New-York tribune., 1908-04-13
DIR. SHUMWAYS REPLY.
Takes Up Lena Gano's Letter on
EquaI Pan

10 the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: When man who has equity IN $4,000
home is asked to favor bill that will increase his
taxes $40 to $50 year he naturally asks, What
do We get in value as an equivaIent?'
So in regard to the so-called equal pay bill
he may ask: do we get an additional school
sitting or teacher" Not one. do get better
protection for the children against fire. No.
DO secure better nourishment for ul-fed chill
dren?' No. DO we gain equitable increases in
salary" No, What, then, do gain?" Only
the mental satisfaction OF certain women teachers
who demand that their salaries be equalized
that of the normal breadwinner of the family.
Naturally the taxpayer himself If it would
be altogether sensible request that he pay
80 $40 year in order that the girl
stenographer may always have much pay
the man stenographer
What is the equal pay" bill? It's essential feat
second the mandatory appropriation of four mills,
instead Of three for salaries. The fourth mill
equals one dollar on a thousand.
To consider the second point first, the amount
yielded by the fourth mill (93 per cent of which
is to the day school fo-ce) is $4,000. But
according 10 the Mayors veto and the calculations
of the auditor OF the Board OF Education to
equaze the with The wage actually paid
men teachers would have cost some 100000
And Controller Metz letter OF March . says
that the of the proposed legislation would
probably be So, 100000.
1t follows that either the city must find many
millions more-i e.. GIr. Taxpayers tax bill will
rise some 500 on a $4,000 valuation-or wage for
both and must he found lower than
the wage paid
II constitutes no answer to this to say that
some five hundred now in the lower
grades, and If they not there great things
could be done with d schedule existing in some
lady's mind.
But that is not all injustice is pre-
vented, told. by a provision that no
salary shall be reduced by the operation OF the act
Any one conversant with school conditions knows
that a great number Of men are stiIl on progress
stve salaries. e., still advancing by annual
ncrements toward the maximum promised them
when they into the force. The equal payists
have refused amendment which would simply
guard these equities for those now in the system
Therefore they either propose rank injustice to
large body OF men who have supposed they were
protected by implied contract. or else the
proponents deceiving the taxpayer and pro-
posing a bin which Will cost the city in Increased
salaries alone from 100000 TO $l2,00000.
AS the schedules the proponents have are. Ike
the equator imaginary, and their bill leaves actual
schedule making conditioned equalization"
and upon the consumption Of Sc 5000 the Board
of Education. and the board has already indicated
its wish to preserve these equities and its doubt II
1t could legally transfer these hundreds OF men TO
higher grades. and the bill fs so Carelessly
drawn that crop Of costly litigation would spring
up II It were attempted 10 transfer the men there
is fair presumption that AIr Taxpayer will pay
his SIS or 500 and the bill from 50 10000
to Sl2OOOOo0
That some teachers are paid an insufficient wage
has nothing to do with the purpose Of the bnL
republication"
Equitable increases were offered by a duly con-
stituted committee Of the board before the appeal
Albany. and the advocates OF this bill refused
be satisfied with anything short Of equalization.
Further. the Board Of Education did lay out equita-
BILE increases, as it has full power TO DO under
existing law, and the only thing that prevented
such increases was the sudden financial stringency
from whose effect we are stiu suffering. {.
Equalization for its sake is. then, the only
excuse for demanding the taxpayers money. In a
signed article Of March Miss strachan says: THE
women teachers Of this city do in
crease that does not provide for the equalization OF
men teachers and women teachers salaries"
To support the claim proofs Of the excellent
quality OF womans work are advanced and com
parisons Instituted unfavOrable 10 men II these
had any bearing on the they would show
either that men are not needed in the schools
that an insufficient wage is paid men-not sufh-
cient TO secure better class OF men.
That men-mOre men-are needed in education is
agreed by all good educators That men are needed
is granted by the proponents of this bill Indeed
without them what would be their ground for ask
ing exactly this increase?
As a matter of fact men have been Disseminated
against from motives Of economy in the tax
payers behalf to give places to many Of these very
women who now demand the mans wage.
So the man candidate for admission the teach
ers training school must take mark Of 70 per
cent in eaca subject, while the woman need get
only 50 Per cent on the same paper. and to secure
license No /. ! am told the man must have 75 per
cent, the woman So per cent.
But after all the question comes back 10 the
reason for equalization" Does II lie in equal
value in the labor market Of mans services and
Woman'sH Every business knows better Every
labor1ng man understands that except under labor
union rules, woman and does underbid man in
the labor market. And the reason is not far to
seek. The man IS normally breadwinner for a
family The woman is not Under labor union
rules she has the same wage, and as a result (e e.
compositors uuionJ she driven out
The reason for equalization" " then does not lie
In social justice or economic law. or business prac-
tice, or in any analogy Of daily life
No corporation would consider for moment a
proposition from 1900 employees to raise their
wages to those OF 100 engaged for special pur-
poses"
So long as it remains true that men have fIuc-
ton in education that women cannot supply so
long II is true that the salary the man teacher
furnishes no basis whatever which to deter
mine that Of the woman teacher Competitton
ought 10 be between man and on the one hand
and between woman and woman on the other
Now, as regards the matter of motive affecting
the men teachers, the subject Of a caustic letter
signed Lena GanO" and published in The Trib-
une, II may be said that jury, in this case the
public land it's LEGISLATURE. is never concerned
with the retainer paid the counsel and so the pub
lie is not concerned with the fact the present
bill would add 500 10 the sG<ary OF the woman or
with the fact that her president is candidate for
reelection u the office of district