Evening star., 1940-06-05
Chances Fade
For Women 5
WdgeLaw
House Group Fails
To Complete Public
Hearings on Plan

The possibility of enactment at
the present session of Congress of
legislation designed to revise the
present minimum wage law for
women employed here in mercantile
and business establishments faded
today when the Judiciary Subcom-
mittee of the House District Com
mittee failed to complete public
hearings on bill to carry out the
plan.
After hearing nine witnesses, the
subcommittee adjourned, forcing a
number of others who wanted to
testify to wait for another meeting
which is not to be held until some
time next week
The delay in completing hearings
will make it impossible to have the
bill placed on the House calendar
in time for consideration Monday
which is expected to be the final
District day of the present session
Of Congress.
Board of Trade Opposes.
The bill. sponsored by the Mini
mum Wage Board and approved
by the Commissioners, was Wig
orously opposed by Joseph C. Nc
Garraghy, representing the WASH
ington Board of Trade and a num-
Der of employer groups. He was
Joined by Francis G.. Addison, jr..
OF the District Bankers Association.
Mr.. McGarraghy told the subcom-
mittee the proposed legislation is
unnecessary and that it. goes beyond
the scope of minimum wage laws
for women in the States both with
respect to the employees covered as
well as the regulatory powers i'm
posed in minimum wage boards.
He said some of the provisions in
the bill would prove burdensome
on the employer and are not needed
to protect the woman worker
Would Rectify Tnjustices.'
Mrs William Kittle. chairman of
the Minimum Wage Board, said the
legislation is needed to remove
certain "injustices, discrepancies and
faults" in existing law.
She pointed out the proposed new
law differs only in three main par
tlculars from the present law-that
1t covers nearly every group of
women who work in private estab-
lishments for less than $35 a week
except graduate nurses, agriculture
workers. domestics and resident
managers of apartment houses: that
1t gives the board more power, and
provides a method for better en-
forcement of the eight-hour law.
Employees in banks and law Offices,
she explained would be partly ex-
empt but would not be allowed to
work more than 48 hours in any
week. The exemption would allow
them to work more than eight hours
a day on so-called rush" days.
Rufus S. Lusk, representing the
Building Owners and Managers As
sociation, objected to the bill, and
declared no evidence had been pre-
sented that the health and morals
OF girls who work in private offices
need to be protected through legis-
lation. He said, too, there are few
private Offices in which girls work
more than 48 hours week, and that
he did not approve of the shotgun"
fashion of forcing their employers to
adhere to strict eight-hour day for
such employees.
We're in an emergency now" he
said. Let's not tighten up and
harass employers when there is no
necessity for it,
Supporters of Bill.
Among those who approved the
bill were Mrs. Ethel Beebe. who rep
resented beauty shop employees; Mrs
Harold Stone of the Voteless District
League of Women Voters, and Ar
thur L. Schoenthal, employe repre-
sentative on the Wage Board.
Mrs. Beebe stressed that many
girls now employed in beauty shops
work from II to IA hours a day. and
need the protection of an 8-hour law
Next to nursing, our work is the
hardest" she declared. 1T is a men,
tai strain to our work, since each
woman has a different idea as to
how she should look"
Mrs. Stone described the proposed
legislation as fair and just and
reasonable in every way"
Mrs. Helen Hunt West of the
National Woman's Party, however,
branded as unfair" any law that
does not apply to all classes alike
She argued that wages and hours
should be fixed for the job, so they
would apply to the person who holds
1t whether it is a man or woman.
The Wage Board in drafting the
bill, Mr. Schoenthal explained, made
every effort to suggest legislation
that is workable" and would not be
. detriment to the employer.