Any figures advanced to sustain a case that extensive rate discrimination exists, are likely to be misleading because they cannot represent the full extent to which the principle of equal pay for equal work exists throughout industry. While contract provisions might show the degree to which equal pay is embodied in collective bargaining agreements, they fail to indicate the far greater number of cases where employers of their own volition paid the same rates to men and women where jobs were equal, or where an identical wage scale is applicable to men and women although no specific ‘equal wage’ provision is contained in the agreement.
Then, too, State legislation is now effective in 21 States…In 1945 and since then each year, Federal legislation has been introduced to provide by governmental fiat equal or comparable pay, more often comparable. The Federal bills have all failed of passage [sic]. NAM took its position against them for reasons hereinafter stated. It now opposes the current bills to which this statement is directed although standing behind the principle they support otherwise better achievable through other sources.
…these bills grant extensive powers to the Secretary of Labor which permit of arbitrary application. For in proceeding under the law, the conclusion of the Secretary of Labor could not be upset by the courts, even if a company could prove that the jobs were not comparable, as long as the Secretary could show any substantial evidence that they were comparable.
The fact that men have been employed in industry over a longer period than have women in general, and also the fact that the average length of time devoted to industry by a man is greater than that of women, makes it natural that the jobs which require more experience and certain higher skills are more frequently assigned to men than to women.
Not only does there seem to be no necessity for this kind of Federal legislation, but these specific bills go far beyond the alleged purpose of advancing the cause of equal pay for equal work. They involve undue interference in the work relationship in a manner which would cause serious and numerous operating difficulties, interfere with efficient management, and prove disruptive to good relations between employers and employees.
Although there may be some inequitable situations in an industry as large as retailing, it should be pointed out that there have been conscientious efforts made to correct them. Further, in many States the situation has been corrected through the enactment of equal pay laws.
…the Secretary of Labor becomes prosecutor, judge, and legislator. He is given extensive authority to intervene and interfere in employer-employee relations. He must build a considerable Federal division of his Department to accomplish this purpose at increased cost to the taxpayers….Further, the Secretary is not required to await the complaint of an aggrieved employee. He is empowered to prevent any person from engaging in the prohibited wage discrimination. He may proceed on his own motion. There is not limit to the interference with efficient operations or the amount of snooping which may result in an effort to uncover evidence concerning existing or possible future wage discrimination.
The retailing industry has long recognized the importance of its women employees. It is natural in this business employing such a preponderance of female employees, that their importance be recognized in many ways—not the least of which is their right to earn coequal salaries with men in the same positions. In fact, there are many jobs in retailing which are better adapted to women employees—and experience has shown are much better performed by them than men. Thus, a policy of paying the rate for the job, without regard to the sex of the worker, is generally reflected in women’s pay checks in the retailing industry.
Our members are not so much concerned with the prospective legislative mandate to pay women on an equal basis with men as they are with (1) the need for a Federal statute and (2) the consequences of a blank check to be given to the Secretary of Labor to engage in ‘fishing expeditions,’ ultimately resulting in harassing retailers and, in some cases, punitive action.
The additional costs required to administer equal pay legislation cannot equal the benefits proposed. Legislation such as this is destined to increase the size of our bureaucracy at a time when every effort should be made for stabilizing our economy.
