Equal Rights Amendment: A Debate with Local Women: Held at Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio

And this is a discussion presentation kind of thing and there are women who are against women who are going to speak against it and said Well from the floor of all the discussion and when we get into the group discussion I'd like people to raise their hands and I'll try and get them to people speaking in front of people they're going to go and the table we're going to be are marginal. Andrew Chris Carlson. Mark turned it over. Purpose in my presentation is to look at the total rights amendment at the top of context and to unravel some of the contradictions so that we can find direction for future actions. I believe that there is a class issue but I think that it's been incorrectly analyzed by opponents of the NRA. I think that it is simplistic

and does this have to say that that you are right represents only the middle class and that it is a tool to oppress working class women. I believe that these women are oppressed but the already is hardly the source of the oppression of working. I will cover the following outline for nearly 900 years to the present. First of all the development of protection laws such as the development of labor in the position of women in the labor force. There is the history of the IRA then to rethink the situation today and what I believe needs to be done. Do you see the issue of how to detect applause is extremely complex and the beginnings of industrial development in this country under capitalism. The exploitation of workers. Through workers organized to fight for some protection. And yesterday we talked about the fact that International Women's Day is like the mission of the women's role in that struggle. But the organized organization of women into

unions was not a consequence of the struggle and the union movement itself was divided on whether or not to admit women or to allow them to organize the left wing of the unions did support women in unions but the left wing also endured extreme repression. And as a very general kind of statement only the more conservative labor organizations survived. We know that the fight for the eight hour day princes in the Haymarket affair. We know also that when wages and hours bill was finally passed for men and women it was ruled unconstitutional. And shortly after that in 1980 the case of Mahler versus Oregon the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a maximum hours law to apply for women only. So that's the first protective was for women only. Even while protection for women workers was deemed a victory by exploited

women workers some of the chauvinist groups within labor began to see the protective laws could be used to keep women out of certain trade entirely. We must never forget the competitive base of our society and we must never forget that women compete for jobs with men and this has created ethnic divisions of Miss Racial the business to business and sexual. This is the basis for the male chauvinism is rooted deep in the exploitation of women's work in the home. But women are not paid for work in the home and it is basically protection of this exploitation that forms the basis of many of the laws that have brought about women's roles as protection of the basic exploitation of all workers. That calls for a certain pool of surplus labor. Now the position of women in the labor force has always been that of a surplus labor where the

last tired with the first prior to World War One women went to work and back injuries and after the war women lost their jobs. This is accompanied by increasing repression the Palmer Raids mass arrests and arrests of women pickets in the 20s. We begin to see a recession a lot of this is masked by the. Propaganda about the roaring 20s but the actual facts were that with increasing automation there's increasing unemployment and women were getting squeezed out of jobs by just right. Automation by the recession as well as that particular set of protective laws that prohibit have them working against certain trades. Women were pushed into the pool and service jobs with the depression we find increasing anti-woman sentiments we find in the precinct use of the slogan woman's place is in the home.

Laws develop against working wives. I find the growth of the mothers pension which became the basis of our whole welfare system and the system is based on the premise that the woman's place is in the home and that her work is basically deserves no pay. But if she's virtuous she deserves help and so the state began to supervise women on welfare. But it also began to Superman to spy on their lives. Now the New Deal in the 30s was aimed at the working man and not the working woman. Only the left wing of the CIO Let the very light of organized women fought for the rights of women and many of the programs that were developed were or get left women out with World War Two with kind of a repeat of what happened in World War One. Women went back in the industry but in the 50s again after the war in the late 40s and the 50s women were squeezed out. We have the growth of The Feminine Mystique.

We also have repression again against the left and women's place again is defined in the home. But nevertheless we also find something else happen and that is increasing growth of women in the clerical sex sector of the economy and an increase in the percentage of women in the total labor force. At the same time we find a decrease in the percentage of women in professional work and in industrial work. So those women are working in the clerical service sectors. More and more and less in the professional as professionals or as industrial workers. By the 1960s almost 40 percent of the labor force is made up of women and again a war a war opens up new jobs for women. With the boom in technology there are places open for women in the university but only to train for the lower echelon jobs. And surveys report that the gap in earnings between men and women is increasing. We also find that families headed by women. I'm becoming much more common and much more commonly are they living in poverty. And this is because the

entire system maintains a sexist premise that women's work is in the home unpaid and that outside work is only supplementary and therefore does not deserve the same equal pay as the men disappear. So let me run down a quick history of the Equal Rights Amendment. How that develops in the context of all of these other historical factors. First of all I want to talk a little bit about the game of origin so I think we play on the left. I've heard people say that people rights a man was pushed by middle class women and supported by people like Nixon and that means that therefore it can't be any good. I think that this is a very bad kind of thing to do because it denies the long long struggle of women to change our position. I want to talk about the women who were primarily responsible for the development of the full rights of man. I was told it was one with the road. She was caught up in the struggle in

England in the early 1900s. That was the suffrage struggle she was a militant woman she was jailed many many times. She came back to this country and she organized with some other women the militant wing of the suffrage movement and here we find an interesting fact we plan to join together in this militant way of the working class women who by this time had just decided it discovered that their vote was very important to find a coalition of the working class women with the goal in this that the other Milton's never saw suffrage as a panacea. They thought they'd pass it on to other things. And many of the same women involved in the struggle Rose involved in the struggle for protective laws after the 1920s the movement splintered the working class women continued to struggle for protective walls for the right laws that would protect them. The women's party which was the party that grew out of the militant wing of the US started

violence part began an exhaustive study of laws of every state. They found that discriminated against women and they proposed the rights in them. They made mistakes they didn't analyze the split in the women's movement. They didn't understand the reason for increasing repression and they did not recognize the importance of the working class women the Equal Rights Amendment received little support a state committee was introduced in 1923. There were a series of hearings on the full rights minute between 1924 and 1970. Instead in the 60s there was a growing women's movement began to pay attention to the Equal Rights Amendment. At no time did any of the big the big shift next and so forth give support to the Equal Rights Amendment they gave lip service to it when they were asked Do you support. It's like saying yes I support mother motherhood and no time to do. People give political

support to this. The only reason the House is because of a long struggle of many many women again once again we find what happened during the suffrage movement working women began to support the rights of men like the automobile workers of one of the first unions and this is in union with women in leadership roles that began just for my series of unions and good times organizations on the left the family had opposed to beginning to swing around 4:30 the Equal Rights Amendment. The situation today is again we're after work and again we're in we're facing increasing repression and an economic crunch that hits women first and we've seen that here at the college. Once again women are losing their jobs or being forced into welfare or being forced into low paying jobs. And there's increasing oppression on working women. And what I think needs to be done. I think blaming the Equal Rights Amendment for what's happening to women now is divisive. The Equal Rights Amendment has

not passed and is not the source of the problem. I think it is very important to show how the Equal Rights Amendment can be used against working women. So can anything if we don't have a strong movement I think we need a unity of working class women and men and women but not on the backs of the women. Sexist attitudes toward women are what have kept us divided. I think we need to fight for an end to the sexism to challenge the stand on the assumptions that are the basis of our laws. We also need to fight for protective laws for men and women. To fight against the evil right diverts attention away from what's really happening. Middle class women need to join the working class women and working class men to fight for protective laws as well as well as a fight for an end to the over 2000 laws and basic law I have to still keep women in an inferior position.

I want to point out that many of the women I know who are fighting for the people rights and also fight for minimum wage for welfare rights for day care. I think we need to do this in three ways. Through legislation through building an active movement that deals directly with the oppression of women. Presses for cutting of their pants and picketing and also through uniting with other other oppressed group to challenge the entire structure of the society. I'm Chris Carlson not a part of the Antioch community but a member of the Yellow Springs community admittedly a moderate and admittedly middle class and here as a representative of the League of Women Voters whose has been the historical origins of which are the elite grew out of the struggle of women over 50 years ago to obtain an amendment to the Constitution to ssion giving women rights to vote their right to vote

is still the only right here and women in the Constitution and the latest work since then for good legislation in many areas although not mainly devoted to women's rights. The league is concerned that sex not be a factor determining the legal rights of man or of women and therefore we support the RIAA. Both men and women can benefit because laws discriminate against both. This amendment would clearly indicate that man 49 percent of the population and women 51 percent. Would have the same rights under the law. I'm going to touch on your areas of criminal liability and civic responsibility. Presently punishment for some crimes is different depending on whether you're a man or a woman. For example in one state a woman may just be jailed for three years for eventual drunkenness whereas a man may be jailed for 30

days. The PR would invalidate this differential punishment arrests are made for different reasons. The majority of women are arrested for crimes related to sex and prostitution is a frequent cause for arrest. Many women especially juvenile women are arrested for non criminal acts on ruling us running away in corage ability thing that judges rule and often these are again related to their sex role. Different run ages for treatment as adults are also spelled out in criminal law for example in Minnesota. Women become eligible to be treated as adults under the law at age 16 whereas for men it is 18 the way would require equal opportunity for rehabilitation including access to treatment for drug addiction and

alcoholism. The NRA would not invalidate laws which punish rate for such laws are designed to protect women in a way that they are human uniformly distinct from man. I might also add that women rarely are seen on parole boards which are very crucial to the criminal system and to women who are serving and in prison in the area of civic responsibility as I mentioned of voting and women the right to vote is the one right we are now guaranteed in 20 states. Women may be excused from jury service on grounds not available to man. Eleven states permit excuse solely on the basis of sex. Louisiana still requires women to pre-register for doing jury duty until 1966. Three states excluded women from jury

duty in regard to military service. There is now as you know of an essence of voluntary army. It would not necessarily mean that woman would have to serve all assignments. In fact fewer than 15 percent of men serve combat roles. The requirements for admission to the services are different. If they are if the array was passed women would be admitted under the same standard just as men at the present time men may complete their high school education education while they are are in the service whereas women must have a high school education plus an additional skill to be eligible deferments and exemptions will still exist. Women being admitted on the same basis as men to the service would also allow for them the benefits including vocational training medical

care travel and veterans benefits at the present time the Veterans Administration practices sex discrimination as many are not unlike other pension systems in denying to women veterans dependency benefits under the G.I. bill unless their home husbands are disabled and classified as wives. Married male veterans attending college get the pendency benefits for able bodied mates irrespective of their wives employment outside the home. I'm going to talk about a number of things and some of it is to sum up what everybody has said some of it is to put forth some more information. Most of the people in this room I think would agree that if it were not for the pre set questions that we have about the way the Equal Rights Amendment would affect affect working women then we would all undoubtedly be for the

rights of men. This is not true of all the opposition to the equal rights of women equal rights and then the opposition consists of the most reactionary forces in this country including the John Birch Society and other groups and I think that's important for the left and people who consider themselves to be progressive forces to really look at the protectively legislation question with a great deal of care because the Equal Rights Amendment will employ all women and all men in this country many benefits and many rights that they don't have historically and in the law. And I'm going to talk a little about what protect the labor question is. And and I hope people will research this by themselves but I think they can come. Two to a just conclusion it's not a simple question and I don't but I do think that the Rights Amendment is important and that we really have to consider things thoroughly. We're going to come and join forces with the John Birch Society. I'm going to begin by

giving people a little historical insight about the basis of protective labor laws for women and I'm going to begin by reading something to you on women's visible structure and the performance of maternal functions placed her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Still again history discloses the fact that women has always been dependent on man. He established his control at the outset superior physical strength and this control in various forms with diminishing intensity has continued to the present as miners women and miners though not to the same extent. She has been looked upon in the courts as needing special care that make that her rights may be preserved. I'm skipping somewhat differentiated by these matters from the other sex. She is properly placed in a class by herself and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained even when late life

legislation is not necessary for men and could not be sustained. It is impossible to close one eyes to the fact that she still looks to her brother and pens upon him even though all restrictions on political person on contractual rights may be taken away and she stood so far as statutes are concerned upon an absolutely equal playing with him. It would still be true that she is so constituted that she will rest upon a look to him for protection that her physical structure and a proper just charge of her maternal functions having a view not merely in her own health but the well-being of the race justify legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man influence a vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race. The self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights and the capacity to maintain to maintain the struggle for subsistence are all reasons why we must hold protection for her. OK

that's part of the decision. The first court decision that established protective labor legislation for women. And those were the rationales the arguments built of established protected labor legislation. Women talked about that somewhat protective labor legislation was originally created for both men and women. And in a famous Supreme Court decision called Lochner versus New York protective labor legislation last week which would would have protected men from working overtime were struck down on the basis that it inhibited their contractual rights the rights to sell their own labor. Really the way that women's protective labor legislation came about was due to two factors One is the capital capitalist interests. And exploiting people's labor power to the fullest extent was not going to allow them in protective labor laws. The second thing was discrimination in labor unions. The fact is that when labor laws protective protective labor laws were passed only because for

one they were going to extend them to men and there was a moment movement for reform. The second thing is that after the passage of protective labor laws women were kicked out from many industries in which they participated fully. And many men's unions which fear competition from women because women historically were lowering the wages of working working people because they were surplus labor force. Those combinations of fortunes joined hands to build protective labor for women and that's the only reason that protect the labor laws for women developed. OK let me go on and the state of Ohio. Protective labor laws have now been struck down. The power exists in this country under another law called Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to strike down laws which discriminate on the basis of race sex creed color religion etc.. OK. They put the protective labor laws were struck down in the state of Ohio. Under this law and a case called great injury the

General Motors which women who were prohibited from working at night sued. OK then there was a more reactionary case of course brought by the employers and then let me say I mean I think it's all clear that any laws which on the face might be good it's going to be tried. The capitalist class is going to try to exploit that law whenever they can and that what's important is not to not pass laws which could benefit some people. But to invade to form a united working working class and an other progressive forces to join in making sure that when laws are passed they're interpreted fairly and comprehensively so that so that women and working women are not going to be screwed by a law which on its face is good. OK let me read what was some of the laws that have been struck down in Ohio where there are two types of protective laws. OK their loss which confers confer

benefits on women and their laws which restrict what women could do. Ok none of the benefit laws were extended to men. Since the since the beginning of protected labor history there not been protective locks from them. OK laws which confer benefits of women were such things as providing for lunch hours. So you would say what. Yeah breast breaks and baths adequate bathroom facilities. Remember none of these things were guaranteed for men under the law. At the same time women in the state were prohibited from working over time. OK they had hours restrictions they're only allowed to work 48 hours a week. OK under the old law that's both good and bad all right. It's bad in the sense that many women in the workforce of women are heads of household in the wages that the earned working are not adequate to provide income for their adequate income for their families. Many men in the workforce also need to work overtime in order to make an adequate

income on the other hand. Involuntary over time has been used in the past to exploit men's labor and since loss have been struck down and the state is also being used to exploit women's labor what's needed is not to maintain laws which are discriminatory to men and also in some aspects discriminatory to women. But just to change those laws so that benefits are provided to both men and women and the restrictions are eliminated. OK let me read some of the restrictions that existed for women under our wonderful protective labor laws. Women the employment of females in the following accusations or capacities is prohibited crossing watchman. S. Han expresse driver metal Molder bell hops taxi driver said between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 PM gas or electric meter reader as workers and blast furnace to smelters mines quarries. Except in the offices there and shoe shining parlors bowling

alleys as pin setters pool rooms bar rooms and saloons of public drinking places which cater to male customers and delivery service and motor propelled vehicles of over one ton capacity in operating freight or bad baggage elevators except elevators and the doors there are not automatically or semi-automatically control and baggage handling freight handling trucking and handling are by the means of ham trucks heavy materials of any time or employment requiring frequent or repeated lifting of weights over 25 pounds. OK let me say something about the way this restriction. Yeah. Time. OK I won't go in. You know people ask questions because thousands of women have been bringing suits under Title 7 because they've been discriminated for higher paying jobs because of overtime restrictions and weight restrictions. Let me say that in the whole history of this types of laws that existed the women you know legislation was introduced

in the legislature which would exist have extended those laws to men since last were struck down a year ago. Two bills have been introduced into the Ohio legislature which would change protect the last one is a minimum wage bill which would extend the minimum wage to both men and women both to domestic workers were not which who are not covered under the old law and to agricultural workers who are not covered under the old law. The next bill is called the employee protection bill the employee protection bill. Right down the restrictions that the old protective laws hide and puts in its place. Lunch hours and rest periods for all workers regardless of sex occupation prohibit prohibitions based on sex drive down weight restrictions based on the employees and a visual capacity as a check determined by medical evidence. Voluntary overtime for all workers and a maximum maximum that a person could be required to work with a male or female

would be 50 hours a week. OK they could not required the required work more than five days a week and voluntarily. Anyone could work overtime if they want to at the rate of time and a half. OK that's a bill that's been introduced since the protection laws in this state have been struck down. Granted many women right now what protective laws do not exist are being screwed. But what's important is not to work for reactionary stances and reactionary laws that discriminate against women but to work together for laws that extend benefits and protect both men and women and protect in the real sense. Let me say one more thing and then I think that is done. But when you stop then I'll stop. Yeah that's the thing. All this happens under Title 7 and that's what people have to be clear about all these laws right now tensions exist could be struck and stricken down all over the country until Title 7 and theoretically the Equal Rights Amendment when in fact labor laws in the least. OK

so people have to realize that's probably not going to happen there still will be some laws that protect women by the time the equal rights amendment passes. But when the equal rights amendment passes there's two years before it goes into effect during which time the legislatures in all the states receive congressional mandates to change their laws OK. They get a mandate from the Congress to change the laws based on the intent of the congressional people when they pass the Equal Rights Amendment. The intent of Congress was when a law can freeze a benefit on a person the benefit is extended to all people. When the law is not denied or restricted people. Those laws got struck down. OK so not only is this is a letter to have these laws changing under the Equal Rights Amendment because of the intent of Congress. But it also affords the possibility for unified action across the country nationally for the working classes and the progressive forces of the middle and other classes to unite and make sure

that the interpretation of the Equal Rights Amendment does what the intent of Congress says it should do as it exists now cases under Title 7 are being taken individually in state by state. Every law which discriminates against women in the end and any theory of the spirit of the law whether domestic relations education criminal law every law right now would have to be revised individually and it would be dependent on a reactionary court system to interpret case by case person by person as a cost of billions of dollars to change all the laws he already gives a congressional mandate to change the laws. They have two years in which to do it during which time a unified struggle can ensure that the protective laws that exist should be extended to men and where the restrictions exist and we discrimination exist. The law should be struck down. But first I want to say that I mean that that it's understood that that

we stand for equality for women and I understand that that women are very oppressed in the society and working women are actually the most oppressed of all. But we just don't think that way as a way to to achieve that quality and and where what types of experts begin to talk about the history of protective legislation talk about what protective laws are and how they won them to speak about the effects of Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and how courts interpreted the no discrimination clause and what effect this is having on on women workers in the in this area and around the nation. Then we're going to speak give a short history of of of the women's movement and talk about who are the people who supported suffrage and now who are people that demand that support the demands for the right and then to to understand why the ruling class is supporting cast in the right now. We're going to give a short analysis of the situation of the American economy today and then I'm going to speak specifically to what the

area will do and how he used it interpreted by states in the courts and how it will affect workers around the country. You know. Listen OK. I think I'm going with it. I'm Jane and I'd like to outline history of struggles protective legislation. So far what I've heard here is all this talk about a woman's right to change her place in society but I think that I don't know we haven't talked about the right to live in tolerable working and living conditions in the society and to make some real basic changes right. Therefore I'd like to go back and talk about the struggles in which lives were lost. Blood was shot to Brando legislation. The types of protections that have been brought about through legislation are things such as brakes periods first aid drinking water proper restrooms washing facilities seating facilities protective garments

and uniforms you know forced overtime regulations on lighting ventilation temperature tools chipping. And protections on weight lifting. These are just basic. Detention for protective legislation began in this country as back as far as it had one of the first strikes in which the militia was brought out of the US militia against a strike was a strike by children which included many girls for a change in the fight against the 12 hour day and a change in life. Lunch breaks. Right you don't. In Dover New Hampshire three to four hundred women went out on the streets to protest bad working conditions and ask for better. The law in Massachusetts girls drew international national and some international attention that they want for their militancy in organizing and at 2:36 they won the right to form a trade your rights the first

female labor reform selfish actions led by Sarah badly and the flight speed ups and bad conditions in 40s 50s and 60s the organization spread throughout the New England area and was very successful women started to realize that the only way that they could get protection was to organize. Even when I finally won legislation for the 10 hour day in 1874 the problems didn't many got wage decreases speed ups. As soon as their one shorter day but other organizations such as the Knights of Labor led by Leonora Berry and the color laundry you know Troy New York was successful in fighting this problem. Even it's important to note that even one protection type of legislation was what people had to keep agitating to keep

to maintain the protective legislation that one in the chair sits in 1969. That's a strike resolution stated with the free women of women will submit to no rules or set of rules that will tend to degrade and enslave us. Specifically speaking about the working conditions there I stated that the fights for protected legislations were a job of constant agitation education. A good example of how the law was trying to over under constitutionality was in 1994 when after the handover to the one you know I know how the Supreme Court raise the issue of constitutionality saying that women have a naturally crowded with men and no distinction may be drawn between them with respect to their power of engaging labor. Now it's important to note that the same thing was pushed by big factory on Illinois at this time. So all of the opposition inside the courts you

know has are using protective laws in a discriminatory way but I think this shows that the courts can use these lines either way according to their own interests in the case of Illinois. Their interest was to get you know looking back harder and and eventually the decision was reversed I'm going to have to go back to the 10 hour day started you know today. Another big uprising was in 1999 the uprising of 20000 20000 garment workers throughout New York. Protesters called the strike and picket against the tolerable working conditions they suffered on the picket lines and many arrests and their strike lasted three months. The winner in the arts Massachusetts in 1912 was famous for it was a straight stretch. But you rose from a wage cut. After all I was working on that one. Shorter. Shorter day leadership of

the early and the latter emphasize that this fights for better conditions would strengthen the position of the whole working class. Their strike suffered police attacks a murder trashing some picket lines calling out the National Guard infiltrations but these things didn't stop the women who were victorious. I'd like to hold hands with the president of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs. United States. She says today in a sweat shop conditions the dawn to dusk hours the subsistence level paid for to a large degree sins of the past. Judicious legislation and courageous labor organization of how to amend that situation just do not need protection against conditions which have ceased to exist. I'd like to point to a case in point which shows the

fallacy of this. The woman from the strike probably most of us heard last night were still working. That's what coffee shop conditions were still having to fight. Against intolerable working conditions and I think when you pointed out that these things are happening all over this country. Another. Basic file so you know what she says is just the fact that women had to keep agitating to maintain the protective laws not only to gain them first place an example of this was that in 1939 a beggar struggled for seven years to achieve legislation on pay and better working conditions which included 50 protective provisions under California's industrial welfare conditions. Now there's a lot of these protections for over 2.5 million women workers in California. Title 7 2007 is threatening thousands of women foreign workers basic rights such and

such as drinking water sanitary bathroom facilities that would surely threaten those rights even more. We can't rely on a law such as the IRA. We can't rely on this to you know and hand over these struggles which have lasted gone on for over a hundred years. It's a struggle to really bloody. Willing to give up their lives. We can't have told of these struggles that will set us back 80 years. 200 years you are right. Might have been a noble and I'm going to talk about Title 7 and what it means what kinds of laws struck down and what were the examples of how it was implemented. And through my talk I'm going to be trying to emphasize whether protective laws weren't to extend to men as was pointed out by the opposition that those laws which benefit people

would be extended in those laws which were at the detriment of people would not be accepted I'm going to be trying to point out what all the cases we know of did which isn't to take away the rights of women and not extend rights to men. OK what is the what is Title 7 the title Title 7 as part of the Civil Rights Act One which was passed in 1964 and it prohibits discrimination of race color religion sex or national origin in any kind of hiring practice or in any kind of labor organization which has more than 25 people. Now in August of 969 the economic Equal Opportunity Commission said that title 7 and state protective laws were a contradiction. This is a quote. Laws which prohibit or limit the employment of females as to certain occupations not work maximum weekly hours of work weight lifting regulations tend to discount that tend to discriminate rather than protect affect state laws and regulations. Although originally promulgated for the purpose of protecting

females have ceased to be relevant to our technology or to the expanding value of the female worker in our economy the commission has found that such laws and regulations do not take into account the capacities preferences and abilities of individual females and tend to discriminate rather than protect. Accordingly the commission has concluded that such laws regulations conflict with Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now one very important thing about Title 7 is it was a severe blow. The interpretation of it was a severe blow against work. However it does not strip all protective laws as was pointed out by the opposition. It only strips out those protective laws which I named. And what happened is that state by state different states interpret it differently. And the Ohio state supreme court in March of 1972 took away our protective laws from women so there are no protective laws. In Ohio right there. OK what's wrong with us. What's wrong with this is that the government which is what you'd expect the government to do fail to recognize that oppressive conditions still

do exist amongst all workers including women and that the basic contradiction in our society is the same as it was in the early 900 which is that the people who who control the society of the rich people control the society. Still try to get out as much profit as they can off the backs of working and working people will continue and are continuing to fight for a decent wage for decent working conditions and a decent a right to a decent life. And the contradiction is it's still very intense and will grow more intense as time goes on will grow less. OK what happened when I went Title 7 went through. I'm going to talk a little bit about some examples in Ohio and Michigan and California and Michigan where they used to have a law saying that women did not have to be a law saying that all workers could not be for not to not work past 54 hours a week when overtime could become compulsory According to Title 7. GM and Chrysler had their women work six days a week 10 hours a day and they were forced to

work this in Chrysler Corporation for about half a year. The women were put on a schedule of 12 hours a day and seven days a week. And what happened. One thing that happened was that a lot of women quit and they quit because it's just for anyone it's impossible to take this kind of conditions but especially in our society where where women are still forced to have most of the burden of raising a family taking care of a home women have two jobs one job lasted 12 hours a day in the plant and no job lasted eight hours a day when they got home taking care of their children and and their homes. And this reality exists. We don't necessarily support this reality that this reality exists. Another thing that happened is that women from the five major corporations in the Flint and Detroit area sued the courts for the ability to work. They said we should we don't want to work this because over time this is the courts and they want a temporary order which said that they do not have to work beyond 54 hours a day. OK before this happened in the telephone company telephone workers were assigned to excessive overtime and the company

freely told them that it was cheaper for the company to to to have people work sets of overtime rather than to hire sufficient personnel. The reasons for that is very simple. It takes a while to train people even paying time and a half is less than paying somebody else extra time and also if there's a union there because a lot of money to pay union benefits vacations whatever on sick leave. Now people work in the telephone company and can tell all of you and I'm sure that all of you aware of it. What kind of conditions exist for women who work in the telephone company which is that it's not only physically exhausting. It's it's mentally exhausting to have to work sitting on a stool eight hours a day or more and have to listen to customers. He's very pleasant to have to the women of the telephone companies if they want to go to the washroom have to raise their hand if they want to enter their seat they have to go from the right to left and they have to enter the right way from the left. Anyway the conditions are very oppressive and it should be up to anyone to tell women that they have to work compulsory overtime. Ok on to

California in California November of 1969 which was a short while after Title 7 1 3 of the firework corporation petitioned the state Division of industrial welfare for a blanket waiver of all state protective laws for women in minors saying the Title 7 of what is of state laws they have the audacity before the state even had a chance to rule on it to assume what the state was going to do and what they did is under the threat of being laid off women were asked to work 12 hours a day and work double shifts which means 16 hours a day were given jobs that were far too heavy for them to manage and it resulted in a lot of injuries and a lot of backspins were cut down and eliminated. And anyone quit in February 1978 a short while after the representatives of six big employer associations testified at a public hearing called by the California State Assembly and they all agreed on one thing that our state's protective laws under question eight hour day 40 hour week rest periods lunch hours left to climates should be suspended because they're discriminatory. And another California factory and

I don't know if this is going to happen much but this is pretty audacious. The plant owner tried to lower the men's wages to the level of women saying that he wanted to equalize the sexes. Well there was a union in this plan which isn't true for most of the most working out of states but there was you know this plan that successfully fought back that attack. And here in Ohio in March of 1972 the state's Supreme Court struck down all state protective labor laws for women. But right before this due to Title Seven women right here in Dayton at the end the manufacturing companies were were forced to work jobs which none of 235 the 200 pound men had worked previously and lifting heavy weights and women who had been very militant in the union were put on this job. You know as as a result the women were forced to quit. One thing that does is want to know if anybody knows about unemployment. If women are forced to quit if you quit a job or if you are fired. Are you not intitled to unemployment. However if you are laid off your child on the funds is a very easy way of getting around the employer having to plan and fund them.

So in conclusion Title 7 was somewhat flexible. There were some laws that are struck down to sensually there were laws that still remain although it was a severe blow against the working class and the whole working class not only one with the Equal Rights Amendment. There is no compromise there is no possibility of any protective laws remain as it stands there's no guarantee of extension of labor legislation tonight and as a matter of fact if we examine Title 7 we'll see that the only possibility that exists that is that all benefits will be stripped from women no benefits will be extended to men and it's just a very naive assumption to think that this government which is based on the which is based on the oppression of the working class and is based on the division of the working class between black and white men and women is going to be to extend certain laws because they benefit and in fact take away those laws as we can see by Title 7. I'm glad we must see it in the context and

we must make an analysis. American economy to understand why it's being passed. Once we make this analysis then we can see that part of that taking place against working people at this time and that's why protective legislation for men will not will not be happy even if someone puts it in and front of our high legislator because that's not in the interest of big business at this time. United States United States imperialism and real trouble than the enemy is the enemy. Come out and get this get her to the people the rest of the world and real struggles that have been taking place throughout the world are are and have realized that a small country small countries and underdeveloped as Vietnam can throw out a large the largest capitalist country in the world. So that

the there is increased threat to America in an attempt to control the rest of the world there is increased threat means an increased increasing commitment to military expenditures so the war in Vietnam does not mean the end of a commitment to military expenditure at all but the fact that there will be have to be increasing commitment to training military bases to this list several thing to the American economy is draining dollars as those investments go out. It means that there is an unbalance in the balance of trade at all something that the American economy is coming up coming up against trouble because it must compete with other large capitalist nations in China who have more highly advanced and astri's in terms of technology and such as Japan and West Germany. This this means that the United States is having a lot of trouble it's having a lot of trouble

in terms of its bound to try to it's having in lot of trouble in terms of competing with other capitalist countries in a turn. And large scale therefore turn around and look at the United States and try to increase the rate of profit of industries at home. The American industry which has not been particularly productive as an industry such as Japan is now being questioned in terms of trying to make it more productive and that begins to explain why. At this time we have increased the tax on the working people. We have. To take the form of an attempt to make people work harder for less. And that means an attempt to increase productivity to speed up and attempt to make people work compulsory overtime and temp to make people work seven days six to seven days a week. And this is happening all over the country and it's happening and happening on

here right here in Ohio it's happening in Green County. Not a question of something that happened a long time ago and far away something happening right now and something that I can tell you is happening in the room right. Now. Saw that happening in March where break has been happening and numbers and history has been happening. Number three that they're up and they've been compulsory overtime and they're in and they've been tempted to cut wages. Now once we see this condition then we can start putting the right and welfare and butt and

perspective and welfare cuts in perspective and the cutbacks in federal spending and perspective. They're all attempts to lower the way level and force people to work for less. The welfare the welfare laws for example which have just been put have a system of compulsory labor. I tell people that for the welfare check they have to sign up in the end of the unemployment office and work from whatever work at whatever job the unemployment office and just and Welfare Department suggest that they can happen in their life. We'll. Take a look. Ahead. Yeah. I know. I can. But I think you are right.

I know. Right. Well I really. Hope you're. Right. There's no history. We have a life that might not like. This but the ones that are responsible. Sometimes people or people are affected by their own need to hear what I don't know

that much. So where next. And that's what I like. I like. Your. Life. I don't know what. But. You know oh my god. There is a pool of women to create this pool of women to provide conditions under which women can work and provide compulsory overtime in a time when to limit

overtime in a time when the pressure from workers to work women forced to work for their welfare. This kind of repressive and we have to see them. I'm going to talk about the sex abuse. And with the implementation of Title 7 to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission it has been shown how the intent of the law and its application by the courts are two different things. As pointed out before instead of improving the working conditions of women and men Title 7 has invalidated necessary protective laws. That's harming the conditions under which most people must work. A more sweeping in its nature than Title 7 must be viewed not only in the spirit of equality which it proposes but in the current form of equality which working people

will be open to if it is passed with over 30 million women in the labor force. Only 12 to 15 percent are unionized and over one quarter are not even protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act because most workers are not unionized and depend on special protected the benefits of the EIA must be explored as they relate to the vast majority of workers that binges rather than selected individuals. In 1950 for example for example the state of Michigan repealed protective laws regarding maximum hours. With the repeal of a large company employing mostly women to get them from working more than 54 hours. Put women on 10 hours a day seven days a week schedule repeal Gaven equality of exploitation of women through their struggles dem did win back the protective laws regarding maximum hours. But the repeal supposedly meant to improve the conditions of women workers only to move the workers conditions backwards.

I may give some women especially middle class and professionals the chance to more pay but through nullification of Oligocene protection laws it would deal a crushing blow to the rights that working people have fought and struggle for the last century to begin the year I may give some women the chance to work overtime but will give more women only the right to forced overtime with no guarantee of premium wages with forced overtime comes more profit for business. There's the money saved from not hiring more workers and paying benefits. The intolerable working conditions with excessive overtime forces many women to quit. The E R A which does not spec specify extending protective legislation laws to both men and women. If passed nullify the maxim our laws and others another such as rest periods and lunch breaks men and women will be left equally unprotected from exploitive conditions it would be an equal equality of mistreatment. Yeah right. Also no attempt of weight lifting

laws. And although in some cases this law can can and has been used in a discriminatory met way neither men nor women should be forced to lift excessive weights in order that they receive an insignificant wage hike. Instead of extending protective laws against excessive weight lifting to apply to men also here I would leave all workers equally unprotected under the system of developed and developing capitalism imperialism which is monopoly capitalism. Women have been socialized to the extent of their physical abilities have not been fully fully developed. This is not to say that women are inherently weaker than men. Nor is it to say that individual women do not have the strength and have that strength. What is happening is that with the stripping away of protective weightlifting Moslem women are not just given the chance to do the work required in lifting the heavy weights but are forced into positions where they're not they cannot suddenly develop the necessary physical strength for the job and then are forced to quit. Or move into a lower job classification

throughout the country this intolerable situation becoming more and more frequent. An example would be that Michigan jail telephone women were placed in various craft positions usually filled by men. The job required heavy weight lifting and the employees mostly men are now being assigned excessive overtime with no choice for the employer it is cheaper to wring overtime from existing employees at least until they quit rather than hiring more workers and having to pay benefits. And hope is going to end. Without protective laws in the name for quality. But we're going to be doing is moving backwards to a time when we had a 60 hour week at a time when there were no known legal measures that prevented forced overtime. No brakes no seating requirements no special conditions for market workers who need drinking water and this is happening now this is happening even before the days pass through Title

7 another act. Non-unionized workers many migrant workers people on welfare. Lived in third world people crazy for even greater exploitation with the nullification of the existing protective legislation the only protection working people has. Had. Is with the organization and struggle among the masses for and with their unions. If there even are a pass it's going to make that struggle just more difficult but it's going to make it even more crucial in terms of the contra contracts that union is going to be making going to be able to make to protect their workers due to the limitations that are going to come there because you know already if it's passed this brings us to a point where we finally have to really start a pension fund with a real enemy is. The enemy is a system that by its very nature is forced to repress degrade exploit and wring ever increasing productivity from the masses for a super profit of a small number of people and it doesn't seem fair

and kind to me they want to bring out people women and men workers say the conditions of working people both men and women have not improved past the need for protective laws. There still exist sweatshops 60 hour weeks unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. The discriminatory job classified classification still do exist. The majority break their backs to produce the wealth and yet have no access to it. Ray's going to do nothing to insure any further access to that will. The protective laws do have individual discriminatory application yet they have to be looked at as beneficial in practice and are needed by the majority of working people. I find my snappy to legislate sameness and equality by making women and men more open to the same oppressive working conditions. We must fight to preserve amend and extend protections and rights to improve those protected legislations where they are using discriminatory.

And we have to put improvement for all working people not just women. Together we have had historically and still do even more now into the present crisis periods and we've had to wrench every right from the state. Together today together all improvements will have to be rights but we must remember that rights are not granted. They haven't been historically women and men have fought for them. You know there for three people struggles with unions with welfare to struggle with the masses of people they have not been gained through sweeping amendments like the ERISA which in spirit is trust in spirit and what it says We agree with. But in application only serves and will serve an application to move a speck a century. All the name of sameness.