Indeed, it is not unreasonable to question the need or advisability of State laws or their continuance in view of the substantial progress made at an accelerated pace through voluntary action and collective bargaining, but since all of the most heavily industrialized States have already legislated in the field, surely there is no need for duplication through Federal law.
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.
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.
