Mr. BURKE. Some of those plants are not even completed down there as yet. Mr. BAILEY. Those of them that are completed are certainly exploiting the cheap labor in Puerto Rico. Miss BLANCHARD. Yes, you are quite right. Mr. BAILEY. That is all. Mr. BURKE. You have cited some examples of female employees and male employees doing identically the same operation and the situation of unequal pay has been corrected through the process of collective bargaining since 1922. It has become pretty much an established fact. Do you have any examples that you can cite for the record where the same condition applies; that is, where exactly the same operation is performed by both male and female, but there is a differential in the pay scales because of the difference in the sex? Miss BLANCHARD. No, I am not prepared to give you any examples of that, Mr. Chairman. I should be glad, however, to consult with some of our field people and submit such testimony, if I may. Mr. BURKE. Yes. (The information referred to was subsequently furnished by the witness, and is printed at the close of her testimony.) Mr. GWINN. I think that is what we lack. I do not see how we can decide on what is a proper law without any testimony to indicate the need for such a law. You stated the principle and you stated it very well. You cited an example in your statement where they change from the use of heavy steam irons to the lighter irons. You also indicated how the union, bargaining for your members, were able to work these things out on a friendly basis, without compulsion from Washington. Why can that not be done in all other cases? Is it not being done? Miss BLANCHARD. In the unorganized, in the white-collar field? Mr. GWINN. Wherever. Miss BLANCHARD. I think you will find that it is not done. I am quite sure that if we were to go to a local bank and ask if they paid a woman teller the same wage that a male teller receives, we would find immediately that the woman teller is paid less. Mr. GWINN. Are you not yourself weary of blanket accusations against a working free society; that it is selfish and vicious and that we have got to have laws to change it? And yet, you do not give us an example. Miss BLANCHARD. I do not say that the free society is vicious. Mr. GWINN. But you want a compulsory law, from Washington, to make them do what they ought to do. Miss BLANCHARD. We always have some people who do not quite understand what justice is and I think this kind of legislation is a means of educating some of our more backward employers as to the things that are fair and just. Mr. GWINN. It is also a means of unfair compulsion, at times, too. Does this bill provide a penalty? Miss BLANCHARD. It provides for hearings. And if the employer is found guilty Mr. GWINN. They put him in jail? Miss BLANCHARD. We have not put any employers in jail in New York. Mr. GWINN. But you could put them in jail, could you not? Miss BLANCHARD. Usually in the process of discussion and arbitration, the employer sees the need for this kind of thing, the justification for it. Sometimes employers do not even know how to keep records. I have heard many of them in New York State say that they found our investigators very helpful. Mr. GWINN. You do not need a law for that, the matter that you mentioned just now. Miss BLANCHARD. You cannot get into an employer's plant and check his records unless you have the legal right. Mr. GWINN. A lot of people will do things if you put them in jail for a year or fine them $5,000. Miss BLANCHARD. We have not had anyone go to jail and our law was passed July 1, 1944, in New York State. No one has gone to jail. As a matter of fact, the employers tell us that it is working out very well. Mr. GWINN. Then you might as well repeal the law? Miss BLANCHARD. No; but it is just a little token to the employers that this might be a good thing to follow. Maybe the employers in my State are more understanding. Mr. GWINN. If you can put them in jail once, in New York, why do you need a Federal law, from Washington-to put them in jail twice? Miss BLANCHARD. Our law covers intrastate business. A Federal law would cover intrastate as well as intrastate. This bill would cover interstate commerce and affect employers who are in a position to compete with our employers. Mr. BURKE. Would you yield for just a moment? I think the matter of a criminal penalty, as outlined on page 13 of H. R. 1584 applies to interference with officers who are charged with the administration of the law. There are no criminal penalties involved for the discrimination itself. Miss BLANCHARD. It is merely investigatory. Mr. BURKE. The criminal penalties are applied to those who interfere with the duties of the Federal officers. Mr. BAILEY. I think, Mr. Burke, that it also requires the Mr. BAILEY. They must keep necessary records and make them available to the representatives of the Commission and they may be fined for failure so to do. Mr. GWINN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is nobody who is not covered by the New York State law, who is within the borders of New York State. Miss BLANCHARD. They are all covered. It has been a long time since I saw that piece of legislation. Mr. GWINN. So there is no need for a Federal law to cover the citizens of New York State. Miss BLANCHARD. Except that our employers in New York State might well be placed at a disadvantage from time to time. Mr. BAILEY. May I ask the gentleman from New York whether the New York State statute would cover business in interstate commerce or just intrastate? Mr. GWINN. It would cover every individual in New York State, as a citizen, wherever he was working in the State. That is one of the evils, I would like to point out to the gentleman from West Virginia, of having a Federal law to segregate certain groups that are in so-called interstate commerce and have an administration of that law that is different from the administration of the law that covers intrastate commerce. As long as we have under the New York State law machinery applicable to all commerce within the State, then you have an equal and uniform administration of the law. Mr. BAILEY. I believe the gentleman will remember, in the consideration of the minimum wage bill, that we found a few States had minimum wages, but there was no uniformity, and there was not much opportunity and not much prospect of all the States enacting such laws, so we enacted a minimum wage law. Mr. GWINN. You had a great variation in working conditions and climate and there were certain advantages in one State as against another, that some of us argued those States, in the nature of things, ought to be allowed to keep; and the Federal law did not take care of those variations. Mr. BURKE. We also have 48 State laws against the theft of automobiles, but we also have the Federal Dyer Act. Miss BLANCHARD. I was just going to say that that is no barrier to the passage of H. R. 1584 and H. R. 2438. I think all legislation is trial and experience. In New York State we had a minimum wage law for women and minors and we amended it in 1944 and extended it to men. I believe we have also amended our equal pay for equal work law since it was passed in 1944. Legislation presents no hardship. Mr. GWINN. Except that if you have 44 individual States committing error, that is not disastrous. Miss BLANCHARD. It would certainly be better if we had a good Federal law; definitely helpful. Mr. GWINN. If one State makes a mistake, it is just one State making it. But if the mistake is made by the Federal agency, for all of the 48 States, that presents a much more serious situation for the Nation. Miss BLANCHARD. Well, we have a great deal of faith in the 435 Congressmen and 96 Senators to work out legislation that is workable in all of our States. Mr. GWINN. That is very kind of you. That is all. Mr. BURKE. On this subject of a free society, in order to maintain such a free society you have to protect the rights conferred by that free society, do you not? Miss BLANCHARD. Yes, indeed. It is a great responsibility. Mr. BURKE. In order to protect those rights, we have to have statutes. The only question that can logically arise as to the proprietary of any statute is whether or not it effectively protects those rights, and the more complex the society, the more necessary might be laws. I think that is why Congress and various State legislatures meet almost continuously. At least, they are elected at stated intervals. We have never abolished Congress, nor have we abolished the State legislatures Miss BLANCHARD. And we never will. Mr. BURKE. Because we did not think it was necessary to continue enacting laws for the protection of individual rights and the individual rights do go down to the workers as well as to those who own property. Mr. BAILEY. It occurs to me, Miss Blanchard, that you have overlooked one of the most potent arguments in favor of the enactment of this legislation, and that would be the increased remuneration going to your women workers if they were put on an equality with the men. It would greatly enhance the purchasing power of a large number of the American people and help us to maintain our present level of economic prosperity. Miss BLANCHARD. Yes, economic stability. Mr. BAILEY. I think in the precarious condition in which the Nation finds itself, we would be better off. What I mean by that is that we will have to buy more things and probably pay a better price for them if we have a correspondingly better wage. That is the situation today more so than at any other period of American history. Otherwise, our economy is going to crash. What I am trying to say is this: Right now the national income is somewhere around $213,000,000,000 annually. If that should drop to $150,000,000,000, the Government would go bankrupt because of its inability to meet its fixed charges, to say nothing of the operating expenses of the Government. So, one of your most potent arguments is that this will help to maintain the present level or even help to attain a higher national income level for the people of this country. It may result in slightly increased prices, but one of the most silly things to me-and, Mr. Chairman, I am going to take the privilege of putting this thought into the record-is the argument right now of getting back to a normal situation. And, when we speak of a normal situation, we are thinking of the prewar period. At the beginning of the war, our national debt was 35 billion dollars; 17.5 billion dollars of that had been added as a result of getting out of the depression. All of the rest of our national debt has been added as a result of winning the Second World War. You have often heard it said that the American dollar is only worth about 54 cents. We have incurred all of that debt on a cheap dollar. The most asinine thing to me is the argument that we should get back to a normal operation, to a hard dollar, to the gold standard-if you want to put it that way-and pay off that enormous debt with a hard dollar, when the debt was incurred with an inflated dollar. One of the best arguments that I know of right now, while the country is prosperous, is to pay off that national debt with the same kind of money with which we incurred the debt. This is one of those things that will keep up the average income of the American people, because it increases purchasing power. I know that the women are inclined to spend the money that they get, and that makes better business for everybody. I am sorry that you overlooked that. Miss BLANCHARD. Thank you. Mr. GWINN. Will the gentleman yield to me at that point? Mr. GWINN. You have heard it said that the people are often ahead of the Congress in their thinking? Mr. BAILEY. I expect that is right. Mr. GWINN. I was most impressed with the fact that neither Mr. Beirne nor Miss Blanchard used the argument that you could legislate or artificially create purchasing power. I was led to believe that they had become enlightened on the subject, and to see one of my colleagues prodding them to go back to an outworn theory-that you can legislate purchasing power is painful. Mr. BAILEY. That is one way of getting it. Miss BLANCHARD. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very happy to supply you with some more examples of the inconsistencies that now exist in some of our major industries. Mr. BURKE. Thank you, Miss Blanchard. Miss BLANCHARD. Thank you. (The information referred to earlier in Miss Blanchard's testimony is as follows:) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS SPECIFIC CASES OF DISCRIMINATING WAGE PRACTICES MAY 18, 1949. LOCAL 248, UAW-CIO, West Allis, Wis. (Attention: Mr. C. M. Schultz, president.) GENTLEMEN: Following is disposition of complaints which have been discussed in the third step of the complaint and grievance procedure. Complaint in behalf of Mrs. Stephanie Peters—No. 1193–2–A Effective May 9, 1949, Mrs. Stephanie Peters, a grinder and sharpener in No. 6/4 toolcrib, has been granted equal pay. Her rate was increased from $1.22 to $1.32 per hour, maximum rate for group 3. (This affected 75 women crane operators.) The company is presently analyzing those occupations where women have replaced men in order to determine if there are other instances warranting equal pay. This ruling confirms our discussion of May 9, 1949. Complaint in behalf of Marie Kukolich-No. 1051–2-A Gas and acetylene type brazing of all steam turbine blade sections was formerly done by male employees in the blading department of No. 4/1 shop. Some time ago, the equipment for brazing the smaller size blade sections was transferred to No. 4 gallery, and the work assigned to female employees. Since all other job assignments performed by these women, including gas brazing, has for many years been regarded as traditional women's work, the gas and acetylene brazing is being paid for at women's rates. The union argues that since this work was formerly done by men, it should now carry male incentives, despite the fact it is being performed in a traditionally women's department. The Board will agree that gas and acetylene brazing is an innovation in this particular department and that the work was formerly performed by men only. Therefore, it is the ruling of the Board that male incentive factors will be applied to the gas and acetylene brazing being performed by these women. Back pay will accrue from April 21, 1949, the date the grievance was written. Very truly yours, E. F. OHRMAN, Chairman, Industrial Relations Review Board. |