Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

The interesting thing about our organization is that it represents employers and employees as well. Among our group, over a period of years, we have consistently supported this bill, even with about 25 percent of our membership being employers.

Mr. MACKINNON. Has there been any material change in the form of the bill through the years?

Miss HUSTON. There have been changes made, minor changes from time to time.

Mr. MACKINNON. The principle is substantially the same?
Miss HUSTON. The principle has remained the same.

Mr. MACKINNON. Thank you.

Mr. McCONNELL. You say there have been changes in the bill, would one of those changes be this phrase, "transactions and operations affecting commerce"?

Miss HUSTON. I have not been close enough to it over a period of time to give you that answer.

Mr. MACKINNON. I can say this, Mr. Chairman: Nobody thought of using the standard, "affecting commerce," until a few years ago.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do you have any statistics on the number of women who have been discriminated against, as to the quality and quantity of their work, and so on?

We know

Miss HUSTON. Of course, it has increased since the war. that. We know it was relaxed during the war. We are beginning in our offices to receive notification of discrimination. The amount is increasing, that is, where the women are being paid a lower amount for doing comparable work.

Mr. McCONNELL. In what type of industry do those discriminations occur?

Miss HUSTON. They occur in many types of industry. Of course, I agree with you gentlemen in your implication that as a whole it referred more to the factory worker and industry where the yardstick is much easier to use. But my organization stands firmly on the point that women should not be discriminated against in any type of work merely by the fact that they are women. We believe the measuring rod should be qualification rather than sex. Mr. McCONNELL. You believe we should pass a law that women should not be discriminated against in any way?

Miss HUSTON. Yes. I think we should for this reason: That it is the greatest discrimination there is today, against women. It is traditional that women shall not be paid as much as men. It is a long-established policy that has always been. That is why I think there should be a law.

Mr. McCONNELL. You feel a national law would accomplish that purpose.

Miss HUSTON. I think it would establish a national policy which, with a certain amount of teeth in it, would help to remedy the situation.

Mr. McCONNELL. Education and the general training of employers would not change that? It would not get any better?

Miss HUSTON. I don't believe it would get any better.

Mr. McCONNELL. Leaving out the war episode where they did go after it as a national policy, has there been general improvement through the years? I asked that of Mrs. Douglas this morning and I did not think she was familiar with the facts in connection with it. Miss HUSTON. In what type of work do you mean, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCONNELL. In industry. Has there been less discrimination against women receiving the same amount of money as the men? Has there been less of that in recent years, or has it remained just about the same?

Miss HUSTON. I think it has remained about static in that bracket. I would say in the higher skilled and salaried brackets there has been a greater acceptance of women on an equality basis with men. in industry and that type of work, I do not think there has been.

But

Mr. McCONNELL. I had been under the impression that a lot of that was breaking down and there was more of a tendency to pay the women the same as men if they did the same type of work and turned out approximately the same quantity of production.

Miss HUSTON. You are eliminating the war period, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.

Miss HUSTON. I would say there has not been.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do you have statistics to prove that?

Miss HUSTON. I do not have that.

Mr. McCONNELL. In other words, it is just your general impression?

Miss HUSTON. That is right.

Mr. McCONNELL. You have seen no figures to justify that judgment?

Miss HUSTON. I do not have figures.

Mr. McCONNELL. Have you ever seen figures to justify that judgment?

Miss HUSTON. I am sure the Women's Bureau would have such figures.

Mr. McCONNELL. If you could find such figures, would you supply them to the committee, please?

Miss HUSTON. Yes, I shall.

Mr. MACKINNON. What do you think about the permanency argument, that from the nature of the situation a woman's employment might, in some circumstances, be less permanent?

Miss HUSTON. Mine has been very permanent.

Mr. MACKINNON. I refer to the average situation.

Miss HUSTON. I was interested in your remark on that subject. As a woman who deals with an organization of employed women I don't see how you are going to know the permanency of either a man or woman when you employ them. I will go back to your example of a man stenographer. Very few men are content to remain a man stenographer for the rest of their lives. Are they going to be any more permanent than the girl who comes in and you discriminate against her because she is a woman? There is a possibility she might marry, but many of them return to work.

I don't see how in the beginning you can ever establish a measuring rod of permanency between a man and woman on that basis.

Mr. MACKINNON. Don't you think that has been one of the factors that they may have actually weighed in many instances in arriving at a decision to pay some women less?

Miss HUSTON. Indeed, I think you are quite right.

Mr. MACKINNON. It has been the lack of permanency?

Miss HUSTON. It has been the idea that there would be lack of permanency, and it has been continually built up as a barrier against

women.

Mr. MACKINNON. I don't think that is the full causal factor. I recognize that is only one of the factors that may have caused women to be discriminated against as to wages. I believe one of the other factors is they do not think they have to pay them as much. It did occur to me that as a group in some types of employment at least they were less permanent and that they consequently were less valuable because you are constantly faced with the problem of training replacements.

To that extent it occurred to me that the discrimination recognized a physical fact that cannot be ignored.

Miss HUSTON. That has been the argument, there is no doubt about that. But when you look back at the stability of men and women on the job, the woman has just as good a record, if not better, as the man.

Mr. MACKINNON. You mean while they are working?

Miss HUSTON. Yes.

Mr. MACKINNON. I am not arguing about that, and I am not arguing against the proposition in general. I am just inquiring for the sake of information whether this is a valid ground for distinction. I realize it should not result in the total discrimination that presently exists, but it occurs to me it is a substantial distinction that in some instances not all-it might be a proper ground for different treatment; not to the extent that we have it, but for different treatment. Do you think that is a valid ground?

Miss HUSTON. Oh, I do not.

Mr. MACKINNON. You don't think permanency is of any consequence?

Miss HUSTON. I don't see how you have permanency based on sex. We could go into a long dissertation on that. We could go into an entirely different angle that does not come directly into this.

Mr. MACKINNON. Take an industry that has been in existence for 50 years. They have employed women. They have determined that the women they have employed there stay with them an average of 4 years. They have also employed men in interchangeable positions, primarily office work, and things of that character. They have determined that the average male employee stays with them an average of 11 years. That is the actual experience in their business. I am speaking of a particular case that I know of. Now, do you think that might justify some different treatment in the wage scales to the two groups?

Miss HUSTON. I don't think you can lay down that hard and fast rule that the male will stay with you longer.

Mr. MACKINNON. No; I don't think so, either, but here you have a business that has that experience over a 50-year period.

Miss HUSTON. And I don't see any reason to gamble on the salary by paying the male more, because he is a male, because he might stay with you longer. That is what you are doing. You are gambling that much money on the male because it is traditional that he is more permanent there; that the woman will marry and go home-"To what home" was something that was said by someone this morning, but that is often the angle that is taken. You are just gambling that much money with the hope that he will stay with you, never taking into consideration that the male is naturally ambitious; that he is going to want to move on; that he is going to move on to higher things if he can.

Mr. MACKINNON. But the employer can compete against that. He cannot compete as well against the natural desire of the woman, in many instances, to want to leave and get a home. In many instances no reasonable amount of money he could pay her would cause her to change her mind in that connection. That is true, isn't it?

Miss HUSTON. Yes and no. I will straddle the fence on that one. I think there are many girls just as ambitious to get ahead as there are men. You are measuring all women by the fact that they are

women.

Mr. MACKINNON. Well, the conclusion I came to was it would seem to me there would be some cases that would justify different treatment. I recognize the fact that in a hundred other situations that would not be the case, but I cannot escape the fact that there would be some cases where the experience of the company through the years might be such as to justify different treatment.

Miss HUSTON. Of course, your argument is a straight argument for discrimination on account of sex. That is straight discrimination on

account of the fact that she is a woman.

Mr. MACKINNON. Well, I am seeing what your response is to that argument. We will similarly test the arguments of the opponents where the situation proves there are certain factors-where the recognized distinction between the two groups does result in one employee being more beneficial than the other.

Miss HUSTON. Even though she does comparable work at the time that she is there she is to be discriminated against from the beginning? Mr. MACKINNON. I am asking you. You don't think permanency is of any value? That is my original question. Miss HUSTON. I employ 37 people, all women. anything about it as far as permanency goes. Mr. McCONNELL. All women?

Miss HUSTON. All women.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is discrimination.

You can't tell me

Miss HUSTON. I see the point you are trying to make, but I do not agree with you.

Mr. MACKINNON. I am not trying to make it; I am asking it. I am wondering if a reasonable anticipation of permanency of employment may be of any value in certain businesses.

Miss HUSTON. My answer to you would be that permanency is not based on sex.

Mr. MACKINNON. Thank you.

Mr. McCONNELL. We thank you for appearing here today. Miss Christman, of the National Women's Trade Union League. Please give your name to the reporter, your address and telephone number.

STATEMENT OF ELISABETH CHRISTMAN, SECRETARY-TREASURER NATIONAL WOMEN'S TRADE UNION LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Miss CHRISTMAN. My name is Elisabeth Christman, secretarytreasurer of the National Women's Trade Union League of America. The address is 317 Machinists Building, Washington, D. C. The telephone number is National 1358. I gave you my new telephone number.

Mr. McCONNELL. You may correct that later, if you find it in

correct.

Miss CHRISTMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: The National Women's Trade Union League, representing women who must work for a living, takes the position that discrimination against women in rates of pay should be prohibited by law, and therefore supports the proposed bill, H. R. 4408, which clearly states "that the existence in industry of wage differentials based on sex is an inequity which constitutes an unfair wage practice.'

[ocr errors]

This is a labor-standards bill and will prevent women from being exploited. Equal pay is a matter of simple justice. It insures women receiving the wage rate they are entitled to for the work they do. Also one rate for the job protects fair employers from unfair competition of those who attempt to use women as undercutters of men's wages.

Women are employed on more jobs and in more occupations than at any time in our industrial history, in peacetime. For this reason it is vital to establish on wage standard for the job. There is no sex differential when men and women pay for the goods they buy. Grocery stores do not have double standard price tags, one for men customers, one for women. A loaf of bread has its price and it makes no difference whether a woman pays for it or a man. That 20-percent tax on movie tickets is not reduced when a woman buys the ticket. There are no male or female tax rates.

May I review briefly how long the struggle to obtain equal pay has been going on. As far back as 1907 the National Womens Trade Union League was urged to do something about this unfair practice. In 1915, the Committee on Industrial Relations, created by Congress, recommended that both public opinion and legislative recognize "the principle that women should receive the same compensation as men for the same service."

Mr. Chairman, I have a very deep feeling about this whole situation. The dual-wage system prevailed when I was employed in one of the largest glove factories in the Middle West. Employers seem to feel that wage differentials are just a part of the system established by long usage, without regard to the human element. It is like a bad practice that prevailed for a long time in the needle trades where the individual worker was charged for power or machine rent at the rate of 50 cents a week, and was also charged for needles and machine oil. Some employers felt they could not stay in business if this practice were eliminated. We had a strike to get rid of this evil, and I was in that strike. These employers are still in business and flourishing.

The War Labor Board of World War I enunciated the equal-pay principle. Some progress was made toward elimination of this discrimination against women, but the roots remained and the practice continued to flourish. During the NRA we protested against the dual-wage system in industrial codes and prevented the adoption of sex differentials in codes covering 71 industries. The War Labor Board in World War II, in its General Order No. 16, directed adoption and application of the principle that women should be paid the same wage rates as men for comparable work.

There may be some who wonder why the Women's Trade Union League, an organization concerned primarily with promoting the interests of women workers through union organization, should be so strongly convinced of the need for a Federal law prohibiting wage discriminations against women. There are two answers to the ques

« ForrigeFortsett »