[The bill would give the government] sweeping powers over industry [and make the secretary of labor] PROSECUTOR, JUDGE, AND JURY.
You can’t really blame the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance, for opposing the bill, chivalrous at heart as its members may be. For in addition to the possibility of added costs, there’s this problem: It’s a rare woman, we gather, who doesn’t think she is discriminated against on payday.
[The bill] is enough to give the boss of a lot of women workers the shudders. So much so that he may stop hiring women altogether. If that happens, pretty soon women would be right back in the place some men think they never should have left.
[We stand] with those who would eliminate injustice and inequality wherever it may exist….[But] We do not wish to see Federal legislation enacted which could create greater problems and bring about greater injustices.
[The bill would ensure] ‘Another vast Federal bureaucracy’ with an annual budget beginning at more than $1 million and the addition of 240 employees to Uncle Sam’s payroll. The organization suggests the ladies pursue their crusade through the collective bargaining process, rather than through legislation.
It would give the Secretary of Labor vast new powers over private industry with authority to investigate complaints, conduct hearings, issue orders, regulations and interpretation, and initiate legal actions to enforce complaints. Moreover, it would project Government into the job evaluation process—a prerogative traditionally reserved to management.
There are four major developments which make this proposed law of dubious value. Advancement of the worthwhile and sound objective of equal pay for equal work has already been well accomplished through: 1) General acceptance by employers; 2) A continuing aftermath of World War II developments; 3) Collective bargaining agreements; and 4) The tremendous increase in the establishment of job evaluation systems under which pay differentials based on sex are automatically abolished. It is through these channels that progress has been made and will continue to be made in eliminating multiple standards in the payment of wages.
The principle of equal pay for equal work performance within the wage structure of business establishments is sound. Pay for individuals, allowable within the company’s wage structure, is soundly based when work performance, irrespective of age, sex, or other personal factors is considered.
…the passage of Federal legislation will add an unnecessary additional Federal bureaucracy and the inherent added enforcement expense will only increase the already large deficit in the Federal budget. State action and voluntary employer activity have done an excellent job in the area of equal pay to date, and we are optimistic that such activity will proceed at an even faster pace in the future.
Certain specific provisions of these bills are bound to result in extensive governmental intervention in employer-employee relations….These terms ‘comparable character’ and ‘comparable skills’ do not necessarily mean the same job. In fact, they are so general and so vague as to give an administrator a grant of power which could destroy the sound wage structure which many industrial companies have worked for years to perfect.