KTLA News: "Maxine Waters on bill to protect affirmative action in event of mass layoffs" (1978)

the assembly Committee on Public Employees and retirement heard assemblywoman Maxine Waters outline her bill this morning it's an attempt to protect women and minorities with low seniority in case there are massive layoffs because of Proposition 13 she said some system must be established to keep the affirmative action program she said it isn't fair that women and minorities are the last hired and the first fired I would never condone a system where if in the next year or so we had to lay off employees that the brunt of that layoff would be received by the minorities and women who have been put into the labor workforce through affirmative action programs in the last 10 years it is in inequitable assemblyman Jack Fenton said it was not fair to change the seniority rules and fire summon with seniority just because he's not a member of an ethnic group in order to bring these people into the workforce who could not get in because there was discrimination now I too could surmise that those jobs that were gotten by those people who have been in the workforce often times 20 or 30 years ago were jobs that a certain portion of our society were not able to compete for so I could question whether or not their right to hold that job um uh should continue I could question that throughout the morning the hearings emphasized the problem of how to protect minorities and women in case massive layoffs do take place assemblyman jack Fenton stuck by his stand it would be unfair to others to change the rules and lessen the importance of seniority in determining who's to stay and who's to be fired Stan Chambers Channel 5 Newswatch reporting from the California Museum of Science and Industry that was prepared in May for Los Angeles County predicted layoffs at that time of about 34,500 employees in order to make ends meet under Proposition 13 and most of the these people had been on the County payroll for less than 10 years and that is a key point the County Supervisors and city council members were basing their estimates on seniority and neglecting other important facts here's how the 34,500 figure breakdowns for Los Angeles County basically came out Hispanic employees as we uh figured at that time had the most to worry about more than 7,500 of the County's workers of Latin American descent were scheduled at that time for termination and that would have represented a net loss of 84 84% of that current Hispanic Workforce more than 11,000 black employees including the few who occupied management positions were at that time subject to getting their Walking Papers and that amounted to 60% reduction in the County's black Workforce nearly 3,000 of the employees that were could have been laid off were classified as Asian Pacific and they would have been out of a job at a net loss of 77% of the County's Asian Workforce and most of the1 American Indians employed by the county would have their jobs were threatened also we've discovered that if they had followed through with that plan more than one half of the women employed in managerial positions had entered their current classifications between 1973 and 1978 and they were all in danger of losing those jobs we were able to pull together a few more facts at that time and we just basically discovered that the city of Los Angeles for example would have possibly laid off 62% well 62% of their um of the people that would have been laid off would have been women and minorities we must look closely at the criteria that is used to determine layoffs and it is my opinion that we can no long longer simply look at seniority as the only criteria for determining layoffs AB 3532 introduced the possibility of new criteria such as job performance job necessity and affirmative action a number of questions were raised about that criteria that was introduced and as you know the bill had not been fine-tuned or detailed at the point that you heard it in committee and that I made a commitment that prior to taking that bill up on the assembly floor when I was in the second committee the Ways and Means Committee I would bring it back um to your committee for fine-tuning which I did not do I did not do that for a number of reasons I question that was hearing um um all of the uh proposals uh that dealt with ative action and uh we will be looking at ways to at this time I don't have those answers person yes I'm told entities they will be able to avoid layoffs and the question is how will those layoffs occur will they simply do uh layoffs by seniority the last hired the first fired or will we begin to factor in some important things such as affirmative action so that we can uh maintain those gains that have been made and basically be in compliance with some federal mandates about uh uh the uh and uh putting uh minorities and women in the workforce that is the basic question and it's a difficult one I understand but I think it is a a problem that we must face um in in the very near future and I'm hopeful that the testimony that we will hear today and these hearings will better help us to do that um as I mentioned to you before the fear that was caused by this bill certainly indicated that there was a need for public hearings and that there was a need to have input because we were hearing conflicting information we were hearing on one hand by some of the organized labor groups that this is the only way we have to look at this situation and we have to make some determination you are suggesting that we began to do that now and we not tamper with those people who are already in the workforce and who have been there for a number of years I certainly in developing legislation am willing to entertain creative ideas about how this should be done I am hopeful that this this Committee hearing will help us to develop some new ideas and I certainly would entertain thoughts that you have about doing some of those things his