21 A conservative estimate was desired without extremes of women's wages and the rates of men whom they replaced For that reason and in spite of the fact that such procedure placed the wage situation in its rosiest light, the employers' statement of wage rates was sought and accepted. When a conflict occurred between an employer's statement and the awards of the War Labor Board, the award was accepted unless evidence indicated (as it did in one or two cases) that the employer had not accepted. the award. Bonuses were not considered or included in the computation of weekly earnings of either men or women, because they were regarded as temporary expedi ents for stimulating production, subject to cancellation at any time, and they were in fact widely canceled with the cessation of war production. In choosing, as typical, women who had completed training and gone on production but who were not workers of long experience it was hoped that confusion between the rate paid to learners and the earnings of women with several years of experience in the same plant might be avoided. When comparisons were made with men's rates, that group of men was chosen corresponding in training and experience with the women. The whole story of women's wage status in patriotic service is told when two comparisons are made: 1. the comparison of her flat wage rate with the government estimate of the cost of subsistence for a woman who has no one but herself to support: 2. the comparison of her wage rate with the rate received by the male worker she replaces. of Wages Replacing Men with A glance at the flat wage received by women who have Comparison replaced men confirms what all but the most sanguine of Women have feared, namely, that the war with its new opportuni ties has not improved women's wage status as much as had been hoped. The newspapers have turned the limelight of publicity upon those exceptional women who have Cost of 22 earned $20-$25 a week. They have omitted to mention that army of inunition workers, machine gun makers, aircraft workers, as well as the undramatic rank and file of women who replaced men in optical and electrical work, coremaking and yard labor. These women have filled their jobs and made good but their wages do not reflect their success. The widely reported women who drew the $20-$25 a week pay envelopes number 190. The women who received less than $12 a week number 1,531, and those receiving less than $14 a week number 7,933. What is true of the number of women receiving high and low wages is true also of plants paying them. Of 117 plants, 29 plants pay under $12 a week Only 29% of the plants studied paid more than $14 a week in spite of the fact that in Schenectady the War Labor Board awarded a $15 a week minimum to General Electric women employees and the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia fixed $16 a week as the minimum upon which a woman can live who has only herself to support. Such being the situation those 190 women in 3 plants receiving over $20 a week, may be considered exceptions. They have no significance except as they point with emphasis to that large group of women who have taken men's places in a period of national stress, and have been rewarded with less than will provide not only for social efficiency but also for mere subsistence. Two-thirds of the women who replace men in the State of New York receive less than $15 a week. Their wages hover around a mode of $13 a week with a group of 1,531 women receiving women receiving less than $12 a week. Although some women leaving peace employment at $8$10 a week have bettered themselves by taking over men's work, for a great many of them, it was a change of work without an increase in pay. 23 If the actual wages received by women in men's places are surprising when compared with the cost of subsistence, the wages of women compared with the wages of the men whom they have replaced afford field for reflection. Comparisc Wages wi Have Of 78 plants offering the comparative wages of of Women men and women on the same work, 16 or 20% pay women those of the same rate paid the men whom they replace. Of all Men They women replacing men nine per cent receive equal pay. It placed. is to be noted, however, that the higher the pay of the man replaced the smaller the chance of the woman replacing him to receive it. The highest paid men received $22.00, $24.00, $28.80, $34.50 and $35.00 a week. The women who took their places did so at a reduction of $10.00, $12.00, $17.70, $19.50 and $14.88 a week, respectively. The majority of men replaced at equal wages received between $12.00 and $15.00 a week, a wage which is an extremely low wage for men, but approaches the average wage paid to women throughout the State and is less than it costs a woman supporting no one but herself to live. TABLE II SHOWING AMOUNT OF WAGES PAID TO WOMEN Among women taking men's places and receiving a smaller wage, discrimination begins at less than one dollar and rises to $19 a week. Over one-half the women receive $4 per week or more less than men, 33% receive $6 per week or more less than men, while 3% receive $10 or more less than men. Over one-half or 6,477 receive between 65% and 75% of what the same firms pay the men employed on the same work. 39 plants out of 87 (over 50%) pay women less than 75% of the men's wages. The complete story is told in the following table: TABLE III SHOWING RELATION OF WAGES OF WOMEN RE- of Wome Their Efficienc An effort to relate women's wages to their industrial Compart efficiency is disappointing. Logically, it would seem safe wages to assume from an isolated statement of wage rates such Producti as the foregoing that women were receiving less than men in the same work for one of two reasons. First, because though possible expedients in an emergency, they were impossible substitutes when men could again. be secured; or, second, that although satisfactory at the rate of wages paid, they would be an economic loss at the higher men's rate. Both alternatives hang upon the relative production of men and women workers. The |