The

wages to workers who have been discharged to avoid paying equal rates. director must appeal to the court for enforcement of such an order. Any person aggrieved by the order has a right to appeal to the court for judicial review of its provisions.

The legal aspects of the bill's provisions for an administrative hearing will be reviewed by a later witness who is an expert on such matters. My interest in this part of the bill is an administrative one. I have had considerable experience in the administration of State labor laws, and I have found administrative hearings to be an effective, almost indispensable, aid to enforcement. Formal rules of evidence are not controlling at such a hearing. Unless the employer is absolutely recalcitrant and a determined violator, an administrative hearing need not assume the aspect of a trial in which the "accused" is arraigned before a court. Instead it is more like a conference where parties present can discuss the entire situation and try to arrive at a basis for understanding. The administrator usually has an opportunity to discuss with the employer the purpose of the law and its broad social implications. Minor derelictions which are found to be caused by a bona fide misunderstanding of the law's requirements can be cleared up. On the basis of a full and free discussion of all relevant facts, the administrator frequently is able to work out with the employer new methods of operation which not only will satisfy the law's requirements but may actually increase plant efficiency and be to the employer's ultimate advantage. In short, an administrative hearing should result in acceptance of the law by an employer, covered by its terms.

The area covered by the Federal equal-pay bill-that of job analysis and classification-offers a particularly fertile field for the development of improved management techniques. One of the basic reasons for the existence of sex wage differentials is the lack or inadequacy of proper job classification. This is one operating method that an employer after full discussion at an administrative hearing may well de ide to improve, with the result that he has increased the efficiency of his entire operation. The provision for administrative hearings in the S. 1178 offers both an opportunity and a challenge.

C. Industry committees

The bill provides for appointment, by the director, of industry committees composed of representatives, in an equal number, of management, labor, and the public. The industry committee receives economic data for its study and consideration and it also is authorized to conduct investigations, hear witnesses, and receive evidence.

As I stated early in my testimony, the Federal equal-pay bill does not contemplate the setting of wage rates. It merely provides that where a woman is paid less than a man for comparable quantity and quality of work, the woman's rate must be raised to that of the man. As between individual workers, the method used to accomplish this purpose is job analysis and comparison and the administrative hearing. More broadly the method used to accomplish, or at least to facilitate, the same result is the familiar method of the industry committee. As I said before, the administrator has no authority to set wage rates. Neither does an industry committee have that authority. Its function as stated in section 7 (b) of the bill is to report findings and recommendations to the director which in its judgment will eliminate or tend to eliminate wage differentials based on sex. Such findings may include evaluations of job content, job classifications, standard's for training and employment, and appropriate wage-rate ratios between job classifications or defined units of work.

The industry committee acts solely as an advisory body. The director has authority under section 7 (c) to issue an order on the basis of an industry committee's recommendation but it is not mandatory on him to do so. Before such an order can be issue, the bill provides that interested parties must be given uotice and an opportunity to be heard. After hearing, the director may or may not issue an order.

The industry committee device has been used in various types of laws regulating employment-under State minimum-wage laws and equal-pay laws, as well as under the Fair Labor Standards Act-and has proved an important aid to administration. Tri-partite industry committees bring together individuals with three different approaches to problems arising from the employment relationship-the legitimate self-interest of management representatives on the one hand and labor representatives on the other, with the middle, or nonpartisan, point of view expressed by the public representatives. This combination of different experiences not only preserves a balance between divergent interests but also tends to keep the committee's deliberations on a practical, workable basis. It has been my

experience that where members of an industry committee are carefully chosen and are experts in their respective fields, an industry committee may be expected to make a unique and very substantial contribution to successful administration. I believe that the administrator of the Federal equal-pay law would find the industry committee arrangement of particular usefulness and value. The job analysis and comparison technique which is basic to such a law is one which is at vastly different stages of development not only as between industries but as between individual employers within an industry. Industry committees would be able to recommend standards for job classifications which if adopted would be a valuable aid toward removing differences in rates of pay between men and women doing comparable work. One such standard which has frequently been suggested is abolition of separate job and rate sheets for men and women.

CONCLUSION

The Women's Bureau supports the Federal equal-pay bill for women. We believe that the bill is a sound economic measure which would tend to sustain wage levels and purchasing power. Its enactment would be of direct benefit to all workers, men as well as women, and to the consuming public.

STATEMENT OF MISS FRIEDA S. MILLER, WOMEN'S BUREAU, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, in Support of H. R. 4408 AND H. R. 4273, THE WOMEN'S EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1947, FEBRUARY 10, 1948

For over 25 years the Women's Bureau has been concerned with wage discriminations against women. The problem of rate differentials first became a matter for public action during World War I when women went into war plants in great numbers, but not nearly to the extent, that they did during the more recent war. During the latter, the Bureau assisted the War Labor Board in investigating complaints involving wage differential, it made investigations of war industries in which large numbers of women were employed, particularly job analysis relating to the question of what jobs women were doing and what they were getting paid for them. On request it has assisted State agencies and women's organizations in furthering the cause of equal pay wherever possible. I am therefore gratified that this committee is concerning itself with H. R. 4408 and H. R. 4273 at this time when the welfare of women workers and their influence on the Nation's economy are such important factors in our continuing economic stability.

WOMEN IN THE LABOR FORCE

The Secretary has already discussed the wide and pervasive effect on the general economy of the payment of lower wage rates to women than to men for comparable work. I wish to lay before the committee, in more detail, the present position of women in the labor market, because that is an important factor in this whole equalpay situation. The most recent employment figures, those for December 1947, show that close to 17,000,000 women are working or seeking work, and that they constitute 28 percent of the current labor force. The tremendous change in the number of working women and its influence is apparent even if we go no further back in the statistics than 1900. At that time 5,000,000 women were in the labor force, and were 18 percent of it. From that time to now there has been a steady climb upward. I insert the figures for each census period because they are such a conclusive reply to those who argue that women's participation in paid employment is only temporary or incidental or nonessential. Just before the war about

14,000,000 women were in the labor force as compared with the present 17,000,000. At the peak of war activity, in July 1944, there were more than 20,000,000, but even with the withdrawal of over 3,500,000 since that date, we still have 3,000,000 more than in 1940. The shift in the composition of the labor force is perhaps more strikingly indicated by pointing out that between 1900 and December 1947 the number of men is 3,500,000 short of having doubled while the number of women has more than tripled. Stated in these terms, it becomes even clearer that the general evils resulting from unequal pay are potentially increasing, and will become more rather than less serious unless some specific steps are taken to remove them.

Further analysis of the place of women in the labor force shows that marriage is not taking women as a group out of paid employment. There were, in 1947, substantially more married than single women working. Of the 17,000,000

women, 46 percent were married, 38 percent single, and 16 percent widowed or divorced. Since 1910 there has been an almost steady rise in the proportion of married women in the labor force. Between 1920 and 1930 it rose 6 percent; between 1930 and 1940, 7 percent. Most striking is the rise of almost 11 percent between 1940 and 1947 and this figure represents the situation after the settling down of employment subsequent to the war peak. Over the same 37 years from 1910 to the present the percentage of women in the labor force who were single has declined from 61 percent to 38 percent.

An additional significant point in the statistics on women's employment is that older women are remaining in the labor market in substantial proportions. In October 1947 about half the women were 35 years or over. There were almost 4,000,000 between the ages of 35 and 44 years and over 4,000,000 between 45 and 65. This indicates again the permanent nature of women's need to work, and there is no indication at the present time that this situation will change.

Now the committee may ask, "How many persons will be affected by the equalpay bill under consideration?" The bill applies specifically to employers "engaged in commerce or in transactions or operations affecting commerce" who employ eight or more persons. On the basis of census and other pertinent data the Women's Bureau has estimated that there were about 24,000,000 persons employed at wages or salaries in such establishments in October 1947 and that about 5,500,000 of these were women. There are no available figures to show just how many of these 5,500,000 are now paid lower rates than men for comparable work but on the basis of experience in collecting and studying wage data of women workers over a period of years, the Bureau believes that the number of women affected would be substantial.

WOMEN'S ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITIES

The tremendous expansion in the proportion of married women in the labor market is in itself an indication of women's economic responsibilities.

That economic necessity is a prime motive in the seeking of employment by married women is indicated by census data showing the relationship between the family income level and the proportion of wives employed. The 1940 census shows that the proportion of wives at work is materially higher among families in which the husbands are in the low-income groups. Census data show that in 1940 the income groups in which the husband earned less than $1,000 per year had the largest proportion of wives working. In the income group where the husband earned between $1,500 and $2,000 per year, 18.8 percent of the wives were working as compared with 5.6 percent of the wives where the husband was earning $3,000 per year and more.

As already shown, the proportion of older women in the labor force is also increasing, and for the same reason that of economic necessity. The notion is still commonly held in many places that women work a few years before marriage and then retire to spend the rest of their lives at home. Census figures for October 1947 show that the age group 20 to 34 years was the largest group of women in the labor force, accounting for 38.7 percent of the total. However, about half of all women in the labor force in October 1947 were 35 years old or more, whereas before the war, only two out of every five women were 35 years old or more.

Studies show that a large majority of women workers are financially responsible not only for their own support but for support of dependents as well. In 1944-45, the Women's Bureau found in personal interviews with over 13,000 women employed in 10 war-congested areas throughout the country, that 84 percent of the women worked to support themselves and others. An additional 8 percent also gave economic reasons for working, such as to own a home, to be free from debt, or to pay for their children's education. Only 8 percent of the women worked primarily as a way of self-expression. Fifteen percent of the women who lived in family groups were the sole wage earners contributing to household expenses. Ninety-two percent of the employed women who lived with their families contributed regularly toward family expenses. Over half of them contributed between 50 and 100 percent of their earnings to the family group. Almost all the women who lived alone (1 in every 5 women) supported themselves; some also had dependents.

These facts bear out the results obtained in studies made by the Women's Bureau prior to the war period. They are also corroborated by studies made by other groups.

Economic responsibilities fall on women in all marital status groups and all ages. Women's economic need is more easily recognized, however, where certain other conditions or circumstances are present. One such condition is where the

family has no male head. Another is where, despite the fact of young children, especially children under six, the woman still seeks outside employment.

The typical family is usually pictured as consisting of father, mother, and children. The facts show, however, that in 1940 5,500,000 families had a woman head. Not all family heads, either men or women, were in the labor force. In 1940, approximately one-sixth of the Nation's working women were heads of families.

Women with young children tend, whenever possible, to devote full time to home responsibility. However in 1946, among normal families with children under 6 years of age, 9 percent of the wives were employed. In such families where the woman was the head, more than one-third of the mothers worked. In normal families with children over 6 but under 18 years of age, 22.5 percent of the wives worked. In such families headed by women, 50 percent of the mothers worked.

The need for equal pay for women is apparent as an abstract proposition on the ground of simple justice. The full realization that women, like men, work out of economic necessity, because they must meet financial responsibilities to support themselves and their dependents, makes woman's case for equal pay even more imperative.

HOW THE EQUAL-PAY BILL WOULD AFFECT THE WOMEN ON THE JOB

I have presented a comprehensive picture of women's position in the labor force, their increasing numbers and their heavy economic responsibilities. H. R. 4408 would improve their position in certain respects. It would correct wage discrimination against women in interstate commerce where they are performing work comparable with men, and would promote the economic welfare of women as a class. I would like now to discuss briefly the procedures of that bill in terms of the employment conditions to be corrected, and illustrate by means of concrete instances the various types of situations in which the bill would apply.

The Secretary described briefly the principal procedures by which the Federal equal-pay bill, H. R. 4408, would deal with wage discrimination against women. One procedure is that of job analysis and administrative hearings, the other is industry committee recommendations. The provision for administrative hearings is a method of dealing with specific instances, where a designated employer is paying women employees at lower rates than he pays men employees for comparable work. The other procedure, that of industry committees, is a method of reducing discriminatory wage practices on an industry-wide basis through establishment of standards based on voluntary recommendations by a committee from the industry itself. I believe both procedures are necessary and would be effective to accomplish the general purpose of the bill.

1. First, the correction of specific instances of discriminatory wage practices against women. -Under H. R. 4408 a woman worker must be paid rates not less than those paid men if she performs comparable work. The test of whether women workers paid at lower rates are being discriminated against is whether their work is in fact comparable. While the answer to this question in each instance will depend on an analysis and comparison of specific jobs or job classes, it is a fact that certain general patterns of discriminatory wage practices have developed and are clearly recognizable. In general, there are three principal types of situations where women are performing work but where they are now often denied equal pay. The most obvious situation is where men and women are performing the same operation on the same product. I believe you will agree that here a clear-cut case exists for equal pay. A similarly clear case would exist where a woman replaced a man and satisfactorily performed the work he was previously doing. It is not unusual, even where men and women are employed on the same operations on the same product, to find the woman paid at lower rates for the same work. Some employers discriminate openly; others do it through various devices, as Women's Bureau field studies clearly show.

In June 1942 the Women's Bureau made a survey of 137 plants in New Jersey employing 233,000 workers including 69,000 women, in expanding industries with war contracts, including such traditional women's industries as apparel manufacturing and electrical equip nent. The survey showed instances where women were paid from 50 to 58 cents per hour for soldering jobs while men were paid from 70 to 90 cents. Other cases reported showed that men operating the same drill presses as women on identical parts were paid a 10-cent higher base rate, though women excelled in production (W. B. Bull. 197).

Another Women's Bureau survey in 1943 covered 41 basic steel mills employing 279,000 workers (W. B. Bull. 192-195). Women constituted 10 percent of all

employees and 35 percent of office employees. The survey showed that women clerical employees, a traditional type of work for women, were paid wage rates far below those of the men. Experienced women clerical workers who had replaced men were reported receiving $90 per month for office jobs on which men had received $150 and $160 per month.

Roundabout methods of wage discrimination against women where their jobs are virtually identical with men may also be illustrated. In the steel-mill survey,

for example, the Women's Bureau found that women who replaced men on production jobs usually got the same base rate of pay. This safeguarded the man's base rate while he was away. The joker, however, was that a large proportion of the jobs were on various types of incentives, with group work or group bonuses more common than individual piecework. While the actual earnings of men were increased by bonuses, most of the women were excluded from such benefits. The survey showed that in some plants, all of the women were on a time rather than a piecework basis.

Another way of avoiding equal pay for virtually identical work is illustrated by a Women's Bureau survey of employment in the manufacture of cannon and small arms in 1942 (W. B. Bull. 192–193). In Michigan, which has a State equal-pay law, a number of plants had two basic over-all job classifications, designated as "male" and "female." Both men and women were employed alike on jobs involving inspection, assembly or machine operation. No women's jobs were separately classified, however, but were lumped into one general category paying 60 to 76 cents per hour, regardless of the type of work involved. Men's jobs were classified by type of work and the rates varied accordingly.

Another Michigan plant in which men and women worked on the same jobs also had a separate classification system for females. In that plant the maximum rates paid to women were lower than the minimum rates paid to men.

2. A second type of situation in which women would be doing comparable work within the meaning of H. R. 4408 is found on a broad range of jobs where the work is basically similiar, but where certain distinguishing characteristics are present either in the duties of the job itself or in the conditions surrounding its performance. The woman may make a smaller part, use material that is lighter in weight, or have slight differences in duties. In general, it is clear that slight and inconsequential differences in the job, or differences in factors outside the job and not relevant to its performance are not justifiable grounds for discriminating against women workers in rates of pay. Differences in entrance rates and automatic progression policies would also fall in the area of comparability.

Jobs done by women in this general area often are distinguished by so-called "paper differences," i. e., differences written into the employer's job description which have little relation to the requirements for the worker's actual performance. A common "paper difference" is the men workers' theoretical availability for other work. In the Women's Bureau survey of the steel industry mentioned previously, the Women's Bureau found that in one plant visited the hourly rate for women crane operators was 11 cents less than that for men because women were not supposed to oil or make repairs on the cranes. Inquiry by Women's Bureau agents revealed that regular maintenance crews took care of servicing, and it was not customary for men to oil or make repairs either.

Other types of "paper differences" are differences in training not reflected in job performance, and inconsequential differences in job duties which men and women are equally capable of doing.

Another type of situation is where men's and women's jobs differ in physical strength. The women do almost all parts of the work except heavy lifting. This is not a ground for wage differentials if the division of work results only in specialization of tasks and does not increase production costs.

Still another category is where working conditions not a part of job performance are different for men and women. This is illustrated by a series of court cases involving the Michigan equal-pay law, in which the circuit court made some interesting observations, as follows:

* * *

"It is strongly urged by defendant (employer) that the women had a 15-minute rest period morning and evening which the men did not have. The testimony tending to support this claim is, in any event, not material. The women had to turn out the same quantity and quality of work as the men similarly employed. If they did that, the women would be entitled to equal pay ** "In the women's toilet it appears that there was a hot plate, a sanitary cot, some old rocking chairs, and perhaps a mirror. It is urged by the defendant that this tended to distinguish the work of the women from that of the men, but I am

*