small number, 47, paid the same rates for some occupations and lower rates for others.

In 1944, New York adopted an equal-pay law. The need for this type of legislation has been recognized by the enactment in nine States of statutes prohibiting discrimination in rate of pay because of sex. These States are: Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Two of the laws, those in Michigan and Montana, were enacted soon after the First World War. In the other seven States, the passage has come during the last 5 years. It is obvious that Federal legislation is necessary to bring the advantages of this desirable type of protection to women workers all over the Nation.

Equal-pay legislation is needed not only to secure fundamental justice for women workers, but also to prevent the use of women to undercut men's wages. This danger has been recognized by Federal action over a period of years.

During World War I the principle of equal pay was established by numerous agencies, including the War Labor Policy Board of 1918, and the War Department Bureau of Ordnance.

In the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 the equal-pay policy was embodied in the codes of fair competition. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, in determining minimum wages stated that no classification should be made on the basis of age or sex.

During World War II, the policy was established by various rulings of the War Labor Board, and by the practice of the Army and Navy. Since the area of women's occupational opportunities was considerably broadened during World War II, the importance of the measure is thereby greatly increased. The gains made during the war should be conserved by a Federal statute.

We trust that the committee will move with speed to approve this bill, so that it can become law before the adjournment of Congress. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. MacKinnon.

Mr. MACKINNON. If the parties are compelled to pay women as much as they pay men, do you think that would result in the hiring of as many women?

Miss STITT. I think it would result in hiring the best person for the job, which is, after all, the socially desirable policy.

Mr. MACKINNON. It might be the economically desirable policy, might it not?

Miss STITT. You see, there are so many jobs for which women are so much better qualified than men.

Mr. MACKINNON. What are some of those jobs?

Miss STITT. In industry usually they are jobs that require dexterity, patience, a certain kind of skill that women possess because of their temperament and physical structure.

Mr. MACKINNON. What have they been doing on those jobs? Have they been hiring men or women?

Miss STITT. They have been hiring men for the most part on those jobs. There are a great many jobs where both men and women are employed, in which women are equally as good as men and for which they have been paid less. I think probably during a period of adjustment there might be some reallocation. Just because of social attitudes, a great many employers have the attitude that men need jobs more than women do; if they are going to lay off anybody they are

going to lay off women and not men, because men are the supporters of families. For a while there may be some displacement of women, but in the long run

Mr. MACKINNON. What do you think of that general policy?
Miss STITT. I think the general principle of equal pay-

Mr. MACKINNON. No, I mean the one you just stated.

Miss STITT. I believe the proper policy is the rate for the job, irrespective of who does that work.

Mr. MACKINNON. I am talking about the lay-offs.

Miss STITT. Then I believe if you set your rate on the job, the proper policy is to employ the person who does it best. Now, I do think many employers will have the attitude probably that men can do this better or they think men need the job. Probably for a while women may be displaced, but I think in the long run the person who does that job best, and if experience proves that women do it better than men, the men will be replaced.

Mr. MACKINNON. With regard to lay-offs, you said there was the general feeling sometimes to lay off the women because the men needed the job more.

Miss STITT. That is right.

Mr. MACKINNON. Do you think that is generally true?

Miss STITT. I think Miss Miller's statistics this morning proved it was not generally true. I said it was a social attitude.

Mr. MACKINNON. The last experience I had on anything of this character was in the Minnesota State Legislature, just before the war. At that time a great many women descended on the legislature one day requesting and practically demanding that we pass a bill saying no married woman could work. That was in 1941. I pointed out it was entirely possible in the next few years that we might be in a situation where women workers would be in great demand. Some of the advocates of that particular legislation pooh-poohed that idea.

I was very much interested in getting your opinion because it is diametrically opposed to the opinion that was present in that very large group in our State at that time, and I believe the same thing existed all over the Nation. They wanted to drive all of the married women out of jobs.

Miss STITT. That was during the depression period.

Mr. MACKINNON. Well, in 1941. That was not exactly during the depression period.

Miss STITT. Well, of course, there was a good deal of that attitude during the depression when people felt jobs were short.

Mr. MACKINNON. Yes; but this was in 1941.

Miss STITT. I would not be able to explain it, really. It would be very contrary to my philosophy.

Mr. MACKINNON. I have no further questions.

Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you for appearing, Miss Stitt. This concludes the hearings for the day. The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning when the representative of the United Automobile Workers of America will be the witness.

(Whereupon, at 2:45 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. of the following day, Wednesday, February 11, 1948.)

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK FOR WOMEN

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1948

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4-WAGEs and Hours of LABOR,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Samuel K. McConnell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. McCONNELL. The committee will please come to order.

Is the representative of the United Automobile Workers of America, CIO, here?

Mr. SIFTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCONNELL. Please come forward. Give your name and address, then proceed in any way you see fit to present your case.

Mr. SIFTON. Mr. Chairman, we have three representatives here from the UAW-CIO. My name is Paul Sifton, national legislative representative for the UAW-CIO. My address is 1129 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington 5, D. C.

I would like to introduce Mr. William H. Oliver, codirector UAWCIO fair practices department, who serves with our president, Walter Reuther, as director of that activity; Miss Dorothy Scott of local 154, UAW-CIO, who works in the Hudson plant, Detroit; and Mrs. Helen Moore, of local 602, UAW-CIO, who works in the Fisher Body plant at Lansing, Mich.

I will ask Mr. Oliver to take over the presentation of our testimony this morning, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCONNELL. That will be satisfactory.
Proceed, Mr. Oliver.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. OLÍVER, CODIRECTOR, UAW-CIO FAIR PRACTICES DEPARTMENT

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that I take about 10 minutes and that the other two witnesses also have a chance to speak.

Mr. McCONNELL. That will be all right, any way you see fit.

Mr. OLIVER. The UAW-CIO with over a million members supports H. R. 4408. We support also H. R. 4273, for the primary reason that both are designed to eliminate discriminatory wage practices against women based on sex.

Our experiences show that injustices to women workers aggregate a tremendous public loss in production and purchasing power.

The performance of women during the war has pointed in the direction that women belong to the industry, to the industrial life

173

which is fast growing in America. They belong, in the opinion of UAW-CIO, because they have proven that they have a contribution to make.

During the war in most of our UAW-CIO plants, women performed all kinds of operations in the production of war implements to win the war and to win the peace.

We found during this particular time that women worked on drill presses, machine lathes, inspection, and every other kind of operation within our plant.

We also found that during this period the women workers in our industry proved they had the ability to produce the quantity and quality of the type of work which was being requested by management throughout the country.

We feel that in many instances, however, women are not given true opportunity to use all of their talents because of the discriminatory wage patterns which are persisted in by the different managements with whom we deal from day to day.

We feel that the passage of H. R. 4408 and 4273 will eliminate these wage differentials.

I would like to cite a case in a local union in Detroit where in the first instance normally all the women perform the various types of jobs throughout the plant.

When we went into negotiations the company said that henceforth certain jobs would be performed by women exclusively. The company said the rate would be set on the woman rather than on the job. We also found the position of the company was that the job would be segregated on the basis of sex, due to the type of work involved. Mr. McCONNELL. Name the company and the union involved. Mr. OLIVER. Local 174. I do not have the name of the company right here. I can get that for you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCONNELL. Get that, please.

(Mr. Oliver subsequently stated that the company referred to is the Michigan Broach Co., Detroit, Mich.)

Mr. OLIVER. So when the bargaining committee of local 174 went in to talk to management we called their attention to the fact the Michigan law is not everything we would like it to be. It is weak; it has certain inadequacies. But in calling their attention to the law we were able to sit down and to negotiate rates on the basis of the job to be performed.

The company's attitude on the question of hiring men in this particular case was that, in view of the fact they had set up this segregation on the question of sex, they would not need any men to perform these jobs, and the reason they would not need any men was that they were going to categorize these jobs as exclusively women's jobs. No men were hired.

After our negotiations we were able to eliminate the job freeze of males in the shop and new hires.

Another example I might cite of why we want equal pay for equal work is: At the Delco-Remy plant in Anderson, Ind., there existed a 16-cent differential for the same or comparable work. We found that men became victimized under the circumstances because after VJ-day the company hired only women and refused to hire men, and many of them veterans.

In our discussions with management, the resistance was great. They refused to eliminate the wage differential. Here we had no State

law or any Federal action to turn to. Here we had no War Labor Board.

The fact that we did not have an agency to which the union or any other individual worker might go to resolve these problems, is another reason for our support of H. R. 4408.

We believe that in instances such as the Delco-Remy case the Government must create an atmosphere of recognition. In the creation of this atmosphere of recognition it will give the women a status; it will give us a strong arm or a big stick to use in negotiations looking toward equalizing rates between male and female employees.

I would like to state in simple terms the position of the UAW-CIO on the basis of equal pay for equal work, that the UAW-CIO, since its inception, has had a forthright, clear-cut position on rate for the job and has fought vigorously to put its principles of equal pay into practice. This follows UAW's strict adherence to equality of opportunity and equal protection for all its members, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or marital status.

During the war women demonstrated in large measure they could perform a large variety of jobs which were previously held, or which previously had the insignia of male tags, or "for men only."

I would like to point out that one of the other essential reasons why the UAW-CIO is interested in the establishment of the principle of equal pay for equal work, is because of the many women workers who are in our industry.

At the Ford plant, which we have under contract throughout the country, we estimate there are 3,000 women working in these plants. In the Chrysler plant there are approximately 6,500 and in GM there are upward of 20,000 women working in the plant.

We think we need a Federal law, because there are only about seven States which presently have any kind of law on the statute books covering equal pay for equal work.

I believe the women in America, who at one time had to put forth a struggle to attain recognition for the vote, are here on the question of equal pay for equal work, putting forth a struggle to attain economic status in our growing complex economic society.

I think they want to belong to the group. They have made their way in industry; they have proven they can perform the tasks.

I believe there are many forces in our industrial life that feel a woman's place is in the kitchen, but I think the tremendous contribution the women have made during the war on jobs proves beyond a doubt they can perform the job, they can produce, and that they do have a place in industry.

I think Markham stated it very adequately when he said:

He drew a circle and kept me out-
Heretic rebel, a thing to flout,
But love and I found a way to win,
We drew a circle and took him in.

I think the woman's fight is not so much as Markham has stated it, but that within this circle we want to take all of the American workers

in.

We want their economic status to be secure.

This is a fight the UAW-CIO has made time and time again in various sections of the country. We feel the time is now to enact into law H. R. 4408 or 4273.