1. Small group-up to approximately 10. 2. Medium group-up to approximately 20 3. Large group-up to approximately 35. 4. Very large group over 35. "Number of people supervised" has the following range: B. Medium group centralized or small group scattered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Grove, I want to thank you personally for appearing here. Your practical experience has been helpful to the committee. Mr. GROVE. Thank you. Mr. McCONNELL. That is the final witness for the day. I believe there is a statement to be read before the committee, Mr. Graham. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. McCONNELL. I think the statement is from Congresswoman Mrs. Margaret C. Smith of Maine, the sponsor of the bill being considered by this committee. Mr. GRAHAM. Mrs. Smith has been unable to attend any of these hearings. She requested that the following statement be read into the record as setting forth her position in regard to H. R. 4408, which she introduced [reading]: STATEMENT OF MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SECOND DISTRICT, MAINE, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 4408 This bill, H. R. 4408, calls for equality, not advantages, for either sex. The direct purpose of the bill is to assure the payment of at least an established rate to any persons doing a comparable quality and quantity of work. The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be challenged. Women's response to the call for workers during the war, together with the record of their achievements many times in tasks for which there had been no experience and training, emphasized the need to establish the principle in law. Women have become a permanent part of our productive force. Each worker, regardless of sex, must be recognized as an American citizen entitled to being paid on the basis of work done. I believe the enactment of this bill would be of direct benefit to all workers and to the consuming public. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have here a statement of Miss Ruth Craven, executive secretary, in behalf of the National Council of Catholic Women. I ask that it be received in the record at this point. Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF RUTH CRAVEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN The National Council of Catholic Women, a federation composed of 18 national organizations, 75 diocesan councils, and over 4,500 local organizations of Catholic women, representative of over 5,000,000 Catholic women, wishes to convey to you its endorsement of the principle of equal pay for equal work, and to request that this endorsement be incorporated in the hearings on H. R. 4408, a bill providing equal pay for equal work for women, and for other purposes. The principle of equal pay for equal work has long been recognized among Catholic groups as just and necessary-just, because individuals performing the same amount and quality of work should receive the same wage; necessary, because undercutting of the wage scale by one or another group in society prevents the attainment of the social goal-a family living wage. As far back as 1929, the National Council of Catholic Women approved a report of its industrial committee which among other statements recommended "We hold to the right of al iving wage for all men and women who work. * * * We hold also to the justice of equal pay for women when they do equal work with men." As late as 1946, the National Council of Catholic Women adopted a resolution at its national convention which reads as follows: "A Federal law should also be passed to supplement the wages-hour laws and guarantee to women pay equal with men for equal kinds of work." The position of the National Council of Catholic Women, therefore, is quite obvious. While the Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees an equal minimum wage for men and women, it does not provide for equal pay above the minimum rate. Consequently, to insure justice, some provision should be made for equal pay for equal work above the minimum scale. This statement is limited solely to the fundamental principle involved in H. R. 4408. We do not wish, in this communication, to discuss the merits of the proposed administrative procedure designed to enforce this principle. We realize, however, that effective administration is necessary in order to implement fully the right of equal pay for equal work. Difficult though this may be, it is our opinion that the principle should not thereby be sacrificed; it is too important to the welfare of the women of this country and to the national interest. We assure you of our wholehearted support of the principle of the bill-equal pay for equal work. Mr. GRAHAM. I also have a statement from the Illinois Manufacturers' Association which has been forwarded by Mr. James L. Donnelly, executive vice president, which sets forth the statement of Mr. David R. Clarke, the general counsel of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, with regard to the Equal Pay Act. I ask that it be accepted. Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection it will be accepted. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF DAVID R. CLARKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, CHICAGO, ILL., IN BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, CONCERNING H. R. 4408, A BILL TO ENACT THE WOMEN'S EQUAL Pay Act of 1947, Pending Before THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE The Illinois Manufacturers' Association, with a membership of approximately 4,500 members, embraces industries of all sizes-large, small, and middle-sizeengaged in a wide variety of production. However, the great bulk of its members are quite small, over 70 percent employing less than 200 persons. The membership of the association represents, we believe, a true cross section of American industry. We are opposed to the enactment of this bill. The premises stated in section 1 of the bill are not true, and there is no neeed or occasion for burdening American employers, employees, or taxpayers with the onerous bureaucracy, the interference with liberty and freedom, and the huge expenditure of public money that this bill contemplates. The prohibitions set forth in section 2 of the bill are so indefinite, so ambiguous, and so uncertain that employers and employees alike could not know in the case of the employment of any woman, whether the employment is or is not in violation of the law and subject to the serious penalties of back pay that would accumulate over indefinitely extended periods of time before and during the operation of the ponderous enforcement machinery which the bill contemplates will be set up and operated by the Department of Labor. In the case of every woman employee, in every one of the millions of jobs filled by women in America, every employer who employes those women would be confronted with the impossible problem of determining each day what would be the conclusion of some one of hundreds of Department of Labor agents as to whether the particular work done by each such woman is of “compable character;" whether she works at a "job the performance of which requires comparable skills"; whether she does a "comparble quality of work"; whether she does a "comparable quantity of work"; and whether she is working on "similar operations" when compared to the work of every man employee the employer employs. And the employer would be subject to the serious penalty involved in the payment of accumulated back pay if in any particular case he should miss his guess as to what the Department of Labor agent would hold. We submit that if anyone will but consider the infinite millions of variations in the operation of business and industry in "jobs," in "skills," in "quantity," in "quality," in "operations," and then if he will contemplate the uncertainty and indefiniteness of the phrase "comparable character," "comparable skills," "comparable quality," "comparable quantity," and "similar operations," when applied to the daily and hourly operations of business and industry, he will realize the utter impracticability of this bill. We submit that this bill would result in the building of an ever-increasing, ever more complex, ever more burdensome bureaucracy that would, of necessity, fail to provide anything other than a costly, burdensome, and destructive bureaucracy. We submit that as a practical matter the bill would render the employment of women so hazardous to employers that women would be greatly handicapped thereby so far as concerns their employment in the future at all. The involvement into which an employer would be thrown by the operation of this bill and the uncertainties and risks that such employment would bring would be so great as to make the employment of women in business and industry a most hazardous undertaking. The huge machinery of administration, the broad investigatory powers, the powers of prosecutor, judge, and jury that are vested in the Department of Labor by this bill, the practically complete elimination of power in the courts to review the determinations of the Department of Labor under this bill-all, when added to the indefinite, ambiguous, and uncertain description of what is to be prohibited and with respect to which employers of women are to be investigated, prosecuted, and "ordered", under this bill, render H. R. 4408 a most dangerous proposal to the public, to employers, to employees-and particularly to the women of America who, especially in times of labor surplus, would be practically barred from millions of jobs by the operation of this bill. Mr. GRAHAM. I have also a statement of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, in support of the Women's Equal Pay Act of 1947. I ask that it be admitted. Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection, so ordered. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO) IN SUPPORT OF THE WOMEN'S EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1947 The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (CIO) represents 325,000 members, more than 225,000 of whom are women workers. Throughout its 34 years of experience in organizing workers and in labor-management relations, the Amalgamated has been guided by the principle of "equal pay for equal work"a principle which is now thoroughly established in the men's apparel industries under its jurisdiction. Women and men have traditionally been employed interchangeably on most operations in the garment industries. Only certain occupations requiring superior physical strength, such as cutting and, in the men's clothing industry, pressing as well, have been considered unsuitable for women. Prior to the unionization of the apparel industries, there was widespread exploitation of women through the payment of wages lower even than the sweatshop wages of men, through the extensive employment of women on homework, and through other means of avoiding the prevailing standards, such as they were, for male workers. Even as early as 1922, the official policy of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America had been articulated when the fifth biennial convention passed the folllowing resolution: "Resolved by this Fifth Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, in Chicago assembled, That the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' be enforced in all the markets throughout the country and that equal opportunities be given women in the industry except insofar as this will interfere with the health and future welfare of the sex.' This early resolution of policy has long since become an accomplished fact in the industries under contract with the Amalgamated. In all cases wage rates are set for the job, which may then be performed by either a man or a woman. In no Amalgamated contracts in the apparel industries are the wages of workers defined according to sex. An illustration from the shirt industry prior to its unionization by the Amalgamated and before "equal pay for equal work" had become the established practice emphasizes the need for the proposed legislation in plants and industries where women are not protected by unions. In the men's dress shirt industry, pressing was originally done by gas irons which, because of their weight, required male labor. When these gas irons were replaced by the lighter and easier to handle electric irons which are now customarily used, large numbers of women were employed to replace male pressers at considerably lower rates. This was such an extensive occurrence that the operation soon became a low-paid occupation. Only in recent years, with the substantial organization of the shirt workers by the Amalgamated and with the increase in general wage levels resulting from unionization, has it been possible to raise wages on pressing to the point where male pressers are once more being employed. This situation illustrates some of the evils resulting from paying women less than men for the same or comparable work. Aside from considerations of length of service, paying one worker less than another for the same or comparable work is unjust, whether the worker is a woman or a man. Almost always when a woman has been paid less than a man for a job, her earnings have not been only unfair but substandard. Discrimination against women with respect to wages, because of their sex, has usually meant condemning these women and their families to living standards below the level of subsistence. Furthermore, the payment of a lower wage to women than men for the same or similar work has invariably served to undermine the wages of the men and to depress the general wage level and has resulted, as well, in the replacement of men with lower-paid women, thus also impairing the living standards of the families of male workers. By the same token, a mandatory requirement of "equal pay for equal work" would mean that women would not be discriminated against with regard to wages because of their sex but would be paid the rate for the job, thus assuring for them and their families a standard of living no less adequate than that prevailing generally. "Equal pay for equal work" would also safeguard the living standards of all, since men would not have to fear displacement by lower-paid women workers or the undercutting of their earnings because of employment of lower-paid women workers. Enactment of the Women's Equal Pay Act of 1947 is also in the best interests of the general welfare not only because it will increase the economic security of workers' families but also because it will increase consumer purchasing power and thus stimulate full employment. There are now more than 17,000,000 working women in this country, and they represent an increasing proportion of the labor force. The American woman is no longer merely a housekeeper and mother but is assuming an ever larger share of the family's financial responsibilities. There is more need for protection of their wages than ever before. The experience of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America with "equal pay for equal work" has been entirely beneficial. Particularly in view of the growing numbr and proportion of women in the labor force and the consequently larger need for protecting their wages and standard of living, we strongly urge this subcommittee to recommend immediate enactment of the Women's Equal Pay Act of 1947. (By order of the chairman, the following statement and letters are made part of the record.) STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN ON THE PROPOSED WOMEN'S EQUAL PAY BILL, H. R. 4408 The American Association of University Women welcomes this opportunity to again file a statement in support of an equal-pay bill. On October 29, 1945, the association filed a statement in the Senate Committee on Education and Labor in support of S. 1178, the proposed Women's Equal Pay Act of 1945. At that time the association represented a membership of 80,000 women college graduates in 926 local branches throughout the country. Today in February 1948, the association represents a membership of 98,000 members ir 1,028 branches throughout the country. Since its founding in 1882, the American Association of University Women has opposed discrimination against women based on sex. The stand of the association on this matter was reaffirmed at its national convention in 1947 when the membership as a whole voted to continue as a legislative item on its program: "Opposition to discrimination in employment and property rights on the basis of sex or marital status." Conditions of women's employment and the discriminations applying to women workers have been a subject of intensive study within the association from the time of its founding in 1882. The most widespread discrimination suffered by women workers is the payment to them of lower wages than are paid to men for comparable work. A study of the economic status of 10,179 women college graduates, members of the AAUW, made in 1935, showed that 80 percent of these women, employed in business and the professions, received smaller returns than men for services rendered, simply because they were women. In committee records of both the House and the Senate, ample statistics have been introduced to show the prevalence in industry of wage differentials which are based on sex rather than on skill. Many references in previous hearings trace back the struggle for equal pay to the days before the First World War. Gains which were made during World War I were lost to a great extent in the depression. During World War II women proved their ability and worth in practically all branches of science and industry. The Government constantly urged college women to study science and engage in research essential for the national defense; yet it took a ruling of the War Labor Board to insure enforcement of the equal pay for equal work standard established for war industries.1 There is nothing in the economic history of this country since the beginning of World War I to indicate that women will soon be relieved of the necessity to earn a living. The trend toward greater employment of women is not simply a wartime phenomenon. According to figures of the United States Bureau of the Census the proportion of women working or seeking work increased from 14 percent of the labor forces in 1870 to 25 percent in 1940. During the war period women formed one-third of the labor force, and while many undoubtedly left the labor market after the war it has been estimated that women will constitute 1 National War Labor Board, General Order No. 16, November 1942, amended January 1944. |