STATEMENT OF HELEN MOORE, AN EMPLOYEE OF FISHER BODY CO.: MEMBER OF LOCAL 602, UAW-CIO, LANSING, MICH.

Mrs. MOORE. I am Helen Moore of Lansing, Mich. I am married. I have been a job worker for 26 years.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite to you a case or two that women are confronted with in our plants.

At a plant in Lansing in the early 1920's, women worked on lines. They were interchangeable jobs. In other words, men and women together on the same line, doing the same work. I am going to use one job as an example-striping cars. These women received from 10 to 20 cents less per hour than the men working beside them or across from them. After a time there was dissension and dissatisfaction. They began to cite the State laws which give us equal pay for equal work. The law is very weak, but it is a law.

Management saw fit at the time to take the women off the job with the men, and put up a separate line. In other words, we had a line here with women working with men; they took them off this line and put them on this line here, a separate line. It is a noninterchangeable job. It is nothing but women. They pulled them off one line and put them on the women's line. They again striped cars at a lesser rate-20 cents less.

This went on for quite a long time. Again they were dissatisfied because they were still doing the same work at 10 or 20 cents less per hour. Again they hollered for the Michigan State law.

The management knew they were violating the law and they proceeded to have a wholesale firing of all women at this plant in Lansing. This took place in 1937.

With the aid and the assistance of the UAW they filed charges against this company. It took those women 8 years to collect the pay that was due them, through the courts. Some of them drew as

much as $1,800 back pay.

When those women were working in the plant, Mr. Chairman, most of them had children, I believe. At that time, those children needed the bread, the milk, the shoes, the clothing they wore then, not 8 years later. They wanted it then. It was their money. They did collect their money; they were right.

I think a bill such as H. R. 4273 would greatly improve conditions as a whole.

During the war I worked in a plant making bomb fuzes, which were very vital to our country. That job was so delicate, so skilled that men could not perform the job. We performed the job.

We, too, never got that equal pay, so we entered our claim with the Department of Labor and Industry. We did collect our equal pay. What I am trying to say is that we do have skill; we have the ability; we have the knowledge, but they will not give us a chance to prove our ability. It was proven during the war.

In many plants they do have equal pay, but a greater majority do

not.

I feel this bill would be very beneficial to male and female employees.

The

As Miss Scott stated, it is job security for a man. It means his job will go on because the employer will not hire us at a lower rate. man's job, his home, his rate is more secure.

We had another case in Lansing on equal pay which also was under war work. That has never been settled. They are still asking for equal pay.

I believe the rate of pay should be based on the content of the job and not on the sex of the worker. It is only a matter of simple justice that we ask for. We are entitled to the price for the work which we do, so I feel this bill is very vital to us women and I think it would be a great help throughout the country to both men and women.

Thank you.

Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mrs. Moore.

There were some questions raised during your statement, Mr. Oliver, and also during the statements of the ladies. I thought that through you I would ask the questions. If you wish to consult with either one of them, feel free to do so, but before I ask any questions perhaps my colleagues would like to.

Mr. Madden.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Oliver, you are at the head of the union?

Mr. OLIVER. I am codirector of the fair practices and antidiscrimination department. The director is the president, Mr. Walter P. Reuther.

Mr. MADDEN. When your union officials make a contract with an employer, do they bring up the wage to be paid women during your collective-bargaining processes?

Mr. OLIVER. When we are negotiating a contract on the question of wages it is usually the company who advances the argument as to the wages to be paid women. The union is usually fighting for the standard and principle to have all the jobs on an equal basis, rates based on what kind of performance the job requires as a prerequisite and not what kind of person should do the job, that is, whether they should be male or female.

Mr. MADDEN. Does the employer generally insist or maintain that women in a certain department should be paid less than the men in a certain department, although they are doing the same class of work? Mr. OLIVER. Yes. I cited the example a few moments ago of Delco-Remy.

Mr. MADDEN. I am referring to collective bargaining.

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; we have that resistance by management. They have any number of reasons. We might say this total resistance by management creates dissention among the workers; they do not get proper production. In the creating of that dissension, management holds fast to its position that women should receive less pay. They call it a battle between the sexes. You might call it a battle between the sexes for profits, and I am sure they must have that particular problem or thought in mind.

Mr. MADDEN. That is all.

Mr. McCONNELL. You have job classifications in the automobile companies, do you not?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. McCONNELL. Are they very complete classifications, or are they spotty?

Mr. OLIVER. I don't think I quite understand your question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do the companies have a complete job classification?

71386-48 -13

Mr. OLIVER. In most classifications.

Mr. McCONNELL. They cover all types of employment?

Mr. OLIVER. All types of employment in that particular shop. Mr. MCCONNELL. Under those job classifications, is there discrimination at the present time between men and women?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. McCONNELL. On the same type of job?

Mr. OLIVER. Let us take the ordinary example of a drill press, for example. Here is a good example [indicating]. Here is a woman and a man on a drill press. In some shops they want to pay the women $1.05 and men $1.25 or $1.20.

Mr. McCONNELL. You say some shops. Does that apply to these automobile companies?

Mr. OLIVER. That applies to some of the automobile companies. Mr. McCONNELL. Which ones?

Mr. OLIVER. I have an example here of one particular shop.

Mr. McCONNELL. If you don't happen to know, will you supply the information? If you don't know, please state so, and then supply the information for the committee. You feel certain there are some companies where this exists?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. I have one example here, the Sparks-Worthington Co., at Jackson, Mich. The company subdivided the horn job, which was being done by males only. The male base rate was $1.32 an hour. After the job was subdivided, women were put on the job. The female base rate was $1.05 per hour.

The union, through its collective-bargaining machinery, filed grievances, and men were returned to the job at the base rate of $1.32 an hour.

There was resistance on the part of the company, which did not want to pay the women more than $1.05 per hour.

Mr. McCONNELL. Is that the only one among the automobile companies?

Mr. OLIVER. On the question of differential in rate on the cut-andsew job, on page 12 of our brief, I think it is, it says:

In the Fisher-Pontiac plant we had a wage differential for women which was not wiped out during the war in the cut-and-sew department because the cut-and-sew department did not operate during the war. When the plant opened up, the people went back to the old rates, which were 15 cents out of line based upon equal pay for equal work. We said to the company

And this is where we think the question of industrial strife arises on this whole principle, equal pay for equal work. We told the company: "We are not going back to work until the people get the 15 cents in the cut-andsew department."

The company resisted the grant of the 15-cent increase, plus the 18%-cent increase which was pending. That was the over-all wage increase that was granted at that time, as I think you will recall, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.

Mr. OLIVER. Before we could get the 15 cents, we had to use the strike weapon as a means of convincing management we were for equal pay for equal work and that we were willing to fight for it.

Before the strike was ended, the GM Co. here granted the 15-cent differential, which eliminated the inequity. It resulted in a 15-cent increase plus the 181⁄2-cent increase which was the pattern.

Mr. McCONNELL. That does not exist in the Fisher-Pontiac plant now; is that right?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. McCONNELL. In other words, that is not one of the companies that now has this differential?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. I can supply you a list of those companies. Mr. McCONNELL. Will you please supply them, because I want to have that right here in this part of the testimony.

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir.

(Mr. Oliver subsequently stated that information regarding individual companies is not available, but submitted the following analysis of wage differentials for men and women by jobs in the aircraft engines and parts industry in the Great Lakes region, as indicative of the situation.)

Men's and women's rates for same jobs-aircraft engines and parts-Great Lakes

Men's and women's rates for same jobs-aircraft engines and parts-Great Lakes region-Continued

Minus sign indicates differential against women; plus sign indicates differential in favor of women. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wage Structure, Aircraft Engines and Parts, January, 1945, series 2, No. 10.

He

Mr. McCONNELL. Yesterday, Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach testified before our committee in consideration of H. R. 4408. called for the elimination of section 2 (a) (2). It says in part it "does not discriminate on the basis of sex"

(1) For work of comparable character on jobs the performance of which requires comparable skills; or

(2) For comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations.

He called for the elimination of that No. (2) I have just read, "for comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations."

He felt that should be left to the action of management; that is, to the discretion of the company management.

What is your feeling as to the suggested change of the Secretary of Labor in this bill?

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, we can agree that No. (2) on page 3 should be eliminated, but not for the same reasons as were stated by Secretary Schwellenbach.

I think to take this particular section out would, first of all, simplify the whole procedure.

I believe, under the bill, the Secretary would have the right to issue from time to time regulations and various other things which would be the governing factors in the administration and operation of this bill.

Certainly, with that authority so vested, this section would not be necessary. I think it would cause a lot of problems and questions by the courts on interpretation, and so on.

Mr. McCONNELL. You mean if we eliminated it?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; I mean if we left it in it would cause that kind of thing. When you get into quantity and quality, it strings out into a long proposition.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do you think that should be left to management to determine comparable quantity and quality?

Mr. OLIVER. I would not say it should be in the hands of management to determine comparable quality and quantity. Work performed in the shop usually goes through inspection. These inspectors would be some of the people who more or less determine the quality and quantity of the work.