Mr. McCONNELL. Does your union wage scale show male and female rates for the same job classification?

Mr. OLIVER. We have one rate. That is the basis upon which we proceed, one rate.

Mr. McCONNELL. You do not have female and male rates for the same job classification throughout your union?

Mr. OLIVER. Not to my knowledge. There might be some exception.

Mr. McCONNELL. Not to your knowledge?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right, sir.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do you believe that all workers throughout the United States should be covered by a Federal agency in a matter such as this?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; I think so. First of all, if you have one plantyou talked about the large industries a few moments ago. If all the large industries, or even the small ones, are made to comply with the law and then some shop or some particular industry is left out of the law, this particular industry might be able to produce a certain instrument at a much cheaper cost and there we have cut-throat competition in the open market.

Mr. McCONNELL. You would say all should be covered, regardless of intrastate, interstate commerce, local industries, or anything of that sort?

Mr. OLIVER. I am not too well versed on this intra- or interstate

commerce.

Mr. McCONNELL. But it is your general theory if possible we should make it uniform over the country?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. If I live across the street and I am covered by a law, and the person next door is not covered by a law, I think we should make it as broad as possible within the confines and restrictions of the Constitution.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is right, you would have to do it within those limits, but your thought was if some way could be found, you would like to have every single worker under some Federal agency's direction?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. McCONNELL. You see no danger in that to the freedom of people by centralizing authority in Washington?

Mr. OLIVER. I didn't get that question.

Mr. McCONNELL. I say, you see no danger to people by the centralization of authority in some bureau in Washington?

Mr. OLIVER. I think for the economic good of the people if this bill is drafted within the basic confines of the Constitution, that should be our basic guidepost.

Mr. McCONNELL. But the more you centralize authority, the more you tend to break down certain of the safeguards of our Constitution. That is what we have to be careful of.

Mr. OLIVER. I don't think paying people equal pay for equal work is a break-down of any safeguards of the Constitution. It is a Constitution that is democratically put together.

Mr. McCONNELL. No matter how it is done. Are you seeking a good cause by a poor method?

Mr. OLIVER. When you say no matter how it is done, I think perhaps it should be stated a little differently.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I remember a man by the name of Hitler who said he would take care of everybody. I never saw a dictator come to power who didn't say he wasn't trying to help people, trying to do them some good and fix everything up.

The people said, "All right, we will trust you, we will give you the authority," and the first thing they knew they lost all their gains. That is the danger.

Mr. SIFTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on this thing. I do not know that the Wage-Hour Act which is rather similar to this, has impaired the freedom of the workers who are protected and covered by that act. This centralization in Washington boils down to having regional offices, having inspectors going out from those regional offices and when there are violations they finally go into the courts, go up through the courts that are held in the various circuits.

This is all within the framework of the Constitution and under the commerce clause it is proper and does not amount to centralization. There is provision for a court review of the findings all the way through. I cannot see that a matter of somebody sitting in a birdcage here in Washington and administering this thing by wireless really exists at all.

Mr. SMITH. Of course, your statement started out talking about freedom of the workers, you did not say anything about freedom of the employers.

Mr. SIFTON. Oh, yes; sir, I would like to say on that the due process of the employer is thoroughly protected at every stage of the operation, just as it has been under Wages and Hours. I haven't heard that the employers have suffered substantially. As a matter of fact, their market has increased and has been sustained by the Wage Hour Act.

I remember in the fall of 1938 business increased throughout the South immediately after a 25-cent minimum wage was put into effect there. I believe this would have the same effect, to a lesser degree, of firming up the market for employers.

Certainly it interferes with their freedom to exploit men and women, to play women against men; to that degree it may be some impairment of their freedom, but that is a question of balance of goods.

Mr. McCONNELL. Do you think this wording regarding coverage is the same as under the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Mr. SIFTON. No, but I think one of the complications of the WageHour Act was that it did not follow the very clearly defined and interpreted coverage of the National Labor Relations Act, which said, "for commerce or affecting commerce.'

Mr. McCONNELL. But this says something else. This reads "in commerce or transactions affecting commerce."

Mr. SIFTON. But it winds up affecting commerce.

Mr. McCONNELL. But it winds up by saying, "transactions or operations." Who is covered by that? I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows how far the ramifications of that could go. That is certainly a long step toward the centralization of authority. It is not worded the same as the Fair Labor Standards Act. You are saying it is somewhat similar. If it is to be similar in its coverage, then why don't they use the same language?

Mr. SIFTON. As I said, I believe the Wage-Hour Act would have been better if it had had the language of the National Labor Rela

tions Act. As I understand this, it is substantially the same because those transactions or operations depend upon the words "affecting commerce." That goes back to the National Labor Relations Act.

Mr. McCONNELL. I don't know who is covered by such a phrase. It could be interpreted to be all-inclusive. I don't know who doesn't affect commerce some way or other in their daily lives.

Mr. SIFTON. The court decisions drawing the lines between intra and interstate commerce have been made clear by the Wagner Act.

Mr. McCONNELL. But the coverage has been constantly expanding in the interpretation of the various acts. More and more people are being brought under it: More and more segments and more and more workers; you know that. That was admitted by the Department of Labor men during the hearings on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Now, where does this stop? Isn't there some kind of balance between the purely local and Federal activities, or would you just wipe

them out?

Mr. SIFTON. For the sake of fair competition we are in favor of extending the thing as far as the Constitution will permit.

Mr. McCONNELL. Any other questions?

Mr. FISHER. I have just one question.

Is it your general philosophy that it would be a good thing to have a Federal law which would require all the workers of America to receive exactly the same pay for the same work requiring the same skill and the same quality of work? Is that the general philosophy that you hold?

Mr. SIFTON. No, sir. I take it, your question means fixing wages by Government, and our answer is "No."

Mr. FISHER. No; I do not mean that. I will say: Should everyone with the same skill, as described in this bill, receive the same wage with no differential?

Mr. SIFTON. I would like to answer "Yes," with an explanation. We feel the job should be the thing that has the rate put on it, and not the person. We would like to have all jobs, similar jobs, identical jobs, have that rate set not by Government, but by collective bargaining or by operation of the labor market.

Mr. FISHER. You are for this bill, though, are you not?
Mr. SIFTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FISHER. How do you reconcile that statement that you think those things should be settled by collective bargaining with the proposal here to set them by law?

Mr. SIFTON. For example, what we are asking for is that this woman and this man who do the same work with a drill press shall not be discriminated against, but that the rate for the job shall be a matter for determination by collective bargaining, or on the labor market.

I believe the rate here is $1.25 for the man and $1.05 for the woman [indicating].

Mr. FISHER. Your view is that the Federal law should prohibit any differential in wage rates on the same jobs, the same types of jobs all over the country?

Mr. SIFTON. Between men and women.

Mr. FISHER. Between men and women. Well, would you go further and say between anybody, any classifications?

Mr. SIFTON. Since the subject of this bill is men and women, I would like to limit it to that and say with respect to this bill that is

our position. But that does not mean all over the country a single rate for an identical job. We still recognize there is a matter of collective bargaining or determination of wage rates from industry to industry, and so forth.

Mr. MADDEN. Instead of all over the country, you mean in separate plants?

Mr. SIFTON. Oh, yes, sir, by industry.

Mr. MADDEN. Or by industry?

Mr. SIFTON. Yes.

Mr. FISHER. I am sure I did not make myself clear. My question was that you want by Federal law to require that the same amount paid, whatever it is, be given to male and female alike on the same jobs all over the country, that is, those who are working on the same types of jobs all over the country. Is that clear enough?

Mr. SIFTON. That there be no discrimination between men and women for identical jobs throughout the country, yes.

Mr. FISHER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCONNELL. In other words, if a man gets a certain amount for a certain type of job in a particular plant, a woman in that particular plant doing the same type of job should get the same amount of money?

Mr. SIFTON. Correct, sir.

Mr. McCONNELL. Is that what your understanding is also?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. It was a little confusing when you said all over the country.

Mr. McCONNELL. Any other questions?

That is all. Thank you for coming here.

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you.

Mr. SIFTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCONNELL. Is the representative of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, present? Mrs. ROEMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCONNELL. Give your name and address to the reporter, then start off in any way you see fit.

STATEMENT OF RUTH ROEMER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

Mrs. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

My name is Ruth Roemer. I am a legislative representative of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers. My address is 1029 Vermont Avenue, Washington. This is my associate, Mr. Bruce Waybur.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record our full statement which we submitted to the committee yesterday, and I would like to summarize merely the high lights for you this morning in the interest of saving time.

Mr. McCONNELL. Proceed as you wish.

(The statment is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF RUTH ROEMER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, and MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, IN SUPPORT OF EQUAL PAY BILLS, H. R. 4273 AND H. R. 4408

In view of the serious economic imbalance in our country today-soaring prices that force the working people to cut necessary foods from their diets and do without such essentials as shoes and medical care, on the one hand-and the highest profit levels in history on the other, further shelving of the equal pay bill pending in Congress for the past 2 years would do irreparable human damage.

This bill makes it an "unfair wage practice" to discriminate in the payment of wages between the sexes for work of comparable character on jobs, the performance of which requires comparable skills or for comparable quality or quantity of work in the same or similar operations. It would in no sense be a cure-all for the pressing problems that face the 600,000 men and women of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, but it would be a step forward in eliminating the low and discriminatory rates paid to women and offer some measure of protection against the exploitation which now exists to the detriment of women and men workers as well.

The problem of eliminating differentials in pay because of sex is not a new problem to our union. The UE is proud to have been in the forefront of this fight to protect our women members, numbering approximately 250,000. Our minimum contract requirements provide:

"Every contract should provide that women should not be discriminated against because of sex with respect to job opportunities, wages, hours, or other conditions of employment."

We have succeeded in incorporating such clauses, as of September 1947, in contracts which cover 583 plants having 354,000 workers in our industry.

The historic case in this field was initiated by the UE in its contract negotiations with General Electric and Westinghouse in 1945. Two of the UE's wage demands were for (1) a minimum hiring-in rate for all workers, regardless of sex, of not less than 72 cents per hour for hourly workers and not less than $28.80 per 40-hour week for salaried employees and (2) elimination of sex differentials in rates of pay. The National War Labor Board issued its decision in this case (111-17208-D and 111-17209-D) on December 12, 1945, in which it recommended that women's rates be increased 4 cents an hour, with some exceptions, in 50 plants of GE and 60 plants of Westinghouse, plus a fund of 2 cents per woman employee on women's jobs in all plants, to be allocated by the parties through collective bargaining. This decision was of great importance, not because it meant complete elimination of existing sex differentials but because it was the first major recognition by a public body in a concrete situation affecting thousands of women workers that this rank injustice had to be corrected and because it was a step in the direction of eliminating the differential. I recommend to the members of this committee consideration of the opinion in this case of Mr. Lloyd K. Garrison, then chairman of the National War Labor Board. I shall describe later in my testimony what have been the effects of this decision in General Electric and Westinghouse.

The UE has strongly supported this legislation since it was first introduced in Congress, both in the Seventy-ninth Congress when the Democratic Party was the majority party and in the present Eightieth Congress with the Republican Party in the majority.

WOMEN NEED TO WORK

Women workers today constitute nearly one-third of the civilian labor force in this country. They made an outstanding contribution to production during the war. They are a permanent part of the labor force. It is an evasion of the real issues and a refusal to recognize the economic responsibilities of women to support themselves and their families to say that women work for "pin money." Women need to work. A survey of the New York State Department of Labor made in conjunction with the UE showed in 1946 that 82 percent of women working in that State hoped to continue on their jobs and almost all needed to work. Surveys of the Women's Bureau show the same result. In 14 metropolitan areas having large UE membership the proportion of households in which the woman was the head of the household averaged 16-18 percent. The high cost of living makes the reason for continued employment of women even more pressing.

The UE opposes wage discrimination because of sex because it is a rank injustice to women workers and because this discrimination tends to depress wages all down the line and makes insecure men's jobs. Elimination of this discrimination would discourage employers from cutting rates on jobs by hiring women for less money than men are paid and from cutting wages by evaluating jobs on the basis of sex of operator, not job content.