Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

of our population-the women of our Nation. The semifeudal hangover of expecting a woman to produce as much as a man, but for less wages, is a Middle-Age practice that should have been outlawed years ago. If any group in society has reason to be given a privileged position, it is certainly our mothers and sisters who are working. But they are not asking for a privileged position. They simply want to be accepted as equals. The very least Congress can do is to abolish the horrible practice of discrimination purely on the basis of sex.

The discrimination against women has had serious repercussions for the rest of society. It has been a major weapon in the hands of those few interested in undermining the living standards of our people.

Precedents for congressional action are numerous. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and as implemented by this Congress provides for the fixing of minimum wage rates irrespective of sex. The WalshHealey Act of 1936 makes no distinction between men and women in its provisions covering conditions of employment in the production of supplies for Government contract. The National War Labor Board's famous General Order No. 16 authorized the raising of wages of women to those of men "for work of comparable quantity or quality on the same or similar operations." Before the war only two States had equal pay legislation, but since then many others enacted such laws. I would like again to mention the fact that we now have 12 such States. H. R. 1584 and H. R. 2438 make it an unfair practice for an employer:

to discriminate in the payment of wages between the sexes * * * excer t where such payment is made pursuant to a seniority or merit increase system which does not discriminate on the basis of sex.

It sets up the administration of enforcement machinery which, with proper funds, could carry out the purposes of the bill.

It is unfortunate that after the great contributions made by the women of America toward winning World War II we must require a law to insure women against wage and salary discriminations. Unfortunately, there are some employers who place pursuit of the dollar above the principles of fair play and equality. Fair employers who recognize the proper value of women's work and skills are placed in an unfair competitive position by employers who hire women at lower rates than men for doing comparable work. The Congressmen who vote against this bill are actually giving their approval to such practices and are penalizing those employers who are practicing our national ideals.

For the protection of the living standards of our women and the American people, for promoting industrial peace, and for carrying out of our basic principles, we ask you to make H. R. 1584 and H. R. 2438 law.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the privilege of reading into the record the statement of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

Mr. BURKE. You may proceed.

Miss BLANCHARD. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (CIO) represents 325,000 members, more than 225,000 of whom are women workers. Throughout its 36 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 prin

ciple 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 following 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. Today the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, meeting in Cleveland, passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Seventeenth Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America reaffirms its continuous stand in favor of equal pay and equal work opportunities for women.

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 comdemning these women and their families to living standards below the level of subsistence. I would like to say this. Pin money was mentioned before. I would like to point out that study after study has been made proving that women work because they have to and not just for pin money, or to wear out their old clothes. With reference to women working from the time they come out of high school, for a couple of years; I would like to find out how many of them return after they have met their Sir Galahad, because Sir Galahad's salary is not sufficient to but the necessities of life for the third member of the family.

Mr. BURKE. May I say at that point that when an employee is paid certain wages, it is no one's business what the employee does with the wages; is not that true?

Miss BLANCHARD. Exactly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURKE. The use to which the wages are made can in no wise be considered a factor in determining the amount of the wage that should be paid.

Mr. BLANCHARD. Exactly. I agree with you there, Mr. Chairman. 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 1949 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 workingwomen 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 number 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 1949.

Mr. Chairman, I should be very happy to answer any questions by members of this committee.

Mr. BURKE. It was said before that what the employee spends the wages that he earns for is certainly not to be taken as an economic factor in determining what the wage shall be. To answer some of Mr. Gwinn's questions to Mr. Beirne, we might explore the same sort

C

of situation. The consumer has already been taken into account in the setting of a wage rate, to start with; is not that true?

Miss BLANCHARD. Exactly, yes; very true.

Mr. BURKE. It is putting the cart before the horse to say that we must pay lower wages to women because the consumer will not buy the goods unless a low-wage woman produces those goods.

Miss BLANCHARD. That is a very specious argument, I would say.

Mr. WIER. You mentioned the fact that 12 States and the Territory of Alaska have legislation covering equal pay for equal work. Do you know anything about it?

Miss BLANCHARD. Do I know anything about the operation of the equal-pay laws?

Mr. WIER. You said there are about 12 States now that have legislation covering equal pay for equal work. Do you know anything about those 12 States' laws?

Miss BLANCHARD. You mean the wording of the laws?

Mr. WIER. Yes, the set-up.

Miss BLANCHARD. I did not bring that with me, but I should be very glad to obtain it and supply you with it.

Mr. WIER. You are going to be confronted with that sooner or later in connection with this bill. What I am trying to get at is this. Are these laws uniform, or are they varied?

Miss BLANCHARD. They are not uniform.

Mr. WIER. Where did this bill come from?

Miss BLANCHARD. This bill was drafted by outstanding women's organizations.

Mr. WIER. Was it copied from any State law?

Miss BLANCHARD. No. We have used some parts of State laws. For instance, we think we have a fairly good equal pay law in New York State.

Mr. WIER. What State has the best law?

Miss BLANCHARD. I would not be prepared to answer that at this moment. I hope that it will be answered.

Mr. WIER. Because that is what will answer Mr. Gwinn's questions. That would answer every question that he asked.

Miss BLANCHARD. I think that can be answered very effectively by the representatives of the Government agencies who are going to testify here, because we in the CIO have our union contracts and do not have to look to State laws. I could gather the information and tell you which is the best union contract that we have in relation to the equal pay question.

Mr. WIER. Do you cover this question in your union contracts?
Miss BLANCHARD. We have in many of our union contracts.
Mr. WIER. That is what I was afraid of.

Miss BLANCHARD. No sex.

Mr. WIER. I suppose you are making your appeal for this legislation to provide protection for the unorganized workers, is that right? Miss BLANCHARD. We are making it for the unorganized workers as well as the organized workers. I did not say that in all of our union contracts we have been able to wipe out discrimination; that is, in all CIO union contracts. However, we have in hundreds of instances eliminated the word "sex"-male and female-in our union contracts, and we think we have done a very good job. Unfortunately, we are not responsible for some of the fuzzy thinking of em

ployers on this subject, and we are doing a very fine job of educating them in this field.

Mr. WIER. Are you through now?

Miss BLANCHARD. If you have any other question

Mr. WIER. I was going to ask you another question. I heard you say very definitely a minute ago-now, let us stick with the Amalgamated; do not take me off to some other field. I heard you say very definitely a minute ago that through your contracts, with your very strong organization you have been able to eliminate these injustices and discriminations, through the process of your contracts. Miss BLANCHARD. That is right.

Mr. WIER. I think that is the reason why in my city they have equalized the pay of the presser and the cutter, whatever the sex of the employee may be. That is, the job pays so much. So in your field you have done this by contract?

Miss BLANCHARD. Yes, we have in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. We say so.

Mr. WIER. That is all.

Mr. BAILEY. Have you had any difficulty resulting from disputes growing out of the violation of the terms of the contract as they affect discrimination between the sexes?

Miss BLANCHARD. No, Mr. Bailey. Either our employers are very farsighted and very fair and understanding, or there must be something; but we are not quibbling about that in 1950.

Mr. BURKE. It is a pretty well-established principle?
Miss BLANCHARD. Yes.

Mr. BAILEY. I am anxious to get some information that I have not been able to get from other sources. Are union contractors in New York, or nonunion contractors, taking advantage of the situation to send a lot of their raw materials down to Puerto Rico and have them made into various types of wearing apparel where they get by with paying a 17-cent wage as compared with possibly $1.25 in the organized industry of New York? To what extent is that going on? Miss BLANCHARD. We have some of it going on, but not to a great

extent.

Mr. BAILEY. Are any of the contractors who have union agreements resorting to that practice, or are those nonunion contractors? Miss BLANCHARD. They are nonunion contractors. There is no union contractor, to my knowledge, doing this.

Mr. BAILEY. Í understand that it is a $10,000,000 industry in Puerto Rico and that they pay 17 cents an hour; that practically all of that material is sent down from New York, made into clothing and then brought back into the country again for sale in competition with clothing produced under union contracts.

Miss BLANCHARD. Of course, the answer to that is to have experienced union organizers go to Puerto Rico. The CIO has already sent representatives to Puerto Rico.

Mr. BAILEY. They do not seem to have accomplished very much. Miss BLANCHARD. Well, I think in time

Mr. BAILEY. They have a 25-cent-an-hour wage in the textile industry down there and 30 cents in pottery.

Miss BLANCHARD. Of course, the answer to the problem is organize the unorganized.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »