Evening star., 1937-04-08
Minimum Wages.

The relation between earnings and
morals is not capable of standardiza-
tion," said the Supreme Court in in
validating the District minimum wage
law in 1922. That opinion has been
overruled and a new majority of the
court has declared, in effect, that such
a relationship is susceptible of stand
ardization through minimum wages. But
forthcoming consideration of new
amendments to the revived District act
may show that it would be better to
abandon the old laws reliance on a
"cost Of living" necessary to maintain
woman workers "in good health and
protect their morals and in its place
substitute the more reasonable con-
ception of minimum wage based on
the value of services rendered..
In the prophetic words of Justice
Holmes dissent to the majority opinion
IN the minimum wage case, the only
objection to the District law that could
be argued ''is found within the vague
contours Of the fifth amendment" But
the majority opinion did object to the
fact that minimum wages in the Dis
tr1ct were based on cost of living
designed to maintain women in health
and to protect their morals, without
relation to the value of the services per-
formed by the women. The act, said
Justice Sutherland, ignored the incom-
petence of workers
All that is past now and the law is
valid. But the emphasis placed in the
District act on a minimum wage for
protection of health and morals of
woman workers, determined by lengthy
investigations OF cost of living figures
and arbitrary determination of the
number and cost of the hats, dresses,
coats, stockings and other more intimate
paraphernalia that a woman should
need; the amount she should pay for
room or the cost of her food seems
less logical than the theory of the
newer laws of New York, New Jersey,
New Hampshire and some other States
In these laws, modelled after a standard
act drawn by the National Consumers
League, the emphasis is placed upon
minimum wages fairly and reasonably
commensurate with the value of the
service or the class of service rendered."
Unreasonable wages, which would be
corrected by establishment of a min
tmunl, are those that are "less than the
fair and reasonable value of the services
rendered and less than sufficient to meet
the minimum cost of living necessary
for health" The cost of living is, of
course. taken into consideration. But
the value of services performed cor
rectly receives major emphasis. The
question of morals, so repeatedly en-
phasized in the District statute, is ap-
perently considered of less importance
these days. And 1t is little hard to
see how womans morals are safer at
$3.50 week than at s15-which was
the range in wages established in 1922
In the four minimum rates then pre-
vailing.
There Is some discussion now of
amending the local act to permit an ex-
pertinent In establishing minimum wages
for men. That would, OF course, put
that section Of the law back in the
courts Immediately for another test.
Those who are in favor of this expert
ment may agree with the Sutherland
theory OF 1922 in so far as regarding
the nineteenth amendment as having
"emancipated women from the old
doctrine of special protection and re-
straints." But that theory did not
appeal to Justice Holmes. 1T will need
more than the nineteenth amendment"
he observed, "to convince me that there
are no differences between men and
women, or that legislation cannot take
those differences into account"
Whether legislation can validly refuse
to take them into account by deciding
that what is sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander would, in effect, be the
new question raised in minimum wages
for men.