1. First, the correction of specific instances of discriminatory wage practices against women: Under H. R. 4408 a woman worker must be paid rates not less than those paid men if she performs comparable work. The test of whether women workers paid at lower rates are being discriminated against is whether their work is in fact comparable. While this answer to this question in each instance will depend on an analysis and comparison of specific jobs or job classes, it is a fact that certain general patterns of discriminatory wage practices have developed and are clearly recognizable. In general, there are three principal types of situations where women are performing comparable work but where they are now often denied equal pay. (1) The most obvious situation is where men and women are performing the same operation on the same product. I believe you will agree that here a clear-cut case exists for equal pay. A similarly clear case would exist where a woman replaced a man and satisfactorily performed the work he was previously doing. It is not unusual, even where men and women are employed on the same operations on the same product, to find the woman paid at lower rates for the same work. Some employers discriminate openly; others do it through various devices, as Women's Bureau field studies clearly show. In June, 1942, the Women's Bureau made a survey of 137 plants in New Jersey employing 233,000 workers including 69,000 women, in expanding industries with war contracts, including such traditional women's industries as apparel manufacturing and electrical equipment. The survey showed instances where women were paid from 50 to 58 cents per hour for soldering jobs while men were paid from 70 to 90 cents. Other cases reported showed that men operating the same drill presses as women on identical parts were paid a 10-cent higher base rate, though women excelled in production. Another Women's Bureau survey in 1943 covered 41 basic steel mills employing 279,000 workers. Women constituted 10 percent of all employees and 35 percent of office employees. The survey showed that women clerical employees, a traditional type of work for women, were paid wage rates far below those of the men. perienced women clerical workers who had replaced men were reported receiving $90 per month for office jobs on which men had received $150 and $160 per month. Ex Roundabout methods of wage discrimination against women where their jobs are virtually identical with men may also be illustrated. In the steel-mill survey, for example, the Women's Bureau found that women who replaced men on production jobs usually got the same base rate of pay. This safeguarded the man's base rate while he was away. The joker, however, was that a large proportion of the jobs were on various types of incentives, with group work or group bonuses more common than individual piece work. While the actual earnings of men were increased by bonuses, most of the women were excluded from such benefits. The survey showed that in some plants, all of the women were on a time rather than a piecework basis. Another way of avoiding equal pay for virtually identical work is illustrated by a Women's Bureau survey of employment in the manufacture of cannon and small arms in 1942. In Michigan, which has a State equal-pay law, a number of plants had two basic over-all job classifications, designated as "male" and "female." Both men and women were employed alike on jobs involving inspection, assembly or machine operation. No women's jobs were separately classified however, but were lumped into one general category paying 60 to 76 cents per hour, regardless of the type of work involved. Men's jobs were classified by type of work and the rates varied accordingly. Another Michigan plant in which men and women worked on the same jobs also had a separate classification system for females. In that plant the maximum rates paid to women were lower than the minimum rates paid to men. 2. A second type of situation in which women would be doing comparable work within the meaning of H. R. 4408 is found on a broad range of jobs where the work is basically similar, but where certain distinguishing characteristics are present either in the duties of the job itself or in the conditions surrounding its performance. The woman may make a smaller part, use material that is lighter in weight, or have slight differences in duties. In general, it is clear that slight and inconsequential differences in the job, or differences in factors outside the job and not relevant to its performance are not justifiable grounds for discriminating against women workers in rates of pay. Differences in entrance rates and automatic progression policies would also fall into the area of comparability. Jobs done by women in this general area often are distinguished by so-called paper differences, that is, differences written into the employer's job description which have little relation to the requirements for the worker's actual performance. A common paper difference is the men worker's theoretical ability for other work. In the Women's Bureau survey of the steel industry mentioned previously, the Women's Bureau found that in one plant visited the hourly rate for women crane operators was 11 cents less than that for men because women were not supposed to oil or make repairs on the cranes. Inquiry by Women's Bureau agents revealed that regular maintenance crews took care of servicing, and it was not customary for men to oil or make repairs either. Other types of paper differences are differences in training not reflected in job performance, and inconsequential differences in job duties which men and women are equally capable of doing. Another type of situation is where men's and women's jobs differ in physical strength. The women do almost all parts of the work except heavy lifting. This is not a ground for wage differentials if the division of work results only in specialization of tasks and does not increase production costs. Still another category is where working conditions not a part of job performance are different for men and women. This is illustrated by a series of court cases involving the Michigan equal-pay law, in which the circuit court made some interesting observations, as follows: It is strongly urged by defendant (employer) that the women had a 15-minute rest period morning and evening which the men did not have. The testimony tending to support this claim * *is, in any event, not material. The woman had to turn out the same quantity and quality of work as the men similarly employed. If they did that, the women would be entitled to equal pay * * * * In the women's toilet it appears that there was a hot plate, a sanitary cot, some old rocking chairs, and perhaps a mirror. It is urged by the defendant that this tended to distinguish the work of the women from that of the men, but I am not impressed that the operation of this statute is to be avoided by a difference in the appointment of toilets. 3. H. R. 4408 would apply to a third major type of situation, that where the work involved requires comparable skills. I can best explain how the bill would apply in such cases by describing the experience of women workers employed in an aircraft instrument plant surveyed by the Women's Bureau in 1946. The plant in question made precision instruments. Before the war, workers were roughly classified as unskilled, semiskilled, and skilled workers. All women workers were considered to be unskilled and their employment was limited chiefly to inspection and packing. The war opened up new jobs for women in the skilled and semiskilled categories including machine operators, high-grade inspectors, testers, and assemblers. Women continued to be considered unskilled workers and their hourly rates remained in the lower rate brackets, with only a 20 cent range between the highest and lowest woman's job. Sometime during the war, a worker-management committee was appointed to draw up plans for a new wage structure in the plant. The committee worked with industrial engineers in analyzing, describing, and rating several hundred jobs on the same basis for men and women. The committee proceeded to set up 15 labor grades into which all jobs were fitted. The result was that many of the jobs that were previously classed as unskilled because they were filled by women were moved from the bottom to the near top or midpoint of the rate structure. Jobs on which women were employed were found in all but the two highest grades. Women who performed work requiring comparable skills to men's jobs received equal pay after the job rating plan was installed. Appropriate rate adjustments were made and the spread in the hourly rates paid to individual women widened from 20 cents per hour to 62 cents per hour. The situations I have described are among the principal types in which the investigation and hearing procedure of H. R. 4408 would be utilized to remove wage discriminations against women found to be doing comparable work with men. No Government department or board other than a temporary war agency has yet had the job of factfinding over the whole equal-pay field, consequently no quantitative information exists on the extent of such practices. However, the Women's Bureau continually brings to light individual instances or types of cases in the course of its wage investigations-and instances of wage discriminations such as I have cited could be multiplied indefinitely. H. R. 4408 also seeks to reduce discriminatory practices on an industry-wide basis, through establishment of industry committees authorized to make voluntary recommendations for the industry they represent. Admittedly, such industry committees would be doing pioneering work. The nine State equal-pay laws do not expressly provide for them, but in at least one State, New York, such a committee which the Administrator set up independently did yeoman service in the early period of enforcement by recommending criteria for determining comparability of jobs. Under many other types of law, use of tripartite industry committees is a procedure of proven worth. The fact was repeatedly demonstrated in my own experience as administrator of the New York minimum wage law. The New York Ninety-two percent of the employed women who lived with their families contributed regularly toward family expenses. Over half of them contributed between 50 and 100 percent of their earnings to the family group. Almost all the women who lived alone-one in every five women-supported themselves; some also had dependents. These facts bear out the results obtained in studies made by the Women's Bureau prior to the war period. They are also corroborated by studies made by other groups. Economic responsibilities fall on women in all marital status groups and all ages. Women's economic need is more easily recognized, however, where certain other conditions or circumstances are present. One such condition is where the family has no male head. Another is where, despite the fact of young children, especially children under 6, the woman still seeks outside employment. The typical family is usually pictured as consisting of father, mother, and children. The facts show, however, that in 1940 five and a half million families had a woman head. Not all family heads, either men or women, were in the labor force. In 1940, approximately one-sixth of the Nation's working women were heads of families. Women with young children tend, whenever possible, to devote full time to home responsibility. However, in 1946, among normal families with children under 6 years of age, 9 percent of the wives were employed. In such families where the woman was the head, more than one-third of the mothers worked. In normal families with children over 6 but under 18 years of age, 22.5 percent of the wives worked. In such families headed by women, 50 percent of the mothers worked. The need for equal pay for women is apparent as an abstract proposition on the ground of simple justice. The full realization that women, like men, work out of economic necessity, because they must meet financial responsibilities to support themselves and their dependents, makes women's case for equal pay even more imperative. How the equal-pay bill would affect the woman on the job: I have presented a comprehensive picture of women's position in the labor force, their increasing numbers, and their heavy economic responsibilities. H. R. 4408 would improve their position in certain respects. It would correct wage discrimination against women in interstate. commerce where they are performing work comparable with men, and would promote the economic welfare of women as a class. I would like now to discuss briefly the procedures of that bill in terms of the employment conditions to be corrected, and illustrate by means of concrete instances the various types of situations in which the bill would apply. The Secretary described briefly the principal procedures by which the Federal equal pay bill H. R. 4408 would deal with wage discrimination against women. One procedure is that of job analysis and administrative hearings, the other is industry committee recommendations. The provision for administrative hearings is a method of dealing with specific instances, where a designated employer is paying women employees at lower rates than he pays men employees for comparable work. The other procedure, that of industry committees, is a method of reducing discriminatory wage practices on an industrywide basis, through establishment of standards based on voluntary recommendations by a committee from the industry itself. It believes both procedures are necessary and would be effective to accomplish the general purpose of the bill. 1. First, the correction of specific instances of discriminatory wage practices against women: Under H. R. 4408 a woman worker must be paid rates not less than those paid men if she performs comparable work. The test of whether women workers paid at lower rates are being discriminated against is whether their work is in fact comparable. While this answer to this question in each instance will depend on an analysis and comparison of specific jobs or job classes, it is a fact that certain general patterns of discriminatory wage practices have developed and are clearly recognizable. In general, there are three principal types of situations where women are performing comparable work but where they are now often denied equal pay. (1) The most obvious situation is where men and women are performing the same operation on the same product. I believe you will agree that here a clear-cut case exists for equal pay. A similarly clear case would exist where a woman replaced a man and satisfactorily performed the work he was previously doing. It is not unusual, even where men and women are employed on the same operations on the same product, to find the woman paid at lower rates for the same work. Some employers discriminate openly; others do it through various devices, as Women's Bureau field studies clearly show. In June, 1942, the Women's Bureau made a survey of 137 plants in New Jersey employing 233,000 workers including 69,000 women, in expanding industries with war contracts, including such traditional women's industries as apparel manufacturing and electrical equipment. The survey showed instances where women were paid from 50 to 58 cents per hour for soldering jobs while men were paid from 70 to 90 cents. Other cases reported showed that men operating the same drill presses as women on identical parts were paid a 10-cent higher base rate, though women excelled in production. Another Women's Bureau survey in 1943 covered 41 basic steel mills employing 279,000 workers. Women constituted 10 percent of all employees and 35 percent of office employees. The survey showed that women clerical employees, a traditional type of work for women, were paid wage rates far below those of the men. perienced women clerical workers who had replaced men were reported receiving $90 per month for office jobs on which men had received $150 and $160 per month. Ex Roundabout methods of wage discrimination against women where their jobs are virtually identical with men may also be illustrated. In the steel-mill survey, for example, the Women's Bureau found that women who replaced men on production jobs usually got the same base rate of pay. This safeguarded the man's base rate while he was away. The joker, however, was that a large proportion of the jobs were on various types of incentives, with group work or group bonuses more common than individual piece work. While the actual earnings of men were increased by bonuses, most of the women were excluded from such benefits. The survey showed that in some plants, all of the women were on a time rather than a piecework basis. Another way of avoiding equal pay for virtually identical work is illustrated by a Women's Bureau survey of employment in the manufacture of cannon and small arms in 1942. In Michigan, which has a State equal-pay law, a number of plants had two basic over-all job classifications, designated as "male" and "female." Both men and |