really run to the essence of the problem, would govern. It is a question of performance capacity that one has that the other has not, and it seems to me that this would be taken care of in the general language and that fact finding would do justice to the individual cases. Mr. FORSYTHE. Just one more point. Do you consider that that language would take care of any degree of difference in skill or ability in doing a job?

Miss MILLER. Within the limitation that the employer recognized for that job category, that would be permissible. Where the employer felt that minimum skill was not reached then, of course, the person would not be permitted in that job category and justly so, according to the terms.

Mr. FORSYTHE. What about the unorganized plant that does not have a seniority system and the employer hires a new man in his shop. Let us say that he has been working 20 years at the trade somewhere else. Do you think that experience in a case of that sort would be a valid reason for making a rate differential?

Miss MILLER. That would depend I should think on whether the employer hired him to use his experience. If he hired him and put him on apprentice work

Mr. FORSYTHE. No; I was assuming that he would put him on skilled work, for which he had been trained and in which he had had 20 years of experience.

Miss MILLER. No. Then I should think the work requirement would justify the rate.

Mr. FORSYTHE. At least, if he were paying his own experienced employees who had had 20 years of experience in that work more than the less experienced employees, you would say that he could do that?

Miss MILLER. I would think so. The mere fact that he had got his experience somewhere else would not make any difference.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Of course, if you had strict seniority, in a union plant, the man would start at the bottom regardless of his experience in other plants, would not that be true?

Mr. GRAHAM. Do you think there should be comparable quality in relation to the work performed, following up your suggestion about bringing in a man who had had 20 years of training? A woman could be working on a comparable job which would require comparable skill, but nevertheless there might have to be many defective pieces thrown out, that came off her particular press or whatever she was working on, whereas the other man might produce a high rate of superior goods.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I have been assuming, in this questioning here, that if you could measure the quality of the work coming off two different machines of exactly the same kind, that it would be a basis for a rate differential.

Mr. GRAHAM. It does not so state in the bill.

Mr. FORSYTHE. It does not say so in so many words but still, as I understand it, under this language, "work of comparable character on jobs the performance of which requires comparable skills," it seems to me you would have a hard time arguing that they have comparable skills, if they are not producing the same quality of work. If they were not, they just would not be having comparable skills.

Miss MILLER. Let me take an example from the job classifications in the Federal Government. You have clerks at a half a dozen different levels. You expect, and are required by the job definition to

expect, better performance, both quantitatively and qualitatively, if they are put into the higher grades. That is the practice of industry. There is quite a definite tolerance limitation for the different types of machinists; machinist first class, machinist second class, tool grinder, and so forth. The identity is not what is expected but rather that the person, in order to justify a claim to the rate, come within those tolerance limits which are set up for his grade in that particular series. And that would be as true, between two workers of the same sex, as it would if they happened to be of opposite sex.

The stenographer does not always turn out perfect letters, but there comes a time when she has done one too many that is not perfect.

Mr. FORSYTHE. This concept of work of comparable character on jobs the performance of which requires comparable skills, is that a new concept, or is that carried in any of the State laws? Do you have any administrative experience behind that language?

Miss MILLER. The State laws vary a great deal. We have a digest here which I would be glad to leave with you. This language all stems from the War Labor Board experience during the war and it has been modified by the well-known give-and-take of the legislative process in all of the States where laws of this kind have been enacted.

It is difficult to give it to you from this digest. For instance there is one here that prohibits discrimination by an employer in any way in the payment of wages as between the sexes, or the employment of any female at a salary or wage rate less than rates paid to male employees for work of comparable character or work in the same operations, business, or type of work in the same locality.

(The digest referred to appears at the close of witness' testimony.) Mr. FORSYTHE. In that State law locality is mentioned and while I think of it, let me go back to this statement where it is said that you would have no geographical problem under this bill. On what do you base that statement that you would have no geographical problem?

Miss MILLER. Pretty much on the work of the War Labor Board which faced this very question and came to the conclusion that there are many factors which justify differences in rates.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Let me interrupt, if I may. I do not think I made myself clear. I am not quarreling at all with the need for differences in different geographical locations. On a practical basis, men are working on the same sort of jobs in different parts of the country. I am wondering where in the bill, to use a slang expression, you are going to be able to hang your hat to justify the differences.

Miss MILLER. I do not believe it would be really required under the term "work of comparable character" to interpret as comparable, work that was done where the conditions of the job were clearly and recognizably different as they would be between areas with different levels of going wages. I do not think that is comparable.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I just wanted to know what language you based that on.

Mr. KELLEY. Are there any more questions? If not, Miss Miller, we thank you for appearing before us today.

Miss MILLER. I appreciate your generosity in letting me talk on, Mr. Chairman.

(The digest and statements referred to in Miss Miller's testimony are as follows:)

Provides for a fine of

not more than $100
for any person vio-
lating act; limits
period within which
prosecution may be
brought to 1 year
after commission of
act complained of.