If you had an office where they had stenographers, three women and four men, or four women and three men, would this bill directly affect that?

Miss ANDERSON. I should think it would if it was interstate

commerce.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. That is what I was getting at.

Mr. McCONNELL. There is another phrase in this bill, "affecting interstate commerce"; "transactions or operations affecting commerce.'

Miss ANDERSON. I should assume that would be one of the border cases. There are many border cases that affect it and which are still not interstate commerce, but they do affect it.

Mr. FISHER. Do I understand, then, the idea is to set the pattern of wages for the women stenographers by what the men are paid, if they are doing similar work?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Yes. The reason I called Miss Anderson up is because I suppose she has been more responsible for the thinking on this bill over a long period of years than anybody else.

What I started to say was that I would say a woman should be paid what a man is paid in an office if she does the same work, but under this bill, unless she works with something that has to do with interstate commerce, I doubt that the bill would apply.

Mr. FISHER. I am assuming a situation where the law would apply. Mrs. DOUGLAS. In interstate commerce the law would apply; yes. I thought you meant to go into anybody's office in a local community where they had men and women.

Mr. McCONNELL. I think we have found in hearings on the Fair Labor Standards Act that when you get into the term "affecting commerce" there aren't many businesses that would not be affected by this particular phrase, "affecting commerce." We find there are very few that miss out on that. I am just wondering where that takes you when you say, "affecting commerce. That would take you almost into any community.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. I think a point that was made last time is very compelling, namely, when a bill of this kind is passed by the Federal Government, automatically the vast majority of businessmen try to comply with the law.

I mean, businessmen do not want to break the law. The minute this becomes a policy of the Federal Government and you begin to have an administrative organization to explain why it is the policy of the Government, then I believe they will comply. Over half or three-quarters of your work is done automatically. I think there is great validity to that argument.

Mr. FISHER. Let me pursue my question just a little further. You say the women stenographers in the plant who are under the jurisdiction of this law should be paid as much as the men stenographers in that plant; we will assume that was the situation? Would you say women should not be paid any more than the men are paid for similar work?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. For comparable work; no. Your jobs are classified.

Mr. FISHER. In other words, the women should not be allowed to draw any more than the men as stenographers?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Now, wait a minute. Your jobs are classified.

Mr. FISHER. I am talking about them being in the same classification.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. All right. Here are two people doing the same job. They ought to begin work on that job at the same base rate. Advancements in the job should be made at the same period; not faster for the woman or faster for the man, but in the same period. Seniority ought to be arrived at at the same time.

Now, if you have a secretary in your office who turns out 10 times the work of anybody else in your office, then the other people are not doing comparable work.

Over and over again in the bill it talks about comparable work of the same quality and quantity; and, if someone is doing better work than another person and a greater quantity of work, then they are worth more.

Mr. FISHER. Do you know any two people anywhere that do exactly the same quantity and quality of work?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Oh, well, now, I think that is begging the issue.
Mr. FISHER. Isn't that really true?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. No; of course not. No two people are exactly equal in their ability, but there is an average which they meet in production. This permits us to arrive at some equity in wages and have harmony. It is unjust and it cannot be defended-that is, the principle that women should be paid less than men-unless you want to stand up and say women are inferior to men. I don't think anybody wants to stand up and say that in this day and age.

Mr. FISHER. In saying women should be paid as much as men for the same work, would you also say that the employer should not be allowed to pay them more than they do the men?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. For the same job; no. It would depend on her experience and seniority.

Mr. FISHER. In other words, what they pay the men should be the pattern for what they pay to women for doing the same quantity and quality of work?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Yes; it is the pattern at the moment, because the charts have shown that the man is paid more than the woman. Mr. FISHER. Do you recognize in connection with

Mrs. DOUGLAS. May I interrupt just a second? That does not mean that in the future it might not develop that the base rate for a certain job is lower than a man or a woman should receive. Do you see what I mean? I mean that does not for all time peg a certain wage at a certain level.

Mr. FISHER. For example, if a woman stenographer in a certain type of work in a plant is paid for the quantity and quality of work that she does, which is similar to the work being done by a man, do you recognize that the employer should not be allowed to pay her more because she has a pleasing personality, she knows a lot of people, and her contacts are valuable to the employer; that he should be prohibited from paying her any more because of those qualities, even though she does the same quality and quantity of work? Would you draw the line there and say we should put it on a mechanical basis and prohibit the employer from compensating her for those additional qualities?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Her job, then, is not comparable. The Congressman is very adroit, and I have been on the other side of the table, too. Everybody is agreed that equal pay in times of crisis is essential if

H

4

you are going to get your production out, but they feel for some reason this idea is not good now. They suggest that in normal times women would lose some other great advantage if this bill were passed. Mr. FISHER. I can certainly agree with the general objectives of the bill. I am simply exploring it as to the difficulty of administration. Mrs. DOUGLAS. If a women does twice as much work as a man, she ought to get more than the man, even though they are working on the same job. But if they are doing the same work they ought to get the same pay. That is basic.

Mr. FISHER. No more and no less?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. All right; the same work, no more and no less.

Mr. FISHER. You spoke of the States where this law has already been in existence and the fact that it has tended to cause an exodus of workers or industries into other States that do not have similar laws.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. No, no. Of course, the fact that nine States have this law does not mean that the Nation as a whole observes the principle, so you still do not have an equal-pay principle operating for women in the Nation as a whole. You still haven't anything if you only have nine States.

What I said was that in a matter of this kind, which affects prices, and where competition is so stiff in industry, you cannot have thfs law operate in a few States, and even operate in those States, unless it operates in the Nation as a whole. Passing a bill here or there is not going to do the job.

I gave as an illustration an instance that was given last year, following the Secretary of Labor's testimony, by Mr. Gibson from the Department of Labor. He told of an industry going into another State, bringing in lower wage rates. The way the employer arrived at lower wage rates was by paying women less than men. But the State didn't want it. They said, "We don't want this; it is going to create friction and trouble within the State, and we don't want it." Mr. FISHER. One of the objectives in this bill-and this is a concluding question says that "Because of the existence in industry of wage differentials based on sex, this unfair wage practice leads to labor disputes," and so forth.

I am wondering if you happen to know-perhaps you don't; perhaps the Department would have more information on that than you do-but I wonder if you know of any specific instances where labor disputes have resulted from this differential?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Yes. I have checked with the Labor Department. I have seen charts and studies to show that that is the case.

As I say, following Secretary Schwellenbach's testimony last year, that illustration was given. I cannot find it just at the moment, but it was entered into the testimony that they have in the Labor Department, a whole file on disputes that grew out of the fact that women were paid less than men.

Here, I have found it right here. Mr. Gibson is Assistant Secretary in the Department of Labor. Secretary Schwellenbach called on Mr. Gibson to give just the answer you are asking for now. There isn't any doubt but that it is true; namely, that wage differentials cause industrial strife:

I think the statement of the Secretary also substantiated it, where he pointed out that people in the same job, with the same productive capacity, were receiving

a lower wage rate, and it certainly caused dissatisfaction and dissension and it ultimately leads to labor disputes.

One of the major strike disputes we had in the latter days of the war started in Lansing, Mich., and it arose over the same problem. In this plant there was a 10-cent differential between men and women. When it came time for cut-backs and lay-offs in this war plant, the company attempted to lay the men off and keep the women because of the more favorable wage that they enjoyed, because of the differential, and it led to quite a substantial strike that lasted 2 or 3 weeks. That was within a propeller plant.

I can recite dozens of instances like that where substantial labor disputes have resulted because of a wage differential. There isn't any basis for paying persons putting out the same amount of production a different wage rate if the job content is about the same. It does bring instability to any labor market.

That is the end of what Mr. Gibson had to say on it.

I am sure the Labor Department will supply you with actual cases. However, it stands to reason if a woman is working at a bench next to a man, doing identical work, and she is being paid so many cents less than the man is at the end of the week that can amount to very much, especially with prices the way they are that can make for discontent.

That

If the company wishes, when they have a surplus, or when production is cut down, or if, for some reason, they want to lay off some of the people, they lay off some of the men and retain the women. makes more friction here; or, if they threaten the men that they will lay them off unless they take the wage cut of the woman, you can see what happens. It goes on indefinitely. That will give you an illustration of the kind of problems that can grow out of such an unfair labor practice.

I think the point to stress over and over again is that this isn't new. In 1898 they were talking about it, and the Government was endorsing this principle. We have found that during war we had to try to apply this principle. Who found it first? The Army and the Navy gave out directives to the companies who were making war materials for them. During World War I and World War II, the first thing they did was send out war directives. Then came your War Labor Board in World War I and your National War Labor Board in World War II, and they set up administrative procedures such as you have in this bill. That had been used to administer other laws which did go into factories and helped to bring about the same wage for women as for men, to a very great degree.

As I said in my statement, at such times, when labor is in great demand, there is a greater inclination to see that women are paid what they are worth and for what they are doing. It may be that, in a period such as we may be going into, that will not be the case. When women are paid less, it tends to cut down the whole scale of wages.

Mr. FISHER. As an abstract proposition, Mrs. Douglas, don't you feel as a general rule that when a person borrows money, we will say, to invest in a business and create some jobs as a result of the risk he takes, that that person is in a better position to judge all the different things that enter into the payment of wages, and the question of who should be paid a little more or a little less, depending upon the peculiarities of his own business, than we, sitting up here in Congress, maybe 2,000 miles away from that man's place of operation? As a general rule, don't you think that is true?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. As a general rule, of course that is true. You cannot go into a business and tell a man how to run his business. We don't want to, and even if we wanted to it would not work out. I think this gets back to the fundamental issue which was brought out by Senator Morse last year, if you will allow me to quote:

We are right up against it, as I see it, in this bill, as to whether or not we are going to recognize this problem in this country and say to American employers quite frankly: "Legislatively you cannot treat women in the labor market as a commodity; you have got to pay them on the basis of the quality and quantity of their work, a pay comparable to the pay that you give to men.

I think we must not lose sight of that very important principle as we discuss this bill, that here is another piece of labor legislation that says to American industry: "You cannot expect American labor to subsidize you by accepting discriminatory wage rates during periods of time when there is a surplus of labor." I think it is quite conceivable, in fact I think it is inevitable that in the next few years we are going to be confronted in this country with a surplus of labor, and when you have an oversupply of labor you are going to find American employers, because they are being pushed in the competitive struggle, adopting low wage-rate policies based on the notion that labor is a commodity.

I am one who thinks we have got to say: "We are going to support this competitive system, but you are going to have to operate your competitive system on the basis of a policy that once and for all eliminates the notion that labor is in any sense, be it woman labor or man labor, a commodity."

I think we have to give the greatest possible freedom to business to allow our competitive system to work. But we abandoned the idea long ago that labor is a commodity, I mean, that is what all of our labor legislation means. There is a responsibility that industry has to the community to pay a living wage. We have recognized that, haven't we? I mean, for the benefit of the Nation.

Mr. FISHER. Yes.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. We are not a healthy Nation unless the people of the country are earning enough to keep them healthy. I think that is the issue here. To pay a woman less than a man tends to press down all wages when you have a surplus of labor. Do you see what I mean? It is an unfair wage practice which we have recognized for over 45 years as being dangerous to a healthy and sound economy. At long last we ought to place it into law.

I think we should be very hesitant about placing laws of this kind on the books, but I think this is one which was almost born of itself. Do you see what I mean? Necessity has almost made this principle operate for the Nation as a whole during two emergencies.

Since it was good during those emergencies, we believe it essential during peacetime, if we are to sustain the living standards of the families of this country.

It would protect the living standards of the families of America, the great mass of whom, as you know, are in the lower income brackets. Mr. FISHER. I recognize the plausibility of the objectives; it is just the question of administration to make it work and to accomplish the objectives that I have in mind. I can envision, for example, a situation where in an office operating under this law, if one should be passed, there is a man stenographer who has been there the same length of time as a lady stenographer, both of whom write the same number of letters per day and work the same length of time, but because of the lady's pleasing personality and perhaps her contacts with other people, which are of some value to the employer, he is paying her, say $250 per month and paying the man only $200. Then this law be

71386-48- -3