EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 7, 9 January 1912, Page 6

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

For many years the principle "of "equal pay for equal woi-k," in relation to the employment of men and women, has been advocated in Now Zealand and abroad. The most recent debate on the subject in this country occurred a few days ago at Timaru during one of the sessions of the Educational Institute, and the supporters of "equal pay" found "themselves in a minority. We are no more anxious than the women axe themselves to see them suffering any injustice in the social and economic scheme of things, but we are curious to know whether those who favour "equal pay" have enquired into the social and economic factors of the problem. Wo are aware that the New Zealand Labour Party stands for "equal pay for equal work for male and female workers, '' but we do not know exactly what is in thfc party's mind on this question. The Labour Party is naturally eager to prevent the filling of men's places by women at lower rates of wages. Is it possible that the advocates of "equal pay" hope to thus reduce the number of women employed industrially and put them rather in a mood for home-making than boot-making? It may be that the Lab-, our Party believes that the "equal pay" principle would eventually work for the good of society by keeping the sexea in, their "proper spheres" — the man as the breadwinner, the woman as the housewife. Other economists may hold an opposite opinion. They may contend that "equal pay" will decrease rather than increase the marriage rate by strengthening the economic independence of the unmarried woman. There is clearly wide scope here for difference of theory, but unfortunately these social aspects of the case are not commonly discussed. On the purely economic side one may note again a lack of illuminating argument. One starting-point of the controversy may be "living wage," of which no hard-and-fast definition can be given, for the reason that the ability of husbands and wives to run a household economically varies remarkably, Assuming equality of needs, a "living wage" for prudent Mr. and Mrs. A. and family is not a "living wage" for the less prudent Mr. and Mrs. B. and family. Is "living wage" to bo assessed on the management of the competent or the incompetent, or on a mean of the two? In practice, the "living wage" for a man tends to be a sum sufficient to maintain (himself, a wife and family. 11l the computation of the weekly wages of the able-bodied man worker, skilled or unskilled, the existence of a wife and family are taken into account. The home is the unit of measurement, and therefore the unmarried man enjoya an' advantage. He is paid at the same rate as his- married competitor, and may have only himself to maintain. Under a system of "equal pay/ unmarried women, without dependents, would similarly benefit, for married men would insist on a levelling up ot wages} they would fight hard against a > downward trend. Shortly, then, in the economic sense, the argument for "equal pay" for woman means sufficient wages . to support herself, a husband, and family. Assuming that the present proportion of men and women workers is maintained, it is easy to perceive a disturbance of the economic system, if a law of "equal pay" cornea into operation. With each man and woman receiving wages on the family scale, the wages bill would be formidably increased, and the troubles of employers,^ already serious enough to make many of them very unhappy, might prove more than they could bear. We could go into the economics of this subject at much greater length, but the occasion hardly calls for an elaborate analysis of the "equal pay" doctrine. Our purpose has been to show that some of the ardent friends of "equal pay have not, apparently, lifcudied the. subject .very deeply.