OVER THE TEACUPS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 279, 22 November 1913, Page 15

OVER THE TEACUPS.

WOMAN'S WORK AND WAGES.

SHOULD IT BE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK? >T,v Our iiondcr. !Lady Correspondent.! —" ! Out of the maze of modern developments it is difficult to follow up or to forecast tJie total effects which different scales of payment of men and women may cause. It i≤ like throwing a pebble into a still lake ami watering the rings which appear and disappear, ever growing larger and spreading themselves over the whole area. The industrial, social and economic, aspects of life are so interdependent that the desirability of any one particular reform cannot be determined solely on its own merits. For the purpose, of popular discussion and public agitation, however, it i≤ necessary .so to simplify the matter at issue thai, it may be crystallised in one, terse phnnse. capable of compelling interest ami arousing enthusiasm. Such a. phrase in "Equal pay for equal work,' of which with the advent of women into industrial and economic work in England we have heard so much. In the past "the contention of women that where they work side by Ade with men at. similar occupations they should lie similar!} remunerated, has had a very considerable body of public, opinion ugainm it. It. was argued that the essential basis of society in the family consisting of a husband as breadwinner, with his wife and children economically dependent upon him. Assuming that only in very exceptional instances this is not the case, the argument that "equal pay for equal work" would lend to a break-up of the basic institution of society — ho family — has much to be eaiil for it. Hut social life cannot bo considered am -apart from economic activity — the two are interdependent, each is influenced 'by the other. Our stock of wellworn axioms on the relation of men and women in the world of labour must, therefore, be subject, not only to the test of sex and social fthics, but to the economic results of any differentiation of men's and women's wages. Within groups of work people there is to-day comparatively free competition. In those (x-cupiiliona where women can, and do. perform the same work as men, we have necessarily to discover, not only the effect upon the wages of 'the women, but also upon the wages of the men. J-'roni one point of view, therefore, the question resolves itself into -Will payment of low wages to women dec reuse or increase the efficiency of man as the responsible wage-earner? It is a well-known truism of economics that any introduction of low-paid labour into ,i labour market has the effect sooner or later of depressing other wages towards i.hia low level. C-ont-iMi.t the two industries—engineering and low-class tailoring. A daughter living at home may. and often is quite willing to, be underpaid by a tailor bo long as"her father, who obtains good wages in an engineering firm, subsidises her wages to the extent of an adequate weekly allowance. In this case, which is by no means uncommon in England, a percentage of the wages paid out. by the engineering firm goes to make up for tin; unpaid wages of the tailor, who, owing to his own greed, underpays hits employees. In other words, the tailoring firm in this instance is parasitic upon the engineering firm, and the capable employer is bearing part of the burden of the inefficient or rapacious one without any corresponding aid to greater efficiency. From these {wo cases it is evident that low-paid women's labour is injurious to the best interests both of efficient work people and capable employers. Quite apart, from the practical difficulties and impossibilities involved when an employer tries to remunerate his work people according to their responsibilities in life, it is evident that the economic effects of such difference being made will be all to -the bad. The contention that women have no business to enter industry is a; once answered by the existence in all old countries like England of a large number of women who have to depend upon their own exertions in order to live. All married women are not doing the work of -which 'they are most capable by remaining always in the home a.nd attending to various domestic matters. In large towns it is often more convenient and satisfactory for married women to work at some remunerative occupation during a few hours in the day and thus provide the extra means for maintaining a higher standard of living both for herself and Tier husband than would otherwise be possible. Where greater comfort and pleasure is to bo got by a woman doing what she is more fitted'for than ordinary domestic work, there seems no reason to relegate her to the domination of worn-out prejudices. Tho great problem of civilisation is how to use all our resources in order to obtain the greatest possible return with a mfnimum of worry and labour. Round pegs in square holes is far too obsolete a policy to solve -anything nowadays. To a large extent women have become educated industrially and intellectually, and knowledge and power always demand recognition in responsibility. "To be logical, we must accept or discard 'both. To discard the education of women is now impossible. We must therefore accept the principle of responsibility of women as well as men. This does not mean to say that all women must be economically responsible or that they need be economic units. Marriage may yet mean a co-economic responsibility and a degree of independence which may yet give to marriage a greater reality and a greater comradechip. In any ca=e. quite apart from sex and social consideration, it is clear that any attempt to keep women's remuneration lower than that of man's is economically unsound, both for employers and employed. The crux of the matter turns rather on another point, and that turns rather on another point, and that is the meaning of the term ''.■qua] work." Work, like 'wages, must be estimated in two termsextent and permanence. If a. woman's industrial work is interrupted by intervals of child-bearing or other exigencies, the value, of her work, though it may he intrinsically equal to or better than that of a man. is in the long run reduced much in the same way as an income which cannot be depended upon is probably of less value to its recipient than a lower income which is secured. In determining the value of man's labour as compared to woman's, however, very much more experience is necessary before anything in the nature <f a final reply can be given. In the meantime, other things being equal, it is undoubtedly sound to insist upon "equal pay for equal work," both, for men and women.