office, are paid a higher rate for the same or comparable work, simply because those workers are men.

Such resentments adversely affect the efficiency of the women workers and eventually, if the basic cause is not removed, the production of the shop as a whole is affected. That this kind of situation tends to develop into actual labor unrest is a fact to which the files of the War Labor Board bear ample witness. If the committee is interested, I have a copy of a study by the War Labor Board of dispute cases handled by it during the war when the matter of equal pay was involved.

With higher and higher proportions of women workers in the factories and other work places over the Nation legislation such as this bill will make a genuine contribution to peaceful labor relations, full efficiency, and high production.

The payment of lower rates to women for work comparable with men's has another adverse effect on the best use of workers. By creating so-called men's jobs and women's jobs it cuts down free choice of work opportunities for all. Men will not take women's jobs because of their lower rates of pay, and men resent the hiring of women for men's jobs for fear that the rates will be cut if women are brought in. This creates what might be called a frozen labor market, and industry itself suffers because of it. It is to industry's advantage that workers be able to move freely, as the situation demands, from one job to another, but the artificial barrier set up by unequal wage rates prevents industry from employing workers on the most efficient basis. The widespread establishment of a rate for the job, irrespective of sex, would make a genuine contribution toward creating labor mobility and increased industrial efficiency.

The committee will agree, I am sure, that the objectives of the proposed bill are worthy. The question is, Will the Women's Equal Pay Act accomplish these purposes?

H. R. 4408 and H. R. 4273 seek to correct or reduce injurious effects on the national economy by eliminating discriminatory wage practices against women. To this end, section 2 prohibits employers engaged in operations affecting commerce and employing eight or more individuals from paying any woman employee at a lower rate than that paid to male employees for work of comparable character on jobs requiring comparable skills.

At the outset, it seems to me important to recognize that the bill provides what is essentially a quasi judicial proceeding, designed to determine the rights of individual women workers in particular circumstances. Both the workers and the circumstances will differ from case to case. Application of the equal-pay principle as stated in section 2 requires that in a given instance, one or more indivual women workers shall be paid at rates no lower than rates paid to men doing comparable work at a particular period of time. This legislation does not seek to establish equal pay by a wholesale method. This is a fundamental provision, which directly affects both the basic standards of the bill and the type of administration it provides for.

The second important fact that should be recognized is that H. R. 4408 and H. R. 4273 do not involve rate fixing. They do not authorize the Federal Government to set rates of pay, either in the aggregate or for individuals. No authority is given by this legislation to establish over-all rates for a particular industry or a particular type of

work, or even determine the fair dollar value of the services of a given worker in a specific job. Where the Secretary finds in a particular case, on the basis of a hearing and after full consideration of the facts, that an employer has paid discriminatory wage rates to a woman employee he can order the employer to cease the discrimination and to pay back wages. The money rates paid by the employer remain in the area of private determination so long as he does not discriminate against the woman employee by paying her less for comparable work. The bills establish two principal criteria for determining whether the work is in fact comparable. One test relates to whether job content is substantially the same. The other refers to whether the skills required for performance are similar. The bills permit reasonable flexibility in the application of these criteria. For example, they make allowances for learners' rates while employees are acquiring full skills for the job. The only real test as to whether equal pay would be required under the bills is job content, that is, what the worker, man or woman, is expected to do by way of job operation. If there are trivial or insignificant differences in job content this should not be used as justification for different rates.

There are justifiable bases for differences in wage rates as between men and women just as there are between individuals of the same sex. Payments of higher rates pursuant to established nondiscriminatory merit increase or seniority systems do not constitute discriminatory practices, and the bills expressly except them. However, where men are employed at higher entrance rates than women doing comparable work, or are paid higher rates under an automatic-progression system, the employer is engaging in discriminatory wage practices against women and would come within the terms of the bills.

The pending legislation provides for administration of the equalpay law in the Department of Labor where, I believe, enforcement of labor-standards laws rightfully belongs. The bills give the Secretary of Labor the usual investigatory powers, including the right to examine and copy pay rolls, to question employees, issue subpenas, administer oaths, and conduct hearings. They set up certain enforcement procedures at the administrative level, consisting of issuance of a formal complaint against the employer, an administrative hearing, administrative findings of fact, and issuance of cease-and-desist orders where violation is found. Enforcement of the Secretary's orders is placed in the courts and the bills also provide for judicial review on appeal of any aggrieved person.

The bills provide adequate legal safeguards for the rights of both employers and workers. An employer against whom complaint proceedings are instituted must have adequate notice, the right to file an answer, and an opportunity to be heard. At such hearing, formal rules of evidence are not controlling, but a written record must be kept of the proceedings. The bills require the Secretary of Labor to state his findings of fact. If he finds that no violation has occurred, he dismisses the complaint. If he finds a violation, he issues a cease-and-desist order directing the employer to cease violating and he may also require back pay and reinstatement of women workers who have been discharged to avoid the necessity of "equal pay." The Secretary must apply to the Federal courts for enforcement and any aggrieved person has the right of appeal.

I would like to take time here to explain how the administrative procedures provided in the bill would work in practice and why they

seem to me to be an appropriate and effective way of eliminating wage discrimination against women workers. The procedures established are peculiarly designed to carry out the provisions of section 2, which prohibits an employer engaged in operations affecting commerce, who has eight or more persons in his employ, from discriminating against any woman employee by paying her at a lower rate than he pays a man employee for comparable work.

The equal-pay principle as established in section 2, is the essence of the legislation and in order to enforce it there must be factual determinations in specific instances as to whether specified women and men employees actually are doing comparable work.

The first step in the enforcement process, as is the case with most types of labor law already administered in the Department would normally be a plant visit and inspection. Such inspection would begin with examination of pay roll and other records to determine whether women were being paid as high a rate as men in the same job classification. Since most employers are law-abiding it is expected that the usual inspection would end there. Once the principle of equal pay is stated in Federal law, employers generally could be expected to review their job classification and personnel rating methods and make the necessary adjustments to give women equal pay for comparable work. The State of New York is administering an equalpay law and I am advised that the industrial commissioner recently stated that in his opinion wide compliance has resulted from the mere fact of having the law on the books.

Should the inspector find, however, that women were paid less than men in the same job category or if the records were not clear or raised some question as to accuracy, the inspector would need to study the jobs on which the men and women in question were employed, to analyze the job requirements and compare the actual performance of the workers on the particular job.

The technique of job analysis and comparison which is involved in this legislation is an accepted industrial practice widely used by both employers and organized workers. Various Government as well as private agencies have had experience in applying the job analysis and classification techniques. Among them are several bureaus within the Department of Labor, including the United States Employment Service which has developed a comprehensive job classification system, and the Women's Bureau which has had specialized experience in analyzing the components of women's jobs.

The usefulness and feasibility of job analysis as a method of eliminating wage discriminations were discussed in great detail in testimony on the previous Federal equal pay bill, S. 1178, by the Director of the Women's Bureau-see pages 23-27 of report on S. 1178 of the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, October, 1945.

Data there presented included material from the American Management Association, collective bargaining agreements, War Labor Board reports and cases, Women's Bureau surveys of war industries, and a number of other Labor Department studies and programs. I believe job analysis is feasible. It is important to emphasize here, however, that the technical knowledge and training which it requires make it especially desirable that the fact-finding process be conducted through the flexible machinery of administrative proceedings rather than by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

To determine whether women workers are performing comparable work for less pay, the inspector who goes to the plant must have a broad understanding of industrial processes as well as familiarity with personnel classification methods. The supervisor who reviews the inspector's findings and the official who presides at a hearing where the employer has an opportunity to present his side of the case should have similarly expert knowledge. The administrative procedures established in the legislation take into account the specialized character of the initial fact-finding process, and are a recognized way of dealing with them. I believe the procedures provide a sound basic framework which, as a practical matter, will facilitate the accomplishment of the legislative purpose, that of securing equal pay for women.

In addition to provisions for quasi-judicial proceedings at the administrative level to determine the rights of individuals, the bills also provide for establishment of tripartite industry committees to make special studies and recommend methods to facilitate accomplishment of the fundamental purpose, the elimination of wage discrimination. This is desirable because of the practical experience and knowledge of industry that labor and employer members bring to such a committee and the balance provided by impartial public members. The value of tripartite industry committees has been amply demonstrated by experience under both State and Federal law and I believe such procedure, as incorporated in the present bills with appropriate administrative standards and legal safeguards, offers an effective method of facilitating the widespread application by industry of the equal pay principle.

Miss Miller, Director of the Women's Bureau, will give testimony concerning practices by the States and in private industry concerning the equal-pay principle. I would, however, like to refer briefly to a study made by the National Association of Manufacturers, conducted early in 1942, of 550 companies which were described as representing a fairly typical cross-section of the war industries at that time.

I do not know what attitude the National Association of Manufacturers has on the subject of equal pay for women today. I would, however, like to quote a few factual excerpts from its 1942 report as follows:

We believe that women can satisfactorily fill all or most jobs performed by men, subject only to the limitations of strength and physical requirements. However, although true, this statement should not preclude recognition of the fact that jobs which by nature are particularly dirty, dusty, hot, or wet, are not desirable for women and should not be performed by women until after other more suitable jobs have been filled.

There is little difference between men and women as regards their satisfactory performance in industry. Sound employment and personnel practices are applicable to both men and women and no emphasis should be placed on any distinctions between them as workers.

In the matter of wage policies we advocate the principle of equal pay for equal performance by women. In effectuating this policy it is essential that consideration be given to methods whereby "equal work" may be measured. In this connection we recommend that industry give thought to the wider use of such techniques as job analysis and evaluation to determine the precise nature of the job and the elements comprising it.

We have already gone some distance toward remedying this longstanding injustice to women-of unequal pay for comparable work, but there is urgent need for further action. Millions of women workers are not protected against this gross inequity either by State

laws or by union contracts. Hundreds of fair employers who are paying "the rate for the job," regardless of sex must still compete with those who are willing to take advantage of the weaker bargaining position of women. The gains that have been made through voluntary action and through War Labor Board influence during the war years can be retained on a lasting basis only by establishing equal pay for equal work by law, a law which is clearly in the national

interest.

In concluding, however, I should like to say this: that laying aside all the sound economic reasons for establishing equal pay for women, I think this bill should become law because it is a matter of simple justice. If a woman does the same job or a job requiring comparable skill she ought to be paid the same rate as a man. There is no sex differential in the food she buys or the rent she pays. There should be none in her pay envelope. I still believe in the truth of the old adage and I commend it to this committee, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire."

That concludes my prepared statement.

I would like to call attention of the committee to the fact that in this statement-if you will take the bill and look at the top of page 3-I have not discussed subsection (2) of section 2 (a), "for comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations."

I take the position that—and the head of any bureau is entitled to disagree with me, and perhaps Miss Miller will disagree with me— but she has not been able to convince me of the desirability of subsection (2), for some very practical reasons, as I see it.

I do not think it is possible to write into a law and give to a Government agency the power or the skill to determine whether or not work being turned out is of comparable quality.

If you have a woman worker who is doing a complete job, a whole line of them, each one doing a complete job, then it might be possible to determine what is comparable quality. But most of our work is not turned out in that way at the present time.

It seems to me it is within the province of management to determine whether or not they are getting the quality of work that they want out of a worker. If they do not get the quality of work they want they should have and they do have the right of discharge, or they have the right of transferring to some other job.

Quantity of work is about the same. If you have one person doing a complete job and another person doing a complete job, you can figure out how much will be turned out by each one, but I do not think that in most of our manufacturing work, which is done in line production, you can tell who in that line is slowing up the work, who it is that is making the output less. I do not think we should attempt to take away from management the right to have somebody there looking on and making that determination. No inspector representing either the Federal Government or the State Government could come in and say: "It is John Smith here that is slowing up the work." It is going to take a supervisor who is there every day watching the work go out. I am not going to say any more than that.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Secretary, I would agree with your comment there, but where do you protect that right of management in the wording of this bill? I would agree with your statement that management should have that right, but where is management protected in this bill?