We have had several young men start out as secretaries and later rise to positions of importance. …When these young men started, and as they progressed, I am certain that their wages were higher than some female secretaries doing equal or superior work. But we also knew that there was a possible potential of their rising to more important jobs, supervising a large number of men. If this law is passed, we will hire women for all secretarial positions and be deprived of this avenue of advancement.
I have yet to see a woman in a manufacturing establishment who has been able to rise to the top in a manufacturing job….It is because men in general, I think, like to be supervised by men rather than women in factory jobs.
We are asked to add this role for government at a critical time. The Federal budget is out of balance and under stress….Nondefense items, such as the one proposed, are currently causing our greatest spending increase.
[T]he act will tend to cause labor unrest and labor disputes and disrupt collective bargaining agreements. In virtually every industry of any size, [employees] are represented by a collective bargaining agent which has negotiated an agreement with the employer covering rates of pay and conditions of employment.
Members of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce do not argue with the principal of equal pay for equal work. However, they have consistently advocated and endorsed a policy of home rule. State legislation on such subjects is preferred to Federal legislation whenever practical. Twenty-two States have enacted equal pay bills. This in itself…indicates that States can adequately cover this subject, and no need exists for additional Federal legislation.
The principal of equal pay for equal work sounds…simple [but]….We cannot ignore the variables inherent in our private enterprise system, or give all discretion in resolving them to some single group or agency such as the Department of Labor, if we are to continue as free men and women.
I assume that a typical goal of the proposed bill would be to eliminate [pay differentials]….if the bill did this it would eliminate thousands and even hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for women.
Proponents of Federal equal pay at times say that variations in State laws indicate a need for a Federal law which will promote uniformity. Such a contention is unsound. A certain amount of experimentation is desirable to find the type of law that works best. The efforts in the 22 States [with equal pay laws already on the books] amount, in effect, to laboratories of experiment….This opportunity for the 50 States to learn from one another is highly desirable. It would be forever lost once Federal legislation takes effect.
I know that there are variables from plant to plant and business to business, and that if an attempt is made to regiment all industrial relations, individual businesses will suffer—their employees, especially women, can face unemployment—and the national economy will be weakened.
[T]hink of the handicaps nature and the various State legislatures have placed on women who seek employment in a field where men traditionally have operated….A man can work any hours necessary….If we hire a woman for that job we take into consideration the fact that she may very well get married and leave our employ because of the birth of a child or because her husband moves to another place….we may decide that it is worth running that risk if we pay $50 to $100 a month less. If, however, we have to pay the same rate of pay and we have a choice between a man and a woman, it would not be worthwhile to hire that person.
