Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae Out of Time and Brief Amicus Curiae

    IN  THE

Supreme (tart nf % Imtrft Stairs
O cto ber  T e r m , 1974

No. 74-728

H arold  F r a n k s  a n d  J o h n n ie  L e e , Petitioners,
y.

B o w m a n  T r a n sp o r t a t io n  C o m p a n y , I n c ., e t  a l .,
Respondents

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF FOR LOCAL 862. 
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, AS AMICUS 

CURIAE OUT OF TIME AND BRIEF 
AMICUS CURIAE

J o s e p h  L. R a u h , J r .
J o h n  S ila r d  
E l l io t t  C . L ic h t m a n

Ranh, Silard and Lichtman 
1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D. C.

J o h n  A. B il l io n  
S t e p h e n  I .  S c h l o ssb e r g  
J o rd a n  R o ssen  
M . J a y  W h it m a n  

8000 East Jefferson Avenue 
Detroit, Michigan

Of Counsel: Counsel for Amicus Curiae
H e r b e r t  L. S eg a l  

Louisville, Kentucky

P ress of B yron S . A dam s P rinting , I nc ., W ashington, D . C.



1

IN  THE

Bupxmx (£mvt ni %  l&nxtxb g>tatxz
O cto ber  T e e m , 1974

Ho. 74-728

H arold  F r a n k s  a n d  J o h n n ie  L e e , Petitioners,
v.

B o w m a n  T r a n s p o r t a t io n  C o m p a n y , I n c ., e t  a l ., 
Respondents

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF FOR LOCAL 862, 
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, AS AMICUS 

CURIAE OUT OF TIME

Local 862, United Automobile W orkers (herein 
“ U A W ” ) respectfully moves for leave to file the at­
tached brief amicus curiae out of time in this case. 
All parties have furnished written consent to the filing 
of this amicus curiae brief. For the reasons set forth 
below, UAW  could not file this brief before this time.



11

The interest of UAW in this case arises from the 
fact that it is petitioner in No. 74-1349, Local 862, 
U A W  v. Ford Motor Company and Dolores Marie 
Meadows, presently pending before this Court on peti­
tion for w rit of certiorari. In  that ease, a class action 
involving discriminatory refusals to hire on the basis 
of sex, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 
found no statutory prohibition of retroactive senior­
ity  for the discriminatees. Unlike the F ifth  Circuit’s 
ruling in Franks, the Sixth Circuit declined to con­
clude that “ reconciliation is impossible” between the 
seniority-layoff protection of the incumbent workers 
and the rights of a class of discriminatees hired under 
a district court’s Title Y II  decree, Meadows, 510 F.2d 
939, 949 (1975). But the Sixth Circuit then returned 
the issue to the District Court essentially without 
guidance for the task of reconciling the interests of 
these two groups of employees. UAW Local 862 filed 
a petition for w rit of certiorari in No. 74-1349 request­
ing that concurrent review be granted with Franks for 
consideration of a viable alternative to the seniority- 
layoff impasse which the F ifth  Circuit resolved against 
the discriminatees and which the Sixth Circuit was 
unable to resolve. This Court, however, did not rule 
upon U A W ’s petition during the 1974 term ; when the 
term concluded without any ruling,1 the filing of this 
brief amicus curiae became necessary, since the deci­
sion in Franks may well dispose of the issue raised by 
UAW  in No. 74-1349. Moreover, none of the parties 
in Franks having discussed the remedial alternative 1

1 By the time of the C ourt’s conclusion of its 1974 term, the 
brief of petitioners, which we generally support, and concurrent 
with which Rule 42(2) requires the filing of an amicus brief, 
had long since been filed.



I l l

proffered by UAW  in No. 74-1349, we request permis­
sion to present that alternative in the attached brief 
amicus curiae.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel:

J o s e p h  L . R a it h , J r .
J o h n  S ila r d  
E l l io t t  C. L io h t m a n  

Rauli, Silard and Lichtman 
1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D . C.

J o h n  A. E il l io n  
S t e p h e n  I. S ch l o ssb e r g  
J ordan  R o ssen  
M. J  a t  W h it m a n  

8000 East Jefferson Avenue 
Detroit, Michigan

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

H e r b er t  L. S eg a l  
Louisville, Kentucky



INDEX
Page

Introduction ................................................................... 1

Argument ....................... ........................... . 3
I. TMs lOourt Should Reverse the Court of Appeals 

and Approve the Front-Pay Save-Harmless Rem­
edy which Preserves the Fair Seniority Claims of 
Both the Title YII Discriminatee and the Incum­
bent Employee........................................................  3

II. The Proposed Front-Pay Save-IIarmless Remedy 
is Simple in Operation and Economically Feasible. 5

Conclusion ..................................................................... 11

CITATIONS
Cases :

Bigelow v. RKO, 327 ILS. 251......................................  5
California Department of Human Resources & Devel­

op. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121........................................ 11
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 .............................  3
Local 862, UAW v. Ford Motor Company and Dolores 

Marie Meadows, 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975), pet. 
for cert, pending (No. 74-1349) ............................... 6,8

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717................................  4
Plumbers, Local 638 v. NLRB, F. 2d , 89

LRRM 2769 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ............................... 5
Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper 

Co., 282 U.S. 555 ....................................................  4
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,

402 U.S. 1 .............................................................  4
Watkins v. United Steelworkers of America, 369 F. 

Snpp. 1221 (E.D. La. 1974), reversed F.2d 
, 10 FEP Cases 1297 (5th Cir., 1975) ............. 2



11 Index Continued

Page
S tatutes :

Title YII of Civil Eights Act of 1964 § 706(g)............. 3
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 341.530 ...............................................  11

M iscellaneous :

Cooper and Sobol “ Seniority and Testing Under Pair
Employments Laws,” 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1598 .......  3

Blumrosen, ‘ ‘ Seniority and Equal Employment Oppor­
tunity,” 23 Rutgers L. Rev. 268 (1969)................  3

Note, “ Last Hired, First Fired Layoffs and Title YII,”
88 Harv. L. Rev. 1544 (1975) ...........................  3

Prosser Law of Torts, 4th ed., p. 3 3 ...........................  5
118 Cong. Rec. 7168......................................................  3



11ST TH E

(£mxtt Bi %  Itttteii
O cto ber  T e r m , 1974

Ho. 74-728

H arold  F r a n k s  a n d  J o h n n ie  L e e , Petitioners,

y.

B o w m a n  T r a n sp o r t a t io n  C o m p a n y , I n c ., e t  a l .,
Respondents

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

BRIEF FOR LOCAL 862, UNITED AUTOMOBILE 
WORKERS, AS AMICUS CURIAE

INTRODUCTION

This case presents this Court’s first major look at 
remedial problems arising under Title V II  when courts 
seek to restore to discriminatees the job rights they



2

were denied by an employer’s discriminatory hiring 
practices. Even in the best of circumstances, resolu­
tion of the competing equities between the discrimina­
t e s  and the faultless incumbent workers, who have 
been earning their seniority rights on the job, presents 
challenging and novel problems. But they become the 
more difficult when they arise at a time of widespread 
unemployment and layoff.

The lower court opinion at bar, which denies retro­
active seniority to the discriminatees, assumes that 
either the discriminatees or the incumbent employee 
group must bear the burden, by suffering layoff in 
favor of the other group. I t  assumes that normal 
seniority rules will apply and the only question is 
which group is to be placed on the lower rung of the 
ladder. However, there is an alternative which does 
not threaten the layoff either of incumbent workers 
or newly-hired discriminatees. That is the TTAW- 
proposed “ front pay” remedy which requires the 
wrongdoing employer to hold both groups harmless 
from layoff losses in work reduction situations. We 
urge in the Argument this Court’s approval of that 
remedy.1

1 The narrow question presented here is whether the employees 
(discriminatees or incumbents) alone must suffer the burden of 
the present recession or whether a court may impose th a t burden 
upon a wrongdoing employer. Not before the Court is the entirely 
distinct question raised by W atkins v. United Steelworkers of 
America, 369 F. Supp. 1221 (B.D. La. 1974), reversed, — F.2d —, 
10 F E P  Cases 1297 (5th Cir., decided Ju ly  16, 1975) of whether a 
court may remedy an employer’s past discrimination by providing 
layoff protection to employees who are members of a m inority or 
class discriminated against but who have not specially and in­
dividually suffered such discrimination.



3

A R G U M E N T
I

THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE COURT OF A P­
PEALS AND APPROVE THE FRONT-PAY SAVE- 
HARMLESS REMEDY WHICH PRESERVES THE FAIR 
SENIORITY CLAIMS OF BOTH THE TITLE VII DIS­
CRIMINATES AND THE INCUMBENT EMPLOYEE

For the apparent seniority rights impasse perceived 
by the Court of Appeals there is a solution which that 
court does not seem to have recognized: a remedy 
which requires the wrongdoing employer to protect 
from layoff losses both those against whom he dis­
criminated and his incumbent work force.2 Approval 
of that remedy is much to be desired, for this Court 
doubtless perceived last term during its consideration 
of DeFunis (416 TT.S. 312) the difficult character of 
remedies for past discrimination which throw the bur­
den either upon the wronged minority or upon other 
blameless citizens. I f  in the employment area there 
is a better solution, surely it  should be preferred over 
one which is unjust either to the discriminate® or the 
incumbent worker.

Thus, if the discriminatees are hired without the 
same protection against losses in work reduction situa­
tions which they would have had but for their em­
ployment rejection, the key Congressional purpose to 
provide full Title Y II  remediation is frustrated. As 
the Conference Committee emphasized (see 118 Cong. 
Rec. 7168), section 706(g) is intended to assure “ that 
persons aggrieved by the consequences and effects of

2 See Cooper and Sobol, ‘ ‘ Seniority and Testing Under F a ir Em­
ployment Laws,”  82 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1678-1679 (1969) ; Blum- 
rosen, “ Seniority and Equal Employment O pportunity,”  23 R ut­
gers L. Rev. 268, 305-07, 311-12 (1969); Note, “ Last Hired, 
F irs t F ired  Layoffs and Title V II ,”  88 Harv. L. Rev. 1544, 1560 
n. 68 (1975).



4

the unlawful employment practice be, so fa r as pos­
sible, restored to a position where they would have been 
were it not for the unlawful discrimination.” Given 
this Court’s definitive ruling in Swann (402 U.S. 1, 26) 
that to remedy school segregation there must be deseg­
regation in actuality rather than mere theory, we 
cannot believe that in the employment area this Court 
would affirm the ruling below which may leave the 
employment discriminatee in actuality without job and 
pay.

On tbe other hand it would also be unjust if, after 
years spent in earning seniority on the job, the faultless 
incumbent employees were subjected to layoff in favor 
of discriminatees hired with seniority retroactive to 
the time when they were denied hiring. Only a year 
ago a m ajority of this Court declined to put the deseg­
regation burden upon suburban school districts “ not 
shown to have committed any constitutional violation.” 
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 745. Considering 
that the incumbent employees are in no way at fault 
for the employer’s Title Y II  violation, a remedy which 
corrects the employer’s wrongdoing at the expense of 
those employees is unjust and unwise.

Accordingly, we urge for the Court’s consideration 
a th ird  and better option, which requires that following 
reinstatement of discriminatees the offending employer 
hold harmless against layoff losses both the discrimi­
natees and his incumbent employees hired between the 
discriminatees’ original rejection and their ultimate 
hiring. That remedy properly puts the full burden 
upon the wrongdoer rather than his victims or other 
unoffending employees. I t  is a familiar rule of law that 
the full remedial burden shall be on the offending party. 
Such seminal decisions as Story Parchment (282 U.S.



5

555) and Bigelow (327 II. S. 251) apply the rule as 
between the wrongdoer and his victim.3 The ride 
equally applies as between the wrongdoer and third 
parties; where the wrongdoer has done intentional 
harm he is liable to third parties as much as to the 
immediately injured party, because “ having departed 
from the social standard of conduct, he is liable for the 
harm which follows from his act” (Prosser, Law of 
Torts, 4th ed., p. 33). Thus there is every reason of 
equity and justice for placing the full burden upon 
the employer who violated Title V II, requiring him 
to protect both the discriminatees and his incumbent 
work force against layoff losses in periods of work 
reduction.

II

THE PROPOSED FRONT-PAY SAVE-HARMLESS REMEDY 
IS SIMPLE IN OPERATION AND ECONOMICALLY 
FEASIBLE

The suggested remedy is simple in operation. To 
the extent that discriminatees are hired with retro­
active seniority protection against layoff losses, the in­
cumbent work force (without a save-harmless remedy) 
would be prejudiced by becoming vulnerable to earlier 
layoffs. To prevent that prejudice, under the “ front- 
pay” proposal the employer would be required to hold 
harmless against layoff losses that number of employees 
which is equivalent to the number of discriminatees

8 A similar policy applies to labor contracts. Where, for example, 
an employer agrees in its labor contract to have certain work done 
at the construction site by its bargaining unit employees and then 
agrees with another contractor to install pieces on which the 
promised work has already been performed elsewhere, the em­
ployer, if it honors the second contract must pay his unit workers 
for the work promised them but later given away. Cf. Plumbers, 
Local 638 v. N LRB , —  F.2d —, 89 LRRM 2769, 2777-78 (D.C Cir., 
1975).



6

hired with retroactive seniority. I f  the employees to 
be held harmless are the discriminatees themselves, 
then it is only they to whom the obligation would run. 
On the other hand, if through collective bargaining, 
self-selection, or otherwise, the protection is provided 
to the incumbent employees, or to a mix of discrimina­
tees and incumbents, then the number of positions 
protected would remain equivalent to the number of 
discriminatees hired.

The facts of Meadows illustrate the operation of the 
remedy.4 Some 35 or fewer discriminatees were hired 
in 1974 at the Ford Truck P lant in Kentucky under 
the District Court’s decree. (Retroactive seniority 
would yield those employees protective dates on and 
after November of 1969, when Ms. MeadowTs and other 
discriminatees were originally rejected for hiring. On 
that basis the following save-harmless conditions would 
apply :

(1) In  a layoff situation reaching only the em­
ployees hired in recent months—after the 35 dis­
criminatees were hired—there would be no save- 
harmless obligation, since none of those employees

4 We illustrate the remedy with the facts in  Meadows because 
the recoi’d in Franks is unclear on this point. In  Franks, the Dis­
tric t Court ordered that members of the relevant class be granted 
the right to reapply for Over the Road (OTR) jobs, and if found 
qualified, to be hired or given priority  over other applicants 
(5 EPD If 8497, p. 7371, see 495 F.2d 398, 413). The record does 
not show the number of applicants in  the class who meet the 
Company’s formal qualifications of age, fitness and experience. 
While petitioners believe that 127 members of the class meet these 
qualifications (Supreme Court Brief, p. 9, n. 9), counsel for peti­
tioners informs us tha t the Company claims tha t not more than 
four or five of the applicants are qualified and are thus eligible to 
benefit from the D istrict C ourt’s order. Discovery is proceeding 
and the D istrict Court has not yet resolved these conflicting claims.



7

were affected by the employer’s discrimination or the 
grant of retroactive seniority to discriminatees;

(2) Similarly, in a layoff situation so severe as to 
reach further up the seniority ladder than 1969, when 
the discriminatees were wrongfully rejected, once 
again there would be no save-harmless obligation since 
no discriminatee or incumbent employee would have 
avoided layoff regardless of whether retroactive 
seniority is granted to the discriminatees ;

(3) In  a layoff situation of, for example, 35 persons 
which reaches into but not beyond the ranks of em­
ployees with seniority dates between the discrimina­
tees’ rejection of 1969 and their hiring in 1974, the 
first 35 persons (excluding persons hired more recently 
than the discriminatees) affected would be held harm­
less.5 I f  the remedy should go to the 35 discriminatees, 
they are in effect given the wTage and fringe benefit 
protection they would have had if they had not been 
wrongfully rejected when they applied in 1969. I f  it 
goes to 35 incumbents, they in tu rn  are protected 
against any loss caused by the grant of retroactive 
seniority to the discriminatees. In  other wTords, in any 
contingency the discriminatees are restored fully to 
the job protection they would have had but for the 
employer’s violation of their rights, without prejudic­
ing or diminishing the earned layoff seniority of the 
incumbent work force.

8 The 1 ‘ front-pay ’ ’ proposal here is concerned with wage and 
fringe benefits and not the work itself. As to the latter, we show 
below tha t employers generally find work for employees whom 
they must pay. However, if  reduction in the work force may 
actually become necessary, then many employees from either the 
“ discriminatee”  group or the “ incumbent work force”  group 
may opt for layoff with pay. I f  fu rther employees must be selected 
for layoff, other equitable arrangements can be made.



8

Moreover, for three separate reasons, the economic 
consequences are modest for the employer required to 
provide a hold harmless remedy. F irst, because the 
number of discriminatees hired in Title Y II  cases is 
small; second, because employers have generally proved 
able to find productive work for employees whom they 
must p ay ; and third, because under the unemployment 
compensation system and corporate tax principles, only 
a small portion of save harmless pay represents a 
profit loss for the employer.

1. Small numbers. In  Franks the number of 
affected discriminatees may be as low as four in a 
company with about 500 over the road drivers.6 In  
Meadows the number of discriminatees hired under 
the Title Y II  decree is fewer than 35 in a plant of one 
thousand production workers. Statistics compiled by 
the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­
sion show that EEOC has found reasonable cause to 
believe that hiring discrimination has been proven 
against only an infinitesimal proportion of the black 
and female work force in each of the last six years.7 
National and auto industry statistics compiled by 
EEOC show the very small proportion of the total 
work force filled by blacks or women hired in recent 
years, and thus make clear the small probable impact 
on the employers of a save harmless remedy in dis- 
criminatee situations. The EEOC nationwide tables 
{infra, Appendix B) show that only 2.8 percent of 
the 1974 work force is composed of blacks hired since 
1969, and only 8.1 percent represents women hired

6 See p. 6, n. 4, supra.
7 In  1974, for example, such, findings were made with respect to 

the charges of hiring discrimination of only 47 blacks and 54 
women, 0.00127% and 0.00043% respectively of the blacks and 
women in the workforce (see Appendix A in fra).



9

since that year.8 The data for employment in motor 
vehicle production (Appendix C) show that only 5.9 
percent and 6.1 percent of the 1974 work force are 
blacks and women respectively hired since 1969.9 I t  is 
clear that a  save harmless obligation arising from and 
in proportion to an employer’s recent hiring of minority 
group employees, ordinarily would represent only a 
small additional obligation for the employer who vio-

8 Proportion of new black and women hires (between 1969 and 
1974) to total 1974 employment in all industries (computed from 
Appendix B ) :

Job Category Blacks Women
Total Employment 2.8% 8.1%
W hite Collar 2.4 9.9
Office Managers 1.8 5.6
Professional 1.1 6.6
Technical 2.7 10.2
Sales Workers 2.5 15.4
Office and Clerical 3.3 10.7
Blue-Collar 3.1 4.7
Craft 2.6 1.7
Operatives 4.0 5.7
Laborers 1.4 6.8
Service Workers 4.1 16.8

9 Proportion, of new black and women 'hires (between 1969 and
1974) to total 1974 employment in motor vehicle industry (com-
puled from Appendix C) :

Job Category Blacks Women
Total Employment 5.9% 6.1%
White-Collar 3.9 5.0
Office Managers 3.9 1.5
Professionals 2.8 4.8
Technical 2.7 3.2
Sales Workers 1.0 0.6
Office and Clerical 5.5 11.0
Blue-Collar 6.3 6.5
Craft 3.3 0.2
Operatives 7.5 8.0
Laborers 3.1 7.9
Service Workers 7.5 3.8



10

lated Title Y II  since lie would be providing the protec­
tion only for the number of persons equal to the recent­
ly hired blacks and women against whom he had dis­
criminated.

2. W ork opportunities. I t  is also clear that an 
employer required to save employees harmless from 
layoff loss will often not have to provide them any front- 
pay but will be able to produce productive work for 
them. The common observation that employers will find 
work for those whom they must pay is confirmed by ex­
perience. For instance, employers faced with the possi­
bility of layoffs, have often retrained or reassigned 
their employees for other positions. W ork previously 
contracted out or “ shunned” has been done by the em­
ployer ’s own employees.10 11 Substantial overtime work— 
which has persisted even during the current reces­
sion 11—can be reassigned to the employees who would 
otherwise be laid off. Moreover, where under UAW 
contracts12 employers have been required to pay a 
maximum of four hours to an employee called in from 
home, the experience has been that the employee is 
given a full four hours work by the assignment of work 
which might otherwise be deferred. I t  seems clear, 
therefore, that even for the small number of workers 
whom the wrongdoing employer has to save harmless, 
he can minimize the necessity of paying wages without 
receiving labor.

3. Small profits impact. Finally, even if  some front- 
pay to employees on layoff results, i t  is significant that

10 See articles in Appendices D, E and P  infra.
11 Appendix G infra  contains Bureau of Labor statistics which 

show th a t substantial overtime has continued despite the recession 
economy of 1974-1975.

12 p or exampie; 1973 ILAW-General Motors National Agreement, 
II80.



11

the employer bears only a small portion of each wage 
dollar he must pay. In  the absence of that front-pay 
obligation, the worker would be drawing unemployment 
compensation borne in part by the employer. In  times 
of heavy unemployment, the employer must pay sub­
stantially increased amounts to the state unemploy­
ment compensation fund, which makes the employer’s 
“ experience ra te” a significant factor in his payment 
obligation.13 Moreover, any hold harmless wages are 
also deductible by the employer from his corporate 
income taxes, so that only about one-half of such pay­
ments may represent any loss of profits. Thus the 
monetary consequences of a save harmless remedy are 
not severe. The wrongdoing employer’s actual burden 
is less than one-half of what he must pay and society 
at large pays a portion in loss of tax revenues due to 
increased employer wage deductions. The employer, 
of course, can also raise his prices. While we do not 
welcome lower tax revenues or higher prices, that is 
surely a more just result, for instead of putting the 
onus of legal redress and social reform on innocent 
individual workers and their families, the burden is 
shared between the wrongdoing employers and the so­
ciety which has so long practiced and tolerated employ­
ment discrimination.

13 While the formulas vary, all states have systems of levying 
unemployment insurance tax in relation to an individual employ­
e r ’s experience with unemployment. The most popular system is 
the “ reserve-ratio system”  where the employer’s account is cred­
ited for contributions and against which benefits paid to former 
employees are charged. The reserve-ratio, which is the resulting 
balance to the employer’s payroll, then determines the employer’s 
tax rate. The lower the ratio (i.e. high unemployment experience), 
the higher tax ra te and vice-versa. (e.gr., Ky. Rev. Stat. 
§ 341.530; see also California Department of Human Resources 
Develop, v. Java, 402 U.S. 121, 126 (1971) concerning California’s 
unemployment insurance system).



12

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, it is submitted that the lower 
court was in error in assuming that either Title V II  
discriminatees or the incumbent employee group must 
bear the burden of layoffs. The Court should affirm the 
propriety of a front-pay remedy which places the bur­
den on the wrongdoing employer and which holds harm­
less from economic prejudice and layoff loss both the 
wronged discriminatees and the incumbent workers who 
have been earning their seniority protection on the job.

Respectfully submitted,

J o s e p h  L . R a t jh , J e .
J o h n  S il a e d  
E l l io t t  C. L ic h t m a n  

Ranh, Silard and Lichtman 
1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D. C.

J o h n  A. F il l io n  
S t e p h e n  I. S c h lo ssb er g  
J ord a n  R o ssen  
M . J a y  W h it m a n

8000 East Jefferson Avenue 
Detroit, Michigan

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Of Counsel:
H e r b er t  L .  S eg a l  

Louisville, Kentucky



APPENDIX



APPENDIX B
2a

1969
PAGE 58 SEN SITIV E INFORM ATION—UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE PRO H IB ITED  

STATE NO. UNITS #  52,424

TOT WHITE OFFS SALES OFFS BLUE SERV
EMPL COLL MGES PROF TECH WRKS CLER COLL CRAFT OPER LABOR WRKS

ALL T 28,598,713 13,532,255 2,545,601 2,338,821 1,240,602 2,472,974 4,934,257 13,205,154 3,886,454 6,713,650 2,685,050 1,861,304
ALL M 18,912.707 7,695,354 2,286,971 1,798,192 930,493 1,472,356 1,207,342 10,266,390 3,622,217 4,762,856 1,881,317 953,906
ALL F 9,686,006 5,836,901 258,630 540,629 310,109 1,000,618 3,726,915 2,938,764 264,237 1,950,794 723,733 910,341
ANG T 24,700,001 12,606,795 2,471,921 2,220,723 1,130,567 2,310,713 4,472,871 10.853,037 3.558,323 5,481,095 1,813,619 1,240.169
ANG M 16,390,253 7,297,815 2,227,372 1,723,007 870,073 1,388,382 1,088,981 8,480,085 3,333,877 3,874,119 1,272,089 612,353
ANG F 8,309,748 5,308,980 244,549 497,716 260,494 922,331 3,383,890 2,372,952 224,446 1,606,976 541,530 627,816
NEG T 2,720,503 555,902 38,090 49,652 69,432 98,868 299,860 1,664,015 194,636 902,533 566.846 500,586
NEG M 1,740,426 206,141 29,027 25,299 31,490 49,288 71,037 1,272,266 170.350 658,920 442,996 262,019
NEG F 980,077 349,761 9,063 24,353 37,942 49,580 228,823 391,749 24,206 243,613 123,850 238,567
SSA T 912,298 229,828 21,358 23,608 24,659 45,269 114,934 586,065 103,466 285,250 197,349 96,405
SSA M 613,769 113,175 18,407 17,282 17,602 25,102 34,782 437,935 90,588 200,530 146,817 62,659
SSA F 298,529 116,653 2,951 6,326 7,057 20,167 80,152 148,130 12,878 84,720 50,532 33,746
ORI T 185,118 113,890 9,741 42,101 13,311 11,408 37,329 53,084 17,667 21,571 13,846 18,144
ORI M 115,693 65,485 8,391 30,753 9,389 6,769 10,183 39,153 16,246 13,833 9,074 11,055
ORI F 69,425 48,405 1,350 11,348 3,922 4,639 27,146 13,931 1,421 7,738 4,772 7,089
AMI T 80,793 25,840 4,491 2,737 2,633 6,716 9,263 48,953 12,362 23,201 13,390 6.000
AMI M 52,566 12,738 3,774 1,851 1,939 2,815 2,359 36,951 11,156 15,454 10,341 2,877
AMI F 28,227 13,102 717 886 694 3,901 6,904 12,002 1,206 7,747 3,049 3,123

PAGE 1 SEN SITIV E INFORM ATION--UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE PRO H IB ITED
1974 EEO 1 REPORT NATIONW IDE SUMMARY
35,796 COMPANIES

ALL T 33,865,626 16,139,519 3,450,041 2,502,069 1,513,454 3.259,063 5,414,892 15,141.662 4,419,692 7,715,092 3,006,878 2,584,445
ALL M 21,435,818 8,710,166 2,998,273 1,796,543 1,048,231 1,757,138 1,109,981 11,484,559 4,080,980 5,325)884 2,077,695 1,241,093
ALL F 12,429,808 7,429,353 451,768 705,526 465,223 1,501,925 4,304,911 3,657,103 338,712 2,389,208 929,183 1,343,352
W H ITE T 28,343,506 14,571,346 3,272,384 2,321,508 1,337,385 2,958,069 4,682,000 11,996.947 3,910,465 6,011,289 2,075,193 1,775,213
W H ITE M 18,123,927 8,065,782 2,858,908 1,688,268 954,728 1,613,373 950,505 9,232,234 3,637,703 4,185,088 1,409,443 825,911
W H IT E F 10,219,579 6,505,564 413,476 633,240 382,657 1,344,696 3,731,495 2,764,713 272,762 1,826,201 665,750 949,302
MIN T 5,522,120 1,568,173 177,657 180,561 176,069 300,994 732,892 3,144,715 509,227 1,703,803 931,685 809,232
MIN M 3,311,891 644,384 139,365 108,275 93,503 143,765 159,476 2,252,325 443,277 1,140,796 668,252 415,182
MIN F 2,210,229 923,789 38,292 72,286 82,566 157,229 573,416 892,390 65,950 563,007 263,433 394,050
BLACK T 3,684,768 946,196 99,106 77,980 110,123 180,155 470,832 2,131,171 308,541 1,212,599 610,031 607,401
BLACK M 2,163,147 340,831 74,069 40,278 49,200 81,972 95,312 1,527,550 266,634 818,292 442,624 294,766
BLACK F 1,521,621 605,365 25,037 37,702 60,923 98,183 303,520 603,621 41,907 394,307 167,407 312,635
SSA T 1,450,378 402,745 52,038 37,159 41,144 89,546 182,058 883.306 167,261 426,601 289,444 164,327
SSA M 931,373 190,716 44,252 25,989 27,613 46,244 46,618 639,766 147,828 286,645 205,293 100,891
SSA F 519,005 212,029 8,586 11,170 13,531 43,302 135,440 243,540 19,433 139,956 84,151 63,436
ASIAN T 262,606 172,509 15,751 60,015 20,130 19,939 56,674 63,256 16,352 31,835 15,069 26,841
ASIAN M 141,023 90,099 12.691 38,330 13,494 10,981 14,603 36,398 13,085 15,010 8,303 14,526
ASIAN F 121,583 82,410 3,060 21,685 6,636 8,958 42,071 26,858 3,267 16,825 6,766 12,315
AMIND T 124.368 46,723 9,962 5,407 4,672 11,354 15,328 66,982 17,073 32,768 17,141 10.663
AMIND M 76,348 22,738 8,353 3,678 3,196 4,560 2,943 48,611 15,730 20,849 12,032 4,999
AMIND F 48,020 23,985 1,609 1,729 1,476 6,786 12,385 18,371 1,343 11,919 5,109 5,664



APPENDIX C
3a

1969
PAGE 223 SENSITIVE INFORMATION—UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE PROHIBITED 

EEOC EEO-1 NATIONWIDE SIC 3 DIGIT 
NO. UNITS #  752 SIC — 371 MOTOR VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT

TOT
EMPL

WHITE
COLL

OFES
MGRS PROP TECH

SALES
WBKS

OEES
GLEE

BLUE
COLL CRAET OPES LABOR

SERV
WBKS

ATiTi T 720,244 159,729 53,974 26,635 21,234 4,338 53,548 543,046 94,881 403,755 48,410 17,409
ALL M 644,603 129,265 53,573 25,916 20,283 4,150 25,343 498,965 94,111 366,123 38,731 16,373
ALL F 75,641 30,464 401 719 951 188 28,205 44,081 770 37,632 5,679 1,096

ANG T 599,008 154,557 52,638 26,121 20,677 4,316 50,805 431,940 89,857 307,718 34,365 12,511
ANG M 532,581 125,336 52,244 25,444 19,767 4,129 23,752 395,477 89,155 276,828 29,494 11.768
ANG F 66,427 29,221 394 677 910 187 27,053 36,463 702 30,890 4,871 743

NEG T 104,392 3,981 1,089 263 392 6 2,231 95,844 3,788 83.702 8,354 4,567
NEG M 96,725 2,970 1,084 228 356 5 1,297 89,529 3,745 77,902 7,802 4.226
NEG F 7,667 1,011 5 35 36 1 934 6,315 43 5,720 552 341

SSA T 14,892 714 174 62 83 13 302 13,824 1,006 11,253 1,565 354
SSA M 13,472 544 172 59 80 13 220 12,583 982 10,282 1.319 345
SSA F 1,420 170 2 3 3 162 1,241 24 971 246 9

ORI T 935 358 27 177 62 3 89 566 65 463 38 11
ORI M 865 316 27 174 60 3 52 539 64 438 37 10
ORI F 70 42 3 2 37 27 1 25 1 1

AMT T 1,017 119 46 12 20 41 872 165 619 88 26
AMI M 960 99 46 11 20 22 837 165 593 79 24
AMI F 57 20 1 19 35 26 9 2

PAGE 182 SENSITIVE INFORMATION—UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE PROHIBITED 
1974 EEO-1 REPORT SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE INDUSTRIES 

1153—UNITS 317—EMPLOYERS SIC—371 MOTOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT

ALL T 1,075,894 243,251 92,892 50,308
ALL M 935,084 200,737 91,101 47,258
ALL F 140,810 42,514 1,791 3,130
W HITE T 876,129 226,098 87,134 47,880
W HITE M 766,392 187,945 85,597 45,078
W HITE F 109,737 38,153 1,537 2,802
MIN T 199,765 17,153 5,758 2,508
MIN M 168,692 12,792 5,504 2,180
MIN F 31,073 4,361 254 328
BLACK T 167,429 13,535 4,741 1,672
BLACK M .140,622 9,927 4,514 1,392
BLACK F 26,807 3,608 227 280
SSA T 28,169 2,232 669 311
SSA M 24,622 1,766 659 298
SSA F 3,547 466 10 13
ASIAN T 2,255 913 115 465
ASIAN M 1,771 734 109 437
ASIAN F 484 179 6 28
AMIND T 1,912 473 233 60
AMIND M 1,677 365 222 53
AMIND F 235 108 11 7

25,983 6,681 67,307 806,397 157,022 599,118
24,204 6,454 31,720 710,201 155,994 513,592

1,779 227 35,587 96,196 1,028 85,526
24,469 6,526 60,089 631,133 145,061 448,986
22,866 6,305 28,099 560,966 144,208 387,041
1,603 221 31,990 70,167 853 61,945
1,514 155 7,218 175,264 11,961 150,132
1,338 149 3,621 149,235 11,786 126,551

176 6 3,597 26,029 175 23,581
1,093 74 5,955 142,353 9,012 128,448

958 70 2,993 124,803 8,906 107,305
135 4 2,962 22,550 106 21,143
242 60 950 25,196 2,376 19,740
226 58 525 22,144 2,322 17.654
16 2 425 3,052 54 2,086

130 11 192 1,318 206 1,003
114 11 63 1,016 196 758

16 0 129 302 10 245
49 10 121 1,397 367 941
40 10 40 1,272 362 834
9 0 81 125 5 107

50,257 26,246
40,615 24.146
9,642 2,100

37,086 18.898
29,717 17.481
7,369 1,417

13,171 7,348
10,898 6,665

2,273 683
9,893 6,541
8,592 5,892
1,301 649
3,080 741
2,168 712

912 29
109 24

62 21
47 3
89 42
76 40
13 2



4a

Business Week, June 9, 1975, pp. 25-26
U N IO N S

WHEN WORKERS HIT THE STREET—TO SELL 
During a recession, the traditional ways to cut inventories 
and prevent layoffs include such, devices as shortening the 
work week or cutting pay. Last week, Wisconsin-based 
Kimberly-Clark Corp. tried a different approach: It took 
75 workers off production lines and sent them out into the 
street to sell the consumer paper goods, such as Kleenex 
tissues and towels and Kimbies diapers, that they produce.

For production workers, it was a chance to 
discover a new talent

The move, made with the approval of Local 482 of the 
United Paperworkers—and done only with volunteers—re­
sulted in additional sales of some $250,000. But, says the 
company’s general sales manager, W. M. Bray, who coor­
dinated the effort, “ On the numbers alone, we probably 
wouldn’t have done it.” An innovator in employee relations, 
Kimberly-Clark tried the idea for several reasons:

0 It allowed a blitz attack on 1,461 stores in northern Wis­
consin and upper Michigan that are not covered by Kimber­
ly-Clark’s usual sales routes. Hitting these seasonal stores 
just before the start of their peak tourist season resulted 
in purchases of a broader range of products by store man­
agers.
■ It gave mill workers a greater appreciation for the sales 
job and for the value of producing quality goods. For ex­
ample, Sherald Laabs, secretary of the Paper-workers local, 
who participated in the program, says: “ When we pack 
boxes, we don’t necessarily put all the labels the same 
way.” After several days of repacking cases, box by box, 
for better display effect, Laabs promises: “ Now, I ’ll try 
to get them loaded the same way in the plant.”

APPENDIX D



5a

0 It saved Kimberly-Clark the cost of hiring temporary 
helpers to staff a big promotional campaign already sched­
uled for late May.
■ For production workers, it was a chance to discover a 
new talent. Some workers who showed skill and interest in 
sales will be groomed for permanent sales jobs, says John 
F. Gillen, regional sales manager.

Though Kimberly-Clark developed this program on its 
own, it is not an entirely new idea. International Business 
Machines Corp. has for years retrained production and ad­
ministrative employees for sales and engineering jobs. Un­
der the lifetime employment system in Japan, many major 
companies use such schemes as converting factory workers 
to salesmen to avoid layoffs. For example, Toyo Kogyo Co., 
which has put 2,500 office and factory workers on eight- 
month selling assignments, has seen sales jump some 30% 
or 40% since January. The company builds the Mazda car.

In Kimberly-Clark’s case, the program was spurred by 
a need to cut inventories rather than the fear of immi­
nent, layoffs. Adds President Harry J. Sheerin, “ It fit in 
with our philosophy that the best motivated people are in­
volved, aware people.”

Once the idea was approved, it took about three weeks to 
implement. Union officials, finding no conflict with provi­
sions in labor contracts, backed the plan. “ We think we’re 
making a good product, and so we’re out helping* push our 
product,” says Jack Callaway, the local union president.

Eye contact. After a cram course in salesmanship, the 75 
workers who volunteered for sales went to their assigned 
areas on Monday, May 19. Forty-six workers called on re­
tail stores in Michigan and Wisconsin. The new salesmen 
received promises of orders from all stores visited and 
commitments from about 75% of them.

Another 29 volunteers helped conduct truckload sales and 
set up in-store promotional displays at Chicago-area Mont­



6a

gomery Ward stores. Even before advertising began, some 
stores were selling ont their truckloads and ordering more. 
“ It was just amazing,” says Sherald Laabs, who helped 
set up a display. “ As fast as we could set up the boxes, 
they were being taken away. ’ ’

Kimberly-Clark says it will repeat the one-week program 
in the future “ if conditions are right.” Says Sheerin: 
“ This was meant to take care of a short-term challenge. 
We don’t know if this will turn out to be a financial bo­
nanza, but it has caused a very positive reaction among all 
our employees.”



7a

APPENDIX E
The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 1969, p. 1

Keeping Busy

FIRMS TRY A VARIETY OF TACTICS TO 
AVOID LAYOFFS IN SLOW TIMES

L ockheed  L ends E ngineers T o Ot h e r  E mployers ;
S ome M a ch inists  T urn  P ainter

Furloughed Men May Vanish 

By R a lph  E. W in ter

Staff Reporter of T h e  W all S treet J ournal

What does a company do with, employes it has no work 
for?

It may retrain them for different jobs or transfer them 
to another office, factory or production line. It may take on 
business it wouldn’t ordinarily handle just to give the em­
ployes something to do. It may even invent tasks to keep 
the workers busy or lend them to another company, until 
business picks up enough for them to resume their old jobs.

Indeed, say executives, about the only thing a savvy com­
pany won’t do with temporarily unneeded employes these 
days is lay them off. Main reason: In today’s tight labor 
market, men laid off are almost sure to find other jobs 
rather than sit around waiting for recall.

At best, companies say, this means the firm that lays 
men off will lose whatever it has spent to train them—• 
which, in the case of skilled workers, is likely to be quite 
a lot. “ We figure we’d be throwing $25,000 out the window 
if we laid off a tool-and-die maker,” says John Bohannon, 
industrial relations director of Stanley Works, a New 
Britain, Conn., machinery maker.



8a

Buying Repair Work
At worst, executives add, a company may be unable to 

find replacements for men it lays off wben time comes to 
expand production again. “ Good thing we didn’t lay off 
anyone last summer, because we’d never have gotten the 
men we’re using now,” says Jacob Kamm, executive vice 
president of American Ship Building Co., Lorain, Ohio. 
Prior to 1968, his firm had laid off half its repair crews 
during the spring and summer ore-shipping season, when 
repair work is scarce. Last year it managed to avoid lay­
offs—by buying a damaged 11,500-ton ore vessel and set­
ting its crew to work overhauling the ship ’s ripped bottom. 
American Ship plans to operate the vessel when the ore- 
shipping season on the Great Lakes reopens.

Such attitudes are reflected in the national layoff rate, 
which last year dropped to a monthly average of 1.2 fur­
loughs for each 100 U.S. manufacturing employes. That 
was down 14% from the 1967 monthly average and 33% 
below the layoff rate five years earlier.

Layoffs, of course, are likely to rise again if a nation­
wide economic slowdown or recession erodes employers’ 
confidence that any workers not needed at the moment will 
be needed again soon. But many companies vow they will 
continue to try to avoid layoffs as much as possible even 
during a recession and predict that the layoff rate will not 
climb as much in any future downturn as in past downturns 
of comparable severity.

The reluctance to write off costs of training skilled em­
ployes who might vanish if they were laid off is one rea­
son. Another is a spreading conviction that frequent heavy 
layoffs damage a company’s reputation—in its plant com­
munities and among workers it might want to hire in the 
future.



9a

Loans From Lockheed
Lockheed Aircraft Co., for one, "believes that “ if we don’t 

do a better job of offering continuous employment, engi­
neers just aren’t going to be interested in coming to work 
for us,” says Kay Kiddoo. He recently was named to the 
new job of manpower coordinator, in which his chief task 
is helping Lockheed divisions find ways to avoid layoffs.

To that end, Lockheed last year set up a plan called 
LEND (Lockheed Engineers for National Deployment). 
Under it, Lockheed has lent 125 engineers to employers 
ranging from the Philco-Ford subsidiary of Ford Motor Co. 
to Stanford University until there was work for them at 
Lockheed again. The company last year also lent several 
hundred tool-and-die makers to Avco Corp. and Nor air 
division of Northrop Corp., calling them back later to work 
on Lockheed’s program to build the giant “ air bus” jet­
liner. Lockheed charges companies that borrow its em­
ployes only enough to pay their wages and fringe benefits 
while they are out on loan and keeps the employes on its 
own payroll.

Whatever comes of such plans in the future, employers’ 
current attitude contrasts sharply with the recent past. 
Periodic layoffs—during seasonably slack times or the in­
tervals between completion of a contract and the start of 
work on a new one—were an accepted part of life in fac­
tory towns even during generally prosperous times. (So 
much so that one joke had a worker’s son remarking: “ I 
go to school five days, then I ’m laid off for the weekend.” )

The Makework Strategy
The change is measured most dramatically by the will­

ingness of many companies to dig up minor assignments 
if they can’t think of any other way to keep valued em­
ployes on the payroll. Most companies hate to admit this 
practice publicly for fear of arousing shareholders’ wrath, 
but there ’s no doubt it is growing.



10a

Danly Machine Specialties Inc. of Chicago, for instance, 
last summer put eight men to work for two months as­
sembling a catalog—at the full pay they normally draw 
for the highly skilled task of wiring control panels for 
forming presses. A Midwest transportation-equipment 
maker similarly assigned a group of highly paid machinists 
to paint their machines during a slack period, and an aero­
space company told 40 of its engineers to pass their time 
“ updating manuals” until the company could put them to 
work on a new contract.

A more productive—but still expensive—way to avert 
layoffs is to take on work a company has shunned in the 
past, for the specific purpose of keeping employes busy at 
their normal jobs during what otherwise would be slow 
periods. This method is particularly favored by companies 
in highly seasonal or cyclical businesses.

Perini Corp., a Framingham, Mass., construction com­
pany, for instance, says it bids nowadays with “ sharpened 
pencil” for jobs involving considerable inside work that 
can be done during the winter, when it used to lay off many 
of its crews. It adds that it has spent a good deal of money 
to buy wood framing and polyethylene sheets to shield 
some construction sites from winter storms so that its 
crews can continue working during the cold months. The 
work could be done more cheaply in the busy spring and 
summer seasons. Perini says—but it might not be able to 
find workers then if it let its experienced men go during 
the winter.

The steel industry used similar tactics to keep many of 
its skilled employes busy last summer and fall during a 
production slump brought on by customer inventory-cut­
ting (the customers had built up heavy stockpiles as a 
hedge against a strike that had been threatened for mid­
summer but never came off). A Eepublic Steel Corp. dis­
trict manager says he held layoffs to half the number ex­
perienced in comparable downturns in the past, largely by 
having his own crews perform maintenance work the com­
pany usually farms out to independent contractors.



11a

Arguments Inside the Industry
Such policies “ caused some pretty heated arguments last 

fall” within the industry, says an administrator for an­
other steel company. “ The cost-control people,” he says, 
“ wanted more men laid off,” hut “ the operating people 
said if we laid off skilled men we wouldn’t be able to get 
them back.” At most companies, the operating men won, 
but in some cases it was a costly victory. Republic indicated 
fourth-quarter profits dropped 48% from the 1967 period— 
partly, the company said, because of the cost of “ retaining 
on the payroll many skilled employes temporarily not 
needed” in normal operations.

Putting temporarily idle workers into training programs 
to upgrade their skills or teach them new ones is a par­
ticularly popular way to avoid layoffs. Such programs are 
not confined to workers who already have reached the 
skilled category when layoffs threaten. Marathon Oil Co. 
has kept half a dozen roustabouts no longer needed in its 
Yates Field in Texas by retraining them to be computer 
operators.

Arthur G. McKee & Co., Cleveland-based engineering 
firm, has developed several training programs specifically 
so that “ in slack times we can keep good people on and 
have them studying through seminars and technical read­
ing to further their skills,” says E. W. Moerhart, vice pres­
ident. At one point last year, when several expected orders 
were postponed McKee had 10% of its Cleveland staff in 
such training programs, he says.

Engineers as Planners

Aerojet-General Corp. of El Monte, Calif., has developed 
a variation of this strategy. Temporarily idle engineers de­
velop new business for the company while they also pre­
pare themselves to work on that new business if it devel­
ops. Aerojet assigns especially talented engineers whose



12a

production projects are being wound up to an Operations 
Systems Analysis Group that draws up long-range plans 
and does preliminary work on new projects that may 
eventually develop into paying programs. Engineers in the 
group also function as a ‘ ‘ skills bank” that other Aerojet 
divisions can call on for help in tackling special problems.

Intracompany transfers of workers no longer needed in 
their present locations are one of the most expensive ways 
of avoiding layoffs or dismissals. But companies neverthe­
less are trying this strategy, too—and not only for espe­
cially skilled people. When Avco Delta Corp., financial sub­
sidiary of Avco Corp., moved its headquarters from Lon­
don, Ontario, to Cleveland a few months ago, it transferred 
at company expense 175 employes, including some 100 sec­
retaries and clerical workers.

Hiring new secretaries and clerks in Cleveland would 
have been cheaper, but an Avco Delta official indicates the 
company was afraid it wouldn’t have been able to get as 
many as it needed. “ Good secretaries are extremely diffi­
cult to find now, and even competent clerical help familiar 
with office routine isn’t easy to get,” he says.

Diversification Helps

Shifting employes from one operation to another is 
easiest for companies that have diversified widely—and 
some companies say they have diversified at least partly 
to avoid mass layoffs. Raytheon Co., Lexington, Mass., 
had to make extremely heavy layoffs five years ago when 
its defense work was heavily concentrated in two missile 
systems. Since then the company has worked hard to land 
many different types of projects from different Govern­
ment agencies, and it now works on radar and sonar gear, 
space technology, data-handling and communications-sys- 
tems projects, among others. One result: It recently ab­
sorbed in other projects all employes displaced when one



13a

of its Boston-area plants completed a major contract, a 
spokesman reports.

Some of the companies most eager to avoid layoffs say 
the chief reason is restrictive nnion rnles that would force 
them to lay off employes they wanted to keep, while keep­
ing workers they would prefer to lay off, if they did re­
sort to furloughs. “ Because of union agreements that rigid­
ly enforce seniority, we have to lay off the younger, engi­
neering-trained men and retain the older guys who have 
experience hut often lack versatility for new types of 
work,” grumbles an official of a Midwestern railroad. The 
result, he says, is that “ all of us in the railroad industry 
are trying to avoid layoffs.”

Much as such union rules may displease companies, the 
new management stress on avoiding layoffs naturally 
pleases unions. “ I t ’s a very healthy thing,” says P. L. Sie- 
miller, president of the million-member International As­
sociation of Machinists.



14a

APPENDIX F

The Wall Street Journal, July 31, 1975, p. 1

M a n n in g  t h e  P a in t  B uckets

Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich., early this year 
guaranteed employes at major plants that they wouldn’t 
be laid off if they agreed to reassignment to construction 
and maintenance projects when they weren’t needed at 
their regular jobs. The unions agreed to that arrangement, 
and Dow employes picked up hammers, wrenches and paint 
buckets to handle expansion, modernization and repair 
work that is normally contracted out to other companies. 
Even some white-collar workers participated. “ It worked 
like a charm,” a Dow spokesman says. As demand picked 
up, employes went back to their regular jobs.



15a

A PPEN D IX  G

Production  W orker Em ploym ent and A verage O vertim e Hours 
in  M anufacturing  and  M otor Vehicle

Jan u a ry  1974-June 1975
Manufacturing Auto

Average
Production Worker Overtime 

Employment Hours
Production Worker 

Employment

Average
Overtime

Hours
(000) (000)

1974
January 14,691 3.3 681.9 3.2
February 14,598 3.3 623.5 3.1
March 14,582 3.4 603.3 3.2
April 14,629 2.7 661.3 1.5
May 14,665 3.3 661.9 3.4
June 14,903 3.5 679.1 3.4
July 14,605 3.3 636.3 4.2
August 14,826 3.5 636.8 4.0
September 14,913 3.6 706.9 4.3
October 14,702 3.3 702.0 4.8
November 14,351 2.9 683.3 2.9
December 13,814 2.8 630.0 2.3

Average 14,607 3.2 658.6 3.4

1975
January 13,225 2.2 566.2 1.0
February 12,851 2.2 508.5 1.2
March 12,747 2.2 539.9 1.2
April 12,732 2.2 554.1 1.6
May 12,796 2.2
June 12,996 2.4

N ote : Data not seasonally adjusted. 
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics.



12307.8.75