Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1924-11-07


De women nave bargaining power
equal 10 thai Of men Ia making a
con.fae. fer wages Do women whe
make wage contracts With employers
stand or az equality of bargaining
poweH with faam: Granted taa, the
health Of womea needs TO be preeei-
ed by legislation, has low wages any
connection Win health. Is human
labor power commodity similar IN
principle To other kinds CT goods
Is a law which endeaeafs 70 guarantee
to women a wage which enables them
to keep in health and preserve their
morals, enc which widenS the opera
ton Of the police power ITO a great
and dangerous degree
These are some Of the questions an-
sweied by the majority opinion of tie
Supreme Court On April 3, when the
District of Columbia minimum wage
law was declared unconstitutional by
vote Of . to 8, Justice Sutherland
rendering the opinion, with Chief
Justice Taft and Justice Holmes and
Sanford dissenting. and Justice Bran.
deis not taking part,
There are a number Of points
raised by Justice Sutherland which
/ are quite worth the while 10 discuss
/ in the light Of what authorities,
backed by public opinion in general,
! think concerning them. The attack
on the law is along the following
! lines. % The law does not come
within any of the exceptions to the
/ general rule forbidding legislative IN
/ reference with freedom of contract,
in that it does not touch on contracts
on public interests, emergency, and
other considerations of a similar pub
lie nature. % at forbids two parties
! having lawful capacity--under pen.
atty to the employer-to contract
freely with one another in respect
of the price for which one shall rem
der service to the other in a purely
! employment this interfering,
presumably, with the freedom of
contract guaranteed by the Constitu-
ton. CD The law is invalid because
il discriminates in favor of women
i'm d matter concerning which they are
practically ON par with men. t4)
'"rhe feature of this statute, which
perhaps more than any other, pu!s
upon it the stamp of invalidity is that
extracts from the employer an
arbitrary payment for a purpose and
upon a basis having no eausal con-
nection with his business or the con-
tract or the work the employe en-
cages TO do. The declared basis is not
| the value of the service rendered, but
! the eNtraneouS circumstance that the
employe needs to get a prescribed
sum of money to insure her subsist.
enee, health and morals"
Before proceeding to a discussion II
| these several points it is necessary %
point out the Importance of this de
cision. For many years social work
! ers, labor leaders, economists, and
others have been working to intro
duee the principle of the minimum
wage into our law. II is we'll known
that women's wages in many indus.
tries have been and are VIGOROUSLY
low. One investigation after anoth-
er has disclosed the undesirable con
ditions existing among unskillei wom-
/ EN- in industry, until public opinion
has generally recognized the fact and
| in many cases has translated the
recognition into action in the form Of
remedial legislation. The principle on
the minimum wage law was recog-
nized by New Zealand as early as
1894. and by Victoria in 1896. During
the first decade of the century most
Of the other Australian states also
adopted minimum wage laws. Great
Britain received its first law from
Parliament in 1909, and since that
time it has been extended SO that it
may be applied to all workers in
nearly all industries. France in 1915,
Argentina in 1918, and the -four
Canadian provinces of British Colum-
bia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskat-
chewan, in 1918 and 1919 have all put
minimum wage laws into effect.
In this country, the first law estab-
fishing a minimum wage for women
was enacted in Massachusetts, in 1912.
Since that time thirteen other states
have adopted similar laws, so that a.
present, with two repeating their
legislation, there are twelve Of them.
II has been assumed ever since 1917,
when the Supreme Court, in Settler
V. 0'Hara (243 US. 629), voted four
10 four Justice Brandeis net taking
part, on an appeal from the decision
Of the Oregon Supreme Court which
upheld the Oregon minimum wage
law. that such laws were NOT likely
TO be held invalid BY the Supreme
Court In view Of the decision handed
down on April all minimum wage
Legislation is endangered. Although
the law in question was one passed By
Congress. applying only to the Dis
trict Of Columbia, the principles laid
down by the court would appear to be
equally tenable when applied to any
other mandatory minimum wage law.
That states having such laws felt