Industrial Equality and Protective Laws
By passing the Equal Rights Amendment, the Woman’s Party sought to secure equal rights for all working women in the United States. In an article from the Equal Rights Magazine titled “Industrial Equality,” Doris Stevens argued that the Woman’s Party was not an industrial organization and therefore could not control workplace conditions. However, as an organization for women, they stood against biased restrictions based on gender. Presently, organized labor was directed, financed, and controlled by men. Organized labor consistently neglected to “spend money on women, to share union directorates with women,” in the hopes of barring women from labor completely. (Equal Rights Magazine 1925) Laws that regulated the hours, conditions, and remuneration of labor for women only frequently prevented them from securing employment and promotion.
Yet, in various states and countries laws concerning prohibited occupations, seats in stores, hours of labor, and night work have already been equalized to apply to both women and men. For example:
Prohibited Occupations:
“In California there is a constitutional provision that no one shall be disqualified on account of gender from entering into or pursuing any lawful business, vocation, or profession.” (Calif Const., Art. 20, Sec. 18)
Seats in Stores:
“The Florida law provides for seats for both women and men employees engaged in mercantile or other business pursuits.” (Sec. 5068, Rev. Gen. Stats.)
Hours of Labor:
“Oregon has a 10-hour law for all persons (women and men alike) working in mills, factories, and manufacturing establishments. This law has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court.” (Secs. 6708-6710 of 1920 Code)
Night Work:
“In the case of occupations which the community feels should not be carried on at night, legislation for women and men alike has been the custom in Norway.”
The Woman’s Party maintained that if these states and countries successfully implemented such laws, they should be applicable to the entire United States. Unless women attained the ability to equally compete, to earn, to control, and to invest her money, the prospect of equal rights could not be established.
Opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment argued that while legislation should grant political, social, and civic equality to all women, this should not extend to women working in industry. Supporters countered that the amendment would not remove protective laws, but instead apply industrial legislation to all workers regardless of gender and occupation. Equality was not something that could be limited. Statutes that only applied to women in industry were still grounded in inequality.
In an article titled “Privileges--Or Rights and Duties,” Albert Lee, Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University Law School, contended that regulations in industry depended upon the type of labor performed and the employees’ reactions to it:
“Rest rooms are just as necessary for men who has to stand upon their feet all day as for women. Men are not of such peculiar anatomical construction that they do not require seats while engaged as salesmen or in other occupations in mercantile establishments. The 8-hour day is a necessity for men as well as women. The labor unions know this and act upon that knowledge.” (Equal Rights Magazine 1925)
