The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 1912. WOMEN AND WAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 188, 15 January 1912, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 1912. WOMEN AND WAGES.

Since women have been "emancipated"— ' whatever that may mean—there have j been occasional demands from more or less organised bodies of women workers where they are doing "men's work" for "equal pay for equal work." It is easy to concede that where a woman worker is able to undertake the duties of a man worker, to do it as well and as constantly, she is entitled to a like consideration. The points, however, are that if she had not entered into the sphere of labor once specially held by man more men would be required for specific occupations. There is a likelihood of further diminution of men staffs where women are found to satisfactorily fill the bill; and a possibility that in some occupations men may ultimately have to accept women's wages, the standard being set by the wages paid to the largest body of workers. It is quite useless to rail against the entry of women into men's occupations, and in very many cases their employment can be readily justified. But the average woman who undertakes any work for which both women and men compete is on a totally different footing. In the majority of cases she merely fills a gap. Clerking, or school-teaching, or typewriting, or book-keeeping, or even serving behind a counter is not her life's task. She does not intend to keep any probable family by the work she does at her occupation or calling. It is merely a stop-gap. She has. in most cases, the natural end in view—marriage. She then just as naturally drops the roll of breadwinner. The man does not. He probably plods along in the old groove all his life, and the fact that his wife has been the business rival of a man up to the time of her marriage is a real handicap and not a help. The objection, therefore, to "equal pay for equal work" is that the woman worker is a mere commercial passenger. We will state a ease. Miss A. and Mr. B. are clerks employed by a firm. Mr. B. is married and has a family. Miss A. is just as good a clerk as Mr. 8.. and therefore is allowed the

same wage. The firm does not worry about the man. He's got to plug along to keep his family alive. The girl uses the firm only until she can get a man like Mr. B. to earn wages for both —and subsequently others. The fact that Miss A. is employed means that a problematical Mr. C. can't get the job. Miss A. could get married whether she worked for the firm or not. She is, indeed, provided for by reason of her sex. We are ready to admit that a Worrwn whose nature is antagonistic to marriage and who desires to be wedded to business all her life is entitled to a man's remuneration as doing a man's work, but confirmed spinsters are uncommon (thank goodness!). It cannot be advanced that Nature intended women to undertake the many activities in which they are nowadays engaged prior to marriage. In cul-de-sac employments where employers recognise that the rosy god will come and collect his women workers it does not matter so much, and in most I of these employments women are selected in preference to men. A real commercial rivalry with man on the part of woman is of no service to woman, who ultimately, quite naturally, allows such a rival to maintain her. It might be argued that "equal pay for equal work" would brin£ a larger number of women into the labor market, and thus, of course, either delay many marriages or lesson the numbers of them. On the other hand, under the present system where men and women may work together under varying rates of pay, the position is frequently provocative of matrimony. The natural chivalry of man might easily be lacerated if he knew that his spinster fellow worker was on level wages terms with him. The employer might suggest that as "equal" work was being done by spinster and married man the married man he given spinster's wages. Any determined feminine effort towards the wage equality of sexes is a stab at matrimony. We do not think that many women are guided in their wage ambitions by thoughts of their wedded life, but this might certainly be their chief consideration in approaching a subject that means a handicap to husbands and potential husbands.