EQUAL PAY FOR MEN AND WOMEN TEACHERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9913, 30 July 1910, Page 4

EQUAL PAY FOR MEN AND WOMEN TEACHERS.

(By ANNIE WELLS in "Woman's . Life."), , Generally speaking, before answering a question it is well to look at it from different standpoints before committing oneself. So with regard to the above question, it will, perhaps, be advisable before giving a decided answer to look at the problem from different aspects. First let us take tho point or view of the payer. In paying for work the factor which usually decides the amount is tho quality or quantity of that work, not the sex of the worker. The price paid for a tailor-made article of clothing is not generally according to whether a man or woman has made it, but rather whether the garment be well or indifferently made. So with regard'to paying for painting, writing, etc., .the remuneration is usually in ratio with the quality of tho work, seldom with reference to the sex of the worker. But on coming to the payment for teaching we find a new element arising; the question is then asked: "Is it a man or woman who has done the work?" and this often has more weight than the quality or quantity of work done. Surely, even from the payer's point of view, there can bo nothing unreasonable in his being asked to carry out the same principle that holds good in other professions, i.e.. that the woman should have the same remuneration as the man if her work compares equally with his. Now from the payee's point of view. We will take the case of the woman teacher working side by side with tho man teacher, doing exactly the samo kind of work, bearing the burden equally with him. The result of the woman's work will generally compare equally or favourably with the man's, yet at the end of the quarter the woman has to accept less money, simply because she is a woman. If there were a difference shown in other respects, perhaps tho woman might feel a little less resentment at this quarter-day difference. But the work is meted out to her in the same proportion as to the man; her classes are usually as large as his, and home work to correspond. 'Moreover, she knows perfectly well that in meeting rent and taxes, food and clothing, there will be little or no difference shown because she is a woman ; she knows the landlord will demand the same rent for Ins room or cottage from her, as he would from a man. The grocer, butcher, coalman, etc., will also demand the same price for their goods from her as from a man. That being the case, it seems a little unfair that woman should have to bo equal bo man as regards expenditure of time, energy and money, but with reference to wages the same equality is denied her. From this, tb© payee's point of view, there can he but one conclusion: if woman's work he done equally as well as man's, she should decidedly be able to oommand the same salary.

The Britisher's love of fair play is widely acknowledged; he is known to be especially careful in the national games to see that fair play is enacted on all sides. This spirit is so stronsr and widespread that it steps beyond the sphere of games, and permeates even the more■- r-erious walks of life.' There are few phrases which quicker condemn a shady or unfair action thaa

to say., "It isn't cricket." Now I ask in all fairm- , "Is it cricket to pav woman less Uian man for her wort dimply because she is woman, irrespective of the quality or quantity of that workP"

After looking at the question from these different standpoints, my answer to the question at the head of this article is decidedly "Yes." If woman does the same work equally as well as man she has a right to an equal remuneration.