The economic position of womenAcademy of Political Science in the City of New York
History
The economic position of women
Academy of Political Science in the City of New York
Women -- Employment -- United States; Women -- United States -- Economic conditions
For some time the Interborough Association of Women Teachers in
New York City has conducted a vigorous agitation under the banner
“Equal pay for equal work”. This motto has won wide acceptance. Taken
literally “Equal pay for equal work” is self-evidently just and
reasonable, and persons or governing bodies who oppose it are put on
the defensive. But in connection with the schools the phrase is not to
be taken literally.
It is a factory phrase. For manual workers equal pay for equal work is
embodied in the piece-work system, a system generally preferred when
the work is of a routine character and when the output of each worker
under exactly the same conditions can be measured with precision. A
fixed piece price is paid for spinning a yard of cotton, for cutting a
dozen coats, for rolling a ton of steel, for making a gross of paper
boxes, for stitching a score of shirtwaists. Though in fact men and
women rarely perform the same process, even when they work in the same
factory, yet the pay per unit is fixed regardless of the age, sex,
color, or competence of the worker. There is equal pay for equal work.
Superior skill means superior speed and increased output, and pay is
proportioned simply to output.
But nobody has ever found a satisfactory way to measure the output of
a teacher. In England one way has been tried. In the early seventies,
when the public schools were made in part an imperial charge, the
manufacturers, who were dominant in Parliament, were anxious lest the
imperial grants should be so awarded as to encourage laziness among
teachers. Somebody hit on the phrase, “Payment by results.” That
settled the matter. The phrase caught the fancy of men who ran woolen
mills and iron works, men who wanted some rule of thumb by which to
measure whether the nation was getting what it paid for. So every
year an imperial inspector visited the schools and put to each boy
and girl a test in reading, writing, arithmetic, and so on. The exact
number of sums worked without mistake, and of misspelt words in the
dictation exercises, the precise number of errors each youngster made
in reading--all were written down, and the money paid by the government
to help that school was proportioned to those returns.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account