RESPONSIBILITY Responsibility means the degree of responsibility as measured by the seriousness of those acts which a workman is expected to carry out in the ordinary performance of his job, and the degree of reliance placed on his performing his work satisfactorily as expressed by the presence or absence of any subsequent checking of his acts. Responsibility includes: I. Reliance The term "reliance" is defined as that dependence or trust placed upon the human characteristic of the employee which cannot be replaced by mechanical contrivances. Reliance shall be measured by the number of phases of responsibility qualified by the degree to which each is present. Typical phases are: Care to prevent equipment damage. Care to prevent material loss. Meet and maintain quality standards. Meet and maintain production schedules. Maintain proper precautions for the safety of others. Keep proper records of production and quality, etc. It must be remembered that all employees are responsible for fulfilling some or all of the above items to some degree. Only in those cases where failure to carry out a phase of responsibility properly will result in some serious consequence to the company is it to be considered for this factor. The degree to which each of the above phases are present will vary from normal to exceptional. Normal: Failure to carry out the responsibility will result in minor trouble or loss to the company. Above normal: Failure to carry out the responsibility will result in some trouble or loss to the company. Considerable: Failure to carry out the responsibility will result in substantial trouble or loss to the company. Exceptional: Failure to carry out the responsibility will result in serious trouble and/or loss to the company. Reliance has the following range: 1. Normal reliance in one or two phases of responsibility. 2. Above normal reliance in one or two phases of responsibility. 3. Considerable reliance in one or two phases or above normal in several phases of responsibility. 4. Considerable reliance in several phases of responsibility. 5. Considerable reliance in many phases or exceptional in one or two phases of responsibility. 6. Exceptional reliance in several phases of responsibility. 7. Exceptional reliance in many phases of responsibility. 8. Exceptional reliance in all phases of responsibility. II. Job complexity The complexity of the job which is assigned to the employee directly reflects the responsibility requirements expected of the employee. Usually the more complex and difficult the job the greater the responsibility that must be assumed. Job complexity will range from routine to complex job. Routine job: The duties involved in performing the job are easily learned and require little skill and/or judgment with few problems and with slight effect on the over-all operation or process. Semicomplex job: The duties involved in performing the job require some experience and considerable skill and/or judgment. Complex job: The duties involved in performing the job require considerable training and a high degree of skill and/or judgment with a considerable number of difficult problems and with considerable effect in the over-all operation or process. Job complexity has the following range: A. Routine type job. B. Semicomplex job or wide variety of simple jobs. Authority or leadership deals with the importance of directing the efforts of others. The variables to be considered are the size of the group supervised, the importance of the work which the group performs, and the scope of the field as covered by the authority of the supervisor. Leadership points shall be applied only to those jobs selected as the position for the leader or assistant leader of the operation. The term "supervision" does not necessarily refer to personal supervision. Detailed written or oral instructions may take the place of on-the-spot supervision. In evaluating leadership, consideration is given to the type of job supervised, the number of workers supervised, and whether the workers are grouped or scattered. Leadership includes: I. Type of job supervised Routine job: The duties involved in performing the job are easily learned, require little skill and/or judgment. Semicomplex job: The duties involved in performing the job require some experience and considerable skill and/or judgment with a number of problems and with a substantial effect on the over-all operation or process. Complex job: The duties involved in performing the job require considerable training and a high degree of skill and/or judgment with a considerable number of difficult problems and with considerable effect on the over-all operation or process. "Type of job supervised" has the following range: 1. Routine type job. 2. Wide variety of simple type jobs. 3. Semicomplex type job. 4. Wide variety of semicomplex jobs. 5. Complex type job. 6. Wide variety of complex jobs. II. Number of people supervised Refers to the number of people under the supervision of the supervisor. This is to be the normal number and not the extremes created by very low or high periods of work. It is recognized that all other things being equal it is more difficult to supervise crews scattered over several floors than to supervise a crew centralized in one section or area. A scattered group is considered one that is impossible to observe from one or two adjacent points. The following approximate figures will be used in determining the size of the group supervised: 1. Small group-up to approximately 10. 2. Medium group-up to approximately 20 3. Large group-up to approximately 35. 4. Very large group over 35. "Number of people supervised" has the following range: B. Medium group centralized or small group scattered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Grove, I want to thank you personally for appearing here. Your practical experience has been helpful to the committee. Mr. GROVE. Thank you. Mr. McCONNELL. That is the final witness for the day. I believe there is a statement to be read before the committee, Mr. Graham. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. McCONNELL. I think the statement is from Congresswoman Mrs. Margaret C. Smith of Maine, the sponsor of the bill being considered by this committee.. Mr. GRAHAM. Mrs. Smith has been unable to attend any of these hearings. She requested that the following statement be read into the record as setting forth her position in regard to H. R. 4408, which she introduced [reading]: STATEMENT OF MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SECOND DISTRICT, MAINE, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 4408 This bill, H. R. 4408, calls for equality, not advantages, for either sex. The direct purpose of the bill is to assure the payment of at least an established rate to any persons doing a comparable quality and quantity of work. The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be challenged. Women's response to the call for workers during the war, together with the record of their achievements many times in tasks for which there had been no experience and training, emphasized the need to establish the principle in law. Women have become a permanent part of our productive force. Each worker, regardless of sex, must be recognized as an American citizen entitled to being paid on the basis of work done. I believe the enactment of this bill would be of direct benefit to all workers and to the consuming public. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have here a statement of Miss Ruth Craven, executive secretary, in behalf of the National Council of Catholic Women. I ask that it be received in the record at this point. Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF RUTH CRAVEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN The National Council of Catholic Women, a federation composed of 18 national organizations, 75 diocesan councils, and over 4,500 local organizations of Catholic women, representative of over 5,000,000 Catholic women, wishes to convey to you its endorsement of the principle of equal pay for equal work, and to request that this endorsement be incorporated in the hearings on H. R. 4408, a bill providing equal pay for equal work for women, and for other purposes. The principle of equal pay for equal work has long been recognized among Catholic groups as just and necessary-just, because individuals performing the same amount and quality of work should receive the same wage; necessary, because undercutting of the wage scale by one or another group in society prevents the attainment of the social goal-a family living wage. As far back as 1929, the National Council of Catholic Women approved a report of its industrial committee which among other statements recommended "We hold to the right of al iving wage for all men and women who work. * * * We hold also to the justice of equal pay for women when they do equal work with men." As late as 1946, the National Council of Catholic Women adopted a resolution at its national convention which reads as follows: "A Federal law should also be passed to supplement the wages-hour laws and guarantee to women pay equal with men for equal kinds of work." The position of the National Council of Catholic Women, therefore, is quite obvious. While the Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees an equal minimum wage for men and women, it does not provide for equal pay above the minimum rate. Consequently, to insure justice, some provision should be made for equal pay for equal work above the minimum scale. This statement is limited solely to the fundamental principle involved in H. R. 4408. We do not wish, in this communication, to discuss the merits of the proposed administrative procedure designed to enforce this principle. We realize, however, that effective administration is necessary in order to implement fully the right of equal pay for equal work. Difficult though this may be, it is our opinion that the principle should not thereby be sacrificed; it is too important to the welfare of the women of this country and to the national interest. We assure you of our wholehearted support of the principle of the bill-equal pay for equal work. Mr. GRAHAM. I also have a statement from the Illinois Manufacturers' Association which has been forwarded by Mr. James L. Donnelly, executive vice president, which sets forth the statement of Mr. David R. Clarke, the general counsel of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, with regard to the Equal Pay Act. I ask that it be accepted. Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection it will be accepted. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF DAVID R. CLARKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, CHICAGO, ILL., IN BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, CONCERNING H. R. 4408, A BILL TO ENACT THE WOMEN'S EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1947, Pending BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE The Illinois Manufacturers' Association, with a membership of approximately 4,500 members, embraces industries of all sizes-large, small, and middle-sizeengaged in a wide variety of production. However, the great bulk of its members are quite small, over 70 percent employing less than 200 persons. The membership of the association represents, we believe, a true cross section of American industry. We are opposed to the enactment of this bill. The premises stated in section 1 of the bill are not true, and there is no neeed or occasion for burdening American employers, employees, or taxpayers with the onerous bureaucracy, the interference with liberty and freedom, and the huge expenditure of public money that this bill contemplates. The prohibitions set forth in section 2 of the bill are so indefinite, so ambiguous, and so uncertain that employers and employees alike could not know in the case of the employment of any woman, whether the employment is or is not in violation of the law and subject to the serious penalties of back pay that would accumulate over indefinitely extended periods of time before and during the operation of the ponderous enforcement machinery which the bill contemplates will be set up and operated by the Department of Labor. In the case of every woman employee, in every one of the millions of jobs filled by women in America, every employer who employes those women would be confronted with the impossible problem of determining each day what would be the conclusion of some one of hundreds of Department of Labor agents as to whether the particular work done by each such woman is of "compable character;" whether she works at a "job the performance of which requires comparable skills"; whether she does a "comparble quality of work"; whether she does a "comparable quantity of work"; and whether she is working on "similar operations" when compared to the work of every man employee the employer employs. And the employer would be subject to the serious penalty involved in the payment of accumulated back pay if in any particular case he should miss his guess as to what the Department of Labor agent would hold. We submit that if anyone will but consider the infinite millions of variations in the operation of business and industry in "jobs," in "skills," in "quantity,” in "quality," in "operations," and then if he will contemplate the uncertainty and indefiniteness of the phrase "comparable character," "comparable skills,' ""comparable quality," "comparable quantity," and "similar operations," when applied to the daily and hourly operations of business and industry, he will realize the utter impracticability of this bill. We submit that this bill would result in the building of an ever-increasing, ever more complex, ever more burdensome bureaucracy that would, of necessity, fail to provide anything other than a costly, burdensome, and destructive bureaucracy. We submit that as a practical matter the bill would render the employment of women so hazardous to employers that women would be greatly handicapped thereby so far as concerns their employment in the future at all. The involvement into which an employer would be thrown by the operation of this bill and the uncertainties and risks that such employment would bring would be so great as to make the employment of women in business and industry a most hazardous undertaking. The huge machinery of administration, the broad investigatory powers, the powers of prosecutor, judge, and jury that are vested in the Department of Labor by this bill, the practically complete elimination of power in the courts to review the determinations of the Department of Labor under this bill-all, when added to the indefinite, ambiguous, and uncertain description of what is to be prohibited and with respect to which employers of women are to be investigated, prosecuted, |