[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.
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.
[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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
