Equal Opportunity
Commission and determined that there was probable cause for sex
discrimination.
The regulation which the board has originally provided for a 4:-year
leave for women, up to 4 years for women who had children and wanted
to stay home with the child; men couldn't take any such leave.
Now, the value of that was they could come back to their jobs w i t h
the same tenure and seniority that they had before and lose nothing.
I emphasize this because I think i t shows that society has decided
that men should not stay home w i t h their children even i f they want
to, or even i f their wives work or the women i n their lives work, and
what we are saying is these kinds of opportunities have to be made
available to men as well as women, and i t cannot be assumed that because a women has a child she w i l l be less employable.
Too many employers take the position when a woman has a child
she isn't as easily employable.
The A C L U has produced a book on public pregnancy, and i t is quite
a comprehensive book on all kinds of discrimination that arise vis-a-vis
women.




632.
Senator J A V I T S . W o u l d you give us the exact title of that book?
Ms. F A S T E A U . "Public Pregnancies."
Senator J A V I T S . B y the American Civil Liberties Union ?
Ms. F A S T E A U . I t is written by Trudy Haven.
I t is quite comprehensive. I think that this reads well into what has
to be, I guess, the focus for all of us, still, and that is the equal rights
amendment. Most people are of the opinion that the equal rights
amendment won't have much of an impact on employment and various other areas that have been covered somewhat at least by legislation. The first t h i n g to recognize is i t w i l l affect any employment by
State or Federal agencies of governments.
I think that much more significant, perhaps, than the direct effect
i t w i l l have of the impact on the country of a national mandate passed
b v Congress and ratified by all of the States, or by 38 of the States.
I raised this because I don't think any of us, and that includes
people who have voted the right way i n the Congress, can afford to
sit back and wait u n t i l the States ratify. There is a really rather
vicious, i n my opinion, campaign by the—I don't know what, happiness of womenhood and, God knows what else they call themselves,
to t r y to distort the t r u t h and to essentially prevent women and men,
to the extent that men are discriminated, from getting equality.
I would like to, rather than go into any more about it, say that we
simply have to begin once again a national campaign that w i l l hopef u l l y end by the time of the Bicentennial that w i l l draw leaders i n
both parties, and that w i l l draw men as well as women into the leadership role f o r ratification of equal rights amendment.
I t is not adequate to say that because there are only five States to
go and those States are working on it, or 17 States have not yet ratified, and they are working on it, that we can just sit back and wait.
I t h i n k i t is something that all of us, even though we live i n States
that have ratified, have to t u r n our attention. A n d as a man, and a
Republican, I t h i n k your participation in that fight and i n a leadership role would be extremely valuable.
One other matter. Again, somewhat unrelated, but very important
to what's happening ri-srht now in Congress, is the Tower amendment
to title 9, w i t h which I know you are familiar. That amendment, as
I understand it, has now been deleted at least temporarily, but that
amendment essentially prevents coverage of title 9—^title 9 prohibits
discrimination i n educational programs. I t is my understanding
that the guidelines to title 9 w i l l be coming out tomorrow.
I also understand—I am not sure what Mnd of coverage there w i l l
be for athletics, but our concern is that the Tower amendment w i l l
essentially make title 9 not cover athletic programs which bring i n
revenue. A n d that would essentially mean that there can continue to
be rampant discrimination by women in athletics, by colleges and universities, that continues to go on.
I t h i n k i t is important to observe that the excuse given by the Tower
amendment, or the statement essentially that they have to be able to go
on so that they can continue to make revenue to pay for themselves.
We have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of educational institutions, what is the purpose of the educational program. I t certainly
is not supposed to be a moneymaking proposition. A n d I think that




633.
the prospective i n sports is totally distorted, not onl}^ f o r women, but
for men as well.
F i n a l l y , I ' d like to conclude w i t h yet another issue that really is
quite separate f r o m what I have just been t a l k i n g about, and t h a t is
abortion. There is no way that any of us can t a l k about ending discrimiriation i n this country against women unless we recognize that
cutbacks on the Supreme Court decisions i n Ro%o v. Way^ and Eow v.
Bolton^
which provided that a woman has the r i g h t to an abortion,
unless such cutbacks are prevented, already leaves very serious
setbacks.
As you probably know, the medicaid b i l l has amendments floati n g around, one of which would not allow medicaid f u n d i n g to be
used f o r abortions. Another is an amendment to the legal services b i l l ,
which would not allow any legal services lawyers to help women get
abortions. Women who need legal services.
I t h i n k i t must be underscored, i f we are going to consider the kinds
of issues that the women before me were t a l k i n g about, i f we are
going to address ourselves to the problems of women who are barely
able to earn a l i v i n g and on welfare, we must recognize t h a t i f we
prevent those women f r o m getting abortions i f they want them, then
we are doing nothing more but p u t t i n g us back to where we were
before, making abortions f o r the rich, and not at a l l available to
women who cannot afford to get them.
I t h i n k those were abhorrent and very disturbing, unconstitutional
bills or amendments that have been attached to those bills, and I t h i n k
that i t is f a i r to say that we w i l l be challenging such amendments and
any others that come.
B u t I cannot understand the complete lack of regard f o r the Constitution, f o r the Supreme Court decision that has so f a r been evidenced
by the Congress on this very serious issue. Suffice i t to say m y point
on abortion is we cannot talk about any discrimination imless we
recognize that discrimination goes much farther t h a n the simple, economic issues which are very important, but not the end-all or be-all
of what tve are t a l k i n g about.
Senator J A V I T S . Thank you, Ms. Fasteau, f o r your testimony.
I m i g h t say by way of comment t h a t I am a member of the conference committee—indeed, I am the r a n k i n g member of the committee,
on the minority side, on the Tower amendment—and that problem has
been dealt w i t h already on my motion, and I t h i n k satisfactorily, to
women's groups.
Ms. F A S T E A U . I understand on F r i d a y , I got a call i n the afternoon,
that that was accurate, but there was a chance t h a t there would be an
attempt made to put that back in.
Senator J A V I T S . I t is perfectly proper to raise it. Because i n a conference, u n t i l everybody signs, and this conference w i l l go on f o r at
least 6 weeks, i t could be changed.
B u t at this time i t is tentatively settled, and we w i l l do our best to
hold it.
The other thing which I t h i n k is of interest, is these various abortion amendments, I t h i n k i t should be said, just i n illustration f o r
yourself, that i t is one t h i n g to endeavor to interfere w i t h women's
rights to which the Supreme Court has found validated and certified—
and an amendment was just rejected the other day, made by Senator



634.
Helms, of N o r t h Carolina, endeavoring to do that. I t was decisively
tabled.
There are some amendments that have crept into affirmative programs of the Congress on this subject, dealing w i t h various types of
medical care, including hospital operations. Mostly they have been
amendments dealing w i t h the right of conscience of the individual
doctor, nurse, of the client, i f i t is a welfare client, to refuse to have
an abortion. I don't t h i n k anj^body can quarrel, or hopeMs. FASTEATJ. I f you w i l l forgive me for interrupting, that I can
quarrel with, the statement that a hospital, and that mcludes, I might
add, in the Church——
Senator J A V I T S . That is i n hospitals ?
]Ms. FASTEATJ. B u t the Church amendment to the H i l l - B u r t o n
Funding Act, which is now law, and since last J u l y specifically says
" i n the hospital." I t does not say any private or denominational hospital. I t implies a public hospital can have a religious belief.
Senator J A V I T S . I t is any hospital which has Federal aid.
Ms. FASTEATJ. That's right.
,
Senator J A V I T S . That's the pattern. B u t i t is a constant struggle, and
I appreciate your point o f view, and I am glad to have it.
We certainly appreciate very much, Ms. Fasteau, your views on
the law, and I assure you I am one Senator that w i l l be very vigilant
on those subjects.
The Chair wishes to sum up by saying the hearing has been tremendously useful, and that the record of the testimony will, of course,
be published. B u t I w i l l call the most important elements , as emphasized by the different witnesses to the attention of my colleagues, both
i n the House and Senate, as the Joint Economic Committee is a joint
committee, and I am sure that both by action of the committee, which
w i l l undoubtedly make legislative recommendations on this score, and
other committees, which ,are concerned, like Labor and Public Welfare,
i n both the House and Senate, that very serious weight w i l l be given
to this testimony. A n d I wish to thank all the witnesses and all who
have participated, and to note for the record that Ms. L i z Eobins,
who served on the staff of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare is present today, has been familiar with these problems and
has been a diligent advocate of increased federal funding for day care
:>rograms, and has helped us in the city as a volunteer i n putting this
: learing together, producing the witnesses and preparing it.
The hearing w i l l stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the
call of the Chair.]




o