the higher wage was producing? Was there ever any study made of that?

Miss MILLER. Oh, yes.

Mr. MACKINNON. Is it here?

Miss MILLER. I think you will find that is gone into in detail on pages 17 and 18. The first paragraph there of the quotation at the bottom of page 17 compares the average hourly earnings of all the men and women in the occupations. There, of course, you get roughly 50 percent of the men earning more than $1 an hour, and 85 percent of the women earned less. That simply is a generalized statement of what they earned.

Then you go on down to men and women doing similar work, varying numbers with different periods of service, and varying numbers paid by time and piece rates. Those paid by time rates. would, of course, not get recognition for differences in productivity within the job tolerance. Those being paid piece rates do.

Mr. MACKINNON. Where is that?

Miss MILLER. That is the second paragraph.

Mr. MACKINNON. But what are the results on the piecework?
Miss MILLER. The third paragraph gives the result:

If on the basis of the same survey we look only at the earnings of men and women classified in the same job, we find that in all but one of the 27 important classifications studied, in which both men and women were employed, men still have higher average straight time hourly earnings, the differentials ranging on a national basis from 4 cents to 26 cents.

That is on hourly earnings.

Mr. MACKINNON. I thought we were getting into piecework.
Miss MILLER. Yes. Then go to the next paragraph:

If we narrow the comparison further and observe four important Class C occupations in which both men and women were employed, and were paid—

Wait just a minute, please. This one reduces it to a time basis. I think we would have to work the material over to get the incentive out. The intent was to make the most simple comparison on straight time, so that increasingly, you see, we remove the other factors.

Mr. MACKINNON. Referring to your statement at the bottom of page 17, you say that in all except one classification men still have higher average straight-time hourly earnings.

Then on page 18 you say, "Incentive earnings account for some of the differences." That indicates that the productivity of the man was greater, doesn't it?

Miss MILLER. No, not necessarily.

Mr. MACKINNON. Why not?

Miss MILLER. Do you remember I told you in another place there are cases when the women were just plain shut out of the benefits of an incentive system?

Mr. MACKINNON. But let's talk about your analysis here. You say "incentive earnings account for some of the differences." That must mean they were producing more work, doesn't it?

Miss MILLER. Yes, and they were paid for that.

Mr. MACKINNON. They were paid at the same rate, but they produced more.

Miss MILLER. Oh, yes, where there are incentives.

1 Page numbers refer to Miss Miller's prepared statement submitted to the committee. 71386-48-11

Mr. MACKINNON. I think that pretty much answers my question, although I do not think we have anywhere near the information we ought to have on productivity. I think that is the only thing in your whole statement that gets to the question of productivity.

It indicates that in the one study you did make you found the productivity of men was higher than that of women and that accounted for some of the difference in the earnings.

Miss MILLER. I don't believe it says exactly that.

Mr. MACKINNON. That is what you say, "incentive earnings account for some of the differences." Now you say there are other factors, too. You say it does not account for all of it, but it does account for some of it.

Miss MILLER. But the differences may range both ways. We don't know from this, because it wasn't set up that way, whether some of the men did not also fall below.

Mr. MACKINNON. But you do say the men had the higher earnings and that the incentive pay accounted for some of the difference, so that, to the extent we are talking about it here, it all goes one way. I will agree with you there may be cases where it might work the other way, but this group of statistics is not one of them, is it?

Miss MILLER. I do not think that conclusion can be drawn.
Mr. MACKINNON. What other conclusion can you draw?

Miss MILLER. There may have been six times as many men as women, in which case

Mr. MACKINNON. You certainly would not present a case like that? Miss MILLER. We would have to take it on that. There were undoubtedly fewer women than men, because this is an industry that employs a great many men.

Mr. MACKINNON. Your statistics certainly must have reflected a situation that you considered comparable or as a fair basis for over-all legislation.

Miss MILLER. I do not think that enters into it.

Mr. MACKINNON. Well, I do. Do you think that the permanency of an employee is worth anything to an employer?

Miss MILLER. That depends on whether he is a skilled worker whose skills are adapted to that particular establishment; whether the work required of him is work that is more effective if he knows what has gone on in the past.

Mr. MACKINNON. You could answer that yes or no, couldn't you, whether you think permanency is of any value?

Miss MILLER. I do not think it is of general value.

Mr. MACKINNON. You do not think so?

Miss MILLER. No.

Mr. MACKINNON. You do not think it is of any value that one particular worker in a job might have an eventual working experience of only a year or two, then you are faced with the new possibility of hiring another worker and probably starting off with lower productivity and going along for a period of several months while you are fitting in a replacement? You do not think those factors are of any consideration or are to be given any consideration?

Miss MILLER. No significant consideration in a simple competitive type of job. If I were packing candy in a plant that ran a box by me, and I took a piece from a tray in front of me and put it into that box all day long, I think I would know the job in a couple of weeks and could be replaced in a couple of weeks.

Mr. MACKINNON. Do you think you can replace a secretary, for instance, in a couple of weeks?

Miss MILLER. No; I don't. That is why I qualified it.

Mr. MACKINNON. In other words, there are jobs where you do think permanency is of some value in weighing the services of the individual?

Miss MILLER. Definitely, yes, sir. That is exactly why provision is made that such matters as seniority should not come into the establishment of equality of rates.

Mr. MACKINNON. Seniority is an entirely different matter. I recognize the concession you have made to seniority in this particular legislation, or whoever drafted it. They don't want to get that cat by the tail, evidently. But if you are actually going to be fair, if the man is doing the same amount of work or the woman is doing the same amount of work, according to your theory, seniority should not be a factor?

Miss MILLEr. No.

Mr. MACKINNON. But it is recognized?

Miss MILLER. Oh, I think seniority is a valid factor, for the same reason that you do.

Mr. MACKINNON. I am not expressing my opinion; I am only asking questions to determine yours, and to test their soundness.

The next thing I was concerned about was: Do you have in mind the language of the Government order providing for equal wages during wartime for women?

Miss MILLER. Order No. 16 of the War Labor Board.

Mr. MACKINNON. May we have that inserted in the record so the phraseology will be available to the committee?

Miss MILLER. Yes.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

The Board's order, known as General Order No. 16, was adopted on November 24, 1942. It was subsequently amended to delete the requirement for reporting, but the wording of the basic policy was not changed by the amendment. amended January 3, 1944, the Order provided:

As

Adjustments which equalize the wage or salary rates paid to females with the rates paid to males for comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations, and adjustments in accordance with this policy which recognize or are based on differences in quality or quantity of work performed, may be made without approval of the National War Labor Board, provided that

(1) Such adjustments shall be subject to the Board's ultimate power of review, but any modification or reversal thereof will not be retroactive; (2) such adjustments shall not furnish a basis either to increase price ceilings of the commodity or service involved or to resist otherwise justified reductions in such price ceilings. Mr. MACKINNON. Do you have any memory as to how it fits into the language in this bill?

Miss MILLER. The general provision is that of section 2, subsection (2) that

There shall be no discrimination in the payment of wages between the sexes for comparable quantity and quality of work on the same or similar operations.

Mr. MACKINNON. That is a very interesting statement. I had not known before what the contents of the provision were. In other words, the order that put that principle into effect during the war made it apply where the work was of similar quality and quantity. That is just exactly the part that the Secretary of Labor suggested be eliminated from the bill.

Miss MILLER. That is right.

Mr. MACKINNON. And instead of that when we get down to the test to determine whether the work was of comparable character or required comparable skill-I am sure if we put that into the record it will be very informative.

This is my last question. In these trade union contracts that call for equal pay for equal work for women, and I think you testified there were such

Miss MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MACKINNON. Do they actually give equal pay for what you call equal work?

Miss MILLER. Yes. They vary in the language of the contract. Some of them are very general and vary basic and do cover a broad scope of the work. Some of them are very specific. A great many contracts, of course, apply only to a single plant.

Mr. MACKINNON. Do they recognize seniority?

Miss MILLER. Yes, surely.

Mr. MACKINNON. The testimony received here yesterday was that those contracts, even though they do lip service to what you might call equal pay for equal work for women, as a practical matter the net result is they do not provide for it.

Miss MILLER. I am sorry, I did not hear that testimony, so I am not in a position to know what was meant by that.

Mr. MACKINNON. Thank you ever so much. I have appreciated your statement a great deal and I am very thankful for the substantial amount of data you have given us. I am sure it will be very helpful. Miss MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. McCONNELL. Miss Miller, do you think management generally has resisted extending an equal opportunity to women for supplementary training, upgrading, and supervisory work?

Miss MILLER. Yes; I think that is quite general.

Mr. McCoNNELL. Unions also?

Miss MILLER. Yes.

Mr. McCONNELL. I was a little bit surprised at the all-inclusiveness of your statement, but apparently you stand by it.

Miss MILLER. Yes; I do.

Mr. McCoNNELL. Thank you, Miss Miller, very much for appearing.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, could I introduce two statements at this time?

Mr. McCoNNELL. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I have a statement from Mr. T. R. Owens, legislative representative of the United Rubber Workers of America, CIO, and also a statement of Hartman Barber, general representative, Brotherhood of Railroad and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees. Both statements endorse H. R. 4408. May they be placed in the record?

Mr. McCoNNELL. Without objection, so ordered. (The statements are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF T. R. OWENS, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, United RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

It is an obvious principle that work should be paid for at decent wage rates commensurate with the nature of the work and regardless of whether it is performed by a man or a woman. Yet, despite this rational and elementary prin

ciple, American industry has developed a system of wage differentials based on sex which have widespread effects not only on women workers but on men workers, their families, and the entire economy.

The Smith-Douglas equal-pay bill, H. R. 4408, would go far in setting up a workable machinery to eliminate these differentials.

Since the nineteenth century women in industry have been recognized as a group deserving special protection. State legislation has fixed hours of work, specified working conditions, and established minimum wages for women. But none of these matters touches the health and well-being of the woman worker so vitally as her actual wage rate, and here the socially undesirable practice of so-called women's rates has been permitted to develop.

In some cases in the rubber industry we have been able to contract through the organization to eliminate some of the differentials in job evaluations whereby women are paid the same as men, but we have not been successful on the whole in the rubber industry.

The practice of wage differentials based on sex is so widespread that it is still retained in some union contracts despite efforts of unions to establish the principle of equal pay for equal work. Thus the contract between the Continental Can Co., Inc., and the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, provides:

"When a job has been established by custom in the Los Angeles plant as a female job and females or males have done the same work, the female rate shall apply for females."

Lower hiring rates for women than for men are another example of the existence of wage differentials based on sex. There can be no possible justification for fixing different rates for unskilled work on the basis of whether the work is done by men or women. Yet differences in hiring rates for men and women exist despite the fact that the union has pioneered in securing equal pay for equal work. Lower rates for women's jobs naturally means a lower standard of living for women workers and for their families who are dependent upon them. For let us be under no illusion-the overwhelming majority of women in industry are there because they need to work. They are either single women who must support themselves, widows, or divorced women who must support themselves and their families, or wives who must work because their husbands do not earn enough to support the family.

Wherever there are two sets of rates in a plant, there is a continual attempt to bring all rates down to the lower level. Thus industries with a labor force having large proportions of women have lower wage rates than industries employing chiefly men. This is true, for instance, of the cotton textile industry, where the majority of workers are women.

Since women during the war have entered more occupations and industries than formerly, men's rates tend to be pulled down by the lower women's rates in more places. It thus becomes even more necessary to wipe out the differentials

in pay.

One means of lowering men's rates to the level of the women's rates is to dilute job content. Jobs are broken down or changed in a minor respect and a new and lower rate given to the new version of the old job.

I might interpose there and say that is one of the most drastic things we have to contend with in the United Rubber Workers of America, in the rubber industry especially, where they break down a job and just eliminate, perhaps, one small part of the work that had been done theretofore for the purpose of bringing in women and breaking down the structure of the rate of pay in that particular line of work. This may have an effect on men's rates particularly when a veteran returns to the plant and takes a job slightly changed in content and held by a woman during the war. The veteran is then faced with the imposition of the woman's rate-the lower rate.

It is perfectly clear that where wage rates are low, markets are smaller Families with lessened purchasing power cannot demand as many refrigerators, washing machines, and automobiles as families with ample incomes. We shall be defeating our end of full employment and a secure economy if we permit arbitrary differentials in pay to cut into family earnings.

This bill is also an essential peg for increasing the health and living standards of all families. In increasing women's wages to the level of men's for the same job it will assure a more adequate income not only for the women workers themselves, the families directly dependent on them, but also for men and the families dependent on them, for this bill is a force against the depression of wages generally that is exerted by any low paid group.