…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.
The additional costs required to administer equal pay legislation cannot equal the benefits proposed. Legislation such as this is destined to increase the size of our bureaucracy at a time when every effort should be made for stabilizing our economy.
The retailing industry recognizes the need for responsible conscientious treatment of its workers. There is justifiable resentment against unnecessary further incursion of the Federal Government into business operations with the attendant danger of increased bureaucratic controls, increased interference with private business, and, most important, further regimentation of the individual.
The retailing industry has long recognized the importance of its women employees. It is natural in this business employing such a preponderance of female employees, that their importance be recognized in many ways—not the least of which is their right to earn coequal salaries with men in the same positions. In fact, there are many jobs in retailing which are better adapted to women employees—and experience has shown are much better performed by them than men. Thus, a policy of paying the rate for the job, without regard to the sex of the worker, is generally reflected in women’s pay checks in the retailing industry.
