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.
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.
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.
[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.
The people of each state, and they alone, are best qualified to judge whether conditions in their own jurisdiction are such that there is social need for an equal pay law….Any view that only the Federal Government can handle this problem shows a distrust of the States and indicates an unfortunate trend toward creating an over-centralized, top-heavy government by bringing all problems to Washington.
[The bill would give the government] sweeping powers over industry [and make the secretary of labor] PROSECUTOR, JUDGE, AND JURY.
[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.
