Economic effects of the world war upon women and children in Great Britain

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Economic effects of the world war upon women and children in Great Britain
Author: Andrews, Irene Osgood, Hobbs, Margaret A.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Economic effects of the world war upon women and children in Great Britain" ***

Transcriber’s Notes:

Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
in the original text.
Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
Footnotes have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs.
Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.
Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND HISTORY
JOHN BATES CLARK, DIRECTOR

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC STUDIES OF THE WAR

EDITED BY
DAVID KINLEY

President of the University of Illinois
Member of Committee of Research of the Endowment

No. 4
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE WORLD WAR
UPON WOMEN AND CHILDREN
IN GREAT BRITAIN

BY
IRENE OSGOOD ANDREWS
Assistant Secretary of the American Association
for Labor Legislation

AND
MARGARETT A. HOBBS

SECOND (REVISED) EDITION

NEW YORK
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 WEST 32ⁿᵈ STREET
London, Toronto, Melbourne and Bombay
1921

FIRST EDITION
FEBRUARY, 1918

SECOND (REVISED) EDITION
MAY, 1921

BY THE
CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
2 JACKSON PLACE
WASHINGTON, D. C.

PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Preliminary Economic Studies of the War

EDITED BY DAVID KINLEY

_President of the University of Illinois
Member of Committee of Research of the Endowment_

1. EARLY ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE WAR UPON CANADA.
By Adam Shortt, formerly Commissioner of the Canadian
Civil Service, now Chairman, Board of Historical
Publications, Canada.

2. EARLY EFFECTS OF THE EUROPEAN WAR UPON THE FINANCE,
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF CHILE. By L. S. Rowe,
Professor of Political Science, University of
Pennsylvania.

3. WAR ADMINISTRATION OF THE RAILWAYS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. By Frank H. Dixon,
Professor of Economics, Dartmouth College, and Julius H.
Parmelee, Statistician, Bureau of Railway Economics.

4. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE WORLD WAR UPON WOMEN AND
CHILDREN IN GREAT BRITAIN. By Irene Osgood Andrews,
Assistant Secretary of the American Association for
Labor Legislation.

5. DIRECT COSTS OF THE PRESENT WAR. By Ernest L.
Bogart, Professor of Economics, University of Illinois.

6. EFFECTS OF THE WAR UPON INSURANCE WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF INSURANCE FOR
PENSIONS. By William F. Gephart, Professor of
Economics, Washington University, St. Louis.

7. THE FINANCIAL HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN,
1914-1918. By Frank L. McVey, President,
University of Kentucky.

8. BRITISH WAR ADMINISTRATION. By John A. Fairlie,
Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois.

9. INFLUENCE OF THE GREAT WAR UPON SHIPPING. By
J. Russell Smith, Professor of Industry, University of
Pennsylvania.

10. WAR THRIFT. By Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor
of Political Economy, Harvard University.

11. EFFECTS OF THE GREAT WAR UPON AGRICULTURE IN THE
UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. By Benjamin H.
Hibbard, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University
of Wisconsin.

12. DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS—PENSIONS AND
TRAINING. By Edward T. Devine, Professor of Social
Economy, Columbia University.

13. GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS IN
GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. By Thomas
Nixon Carver, Professor of Political Economy, Harvard
University.

14. BRITISH LABOR CONDITIONS AND LEGISLATION DURING THE
WAR. By Matthew B. Hammond, Professor of Economics,
Ohio State University.

15. EFFECTS OF THE WAR UPON MONEY, CREDIT AND BANKING IN
FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES. By B. M. Anderson,
Jr., Ph.D.

16. NEGRO MIGRATION DURING THE WAR. By Emmett
J. Scott, Secretary-Treasurer, Howard University,
Washington, D. C.

17. EARLY EFFECTS OF THE WAR UPON THE FINANCE, COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRY OF PERU. By L. S. Rowe, Professor of
Political Science, University of Pennsylvania.

18. GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND OPERATION OF INDUSTRY IN
GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES DURING THE WORLD
WAR. By Charles Whiting Baker, C. E., Consulting
Engineer.

19. PRICES AND PRICE CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE
UNITED STATES DURING THE WORLD WAR. By Simon
Litman, Professor of Economics, University of Illinois.

[1]20. COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA. By E. M.
Kayden.

[2]21. THE GERMANS IN SOUTH AMERICA: A CONTRIBUTION TO
THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD WAR. By C. H.
Haring, Associate Professor of History, Yale University.

[3]22. EFFECTS OF THE WAR ON PAUPERISM, CRIME AND
PROGRAMS OF SOCIAL WELFARE. By Edith Abbott,
Lecturer in Sociology, University of Chicago.

[4]23. (Abandoned.)

24. DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF THE GREAT WORLD
WAR. By Ernest L. Bogart, Professor of Economics,
University of Illinois. (Revised edition of Study No. 5.)

25. GOVERNMENT WAR CONTRACTS. By John F. Crowell,

THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
2 JACKSON PLACE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

[1] These numbers have not yet been published.

[2] These numbers have not yet been published.

[3] These numbers have not yet been published.

[4] These numbers have not yet been published.

EDITOR’S PREFACE

The following work on the “Economic Effects of the War upon Women and
Children in Great Britain,” by Mrs. Irene Osgood Andrews, Assistant
Secretary of the American Association for Labor Legislation, is
the fourth in the series of preliminary war studies undertaken
by the Endowment. Mrs. Andrews’ monograph is a sympathetic study
of the situation by one who has long been familiar with working
conditions of women and children in this country and abroad and the
methods undertaken for their improvement. The author points out the
difficulties and evil results of the hasty influx of women and children
into industrial fields vacated by men who had gone into the army, but
reaches the conclusion that on the whole the permanent effects are
likely to be good. Such a conclusion by an author whose sympathies with
laboring women and children are deep and whose outlook is broad is
hopeful and cheering.

In the opinion of the editor, Mrs. Andrews has done her country
a service in preparing this monograph, for her recital of the
difficulties and evils of the British readjustment will enable our
people to meet the same crisis when it comes upon us, as it surely will
if the war continues, in the light of the experience of our Allies. If
we go about the matter intelligently in the light of this study, we
should be able to avoid some of the difficulties and evils of British
experiences in this matter and open the way for a larger industrial
life to women, while maintaining and indeed even improving, as we
should, the conditions under which they are called upon to work and
live.

DAVID KINLEY,
_Editor_.

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION

Following the publication of the first edition, opportunity came
in 1919 to visit again both England and France and to secure first
hand information concerning the effects of the war upon the economic
position of women. As a member of the commission sent by the Young
Women’s Christian Association to study the industrial outlook for women
and children, there was occasion to interview many representative
people in this field and to collect a large amount of recently
published material bearing upon the subject.

The world conflict brought to women, in those countries where the
industrial system was kept intact, an extraordinary invitation to
active employment outside the home and in new occupations. In England
and France millions of women were dislodged from their accustomed tasks
and thrown into novel positions in industry, in trade and commerce
and even in the professions. Many thousands have remained in the new
occupations, and the vast majority will never be content to go back to
their former places on the old terms.

The remarkable physical endurance of the women doing war work has been
very generally recognized. This endurance has been attributed partly
to the zeal of the women, but more particularly to higher wages, which
enabled them to secure better food, clothing and lodging. Comfort from
increased income was supplemented by canteens, welfare work and greater
consideration in general for the health of wage earners.

Will woman’s improved income level be permanent? Careful analysis
shows that during the war, despite government pledges, women did not
receive equal treatment with men in respect to wages. Moreover, while
money wages in many cases were greatly increased, seldom did they
keep pace with the advancing cost of living. Furthermore, it became
doubtful whether women were to be allowed to retain the more attractive
positions if these were desired by men.

No one, since the war experience, doubts the skill and adaptability of
women in performing a great number of tasks formerly considered “men’s
work.” With the extensive standardization which British industry has
adopted many more places can be successfully filled by women. Equal
opportunity to secure positions, as well as equality of payment,
appeals therefore to many thousands of women as merely a matter of
justice. But such a new status for women, it is recognized, calls for
more scientific methods in fixing wages. The old basis of sex, family
obligation, tradition as to “men’s work” and “women’s work,” must be
abandoned. Instead, some definite rate for a specified occupation, and
where possible specified qualifications as to ability for such work,
must be adopted. Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that the
national welfare demands that money wages must be at least equal to the
cost of living.

Such a program would place men and women more nearly on a strictly
competitive basis, with the awards given to the most efficient. It
would practically eliminate the constant “undercutting” now taking
place and would introduce a more scientific element into the present
chaotic wage market.

The insistent need for a thoroughgoing revision as to methods of
determining wage rates is recognized by Mrs. Sidney Webb in her
minority statement in the _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women
in Industry_, 1919. Mrs. Webb recommends for immediate adoption four
main principles. (1) The establishment of a national minimum rate of
wage; (2) the determination of a standard or occupational rate above
the national minimum; (3) the adjustment of money wages to the cost
of living; and (4) wherever possible the requirement of efficiency
qualifications. As to children and “young persons” in Great Britain
the Fisher Education Act already has indicated a greater emphasis on
training and there is hope that their employment will eventually
become either subordinate to or, better still, a part of education.

The scarcity of labor now presents an appalling problem in several
countries and one of the outstanding effects of the loss of human life
in all war stricken nations is renewed interest in the protection of
motherhood. In these countries measures are being adopted to conserve
the lives of mothers and babies. Better medical and nursing care are
recognized as essential, cash maternity benefits are increasing,
maternity centers are being greatly extended and in England the
endowment of motherhood is proposed.

This revised monograph, while attempting to present a fairly complete
history of the industrial experience of women and children during
and immediately following the war, is still necessarily tentative.
Some years must elapse before it will be possible to measure the full
effects of the world war upon the economic condition of women and
children. This revision is brought out, however, at this time to supply
a demand which quickly exhausted the first edition, and in the hope
that it will be of service to those interested in the progress of women
industrial workers.

IRENE OSGOOD ANDREWS.

New York City,
April, 1920.

CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I Introductory Summary 1
II Work of Women and Children before the World War 14
III First Months of the World War—Labor’s Attitude
toward the War—Unemployment among Women Workers 20
IV Extension of Employment of Women 28
V Organized Efforts to Recruit Women’s Labor 50
VI Sources of Additional Women Workers 75
VII Training for War Work 84
VIII Women and the Trade Unions 87
IX Control of Women Workers under the Munitions Act 92
X Wages 99
XI Hours of Work 126
XII Safety, Health and Comfort 146
XIII Effects of the War on the Employment of Children 167
XIV Effects of War Work on Women 191
XV Peace and Reconstruction 204
Appendices 229
Index 251

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE WORLD WAR
ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN
IN GREAT BRITAIN

CHAPTER I

Introductory Summary

Under the conditions of modern warfare the industrial army in factory,
field and mine is as essential to national success as the soldiers
in the trenches. It is estimated that from three to five workers are
necessary to keep a single soldier at the front completely equipped.
Accordingly, it is not surprising that Great Britain during four years
of warfare saw what was little short of an industrial revolution
in order to keep up the supply of labor, to heighten the workers’
efficiency, and to secure their cooperation. No changes were more
interesting and important than those which concerned working women and
children.

_Increase in Numbers_

Upon women and children fell much of the great burden of keeping trade
and industry active and of supplying war demands when several millions
of men were taken away for military service. “Without the work of the
women the war could not have gone on,” said representatives of the
British Ministry of Munitions while in New York in November, 1917.
Before the increased demand was felt, however, the dislocation of
industry during the first few months of war brought far more suffering
to women workers than to men. In September, 1914, over 40 per cent of
the women were out of work or on short time. The “luxury” trades, which
employed a large proportion of women, were most severely affected,
and the women could not relieve the situation by enlisting as the
men did. The prewar level of employment was not reached until April,
1915. Between that date and July, 1918, the number of females gainfully
occupied increased by 1,659,000 over the number at work in July, 1914.

It is more difficult to ascertain the exact increase in the number of
working children and young persons under eighteen, but apparently more
children left school for work directly at the end of the compulsory
education period and more were illegally employed. Official reports
show an increase from 1,936,000 in July, 1914, to 2,278,000 in January,
1918, or 17.6 per cent, in the number of boys and girls under eighteen
who were gainfully employed. In addition, in August, 1917, Mr. Herbert
Fisher, president of the Board of Education, admitted in the House
of Commons that in the past three years some 600,000 children under
fourteen had been “put prematurely to work” through the relaxation of
child labor and compulsory school laws. But in October of the same year
the Board of Trade stated that 90,000 boys had left school for work
during the war. The earlier exemptions, statistics of which have been
published, were almost entirely for agriculture, but judging from Mr.
Fisher’s statement a considerable number of exemptions were made for
mining and munitions work during the third year of the war.

One of the most notable effects of the war was the number of
occupations which women entered for the first time, until, in the
winter of 1916-17, it could be said that “there are practically no
trades in which some process of substitution [of women for men] has not
taken place.” According to official figures, 1,816,000 females were
taking men’s places in April, 1918.

During the first year of the war, however, women took men’s places
for the most part in transportation, in retail trade and in clerical
work rather than in manufacturing. In factory work, while some women
were found to be undertaking processes slightly above their former
level of skill in establishments where they had long been employed,
the most general change was a transfer from slack industries to fill
the expanding demands of firms making war equipment. There women were
employed in the same kinds of work they had carried on before the war.
The rush into the munitions industry, where women engaged in both
“men’s” and “women’s” work, was one of the most important features of
the second year of war. While a few additional women had begun to be
taken on very early in the war, the increases were not large until
the autumn of 1915 and early winter of 1916. During 1915-1916 also a
decline was first noticed in the number of women in domestic service,
in the printing trades, and in such typical “women’s trades” as
confectionery and laundry work.

In the third year of the war the substitution of women for men on a
large scale was extended from munitions to numerous staple industries
having a less direct connection with the war. In many cases, of course,
the women did not do precisely the same work as their masculine
predecessors. Especially in the engineering trades almost an industrial
revolution occurred between 1914 and 1917. Skilled processes were
subdivided, and automatic machinery was introduced, all the changes
tending toward greater specialization and the elimination of the
need of all round craft skill. Early in the war it was generally
considered that women were not as efficient as men except on routine
and repetition work. But as the women gained experience it was observed
that more and more of them were undertaking the whole of a skilled
man’s job, and the testimony as to relative efficiency, on work within
a woman’s strength, became far more favorable. During the last year
of the struggle, while a few new fields were invaded, the process of
substitution had progressed nearly as far as possible, and the year
witnessed mainly a settling down into the new lines of work previously
entered.

Though the increase in women workers in agriculture was less marked
than in industry, beginning with the summer of 1916, the numbers rose,
being 113,000 in 1918, in contrast to 80,000 in 1914. The widening of
professional opportunities and the opening of some executive positions
in industry and commerce were other important features of the changes
in women’s work.

Women even engaged in work ordinarily a part of soldiers’ duties.
Besides thousands of military nurses, a special corps of women under
semi-military discipline was recruited for work as clerks, cooks,
cleaners, chauffeurs and mechanics behind the lines in France. These
“Waacs,” as they were popularly called, numbered over 50,000 by the
end of the war. The “Wrens” did similar shore duty for the Navy, and
the “Wrafs,” woodcutting for the Board of Trade. The women were able
to take up their new lines of work with surprisingly little formal
training, the chief exceptions being short practical courses for farm
workers and semi-skilled munition makers.

Changes in the work done by children were considerably different for
girls and for boys. For girls the choice of occupations widened much as
for adult women. But for boys, though a few received earlier promotion
to skilled men’s work than would ordinarily have been the case, on the
whole training for skilled trades declined. With the men drawn into
the war and with the increasing cost of living, it was natural that an
increase should take place in the number of child street traders, and
in the number of children working outside school hours.

_Wages_

Under war conditions the wages of both women and children were raised,
probably the largest gains being made by boy and girl munition makers.
The smallest rise seems to have occurred in the unregulated, so-called
“women’s trades,” like laundry work. The trade boards made a number of
increases in the industries within their jurisdiction, but the changes
were seldom proportionate to the increase in the cost of living.
Instead, what it was believed the industry would be able to support
after the war was usually the determining factor. The economic position
of the women who took men’s places was undoubtedly improved, though,
even taking into account differences in experience and efficiency
and the numerous changes in industrial method, the plane of economic
equality between the two sexes was rarely attained. The government had
the power to fix women’s wages on munitions work and in so doing it
seemed at first to go on record in favor of the equal pay principle.
But, in practice, the principle was not applied to unskilled and
semi-skilled time work and the women failed to receive the same cost
of living bonuses as the men, though unquestionably the wages of women
substitutes in munitions work was much higher than the prewar level
of women’s wages. Where other industries were covered by trade union
agreements, women in most instances received “equal pay,” but in the
remaining cases of substitution, for instance in agriculture, though
considerable increases were gained, the men’s rates were by no means
reached.

_Recruiting New Workers_

It is of interest to learn how England secured women workers to meet
the demands of war. For the most part they came from three different
groups. First, workers changed from the low paid “women’s trades”
and various slack lines of work to munitions and different kinds of
“men’s work.” Second, the additional women workers were mainly the
wives and other members of working men’s families, most of the married
women having worked before marriage. Soldiers’ wives often found their
separation allowances insufficient. In general both patriotic motives
and the rising cost of living undoubtedly played a part in sending
these women and many young boys and girls into industry. Finally, a
comparatively small number of women of a higher social class entered
clerical work, agriculture and the munitions factories, in many
instances in response to patriotic appeals.

Many of the women and children were recruited through the activities of
local representative “Women’s War Employment Committees” and “County
Agricultural Committees,” formed by the government, and working in
close cooperation with the national employment exchanges. A large
number of women, about 5,000 a month in the winter of 1917, and even a
good many young boys and girls were sent through the exchanges from
their homes to work at a distance. According to representatives of
the Ministry of Munitions, the securing of their well being outside
the factory under such circumstances was the most serious problem
connected with their increased employment. Efforts to provide housing,
recreation and improved transit facilities were at first in the hands
of the voluntary committees, but later it proved necessary for the
Ministry to appoint “outside welfare officers” to supplement and
coordinate this work. The “hostels” with their large dormitories and
common sitting rooms which were frequently open in munition centers for
the women proved unsatisfactory because of the rules required and the
difficulties of maintaining necessary discipline. In many cases, also,
they were unpopular with the women themselves. In an attempt to solve
the housing problem, the government, in the summer of 1917, was forced
to enact a measure making compulsory the “billeting” of munition makers
with families living in the district, but this does not seem to have
been put into actual practice.

_Removal of Trade Union Restrictions_

Trade union restrictions on the kinds of work women were allowed to
perform were set aside for the war period and “dilution” was made
widely possible by the munitions acts, in the case of munitions of
war, and by agreements between employers and employes in many staple
industries. In all cases the agreements included clauses intended to
safeguard the standard wage rate and to restore the men’s places and
the trade union rules after the war. Even where the munitions acts gave
the government power to force “dilution” it proceeded mainly through
conferences and agreements.

Officials of the Ministry of Munitions claimed to believe that the
substitution of women or any other important change intended to
increase production could only proceed peacefully if labor’s consent
and cooperation were secured. They believed also that provisions to
safeguard labor standards are essential to gain such cooperation, and
that anything in the nature of coercion or a “labor dictatorship” would
necessarily fail to reach the desired aim of enlarged output.

_Control of Labor by the Munitions Acts_

Considerable irritation was aroused among the munition makers, both
men and women, by the control exercised over them through certain
features of the munitions acts. Strikes were forbidden and provision
for compulsory arbitration was made. Special munitions tribunals were
set up which might impose fines for breaches of workshop discipline. In
order to stop the needless shifting from job to job which was hampering
production, a system of “leaving certificates” was established. Workers
who left their previous positions without such cards, which could be
secured from employers or from the tribunals only under specified
conditions, might not be employed elsewhere for six weeks. The
clearance certificate system was obviously open to abuses, especially
during the first few months of its operation, before a number of
safeguards were introduced by the first munitions amendment act, in
January, 1916. It created so much unrest among the workers, that it
was abolished in October, 1917. The British Government’s experience
with these features of the munitions acts which approach nearest to the
conscription of labor illustrates the difficulties attendant upon such
devices for obtaining maximum output without interruption.

_Safety, Health and Comfort_

The effect of the war on the working hours of English women and
children centers in the changes made in the restrictive legislation
in force at the outbreak of the war. This legislation forbade night
and Sunday work, and hours in excess of ten and a half daily and sixty
weekly in nontextile factories; and ten daily and fifty-five weekly in
textile factories. But from the beginning of the war up to the latter
part of 1915 hours were lengthened and night and Sunday work became
frequent, both by means of special orders from the factory inspection
department and also in defiance of the law. Two special governmental
committees were finally created to deal with the unsatisfactory
situation. The studies by one of them, the Health of Munition Workers
Committee, on the unfavorable effects of long hours on output, were a
determining factor in securing a virtual return to prewar standards of
daily hours, and provided scientific arguments to strengthen the active
postwar movement for a general eight hour day.

The introduction of women into factories and offices for the first time
often led to the making of special provisions for their safety, health
and comfort. In the interests of output, the Ministry of Munitions
fostered such developments in the establishments under his control,
encouraged the engagement of “welfare supervisors” for women, girls
and boys and gave special attention to the well being of munition
makers outside the factory. The Ministry allowed owners of controlled
establishments to deduct the cost of special welfare provisions for
women, such as wash rooms and rest rooms, from what would otherwise
be taken by the excess profit tax. It provided housing accommodations
on a large scale—for 60,000 workers, it is said, between July, 1915,
and July, 1916, and subsidized similar projects by cities and private
organizations. That the war brought increased recognition of the
importance of measures for safety, health and comfort was evident from
the passage of a law in August, 1916, empowering the Home Office as a
permanent policy, to make special regulations for additional “welfare”
provisions in factories.

_Effects of War Work_

It was hardly possible to judge the full effects of war work on women
and children by the summer of 1919. Among women, while individual
cases of overfatigue undoubtedly existed, signs of injury to health
were not generally apparent. The effects when the excitement of war
work is over and the strain relaxed were still to be reckoned with,
however. Higher pay, which meant warmer clothing, sometimes better
housing and especially better food, was believed to be an important
factor in counteracting injury to health. It doubtless accounted for
the improvement in health which was not infrequently noted in women
entering munitions work from low paid trades and which is a sadly
significant commentary on their former living conditions. Among boy
munition makers the evidences of overwork and a decline in health were
much more striking.

Particularly in the crowded munition centers, home life suffered on
account of the war. Overcrowding, long hours spent in the factory
and in traveling back and forth, an increase in the work of mothers
with young families, the absence of husbands and fathers on military
service, and the more frequent departure from home of young boys and
girls for work at a distance, all contributed to the undermining of the
home.

Yet even the additional responsibility placed on many women by the
absence of their men folk seems to have been one of the stimulating
influences which are said in three years of war to have “transformed”
the personality of the average factory woman. As a class, they have
grown more confident, more independent, more interested in impersonal
issues. The more varied and responsible positions opened to women, the
public’s appreciation of their services, their many contacts with the
government on account of war legislation also helped to bring about the
change, which promises to be one of the most significant of the war.

Among the younger workers, on the contrary, it was feared the
relaxation of discipline, unusual wages, long hours of work, the
frequent closing of schools and boys’ clubs and the general excitement
of war time were producing a deterioration in character. “Had we
set out with the deliberate intention of manufacturing juvenile
delinquents, could we have done so in any more certain way?” said Mr.
Cecil Leeson, secretary of the Howard Association of London. A marked
increase in juvenile delinquency was noted, particularly among boys of
eleven to thirteen, the ages for which school attendance laws have been
relaxed and premature employment allowed.

_Peace and Reconstruction_

With the coming of peace and the extensive readjustments in industry
which necessarily followed, new problems confronted the woman worker.
Chief among these were the danger of unemployment during the transition
period, the question of what should be done with the “dilutees,” who
had taken up work formerly reserved for skilled men, frequently under
pledges that they should be displaced at the end of the war, and the
burning issue of “equal pay for equal work” as between men and women.
In Great Britain a remarkable amount of attention had been paid, while
the war was still in progress, to preparation for the adjustment
to peace as well as to the improvement of evils disclosed by war
experience. In addition to much unofficial discussion and organization
an official Ministry of Reconstruction had been formed, having numerous
subcommittees. But the end of the war came sooner than had been
expected when the government’s plans were still incomplete, so that the
English had, after all, to trust largely to hastily improvised schemes
or to chance to carry them through the transition.

As had been anticipated, for a time a large number of women were
unemployed, the reported total rising as high as 494,000 in the first
week of March, 1919, but gradually falling from that point to 29,000
in November. In place of the comprehensive program outlined by one of
the committees of the Ministry of Reconstruction, the government’s
main reliance in dealing with unemployment was a system of doles or
“donations.” An unemployed woman worker might draw 25s. ($6.00)[5]
weekly for thirteen weeks and then 15s. ($3.60) weekly for a like
period. Many complaints were made about the administration of the
donations, particularly in the case of women workers. On one hand it
was alleged that the women were refusing to accept positions offered
and “taking a vacation at the taxpayers’ expense.” On the other hand
protests were made that unemployed women were forced by the denial of
donations to take places at sweated wages, especially in laundry work
and domestic service. The plan of unemployment donations, originally
established for six months, was renewed for an additional six months in
May, 1919, and finally ended for civilians in November.

[5] Throughout this monograph English currency has been reduced to
American on the approximate prewar basis of $4.80 to the pound sterling.

Three distinct points of view were evident in regard to the closely
allied problems of dilution and “equal pay for equal work.” Not a
few persons held that women would and should return to their prewar
occupations, in which they seldom did the same work as men. A large
body of moderate opinion held that an entire return to prewar
conditions was impossible. Women should be retained in all “suitable”
employments, with due protection through labor laws and minimum wage
fixing. Where men and women were employed in the same occupation, the
equal pay standard should prevail. The more radical view was that all
occupations should be open to both sexes at the same wage standard.
As a corollary to this policy there was proposed the endowment of
motherhood.

Even by the end of 1919 it was hardly possible to state definitely
what the after war occupations and wages of the woman worker would
be. But it appeared probable that she would continue in some, if not
all, of her new occupations, and that her improved wage standards
would be protected. After war industrial conditions in themselves
naturally stimulated some return to prewar employment by reviving the
luxury trades and curtailing munitions work. In certain cases, as in
the woolen trade, agreements between employers and employes shut out
the women. But in other important cases, as in engineering, it is
probable that a compromise will be reached, permitting women to stay in
at least the semi-skilled lines of work. Considerable protection has
been given war time wage rates. The Minimum Wage (Trade Boards) Act
has been widely extended. By two separate enactments, war time wage
rates were continued until September 30, 1920, unless other agreements
were reached or official awards put in force. Government proposals
for eight hour day and minimum wage legislation for both sexes and for
an extension of maternity care reflect the position of the feminist
advocates of occupational equality between the sexes.

Undoubtedly the war, while it had a most unfortunate effect on many boy
and girl workers, at the same time roused the nation to a far greater
appreciation of their value as future citizens. There was general
agreement on their needs during the reconstruction period. Action must
be taken to modify the effects of any postwar unemployment, while as a
permanent policy more attention must be paid to their welfare during
the first years of working life. Unemployment donations, the payment of
which was contingent on attendance at training centers, if available,
was the method adopted to meet the unemployment crisis. The Fisher
Education Act represents the government’s effort permanently to improve
the condition of young workers. This law requires school attendance of
every child under fourteen. Gainful employment outside school hours
is absolutely forbidden, except a very limited amount by children
between twelve and fourteen. Working boys and girls are required to go
to continuation school eight hours a week until eighteen years of age
when the law goes into full effect, and the time of attendance must
be taken out of working hours. It is unfortunate that the children
who in some ways most need the help of the act, namely those who went
to work during the war, are expressly exempted from its provision.
Nevertheless, by the enactment of this law, the final effect of the war
on English child labor standards will apparently be to lift them to a
higher plane than ever before.

Final judgment can hardly yet be passed on the effects of the war on
the woman worker. Some far reaching changes are, however, already
evident. While the disadvantages of war work, its long hours,
overstrain and disruption of home life, seem likely to pass as
conditions return to normal, the gains in the way of better working
conditions, higher wages and a wider range of opportunities, seem more
likely to be permanent. Many professional doors have for the first time
been opened to her. Most important of all is the fact that because of
her awakened spirit and broader and more confident outlook on life, the
woman worker is able consciously to hold to the improved position to
which the fortunes of war have brought her.

CHAPTER II

Work of Women and Children before the World War

To understand the effect of the World War on the work of women and
children, it is necessary to have as a background a picture of their
place in industry before the war. As in other modern industrial
countries, the employment of women and of girls and boys in their teens
had long been an important factor in the work life of the English
people. At the time of the latest census of the United Kingdom in 1911,
nearly 6,000,000 “females ten years of age and over,” or almost a third
of the total number of females of that age, were returned as “gainfully
occupied.”[6]

[6] United Kingdom, _Abstract of Labour Statistics_, 1915, p. 307. The
exact numbers were 5,851,849 “occupied” and 12,704,404 “unoccupied.”
In 1901, 5,309,960, and in 1881, 4,521,903 females were “gainfully
occupied.”

About 2,000,000 of the total number were engaged in some form of
“domestic” pursuits; 53,000 worked for the central government, or local
authorities; 415,000, the majority of whom were teachers or nurses,
had some professional occupation. Food, drink and tobacco, and the
provision of lodgings accounted for 546,000, and there were 120,000
female agricultural workers. The great bulk of the remainder, some
2,275,000, were found in the manufacturing industries. Here again the
principal lines of work were the metal trades, with 93,000 females;
paper and printing, with 148,000; textiles, with 938,000; and dress,
with 898,000. Almost all of the six million were working for hire; only
80,000 were “working employers,” and 313,000 were “at work for their
own account.”

While in England and Wales in the thirty years from 1881 to 1911 a
special study of the census figures showed that the proportion of
occupied women to 1,000 unoccupied women rose from 659 to 674, over
a fifty year period the relative number of working women in the
whole female population seemed to have fallen slightly.[7] Marked
declines in the proportion of females in “domestic” occupations and
in the dress and textile trades were not entirely balanced by smaller
increases in the proportions in professional and clerical work,
nontextile factories, paper and printing and food and lodging. The
proportion of girls between ten and fifteen at work had also fallen.
The author of the above studies believes that the relative decrease
was to be found among the industrial classes and that it was due to
the commencement of work at a higher age and to a somewhat lessened
employment of married women. Recent increases in the proportion of
gainfully occupied females carried out this theory, since they were
found largely in the age group between sixteen and twenty-five. Over
half of the girls of these ages were at work in 1911, and 70 per cent
of those from fifteen to twenty, which has been called “the most
occupied age.” The proportion of these young workers to older women
rose considerably in the decade from 1901 to 1911, though during the
same period the number of married women and widows at work increased
from 917,000 to 1,091,202. For thirty years the proportion of men to
women workers had remained practically stationary, being 2.3 males to
one female in 1881, and 2.4 males to one female in 1911.[8]

[7] Dorothy Haynes, “A Comparative Study of the Occupations of Men and
Women,” _Women’s Industrial News_, Oct., 1913, pp. 398, 399.

[8] Margaret G. Bondfield, “The Future of Women in Industry,” _Labour
Year Book_, 1916, p. 259.

Especially in industrial occupations women had been largely confined to
the least skilled and lowest paid lines of work. To a deplorable extent
they had been the “industrial drudges of the community.” It is, for
instance, officially estimated that out of the 100,000 “home workers,”
whose work has become almost synonymous with “sweating,” three quarters
were women. An estimate by the English economist, Sidney Webb, of the
wages of adult women “manual workers” in 1912[9] placed their average
full time weekly earnings at 11s. 7d. ($2.78). Making allowance for an
annual loss of five weeks a year from sickness, unemployment and short
time—a conservative estimate—average weekly earnings throughout the
year would be about 10s. 10½d. ($2.61). Only 17 per cent of the women
regularly employed were believed to receive more than 15s. ($3.60)
weekly, and those averaged only 17s. ($4.08) for a full time week. The
average full time wages of adult male manual workers were estimated by
the same authority at 25s. 9d. ($6.18) a week.

[9] Fabian Society, “The War, Women and Unemployment,” _Fabian Tract
No. 178_, 1915, p. 5.

_Legislative Protection for Women_

Since the forties, however, much special legislative protection had
been extended to women workers mainly through the factory acts. There
were numerous regulations to protect their health and safety. They
might not be employed in cleaning moving machinery, nor in underground
mines, nor in brass casting nor in certain processes exposed to lead
dust. In other lines where women were in danger of contracting lead
poisoning, they were allowed to work only if found in good condition
through monthly medical examination. In some unhealthy trades separate
rooms for meals were required and in some dangerous ones women were
obliged to cover their hair. Separate sanitary accommodations were
compulsory in all factories and workshops. A provision which had
proved of less value than anticipated because of the difficulties of
enforcement, forbade a factory employer knowingly to give work to a
woman within four weeks after the birth of her child. Wherever women
were employed as “shop assistants” one seat was to be provided for
every three assistants.

For factories and workshops an elaborate code limiting working hours
had long been in existence. No work on Sunday or at night was allowed,
and only a half day on Saturday. The maximum weekly hours permitted
were fifty-five in textile factories and sixty in “nontextile factories
and workshops.” Daily hours were ten in the former, and in the latter
ten and a half, with, in certain cases, a limited amount of overtime.
The time to be allowed for meals was also strictly regulated.

The latest phase of regulation of working conditions, the fixing of
minimum wages, was begun in 1909 by the Trade Boards Act. Minimum wage
rates might be fixed for trades in which wages were “exceptionally low”
by boards made up of employers, employes and the general public. Though
the wage fixing covered both men and women, the large proportion of
women employed in the trades first regulated made the law of special
importance in a consideration of women’s work. The trades covered up to
the outbreak of the war included certain branches of tailoring, shirt
making, some forms of chain making, paper box, sugar confectionery and
food preserving, and certain processes in lace finishing. The minimum
rates fixed for experienced adult women in these trades varied from
about 2½d. (5 cents) to 3½d. (7 cents) an hour amounting on an average
to approximately 14s. a week ($3.36) for full time work. The awards
appear to have been effective in raising the wages of a considerable
number of low paid women.

_Child Labor_

In matters of industrial employment the English recognized not
only “children” under fourteen, whose employment was in great part
prohibited, but also a special class of “young persons,” whose
employment was subject to special regulation. Boys and girls under
eighteen whom the law allowed to work were in the latter group. The
1911 census returned 98,202 boys and 49,866 girls, or a total number
of 148,068 children between ten and fourteen years as “gainfully
employed” in Great Britain. Mr. Frederic Keeling, an authority on
English child labor conditions, believed, however, that this number was
an underestimate because it failed to include many children employed
outside of school hours. In 1912 he set the number of working children
under fourteen in the United Kingdom at 577,000, of whom 304,000 were
employed outside of school hours, and the rest under special clauses of
the factory and education acts.[10]

[10] Frederic Keeling, _Child Labour in the United Kingdom_, 1914, p.
xxviii.

The great majority of the boys and girls in Great Britain went to work
before they were eighteen years old. There were 1,246,069 male “young
persons” and 902,483 female “young persons” gainfully employed in Great
Britain in 1911.[11] In England and Wales in that same year 309,000
boys and 241,000 girls of seventeen were at work, and only 20,600 boys
and 87,400 girls of that age were “unoccupied.”

[11] These girls are also included in the number of “females gainfully
occupied,” previously discussed. _Vide_ p. 14.

The 1911 census figures covering the principal lines of work in which
girls and boys under eighteen are employed had, in November, 1917, been
published only for England and Wales. For boys these occupations were
the building trades, the metal trades, textiles, agriculture, mining,
outdoor “domestic service,” messenger and porter work—which is in most
cases a “blind alley” occupation—and commercial employment, whereas
for girls they were textiles, clothing, domestic work and commercial
employment. The girls, it may be noted, were found mainly in the same
kinds of work as were adult women.

While, as has been previously mentioned, there was a relative increase
in the number of young working girls between fifteen and twenty, the
number of working children under fourteen was falling off. There were
97,141 boys and 49,276 girls under fourteen, a total of 146,417,
employed in England and Wales in 1911. In 1901 working boys under
fourteen numbered 138,000 and working girls 70,000, a total of 208,000.
In Scotland there were but 1,600 young children of these ages at work
in 1911, and 17,600 in 1901.

Most children and “young persons” were, of course, receiving very
low wages. Sidney Webb estimated the average earnings of girl manual
workers under eighteen to be 7s. 6d. weekly ($1.80) and those of boys
to be 10s. ($2.40).

_Laws Affecting Children’s Employment_

The chief forces in bringing about this diminution of child labor were,
naturally, the laws forbidding child labor and requiring compulsory
schooling. Children were required to attend school until they were
fourteen unless they were thirteen and could secure a certificate
of “proficiency” or of regular attendance. They might not work in
factories until they had completed their school attendance, except
that “half timers,” girls and boys of twelve, might work not more than
thirty-three hours a week and were compelled to go to school half the
time. Most of the “half timers” were found in the Lancashire cotton
mills.

Children under eleven might not sell articles on the street, boys under
fourteen might not work in coal mines, and the local authorities might
forbid all work by children under fourteen, though unfortunately the
power had been but slightly exercised.

The health and safety regulations affecting “young persons” under
eighteen were similar to those for women, but somewhat more stringent.
The lead processes which were forbidden women were also forbidden girls
and boys under eighteen, together with a few other very unhealthy
trades. In others where women might be employed, boys and girls under
sixteen were forbidden to work. Children under fourteen might not
be employed “in a manner likely to be dangerous to their health or
education.”

In factories and workshops the same regulation of daily and weekly
hours, night and Sunday work, applied both to adult women and to “young
persons.” In addition the hours of boys under sixteen employed in mines
were limited, and a maximum of seventy-four hours a week was fixed for
shop assistants under eighteen.

The minimum rates set by the trade boards for boys and girls under
eighteen generally rose year by year according to age from about 4s.
weekly at fourteen (96 cents) to 10s. ($2.40) or 12s. ($2.88) at
seventeen. Girls with the necessary experience in the trade received
the full minimum rate for women at eighteen years of age, but the boys,
who sometimes began at a higher rate than the girls, did not reach the
full men’s rate till they were twenty-one or more.

Almost all these working conditions—the principal kinds of work women
and children were doing, the rate of increase in their numbers, their
wages and the legal regulations protecting them—were changed during
three years of the world war.

CHAPTER III

First Months of the World War—Labor’s Attitude toward the
War—Unemployment among Women Workers

August 4, 1914, was a momentous day for the working women and children
of England. On that date the nation entered the great conflict which
was not only to throw their men folk into military service, but to
affect their own lives directly. It was to alter their work and wages
and to come near to overthrowing the protective standards built up by
years of effort. What was the attitude of the women and of organized
labor in general toward the war and the industrial revolution which it
brought in its train?

Shortly after the opening of hostilities the majority of the workers
swung into line behind the government in support of the war, despite
the fact that the organized British labor movement had earlier
subscribed to a resolution of the international socialist congress that
labor’s duty after the outbreak of any war was “to intervene to bring
it promptly to a close.”

Indignation at the invasion of Belgium was apparently one of the
determining factors in the change of attitude. The Labour party did
not oppose the government war measures. It joined in the parliamentary
recruiting campaign, and in the “political truce,” by which it was
agreed that any vacancies occurring in the House of Commons should
be filled by the party previously in possession without a contest.
On August 24, 1914, the joint board of three of the four important
national labor bodies, namely the Trades Union Congress, the
General Federation of Trade Unions and the Labour Party, declared
an “industrial truce,” moving for the termination of all existing
disputes, and for an effort to settle all questions arising during the
war by peaceful methods, before resorting to strikes and lockouts. The
principal women’s labor organizations fell in with what may be called
the official labor attitude toward the war, and the Independent Labour
party stood almost alone in continuing to advocate an early peace.

In July, 1914, just before the war, British business had been in a
reasonably prosperous condition. There was somewhat of a decline from
the boom of 1913, and a considerable depression in the cotton industry,
but on the whole the state of trade was good.

The first effect on industry of the outbreak of war in August was an
abrupt and considerable curtailment of production. Orders both in
home and foreign trade were withheld or canceled, large numbers of
factories went on short time, and in a number of cases employes were
provisionally given notice of discharge.[12]

_The Unemployment Crisis_

That the crisis of unemployment would be but a passing phase, soon
followed by unprecedented industrial activity, seems not to have been
anticipated. “If the war is prolonged, it will tax all the powers of
our administrators to avert the most widespread distress,” said the
Fabian Society.[13] A “Central Committee for the Prevention and Relief
of Distress,” headed by the president of the local government board
was organized as early as August 4; local authorities were asked to
form similar local representative committees, and the Prince of Wales
sent out an appeal for a “National Relief Fund.” Plans were made for
starting special public work, additional government subsidies to trade
unions paying unemployment benefits were granted, and the War Office
broke precedent and permitted the sub-letting of government contracts
as a relief measure in districts where there was much unemployment.

[12] Great Britain Board of Trade, _Report on the State of Employment
in October, 1914_, p. 5.

[13] Fabian Society, “The War and the Workers,” _Fabian Tract No. 176_,
1914, p. 22.

In the industrial depression women were affected far more severely than
men and for a considerably longer time. The trades which were hardest
hit were for the most part those in which large numbers of women were
employed.

Those trades which for want of a better name are sometimes
called “luxury trades”—dressmaking, millinery, blouse
making, women’s fancy and children’s boot and shoe making,
the silk and linen trades, cigar and cigarette making,
the umbrella trade, confectionery and preserve making,
cycle and carriage making, the jewelry trade, furniture
making and French polishing, the china and glass trades,
book and stationery making, as well as printing—these
were the trades which at the beginning of the war suffered
a very severe slump. In some trades a shortage of raw
material or the loss of enemy markets only added to the
general dislocation.... Thus the shortage of sugar caused
very considerable unemployment in jam preserving and
confectionery. The chemical trade was affected by the
complete cessation of certain commodities from Germany. The
practical closing of the North Sea to fishers absolutely
brought to a close the occupation of those thousands of
women on the English coast who follow the herring round.
The closing of the Baltic cut off the supplies of flax from
Russia upon which our linen trade largely depends.... The
cotton trade was especially hit, before the war a period of
decline had set in, and Lancashire suffered in addition from
all the disadvantages incidental to an export trade in time
of naval warfare. Casual houseworkers such as charwomen and
office cleaners and even skilled domestic servants, such
as cooks, found themselves out of employment owing to the
economies which the public was making. The unemployment of
good cooks, however, did not last many weeks.[14]

[14] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, 1915, pp. 70, 71.

Nearly half the total number of women in industry (44.4 per cent or
1,100,000) were unemployed or on short time in September, 1914, while
among men workers the corresponding figure was only 27.4 per cent. The
provision of public work helped men rather than women, and the rush
of enlistments was another important factor which helped relieve the
situation for working men. Among the women, on the contrary, many
relatives of men who had gone to the front were obliged to apply for
work for a time, since separation allowances were not immediately
available.

In October, 1914, when enlistments were taken into account, the net
decrease in the number of male industrial workers was only 6,500, but
that of females was 155,000. By December, when 77,000 fewer women were
employed than in July, and girls in dressmaking, machine made lace,
silk and felt hat making, potteries, printing and fish curing had not
yet found steady work,[15] there was a net increase in the employment
of men and boys, and a shortage of skilled men. Even in February, 1915,
37,500 women were reported unemployed,[16] and in the latter part
of March and the first half of April there were twice as many women
applicants for work at the employment exchanges as there were openings
available. However, the tide turned in the latter month, and the total
number of women workers increased 44,000 over the number employed in
July, 1914, though owing to imperfect adjustment a number of women
were still unemployed in the middle of 1915, nearly a year after the
outbreak of the war.[17]

[15] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1914_, p. 34.

[16] _Vide_ Appendix A, p. 231.

[17] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, pp. 79-80.

_Organization for Aiding Unemployed Women_

During this period the chief agency helping unemployed girls and women
was the “Central Committee on Women’s Employment.” The committee mainly
owed its origin to the War Emergency Workers’ National Committee, which
was formed as early as August 5, 1914, to protect the interests of
the workers during the war, at a hastily called conference of nearly
all the important national socialist and labor organizations. In the
first days of the war an appeal to women was sent out in the name of
the Queen asking them to make garments and “comforts” for the troops.
The workers’ national committee protested against such use of the
voluntary labor of the well-to-do at the very time when thousands of
working women in the sewing and allied trades were in need of work.

As a result of such protests an announcement appeared in the newspapers
of August 17 to the effect that details of the Queen’s plan for raising
money to provide schemes of work for unemployed women would soon be
announced. It was stated that “it is the wish of Her Majesty that these
schemes should be devised in consultation with industrial experts and
representatives of working class women,” and that the aims of the
Queen’s needlework guild had been “misunderstood.” “Voluntary aid was
meant to supplement and not to supplant paid labor.” A few days later
the Queen asked amateur sewers not to make any of a list of garments
which the military authorities would ordinarily buy from business firms.

On August 20, the “Central Committee on Women’s Employment” was
appointed. Mary Macarthur, secretary of the National Federation of
Women Workers, was honorary secretary, and five of the fourteen members
were representatives of working women approved by the workers’ national
committee. This central women’s committee was given control of the
Queen’s Work for Women Fund.

Though the committee met with many delays before it could start its
undertakings, and though it was able to provide for only a small
fraction of the women in need, its general principles and methods might
well be taken as a standard for action in any similar emergency.

The first principle on which the committee worked was that “it is
better that workers should be self-maintaining than dependent upon
relief, even when that relief is given in the form of work.” To
increase the volume of employment the committee set up a “contract
department” which aimed to enlarge the number of firms having
government contracts. Three different methods were used in doing this.
One especially ingenious device was that of inducing the War Office
to simplify certain details of the army uniform, so that it could be
made up by firms not used to the work. “Thereafter full employment in
the clothing trade coincided with a greatly improved supply of army
clothing.”[18] Firms in need of orders, who could make shirts, khaki,
blankets and hosiery, were brought to the attention of the War Office.
Finally, by taking large contracts from the government and dividing
them the committee supplied work to a number of small dressmaking and
needlework firms, which were too small to secure the contracts direct.
Two million pairs of army socks, 10,000 shirts a week cut out in the
committee’s own work rooms, and 105,000 flannel body belts for the
troops were given out in this way. It is important to note that the
work was “only undertaken when the ordinary trade was fully employed.”
As a matter of fact, at the same time that thousands of women and girls
were out of work, others were working overtime and the government was
unable to secure sufficient clothing for the troops. Except that the
committee sometimes made advances of working capital, to be returned
when the contract was finished, the work was self-supporting. Ordinary
trade prices and, after the first few weeks, the usual methods of wage
payment, prevailed.

The other main branch of the committee’s work was the provision of
relief work rooms under its own supervision in London, and elsewhere
under women’s subcommittees of the local representative committees
formed by the Board of Trade. The subcommittees were required to
include representatives of working women’s organizations among their
members. The committee reports that its decision to have the relief
work carried on under the auspices of such committees “caused some
disappointment to the promoters of certain private charities who hoped
to procure grants.”[19]

[18] Great Britain, _Report of the Central Committee on Women’s
Employment_, 1915, p. 5.

[19] _Ibid._, p. 9.

The work rooms were not allowed to compete with ordinary industry, for
which reason their products were not supposed either to be sold or
to be given to persons who could afford to buy them. It was stated,
however, that this rule was difficult to enforce because many of the
provincial work rooms were anxious to make articles for the troops.
The work was supposed to be of a nature to train the workers and
improve their efficiency, and in this the committee’s aims seem to have
been generally realized. The making of cheap but tasteful clothing and
other domestic training was usually provided. In many places the women
were taught to cook wholesome low cost dinners for themselves. In one
work room a rough factory hand who had hardly handled a needle before
became so enthusiastic over her handiwork that she remarked, “It’s nice
to be learned.”

In London a few “sick room helps” were also trained, some clerical
workers were given scholarships to learn foreign languages, and a small
number of factory girls were sent into the country to become market
gardeners. In selecting applicants girls under sixteen and nonworking
wives of unemployed men were not taken, and the younger, more
intelligent and more teachable women were given preference. Workers
were obliged to register at the employment exchanges[20] and to accept
suitable employment if found.

[20] The former “labour exchanges,” managed by the Board of Trade,
became “employment exchanges” when the Ministry of Labour was created
in December, 1916, and they were transferred to its jurisdiction.

The wages paid by the work rooms aroused not a little controversy.
The committee fixed 3d. as the hourly wage rate, forty hours as the
weekly working time, making maximum weekly earnings 10s. ($2.40). This
wage scale was hotly denounced by certain labor representatives as
“sweating.” The committee justified it on the ground that the hourly
rate was approximately that set by the trade boards, and that the
weekly wage must be kept sufficiently low so that women would not be
attracted to the work rooms from ordinary employment. After careful
consideration, the scale was endorsed unanimously by the War Emergency
Workers’ National Committee.[21] In March, 1915, on account of rising
prices, a working week of forty-six hours was permitted, increasing
weekly earnings to 11s. 6d. ($2.76). But by this time the state of
trade had greatly improved and it had already been possible to give up
some of the work rooms. The others were soon closed and the committee
gave its attention to investigating new fields for the employment of
women. At the end of 1916 it was also running an employment bureau and
acting as a clearing house for related organizations. About 9,000 women
had passed through its work rooms up to January, 1915, at which time
about 1,000 women were employed by the central committee in London, and
about 4,000 by the local subcommittees.[22]

[21] Fabian Society, “The War, Women, and Unemployment,” _Fabian Tract
No. 178_, 1916, p. 19.

[22] Comprehensive reports on the state of employment in September and
October, 1914, and in February, 1915, have been issued by the Board of
Trade [Cds. 7703, 7755, and 7850]. The “Central Committee on Women’s
Employment” has issued an interim report [Cd. 7748]. Miss Edith Abbott
gives an excellent review of the extent of unemployment and the work of
the Central Committee in the _Journal of Political Economy_ for July,
1917. (“The War and Women’s Work in England,” pp. 641-678.)

CHAPTER IV

Extension of Employment of Women

The rapid growth in the number of women workers and their entrance into
hundreds of occupations formerly carried on by men alone are two of the
most striking industrial phenomena of the world war. The decrease in
women’s employment which marked the beginning of the war disappeared
month by month until the level of July, 1914, was passed in April,
1915. In the next month the _Labour Gazette_ noted that the shortage
of male labor was now extending to female and boy labor in many lines.
Up to this time recruiting had been comparatively slow. Now came Lord
Kitchener’s appeal for “men and still more men,” and as the army grew
the women had to fill the depleted ranks of industry.

By August, 1915, the British Association for the Advancement of
Science set the increase of employed women over July, 1914, at over
150,000 in industrial lines alone, besides considerable gains in
certain nonindustrial occupations.[23] In November of that year the
number of women registering at the employment exchanges for the first
time exceeded that of men. In April, 1916, by which time the army had
been much enlarged and the first conscription act was in effect, the
increase had reached 583,000, according to official estimate, and
the number of women workers was growing at least five times as fast
as before the war. A year later the net gain in the number of women
gainfully occupied was 963,000, and in July, 1918, 1,345,000 more women
were at work than in July, 1914.[24] In short, in four years of war
more than a million and a third additional women entered work outside
their homes.

[23] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, pp. 75 and 137.

[24] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, April, 1919, pp. 80-81. [Cd. 135.]

The increase in the number of working women and girls was greatest,
perhaps, in the year from April, 1915, to April, 1916, during which
period there was an increase of 657,000 in the occupations covered by
the Board of Trades reports.[25] During the last year for which figures
are available, July, 1917, to July, 1918, the increase was but 277,000.
This check in the rate of increase was due probably to a decrease in
the demand for the kinds of munitions on which women were most largely
employed, an increase in the number of returned soldiers and apparently
the depletion of the supply of women readily available for employment.

[25] _Vide_ Appendix D, p. 236.

Among the various occupational groups factory work showed the largest
increase, namely, 792,000 women, during the four years ending July,
1918, and agriculture the smallest, 38,000. Commerce was second to
industry, with a gain of 429,000, and national and local government
third with an increase of 198,000. The number of women workers
decreased only in women’s traditional occupation of domestic service,
where a decline of 400,000, or nearly 20 per cent, was registered in
the four year period.

EXTENSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN DURING FOUR YEARS OF WAR[26]

July, July, Increase or
Number of Women Working 1914 1918 Decrease

Employers or on own account 430,000 470,000 +40,000
Industry 2,178,000 2,970,000 +792,000
Domestic Service 1,658,000 1,258,000 -400,000
Commerce, etc. 505,500 934,500 +429,000
National and Local Government,
including Education 262,200 460,200 +198,000
Agriculture 190,000 228,000 +38,000
Hotels, Theaters, etc. 181,000 220,000 +39,000
Transport 18,200 117,200 +99,000
Other (including professional)
Employment and Home Workers 542,500 652,500 +110,000
--------- --------- ---------
Total 5,966,000 7,311,000 1,345,000

[26] Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, April,
1919, p. 80.

Turning aside from the increases in the total number of women workers
to an analysis of changes in the various occupations, a picture is
obtained not only of what the army of new workers did, but also of many
of the alterations wrought by war on the fabric of British industry.

_First Year of War_

Within a few weeks after the beginning of the war the government “came
into the market as chief buyer,”[27] with large rush orders for the
equipment of troops. This involved an “enormously multiplied demand
for women’s services” in certain lines, some time before the period of
unemployment was over. Increases in the number of women in the leather,
engineering and hosiery industries were noted by October, 1914.
Before the end of 1914 there was said to be an increase of 100,000
women in the woolen and worsted industry (for khaki, flannel and
blankets); in hosiery; in the clothing trade (for military tailoring,
fur coat making, caps and shirts); in the boot and shoe trade; and in
the making of ammunition, rations and jam, kit bags and haversacks,
surgical dressings and bandages and tin boxes. Yet owing to lack of
the necessary skill or because they could not be moved to the locality
where their services were in demand, thousands of “capable though
untrained young women lacked employment when other factories were
overwhelmed with their contracts and girls and women strained nearly to
the breaking point.”[28] “The relative immobility of labor was never
more clearly shown,” says Miss B. L. Hutchins.[29]

[27] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, p. 71.

[28] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1914_, p. 33.

[29] B. L. Hutchins, _Women in Modern Industry_, 1915, p. 246.

An interesting account of the introduction of women into munitions work
speaks of the rush of women to register for it in May, 1915, after
the battle of Neuve Chapelle, when the public first became aware of
the shortage of munitions.[30] But positions were then “exceedingly
difficult to obtain” and the use of women became general only in
September or later. An official report states that the employment of
women on munitions work was considered “tentative and experimental”
as late as November and December, 1915.[31] The success of a group of
educated women placed as supervisors in an inspection factory, who
were trained at Woolwich Arsenal in August, was said to have been the
determining factor in leading to the introduction of female labor on a
large scale at Woolwich and other government establishments.

[30] Rosamond Smith. “Women and Munition Work,” _Women’s Industrial
News_, April, 1916, p. 14.

[31] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, April, 1919, p. 111.

During perhaps the first six or eight months of war, however, the
additional women factory workers seldom took the places of men, but
entered the same occupations in which women had long been employed.
The “new demand was to a large extent for that class of goods in the
production of which female labour normally predominates.”[32] Women had
for many years operated power machines in the clothing trades and had
been employed in the making of cartridges and tin boxes, in certain
processes in woolen mills, in boot and shoe factories and in the food
trades: The needs of the army so far merely provided more opportunities
along the usual lines of women’s work.

[32] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, p. 72.

It was in the spring and early summer of 1915 that instances of the
substitution of women for men first began to be noted in industrial
employments. The _Labour Gazette_ first mentioned the general subject
in June, and in July stated that the movement was “growing.” In the
boot and shoe trade in Northamptonshire efforts were being made in May
to put women on “purely automatic machines hitherto worked by men.”
About this time a violent controversy broke out in the cotton trade
regarding the introduction of women as “piecers,” two of whom helped
each male spinner. Boys had been used for this purpose, and the union
rules forbade the employment of women. Union officials were strong in
opposition, saying that the work was unsuitable for women, and that
they would undercut the wage rates. An agreement permitting the use
of the women was finally made with the union, but even before it was
ratified women “piecers” had become increasingly common.

The frequent use of women on work formerly done by men in the munitions
branch of the “engineering” (machinists’) trade also dates from about
this time. On August 20, 1915, _The Engineer_, a British trade paper,
stated that “during the past few months a great and far reaching change
had been effected.... In a certain factory (making projectiles up to
4.5 inch gun size) a new department was started some time ago, the
working people being women, with a few expert men as overseers and
teachers.... By no means all of the work has been of the repetition
type, demanding little or no manipulative ability, but much of it ...
taxed the intelligence of the operatives to a high degree. Yet the work
turned out has reached a high pitch of excellence.... It may safely be
said that women can satisfactorily handle much heavier pieces of metal
than had previously been dreamt of.”

Women are said to have been successful in “arduous” processes, such as
forging, previously performed by men, and in managing machine tools not
even semi-automatic. “It can be stated with absolute truth that with
the possible exception of the heaviest tools—and their inability to
work even these has yet to be established—women have shown themselves
perfectly capable of performing operations which hitherto have been
exclusively carried out by men.”

But for industry as a whole the judgment of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science on the extent of substitution during
the first year of war is probably accurate. “Broadly speaking,” it was
said, “the movement [of women into trades and occupations hitherto
reserved wholly or partially to men] has only just begun to assume any
appreciable magnitude.... In few industries has the position yet shaped
itself.”[33] But in a number of trades, noteworthy among which were
leather, engineering, wool, cotton, pottery and printing, women, while
not yet undertaking the most highly skilled work, were “undoubtedly
slowly undertaking processes that were previously thought _just_ above
the line of their strength and skill.”[34]

[33] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, p. 70.

[34] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, p. 78.

Very soon after the outbreak of war there began to be an increase
in the number of women in certain nonindustrial occupations, most
important of which were clerical work, retail trade, and the railway
service. Unfortunately no estimate is available of the actual numbers
of women so employed in the first year of the war, but the increase
must have been considerable. Banks and insurance offices for the first
time hired women and girls in any great numbers, mostly for the more
routine parts of the work. The civil service took on a good many women
in the lower grades of its work, and already complaints were heard of
the prejudice which confined trained women to routine work while the
“upper division” struggled on understaffed. In the postoffice more
women clerks and some postwomen were noted. There was a considerable
increase in the number of women in retail trade in various capacities,
including shop assistants in dry goods and provision stores, packers
and delivery “girls.” In the railway service women were appearing as
car cleaners, ticket collectors on the station platforms and in the
railway offices. Some cities had hired women as street cleaners and
tram car conductors. The exodus of foreign waiters left openings for
more waitresses.

In these lines from the first the women took men’s places. And, as the
public came into daily contact with women clerks in banks and business
offices, postal employes, employes in shops and on delivery vans, tram
conductors and ticket collectors, there probably arose an exaggerated
idea of the extent to which women did “men’s work” during the first
year of war.

The number of women in agriculture, in which the _Labour Gazette_ first
noted a shortage of skilled labor in the early months of 1915, is
reported to have risen slightly in the spring and summer of 1915. The
increases were reported in nearly all the principal branches of the
season’s work, first in potato planting, then in turnip hoeing, next in
haying and fruit picking and finally in the harvest. In almost every
case the additional women were employed on work formerly done by men.
But, according to a careful study covering this period:

Most of the press paragraphs referring to the
replacement of men by women upon farms have been
calculated to give an erroneous impression to the
unknowing public. The demand for female labor in
agriculture during 1915 was not very great and a large
number of girls who offered to take up such work failed
to find employment.[35]

Moreover, statistics show that, owing to the keen demand from higher
paid and more attractive lines of work, the number of women permanently
employed on the land in Great Britain actually decreased from 80,000 in
July, 1914, to 62,200 in July, 1915.[36]

[35] _Women’s Industrial News_, July, 1916, p. 28.

[36] Great Britain, Board of Trade, _Report on the Increased Employment
of Women during the War, with Statistics up to April, 1918_, pp. 13-14.

_Second Year of War_

The next convenient date at which to note the changes in the number of
women employed and in their occupations is April, 1916, when nearly two
years had passed under war conditions. A second investigation by the
British Association for the Advancement of Science covers conditions
at that period, and the first of the _Labour Gazette’s_ quarterly
summaries of “the extension of the employment of women” is of that date.

The total war increase in numbers in industrial occupations was put
at 13.2 per cent of the estimated number employed in July, 1914,
or 287,500, by April, 1916. In the metal trades, chemicals and
woodworking, the increases were by far the largest, being 88 per
cent or 126,900, 84 per cent or 33,600, and 33 per cent or 13,200
respectively. These figures show the rush of women into the engineering
branch of munitions work, which began to be heavy in the fall of
1915, and into the manufacture of explosives. Both patriotism and the
economic incentive of high wages helped to secure women to meet the
rapid expansion in these trades. The increase in woodworking trades
likewise had a direct connection with war orders, as it involved the
work of women on aeroplanes and in making ammunition boxes. Other
marked increases, though not proportionally as large, were found in the
textile and food trades.

During the autumn of 1915 and the early months of 1916 the replacement
of men by women in industry progressed much more rapidly than in the
first year of war. During nearly every month of this period the _Labour
Gazette_ noted the increasing shortage of male help as men were called
into the army, the growing substitution of women and the need for still
further replacement. By the end of 1915, the “Principal Lady Inspector
of Factories” stated in her report for that year that though the
replacement of men of military age was still “probably very much less
than is generally supposed” the employment of women on “men’s work”
in the expanding munitions industry and in many staple trades had so
“spread that an entirely new industrial position and outlook has opened
for women.”[37]

[37] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, p. 13. _Vide_ Appendix B, p. 232.

In April, 1916, it was estimated by the British Association for the
Advancement of Science that about one woman industrial worker out of
every seven was replacing a man, the total number of substitutes in
industry at this time being approximately 226,000. By far the largest
number, 117,400, were found in the “metal trades” (munitions), and
textiles, clothing, miscellaneous trades, food, paper and printing,
and woodworking followed in the order named. Estimates by the Board of
Trade were somewhat more conservative. A month or two later the _Labour
Gazette_ could state that there were few industries or occupations “in
which some substitution of females for males had not taken place.”

By the spring and summer of 1916, also, the effect of extending the
employment of women had begun to be felt by those lines which, before
the war, had been considered pre-eminently “woman’s work.” The British
Association for the Advancement of Science reported in April a decline
of 100,000 in the number of domestic servants and a slight decrease
in the number of women in the paper and printing trade. In July the
_Labour Gazette_ found decreases also in dressmaking, confectionery
and the linen, lace and silk trades. By October, 1916, 40 per cent of
the firms in the textile trades, 21 per cent in clothing and 19 per
cent in paper and printing were unable to fill their demands for female
help, as contrasted with 5 per cent in the metal trades, 3 per cent in
chemicals and 8 per cent in woodworking. “It is clear therefore ...”
states the _Gazette_, “that the process of transference from these
trades (which are ordinarily women’s occupations) to munition work or
other better paid occupations still continues.”[38]

The largest increases in the employment of women, however, both
absolutely and proportionally, were to be found in April, 1916, in
the nonindustrial group. The total increase in this group over prewar
numbers was 310,000. In “commercial” work alone the number of women had
risen by 181,000. The gain in “banking and finance,” _i. e._, women
clerks in banks and financial offices, was 242 per cent or 23,000, and
in “transport,” that is to say railway work was 16,000, or 168 per
cent.[39]

[38] _Labour Gazette_, January, 1917, p. 8.

[39] _Vide_ Appendix C, p. 234.

In agriculture during 1916 the increase in employment of women was
much more rapid, both among regular workers and among such temporary
workers as fruit pickers and harvest hands. An increase of 18,700 or 23
per cent in the number of regular women workers in Great Britain alone
was reported in July. In the autumn the numbers fell off, however, on
account of the physical strength required for the ploughing and other
work carried on at that season.

_Third Year of War_

The next group of figures carries forward the story of the increase in
women workers more than a year further, to July, 1917. This third year
of war was a period of striking developments, both in growth in the
number of women workers and in the extent to which they filled men’s
jobs.

Best known of these changes to American readers is the constant
expansion in the number of women munition makers. The number of
government munition factories had risen from four at the beginning of
the war to 103 in January, 1917, and the number of women employed in
them and in docks and arsenals increased by 202,000, or 9,596 per cent,
between July, 1914, and July, 1917. At Woolwich Arsenal there were 125
women in 1914 and 25,000 in 1917. The number of women in 3,900 of the
4,200 “controlled” establishments doing munitions work was reported to
be 369,000 in February, 1917.[40] In July, 1917, the increase in the
number of women in the trades which covered most of the munition work
outside national factories, namely, metals, chemicals and woodwork,
was 358,000, 52,000 and 26,000, respectively. In June, 1917, Dr.
Christopher Addison, then Minister of Munitions, told the House of
Commons that from 60 to 80 per cent of all the machine work on “shells,
fuses and trench warfare supplies” was performed by women. One shrapnel
bullet factory was said to be run entirely by women.

[40] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

Part of the total gain of 518,000 in the number of women in industrial
occupations under private ownership in July, 1917, was likewise found
outside munitions work in a great variety of staple trades less
directly connected with war orders, many of which were far removed from
the scope of women’s work previous to the war. For instance, the number
of women in grain milling rose from 2,000 to 6,000, in sugar refining
from 1,000 to 2,000 and in brewing from 8,000 to 18,000 by July,
1916.[41] Women became bakers and butchers and even stokers.[42] The
employment of women increased in the building trades, in surface work
in mining, in quarrying, brick making and cement work, in furniture
manufacture and in the making of glass, china and earthenware. Women
were reported to be building good-sized electric motors, working
in shipbuilding yards, testing dynamos, working electric overhead
traveling cranes, gauging tools to a thousandth of an inch and less and
performing the most highly skilled work on optical instruments.[43]
The British mission from the Ministry of Munitions described a former
kitchen maid who was running a 900-horsepower steam engine without
assistance.

[41] _Labour Gazette_, July, 1916, p. 357.

[42] Great Britain War Office, _Women’s War Work_, pp. 49, 56, 57.

[43] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Dilution Bulletin_, April,
1917, pp. 82 and 95.

A committee of industrial women’s organizations stated, in the winter
of 1916-17 that, except for underground mining, some processes in dock
labor and steel smelting, and iron founding, “the introduction of women
in varying numbers is practically universal.” And even in steel works
women were sometimes employed in breaking limestone and loading bricks,
though not on the actual smelting of the metal, while in iron foundries
negotiations were going on to see where women could be used.

Meanwhile, the decrease in women workers in what, before the war, were
distinctively “women’s trades,” became more marked. For instance,
in April, 1917, the number of women was falling off in textiles and
the food trades, though these were still above prewar levels, in
dressmaking and domestic service, where the decline was put at 300,000,
and in laundry work, for which exact figures were not obtainable.

The following table brings out the changes in the employment of women
in several of the more important industrial occupations between July,
1914, and January and April, 1917:

INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN EMPLOYED SINCE JULY,
1914[44]

January, April,
1917 1917
--------------------------------------------------
Metals 267,000 308,000
Chemicals 43,000 51,000
Textiles 23,000 22,000
Clothing -34,000 -37,000
Foods 26,000 18,000
Paper and Print -6,000 -7,000
Woods 19,000 24,000
------- -------
Total 399,000 453,000

It had become so difficult for the London high class dressmaking and
millinery shops to secure employes that in the fall of 1916 some of the
employers met with representatives of the London County Council and the
employment exchanges and planned considerable improvements in working
conditions. The changes included a reduction of the seasonality of the
trade and a shortening of the working hours. But in July, 1917, their
supply of labor was still “insufficient.”[45]

In nonindustrial occupations also during the period from April, 1916,
to July, 1917, there was a continued increase in the number of women
employed and the kinds of work they were doing. Next to “government
establishments” the largest percentage of increase (though the absolute
numbers are comparatively small) were found in some of these groups. In
“banking and finance” the gain over July, 1914, was 570 per cent, in
“transport” 422 per cent and in civil service 150 per cent. The gain in
numbers in the whole group, exclusive of agriculture, was 639,000, of
which 324,000 were found in “commercial occupations.”[46]

[44] _Labour Gazette_, August, 1917, p. 274.

[45] _Ibid._, p. 282.

[46] _Vide_ Appendix D, p. 236.

Along with the growth in numbers the kinds of work done by women in
these lines continued to extend. On the railroads, to the women clerks,
car cleaners and ticket collectors of the first months of war were
added shop laborers, engine cleaners and porters. In several Scottish
and a few English and Welsh cities, women became tram drivers as well
as conductors. Cities employed not only women street cleaners and
a larger number of women clerks and teachers but women in various
capacities in power stations, sewage farms, gas works and parks, and
as scavengers. A few official “policewomen” were appointed, and there
were numerous women “patrols” or voluntary police. There were women
lamp-lighters and women window cleaners, and the errand girl had
practically replaced the errand boy.

While in July, 1917, according to the _Labour Gazette_, the number of
women employed permanently on the land in Great Britain had increased
by 26,000 or 32 per cent since July, 1914, the number of casual workers
had increased 39,000 or 77 per cent during the same period. The total
number of women employed in farm work in July, 1917, may therefore be
estimated as 192,000, in addition to women relatives of farmers, who
are seldom counted in the returns.

As indicated by the variety of occupations, both industrial and
nonindustrial, in which their employment increased, the substitution
of women for men went forward rapidly during the third year of war.
The total number of “females substituted for male workers” amounted
in July, 1917, to 1,354,000, exclusive of casual farm laborers, or to
1,392,000 if such laborers be included. In “government establishments”
the number of women on men’s work was 9,120 times as great as the whole
number of women employed in July, 1914; in “banking and finance” the
number was 555 times as great; in “transport,” 437 times, and in “civil
service” 152 times as great. About one working woman out of every three
was replacing a man in July, 1917, in the occupations covered by the
tables of the _Labour Gazette_.

The report of the “Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops” for 1916
gives an interesting description of the progress of substitution and of
the work of women in heavy occupations formerly carried on exclusively
by men. The Principal Lady Inspector, Miss Anderson, says, in part:

It appears that the one absolute limit to the replacement
of men by women lies in those heavy occupations and
processes where adaptation of plant or appliances can not
be effected so as to bring them within the compass even of
selected women, of physical capacity above the normal. Very
surprising, however, is the outcome of careful selection,
even in fairly heavy work, in rubber manufacture, paper
mills, oil cake and seed crushing mills, shale oil works,
shipyards, iron and tube works, chemical works, gas works
and stacking of coal, tan yards, coarse ware and brick
making, flour milling and other trades. “If they stick this,
they will stick anything,” a manager is reported as saying
of the grit and pluck of the women in a gas works in the
recent severe weather.[47]

[47] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, p. 5.

She adds, however, what may occur to many students of women’s work,
that “it is permissible to wonder whether some of the surprise and
admiration freely expressed in many quarters over new proofs of women’s
physical capacity and endurance is not in part attributable to lack of
knowledge or appreciation of the very heavy and strenuous nature of
much of normal prewar work for women, domestic and industrial.”

Nevertheless, despite these increases, the amount of substitution
varied widely between different trades and even between different firms
in the same trade, and opportunities for replacement still existed.
Often women had been more widely introduced into occupations like
railway trucking, for which they did not appear well fitted, than into
such work as electroplating, which seemed in every way suitable.

Women’s lack of trade training, their inferior strength, the special
restrictions of the factory acts, moral objections to having men
and women in the same workshop, and the need of increasing sanitary
accommodations and providing women supervisors had been from the first
alleged as objections to putting women in men’s places.[48] But the
strongest obstacles were apparently trade union opposition, frequently
expressed in restrictions in trade agreements, and the prejudice of
employers. “The progress of substitution probably depends in many cases
on the pressure exercised by military tribunals,” said the “Principal
Lady Inspector of Factories,” early in 1917. “Employers will not
experiment with women as long as they can get men, though once they do
so they are pleased with the result.”[49]

[48] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Labour,
Finance, and the War_, 1916, pp. 83, 84.

[49] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, p. 6.

_Fourth Year of the War_

In the words of the Chief Woman Factory Inspector, 1917-1918, the
fourth year of the war, was as far as woman’s work was concerned “one
mainly of settling down into the new fields of work which were so
rapidly marked out in the three previous years.” Yet she enumerates
several lines of work employing women for the first time during this
year, among which were ship and marine engineering, blast furnaces and
forge works, copper and spelter works, concrete and other construction
work for factories and aerodromes, electric power stations and retorts
of gas works. The entrance of women as unskilled laborers in iron and
steel plants and chemical works was proceeding steadily in November,
1918.

Another interesting indication of the extent and variety of women’s
work in the latter months of the war is a list of placements made by
an employment exchange. The list includes learners in sheet metal
working, engine cleaners for a railway company; machinists in a torpedo
factory; drivers for a tramway company; gas meter inspectors; crane
drivers; insurance agents; sawmill laborers; cemetery laborers; railway
porters; painters of motor car bodies; machinists for engineering
firms; plumbers in a shipyard; bill posters; electric welders; foundry
workers; armature winders; postwomen; lorry drivers; wood cutting
machinists for shipbuilding; moulders at a grinding mill; chauffeurs;
lift attendants; tinsmiths; solderers in gas meter works; telephone
repairers; hay balers; laboratory assistants for wholesale chemists;
tailors’ pressers; cinema operators; bank clerks; glass blowers; pipe
plasterers; bake house assistants; cork cutters; gardeners; core makers
in an iron foundry, and mechanics of many kinds.[50]

[50] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Industry and
Finance—War Expedients and Reconstruction_, pp. 39-40.

A Home Office report on the “Substitution of Women in Nonmunition
Factories” adds to the above classifications employment in scientific
work and in management and supervision, which a number of women
entered during the latter months of the war, though a lack of suitable
candidates retarded the movement. Educated women found places in
factory laboratories where, also, intelligent working women took up
the more routine processes. Most of the women engaged in managerial
work were found in the prewar “women’s industries” like laundries
and clothing factories, while the opening of new trades provided
opportunities for many forewomen.

In July, 1914, the total number of women at work for pay was officially
estimated as 5,966,000. Four years later this total had risen to
7,311,000 which, as has been noted, was a net increase of over a
million and a third. An increase was found in all the major industrial
groups except domestic service, in which the numbers decreased by
400,000, or about 20 per cent, during the war period. In private
industrial establishments the number of women workers rose in four
years from 2,176,000 to 2,745,000, an increase of 569 000, or 26.1 per
cent, while in government industrial establishments, only 2,000 women
were employed in July, 1914, and 225,000 in July, 1918, or over a
hundred times as many.

By far the greater part of the increase in the number of women factory
workers was to be found in the munition trades. Indeed, in the three
trades of paper and printing, textiles and clothing, the last two
of which had been “women’s trades” even before the war, there was
an actual decrease of 86,000 in the number of women workers during
the four year period under discussion. Out of the total increase of
792,000 in this group of occupations, 746,000 were to be found in the
metal, chemical and wood trades, which cover most of the munition work
done by private firms and in government establishments, which were
mainly munition factories.

Another interesting sidelight on the contribution of English working
women to the needs of the war is brought out by the numbers employed
in the manufacture of all kinds of military supplies, including such
things as uniforms, shoes and food, as well as munitions. In April,
1918, a total of 1,265,000 women were employed by private concerns on
war orders, while government work brought the total up to 1,425,000,
about equally divided between munitions and shipbuilding.

EXTENSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES IN INDUSTRY DURING FOUR YEARS OF
WAR[51]

Per Cent
of Females
to Total
Estimated Estimated Increase (+) Number of
Number Number or Work People
of Females of Females Decrease (-) Employed
Employed Employed July, 1914- July, July,
Trade July, 1914 July, 1918 July 1918 1914 1918

Metal 170,000 594,000 +424,000 9 25
Chemical 40,000 104,000 + 64,000 20 39
Textile 863,000 827,000 - 36,000 58 67
Clothing 612,000 568,000 - 44,000 68 76
Food, Drink, Tobacco 196,000 235,000 + 39,000 35 49
Paper and Printing 147,500 141,500 - 6,000 36 48
Wood 44,000 79,000 + 35,000 15 32
China and Earthenware 32,000
Leather 23,100 197,100 + 93,000 4 10
Other 49,000
Government
Establishments 2,000 225,000 +223,000 3 47
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,178,600 2,970,000 +792,000 26 37

[51] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet on Women in Industry_,
April, 1919, pp. 80-81.

The addition of orders for the Allies brought the total number of women
on war orders up to 1,750,000.

The following table gives comparisons for April, 1917, and April, 1918,
for the various classes of industry:

NUMBER OF WOMEN ENGAGED ON GOVERNMENT ORDERS IN PRIVATE CONCERNS,
APRIL, 1917, AND APRIL, 1918[52]

April, April,
Occupation 1917 1918
----------------------------------------------
Building 13,000 16,000
Mines and Quarries 4,000 6,000
Metals 388,000 502,000
Chemicals 58,000 67,000
Textiles 238,000 338,000
Clothing 83,000 130,000
Food, Drink, Tobacco 32,000 53,000
Paper and Printing 30,000 41,000
Wood 28,000 39,000
Other 55,000 73,000
------- ---------
Total 929,000 1,265,000

[52] Great Britain Board of Trade, _Report on the Increased Employment
of Women during the War, with Statistics up to April, 1918_, pp. 8-9.

In nonindustrial employments, including commerce, banking, work for
the central and local government, transportation, hotels and theaters,
agriculture and the professions, the increase over the prewar level
of July, 1914, was 871,000 in July, 1918, a rise from 1,098,000 to
1,969,000 women workers. The increase in these occupations for the
fourth year of war alone was much greater than the increase in factory
workers during the same period, being 209,000 in contrast to 68,000.

The latest figures available for commerce are for April instead of
July, 1918, and show that 850,000 women were then employed in wholesale
and retail trade, about a 70 per cent increase since the beginning
of the war. The new workers were employed principally by wholesale
establishments and by grocery, fish, provision and hardware stores.
In the latter months of the war a number of women were promoted to
managerial and other positions of responsibility in stores. But in
spite of all the extension of their employment, a considerable number
of establishments reported a shortage of workers in April, 1918.

INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES IN COMMERCE, JULY, 1914-APRIL, 1918,
AND PERCENTAGE OF FIRMS REPORTING A SHORTAGE OF FEMALE LABOR IN APRIL,
1918.[53]

Percentage
of Firms
Reporting
Estimated Estimated a Shortage
No. No. of Female
Employed Employed Labor
July, April, April,
Occupation 1914 1918 1918
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesale and Retail Drapers,
Haberdashers, Clothiers, etc. 132,000 167,000 20
Wholesale and Retail Grocers,
Bakers, Confectioners 80,000 182,000 5
Wholesale and Retail Butchers,
Fishmongers, Dairymen 42,000 69,000 8
Wholesale and Retail Stationers
and Booksellers 34,000 47,000 12
Retail Boot and Shoe Dealers 13,500 22,500 14
Retail Chemists 10,000 24,000 10
All (including some
not specified above) 496,000 850,000 8

[53] Compiled from Board of Trade Report covering Extension of
Employment of Women up to that Date.

The term “transportation” in the statistics applies chiefly to steam
railroads, as the employes of the many municipally owned tramways
are classed under “local government.” The number of women in the
transportation group was four times as great in April, 1918, as in
July, 1914, or 68,000 instead of 17,000. A list covering the principal
lines of work in July, 1918, shows that the largest number of women
were employed as telegraph and telephone operators, porters and
carriage cleaners.[54]

[54] Great Britain. _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, April, 1919, p. 97.

NUMBER OF FEMALES EMPLOYED BY STEAM RAILWAYS.

July, July,
1914 1918
------------------------------------------------------------------
Booking Clerks 152 3,612
Telegraph and telephone operators
and other clerks 2,800 20,995
Ticket collectors .... 1,972
Carriage cleaners 214 4,603
Engine cleaners .... 3,065
Porters and checkers 3 9,980
Workshop laborers 43 2,547
Other laborers 420 580
Cooks, waitresses, attendants 1,239 3,641
Signalwomen, gatekeepers, guards 437 1,292
Machinists, mechanics 44 1,082
Painters and cleaners (including charwomen) 698 1,177
------ ------
Total (including unspecified) 12,423 65,887

In agriculture the increase was less than in most other kinds of work,
the number of permanent women workers rising only from 80,000 to
113,000 in the four years. For the fourth year of war alone the number
of permanent women workers in Scotland showed a rise for the first
time, and there was a slight increase in England and Wales, the total
gain over July, 1917, being 7,000. The number of casual workers dropped
from 88,000 in 1917 to 65,000, however. This fact is ascribed to two
causes. A larger number of male workers were available, including
soldiers on furlough, war prisoners, enemy aliens and school boys.
Also there was a much lessened demand for women in the two lines in
which casual workers were most extensively employed—hops, in which the
acreage was reduced by government order, and fruit, in which the crop
was a failure in several localities.

The increase of opportunities for women in the professions was one
of the most significant of the war time changes. The number of
professional women more than doubled during four years of war, rising
from 50,500 in July, 1914, to 107,500 in April, 1918. There was, of
course, a much enlarged demand for nurses, and the number of women
in Red Cross and military hospitals rose from 10,000 in July, 1914,
to 38,000 in January, 1918. While the number of men teachers fell
off by 22,000, the number of women teachers increased by 13,000, and
they secured a larger proportion of appointments to the higher and
better paid posts. In January, 1918, the Society of Incorporated
Accountants and Auditors obtained permission to change their articles
of incorporation so as to admit women, and a few weeks later reported
that very desirable women candidates were applying for examination.

By the fourth year of the war women were also largely employed in the
various government departments. In August, 1914, there were 36,000
women and 191,000 men in government work, but in January, 1918, the
balance of the sexes had been reversed and the number of women had
risen to 143,000, an increase of 296 per cent, while the number of men
had been reduced to 135,000, a decrease of 29 per cent.

NUMBER OF FEMALES EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

August 1, January 1,
1914 1918
-----------------------------------------------------
Admiralty (Headquarters) 98 4,101
Board of Customs 21 1,415
Food Ministry New 3,086
Board of Inland Revenue 250 4,549
Ministry of Labor 1,017 3,239
Ministry of Munitions New 9,925
Ministry of National Service New 9,811
Ministry of Pensions New 5,311
Postoffice 32,000 79,000
Board of Trade 15 1,842
War Office 156 9,665
All Others 2,715 11,961
------ -------
Total 36,272 191,004

Perhaps the most direct help given by women to the progress of the war
was their employment in work for the army behind the lines in France.
In July, 1915, a member of the government, in answering an inquiry
in the House of Commons as to the number of soldiers detailed for
clerical work, remarked that on the continent “obviously neither old
civilian clerks nor women clerks would be suitable.” But two years
later thousands of English women were at work there not only as clerks,
stenographers, telegraphers and postal employes, but also as army cooks
and cleaners and in the handling of supplies and various sorts of
repair work. The majority were clerical or domestic workers, however.
The women employed in this way were carefully selected and organized
under semi-military discipline, as the “Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps”
(popularly known as the “Waacs”), and numbered over 50,000 before the
end of the war. They wore uniforms of different colors, according to
the branch of work which they undertook. They lived in small huts,
often unheated, not far behind the battle lines, and were constantly
exposed to danger. “Waacs” were at times killed in air raids, and a
considerable number suffered from shell shock. Other smaller bodies of
women organized on similar semi-military lines were the “Wrens,” who
were employed in certain shore duties for the navy, and the “Wrafs” who
did woodcutting under the Board of Trade.

The number of women replacing men, as well as the total number of
women employed, reached its highest level during the fourth year of
the war. In April, 1918, the latest date for which these figures were
available at the date of writing, there were 531,000 substitutes in
industry, 187,000 in government establishments, and 1,098,000 in
nonindustrial occupations, or a total of 1,816,000 women who were
carrying on work formerly done by men.[55] Ninety per cent of the women
munition makers were said to be employed on men’s jobs.[56] An index
of the distribution of substitutes among different types of factory
work may be gained from the results of a special questionnaire sent
to manufacturers employing 277,000 women.[57] Fifteen per cent were
doing clerical work, 7 per cent warehouse work and packing, and 5 per
cent other nonmanufacturing work, such as sack mending in flour mills
and meter inspecting and show room work in the gas industry. Of the
remaining 73 per cent, 9 per cent were engaged in “general laboring
work,” and many others in work requiring similar strength. “It is
clear, therefore,” says the report, “that the employment of women on
heavy work has become an important factor in the situation. Though many
of the processes mentioned were unskilled, it was noticeable how many
of the women were engaged on skilled or semi-skilled processes.”

[55] _Vide_ Appendices E and F, pp. 237-238.

[56] Great Britain. _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, p. 81.

[57] Great Britain, Board of Trade. _Report on the Increased Employment
of Women During the War with Statistics up to April, 1918_, p. 8.

CHAPTER V

Organized Efforts to Recruit Women’s Labor

The increase in the number of women workers and in the scope of
their work by no means “came of itself.” It was the result of a
long process of agitation by private individuals, propaganda,
organization and negotiation by the government, and in the production
of munitions, where the need was most acute, even of legislation.
Besides parliamentary action in the munitions industry, agreements
between employers and trade unions, local committees on women’s war
employment, “Women’s County Agricultural Committees” and a “Shops”
and a “Clerical Occupations” committee of the central government were
the chief agencies promoting a greater utilization of the services of
women. In dealing with the various obstacles to an extension of women’s
employment, the wisdom of securing the cordial cooperation of organized
labor in making industrial changes was clearly demonstrated. In the
manufacturing industries a system of local representative committees
under central official control brought much better returns than were
obtained in agriculture without such committees—which points to
satisfactory wages and working conditions as an essential addition to
propaganda for securing more women workers. And, naturally enough, such
methods as the use of photographs, personal visits by persons familiar
with local needs, and the trial of a few expert women workers, all
proved effective when general printed appeals had but slight effect.

_Munitions Work_

Probably the most serious obstacle to the recruiting of women workers
was the body of trade union restrictions against their employment. A
prime purpose of the well known munitions acts, which put a new aspect
on many of the relations between employers, employes and the state, was
the abrogation of these trade union rules.

The change thus made compulsory on the industry was known as the
“dilution” of skilled labor by less skilled—which, according to
official definition, “fundamentally means increased employment of
women with a view to releasing men.”[58] The “dilution” movement is
one of the most far reaching labor developments of the war, alike in
the industrial transformation entailed, in the change in the status of
women workers, and in its probable after war consequences. The events
leading up to the passage of the acts, and the subsequent recruiting of
women, form a fascinating chapter in English industrial history.

[58] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Dilution of Labour
Bulletin_, October, 1916, p. 6.

The increasing demand for munitions found workmen in the “engineering”
(roughly, the machinists’) trade, thoroughly organized, mainly in the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers. This was one of the strongest unions
in the skilled crafts, having a membership of 174,253 in 1914. The
A. S. E., as it is familiarly called, did not admit women, and its
rules among other things restricted the kinds of work which could be
done by women, unskilled men, and nonunionists, limited the amount of
overtime, and the number of machines to be tended by a single worker.
In December, 1914, shortage of labor and the expanding demand caused
the employers’ federation in the engineering trades to ask the unions
to give up these rules during the war period, but the negotiations
which followed were fruitless. About this time the “industrial truce”
was broken by the great strike of engineers on the Clyde, when their
demand for a raise of pay at the expiration of their wage agreement was
refused.

Labor unrest, charges that employes lost much time from work—in many
cases, it was said, because of drink—and difficulties in getting a
sufficient supply of munitions, caused the government to appoint,
on February 15, 1915, a “Committee on Production in Engineering
and Shipbuilding to inquire and report ... as to the best steps to
be taken to ensure that the productive power of the employes in
engineering and shipbuilding establishments working for government
purposes shall be available so as to meet the needs of the nation in
the present emergency.”

The second report of the committee, issued February 20, on “Shells and
Fuses,” recommended as methods of increasing production, first, that
the workers should cease to restrict earnings and output, in return for
which no attempts to cut piece rates should be allowed, and second,
that “there should be an extension of the practice of employing female
labor on this work under suitable and proper conditions.” The third
report, issued March 20, made an analogous recommendation that, with
proper safeguards to protect union interests, a greater use should be
made of unskilled and semi-skilled labor during the war.

_The “Treasury Agreement”_

The next step toward “dilution” was the calling of a conference of
representatives of the chief unions doing war work, which met with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lloyd George, and the president of
the Board of Trade on March 17, 1915. No women’s labor organizations
were represented. At the conference Lloyd George showed that the
need for munitions was greater than had in any way been anticipated,
and begged the unions to give up all restrictions on output and to
submit all disputes to arbitration during the war period. In return,
the government would take control of the establishments affected and
would limit their profits. A committee of trade unionists, also having
no women members, was then appointed to draw up proposals embodying
these principles. Their work is embodied in the so-called “Treasury
Agreement,” which was accepted on March 19, 1915, by all the union
representatives present, except those of the Amalgamated Society of
Engineers.

The clauses which permitted the increased employment of women included
the following provisions: Each union was recommended “to take into
favorable consideration such changes in working conditions or trade
customs as may be necessary with a view to accelerating the output
of war munitions or equipments,” provided the government imposed on
contractors for munitions, war equipment, or “other work required for
the satisfactory completion of the war,” certain conditions intended
to safeguard the unions and their wage rates. All changes were to be
only for the war period, and should “not prejudice the position of
the work people ... or of their trade unions in regard to resuming
prewar rules or customs after the war.” After the war also preference
of employment should be given workers who had enlisted or who were
employed at the time the agreement was made. When semi-skilled men were
introduced on work formerly done by skilled men, “the rates paid shall
be the usual rates of the district for that class of work.” Moreover,
“the relaxation of existing demarcation restrictions or admission of
semi-skilled or female labor shall not affect adversely the rates
customarily paid for the job.” A record of all changes was required to
be kept, open to government inspection, and “due notice” of intended
changes was to be given “where practicable,” with opportunity for
consultation by the workers or their representatives, if desired.

However, an agreement of this kind to which the Amalgamated Society of
Engineers had refused assent was not a little like the play of Hamlet
with Hamlet left out. Further negotiations were immediately held with
the A. S. E., and on March 25, when certain additional safeguards
had been added, they likewise accepted the agreement. The additions
pledged the government to limit profits in the shops where union rules
had been given up “with a view to securing that benefit resulting ...
shall accrue to the State,” and to use its influence in the restoration
of trade union conditions after the war. The restrictions were to be
removed solely on work “for war purposes,” and the workers might demand
a certificate to that effect from the government department concerned.
Most important of these additions in view of the sweeping changes
taking place in the engineering industry was the clause to the effect
that where new inventions were introduced during the war, the class
of workmen to be employed on them after the war “should be determined
according to the practice prevailing before the war in the case of the
class of work most nearly analogous.”

In accordance with the terms of the agreement an advisory committee
of labor representatives was appointed, to help in carrying out its
recommendations, and several local “munitions committees” representing
employers, employes and the public were formed for the same purpose.

But it is claimed of the “Treasury Agreement” that “except in so
far as it prepared the mind of the worker for later compulsion, the
agreement completely failed to achieve its purpose. The main cause
of this failure was a feeling on the part of the men that they were
being called upon to surrender what they regarded as their heritage,
without the employers being called upon to make any corresponding
sacrifice.”[59]

[59] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Monthly Review_, June,
1917, p. 815.

At any rate, the agreement was tried but little more than three months
before it was superseded by legislation. A coalition ministry which
the Labour party entered was formed in May. The shortage of munitions,
which hindered the spring advance and which had been brought forcibly
to general attention through the loss of life in the battle of Neuve
Chapelle, was one of the chief causes for the fall of the Liberal
party. In June a “Ministry of Munitions” was created, and Lloyd George
was made minister.

_The Munitions Acts_

The first munitions of war act was passed July 2, 1915.[60] Its purpose
as expressed in its title was “to make provision for furthering the
efficient manufacture, transport and supply of munitions for the
present war.” It was drafted with the active cooperation of the Labour
Advisory Committee, and was approved before passage by the majority of
a conference of representatives of unions in the munitions industry.
The radicals claim that the bill was passed primarily not so much
to give a legal sanction to “dilution” as to prohibit strikes and to
minimize the leaving of munitions work by individuals.[61]

[60] 5 and 6 Geo. 5, ch. 54.

[61] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, p. 63.

As amended in January, 1916, the possible scope of the act was wide.
It might cover, to name the principal items, any articles “intended
or adapted for use in war,” any metals, machines, tools or materials
required for their manufacture or repair, any construction or repair
of buildings for military purposes, and even the erection of houses
intended for munition workers, and the supply of heat, light, water,
power and tramway facilities for munitions work. A commentator has said
that it included practically “all work intended to aid the warlike
operations in any way.”[62]

Whatever its primary purpose, the act contained important sections
relating to the abandonment of union rules and the dilution of
labor. The Ministry of Munitions might declare any establishment in
which munitions work was carried on, including government plants,
a “controlled establishment.” In such an establishment all trade
union restrictions were to be given up, and on the other hand the
employer’s profits were limited to a maximum of one-fifth more than
the average for the two years before the war. In February, 1917,
there were reported to be 4,285 “controlled” establishments and 103
government munition factories. The rules and safeguards relating to
the abandonment of trade union restrictions were, word for word, those
of the “Treasury Agreement.”[63] The maximum penalty for violating the
regulations was, for the workman £3 ($14.40), and for the employer
£50 (about $240). The rest of the act was for the war period only,
but the “dilution” clauses held for a year after the end of the war,
for the purpose, obviously, of tiding over the demobilization period
and making effective the government pledge of a restoration of trade
union rules and the dismissal of the women and unskilled men. But it
will be noted that there was no reference to the provisions of the
agreement with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers supplementary to
the “Treasury Agreement.” In this omission it would seem that the
unions had seriously weakened their weapons for ensuring restoration
of their rules and customs after the war. The importance of the “new
machines” clause has already been discussed, and the specific pledge of
the government to aid in restoration might also have been of value.

[62] Thomas A. Fyfe. _Employers and Workmen under the Munitions of War
Acts, 1915 and 1916_, p. 22.

[63] Found in “Schedule II,” supplementary to the first munitions act.

_Organization for “Dilution” under the Munitions Acts_

The Ministry of Munitions immediately began, during the summer of 1915,
to develop an elaborate organization for increasing production and
for “dilution” and, as has been noted, by the fall of 1915 the great
rush of women into munitions work was under way. Besides numerous
departments dealing with the various branches of production from the
technical side, the Ministry organized a large labor department. One
section, called the “Labour Regulation Department,” dealt with working
conditions and trade disputes. The other section was the “Labour Supply
Department,” which had charge of “dilution” and the supply of labor.
In organizing the production of munitions the country was divided into
forty-three districts, and in August, 1915, the Ministry of Munitions
appointed three commissioners in each district to promote “dilution.”

As a further aid the “National Advisory Committee,” which had helped
draft the “Treasury Agreement” and the munitions act, was enlarged
to include additional labor members, representatives of the Ministry
of Munitions and others, and became the “Central Labour Supply
Committee,” whose purpose was “to advise and assist” the Ministry of
Munitions regarding the “most productive use of all available labor
supplies.”[64] “Local Advisory Boards” of labor representatives were
also appointed to help the central committee.

[64] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, p. 70.

However, the officials on whom fell the brunt of the work of increasing
“dilution” in individual shops were the “dilution officers” of the
Labour Supply Department. These officials went from establishment to
establishment, finding out the employer’s needs in the way of labor
and working out, with his cooperation if possible, plans by which the
use of unskilled labor, especially woman labor, could be extended. The
“dilution officer” reported to the central authorities and was advised
to submit all plans to them for approval. In case complaints were made
that women were not doing satisfactory work, where the use of women was
not progressing as rapidly as desirable or if there was difficulty in
finding suitable women workers, a woman dilution officer might be sent
to straighten out the difficulty.[65] The women officers were also sent
to investigate where women were being used for the first time “in order
to ensure a good beginning,” and in some cases they advised on the
suitability of work before women were tried.

While the government gained the legal power to force dilution on
munitions work through the first munitions act, “in practice it has
been found necessary, almost without exception, to proceed by way of
negotiation.”[66] The _London Times_ complained, in the spring of 1917,
that after “the suspension during the war of all restrictions on output
having been first agreed with the trade unions and then passed into
law, the Ministry, instead of securing that these restrictions were in
fact removed, proceeded to debate them ‘from town to town, from lodge
to lodge, and from works to works.’”[67] But those administering the
act gave instances in which the men refused to obey compulsory awards
suspending trade union rules made without their consent, and believed
that “it is impossible to set these practices aside except on the basis
of their voluntary suspension, first by the representatives of all
labor and then by the actual workers themselves.”

[65] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Dilution of Labour
Bulletins_, January, 1917, p. 47, and February, 1917, p. 55.

[66] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Monthly Review_, June,
1917, p. 825.

[67] _London Times_, weekly edition, May 4, 1917.

At all events, the instructions sent by the Ministry of Munitions in
November, 1915, to employers in controlled establishments, outlining
the steps to be taken in effecting dilution, stressed the importance
of consulting the workers, and, if possible, of obtaining their
cooperation. The workmen should be asked to form a “deputation” which
might include their union officials if desired. Any proposed change
should be explained to this body and its consent secured, if possible.
Only in the event that an agreement could not be reached either with
the deputation or with the local trade union officials, should the
change be put into effect and the dispute settled under the compulsory
arbitration clauses of the munitions act. In addition “before female
labor is hereafter employed in the highly skilled branches of the
engineering trade the proposal of the employer in question should be
submitted to the Ministry for approval.”

_Propaganda by the Ministry of Munitions_

Besides its legal powers, its “dilution officers,” and its various
advisory boards, the Ministry of Munitions carried on by a number of
devices what was to all intents and purposes an advertising campaign to
secure the utmost possible extension of female labor in diluting male
labor. Over and above its numerous official instructions, the Ministry
has published not a little propaganda material. In February, 1916, a
large illustrated booklet was issued, “Notes on the Employment of Women
on Munitions of War, with an Appendix on the Training of Munitions
Workers.” It contained photographs and descriptions of processes on
which women were then employed. Its purpose, as given in a preface by
Lloyd George himself, was as follows:

This book has been prepared by an expert engineer, who at my
request visited workshops in various parts of the country
where the dilution of skilled labor is in actual operation.
It illustrates some of the operations which women, with the
loyal cooperation and splendid assistance of the workmen
concerned, are performing in engineering shops in many parts
of the kingdom.

The photographic records and the written descriptions of
what is actually being done by women in munition factories,
on processes hitherto performed solely by skilled men, will,
I believe, act as an incentive and a guide in many factories
where employers and employed have been skeptical as to the
possibilities of the policy of dilution.

Being convinced that until that policy is boldly adopted
throughout the country we can not provide our armies with
such an adequate supply of munitions as will enable them
to bring this war to an early and successful conclusion,
I very earnestly commend this book to the most serious
consideration of employers and employes.

January 28, 1916. D. LLOYD GEORGE.[68]

[68] A comment on the publication from the point of view of the woman
trade unionist may be of interest. It is to be found in _The Woman
Worker_, the organ of the National Federation of Women Workers, for
March, 1916, and is called “Lloyd George’s Picture Book.”

Our women munition makers ought to be proud: “Mr. Lloyd
George has brought out a picture book about them!” It is
a large, handsome book, costing 1s., entirely full of
pictures of women workers and all the processes they can
do. According to Mr. Lloyd George, never were there such
useful workers as women munition workers. He says they can
do brazing and soldering, they can make 8-in. H. E. shells,
they can drill 8-pounder shells, and some of them are very
successful in making high explosive shells.

Well, it is very nice to be praised by so important a man,
and it is even nicer that he should take the trouble to have
a book filled with pictures of the girls at work. We women,
however, have always had in our minds a lurking suspicion
that we were, after all, as clever as the men, and it is
pleasant enough to hear Mr. Lloyd George say so. But there
is a conclusion to be drawn from all this. If girls are
as important and as clever as the men, then they are as
valuable to the employer. If this is so it becomes a duty
of the girls to see now and always, whether on government
work or not, that they receive the same pay as the men.
Otherwise, all their cleverness and their intelligence go to
helping the employer and bringing down the wages of their
husbands, fathers, and brothers.

Beginning with October, 1916, dilution officers were aided by an
illustrated monthly, _Dilution Bulletin_. Aside from instructions
to the “D. O.’s” as to reports and procedure, the periodical was
practically given over to descriptions of the work women were doing,
and exhortations to the dilution officers to promote the use of still
more women on munitions work. “Process Sheets,” containing details
of operations successfully carried on by women, were also issued.
A special collection of photographs of women workers was likewise
available for the use of dilution officers, and was said to have been
effective in convincing skeptical employers that they could use women.
Expert women “demonstrator-operatives” might be secured by the dilution
officers either to act as pacemakers in speeding up production or
to demonstrate that a particular job lay within women’s powers. In
the spring of 1917, the Ministry developed still another method of
propaganda, namely, an exhibition of women’s work which was shown in
different industrial centers.

The results of all this activity in the rising numbers of women
munition workers have already been pointed out. The gain during the war
of 424,000 in the metal trades, which was nearly three times the prewar
level, the introduction of 25,000 women into Woolwich Arsenal, and the
statement by representatives of the Ministry of Munitions in November,
1917, that 80 per cent of all munitions work was then performed by
female labor, have been cited.

Yet, as late as October, 1916, the Ministry of Munitions stated that
the “average of dilution remains very low.” Beginning March 31, 1917,
all contracts for shells were let on the conditions that on all shells
from two and three quarters to four and one-half inches, 80 per cent
of the employes must be women, and that on all larger shells the
instructions of the Labour Supply Department as to the proportion of
women, semi-skilled and unskilled males must be obeyed. Nevertheless,
in March, 1917, it could be said that “we have by no means reached
the limits of the possibilities of employing women in connection with
war work,”[69] and in May the _Times_ complained that only a fraction
of the replacement which had been proved possible had actually been
made.[70]

[69] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Dilution of Labour
Bulletin_, April, 1917, p. 82.

[70] _London Times_, weekly edition, May 4, 1917.

While in America in November, 1917, Mr. G. H. Baillie, the “Chief
Technical Dilution Officer” of the Labour Supply Department, said
that “dilution” was progressing on a large scale, and even up to the
last months of the war the increase of women in the munitions trades
continued.

_“Dilution” in Other Industries by Trade Union Agreement_

In a number of other trades besides engineering where union rules
hindered the replacement of men by women, agreements were reached
between employers and employes which permitted substitution during the
war period. The agreements were not the subject of legislation, but
were, in most cases, the result of trade conferences called jointly
by the Board of Trade and the Home Office at the request of the Army
Council. The purpose was to reorganize each industry so as to release
as many men as possible for the army.

Most of the agreements were made during 1915 and 1916. Among the
industries covered in that year, either nationally or in some
localities, were cotton, hosiery, leather, woolen and worsted, silk and
felt hats, printing, bleaching and dyeing, woodworking, biscuit, pastry
baking, wholesale clothing, boot making and earthenware and china.
In 1916, similar agreements were concluded in lace making, hosiery
finishing, printing, electroplating, cutlery, textile bleaching,
tobacco and brush making. Heavy clothing and flint glass decorating
were covered in 1917, and several local agreements were also made in
light leather tanning and scientific instrument making, two occupations
in which women substitutes were particularly successful.[71]

[71] Great Britain, Home Office, _Substitution of Women in Nonmunition
Factories during the War_, pp. 27-50.

The trade unions were, on the whole, as unfavorable to the introduction
of women in other new lines as they were in munitions and yielded only
reluctantly, under pressure of the necessities of war. Even after
agreements had been signed in the electroplating and leather glove
trades, the continued opposition of individual workers greatly hindered
the progress of substitution. They frequently alleged that a given
kind of work was unsuitable for women on moral or physical grounds.
But their real objection was probably the fear either that women would
lower the men’s wage rates directly, or that the existence of a reserve
of experienced female labor would endanger the men’s position in any
postwar industrial depression.

The union’s point of view is revealed in the conditions which they
required before they would sign substitution agreements. “The
operatives,” said the factory inspectors, “not unnaturally asked for
guarantees that those who left to join the Forces should have their
places kept open for them, that suspension of rules should be regarded
as a war emergency only, that there should be a return to former
conditions at the end of the war, and that there should be a fair
settlement of the wage question affecting the employment of women or
other labor called in to take the place of the men.”[72]

The conditions of the agreement made in June, 1915, between unions
and operators in the leather trade, whose needs had been greatly
increased by the demand for military equipment, were typical of these
settlements, and of the precautions taken to safeguard the regular
employes. Women were to be allowed on “men’s work” during the war
period when men could not be obtained. Their work was, however,
limited to operations “they are physically fit to perform,” they were
to be paid men’s rates, and the local trade union officials were to
be consulted in each case before substitution was made. When men and
women were employed in the same department, it was recommended that
they be separated, as far as possible.[73] It should be emphasized
that wherever women replaced men under these agreements or under
the munitions acts, unless the trade unions consented to other
arrangements, the women were supposed to hold their new positions only
during the war period.

[72] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, p. 4.

[73] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry and the War_, p. 151.

_Other Measures to Increase Substitution—Industrial_

The activities of the government to enlarge the scope of women’s work
in cases where no trade union rules stood in the way form still another
interesting series of propaganda efforts.

The first such attempt was a scheme of national voluntary registration
for women, begun in March, 1915. Stating that its object was to find
out what reserve of woman labor could be made available if required,
the government invited all women who were “prepared, if needed, to
accept paid work of any kind—industrial, agricultural, clerical,
etc.,—to enter themselves upon the register of women for war service at
the labor exchanges.”

The appeal caused many protests among representatives of labor, first
because there was still believed to be much unemployment among women
wage earners, and second, because of the failure to propose any
safeguards to ensure good working conditions or “equal pay for equal
work.” It was charged that the farmers’ union was behind the plan and
that it was trying to get cheap woman labor instead of raising the
wages of the men.

The War Emergency Workers’ National Committee immediately passed a
resolution pointing out “that there are still 60,000 men and boys and
40,000 women and girls on the live register of the labor exchanges....
The committee is strongly of opinion that in drafting women into any
industries care must be taken to prevent the stereotyping of bad
conditions and low wages, or to endanger standard conditions where they
obtain; that this should be secured by a tribunal representative of the
organized wage earners—men and women; and that further efforts should
be made to find situations for those persons now on the register before
taking steps to bring in fresh supplies of female labor.”

The Woman’s Freedom League, a suffrage society, issued a strong protest
along similar lines, with the emphasis on “equal pay for equal work.”

The Women’s Freedom League are glad to note the tardy
recognition by the government of the value of women’s work
brought before the country in their schemes of war service
for women. We demand from the government, however, certain
guarantees.

Firstly, that no trained woman employed in men’s work be
given less pay than that given to men.

Secondly, that some consideration be given when the war is
over to the women who during the war have carried on this
necessary work.

Thirdly, that in case of training being required proper
maintenance be given to the woman or girl while that
training is going on.

Recognizing that the government’s scheme offers a splendid
opportunity for raising the status of women in industry,
we urge that every woman should now resolutely refuse
to undertake any branch of work except for equal wages
with men. By accepting less than this women would be
showing themselves disloyal to one another, and to the
men who are serving their country in the field. These men
should certainly be safeguarded on their return from any
undercutting by women.

The “War Register” having brought the question of increased employment
of women to the front, on April 17 the workers’ national committee
called a national conference of trade unions with women members and
other women’s labor organizations at which the chief resolution
demanded “that as it is imperative in the interests of the highest
patriotism that no emergency action be allowed unnecessarily to depress
the standard of living of the workers or the standard of working
conditions, adequate safeguards must be laid down for any necessary
transference or substitution of labor.” The safeguards outlined
included membership in the appropriate trade union as a prerequisite
for war service, “equal pay for equal work,” no war employment at
less than a living wage, maintenance with training where necessary,
preference being given in this to unemployed women who were normally
wage earners, and reinstatement of the displaced men at the end of the
war, with, at the same time, “guaranteed employment” to the discharged
women.

The “War Register” did not, after all, prove to be of much importance
in the extension of women’s employment. Though 33,000 women
registered within a fortnight, and 110,714 during the whole period of
registration, up to the middle of September, jobs were found for only
5,511 of them,[74] because, it was said, they lacked the necessary
skill to fill the vacancies for which they were wanted.[75]

[74] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, p. 81.

[75] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Credit,
Industry, and the War_, p. 72.

Much more effective than the war register was the work of the
interdepartmental committee of the Home Office and the Board of
Trade appointed in November, 1915, “to consider the question of
utilizing to the full the reserve of women’s labor.”[76] The committee
worked principally through local committees, which were at work in
thirty-seven towns in November, 1916. The members of these committees
were “chosen for their interest in women’s employment,” and included
employers, employes and representatives of such societies as the Young
Women’s Christian Association and the Women’s Cooperative Guild. An
officer of the local employment exchange acted as secretary of each
such committee, and representatives of the Home Office and the Board of
Trade attended its meetings “in a consultative capacity.”

[76] _Labour Gazette_, November, 1916, p. 403.

The work of the committees varied according to local needs, and
included efforts to keep up the supply of women in their normal
occupations as well as to secure substitutes for men’s work. In several
textile towns a shortage of workers in the mills was relieved by
securing the services of women formerly occupied, who were now living
at home. In one town enough women were obtained by a house to house
canvass to restart 400 looms. An appeal for women workers placed in
the Glasgow trams brought good results. In places where there were
many unemployed or unoccupied women the local committee tried to
persuade some of them to migrate to places needing additional labor.
In Cambridge, for instance, several meetings were held for this purpose
and a loan fund for traveling expenses was raised.

Some of the most important work of the local committees was done in
munition centers where it was necessary to bring in women workers. In
such places, members of the committee met the strangers on arrival,
took them to suitable lodgings, and “initiated schemes for their
welfare outside the factory.” In Gloucester, where, the committee
investigated lodgings for 2,000 women, it was entrusted by the Ministry
of Munitions with establishing a temporary hostel for women for whom
lodgings could not be found.

The committees were active in various other forms of “welfare work.”
They arranged a conference of “welfare workers,” and fostered the
introduction of factory “canteens.” The Woolwich committee started a
club and recreation ground for the women employes of the great arsenal,
and a nursery for the children of employed mothers.

Several towns reported “active efforts,” including conferences with
employers, on the substitution of women for men. Interesting work of
this kind was done in Bristol where a number of unemployed women were
persuaded to train for “men’s work” in the shoe trade.

The next effort by the two departments was a joint appeal, in March,
1916, to employers to keep up production by taking on women. Noting
that there were already complaints of a labor shortage and of idle
plants, the appeal continued:

There is one source, and one only, from which the shortage
can be made good—that is the great body of women who are
at present unoccupied or engaged only in work not of an
essential character. Many of these women have worked in
factories and have already had an industrial training—they
form an asset of immense importance to the country and every
effort must be made to induce those who are able to come
to the assistance of the country in this crisis. Previous
training, however, is not essential; since the outbreak of
war women have given ample proof of their ability to fill
up the gaps in the ranks of industry and to undertake work
hitherto regarded as men’s.[77]

[77] _Labour Gazette_, March, 1916, p. 83.

Concerted action by employers was necessary to reorganize their work so
as to use the maximum number of women and to let the local employment
exchange know their exact requirements for women. The Home Office, the
Board of Trade and the factory inspectors would give all the help in
their power in making any such rearrangements. “We are confident that
the women of the country will respond to any call that may be made, but
the first step rests with the employers—to reorganize their work and to
give the call.”

By July, 1916, the Board of Trade had established “an information
bureau for the collection and circulation of information as to the
replacement of male by female labor,” and soon after, again cooperating
with the Home Office, it issued a series of “Pamphlets on the
Substitution of Women for Men in Industry,” describing branches of work
which were considered suitable by the factory inspectors and in which
women were successfully employed. The twenty-seven little pamphlets
covered trades as far out of women’s ordinary field as brick making,
“oil seed and feeding cake,” leather tanning and currying and flour,
as well as the more usual clothing and cotton trades. Under each trade
were enumerated the processes on which women had been substituted for
men, opportunities for training, and any relaxation of the factory
acts, or of trade union rules which favored their employment. The
results of this propaganda by the Home Office and the Board of Trade
have nowhere been exactly estimated, but whether due to it, or to the
necessities of the labor situation, or to both, it was soon followed by
a marked increase in the number of women doing men’s work.

In September, 1916, the War Office took a hand in the propaganda. Its
contribution was a large illustrated pamphlet listing occupations on
which women were successfully employed. The purpose of the book was
primarily to guide the administrators of the conscription act and to
reduce the number of exemptions from military service on the grounds
of industrial indispensability. Incidentally, it was “offered as a
tribute to [women’s] effective contribution to the Empire in its hour
of need.” It was much criticised because of the lack of discrimination
shown in recommending certain kinds of work. It would seem that the
heavy lifting involved or the disagreeable nature of the surroundings
made such work as loading coal, planks and miscellaneous freight,
moving coke and beer barrels, handling heavy steel bars, stoking and
the removal of leather from dipping beds entirely unsuitable for women.
But much of the work pictured, such as reaping, the care of horses,
driving a steam roller and bakery work, though far removed from the
usual lines of “women’s work,” did not seem to be objectionable. Still
other occupations, where little strength and considerable skill were
required, for instance, piano finishing and tuning, making ammunition
boxes, modeling artificial teeth, repairing railway carriage seats and
the preparation of soldiers’ dinners, would seem positively desirable
additions to the field of women’s work.

The most ambitious of the government’s attempts to keep up the
essential industries of the country under war conditions was the
“National Service Department,” created early in 1917. It commandeered a
hotel for its headquarters, and assembled a large staff. Through this
department it was planned to secure the enrollment of all persons of
working age, who were then to be transferred to “trades of national
importance,” if not already so employed. Volunteers to go wherever
they were assigned were first called for, and as the response was
only slight, conferences with employers and employes were begun to
find out what men various firms could spare, and to arrange for their
transference to essential war work by the “Substitution Officers”
of the Department. The duplication of the work of the employment
exchanges is evident. Enrollment and transference were to be purely
voluntary, though among the labor groups there were murmurings that
the scheme was but a prelude to industrial conscription. But in April
the plan was called a “fiasco,” and it was alleged that only a few
hundred placements had actually been made.[78] In August, however, the
department was reorganized and its purpose was stated to be that of
coordinating to the best advantage the labor power of the nation rather
than of acting as an employment agency.

[78] _The New Statesman_, April 7, 1917, p. 4.

In the winter of 1917 a “Woman’s Section” had been set up by the
“Director of National Service” in charge of two women well known for
their interest in the problems of women’s work, Mrs. A. J. Tennant and
Miss Violet Markham, of whom it was said that they had been “asked
to bring order out of chaos at the eleventh hour.”[79] The principal
achievements of the women’s section were the formation of the “Waacs”
for work behind the lines in France, which has been previously
described, and also a moderate sized “land army” of women for
agricultural work. An effort to carry through another registration of
women for war work does not seem to have been particularly successful.

[79] _The Woman Worker_, April, 1917.

_Other Measures to Increase Substitution—Trade and Commerce_

The chief governmental reports covering nonindustrial lines of work
are those of the “Shops Committee” and the “Clerical and Commercial
Employments Committee,” both formed in the spring and reporting in the
fall of 1915. The former stated that it was organized to see how Lord
Kitchener’s demand for “more men, and yet more men” could be met by
releasing men employed in stores. In the judgment of the committee very
few men needed to be retained, except in the heavier branches of the
wholesale trade. The committee distributed circulars to shopkeepers
throughout the country asking how many men could be released for
the army and calling attention to the emergency. A large meeting of
representatives of the unions and the employers’ associations was held
in London and fifty-five local meetings for the trade through the
country, at which resolutions were passed pledging those present “to do
everything possible” to substitute women for men. “What we feel we have
done,” said the committee, in summing up its work, “is to bring home to
shopkeepers in England and Wales the necessity (and the possibility) of
rearranging their business so as to release more men for service with
the Colours.”

The other committee, on “Clerical and Commercial Employments,” was
formed to work out a plan for “an adequate supply of competent
substitutes” for the “very large number of men of military age” still
found in commercial and clerical work. The committee estimated that
150,000 substitutes must be secured, and that they must be drawn
mainly from the ranks of unoccupied women without previous clerical
experience. It recommended the securing of such women from among
friends and relatives of the present staffs, the starting of one and
two months’ emergency training courses by the education authorities and
the placement of the trained women through cooperation with the local
employment exchanges. The committee went on record in favor of the
reinstatement of the enlisted men after the war, and meanwhile “equal
pay” for the women substitutes. It brought the need of substitution
before the various commercial and professional associations whose
members made use of clerical help.

_Campaign for Substitution in Agriculture_

Propaganda efforts in agriculture were numerous, but judging from the
comparatively small increase in the number of women workers, they
were relatively less successful than those in industry and trade. In
the minds of both farmers and country women as well as in the public
mind, women’s work on the land was usually associated with backward
communities, seasonal gangs and a low class of worker. Such prejudice
was overcome largely by the work of educated women on the farms. The
large number of employers in comparison with the number of workers, and
the reluctance of the farmers to make use of the employment exchanges,
are mentioned as other handicaps to agricultural substitution.[80] The
failure to raise wages materially or to improve living conditions was
also not an unimportant factor in holding back the movement of women
workers to the land.

[80] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Industry and
Finance_, pp. 146-147.

In 1915 the Board of Agriculture started a movement for the formation
of “women’s war agricultural” or “farm labor” committees. In the spring
of 1916 the Board of Trade joined the Board of Agriculture in the work.
The committees were supposed to cooperate with the war agricultural
committees of men which had been formed in each county, but the
connection was considered often to be less close than was desirable.
The women’s committees were made up of “district representatives,”
who, in turn, worked through local committees, or “village registrars”
or both. In the late autumn of 1916 there were sixty-three county
committees, 1,060 “district representatives” and over 4,000 “village
registrars.” The Board of Agriculture formed a panel of speakers for
meetings, and the Board of Trade appointed women organizers for various
parts of the country. Local meetings to rouse enthusiasm were followed
by a house-to-house canvass in which women were urged for patriotic
motives to enroll for whole or part time work. The village registrar
then arranged for employment of the women listed either through the
local employment exchange or as they heard of vacancies. The women were
told that “every woman who helps in agriculture during the war is as
truly serving her country as the man who is fighting in the trenches or
on the sea.” Each registrant was entitled to a certificate, and after
thirty days’ service might wear a green baize armlet marked with a
scarlet crown.

During the season of 1916 it was estimated that 140,000 women
registered. Seventy-two thousand certificates and 62,000 armlets
were issued,[81] although many of the regular women workers on the
land refused to register for fear of becoming in some way liable to
compulsory service. Women registrants were said to be found in almost
every kind of farm work, even to ploughing, but were naturally more
often successful in such lighter forms as weeding, fruit and hop
picking, the care of poultry, dairy work and gardening. They were
considered especially good in the care of all kinds of animals.

The elaborate plans of the government and the low wages paid were
commented on in characteristic style by _The Woman Worker_.[82]

[81] _Labour Gazette_, February, 1916, p. 43.

[82] _The Woman Worker_, March, 1916, p. 3.

WOMEN ON THE LAND

It is announced in the papers that the government have
decided to start a recruiting campaign for women to work
on the land. Four hundred thousand are wanted; and they
are to be registered and to be given an armlet. Now, work
on the land is useful work, and much of it is suitable to
women; but there are points about this scheme which we
should do well to look at. It is said that a representative
of the Board of Trade at a meeting at Scarborough, said
that the wages would be from 12s. to £1. Twelve shillings
is not a proper living wage for a woman; and our masters
seem to know this. The _Daily News_, in explaining the
government scheme, says, “It is frankly admitted that much
of the most necessary work is hard and unpleasant, and by
no means extravagantly paid. _That is why the appeal is
made exclusively to the patriotism of the women. There is
no question (as in the army itself) of any really adequate
reward._” Well, why not? The farmers are doing very well.
The price of corn is higher than has ever been known before.
Why should women be deprived of “any really adequate reward”?

Why should women assist in keeping down the miserably low
wages of agricultural laborers? If there was “no question,
as in the army itself,” of any really adequate profits, then
there might be something to be said for the government. As
it is, no armlets and no “patriotism” ought to make women
work at less than a living wage.

Another minor but interesting development of 1916 was that of organized
gangs of women farm workers under a leader. Several of these were
successful in doing piece work jobs for different farms in rotation.
Others cultivated unused allotments and waste lands. The principal
women’s colleges, especially the University of London, provided 2,890
“vacation land workers” in gangs for fruit picking and the like. Two
successful bracken cutting camps were also maintained, at which women
worked for eight weeks under semi-military discipline.

In January, 1917, the Board of Agriculture further developed its
organization by starting a “Women’s Labor Department.” Organizing
secretaries were placed in the counties, grants were made to certain
voluntary organizations, and 16 traveling inspectors were sent out
to advise on grants, inspect living conditions and the like. Steps
were also taken to obtain closer cooperation with the men’s county
agricultural committees. As has been indicated, the number of women
workers failed to increase between 1916 and 1917 as much as between
1915 and 1916, but in 1918 a more decided increase occurred.[83] Later,
when the Department of Food Production was formed, it took over both
the men’s and the women’s county agricultural committees.

[83] _Vide_ Appendix D, p. 236.

The only English organization dealing with agricultural work by women
prior to the war was the “Women’s Farm and Garden Union,” which
promoted the training of educated women for gardening. In February,
1916, this body secured land for a training school from the Board of
Agriculture, and formed the “Women’s National Land Service Corps,”
which was joined by about 2,500 women up to January, 1918. Members
received six weeks’ training and were then sent out to the farms,
preferably in groups of two or three who could live in a cottage
together, “perhaps with a friend to do the cooking.” Others lodged in
the villages or with their employers. The members of the corps were
said to be “educated girls who had gone into the work mostly from
patriotic motives.” Girls entirely dependent on their earnings were not
encouraged to join, “because of the low rate of pay.” The corps refused
to send out workers, it should be noted, unless the pay covered living
expenses, unless, considering the women’s ability and experience,
it was equal to men’s rates, or if their workers would undercut or
supplant local women. The corps believed that it had accomplished
more than its numbers would indicate, in that its carefully chosen
members had often convinced doubtful farmers that women could do more
agricultural work, and that several of its workers had organized the
village women into whole or part time gangs.

In March, 1917, the Department of National Service launched its scheme
for a “Women’s Land Army,” using the corps as a nucleus. Women were to
enlist for farm work for the duration of the war under semi-military
conditions of mobilization. Applications for service were made through
the Ministry of Labor, but selection, training and placement was in
the hands of the women’s war agriculture committees and officials of
the Board of Agriculture. Members of the Land Army were selected with
great care so that they could be guaranteed to be strong and physically
fit. Out of 40,000 women applying up to July, 1917, only 5,000 were
accepted. If necessary, the women were given four weeks’ training with
pay, and railway fare to their place of employment. When once at work
they were not allowed to leave except with permission of the “district
representative.” The numerical results of this elaborate organization
were not very large, though the influence of the army’s selected
members in showing that women could do farm work was perhaps out of
proportion to the numbers. Between 7,000 and 8,000 permanent women
workers were placed on farms by the Land Army up to January, 1918, in
addition to about 1,000 seasonal workers in gangs.

CHAPTER VI

Sources of Additional Women Workers

The question naturally arises, where did the increased number of women
workers come from? Who were the thousands of munition workers, the
girls undertaking men’s jobs, and all the army of a million and a third
women who were at work in July, 1918, and not in July, 1914?

_Transfers from Nonessential Industries_

The increase during the first months of war in the industries equipping
the troops was met for the most part by a transference of workers from
slack to busy lines. “So great has been the passing from industry to
industry,” said the factory inspectors,[84] “that at the beginning of
the New Year it seemed almost as if women and girls had gone through
a process of ‘General Post.’” For instance, makers of high class
jewelry in Birmingham transferred to light metal work for the army.
Silk and linen weavers went into woolen mills and dressmakers in the
west Midlands were taken on in light leather work. In other cases
slack industries took up government work. The activity of the Central
Committee on Women’s Employment in securing contracts for uniforms
for idle dressmaking establishments has already been mentioned. The
Scottish fish workers were relieved by knitting orders. Certain carpet
mills took up the weaving of army blankets, corset makers were set
to making knapsacks, girl workers on fishing tackle were used in the
manufacture of hosiery machine needles, previously imported from
Germany, and an effort was made to provide the manufacture of tape
and braid for uniforms for unemployed lace makers in the Midlands.
Army shirts were made by many of the Irish collar factories. In
retail trade also there was often a transfer from slack to busy shops,
as from dressmaking and millinery to the grocery trade. Middle aged
professional women whose ordinary occupations were unfavorably affected
by the war frequently took the positions in banks, insurance offices
and other business offices which had for the first time been opened
to women. Yet in the two trades which suffered most severely from
unemployment, namely, cotton textiles and dressmaking, there was a much
“less general movement of the workers to find a livelihood in other
directions.” This was considered due in the one case to “relatively
high wages and specialized factory skill,” in the other to “deep-rooted
social traditions and special craft skill.”

[84] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1914_, p. 33.

Very early in the war, also, married women who had worked before
marriage returned to industry. A large proportion of the expanding
needs of the woolen trades was filled in that way. In “drapery”—that
is to say, “dry goods”—shops, and in cotton and shoe factories and
potteries, many of these “dug-out” married women also appeared.
Municipalities, when substituting women for men on tram cars and in
other services, frequently gave preference to the wives of men who
had enlisted. Many married women entered the food trades and they did
not seem to object to dirty work in foundries and other places as did
single women. In the professions, also, some women returned to teaching
and clerical work. Soldiers’ wives likewise entered munitions work in
large numbers. While the reason for their reentering work was probably
largely economic—rising food prices and “separation allowances”
insufficient to maintain a skilled worker’s standard of living,
particularly if the family was large—yet their choice of occupations
appears to have been at least partly dictated by patriotic motives.

As the war went on, the transfer of women from “normal” women’s
occupations, such as domestic service, dressmaking, textiles, the
clothing trades and laundry work to the more highly paid lines,
especially munitions work, became more and more noticeable. The
actual decline in numbers in these occupations has previously been
described.[85] In addition to the decreases in these trades, a
considerable change in personnel was observed, involving “the loss
of skilled women and the consequent deterioration of the quality of
labor.”[86] For example, skilled women left laundry work, and their
places were filled by charwomen, or young girls fresh from school. Not
infrequently the skilled women went to almost unskilled work, as from
textiles to munitions.

[85] _Vide_ pp. 35, 38.

[86] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Labour,
Finance, and the War_, p. 71.

On the other hand, war conditions occasionally kept women at home who
were previously employed. In districts where large numbers of soldiers
were billeted women were kept busy at home attending to their needs.
Especially in colliery districts the rise in men’s wages caused married
women who were thrown out of work at the beginning of the war to become
indifferent to obtaining new positions. In some cases, notably in the
Dundee jute mills, separation allowances placed the wives of casual
workers who had enlisted in a state of comparative prosperity, and
they ceased to go out to work. But on the whole the war doubtlessly
increased the employment of married women.

In spite of impressions to the contrary, the proportion of previously
unoccupied upper and middle class women entering “war work” was by
no means large. Some young girls from school who would not normally
have gone to work and some older women who had never worked before
entered clerical employment, especially in government offices, and
often obtained promotion to supervisory positions. A limited number
of well-to-do women took up such temporary farm work as fruit picking
from patriotic motives. Many of the women working behind the lines
in France and as military nurses were from the “upper classes.”
And an appreciable number of munition workers were drawn from the
ranks of educated women. One such worker estimated that in the
large establishment where she was employed, about nine out of 100
women belonged to that class.[87] Educated women were particularly
likely to take up such skilled occupations as oxy-acetylene welding,
tool-setting, and draughting, where their trained minds proved
advantageous. Daughters of small tradesmen and farmers, who had
not worked before except in their own homes, were likely to become
forewomen and supervisors, positions for which their reliability and
common sense well fitted them.[88] The “week end munition relief
workers,” or “W. M. R. W.,” who worked Sundays in order to give the
regular staff a rest day, were rumored to include among their members
“dukes’ daughters and generals’ ladies, artists and authors, students
and teachers, ministers’ and lawyers’ wives,”[89] but this class of
workers was, after all, small and was not increasing.

[87] Monica Cosens, _Lloyd George’s Munition Girls_, 1916, p. 114.

[88] Miss O. E. Monkhouse, M. B. E., in _Railway News_, March 30, 1918,
p. 368.

[89] Henriette R. Walter, “Munition Workers in England,” _Munition
Makers_, 1917, p. 138.

Mainly, however, the new needs of industry have been filled by working
women or the wives of working men. Former factory hands, charwomen
and domestic servants are found on the heavier work, and shopgirls,
dressmakers and milliners on the lighter lines.

A fairly large proportion of the increase may, moreover, be accounted
for without the recruiting of new workers. Numbers of home workers, of
half employed charwomen and of small shopkeepers and other employers
have voluntarily become regular employes. During the war fewer women
married and of those who did marry a large proportion seem to have
remained in industry. A writer in _The New Statesman_ noted of certain
women munition workers that “a large majority of them—even girls who
look scarcely more than sixteen—wear wedding rings.”[90]

A general idea of the sources from which the new workers came into
industry may be obtained from an analysis made in January, 1917, of
the prewar occupations of nearly half a million women and girls who
were insured against unemployment, covering nearly all the munition
trades. Seventy per cent of the 444,000 workers considered had changed
their occupation during the war. Twenty-three per cent had changed
from one kind of factory work to another, 22 per cent had not been
employed except with housework in their own homes, 16 per cent had
been in domestic service, and 7 per cent had been at work in other
nonindustrial employments. Assuming that the same proportions held for
the 778,000 additional women found in private factories and government
establishments in July, 1918, 178,000 of them would have come from
other kinds of factory work, 171,000 from the home, 125,000 from
domestic service, and 54,000 from nonindustrial occupations.

[90] _The New Statesman_, January 13, 1917, p. 346.

PREWAR OCCUPATIONS OF 444,137 FEMALES INSURED AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT IN
JANUARY, 1917[91]

---------------------+--------------+---------------+------------+
| Metal Trades | Chemical | |
| (except | Trades (incl. | Clothing |
Prewar | Engineering)| small arms) | |
Occupation +--------+-----+--------+------+------+-----+
| No. | Per | No. | Per | No. | Per |
| | cent| | cent | | cent|
---------------------+--------+-----+--------+------+------+-----+
Same trade | 53,249| 48.1| 14,634| 8.4|38,256| 53.6|
Household duties | | | | | | |
and not previously | | | | | | |
occupied | 18,927| 17.1| 52,401| 30.2| 9,334| 13.1|
Textiles Trades | 3,408| 3.1| 6,226| 3.6| 1,000| 1.4|
Clothing Trades | 4,635| 4.2| 17,941| 10.3| 8,430| 11.8|
Other Indus. | 12,458| 11.3| 20,879| 12.0| 5,745| 8.0|
Domestic Serv. | 12,502| 11.3| 44,438| 25.6| 4,970| 7.0|
Other nonindustrial | | | | | | |
occupation | 5,449| 4.9| 17,079| 9.9| 3,643| 5.1|
---------------------+--------+-----+--------+------+------+-----+
Total insured | 110,628|100.0| 173,604| 100.0|71,378|100.0|
---------------------+--------+-----+--------+------+------+-----+

---------------------+--------------+---------------+
| Other | All |
| insured | insured |
Prewar | trades | trades |
Occupation +-------+------+--------+------+
| No. | Per | No. | Per |
| | cent | | cent |
---------------------+-------+------+--------+------+
Same trade | 30,399| 34.3| 136,538| 30.7|
Household duties | | | | |
and not previously | | | | |
occupied | 17,843| 20.2| 98,511| 22.2|
Textiles Trades | 4,374| 4.9| 15,008| 3.4|
Clothing Trades | 8,787| 9.9| 39,793| 9.0|
Other Indus. | 10,065| 11.4| 49,147| 11.1|
Domestic Serv. | 12,062| 13.7| 73,992| 16.6|
Other nonindustrial | | | | |
occupation | 4,977| 5.6| 31,148| 7.0|
---------------------+-------+------+--------+------+
Total insured | 88,527| 100.0| 444,137| 100.0|
---------------------+-------+------+--------+------+

[91] _Labour Gazette_, December, 1917, p. 438.

_Transfers between Districts_

In connection for the most part with the expanding munitions industry
there has developed a phenomenon rare on any large scale in the history
of women in industry, namely, the transfer of women workers from
their homes to other parts of the country. Especially in England such
transfer was carried on during the war on a fairly large scale. The
British Government has naturally not encouraged detailed statements of
the building of new munition plants and the extension of old ones, but
occasional glimpses reveal revolutionary changes. In a speech to the
House of Commons in June, 1917, the British Minister of Munitions said:

But the demands of the artillery programme, as it was
formulated in the latter half of 1915, were such that it
was necessary to plan for the erection of large additional
factories.... They were erected at such a pace that what
were untouched green fields one year were the sites a year
later of great establishments capable of dealing with the
raw materials of minerals or cotton, and of working them
into finished explosives in great quantities every week.

Moreover, firms in operation before the war frequently doubled and
quadrupled their capacity. In Barrow, for instance, a somewhat isolated
town in the northwest of England, the population grew from 75,000 in
1914 to 85,000 in 1916 on account of the enlargement of a munitions
plant. To meet the needs of such centers it was necessary to secure
workers from many other localities.

Effort was made to center any transfer of women workers in the
employment exchanges. The Ministry of Munitions’ handbook of
“Instructions to Controlled Establishments” recommended application
to the employment exchanges for all female labor instead of engaging
it “at the factory gate” in order that the supply might be organized
to the best advantage and “any unnecessary disturbance” of the labor
market avoided. But the recommendation was not universally adopted.
An undated circular of the Ministry complained that in cases where
the exchanges were not used, skilled women, such as power machine
operators and stenographers, for whom there was an “unsatisfied demand”
on government work, had been hired for unskilled munitions work where
unskilled women were available. Women had been brought into towns where
lodgings were almost impossible to obtain while suitable local women
were unemployed. Such occurrences and the “stealing” of skilled men by
one employer from another caused an order to be made under the Defence
of the Realm Act on February 2, 1917, which forbade the owner of an
arms, ammunition, explosives, engineering or shipbuilding establishment
to procure workers from more than ten miles away except through an
employment exchange.

The employment exchange figures of the number of women obtaining
employment in other districts, which therefore probably cover an
increasing proportion of the movement, are for 1914, 32,988, for 1915,
53,096, and for 1916, 160,003.[92] In March, 1917, the number of women
workers being moved to a distance through the exchanges was between
4,000 and 5,000 a month. In February, 1917, 5,118 women from some 200
different exchange areas were brought into eight large munition centers
alone. In this one month, 1,641 women were brought from sixty-three
different districts to a single munitions factory in the south of
Scotland, and to another in the West Midlands. 772 women “were imported
from centers as far apart as Aberdeen and Penzance.” From Ireland,
where the conscription acts were not in force, and where women did not
replace men in industry to any large extent, many girls crossed over
to work in British munition factories. Official judgment ascribed the
increased mobility of women labor to the rise in wages and the appeal
of patriotism, which together supplied an incentive previously lacking.

[92] _Labour Gazette_, March, 1917, p. 92.

Besides the munition workers, the transfer is noted during 1914 of
silk and cotton operatives to woolen mills and of tailoresses from the
east coast to Leeds uniform factories, and in 1915 of fisherwomen and
others from the east coast resorts to the Dundee jute mills to replace
the married women who left to live on their separation allowances. Some
women substitutes for men in clerical and commercial work and in the
staple industries, and agricultural workers, especially for temporary
work, were transferred in 1916 as well as the munitions workers.

_Care of Transferred Workers_

The work of the “local committees on women’s war employment” in
recruiting women from nonindustrial areas, meeting strangers, arranging
for their lodging, and promoting “welfare” schemes, has previously been
outlined. For the women transferred under their auspices the employment
exchanges were able to guarantee that such arrangements had been made.
All women applicants for work in national factories were required to
pass a medical examination before being allowed to leave home.[93] In
all cases the working conditions and living expenses to be expected
were fully explained and the exchange had the power to advance railway
fare.

But even with such precautions serious problems arose in transferring
large numbers of women and girls long distances from home. Additional
strain was involved in working among strangers. In one case where
women munition workers were thrown out of work by a strike of the
men, their plight was the more serious because many of them were
miles from home and had not the money to return. For young girls the
absence from home restraints and supervision was often harmful. One of
the later reports of the Health of Munition Workers Committee of the
Ministry of Munitions suggested a still more difficult situation in the
following:[94]

The arrival of mothers in a town accompanied by quite young
infants, or three or four young children, having travelled
long distances, is becoming more and more common—the
mother is attracted, in the absence of the father on active
service, by the prospect of high wages in munition works,
and brings her baby or children with her.

[93] _Labour Gazette_, March, 1917, p. 93.

[94] Great Britain Minister of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 17_, “Health and Welfare of Munition Workers
Outside the Factory,” 1917.

So pressing had the problems become that the committee, while
recognizing the valuable work done by the local volunteer committees,
felt that the time had arrived when the state should appoint officials
to “supplement, complete or coordinate their work.” In accordance
with this recommendation a number of “outside welfare officers”
were appointed in 1917 by the Ministry of Munitions, who aided the
local committees and were held responsible for completeness in their
arrangements.[95]

Could more women have been obtained to meet the industrial needs of
the nation, or did the expansion in the number of workers come near to
exhausting the supply? The question is one to which it is hard to give
an accurate answer. It has been pointed out that the number of women at
work increased over every three months’ period up to July, 1918, though
the rate of increase diminished during the fourth year of the war.
It was estimated that 12,496,000 females ten years old and over were
not “gainfully occupied” in July, 1918. Still later, just before the
armistice, in the week ending November 8, 1918, there were 36,999 women
on the “live registers” of the employment exchanges.

But on the other hand, as far back as January, 1916, officials of the
exchanges stated that a third of the unfilled applications were those
of women not previously employed, and another third those of women in
situations who wished to change. The 12,496,000 females not at work
included school girls, the old and incapacitated and housewives with
small children, fully occupied by home duties. The measures taken to
curtail industries not essential to the war and to conserve labor
power, and the general complaints of a scarcity of labor, indicate that
few additional reserves either of men or of women were available in the
last months of the conflict.

[95] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114. 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

CHAPTER VII

Training for War Work

It was with remarkably little organized training that the women took
up their new lines of work and fitted into the men’s places. The most
extensive development of special training was to be found in the
munitions industry, under the auspices of the Ministry of Munitions.
An official circular of the Ministry, dated November, 1915, outlined a
scheme for producing semi-skilled workers by strictly practical courses
of thirty to one hundred hours’ duration, intended to give the learner
“machine sense” and to teach him to use some one machine tool. It was
realized that this type was not in harmony with the best educational
principles, but the necessities of the case demanded that nothing
more should be tried than to turn out speedy and accurate workers in
the shortest possible time. The comparatively small demand for women
munition workers at this time was suggested by the fact that, while
the classes were to be open both to men and women, it was recommended
that the local authorities should be sure of employment for the latter
before training them. The pupils were required to agree to work in
munition factories at the end of their course.

Seventy such training centers were opened by the Ministry of Munitions
in the course of the war, accommodating 6,000 to 6,500 pupils. Seven
were factories utilized solely for industrial training, the smallest
of which accommodated 150 and the largest from 800 to 1,000 pupils at
a time. The others were smaller technical schools. The Ministry of
Munitions had direct control of the training factories and appointed
their staffs, but the schools were managed by the local educational
authorities. According to representatives of the Ministry of Munitions,
women were always trained “to order,” and not “to stock.”

Next, perhaps, to munitions work in frequency, though much less
extensive, were the courses offered in agriculture. In connection with
the women’s county committees it was arranged that women should be
admitted to the county farm institutes, and short emergency courses,
some of only one month’s duration, were started. During the season of
1916, 390 women completed such courses. In almost every county also
large landowners and farmers gave free training to some women. In 1917,
247 “training centers” were reported and 140 farms had registered for
the work.[96] Such centers were attended mainly by young country girls,
sixteen or seventeen years old, who in peace times would have entered
domestic service. Small “hostels” or boarding homes were sometimes
opened in connection with the training centers. The “Land Army” made
use of these various schools, centers and practice farms for its short
training courses and also arranged brief apprenticeships with employers.

[96] _The Survey_, Sept. 15. 1917, p. 527.

Vocational courses for other lines of work were much more scattering.
The London County Council carried on short emergency courses along the
lines advised by the “Shops” and “Clerical Employments” committees to
prepare women for retail groceries and for business. It also carried
on a successful course in gardening for six months, but had to drop
it because housing accommodations were not available. Classes in
the shoe trade were opened at Leeds, Bristol and London, and in the
manufacture of leather cases and equipment at London and Walsall. The
Liverpool authorities began to teach women power machine operating and
toy making, the last being a trade expected to grow in England with
the cessation of German imports. A course which attracted considerable
attention because it provided skilled work at comparatively high pay
after two or three months’ training was the class in oxy-acetylene
welding managed by “Women’s Service,” a private organization of women
for war work. A few enlightened manufacturers also set up training
classes, such as, for instance, a three weeks’ course for women
solderers in tin box making. Women were not sent out as London bus
conductors until they had several weeks of careful instruction in
schools conducted by the companies. One steam railroad also provided
a training course for women clerks and telegraphers. An interesting
development in special training which accompanied the growth of
welfare work in munition and other plants was the opening of several
courses for would be “welfare supervisors” in a number of the newer
universities. A fairly long list of training courses was given for
London alone by the National Union of Women Workers, but examination of
the list shows that only a few were special war courses, and that most
of them covered professional work for the minority, and not industry or
trade for the many.[97]

Some employers were said to prefer entirely untrained women to those
who had gone through short emergency courses, because the latter were
prone to overestimate the value of their training. But on the whole
the classes were believed to give a much better start to the woman who
realized that they left her, after all, still a beginner. But the keen
demand for workers, the high wages and high cost of living were all
unfavorable to the extension of formal training schemes. Some classes
were closed after the first year of war for lack of pupils. Others
were discontinued when the trade schools were taken over for training
in munitions work. Whatever the value of the provisions for training,
it is evident that the great majority of women learned their new tasks
without any such help, entirely in the workshop.

[97] National Union of Women Workers, _Occasional Paper_, May, 1916,
pp. 66-68.

CHAPTER VIII

Women and the Trade Unions

The war apparently proved a great stimulus to trade unionism among
women workers in England. Prior to the war, as in other industrial
countries, women workers were notoriously hard to organize, and
formed but a small minority of trade union membership. In 1913 nearly
4,000,000 men and only 356,000 women were said to be members of English
trade unions. Aside from the fact that before the war most women were
found in unskilled and low paid occupations in which union organization
had made but little progress even among men, the usual explanation of
the difficulty of organizing them was that most of them were young and
expected to marry within a few years and to withdraw from industry. The
one exception to this condition was the cotton textile trade, in which
a large proportion of the women belonged to labor unions. Out of the
whole number of organized women, 257,000 were in the textile trades. As
already indicated, many of the unions in the skilled trades would not
admit women members and were unfavorable to any extension of their work.

Two special organizations were devoted to the promotion of trade
unionism among women. The older, the Women’s Trade League, was made
up mainly of affiliated societies and was formed with the idea that a
place could be found for women in existing organizations. But in many
trades where there were large numbers of women unions did not exist,
or the men’s unions forbade the employment of women. The National
Federation of Women Workers gave its attention to these occupations.
Its membership was stated to be about 20,000 in 1913.

During the war the number of women trade unionists increased at an
unprecedented rate. At the end of 1914 their number was officially
reported as 472,000, at the corresponding period in 1915 as 521,000,
and at the end of 1916, 1917 and 1918, respectively, as approximately
650,000, 930,000 and 1,224,000—an increase of nearly 160 per cent
between 1914 and 1918. During the same period the number of male trade
unionists increased about 45 per cent.[98] Out of 1,220 craft and trade
unions, 837 had only male members, 347 included both men and women
and 36 were composed wholly of women. The latter included some 95,000
members, and the largest of them were the National Federation of Women
Workers and the National Federation of Women Teachers.

A report by the factory inspectors enumerated ten important trades,
including several of the textiles, boots and shoes, furniture, cutlery,
fancy leather goods and tobacco, in which the number of women unionists
was 365 per cent greater in 1914 than in 1917, rising from 41,778 in
1914 to 152,814 in 1917. A small but interesting union was that made up
of women oxy-acetylene welders, a skilled trade which women had entered
for the first time during the war. Its membership was mainly made up of
educated women who were active in securing “equal pay” for themselves.
Detailed figures for seven individual trades are as follows:

NUMBER OF WOMEN TRADE UNION MEMBERS[99]

Industry 1914 1917
-------------------------------------------------------------
Woolen 7,695 35,137
Hosiery 3,657 17,217
Textile bleaching, dyeing, finishing 7,260 22,527
Boot and Shoe 10,165 ...
Tobacco 1,992 2,225
Solid leather case and fancy leather negligible 1,372
Furniture 300 15,236

Another development of trade unionism among women during the war was
that for the first time in the so-called “mixed unions,” composed of
both men and women members, a large number of women were elected as
branch secretaries and local officials. This change was forced by the
withdrawal of men for military service, but the new officers were
reported to be “as a whole extremely satisfactory.”[100]

[98] Great Britain Ministry of Labour, _Labour Gazette_, February,
1920, p. 60.

[99] Great Britain, Home Office, _Substitution of Women in Nonmunition
Factories_, pp. 26-50.

[100] Quoted from G. D. H. Cole in United States _Monthly Labor
Review_, June, 1919, p. 1852.

It is generally believed that the chief reason for the growth of
trade unionism among women during the war was the increase in their
wages, together with the resentment aroused at the same time by
frequent failure to achieve “equal pay for equal work.” Other causes
sometimes mentioned cover many of the principal effects of the war on
women workers. Women’s customary docility was said to be reduced by
the absence of their men folk on military service, forcing them more
often to assume the initiative. The public recognition of the value
of women’s work likewise increased their self-confidence. Contact
with the stern realities of war was believed to have reduced the
irresponsibility of the younger workers and the petty caste feeling
frequent among women of all ages. The shortage in the supply of workers
strengthened labor’s general position, and government acknowledgment of
the importance of trade unionism also weakened opposition by employers.

But in spite of the growth in unionism some complaints were made that
it was even harder than usual to interest certain of the new workers
in organization because they were so consciously working only for the
duration of the war. Women have been found who believed in the value
of the unions sufficiently to keep up the dues of the men whose places
they were taking, but who refused to join themselves.

The principal agency concerned with unionizing women munition workers
during the war period was the National Federation of Women Workers,
which is reported to have more than tripled its membership during the
war.[101] Under its energetic secretary, Miss Mary Macarthur, it was
credited with securing legislation and official action in behalf of
the women war workers, in addition to its organizing work. Its breezy
little monthly paper, _The Woman Worker_, which sheds much light on the
point of view of the woman trade unionist toward events of the day, was
started in January, 1916.

[101] Paul U. Kellogg and Arthur Gleason, _British Labor and the War_,
1919, p. 141.

In its task of organizing munition girls, the Federation of Women
Workers had the advantage of an informal alliance with the Amalgamated
Society of Engineers. In May, 1915, this strong union rejected a plan
to admit women workers on the ground that it would prevent excluding
them from the trade after the war. But the following month the A. S.
E. arranged with the federation to set up joint committees to fix wage
scales for women and to support the Federation in enforcing the demands
jointly agreed upon. Somewhat contradictory reports were received on
the results of this action. The federation praised the society’s help
highly, saying that several new branches were “literally made by A. S.
E. men,”[102] though a writer in the _Women’s Industrial News_ stated
that the one or two cases of A. S. E. action in behalf of the women
“have had no pressure behind them,” and secured only “negligible”
results.[103]

[102] _The Woman Worker_, January, 1916, p. 13.

[103] _Women’s Industrial News_, April, 1916, p. 19.

The substitution question, it has been shown, emphasized the unfriendly
attitude of many unions in the skilled crafts toward the woman worker.
Some unions, for instance the two covering tramway employment, flatly
voted down the admission of women without making any such substitute
arrangements for them as did the A. S. E. In a number of cases, even
where they were forced to permit “dilution,” they seem to have retained
an attitude of hostility or suspicion. Numerous individual instances
of this kind may be found in the pages of the _Dilution Bulletins_.
In some cases tools were purposely set wrong or were not supplied at
all, and unfavorable reports of the women’s work were made without
substantial basis.

Other unions—apparently on the whole the newer and more radical
bodies—did let in the women workers. The waiters’ union even opened a
class to train them to replace the interned enemy aliens. The steam
railway organization admitted them, though not exactly on the same
terms as men. The women substitutes naturally appear to have had a
“smoother path” under these circumstances than where the policy of
exclusion was maintained.

Since the armistice there has been a decline in the number of women
trade unionists, and it is doubtful if the war level will again be
reached for some time to come. There is, however, a greatly increased
interest in trade unionism among English working women, which will
undoubtedly be maintained under the changed conditions of peace and
reconstruction. The movement is, of course, closely connected with the
way the “dilution” problem is settled. This will be discussed in the
chapter dealing with the situation during the first few months after
the armistice.

CHAPTER IX

Control of Women Workers Under the Munitions Act

The munitions act set up an unprecedented degree of governmental
control over the workers through three different methods—the
prohibition of strikes, a restriction of the right of the individual
to leave work and the establishment of special “Munition Tribunals”
to regulate the leaving of work and to punish breaches of workshop
discipline.

_Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts_

The prohibition of strikes and lockouts was the most inclusive of
the three. It applied not only to all “munitions work” as defined by
the act,[104] but also to all work done “in or in connection with”
munitions work, and to any other work to which the act should be
applied by proclamation on the ground that stoppage of work would be
“directly or indirectly prejudicial” to “the manufacture, transport or
supply of munitions of war.”[105] Strikes or lockouts were forbidden
unless a dispute had been referred to the Board of Trade, which for
twenty-one days had taken no action toward settling it. Further
provisions for a more prompt settlement of disputes were included in
the second amending act, in August, 1917. The penalty for violations
by either employer or employe was a fine which might be as high as £5
(about $24) per man per day. Disputes might be referred by the Board
of Trade for settlement to any one of several subordinate bodies.
Ordinarily the one used for men’s work was the “Committee on Production
in Engineering and Shipbuilding.”[106] After the passage of the first
amending act[107] in January, 1916, the “Special Arbitration Tribunal”
authorized by it to advise regarding conditions of women’s work was
the body generally chosen by the Minister of Munitions to settle
disputes involving women.

[104] _Vide_ p. 55.

[105] Munitions of War Act. 5 and 6 Geo. 5, Ch. 54. Part I. 2 (1).

[106] _Vide_ p. 51.

[107] 5 and 6 Geo. 5, Ch. 99.

The clause prohibiting strikes was adopted undoubtedly as the result
of the strikes of “engineers” on the Clyde early in 1915, and other
disturbances on war work, which followed after the “industrial truce”
of the first few months of the war had once been broken. This in
turn apparently occurred on account of the rising cost of living
and the failure at the time to increase wages proportionately or to
limit profits. The prohibition was roundly denounced by the labor
and radical groups as having “given rise to more strikes than it has
prevented,”[108] and strikes did, indeed, increase proportionately
faster after the passage of the act. For several months beginning
with May, 1917, the unrest was so serious that official committees of
inquiry were appointed.

No figures are at hand to show the extent of the strikes in which women
participated. Though comparatively infrequent among women workers, yet
even there they occurred in defiance of the law. _The Woman Worker_
recorded a case at a shell filling factory, where because a canteen
attendant was, as they thought, unjustly dismissed, the girls refused
to go back to work after the noon hour, and began to throw the china
and food about in the canteen.[109]

[108] _Women’s Trade Union Review_, July, 1917, p. 1.

[109] _The Woman Worker_, February, 1917, p. 11.

There was some feeling among women as well as men war workers that
following a strike government officials quickly adjusted grievances
which had previously gone unremedied for months. Yet, even if the
strike prohibition was not a complete success, officials believed that
it operated to reduce the number of minor disputes.

_“Leaving Certificates”_

After the keen demand for labor arose in the industry, the “labor
turnover” of experienced workers in munition factories reached abnormal
proportions, causing loss of time and often of skill. The frequent
changes and the resulting interruption to production became the subject
of serious complaints from employers.

To diminish this “labor turnover” a system of “leaving certificates”
or “clearance cards” was put into effect. No person leaving munitions
work could be given work by another employer for six weeks unless he
or she had a “leaving certificate.” The certificate was required to be
granted by the employer on discharging the worker, and might be granted
by a Munitions Tribunal if “unreasonably” withheld. This was the
only condition inserted in the original act to prevent a certificate
from being wrongfully withheld. The giving of employment contrary
to these provisions, or the falsifying of a “leaving certificate,”
were serious offenses under the act, punishable by a maximum fine of
£50 (about $240). “Leaving certificates” might be required “in or in
connection with munitions work” in any kind of establishments to which
the regulations were applied by order of the Ministry of Munitions.
In July, 1915, an order was issued requiring them in all engineering,
shipbuilding, ammunition, arms and explosive establishments and
establishments producing substances required for such production. In
May, 1916, all “controlled establishments” not previously included, and
certain places providing electric light or power for munitions work,
were added to the list.

The leaving certificate requirements were said to be the only feature
of the munitions acts approved by employers, but no part was more
unpopular with the workers. It was charged that skilled workers were
tied to unskilled jobs and thus rendered powerless to move to better
wages and working conditions. The following quotation from _The Woman
Worker_[110] illustrates the labor point of view:

The first Munitions Act came quietly—on tip-toe, like a
thief in the night, and not one woman worker in a thousand
knew of its coming.

Their shackles were riveted while they slept....

The foreman’s reply to the complaining one is no longer: “If
you don’t like it you can leave it.” She can’t.

If she tries, she will find that no other employer will
be allowed to engage her, and unless she can persuade a
Munitions Court to grant a leaving certificate, six weeks’
idleness must be her portion. And we know what that means to
many a woman worker. Long before the six weeks are up, her
little treasures, if she has any, are gone and God help her
then.

... One great danger of the new conditions is that sweating
and bad conditions may be stereotyped.

The other day a munition worker, who was being paid 12s.
weekly, had a chance of doing the same work for another
employer at 1 pound weekly, but the Court refused her
permission to make the change. And thus we have a concrete
case of the State turning the lock in the door of the
sweaters’ den.

Some people hold very strongly that these leaving
certificate clauses of the Munitions Act are altogether
unnecessary. They hamper and irritate men and women alike,
and so far from accelerating output, may actually diminish
it. Under the Defence of the Realm Act, it is already
illegal for employers to incite munition workers to change
their employment, and that should have been sufficient.

[110] January, 1916, pp. 5-7.

The stringency of the leaving certificate clauses in their original
form was indicated by the fact that in the munitions act amendment of
January, 1916, several conditions were added making them more favorable
to the workers. If an employer refused a certificate when a worker
was dismissed, or failed to give a week’s notice or a week’s pay in
lieu of notice, except on temporary work, the tribunal could now make
him pay as much at £5 (about $24) for the loss of time, unless it
appeared that the worker was guilty of misconduct to secure dismissal.
A number of other conditions under which a certificate must be granted
were laid down by the amending act. They included failure to provide
employment for three or more days, failure to pay standard wage rates,
behavior of the employer or his agent toward the worker in a way to
justify his leaving, end of apprenticeship and existence of another
opening where the worker could be used “with greater advantage to the
national interest.” Even _The Woman Worker_ admitted of the amendment
act: “Certainly in many ways it is an improvement over the old one.
The workers have new rights; and if they are strong enough and clever
enough to take advantage of them much can be done.”

Difficulties still arose, however. Though on some government contracts,
such as clothing, the system was not in force, it was often believed
that the cards were required on every form of government work. They
were indeed necessary in so many factories that employers hesitated
to take workers without them, which made it hard to secure work in a
munitions plant for the first time. Often the workers did not know
their rights under the act to secure certificates or damages from
the tribunals under certain conditions. It was finally decided that
dismissal because of trade union membership was illegal, “tending to
restrict output.” By the help of the Federation of Women Workers three
girls dismissed for joining the federation secured compensation for
their dismissal from the local Munitions Tribunal, and the firm was
finally fined for the act by the central court.

Nevertheless, in spite of all concessions, which officials of the
Ministry believed had removed the admitted injustices of the act in
its original form, the certificate system continued to cause much
irritation among the workers. The official commissions to investigate
the industrial unrest prevailing in the summer of 1917 named the
operation of the system among its chief causes. It was because of
the workers’ protests that the second amendment to the munitions
act, passed August 21, 1917, gave the Ministry of Munitions power to
abolish the “leaving certificate” system if it thought it could be done
“consistently with the national interest.” Trade union leaders informed
the government that they could not keep their members in line unless
the system was given up. The Ministry issued an order abolishing the
certificate after October 15, 1917.[111] Workers were merely required
to remain on some kind of war work, except by permission of the
Ministry, and at least a week’s notice or a week’s wages was necessary
before leaving. No report was made as to how the change worked. It
remained in force until two days before the armistice, when an order
allowed employes to shift from munitions to nonwar work.

[111] _Labour Gazette_, September, 1917, p. 314.

_Munitions Tribunals_

In addition to appeals for leaving certificates, the Munitions
Tribunals dealt with breaches of workshop discipline, and with cases
of disobedience to the instructions of the Ministry of Munitions.
These courts were set up throughout the country. Each consisted of
a chairman, chosen by the Ministry of Munitions, and four or more
“assessors,” taken from a panel, half of whom represented employers
and half employes. The “assessors” served in rotation, a session at a
time. There were two classes of tribunals, “general,” dealing with all
offenses, and “local,” with those for which the penalty was less than
£5 (about $24). The latter handled the great majority of the cases,
settling 3,732 between July and December, 1916, whereas the general
tribunals took up only 182. Under the original munitions act the
general tribunals had the power to imprison for nonpayment of fines,
but this aroused such resentment among the workers that it was taken
away by the first amendment act.

The Munitions Tribunals, like leaving certificates, were a source
of much annoyance to working women. Complaints were made that the
representatives of the Ministry of Munitions had no understanding of
the labor point of view, so that there was always a majority against
the employes. Instances were given in which the tribunals refused
certificates to a woman receiving 10s. ($2.40) a week, though she had
a chance to double her wages, and to girls working seventy to eighty
hours weekly several miles from home, while a factory having eight
hour shifts had opened close at hand. Fines, unlike those imposed
by employers, did not have to be “reasonable” in the legal sense of
the word, and their size was not known to the workers beforehand. An
employe summoned before a tribunal lost at least a half day’s and
sometimes a full day’s work, or several hours of sleep if a night
worker. Previous to January, 1916, women workers might be obliged to
appear before a tribunal composed entirely of men. But by the amending
act, as the “direct outcome of a scandalous case” in which three girls
who had left their jobs because of “gross insult” were obliged to
explain the circumstances with no woman present,[112] it was required
that at least one of the assessors representing the employes should be
a woman in every case in which women were involved.

Whatever the justice of the employes’ contentions, certainly the
decisions rendered by the tribunals during their first few months
of activity, for which alone figures are available, were generally
unfavorable to the workers. From the beginning of their work to
November 27, 1916, 814 cases involving 3,672 persons were heard against
employes. Convictions against 2,423 of these were secured, and fines
amounting to £2,235 were imposed. Against employers there were but
eighty-six cases involving ninety-four persons, fifty-six persons
convicted, and a total in fines of £290. Out of 3,014 requests for
leaving certificates, only 782 were granted.

[112] _The Woman Worker_, January, 1916, p. 7.

CHAPTER X

Wages

Perhaps no one factor in the working conditions of women is more vital
to their welfare than the wages they receive. A study of the changes
in wages brought about by the war is therefore of special importance.
Ordinarily women seldom do precisely the same work as men, and they
ordinarily receive wages not more than half as high. Did the difference
continue when the women took up men’s jobs? The fear that the women
would lower the rates established by the men’s trade unions was, as
we have seen, probably the main reason for the opposition of male
trade unionists to “dilution.” In what measure was the women’s demand
for “equal pay for equal work” attained? The replacement of enlisted
men by women and the extensive use of women in the manufacture of
munitions invested women’s work as never before with the character of
a national service, and this also led to a demand for more adequate
wage standards. In considering the subject of wages it should always be
kept in mind that, roughly speaking, at the beginning of the war wages
and prices were about half as high in England as in the United States,
though the difference in prices was not so great during 1917 and 1918.

_Governmental Wage Regulation in the Munitions Industry_

All three of the factors enumerated above—namely, public recognition
of their services to the state, the women’s demand for “equal pay
for equal work” and the effort of the men’s unions to maintain wage
standards—seem to have played a part in forcing governmental regulation
of the wages of women workers. Munitions work was of course the storm
center of disputes throughout the war.

Many complaints were made of the inadequate wages paid the first women
to be employed on munitions work. An official report[113] admits that
women munitions makers taking up men’s jobs in the industry before the
Treasury Agreement permitting substitution was made in March, 1915,
were paid only 2½d. (5 cents) to 4d. (8 cents) an hour. Twelve to
fifteen shillings weekly ($2.88-$3.60) was said to be the usual pay
for women in Manchester and on the Clyde. In October, 1914, a leading
armament firm hired a number of women to take the place of skilled and
semi-skilled men in shell making at 15 per cent lower wages than were
paid the men.[114]

The first attempt to secure equal pay for the women who replaced men
was made in February, 1915, through the “Shells and Fuses Agreement” of
the “Committee on Production,” which provided for equal pay on skilled
work. But most of the operations on which women were being substituted
were unskilled or semi-skilled and on the latter the employers’
federation ordered the usual women’s rates. The Amalgamated Society of
Engineers, which had assented to the agreement, now awoke to conditions
and protested, but in the words of two students of British labor during
the war, “it was too late.” They “never again caught up with the
situation. Multitudes of women were poured into the engineering trades
at a low wage scale.”[115]

[113] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, April, 1919, p. 110.

[114] Barbara Drake, _Women in the Engineering Trades_, p. 14.

[115] Paul U. Kellogg and Arthur Gleason, _British Labor and the War_,
p. 152.

The next effort of the trade unionists was the securing of a clause
in the Treasury Agreement in March to the effect that “the relaxation
of existing demarcation restrictions or admission of semi-skilled or
female labor shall not affect adversely the rates paid for the job.”
Miss Sylvia Pankhurst immediately sent an inquiry to Lloyd George,
asking for an interpretation of this somewhat ambiguous statement. She
received the reply:

Dear Miss Pankhurst: The words which you quote would
guarantee that women undertaking the work of men would
get the same piece-rates as men were receiving before the
date of this agreement. That, of course, means that if the
women turn out the same quantity of work as men employed on
the same job, they will receive exactly the same pay.

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) D. LLOYD GEORGE.

She then asked if they were to receive the same war bonuses and
increases as men, and what was to be paid women time workers; but her
second letter was not answered.

The complaints and agitation continued. Mrs. Pankhurst escorted a
procession of women to interview the Minister of Munitions about wages
on munitions work. Examples of sweated wages were cited in Parliament.
In reply to this deputation, Lloyd George announced his policy in
regard to the payment of women munition workers as follows:

The government will see that there is no sweated labor. For
some time women will be unskilled and untrained; they can
not turn out as much work as the men who have been at it
for some time, so we can not give the full rate of wages.
Whatever these wages are, they should be fair, and there
should be a fixed minimum, and we should not utilize the
services of women in order to get cheaper labor.

Finally, in October, 1915, the Ministry sent out to all “controlled
establishments” a circular of recommendations for wage rates for women
“on men’s work,” drawn up by a Wages Subcommittee of the Central
Labor Supply Committee, composed of a woman trade unionist and three
representatives of the engineering trade. The circular, which is always
referred to as “L2,” fixed a prescribed (not a minimum) time rate of
£1 ($4.80) weekly, and the same piece rates for women as for men. The
committee had urged that the time rate should be a minimum but to this
the Ministry was not willing to agree. A special paragraph emphasized
that women doing skilled men’s work should be paid the men’s rate.
The Ministry had no power to enforce the recommendations, however,
and they were by no means universally observed. Opinions as to their
efficacy vary from the official view that “National factories were
instructed to adopt these provisions, and many, though not all, private
firms put them into force.”[116] to the radical criticism that the
“recommendations might have been of value had there been any means of
enforcing them. As it was, the circular was merely an expression of
opinion which [tended to lull the public] into a state of security
unjustified by facts.”[117] _The Woman Worker_ even went so far as to
say that “in January last [1916], a very important firm stated that
they were the only firm in the United Kingdom that were paying wages in
accordance with Mr. Lloyd George’s circular.”[118]

In the fall of 1915 the trade unionists entered on an active campaign
to give the Ministry power to fix wages for women and unskilled and
semi-skilled men, the men’s unions fearing the permanent lowering of
their standard rates, and the women’s organizations being perhaps more
concerned in behalf of the underpaid women themselves. In January,
1916, the men’s unions demanded, as the price of their continued help
in promoting “dilution,” that the provisions of “L2” should be made
compulsory. By the amending act of January 27, 1916, the Ministry of
Munitions were empowered to fix wage rates for all females and for
semi-skilled men on skilled work in munition plants where clearance
cards were required. The National Federation of Women Workers was
active in securing the change, and its magazine describes the struggle
in its usual picturesque style.[119]

[116] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Monthly Review_,
August, 1917, p. 123.

[117] _Women’s Industrial News_, April, 1916, p. 15.

[118] _The Woman Worker_, April, 1916, p. 9.

[119] _The Woman Worker_, January, 1916, p. 7.

_Wage Fixing for “Women on Men’s Work”_

In a month the provisions of Circular L2 were made compulsory.[120]
The directions were “on the basis of setting up of the machines being
otherwise provided for. They are strictly confined to the war period.”
Women time workers of eighteen years and over on men’s work were to
be paid a pound ($4.80) for a week of the usual hours worked by men
in engineering. Rates for piece work and for work ordinarily done by
“fully skilled” men were to be the same as those customarily paid
men, but women were not to be put on any form of piece work until
“sufficiently qualified.” The principle of “equal pay for equal work”
was further laid down specifically in the following clause: “The
principle upon which the directions proceed is that on systems of
payment by results—equal payment shall be made to women as to men for
an equal amount of work done.” Further safeguards of the rates included
giving women the same overtime, night shift, Sunday and holiday
allowances as the men, and providing that piece rates should not be
cut. Women were to be paid at the rate of 15s. a week ($3.60) for time
lost by “air raids” or other causes beyond the workers’ control. The
order was applied only to controlled establishments in engineering and
allied industries on the ground that it was designed primarily to meet
conditions in those trades.[121]

[120] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 181, February
28, 1916.

[121] The list of establishments to which the wage orders are applied
was never published, as it was considered “contrary to the national
interest.” Information as to their scope comes mainly from an article
in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics _Monthly Review_,
“Women’s Wages in Munition Factories in Great Britain,” August, 1917,
for which many facts were supplied by an administrative officer of the
Ministry of Munitions.

_Wage Fixing for “Women Not on Men’s Work”_

The regulation of wages for women doing men’s work covered only part of
the munition workers, however. As _The Woman Worker_ remarked, “What
about the women who are doing important work not recognized as men’s
work? There are many more of these; they are, generally speaking, much
worse off; they are less able to protect themselves; and, therefore,
this claim on the Minister to fulfill his pledged word is even stronger
than for the others.”[122] The Wages Subcommittee which drafted L2 had
drawn up wage recommendations for them in November and December, 1915,
but no action was taken on the recommendations. The standard of wages
among this group of women at the time is illustrated by the rates fixed
in an important trade agreement reached in November, 1915, and covering
the whole Midlands area. Its weekly rate for an adult woman was 16s.
($3.84). In March, 1916, under powers given the Ministry of Munitions
by the munitions amendment act, a “Special Arbitration Tribunal” was
established to settle disputes regarding women’s wages referred to it
under the anti-strike clauses of the munitions acts, and to advise
the Minister on wage awards for women munition makers. The tribunal
consisted of a secretary and half a dozen members, two of whom were
women. In Miss Susan Lawrence it had a woman long active in behalf of
the women workers, and in Mr. Ernest Aves an expert on minimum wage
regulation. The tribunal is said to have been “perhaps more important
and successful than was expected.”[123] The National Federation of
Women Workers at once brought before it several cases dealing with
the wages of munition workers in individual factories on “work not
recognized as men’s work.” In general the awards made in these cases
gave time workers about 4½d. (9 cents) an hour, and piece workers a
guaranteed minimum of about 4d. (8 cents), with the provision that the
piece rates should yield the ordinary worker at least a third more.

[122] _The Woman Worker_, April, 1916, p. 9.

[123] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

The Minister of Munitions then asked the special tribunal for
recommendations as to a general wage award for females on “work not
recognized as men’s work.” Because precedent and data were lacking it
was said to be extremely difficult to fix these rates. But finally the
tribunal made a recommendation along the lines of its special awards,
which was issued as an order on July 6, 1916.[124] Four pence (8 cents)
an hour was guaranteed piece workers of eighteen or over and adult time
workers were given 4½d. (9 cents). A half penny an hour additional was
given for work in the danger zone, and special rates might be fixed
for dangerous or unhealthy processes. Special rates could be set for
workers of special ability. The rates were expressly limited to the
war period, “depending on exceptional circumstances arising from the
present war.” The award was applied to about 1,400 arms, ammunition,
explosives and shipbuilding firms, covering these trades with a few
exceptions of firms in the rural districts.

[124] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 447, July 6,
1916.

The effect of this order was to raise wages in firms where women had
always been employed. Employers complained of difficulties where only
part of their women employes were on government work, and of failure
to provide special rates for the training period. On the other hand,
its provisions aroused a storm of criticism from women trade unionists,
who charged that the fixing of standard rather than minimum rates was
in contravention of Lloyd George’s pledges. The official retort to
this was that “the only undertaking ... by the Minister ... related
to the wages of women on men’s work.”[125] No special allowances for
overtime, night and Sunday work or for time lost by no fault of the
workers were included. The piece work rates were not arranged so that
the average worker could earn a higher rate. Only munition work in the
narrow sense was covered, and important war industries where leaving
certificates were required were omitted, such as the chemical, rubber,
cable and miscellaneous metal trades. The Women’s Trade Union League
and the National Federation of Women Workers immediately organized a
deputation of protest to the Ministry. As a result, a revision of the
award was issued in September, which restored the extra payments for
overtime and night work, and stated that unless a special exemption was
granted by the Ministry, piece rates must be such as to yield a worker
of “ordinary ability” a third more than her time rate.[126]

[125] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Wages of Women in
Munition Factories in Great Britain,” _Monthly Review_, August, 1917,
p. 123.

[126] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 618, September
13, 1916.

_Revision of Award for “Women on Men’s Work”_

By this time also, according to the official view “it had become
increasingly apparent ... that the provisions of Circular L2 ... were
too rigid.” No time rates between the £1 a week and the skilled men’s
rate were allowed, and women doing especially laborious or responsible
work could not receive special pay.

A violent controversy had likewise been going on for months as to the
payment of women doing part of the work of skilled men. The unions
claimed that the understanding was that women should receive the
skilled men’s rate no matter how small a part of the work they did; the
employers said that such an arrangement was entirely unreasonable. The
Central Munitions Labour Supply Committee, the author of the original
“L2,” was called on for advice. Recommendations acceptable both to
it and to the Special Arbitration Tribunal were finally worked out
and issued as an order January 1, 1917.[127] Even the trade unionists
acknowledged that an improvement had been made, and that the standard
time rate was less likely to be used as a maximum. The £1 time rate was
payable for a working week of forty-eight hours. Any overtime up to
fifty-four hours was payable at 6d. (12 cents) an hour, and beyond that
at men’s rates. Special rates, not laid down in the order, might be
fixed for women time workers on “work customarily done by semi-skilled
men,” on specially laborious or responsible work, or where any “special
circumstances” existed. Under this clause a number of appeals were
carried to the Special Arbitration Tribunal, and special awards made.
The clause giving women on skilled work the same rates as men was
reenacted, but it was stated that “a further order on this subject will
shortly be issued.” This was done on January 24.[128]

[127] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 888, January 1,
1917.

[128] _Ibid._, No. 49, January 24, 1917.

The compromise adopted set off a special class of women who did only
part of a skilled man’s work, according to a plan worked out by the
Dilution Commission in the Clyde district nearly a year before. In this
class were to be placed all women who did not do the “customary setting
up” of the machines, or who required supervision beyond that usual
for the men. Such women were to serve a three months’ “probationary
period,” receiving the specified time rate for four weeks, and then
rising by equal weekly increments to the skilled men’s rate at the end
of the thirteenth week. But, by special permission of the Ministry of
Munitions, a maximum of 10 per cent of the skilled men’s rate might
be deducted to meet the additional cost of extra setting up and extra
supervision. The time rate, which remained £1 for a forty-eight hour
week was to be the minimum in all cases, however. A woman doing all
the work of a skilled man was still to be paid his rate. Other clauses
relating to overtime, cutting of piece rates, allowances for lost time
and so on, were the same as in previous orders for “women on men’s
work.” The order was applied to some 3,585 “controlled establishments”
in arms, ammunition, ordnance, various other forms of “engineering” and
miscellaneous metal trades.

_Extension of Award Covering “Work Not Recognized as Men’s Work”_

Meanwhile, in October, 1916, “munitions” establishments not included
in the outstanding wage order for women and girls on “work not
recognized as men’s work” were notified that they would shortly be
covered unless they could show reasons to the contrary. Many protests
from employers resulted, but early in January the former order was
reissued with slight modifications and made applicable to a wider
range of establishments.[129] It now covered about 3,875 “controlled
establishments,” including other forms of engineering, miscellaneous
metal trades, and chemicals, asbestos, rubber and mica, as well as
munitions work in the narrow sense of the term. The chief modifications
were a probationary period (one month for adult women) during which
a half penny an hour (1 cent) less might be paid, and permission to
apply for a special rate for girls in warehouses as distinct from
factories. A companion order fixed rates a farthing an hour lower for
about fifty factories in rural districts.[130]

[129] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 9, January 6,
1917.

[130] _Ibid._, No. 10, January 6, 1917.

_Wage Awards for Women Woodworkers_

Besides “men’s” and “women’s” work, a third set of governmental wage
awards covered women in the woodwork industry where large numbers were
employed, especially on woodwork for aeroplanes. The trade unions had
agitated the question vigorously on the basis of maintaining their
standard rates. But the administration felt that “the aircraft industry
has extended enormously since the war began ... to legislate for
women’s wages on the customs existing prior to the war might unduly
hamper the development of the trade.” The wages fixed in September,
1916, on the basis of recommendations by the Special Arbitration
Tribunal were 5d. (10 cents) an hour for experienced adult time
workers, and a guarantee of 4½d. (9 cents) for piece workers.[131]
These rates were about ½d. (1 cent) an hour higher than those for
women not on men’s work, thus approximating the “men’s work” awards.
Extra rates were payable for overtime, and the various precautionary
clauses of the earlier awards were repeated, except that no recognition
of the equal pay principle appeared. The order covered some ninety
establishments. Early in 1917 the Special Arbitration Tribunal was
asked to advise on rates for woodwork in general. The tribunal found it
difficult to preserve the scheme of the men’s rates in the trade, and
finally drew up a concise interim order with minimum rates similar to
those for ordinary processes on woodwork for aeroplanes.[132]

[131] _Ibid._, No. 621, September 12, 1916.

[132] _Ibid._, No. 313, March 30, 1917.

_General Increases Based on Cost of Living Changes_

A new bone of contention appeared in the battle to maintain men’s wage
standards for women munition workers when the rising cost of living
brought the men in the engineering and shipbuilding trades a general
advance of 5s. weekly from April 1, 1917, with the promise that further
advances of this kind would be made three times a year if necessary.
The Ministry of Munitions held that the terms of the award were
such[133] that it did not apply to women’s wages. But under pressure
from the Federation of Women Workers the Ministry, on April 16,
announced the advancement of the standard time rate for women replacing
men from 20s. ($4.80) to 24s. ($5.76) weekly,[134] to go into effect
from April 8. On work “not recognized as men’s work” the gain for
adult women was 1d. (2 cents) an hour for time work and ¾d. (1½ cents)
for piece work.[135] The advance was likewise applied to woodworking
processes.[136]

[133] The men’s cost of living advances were “not otherwise to apply or
affect present time rates, premium bonus rates or piecework prices.”
According to the Statutory Order in force women employed on skilled
men’s work were to receive the time rate of the men they replaced.

[134] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 489, April 16,
1917.

[135] _Ibid._, No. 492, April 16, 1917.

[136] _Ibid._, No. 491, April 16, 1917.

Following another war bonus of 3s. (72 cents) weekly to men workers,
awarded by the Committee on Production, the women’s Special Arbitration
Tribunal granted adult women a second general advance of 2s. 6d. (60
cents) in August, 1917, with half as much to girls under eighteen.[137]
This applied to all “controlled” establishments, having a far wider
range than any previous wage order. The powers of the Ministry over
women’s wages had been extended by the amendment to the munitions act
which allowed “leaving certificates” to be abolished. If this was
done, as it was, the Ministry might fix wages in any trade in or in
connection with munitions work. Another important extension of the
wage awards about this time was their application to Ireland, where
wage scales had been very low. A third and a fourth general advance,
the first[138] of 3s. 6d. and the second[139] of 5s. weekly for adult
women, were granted on December 15, 1917, and September 1, 1918,
respectively. The four general advances amounted to a total of 15s.
weekly ($3.60), which brought the standard time rate for women munition
workers on men’s work up to 35s. ($8.40) weekly at the end of the war.
But meanwhile the men workers had been granted still larger bonuses.

[137] _Ibid._, No. 781, August 16, 1917.

[138] _Ibid._, No. 31, January 14, 1918.

[139] _Ibid._, No. 1073, August 28, 1918.

In addition, hundreds of special cases continued to be brought
before the Special Arbitration Tribunal, which generally granted at
least part of the wage increases asked for, but avoided any general
declaration of principles when the equal pay issue was raised. Another
development of 1918 was the issuance of a “Consolidated Order,” the
result of agitation by the women’s unions begun eleven months earlier,
which unified the various wage awards and made some improvements and
extensions.[140] Perhaps the most important change was the alteration
of the standard rates for women not on men’s work into minimum rates,
so that women engaged in occupations of special skill, danger and the
like could claim extra payments. The order applied to over 8,000 firms.
Delay in issuing it was officially ascribed to the reorganization of
the Special Arbitration Tribunal, which prevented consideration of the
case till December, 1917.

[140] Great Britain, _Statutory Rules and Orders_, No. 546, May 8, 1918.

_Criticism of Governmental Wage Fixing in Munitions Work_

The governmental policies outlined above by which wages were fixed
for women munition workers were the subject of some sharp criticisms
from labor and radical groups and friends of the women workers. The
most fundamental of these criticisms was that the government failed to
fulfill the pledge regarding the wages of women substitutes made in the
“Treasury Agreement” and reaffirmed in the first munitions act.[141]
The question is considered at length in the report of the British War
Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.[142] Mrs. Sidney Webb, in a
minority report, holds that the pledge applied to all forms of work and
all forms of payment, and charges that there were two main violations.
It was not applied to time workers who took the places of unskilled
or semi-skilled men, and women were not allowed the same general cost
of living advances as men. The majority denied that the agreement was
intended to apply to equal pay in either of these cases, though they
felt that the wording of the agreement was not satisfactory. Without
attempting to give a verdict in the dispute, it may be said that the
partial failure to apply the equal pay principle did cause much unrest
among both men and women trade unionists, who felt that the men’s rates
were menaced and the women unfairly treated.

[141] _Vide_ pp. 52-53, for text of clauses in question.

[142] Pp. 197-217.

Other points of criticism included the limited application of the wage
orders, the fixing of “standard,” rather than “minimum” wages, and an
alleged failure to enforce the orders. The apparent tendency of the
government to act only under pressure was perhaps a still more general
cause of irritation. It was not until six months after the passage of
the first munitions act, following much trade union agitation, that
legislation was asked for which would allow the government to make
effective its pledge of “equal pay” for “dilutees.” Even then the
first wage orders did not cover all munitions work and not even all
controlled establishments. Under the wider application of the “leaving
certificate clauses” it was said that some firms could continue to pay
sweated wages while tying the workers to their jobs. But succeeding
orders were more and more extended and until the power was expressly
granted in August, 1917, the Ministry did not believe it could fix
wages outside controlled establishments.

Most of the rates, it will have been noticed, were not “minimum,” but
“standard” wages, to be paid only in case no special awards were made.
This policy was criticized because it was claimed that the standard
rates almost always became the maximum. But the Ministry believed that
“experience justifies the adoption” of a standard rate, which checked
constant agitation for changes.

It was also charged that the orders were frequently not obeyed and
that piece rates were illegally cut. In the spring and summer of 1917,
indeed, investigating officers of the Ministry of Munitions were
ordered to visit all establishments covered by the awards and schedule
the actual wages paid. “In many hundreds of cases the smaller firms
were found not to pay the wages ordered.”[143] Orders to violators
to pay the legal wages with arrears increased the hostility of the
contractors to the government program of wage fixing. Finally, in
order to overcome their opposition, it was arranged that they should
be reimbursed for all “extra and unforeseen wage cost entailed by
government action.” Under this arrangement it would seem as if there
was little if any incentive not to pay the legal scale of wages. In
April, 1918, at which time the standard time rate for women substitutes
was 30s. ($7.20) weekly, weekly rates for women in typical projectile
factories were 32s. 8d. ($7.84), and actual earnings 42s. 4d. ($10.16),
while in a similar group of shell factories rates were 34s. 8d.
($8.32), and earnings 56s. 8d. ($13.60). These wages, while well
above the legal standard wage, were far from the £3, £4 and £5 weekly
popularly ascribed to the women munition maker and in reality earned
only by the exceptional piece worker.

[143] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry_, April, 1919, p. 119.

In estimating these or any other wage increases, the greatly augmented
cost of living must not be overlooked. The rise was estimated at 40
per cent in February, 1916, when the first compulsory award was made,
70 per cent in April, 1917, at the time of the first general increase,
and 95 per cent in September, 1918, when the last war time advance was
granted. Rents were held to their former levels by a law which forbade
raising them unless structural improvements were made, but fuel, shoes
and clothing were all higher, the tax burden was greater and food had
more than doubled in price. On this basis the rate set for time workers
on “men’s work” in munitions in February, 1916, £1, was equivalent to
only 14s. 3d., before the war. The 24s. of April, 1917, corresponded
to 14s. 2d., while 35s., the September, 1918, award, amounted to about
17s. 6d. at prewar values. However, it must likewise be remembered
that once the awards were really in full force, actual earnings were
apparently considerably above standard rates.

All in all it would seem that the Ministry of Munitions was justified
in its claim that, “when consideration is given to the diverse nature
of the trades, the absence of any data on which the department could
work when it first took up the question of regulating women’s wages,
the absolute novelty of wage regulation by a government department, the
extreme urgency of the many difficulties which arose, the reluctant
attitude of employers and the interdependence of commercial work and
munitions work, the department feels justified in claiming a very
considerable adjustment in the matter of women’s wages.”[144] Even
Mrs. Webb, in criticising the government attitude toward its wage
pledges, admits that the Ministry of Munitions took the agreement “more
seriously than other government departments.” The War Cabinet report
sums the results of government activity by showing that “the actual
average of women’s wages in the metal and munition trades as a result
of the orders was increased rather more than threefold as against
a rise in cost of living about twofold, and the disparity of wages
between the two sexes was very considerably reduced.”

[144] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Women’s Wages in
Munition Factories in Great Britain,” _Monthly Review_, August, 1917,
pp. 119-120.

_Wage Fixing by the Trade Boards_

The trade boards, authorized in 1909 to fix the minimum wage rates
for the sweated trades, afford little that is novel in their war
activities, but provide an excellent example of the maintenance of
existing legal standards in war time. In no case where they had taken
steps toward fixing minimum rates did they allow the war to be used
as a pretext for interrupting their work. The boards which had been
established prior to the war for confectionery and shirt making in
Ireland and for tin boxes and hollow ware in Great Britain continued
their work, and made awards which went into effect during 1915.
Partially effective orders for confectionery and shirt making in Great
Britain became obligatory during the same year. Moreover the scope of
two boards was extended, of tailoring to cover certain branches of
retail work, and of lace finishing to include “hairnets and veilings.”
A new board was even set up proposing rates for linen and cotton
embroidery in Ireland, which lines had been put under the jurisdiction
of the trade boards act before the outbreak of war. But during the war
period proper the act itself was not extended to any new industries.

The more direct effect of the war, however, was to cause all of the
existing boards to make considerable advances in their minimum rates in
an effort to meet the rising cost of living. For instance, the British
tailoring board raised the rate for experienced women from 3¼d. (6½
cents) to 4d. (8 cents) an hour in January, 1915, to 4½d. (9 cents) in
July, 1917, and 5d. (10 cents) in March, 1918. A special minimum rate
of 6d. (12 cents) for experienced women cutters, a class of work in
which women had replaced men since the outbreak of war, was fixed in
April, 1916. Similarly confectionery had been raised from 14s. 1d.,
weekly ($3.38), to 16s. 3d. ($3.90), then to 19s. 6d. ($1.68), and by
the end of the war 28s. 2d. ($6.76) was proposed. But it should be
remembered that 28s. 2d. was in November, 1918, roughly worth but 13s.
before the war, and 5d. was equivalent to little more than 2d. Even
the most considerable of these changes failed to keep pace with the
rise in the cost of living. “The Trade Boards have not increased rates
proportionately to the increase in the cost of living,” says G. D. H.
Cole, “but only by so much as they thought the industries concerned
would be able to support after the war.”[145]

[145] G. D. H. and M. I. Cole, _The Regulation of Wages during and
after the War_, p. 14.

_Wage Changes under Trade Union Agreements_

A third method by which the wages of many women were regulated was
through agreements with the trade unions. Such agreements really formed
a phase of the “dilution” question. Women must be prevented from
becoming unfair competitors and from undercutting the standard rates.
Consequently, as has been described, the agreements usually prescribed
that women substitutes should be paid the men’s rate. This was the
standard used in admitting women to men’s jobs in such important
industries as cotton, woolen and worsted, china and earthenware, and
boots and shoes. Women were for the first time admitted to work on the
more important knitting machines on condition that they should receive
the men’s piece rates. In such instances the real wages of the women
were undoubtedly materially improved.

Another important wage agreement made by the railway unions in August,
1915, secured for the women in grades where they had not been employed
before the war the minimum pay given men of the same grade. The
agreement did not cover women taken on as clerks, however. In October,
1915, the men’s war bonus was increased to 5s. a week ($1.20) and a
number of women applied for it. The companies claimed that the August
agreement tacitly excluded the women from participation in the bonus,
and the Committee on Production, to whom a test case was referred,
agreed. But when the men’s bonus was increased to 10s. ($2.40) in
September, 1916, it was “generally felt that it would be only fair to
grant the women something.”[146] Accordingly, in November, 1916, those
over eighteen were given a bonus of 3s. weekly (72 cents) and those
under eighteen, 1s. 6d. (36 cents). In three subsequent increases of
the bonus during the war period, men and women shared alike, making a
total war bonus of 21s. 6d. weekly ($5.16) for women as compared with
33s. ($7.92) for men.

[146] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

In a few cases, the trade unions were satisfied, because of the
reorganization of the work, with something less than the men’s rate
for women substitutes. In the agreement for the bleaching and dyeing
trades, a minimum of four-fifths of the men’s rate was fixed for time
workers though where women turned out the same quantity they were to
be paid the same piece wages as men. The Shop Assistants’ Union was
content with four-fifths of the men’s rates for the women, since a few
men had nearly always to be retained for heavy lifting. As a matter of
fact, in many cases the organization was not strong enough to secure
even as much as this.

_Wages in Other Trades_

Other government departments were not so generous to women workers as
the Ministry of Munitions, and paid even less attention to the equal
pay pledge of the Treasury Agreement. The Admiralty adopted a minimum
time rate for all workers, which was gradually raised from 20s. ($4.80)
to 35s. ($8.40) weekly, but which in the case of women substitutes
had no distinct relation to the wages of their male predecessors.
Previous to the institution of minimum rates, the Admiralty, like
the War Office, had given women workers a war bonus of only 2s. (48
cents) a week when they had given male mechanics and laborers 4s. (96
cents). According to Mrs. Webb, the War Office continued throughout
the war to “pay what it saw fit, and even stopped a contractor from
paying the wages ordered by the Ministry of Munitions.” Both War
Office and Admiralty finally joined, however, in the arrangement by
which contractors were reimbursed for wage advances ordered by the
government.[147] Wage increases in the Postoffice Department were given
in the form of war bonuses, which were larger for men than for women.
The war bonuses granted all low paid employes in 1915 were 2s. or 3s.
(48 cents or 72 cents) for men and only half that amount for women.

[147] _Vide_ p. 112.

Perhaps the strongest complaints of women’s wages in governmental
service were made in connection with the women clerks taken on by the
Civil Service. In 1917 they received only 20 to 26s. ($4.80 to $6.24)
for ordinary clerical work, and 30s. ($7.20) for supervision of
clerical work which involved considerable responsibility. Women were
found who were paid 20s. ($4.80) for the same work for which men had
been receiving 30s.-40s. ($7.20-$9.60). The Women’s Industrial Council
even found it advisable to call a conference on the matter, and to form
a committee to take up the question with those responsible. By the
end of the war the weekly wages of first-class clerks had gone up to
between 50s. and 60s. ($12-$14.40).

The wages paid women substitutes for men in trades in which neither
legal regulation nor agreements existed are difficult to discover.
Bread, rubber, confectionery and saw-milling are important examples of
trades of this sort. In such cases the Joint Committee of Industrial
Women’s Organizations believed that “rather more is gained than the
current wage for women. There is no reason whatever to suppose that
the rates approximate to the rates of the men displaced.”[148] The
factory inspectors in 1916 stated that in a few cases there were
complaints of very low wages, and women replacing men in bottle works
were said to be earning only 11s. ($2.64) a week.[149] On the other
hand, an investigation of clerical workers’ war wages showed that many
bookkeepers replacing men were receiving the same pay. The wages of
stenographers increased perhaps 10s. ($2.40) a week during the war.[150]

[148] Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women’s Organizations,
_The Position of Women after the War_, p. 8.

[149] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, p. 6.

[150] _Women’s Industrial News_, October, 1916, p. 64.

As was the case before the war, wages in agriculture remained lower
than in most industrial occupations, and, as has been indicated,
probably checked the entrance of women into the occupation. In the
early days of the war, many farmers asked for women at 15s. ($3.60) a
week. At its organization early in 1917 the Land Army established a
minimum rate of 18s. ($4.28), later raised to 20s. ($4.80). Through the
Corn Production Act, which arranged for the establishment of a minimum
wage for farm labor as a condition of guaranteeing grain prices to the
farmers, the wages of farm labor were brought under legal regulation
in the latter months of the war. On October 10 and 11, 1918, a rate of
5d. (10 cents) an hour or about 22s. 6d. ($5.40) a week was fixed for
experienced adult women workers in England and Wales.[151] Six pence
an hour was allowed in a few counties in the north of England in which
higher rates prevailed. No special provision was made for cases in
which the women took up work previously done by men, for whom the legal
rates were 30s.-35s. ($7.20-$8.40) weekly. In the circumstances it is
not surprising that the Board of Agriculture stated that “there is a
certain danger in women’s work as a cheap form of labor.”

[151] Great Britain Ministry of Labour, _Labour Gazette_, October,
1918, p. 393.

The smallest increases in wages occurred in the trades in which large
numbers of women were employed prior to the war. In some cases, to
be sure, as in power machine operating, steadier work and overtime
made earnings considerably higher, and in a trade as far removed from
the influence of munitions as cigar making estimated weekly earnings
rose as high as 30s. to £3 ($7.20-$14.40) weekly during the war. But
in most cases, actual changes in wage rates were small, and were
generally in the form of a “war bonus” of a few shillings a week which
obviously was not sufficient to cover the rise in prices. Wages for
learners were said to have increased more than those for experienced
workers. The necessity of a decided rise in wages to keep workers from
transferring to men’s trades made itself felt but very slowly. Wages
for dressmakers, milliners, pottery and laundry workers and kitchen
hands in restaurants were less than 25s. ($6.00) a week at the end of
the war, which meant less than 10s. ($2.40) at prewar standards.

But taking the average over the whole field of industry, women’s
real wages probably increased somewhat during the war. The average
weekly wage of women and girls in seventeen important nonmunitions
trades, according to returns made by employers to the Department of
Labour Statistics, was 12s. 8d. ($3.54) in May-August, 1915, and
23s. 6d. ($5.64), in May-August, 1918. Among this group of trades
the highest weekly wage in May-August, 1918, was 25s. 8d. ($6.16)
in ready-made tailoring, and the lowest 16s. 10d. ($4.04) in glass
manufacturing.[152] “They were nearer 35s. than 30s. weekly toward the
end of the war,” says the British War Cabinet report. This amount,
roughly equivalent to over 15s. before the war, contrasts favorably
with the estimate of less than 11s. a week as the average wage of
working women in 1912. Nor were real wages reduced through unemployment
through the war period. Another evidence of a relative gain is the
rise in women’s wages from “somewhat less than half men’s in 1914 to
rather more than two-thirds” in 1918.[153] The change is ascribed to
government intervention, and it is noticeable, indeed, that with wages
in munitions work, government work, agriculture and a number of sweated
trades all regulated by law, not far from two million women workers
had their pay fixed by this method. Such an improvement does not, of
course, answer the question of whether or not the women replacing men
received equivalent pay.

[152] _Vide_ Appendix N (p. 248) for table of wage changes in seventeen
important nonmunitions trades.

[153] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women
in Industry_, April, 1919, pp. 150-151. _Vide_ Appendix G for the
committee’s estimate of the occupations falling into various wage
groups.

_The Equal Pay Question_

It will have been evident from the discussion of women’s wages during
the war and of the “dilution” problem that “equal pay for equal work”
was the chief bone of contention in the replacement of men workers
by women substitutes. The question is not always entirely simple.
In a large number of cases of substitution industrial methods were
reorganized or the woman did not do precisely the same amount and
variety of work that the man did. The goal desired by the advocates of
“equal pay for equal work” would perhaps be more accurately expressed
by the term “economic equality between men and women.” Realizing, in
fact, that wherever changes were made on the introduction of women
the equal pay basis was difficult to determine, its supporters during
the latter part of the war abandoned the term and spoke instead of
“pay by the occupation and not by the sex.” But whatever the phrase,
the objects were the same, to prevent women from displacing men merely
because they were cheaper and at the same time to insure women equal
vocational opportunities with men.

Somewhat varied opinions were expressed as to the relative efficiency
of men and women on the same kinds of work. The writers of the War
Cabinet report on women in industry, a fairly conservative group, felt
that the substitution of women in manual labor and out door occupations
“was not, on the whole, a success.” They excepted, however, farm
laborers and bus conductors, provided the women received sufficient
wages to “keep them in the healthy condition required.” On skilled
processes, even in April, 1919, it was not felt that there had been
time for the women to gain the training and experience on which a
sound judgment could be based. Substitution on routine and repetition
processes was considered generally successful, women even excelling men
in operations which required “refined and delicate manipulation” and
being better able to endure monotony.

Three successive reports by the British Association for the Advancement
of Science gave increasing recognition to the efficiency of the woman
worker. In the first report published in August, 1915, the Association
felt that on the whole adult women were less productive than men,
except on routine, monotonous work, though young girls were generally
considered more helpful than boys of the same ages.

In April, 1916, in its second report, the British Association was not
so certain of the lesser capability of women workers. It quoted one
railway official to the effect that women car cleaners could not get
through as much work as men, but other railway officials believed
that “what women lacked in quantity of work they made up in quality.”
They could do a surprising amount also “if they had sufficient wages
to feed and clothe themselves properly.”[154] Women shop assistants
were found as satisfactory as men on all work within their strength.
But it was believed that the managerial positions in stores would
continue to be reserved for men, who were more likely to be permanent.
The statement in the third report of the British Association is that
“generally, employers who have had experience speak very favourably of
the work which the women are accomplishing. Where labour difficulties
have in times past been acute, they tend even to be extravagant in
their praise of women.”[155]

[154] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Labour,
Finance, and the War_, p. 201.

[155] _Ibid._, _Industry and Finance_, p. 44.

The factory inspectors held a favorable view of the efficiency of the
women substitutes. In their 1916 report they stated that, where women
were found unsatisfactory, it was generally the case that wages were
too low to attract competent workers. In reviewing at the close of the
war the substitution of women in nonmunition factories, they felt that
the women were successful even in heavy out door work provided they
were carefully chosen and good working conditions were arranged.

A large steel manufacturer, Lord Airedale of Gledhow, gave interesting
testimony as to the efficiency of women. He said:

There is one thing that the war has taught us here in Great
Britain. That is the capacity of women for industrial work.
I am satisfied, from my experience, that if we started to
train women when they are quite young, at the age when we
make boys apprentices, they could do an immense amount of
work in engineering trades, apart from machine minding, and
the simpler duties they now perform.

The same thing applies to clerical work. Women are doing the
clerical work in the London City and Midland Bank, of which
I am a director, with the greatest possible success. Some of
these young women, I am informed, have become managers. Here
again training is all that is necessary to equip for very
important work.[156]

[156] “Two Important Lessons from England’s Experience,” _System_,
June, 1917, p. 567.

Some of the strongest tributes to women’s industrial efficiency
came from the Ministry of Munitions. Lloyd George stated that, “the
country has been saved, and victory assured by the work of women in
the munition factories.” From time to time the _Dilution Bulletins_
contained examples of an actual increase in output when women replaced
men. For example, at an east coast aeroplane factory, twelve women were
said to be making twice the number of pulleys formerly made by sixteen
men. The output of a horseshoe manufactory increased 7½ per cent after
ninety women replaced the same number of men. In one factory turning
out 9.2 inch shells, the men handled from eight to eleven during a ten
hour shift, while the women handled twenty-four. Frequently when women
failed in their work the cause was found to be outside their control.
In one case spoilt work was due to the setting of tools wrong by men
who were opposed to “dilution.” Lack of proper lifting devices was not
an uncommon handicap.

The question is of course greatly complicated, especially in industry,
by the fact that women are probably not in the majority of cases doing
precisely the same work as the men who preceded them. At least four
different forms of substitution can be distinguished, in all but one of
which the woman’s work is not identical with the man’s. These have been
called (1) complete or direct substitution, (2) group substitution, (3)
indirect substitution, and (4) substitution by rearrangement.

“Complete” or “direct” replacement occurs only when a woman takes up
the whole of the same work that a man has been doing. The frequency of
this form of replacement was perhaps overestimated during the early
months of the war, because it necessarily occurred when women took
men’s places in such nonindustrial positions as postmen, drivers and
tramcar conductors, with whom the public comes in daily contact. Until
perhaps the third year of the war, however, such complete replacement
was for the most part found in the lighter forms of comparatively
unskilled work, for instance, sweeping in bakeries, filling sacks in
chemical plants, and some light, unskilled work in munitions and other
metal trades. Even in clerical work women were substituted for men
largely in the more routine, less skilled branches. But from about 1917
an increasing number of women proved able to do the whole of a skilled
man’s work in industry, even, in some cases, to “setting up” and
repairing their machines. Women were found who seemed to be “natural
mechanics”—a quality formerly thought to be entirely lacking in the
female sex. The direct substitution of women in scientific, managerial,
and supervisory work during the same period has already been noted.

“Group” substitution is said to take place when a group of women do
the work of a smaller number of men. It is the method of substitution
often used in provision stores and other forms of retail trade. In some
cases it has proved to be only a temporary arrangement, followed in a
few months by “complete” or “direct” substitution, as the women gained
in experience and efficiency and became able to do as much work as the
men. The so-called “indirect” form of replacement was common in the
metal trades, especially when additional women were first being added
to the force. An unskilled man or a boy was promoted to skilled work,
whose place, in turn, was taken by a woman. This form of substitution
was of course particularly easy to overlook.

The equal pay situation becomes most complicated under the form of
substitution most frequent in the skilled trades, namely, substitution
by rearrangement. In this case the trade processes themselves are
changed on the introduction of women workers. Excellent illustrations
of this form of substitution may be drawn from the munition branch
of the engineering trade, which was revolutionized by such methods
since the beginning of the war. The purpose of the reorganization is
to simplify skilled processes so as to bring them within the capacity
of less expert workers, all the changes tending toward greater
specialization and greater repetition.

A skilled man’s work was sometimes analyzed into its various parts
and a woman put on each separate part. Or simpler parts of a piece of
highly skilled work were set off for women to do, while a man spent
his time exclusively on skilled operations. Thus in many munition
factories, where formerly each machine was “set up,” operated and
repaired by a skilled man, each was operated by a woman, while half a
dozen were supervised and repaired by a single skilled man. Another
very common method of “substitution by rearrangement” consisted of the
introduction of automatic or semi-automatic machinery, in place of hand
work or machines requiring considerable attention and initiative on the
part of the operator. Thus a machine for cloth cutting is advertised,
which, according to the testimonial of an employer, “does the work of
four hand cutters and is operated by a _girl_ with the greatest ease.
Until its introduction it was impossible to employ women at the actual
work of cutting, but where this machine is in use it is now done. It
has helped us to carry on six government contracts and has reduced
cutting costs by more than 50 per cent.”[157]

[157] _Labour Gazette_, April, 1917, p. xxiv.

From one point of view it would not seem essential that women should
receive men’s rates if “substitution by rearrangement” has taken
place. From another viewpoint, however, if the lower rates decrease
the total labor cost of the job, as is almost always the case, the
danger remains that lower rates for women will pull down the men’s wage
standards. More obvious is the menace to the men’s rates if women are
not generally inferior as workers, and if they are employed at a lower
wage scale under the other forms of substitution.

The evidence obtainable on the relative wages received by men workers
and by the women who replaced them shows that just that danger exists.
While most of the women substitutes have gained an improved financial
position, they have not, on the whole, reached a plane of economic
equality with the men whom they have replaced. In January, 1916, the
_Labour Gazette_, looking back over 1915, said that, “the extensive
substitution of women and young persons for men has tended to lower
wages per head for those employed.”[158] The nearest approaches to the
men’s level seem to have been attained in occupations covered by trade
union agreements which require the payment of the men’s wage scale to
the women. But even in some of these occupations, as in transport, the
women did not receive all the bonuses of the men. In the munitions
industry, the government seemed at first to go on record in favor of
the equal pay principle, but, in practice, unskilled and semi-skilled
time work were excluded, and the women failed to receive the same cost
of living bonuses as the men, though unquestionably the wages of women
substitutes in munitions work were much higher than the former level of
women’s wages.

[158] _Labour Gazette_, January, 1916, p. 5.

In wage disputes involving the question of “equal pay,” the tendency
of conciliation boards such as the Special Arbitration Tribunal was
to grant some wage increases, but to avoid any declaration on the
principle. In the summer of 1918 such action caused a strike of women
bus conductors which attracted much public attention. In July both
men and women asked for a revision of a previous award on an equal
pay basis. The Committee on Production, which handled the case, gave
the men a bonus, but refused it to the women on the ground of the
precedents set by the Ministry of Munitions in granting similar bonuses
only to males. The women struck in protest on August 17, and were
supported by most of the men, who feared a future double standard of
wages. The committee then reconsidered its decision and on August 30
granted the women the same bonus as the men. The decision recognized
the equal pay principle and also that the receipt of separation
allowances by soldiers’ wives should not be considered, in fixing wages.

In trades covered neither by union agreement nor legal regulation,
women generally received what is high pay according to their previous
wage scale, but investigators believe that the men’s level was not even
approximately reached.

CHAPTER XI

Hours of Work

Since the working hours of women in English industry have long been
regulated by law, the discussion of the effects of the war on working
time centers in the modifications in the legislation made because of
war conditions. The main facts are comparatively well known in America.
The early war time extension of hours, the discovery that the previous
limitations had operated in the interests of industrial efficiency as
well as humanitarian considerations and the final restoration of almost
the prewar limit of working hours, with a better appreciation of their
real utility and value, are fairly familiar. Certain modifications in
the daily hour standards were allowed throughout the war, however, and
night work by women continued common.

At the outbreak of the war legal hours were ten daily and fifty-five
weekly in textile factories, and ten and a half daily and sixty
weekly, with a limited amount of overtime, in nontextile factories
and workshops. But the Secretary of State had the power to modify
these restrictions “in case of any public emergency.” The factory acts
allowed him at such periods to exempt work on government contracts and
in government factories from hour limitations “to the extent and during
the period named by him.”[159]

[159] Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, 1 Edw. 7, Ch. 22, Sec. 150.

_The Demand for Overtime_

A demand for the exercise of this power to extend women’s hours and to
allow them to do night and Sunday work was made by manufacturers of
army supplies in the early days of the war. While the greatest rush of
government orders came to firms making munitions, clothing and camp
equipment, the number of trades affected was “unexpectedly great,
extending from big guns to boot nails, from blankets to tapes, from
motor wagons to cigarettes.”[160]

[160] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1914_, p. 55.

The factory inspectors felt that they were facing a difficult problem.
Obviously it was necessary to secure the greatest possible output,
but it was equally apparent that labor would soon break down if
unrestricted overtime were permitted. Moreover, “was it right that one
set of operatives should be working excessive hours, while others were
without work at all?” It is well to keep in mind also that at this
time the Germans were fighting their way through Belgium and advancing
on Paris, and that the expeditionary force must at all costs be kept
supplied. In the emergency, overtime orders, good for one month each,
were granted individual firms who requested them on account of war
demands. These orders usually permitted women to work either in eight
hour or twelve hour shifts during any part of the twenty-four hours,
or, as an alternative to the shift system, two hours of overtime
daily on each of five days were allowed, making a seventy hour week.
Permission to work Saturday overtime or Sundays was rarely granted.
Additional meal periods were required if overtime was worked.

As the unemployment crisis passed, “the sole problem” came to be “what
scale of hours was likely to give the largest amount of production.”
Steps were then taken to replace the first individual permits for
exemptions by uniform orders for an entire trade. The latter were
still issued, however, not for the industry as a whole, but only to
individual firms applying for them. The permits were largely based
on joint conferences with employers and employes, and allowed women
to work at night or some eight or nine hours of overtime weekly. The
latter meant a working week of about sixty-five hours in textile
factories, and between sixty-five and seventy in other forms of factory
work. The demands of employers had often been for a far greater amount
of overtime.

The most extensive modifications of the law were made for munitions
plants where, on account of the “urgent demand” the inspectors
“recognized that latitude on a very wide scale must be permitted.”
Night work under either the two or the three shift system was allowed,
or as an alternative five hours of overtime weekly or seven and a half
in cases of special urgency. But women were not to be employed on
Sundays except for night work.

From August 4, 1914, to February 19, 1915, a total of 3,141 overtime
permits of all kinds were issued.[161] Only fifty-four permits allowing
night work remained in force at the end of 1914, though the number was
considerably increased in the first quarter of 1915.

[161] _Vide_ Appendix H, p. 240.

But overtime by women workers was unfortunately not even confined to
that sanctioned by special orders. There is considerable evidence
that long hours were also worked illegally, sometimes entirely
without permission, in other cases above the permitted modifications.
In September, 1914, the belief spread about that the factory acts
were wholly in abeyance until the end of the war, and the factory
inspectors admit that undoubtedly many cases of “long hours without
legal sanction” occurred. Yet “these have been steadily brought
under better control, the more steadily because of the knowledge of
intelligent manufacturers that unlimited hours can not be worked
without detriment to output, or in the long run without encroaching
on workers’ reserves.”[162] According to the factory inspectors, this
section of the manufacturers made more resistance to excessive overtime
at this period than the workers themselves. In the critical days
when the Germans were advancing toward Paris, many women were ready
to work all day and all night on army supplies. Except in surgical
dressing factories, where the girls were very young and the work very
monotonous, the operatives were said to show “a spirit of sustained,
untiring effort never seen before and most admirable.” One girl is
quoted as saying, “My sweetheart, he’s out there, and my two brothers,
so I may as well be working,” and a woman remarked that she wanted
to be able to write her husband in the trenches that she was “doing
her share.”[163] An appeal to the workers was made by Lord Kitchener
early in the war to the effect that “in carrying out the great work of
providing the army with its equipment employers and employes alike are
doing their duty for their King and country equally with those who have
joined the army for service in the field.” This was often posted in
factories, and helped to stimulate the women to work long hours without
complaint.

[162] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1914_, p. 39.

[163] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1914_, p. 40.

_Women’s Working Hours in 1915_

Authorities differ about women’s working hours in 1915 in a way that
makes it difficult to determine the exact situation. The factory
inspectors showed a considerable degree of optimism. From their point
of view the total numbers of hour law modifications in force remained
large, but the amount of overtime and week end work declined, and the
problem of violations was not serious.

In certain important industries, particularly clothing, boots,
shirts, leather equipment and surgical dressings, the need for
overtime had “for the present at all events ceased.” Yet the total
number of requests for exemptions was no less, though there was “a
marked reduction in the amount of latitude sought and allowed; for
instance, fresh demands for permission to work on Sundays are now
rarely received, and are confined to cases where sudden and unexpected
emergency arises or the processes are continuous. Requests for Saturday
afternoon work have also become less common, and there seems to be
a more general recognition of the advantages of a week end rest....
Sunday labor has been found to be more and more unsatisfactory; apart
from the ill effects which must follow from a long continued spell of
working seven days a week, it too often results in loss of time on
other days of the week and in consequent disorganization.”[164]

[164] _Ibid._, 1915, p. 6.

Only fifty orders allowing Sunday work by women and girls were
outstanding in December, 1915. These orders were strictly conditioned.
Sunday work was to be allowed only in cases of emergency and for part
of the day, and was not to be carried on in any two consecutive weeks.
Moderate hours through the week and time off on Saturdays were required.

Besides orders covering some twenty-seven different trades affected by
war demands, a general order was issued in September, 1915, modifying
the statute law in all other nontextile factories in which exemptions
were legal. Seven and a half hours of overtime, making a working week
of sixty-seven and a half hours, were permitted, and daily hours night
run up to a maximum of fourteen. The 1914 general overtime order was
continued in the munitions industry, and in special cases a week of
from seventy to eighty hours was allowed. The factory inspectors noted
on one hand that “many of the schemes put forward were considerably
within the maximum allowed, and even where the maximum was sought
it has been found in practice that the full number of hours were
frequently not worked,” and on the other hand that many special orders
had been required, especially for the large munition firms, in some of
which the hours remained longer than those permitted by the general
order for the trade. But on the whole there was “observable a distinct
tendency towards a reduction of hours in these works as elsewhere.”[165]

[165] _Vide_ Appendix I, p. 241.

Moreover, the tendency grew during the year “to substitute a system of
shifts for the long day followed by overtime.” The factory inspectors
urged the introduction of the three shift system, but, owing to the
scarcity of skilled male tool setters and other mechanics and sometimes
of women, two twelve hour shifts (generally ten and a half hours of
actual work) were much more prevalent. The inspectors maintained,
however, the superiority of three shifts, giving one example where the
change had been made in which output increased by a third while the
need for supervision diminished. But it should be noted that although
the shift system brought a reduction of overtime to women workers, it
involved an increasing amount of night work.

The factory inspectors had but slight criticisms to make of illegal
overtime and violations of orders. “There is little cause for complaint
as to the proper observance of the conditions of the orders,” except in
the Midlands. A few cases of serious irregularity were found elsewhere,
but were “striking exceptions to the general rule.... The most general
cause of complaint is that occupiers have taken upon themselves to work
overtime without authority, and have continued it without applying for
a renewal of their orders. There has been neglect, too, in affixing
notices specifying the hours of work.”[166]

But it is probable that during at least part of 1915 the optimism
of the factory inspectors regarding the shortening of hours and
elimination of illegal overtime was not completely justified. Under
powers granted by the Defence of the Realm Act an order of June 6,
1915,[167] extended the right of the Secretary of State to modify the
labor laws in a way which investigators state “proved very difficult
to handle properly.”[168] The modifications could be made, not only in
government factories and on government contracts, but in “any factory
... in which the Secretary of State is satisfied that by reason of
the loss of men or transference to government service, or of other
circumstances arising out of the present war exemption is necessary to
secure the carrying on of work ... required in the national interest.”

[166] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, p. 9.

[167] Order No. 551.

[168] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Conditions during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

Complaints of excessive hours and violation of overtime orders
multiplied. Officials of the Ministry of Munitions admitted, during a
visit to the United States in the autumn of 1917, that for four to six
months after the shortage of munitions was discovered in the spring
of 1915, many women worked nearly a hundred hours a week. A case was
cited in the House of Commons of a factory where girls were working
regularly ten and a half hours a day seven days a week, and had worked
ninety-five hours a week “many times” since the beginning of the war.
Another much quoted case was that of a firm holding an exemption
allowing moderate overtime which worked one girl thirty hours at a
stretch and another twenty-five and a half hours. The second girl,
who was under eighteen, then met with an accident which brought the
situation to the attention of the factory inspectors. A prosecution
was started, but at the first trial the case was dismissed on the
grounds of a national necessity. At a second trial the counsel for
the defense called the prosecution “a piece of fatuous folly, only
justified by supreme ignorance,” and said that the Home Office, instead
of prosecuting “ought to have struck a special medal” for the girls.
“Now is not the time to talk about factory acts.”[169] The employer was
finally put on probation.

[169] G. D. H. Cole, _Labour in War Time_, 1915, p. 273.

However, in the latter part of 1915, and principally as a result of
the unsatisfactory conditions there took place the first of a new
series of developments which were to bring back women’s hours almost to
prewar standards and to improve greatly the scientific basis for the
restriction of working hours.

To the Ministry of Munitions is mainly due the new committees which
were largely responsible for the change. A special agent for the
Federal Trade Commission states that—

Toward the end of 1915 it became certain that some action
would have to be taken by the ministry to deal with the
question of excessive hours, more particularly those worked
by women and boys. The department’s attention was drawn to
the fact that the maximum number of weekly hours allowed
under the provisions of the general order made under the
factory acts was continually being exceeded and that without
the support of the ministry the home office found it
increasingly difficult to insure that no persons should work
excessive hours.[170]

[170] John Bass, _Report to the United States Federal Trade
Commission_, April 17, 1917. (In manuscript.)

The action took the form of the appointment of an interdepartmental
committee on hours of labor which included representatives of the Home
Office, the Admiralty, various supply departments and the Welfare
Section of the Ministry of Munitions. The committee considered
“claims from employers either for permission to work on Sunday, or
for exceptionally long hours during the week, and its inquiries
have resulted not only in a reduction of Sunday work, but in a more
favorable redistribution of hours generally.”[171] In October, 1915, it
secured the discontinuance of practically all Sunday work in munition
factories on the northeast coast.

[171] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, p. 6.

In September, 1915, the better known Health of Munition Workers
Committee was appointed by the Minister of Munitions with the
concurrence of the Home Secretary “to consider and advise on questions
of industrial fatigue, hours of labor and other matters affecting
the personal health and physical efficiency of workers in munition
factories and workshops.” By November the Ministry had referred to this
committee the question of Sunday work and of the substitution of the
three shift for the two shift system.

Even before its recommendations were received the Ministry took steps
to discourage Sunday work and the employment of women at night. A
circular was sent to all controlled establishments urging that all
workers should be granted a weekly rest period—preferably Sunday—both
for their own good and in the interests of production. The circular
said, in part:

The aim should be to work not more than twelve shifts per
fortnight or twenty-four where double shifts are worked....
Where three eight hour shifts are worked, not less than two
should be omitted on Sunday. It is, in the opinion of the
Minister, preferable to work a moderate amount of overtime
during the week, allowing a break on Sunday, rather than
work continuously from day to day. It is still more strongly
his view that where overtime is worked in the week, Sunday
labor is not desirable.

Another circular of instructions in November, 1915, recommended that
under the two shift system, women should be employed “as far as is
reasonably practicable” by day rather than by night.

_Later Developments_

Scientific studies in fatigue, and improvements in the regulation
of working hours, continued to be the chief features of the women’s
hour situation during the latter part of the war. Two reports made
for the Home Office by Dr. A. F. Stanley Kent on _An Investigation of
Industrial Fatigue by Physiological Methods_, showed, as the result
of actual experiments with working days of different length, that
overtime may “defeat its own object” and actually cause a diminution
in “total daily output.” The first report which had been published in
August, 1915, was of less direct practical importance, giving merely
a description of a number of tests adapted to showing fatigue in
factory workers. The second report, issued in September, 1916, was a
study of output and the effects of fatigue in certain plants making
war equipment under working days of different length. Among its most
significant conclusions from the point of view of hour restriction were
the following:

A worker employed for 10 hours per day may produce a greater
output than when employed for 12 hours, the extra rest being
more than sufficient to compensate for the loss of time.

A worker employed for 8 hours per day may produce a greater
output than another of equal capacity working 12 hours per
day.

A group of workers showed an absolute increase of over 5 per
cent of output as a result of diminution of 16½ per cent in
the length of the working day.

Another group increased their average rate of output from
262 to 276 as a result of shortening the day from 12 hours
to 10 and to 316 on a further shortening of 2 hours.

Under the conditions studied neither rate of working nor
total output attains a maximum when a 12 hour day is
adopted.[172]

[172] A. F. Stanley Kent, _Second Interim Report on an Investigation of
Industrial Fatigue by Physiological Methods_, Home Office, 1916, p. 44.

Two other scientific reports on the subject dealt with _The Question
of Fatigue from the Economic Standpoint_, and were put out by a
committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science
in September, 1915, and September, 1916, respectively. The monographs
emphasized the importance of an observation of fatigue in the workers
and adaptation of the hours of labor thereto. The memoranda and reports
of the Health of Munition Workers Committee are the best known of this
group of studies, no doubt because besides being the work of scientific
investigators, they were carried on to form a basis for official
action, and contained definite recommendations for the shortening of
hours in order to improve output. While they dealt with munitions work
alone, the principles brought out are equally applicable to any form of
industrial occupation.

The first memorandum published in November, 1915, covered the subject
of Sunday labor, and recommended without qualifications a weekly rest
day for all classes of workers.

... If the maximum output is to be secured and maintained
for any length of time, a weekly period of rest must be
allowed. Except for quite short periods, continuous work, in
their view, is a profound mistake and does not pay—output
is not increased.... Some action must be taken in regard
to continuous labor and excessive hours of work if it is
desired to secure and maintain, over a long period, the
maximum output....

Should the early stoppage of all Sunday work be considered
for any reason difficult if not impossible to bring about,
the committee trust that it will at least be practicable to
lay down the principle that Sunday labor is a serious evil
which should be steadily and systematically discouraged and
restricted.

For women and for “young persons,” the need of abolishing Sunday work
and granting week end and other holidays was even more urgent than for
adult males. “The committee are strongly of opinion that for women and
girls a portion of Saturday and the whole of Sunday should be available
for rest, and that the periodic factory holidays should not, on any
account, be omitted.”[173]

[173] The latter quotation comes from _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment
of Women and Girls,” which appeared in January, 1916, and discussed
daily hours, night work and rest periods, as well as Sunday labor.

The committee went on record at this time in favor of a return to the
prewar legal standard of weekly hours. “Continuous work in excess of
the normal legal limit of sixty hours per week ought to be discontinued
as soon as practicable,” though the hours permitted in any one day
might vary somewhat more than the factory acts allowed. There was, for
instance, “little objection to such moderate overtime during the week
as can be compensated for by an earlier stop on Saturdays.” But in
general, “the need for overtime amongst women and girls is much less
pressing than it is for men, they are rarely employed on highly skilled
work, and where there is still a good reserve of labor there should be
little difficulty in gradually introducing shifts.... [The committee]
strongly urge that wherever practicable overtime should be abandoned in
favor of shifts.”

Three systems of hours were found in operation in munition plants.
There was the single shift of thirteen-fourteen hours including meal
times, which was known as the “overtime system,” two twelve hour and
three eight hour shifts. The committee considered that in the long run
the latter yielded the best results with women workers.

The committee recommend the adoption of the three shifts
system without overtime, wherever a sufficient supply
of labor is available. Where the supply is governed by
difficulties of housing and transit, the committee are of
opinion that every effort should be made to overcome these
difficulties before a less serviceable system be continued
or adopted....

They [eight hour shifts] involve little or no strain on the
workers; the periods during which machinery stand idle for
meals are very much reduced, while significant statements
have been put before the committee claiming beneficial
effects upon output.

Observations were later made for the committee of a group of nearly a
hundred women over a period of about thirteen months, during which time
their actual weekly working hours were reduced from sixty-six on seven
days to forty-five on six days. Yet output arose nine per cent. The
committee concluded:

For women engaged in moderately heavy lathe work a 50 hour
week yields as good an output as a 66 hour week, and a
considerably better one than a 77 hour week.[174]

[174] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 18_, “Further Statistical Information
Concerning Output in Relation to Hours of Work,” 1917, p. 4.

In regard to night work, however, the committee felt that the
exigencies of war time prevented a return to a really desirable
standard. “The employment of women at night is, without question,
undesirable, yet now it is for a time inevitable.” It demanded special
care and supervision and the use of such safeguards as would reduce
its risks to the minimum. “In no case should the hours worked at night
exceed sixty per week.” Whether continuous night shifts or alternate
day and night shifts should be worked was a matter to be settled by
local considerations.

Another interesting point in the Health of Munition Workers Committee
memoranda was the recognition of the value of brief rest periods within
working hours. “Pauses, well distributed and adapted in length to the
needs of women workers, are,” it was said, “of the greatest value in
averting breakdown and giving an impetus to production.” Particularly
with night work “adequate pauses for rest and meals are indispensable.”
On twelve hour shifts, two breaks of three quarters of an hour each for
meals should be taken out, while on an eight hour shift a half hour
for one meal was sufficient. Though the statutes allowed five hours of
continuous work in nontextile and four and a half in textile factories,
many managers believed that four hours is the longest period during
which a woman can maintain continuous work at full vigor. Within this
period a pause of ten minutes has been found to give excellent results.

The reports, showing as they did that “the hours which conduced most
to a satisfactory home life and to health conduce most to output,”
have had a notable influence both in this country and in England in
strengthening the scientific basis for labor legislation. For instance,
on October 3, 1916, a significant clause was added to the order
permitting overtime work, allowing it when necessary on account of the
war, only if “such exemption can be granted without detriment to the
national interest.”[175]

[175] Great Britain, Defence of the Realm Act, _Order No. 702_.

The Interdepartmental Hours of Labour Committee used the
recommendations briefly outlined above as the basis for its work,
formulating a new general order regulating overtime, which was finally
issued by the Home Office September 9, 1916, after prolonged criticism
by all the supply departments. The order applied to all controlled
establishments and national workshops and might be extended to any
other munitions work. In other cases there was to be a return to
factory act hours.

Hours not allowed by the factory act or the order in
question are not to be worked after the 1st October, 1916,
unless expressly sanctioned by special order from the Home
Office. Applications for such special orders will not in
future be entertained save in exceptional circumstances and
in respect of work of a specially urgent character.[176]

[176] Home Office, _General Order_, Sept. 9, 1916, p. 1.

Three schemes of working hours were provided for, a three shift system,
two shifts, and a rearrangement of statutory hours. Under the first
plan no shift might be longer than ten hours and a weekly rest day
was compulsory. Weekly hours under the two shift system were not to
exceed sixty, and a maximum of six shifts was to be worked in any one
week. The third scheme also limited weekly hours to sixty, and required
working hours to fall between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., but as much as twelve
hours might be worked in a single day. Hours for meals were fixed
according to the Health of Munition Workers Committee recommendations.
In cases of special emergency in naval ship repairing women might work
a maximum of sixty-five hours weekly. They might only be employed
at night if supervised by a woman welfare worker or “responsible
forewoman.” Except for the night work, the order was practically a
return to prewar standards.[177]

[177] _Vide_ Appendix J, p. 243.

Meanwhile the Ministry of Munitions gained more direct control over the
regulation of hours in January, 1916, through the Munitions Amendment
Act, by which it was empowered to fix women’s hours on munitions work
in all establishments where “leaving certificates” were required. It
supplemented the efforts of the Health of Munition Workers Committee by
ordering the “investigating officers,” of the labor regulation section
of its labor department, who had charge of all labor matters except
dilution and the supply of labor, to report cases of excessive overtime
and unnecessary Sunday work in controlled establishments, with a view
to having an order issued prohibiting it. An official circular of March
17, 1916, urged that more use be made of “week end volunteers,” so that
all workers might have a Sunday rest, “both in the interest of the
work people and of production.” But the numbers of “week end munition
relief workers” remained small, due to the attitude both of the firms
and of the workers, who could not afford to lose their Sunday pay.[178]

Some complaints of unreasonably long hours still persisted. _The Woman
Worker_ reported during the winter of 1916 the case of a Scottish
factory making cores for grenade bombs which opened at 6 a.m. and
closed at 8 p.m. the first five days of the week and at 6 p.m. on
Saturdays and Sundays making a working week of eighty-two hours
exclusive of meal times.[179] Investigators likewise stated that the
labor shortage and the urgency of the demand have “frequently” caused
the recommendations to be exceeded.[180]

[178] _Women’s Industrial News_, April 1916, pp. 17, 18.

[179] _The Woman Worker_, Feb., 1916, p. 10.

[180] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

On the other hand, both in the Clyde district and around Birmingham the
British Association for the Advancement of Science stated, in April,
1916, that the working week varied from forty-four to fifty-six hours,
fifty-four hours being the most common period. In August, 1916, the
then Minister of Munitions, Dr. Christopher Addison, said in Parliament
in response to questions that the interdepartmental committee was
taking steps to bring the working week within the sixty-hour limit in
all controlled establishments. And an investigation by the factory
inspectors in 1916 found that out of 243 “controlled establishments”
123 were working within the regular sixty-hour limit and only fifteen
were working “irregular and excessive” hours, though in nineteen the
breaks for rest periods and meals in some way violated the conditions
of the order.

In 1916 at least eight hour shifts had failed to “make much progress”
and twelve hour shifts were still “predominant.”[181] The latter, it
should be noted, meant not twelve but ten and a half hours of actual
work over a twelve hour period. Certain large munition establishments,
including at least one government factory, even changed from the
eight to the twelve hour shift in 1916.[182] Besides the shortage of
labor it was said that the workers disliked the necessary changes in
meal times and living arrangements under the shorter system, and that
transportation schedules were not conveniently adjusted to it. It was
alleged that young girls preferred the longer hours because they then
escaped helping with the housework!

[181] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, p. 8.

[182] _The Woman Worker_, May, 1916, p. 12.

Outside the munitions industry the factory inspectors reported
“numerous applications” for overtime orders in 1916, involving,
however, a rearrangement of daily hours rather than a weekly total
beyond the statutory limit.

Much that was abnormal and bound to be injurious to health
if long continued has been brought within manageable limits.
Excessive overtime and Sunday labor have been checked and as
nearly as possibly abolished.... In general the experience
of war emergency work, far from making employers in love
with extended hours, appears to be producing a contrary
effect and bringing about a sense of the importance of so
limiting the period of employment as not to produce any
feeling of exhaustion or even of marked fatigue.

Much attention was paid to the question of Sunday work by the
interdepartmental hours committee. In January, 1916, it obtained
a weekly rest period for all women in explosives factories under
continuous operation. It soon secured the entire discontinuance of
Sunday work by “protected persons” in national projectile and shell
factories except a short shift in the projectiles establishments for
“rectifying” shells and cleaning the shop. Night work for women, which
was never recommended for abolition during the emergency, of course
persisted and even tended to increase, as more and more plants went
into continuous operation. Especially in shell factories large numbers
of women worked at night. Fewer factories worked overtime without
permission, though some prosecutions were necessary in the woolen
industry. The idea that the factory acts were in abeyance till the
end of the war was disappearing. With an increased recognition of the
injury done to both quality and quantity of work by fatigue the powers
available under overtime orders were in some cases not fully used by
the employers. One employer remarked that overtime orders were “like
a drop of brandy, a useful thing to keep in the house, but you didn’t
want always to be taking it.”

The developments in the regulation of women’s hours noted in 1916 were
typical of the course of events through the latter part of the war.
“The tendency to reduce hours continues,” said the factory inspectors
in 1917. “Cases in excess of the factory acts are now rare.” In a
report published in 1917, the Health of Munition Workers Committee made
an important contribution to standards of working hours by stating that
the hours “provisionally” fixed were probably too long, except for very
short periods or for very light work carried on under exceptionally
good conditions. While the hours which produced the largest output
varied according to the nature of the work, age and sex of the workers,
and conditions inside and outside the factory, in general “the time was
ripe” for a further marked reduction in hours. For certain processes
weekly hours could “advantageously be reduced to a total of from
fifty to fifty-five” and even lower limits might give an equally good
output.[183] No action was taken during the war period by officials to
put these recommendations into effect.

[183] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers’
Committee, _Memo. No. 20_.

The factory inspection department of the Home Office had outstanding
in 1917 emergency orders permitting overtime only in various textile
industries, where hours were normally limited to fifty-five instead of
sixty, in munitions and shipbuilding where the emergency orders of 1916
were continued, in boot factories and in flour mills, oil and cake
mills and malting, where night work by women was permitted.[184] Sunday
work was strictly limited, being allowed only where women replacing
men were obliged to work a few hours on Sunday, as in dairy plants,
in temporary emergencies in munition factories and in continuous
processes, provided another weekly day of rest was given.

An indication of the actual hours worked in munition plants at this
time may be obtained from a survey made by the factory inspectors
in 1917 of 177 factories in the southeastern part of England which
employed 27,000 persons. The largest group, sixty-two, worked between
fifty-five and sixty hours weekly, while fifty-one worked from fifty
to fifty-five hours. In thirty-two cases, weekly hours were sixty, and
in only five cases were hours longer. On the other hand, twenty plants
worked from forty-five to fifty hours and seven less than that number.
The factory inspectors stated that the number of “temporary exemptions”
to the regular overtime order for munitions work had become very small.
In November, 1917, Mr. H. W. Garrod of the Ministry of Munitions gave
the average working hours for women munition makers as fifty-two to
fifty-four, with one to four hours of overtime. He claimed that the
Ministry wanted to do away with overtime altogether, but that the
women objected, because it would reduce their earnings. The longest
legal hours were apparently in shipbuilding and repairing, where the
inspectors felt its harmfulness was reduced because “overtime was
intermittent and the work done by time and at a leisurely pace.”

[184]

_Woolen and Worsted._ In force till June 20, when government
rationing of raw material began.
_Cotton._ Six hours weekly.
_Hosiery._ Six and a half hours weekly. In force till June 20,
when government rationing of raw material began.
_Print, bleach and dye works._ Up to 60 hours weekly.
“Little used.”
_Manchester warehouses._ Up to 60 hours weekly.
“Used only in emergencies.”
_Munitions._ Order of September, 1916, continued in force.
_Shipbuilding._ Maximum daily limit 15 hours. Maximum weekly
hours, 63 and 65 in “great emergencies.”
_Boots._ Maximum weekly limit 60 hours.
_Flour Mills._ Women allowed to work at night.
_Oil and Cake Mills._ Women allowed to work at night.
_Malting._ Women allowed to work at night.

Evidence as to the development of eight hour shifts is somewhat
conflicting. The factory inspectors reported that in 1917 the system
had “no general development.” By April, 1917, however, an investigator
for the British Government was said to report that women were working
eight hour shifts in all government plants, not through any general
order but through the action of various local committees to whom
the power of regulating hours had been entrusted,[185] and a year
later, in April, 1918, the final report of the Health of Munitions
Workers Committee speaks of the “increasing number of firms” which had
substituted three eight hour for two twelve hour shifts.

Authorities agree, however, that Sunday work had been “reduced to small
dimensions” before the end of 1917. In April, 1917, almost all Sunday
work by all classes of workers was abolished in every controlled and
national munition plant.[186] The Ministry ordered that the customary
factory holidays be observed by all controlled establishments in the
summer of 1917. Much night work continued up to the very end of the
war, being found on a large scale in munition factories and elsewhere,
principally where women were replacing men in occupations in which
night work had been customary before the war. The factory inspectors
sometimes sanctioned night shifts of as long as twelve and a half or
thirteen hours, including meal times.

In spite of the various improvements and a much more sympathetic
attitude toward restrictions on the part of employers and employes
alike, a woman labor leader asserted as late as July, 1917, that “the
factory act was in ruins,” and that dangerous privileges “had been
accorded to certain classes of employers.”[187] Yet it is probable that
for the later months of war this is an unduly pessimistic point of view.

[185] Henriette R. Walter, “Munition Workers in England,” _Munition
Makers_, p. 139.

[186] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[187] Susan Lawrence, as reported in the _Women’s Trade Union Review_,
July, 1917, p. 12.

For 1918, the last year of the war, the Chief Inspector of Factories
reports that “there are no women and young persons being employed
beyond the weekly limit of hours allowed by the ordinary provisions of
the Factory Act and the employment of women on Sundays has practically
ceased.”[188] The report states also that there had been a great
advance in the voluntary movement to reduce hours for all classes of
labor.

[188] _The Labour Gazette_, October, 1919, p. 418.

In summing up the war time experience on hours of work and having
regard both to the health of employed women and proper leisure for them
as human beings, the Committee on Women’s Employment of the Ministry of
Reconstruction make the following recommendations for future action:

The relaxation of the Factory Acts allowed during the war
should cease at its termination and excessive overtime, long
spells, night work and Sunday work should be forbidden.
There is a prima facie case for a reduction in legal maximum
hours, in overtime, and in the length of the spell, and for
the abolition of work before breakfast, and the government
should immediately institute inquiries with a view to
amending the Factory Acts. We recommend the possibility of a
44 hours working week and an annual fortnight’s holiday on
full pay for the consideration of the government.

CHAPTER XII

Safety, Health and Comfort

The lengthening of hours for women employes was often accompanied
by a considerable improvement in general working conditions. “Since
the committee was appointed in September, 1915,” said the Health of
Munition Workers Committee in its final report in April, 1918, “there
has become apparent an increased appreciation of the importance of
the whole question of industrial hygiene; there is no doubt that the
environment and conditions of the workers are vastly better than they
were, though there is still much need for further improvement.” As
women were brought into many workshops for the first time a general
cleaning up often took place, and special accommodations in the way of
cloakrooms, washrooms and restrooms became necessary. The long hours,
the increasing distances which many workers lived from the factory and
the institution of night shifts made some provision for getting meals
there almost imperative. It became much more common for men and women
to work together, especially on night shifts, and in many cases an
effort was made to solve the problems thus raised, and those coming to
the front wherever large numbers of women were taken on, by appointing
woman “welfare supervisors.” Where large numbers of women were brought
from a distance to work in munition centers, considerable attention was
paid to the betterment of living conditions outside the factory. While
the lengthening of hours was abandoned with the passing of the war
emergency, the improvements enumerated seem likely to mean a permanent
rise in English standards of working conditions.

The 1915 report of the chief factory inspector noted that—

The introduction of women into works where they have not
hitherto been employed has been often accompanied by a
striking degree of solicitude on the part of the managers
for their welfare and comfort.... A question arises ...
why has the manufacture of munitions of war on a terrible
scale led at last to systematic introduction of hygienic
safeguards that factory inspectors have advocated for many
years, such as supervision of women by women in factories,
provision of means for personal cleanliness, proper meal and
restrooms, and qualified nurses? Probably it is in part due
to a recognition that wages alone can not adequately reward
those who serve the State in time of need, but it also
points again to the new general awakening to the dependence
of efficient output on the welfare of the human agent.[189]

[189] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, pp. 14, 15.

Similarly, many large business offices, when they hired women for the
first time, made special arrangements for their health and comfort.

_Organized Efforts_

Except for the requirement by the Home Office that “canteen”
(restaurant) facilities should be provided wherever women were employed
at night, the efforts just described were not in the beginning the
result of any organized action. But soon there appeared three agencies
which were mainly responsible for the development of facilities for
safety, health and comfort. These were the Health of Munition Workers
Committee, with its recommendations on these subjects, the Ministry
of Munitions, especially its Health and Welfare Section, and the Home
Office, under the increased powers for securing the welfare of employes
granted it by the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act of 1916.[190]

[190] 6 and 7 Geo. 5, 1916, Ch. 31.

The Health of Munition Workers Committee laid great stress on
provisions for safety, health and comfort, as well as on the limitation
of hours. Of female workers the committee said in January, 1916, “The
effect upon the health and energy of women and girls which results from
clean, bright and airy workrooms, well warmed in winter can hardly
be exaggerated. The factory act secures a minimum of these essential
things, but the highest standard attained in the best factories is not
too high.... The provision of washing accommodations ... has become
increasingly important ... cloakrooms should also be provided.... The
provision of adequate and suitable sanitary accommodations is a matter
of special importance.”[191] At that time it was the judgment of the
committee that “if the present long hours, the lack of helpful and
sympathetic oversight, the inability to obtain good, wholesome food
and the great difficulties of traveling are allowed to continue, it
will be impracticable to secure or maintain for an extended period
the high maximum output of which women are undoubtedly capable.” The
committee attached high value to “canteens” or factory restaurants,
remarking that “the munition worker, like the soldier, requires good
rations to enable him to do good work.... The industrial canteen
has in fact proved itself one of the most effective instruments in
securing and maintaining a high standard of industrial work.” Three of
the committee’s memoranda dealt with the subject, and gave complete
directions for setting up and equipping a canteen, with model bills
of fare. Other memoranda covered “welfare supervision,” which will be
discussed in the latter part of this section, “washing facilities and
baths” and protective clothing for women workers.

[191] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 7.

“Welfare work” came within the scope of the seemingly boundless energy
of the Ministry of Munitions at a rather early date. In November, 1915,
a circular of instructions by the Ministry of Munitions contained
recommendations for the comfort of women munition workers.[192] A list
of appropriate occupations was given. Lavatory and cloakrooms with
female attendants should be provided for the exclusive use of females,
and they should be supplied with aprons and caps, to be washed without
charge. Later _Instructions to Investigating Officers_ urged that it
was “of the first importance that the conditions under which [women]
work should be thoroughly good.” Suitable appliances, such as lifting
tackle for particularly heavy work, should be provided to lessen
the physical strain. The Minister of Munitions was prepared to give
“liberal financial help” to welfare arrangements by allowing them to
be paid for out of what would otherwise be taken by the excess profits
tax.[193]

[192] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Circular L6_.

[193] Under this head were included (1) cloakrooms having separate pegs
and arrangements for drying clothes, (2) wash rooms with hot and cold
water, soap and towels, (3) sanitary conveniences, (4) rest and first
aid rooms, separated, if the latter were used by men, (5) chairs or
stools, (6) caps and aprons.

In January, 1916, the munitions amendment act gave the Ministry
of Munitions more definite control over the introduction of these
provisions, such as it had over working hours. The Ministry was
empowered to regulate working conditions for females in establishments
where the leaving certificate system was in force. In matters already
regulated by the factory acts the concurrence of the Secretary of State
was required.

Coincident with its enlarged powers and with the recommendations of the
Health of Munitions Workers Committee, the Ministry started in January,
1916, an extensive “welfare department” as part of the labor regulation
section. Its director was Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree, a manufacturer
well known for his social studies and for the development of welfare
schemes in his own establishment. The aim of the department was to
“raise the well being” of women and child munition workers to as high a
point as possible in all factories in which the Ministry had power to
regulate working conditions.[194] Numerous specialists were attached
to the department, such as physicians for work on the prevention of
industrial poisonings, and “welfare officers” to visit the factories.
After their inspections these officials made recommendations for
changes, which the department then urged on the firms. It was said that
it seldom proved necessary to use the legal powers. The department
worked in close cooperation with the Home Office, which was in charge
of factory inspection.

[194] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

Some of the principal factors in working conditions to which the
department was directed to give attention were clean workrooms, the
suitability of occupation to individual workers, factory “canteens,”
proper hours and rest periods, wages and the prevention of dangers
to health and safety. The department’s standard for hours was a
working period which “conserved strength, gave a chance for rest and
recreation” and was not longer than those recommended by the Health of
Munition Workers Committee. Wages must be sufficient to cover “physical
needs and reasonable recreation.” “Amenities,” washing accommodations
and cloakrooms, for instance, should also be provided, “such as men and
women coming from decent homes may reasonably demand.” The department
was to “enquire” into all these matters, but not necessarily to deal
with them all directly. For instance, the interdepartmental hours
committee was the final authority on cases of reduction of hours.

In industry outside munitions work the growing importance ascribed to
“welfare” provisions was reflected a few months later in a part of the
“Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act” of August 3,
1916. The Home Secretary was empowered by this measure to issue special
orders “for securing the welfare of the workers” when the nature of
the work or “special circumstances” made it advisable. Such orders
might cover either a single establishment or a special class, all the
workers in the establishments in question or merely some special class.
The welfare provisions might be compulsory only when applied for by
some specified proportion of the workers. Such improvements in working
conditions above the ordinary statutory requirements might include
“arrangements for preparing or heating and taking meals; the supply of
drinking water; the supply of protective clothing; ambulance and first
aid arrangements; the supply and use of seats in workrooms; facilities
for washing; accommodations for clothing; arrangements for supervision
of workers.”

In one respect, however, labor leaders believed that the bill contained
a backward step. It permitted deductions from wages to pay for the
additional benefits, though during its passage through Parliament
the labor members secured considerable safeguards of this power.
Contributions could be used only to pay for benefits “which, in the
opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to
be provided by the employer alone, and if two-thirds of the workers
affected ... assent.” Aside from the dangers of abuse under this
provision the measure seems to provide a method for securing decided
improvements in working conditions and for arrangements better suited
to the varying needs of different industries than is possible under
general statutes.

How far the various rules and recommendations actually resulted in
better working conditions is an interesting question. Apparently
considerable gains were made, though further advances were still
practicable. In the munitions industry, for instance, national
factories are said to have “naturally adopted welfare in all its
phases,”[195] while the arrangement that improvements could be made out
of what would otherwise be taken as excess profits tax was a strong
inducement to action by “controlled” establishments. But in the early
months of 1916 soon after its formation the welfare department of
the Ministry of Munitions undertook, in cooperation with the factory
inspectors, a survey of “controlled” and “national” munitions plants to
see which ones most needed its attention. At that time, out of 1,396
plants covered, 31 per cent graded “A,” 49 per cent “B,” and 20 per
cent “C.”

[195] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

It is well to grasp the point that B and C conditions meant
in varying combinations partial or complete lack of messroom
accommodations or facilities for cooking food; inadequate
or nonexistent cloakrooms and washing appliances even for
dusty and greasy occupations; lack of supply of seats; need
of first aid and rest rooms; supervision even of numerous
young girls by men only, and other defects in factories
mostly working twelve hour shifts, and reached often by
considerable journeys from the workers’ homes.[196]

Allowance must be made, however, for “great progress” during the year.
Undoubtedly a number of the factories class B ... have qualified for
class A, and to a lesser extent this is true of class “C.”[197] In a
similar vein the _Women’s Industrial News_ said in April, 1916, that
the standard of comfort advocated by the Health of Munition Workers
Committee for restrooms, cloakrooms and canteens was “rare” but that
“it was possible to hope for a gradual improvement in conditions.”
A study of women in the engineering industry, made in the middle
of 1917 and written from a critical point of view, not likely to
overestimate improvements, stated that, “in one factory after another
the essential precautions of health are enforced, including the
appointment of women medical officers and provision of hot breakfasts
and milk in the ‘danger’ sheds” while new factories are built with
every up-to-date canteen, restroom, sanitary, heating and lighting or
other convenience.[198] In June, 1917, Dr. Addison, then Minister of
Munitions, reported canteen accommodations in national and controlled
establishments for about 810,000 workers, there being a total of some
1,750,000 persons employed. In October the Health of Munition Workers
Committee stated that canteen accommodations had been provided for
920,000 or 45 per cent of all munition makers.

[196] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, p. 9.

[197] _Ibid._

[198] Barbara Drake, _Women in the Engineering Trades_, p. 74.

To be sure, women workers have had not a few grievances about the
canteens. A delegation of organized women workers called on government
officials in December, 1916, to protest against the poor food and the
“rough and ready manner” in which it was served.[199] One canteen was
described as so third-rate that “any bloomin’ good pull-up for car men
is a regular Hotel Cecil to it.” But the numerous canteens run by one
of the religious organizations for women were highly praised by the
workers themselves.

The _Dilution Bulletins_ give some interesting and significant results
secured in munitions work through betterments in working conditions. In
one factory it was estimated that 2,500 hours’ work weekly was saved by
prompt attention to slight accidents and illness. Another firm declared
that free meals more than repaid in increased output. In another,
output improved after good washrooms and cloakrooms were put in. Seats
with backs increased production 10 per cent in one case. The Health of
Munition Workers Committee ascribed both “direct and indirect” benefits
to the installation of canteens. “Among the former has been a marked
improvement in the health, nutrition and physical condition of the
workers, a reduction in fatigue and sickness, less absence and broken
time, less tendency to alcoholism and an increased efficiency and
output; among the latter has been a saving of the time of the workmen,
a salutary though brief change from the workshop, greater contentment,
increased opportunity for recreation and a better midday ventilation of
the workshop.”[200]

[199] _The Woman Worker_, January, 1917, p. 13.

[200] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Final Report_, April, 1918, p. 58.

In nonmunitions industries there was some grumbling at alleged delay
by the Home Office in taking advantage of the “Police, Factories, etc.
(Miscellaneous provisions) Act.” Up to the end of 1916 the only action
taken under the law had been to hold formal conferences on future
welfare requirements in the pottery and tin plate industries. Without
use of the act, the factory inspectors reported “great progress” in
1916 in improving conditions in a most varied group of industries;
sugar refineries, confectionery, breweries, oil seed crushing, rope
works, paper mills, woodworking, cloth and webbing making and tobacco,
and also in the tin plate industry in advance of an order. Advances
in these trades were believed to have been greatly assisted by the
publicity given “welfare” in the munitions industry.

The first order under the act went into effect on October 1, 1917.
It required a supply of pure drinking water and drinking cups in all
factories employing more than twenty-five persons. A second order was
issued in October, to go into effect December 1, 1917. It applied only
to blast furnaces, copper and iron mills, foundries and metal works. In
all such establishments having more than 500 employes, an “ambulance
room” in charge of a trained nurse must be provided, and the provision
of “first aid” outfits was made compulsory wherever twenty-five or
more persons were employed. The third order covered the provision of
protective clothing, cloakrooms and canteens in tin plate factories.
Apparently the only addition to the orders made in 1918 covered similar
provisions for certain tanneries.

_Occupational Diseases in Munitions Work_

Besides the general dangers to health from poor working conditions,
a number of specific occupational poisonings menaced the health of
women munition workers. They might be exposed to poisonous gases,
lead, fulminate of mercury which might cause mercurial poisoning or
eczema, tetryl, which also caused eczema, picric acid, or nitrous
fumes, together with the danger of dermatitis from the lubricating
fluids used on metals, and of suffocation from cordite used in filling
shells. The worst risk, however, was that of contracting toxic jaundice
from the “dope” (tetrachlorethane) used in varnishing the wings of
airplanes and from “T. N. T.” (trinitrotoluene), an explosive with
which many women were filling shells. In the year 1916, 112 cases
of toxic jaundice among female workers and thirty-one deaths were
reported to the Home Office. Up to the summer of 1916 the majority of
the cases seem to have been caused by “dope poisoning.” On August 8 of
that year a representative of the War Office and Admiralty stated that
several satisfactory nonpoisonous “dopes” had been discovered, and the
manufacture of the poisonous substance ceased in September. The new
dopes were not without harmful effects on the health of the workers,
causing in some cases headache, dryness of the throat, coughs, nausea
and serious anemia, but not jaundice.

Workers on “T. N. T.” sometimes contract an annoying eczema as well as
the more dangerous toxic jaundice, and it is feared that the substance
renders some women permanently sterile.[201] Even when they are not
sickened by the poison, the hair and skin of workers handling “T. N.
T.” often turn bright yellow. For this reason workers on the substance
have received the nickname of “canaries.”

Instructions for the prevention of “T. N. T.” poisoning were issued by
the Ministry on February 19, 1917. They were designed to prevent the
absorption of the poison through the skin, which was believed to be
the principal means of infection. Working “costumes” to be washed at
least weekly, and washing accommodations were to be provided, and each
worker was to receive free daily a pint of milk. After a fortnight of
work on “T. N. T.” processes at least a fortnight on other work was to
be given, and a weekly medical examination was compulsory, with removal
of any workers found affected. A special person was to be appointed
in each work place to see that the rules were carried out. The
statistics on cases of toxic jaundice caused by “T. N. T.” show that
these precautions were effective in greatly reducing the disease. From
October through December, 1916, 86 cases and 23 deaths were reported,
while during the same period in 1917, although many more workers were
exposed, only 29 cases and four deaths were reported. In April, 1918,
it was claimed that the disease had been “almost abolished,” no fatal
case having been returned since February.[202]

[201] _The New Statesman_, February 3, 1917, pp. 415-416.

[202] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Final Report_, April, 1918, p. 76.

_Welfare Supervision_

In the improvement of working conditions of women during the war
much stress has been laid on what is known in England as “welfare
supervision.” At the beginning of the war it was estimated that there
were about eighty such supervisors in the country.

The first steps in this direction were taken by the Home Office, in its
early permits allowing night work, which were made dependent on the
supervision of women. The Health of Munition Workers Committee devoted
one of its first memoranda to the subject.[203] The committee spoke
of the need, as an aid in obtaining the best possible output, of some
special machinery for taking up grievances and matters of discipline
and personal welfare:

The committee desire to record their unanimous conviction
that a suitable system of welfare supervision ... is
essential in munition works where women and girls are
employed, and, they must add, urgently necessary.

[203] _Memorandum No. 2_, “Welfare Supervision,” January, 1916.

Under the Ministry of Munitions the idea of “welfare supervision” was
extensively developed, and became, in fact, to a large section of
the public the most prominent feature of the Ministry’s campaign for
better working conditions. The chief duties of “welfare supervisors”
within the factories as outlined by Mr. Rowntree, the head of the
welfare department,[204] and by an official circular of the Ministry
of Munitions included the following: The supervisors should hire or
keep in touch with the hiring of new workers and the choosing of
foremen, and investigate dismissals, resignations, cases of sickness
and lost time, and of poor output caused by ill health. They should
have a general supervision over working conditions, especially over
night work, and over canteens and rest rooms and should cooperate
with the plant doctor and nurse. They should keep watch of the wages
received, should investigate complaints by the workers and help in the
maintenance of discipline. No woman’s case should be brought before a
“Munitions Tribunal” until the welfare supervisor had been consulted.

[204] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.

One of the chief functions of the welfare department came to be the
introduction of “welfare supervisors” or “lady superintendents” into
munition plants. The work was started in 1916 with thirty-four women,
all of whom were appointed through the exercise of the legal powers
of the Ministry of Munitions. The department organized a “board of
qualified women” to interview applicants and to recommend to employers
those found suitable.[205] Over 1,000 such women were at work at the
time of the armistice, about half of whom came from the panel formed
in this way and the remainder of whom were chosen by the boards of
management. Officials of this kind were appointed in all national
factories and in those in which “T. N. T.” was used.

[205] B. Seebohm Rowntree, “The Value of Welfare Supervision to the
Employer,” _System_ (Eng. ed.), June, 1916.

The Health of Munition Workers Committee pronounced against the policy
of governmental appointment of “Welfare supervisors.”

Welfare supervisors the Committee held should not be
appointed by the State. They will probably continue for some
time to come at any rate to be appointed by the employer, as
the person responsible for the maintenance of satisfactory
conditions of employment, though the workers are likely to
an increasing extent to seek some voice in the selection.
Though the establishment by the Ministry of Munitions of
a panel of candidates has been justified as a temporary
expedient, it is not desirable that any Department of State
should do so as a permanent arrangement.

The welfare department advised that the “welfare supervisor” be “a
woman of good standing and education, of experience and sympathy, and
having, if not an actual experience, at least a good understanding
of industrial conditions.” Experience as a teacher or forewoman was
valuable. The worker was to be paid by the employer—in government
factories by the Ministry of Munitions—and her “duty was to the
firm.” Her success would be found to be dependent on her employer’s
recognition of her importance and her own personality. Although the
welfare department encouraged the opening of numerous training courses,
it proved difficult to find a sufficient number of women with suitable
qualifications, and some attempts at welfare supervision are said
to have been “futile and misdirected” because of a poor choice of
supervisor. Particularly where untrained relatives of members of the
firm were employed, there was danger of undue interference with the
personal affairs of the employes.

The justification of “welfare supervision,” according to the official
point of view, lay in an increased output. A supervisor could look
out for details for which the management had no time, but which
insured good conditions for its women employes. “Working on this
line, lady superintendents perform a most useful service, relieve
the management of a large mass of difficult detail; and increase the
firms’ output by promoting the health, efficiency and happiness of the
workers.” The factory inspectors described a plant where discipline
was unsatisfactory, the factory acts violated, and women night workers
were not provided with meals or supervised by women. At the end of
five months of welfare supervision it was “improved almost beyond
recognition. Irregularities had disappeared; a good mess room and
excellent kitchen and an ambulance room had been built; satisfactory
first aid outfit provided.”

_Attack on the Welfare Movement_

Nevertheless the whole program of “welfare work” and especially
“welfare supervision” was the subject of severe criticism from the
labor movement and radicals in general. The feminist Rebecca West
even went so far as to say of it that “to women the capitalist can do
with impunity all the things he no longer dares do to men.”[206] Mary
Macarthur, the secretary of the National Federation of Women Workers,
described “welfare” as “the most unpopular word in the terminology of
the factory worker.”

[206] Rebecca West, “Mothering the Munition Maker,” _The New Republic_,
Oct. 13, 1917, p. 300.

The aim of increased output was attacked. The betterment of industrial
conditions should be directed toward “improved health, comfort and
development” for the workers as ends in themselves, instead of
regarding the worker as a means of greater production.

But in most cases a distinction was made between “structural
improvements” and better hours and wages on one side and “welfare
supervision” on the other. The former were considered “desirable and
even imperatively needed,” though it was not best that they be gained
through any “welfare movement.” “Structural improvements” should result
from factory legislation and the action of factory inspectors; wages
and hours should be fixed by collective bargaining between employers
and trade unionists. But there were few kind words for “welfare
supervision.” The ideal of the “welfare supervisor” was “docile,
obedient and machine-like” women workers. “The good welfare worker
was the most dangerous” because she was most likely to be successful
in reducing independence and turning the workers from trade unionism.
As long as she was responsible to the employer, she might be obliged
to use her position only to become “a more efficient kind of slave
driver.” Her duties, as officially outlined, were “an indiscriminate
medley,” much of which involved an interference with the private
and personal affairs of the workers. Barbara Drake felt that they
covered “the whole life of the worker, working or playing, living or
dying.”[207] Other attacks were more moderate and recognized that much
depended on the personality of the supervisor:

[207] _Women in the Engineering Trades_, p. 75.

While some supervisors in the future—like some forewomen in
the past—will do much to safeguard and improve our girls’
working lives, others will begin their career full of queer
notions as to “discipline” and openwork stockings, and
firmly persuaded, till experience teaches them better that
“Trade Unionism is of the devil.”[208]

The Health of Munition Workers Committee admitted that “the confident
support of the workers has yet to be obtained. Undoubtedly unwise
appointments have been made; complaints have been considerable and
often well founded, though their importance may have been over
emphasized.” But “on the other hand some mistakes were inevitable in
the initiation of what was largely a new enterprise in industrial
organization. The conditions of employment of women have vastly
improved. It has been and is likely to be of material advantage that
there should exist a body of persons specially concerned to promote the
health and well being of the worker.”[209]

More moderate critics, while seeing dangers in “welfare supervision” as
a permanent policy, felt that it might be of value under the emergency
conditions of the war.

The help in need of the welfare officer can not, perhaps,
be too far extended ... in order to meet the predicament
of scores of thousands of inexperienced women and young
people drawn into mushroom munition factories from every
kind of home and employment, working day and night (until
the limit of human endurance perhaps), stranger to the town
and countryside. To the efforts of the welfare officer the
workers owe, indeed, not a little of the improved conditions
and comfort enjoyed in many national and other model
munition factories.[210]

[208] _Women’s Trade Union Review_, Jan., 1917, p. 12.

[209] Great Britain, Health of Munition Workers’ Committee, _Final
Report_, 1918, in United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Bulletin
No. 249_, p. 263.

[210] _Women’s Industrial News_, April, 1917, p. 19.

As a substitute for the “welfare supervisor” the radicals brought
forward plans for “workshop committees.” A “joint committee on
industrial women’s organizations” conferring on the “reconstruction of
factory life” in the spring of 1917, passed a resolution that “all the
concerns of the worker” should be cared for in each shop by a trade
union committee. Schemes of this sort were indeed occasionally in
successful operation. The factory inspector’s report for 1916 described
the “workers welfare committee” of one large factory, made up of
thirteen persons, one representing the management, who were elected at
a general meeting of the employes. The workers agreed to a deduction of
a little more than 1 per cent of their wages, which gave the committee
an income of over £50 (about $240) weekly. With this fund help was
given local hospitals and convalescent homes which were used by the
employes, war relief funds and cases of distress among the force.
Daily newspapers were provided in the canteen and “concerts twice a
week at dinner time. ‘Whatever we want we can have,’ said a member of
the committee.” Such a compromise, it would seem, could preserve the
benefits of “welfare supervision,” while satisfying the workers and
giving them valuable experience in administrative work.

_Improvements in Conditions Outside the Factory_

The activity of the Ministry of Munitions did not halt at the factory
gates, but extended outside into matters of housing, transit, provision
of recreation, and the care of sickness on the ground that the abnormal
conditions of the new munition centers affected the efficiency of the
workers. Mr. H. W. Garrod of the Ministry of Munitions believes that
perhaps the most difficult problems it encountered in connection with
women workers arose concerning the welfare of the women who were moved
away from home to work at a distance at the rate of 5,000 a month or
more.

Work of this nature for women away from home was at first in the
hands of the “local advisory committees on women’s war employment.”
The official conception of the duties of “welfare supervisors” also
included attention to such items. In January, 1917, the Health of
Munition Workers Committee brought out a memorandum on “Health and
Welfare of Munition Workers outside the Factory.” In this it stated:

The necessity in the present emergency of transferring
workers from their homes to distant places where their
labor is required has created an unparalleled situation,
and problems of the first importance to the nation are
arising simultaneously in munition areas in various parts
of the kingdom, especially as regards women and girls.
The committee are of opinion that the situation calls for
some more complete and systematic action than can be taken
locally by isolated bodies of persons, however public
spirited and sympathetic they may be.... It is, therefore,
from no lack of appreciation of the work of these committees
that the Health of Munition Workers Committee must express
the opinion that the time has now come to supplement and
reinforce them by a larger degree of State action than has
hitherto been deemed necessary.

In accordance with their recommendation the welfare department of the
Ministry of Munitions appointed a number of “outside welfare officers”
who aided the committees and who were held responsible for the
successful accomplishment of the work.

The picture of transportation difficulties given by the committee forms
an interesting sidelight on conditions in and about the new munition
centers:

Health, timekeeping, temper and output all suffer, when to
the day’s work is added the discomfort and fatigue of a long
walk to and fro in bad weather or in darkness, or a scramble
to squeeze into a crowded railway carriage, tram or omnibus,
with a long journey in a bad atmosphere. In the darkness of
early morning and at night, when no lights are allowed to
be shown on the railway, separate compartments for women
are desirable, and no traveling without a light inside
the carriage should be allowed; in some places carriages
without blinds or other means of shading the windows are
used for the convenience of work people of both sexes. Under
these circumstances artificial light cannot be used and the
journey is made crowded together in total darkness.[211]

[211] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 17_, “Health and Welfare of Munition Workers
Outside the Factory,” 1917.

In the more crowded centers living accommodations were equally
overtaxed. “The sudden influx of workers in several districts has so
overtaxed the housing accommodations that houses intended for one
family are now occupied by several.”[212] And “beds are never empty
and rooms are never aired, for in a badly crowded district, the beds,
like the occupants, are organized in day and night shifts.”[213] High
charges and poor service added to the discomforts of the overcrowding:

About eighteen months ago I visited a Midland town where
the girls, although they were earning from twenty-five to
fifty shillings instead of the fifteen to eighteen shillings
which was their weekly wage in peace time, were living
in conditions more unhealthy and uncomfortable than they
had ever endured before. It was common for a girl on the
day shift to go back to a bed from which a worker on the
night shift had just arisen. Girls on a twelve hour shift
would have to lodge an hour and a half from the factory, so
that their working day amounted to fifteen hours. To get a
roof over their heads they would have to put up with dirt,
bad cooking, rowdy companions and above all extortionate
charges; the poor also can cheat the poor. I have known the
wives of foremen earning over five pounds a week to charge a
girl fifteen shillings a week for bed and breakfast.[214]

[212] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 2_, “Welfare Supervision,” p. 3.

[213] _Ibid._, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 5.

[214] Rebecca West, “Mothering the Munition Maker,” _The New Republic_,
Oct. 6, 1917, p. 267.

The housing situation, however, was taken in hand by the Ministry of
Munitions on an extensive scale. Sometimes it was relieved by the
improvement of transit facilities or the payment of workers’ fares
to outlying districts. It is claimed that in the first year after
the passage of the munitions act accommodations for 60,000 people
were provided, and that “whole villages were built.” In some cases
the government advanced money to local authorities or philanthropic
organizations and in other cases itself undertook the work. The
accommodation provided especially for women workers generally took the
form of large dormitories or “hostels.”

A comprehensive description of the hostels, drawn from two unpublished
reports of the “hostels subsection” of the Ministry of Munitions
Welfare Department, was published by the _Monthly Labor Review_ of
the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.[215] According to this
account, the hostels subsection had 276 hostels for women out of a
total of 494 under inspection in May, 1917. About half were private,
most of which were owned by employers and a few by charitable or
benevolent associations. Accommodations were provided for from twenty
to several hundred women, the government hostels being the larger. Most
of the buildings were one story, and of temporary wooden or concrete
construction. Sometimes existing buildings like board schools were
remodelled into hostels. The majority did not even pay expenses, and
only one was reported to return a commercial profit. Some served merely
as clearing houses, keeping girls one or two nights on their first
arrival at their new work places, until they found permanent lodgings.
The temporary clearing house work was considered one of the most
important functions of the hostels.

[215] June, 1918, pp. 206-210.

The success of the hostels was, however, doubtful. In May, 1917, they
were said to be only half filled, although this is ascribed in part to
the policy of building them in advance of the demand, so that there
might be no excuse for delaying the progress of dilution and the
introduction of women workers from other communities. In January, 1918,
the hostels were two-thirds filled, but this was perhaps rather caused
by the greater housing shortage than by their increased popularity.
Particularly in the north of England and Scotland, where they were
associated with the idea of reformatories, the women preferred lodging
with a family even where “they had to pay 12s. ($2.88) a week for
a third of a bed.” Representatives of the Ministry of Munitions
believe that the partial failure of the system was due to the rules
and regulations necessary when large numbers of women were brought
together, the difficulties arising if even one woman of questionable
character got into a dormitory, and the lack of privacy and of a
homelike atmosphere.

There was much criticism by trade unionists of the hostels, especially
when these were under company control. It was not considered wholesome
or right that girls should eat and sleep with their work mates. A girl
who lost her position lost her board and lodging at the same time,
and, if far from home, might be in a helpless and dangerous position.
The girl in a company hostel was “under the firm’s forewoman by day
and the firm’s matron by night, and all the time under the firm’s
welfare supervision.” The official rejoinder to these criticisms, as
illustrated by the attitude of the welfare department of the Ministry
of Munitions, was that hostels were regarded “as a temporary war
expedient and as a means of keeping up efficiency and output because
they provide proper housing and feeding of the workers. Hostels are
in no sense regarded as a permanent solution of the housing problem.”
But it was believed that because they provided better accommodations
than many of the workers had previously enjoyed, they might serve
permanently to improve their standard of living.

The Billeting of Civilians Bill, which went into effect May 24, 1917,
represented still another effort to solve the housing problem in the
crowded munition centers. Civilians engaged in war work of national
importance, might, at the request of the government department
concerned, be billeted like soldiers[216] with householders in the
vicinity. Local committees were organized to administer the law and
fix the scale of payments. But up to April, 1918, no use had been
made of the power of compulsory billeting. “It is doubtful how far
it is workable in practice,” said the Health of Munition Workers
Committee.[217]

[216] A number of soldiers may be assigned to a town, and householders
may be required to furnish them with board and lodging at a fixed rate.

[217] _Final Report_, April, 1918, p. 127.

Other interesting points in the work of the Ministry of Munitions for
“welfare” among women workers outside the factory included provision
for recreation and for day nurseries. Especially in the hostels
attention was given to recreation. The long hours and hard work did not
leave much energy for classes, but modern books were in great demand
and gardening was popular. A Hindu prince, the Maharajah Sandia of
Gwalior provided a fund of £6,000 for the development of recreation
schemes. Lectures and concerts, library books, lantern slides and a
holiday camp for boys were among the items provided out of this fund.
At a few of the large establishments, such as Woolwich Arsenal, clubs
were organized and recreation grounds were arranged.

The Ministry of Munitions established the policy of aiding the opening
of day nurseries for the children of women munition workers. In 1916
the Ministry decided to make special grants to such institutions to
the amount of 75 per cent of the cost of initial equipment and 7d.
(14 cents) for each child daily. The Board of Education was to be
responsible for the supervision of the nurseries, thirty-one of which
had been opened up to April, 1918. The majority were open by night as
well as by day. This entire movement was severely criticised by certain
groups. “I have said nothing of the risk of planting _crèches_ near
explosive work nor of risks to the babies’ health in carrying them on
crowded trains at nightfall or dawn,” said Dr. Marion Phillips, a well
known representative of labor. “This whole method means a very forcible
breaking up of the family life of the community.” In France many
_crèches_ for the children of working mothers were established, but in
England the movement was not popular and gained but little headway.

Whatever may be the verdict concerning the desirability of the various
welfare measures outside the factory as a permanent policy, the greater
appreciation of the need of good working conditions within the shop,
and the actual improvements made, are noteworthy progressive steps in
the history of British working women during the war.

CHAPTER XIII

Effects of the War on the Employment of Children

In addition to the great increase in the number of employed adult
women, war conditions led also to a large growth in the number of
employed young boys and girls. The demands of industry, economic
necessity and patriotic motives undoubtedly all played a part in the
movement. During the unemployment crisis of the autumn of 1914 it
was, for a few months, difficult to find places for young workers.
In the month ending September 11, 1914, 22,000 boys and 23,000 girls
registered at the employment exchanges as against 14,500 boys and
12,700 girls in the corresponding month of 1913. The problem was
serious enough in London to cause the establishment of recreation
clubs, workrooms and classes for unemployed boys and girls. Children
who had recently left school were urged to return.

But on account of the acute need for labor as more and more men were
taken into military service, a strong demand for boys and girls at
rising wages soon succeeded the depression. By December, 1914, the
number of boys registering at the employment exchanges was lower than
before the war, and in the first six months of 1915 there were more
vacancies than applicants. The increase in the employment of boys was
not as steady as that of women, however. Coincident with the spread
of substitution by women from 1917 on, the rate of increase fell off,
especially in the metal trades, where there was an actual decline of
9,000 between April and October, 1917. The check to employment was
so serious as to come to the attention of the Ministry of Munitions,
which asked dilution officers to bring to the attention of the Juvenile
Employment Committees cases where considerable numbers of boys were
to be discharged. Beginning with October, 1917, the Royal Air Force
relieved the situation to some extent by using boys from fifteen to
eighteen years of age as mechanics, hiring about 5,000 up to April,
1918.

On the whole juvenile employment increased during the war. As was
the case with many married women, the rising cost of living and the
inadequate separation allowances received by soldiers’ families
frequently made it imperative for boys and girls to seek gainful
occupation at the earliest possible opportunity. Notably on munitions
work patriotic motives proved a strong incentive to attract many young
people. Moreover, the natural desire of not a few children to be
through with school restraints and to enter adult life was reinforced
by the excitement of war time and by the taking over of numerous school
buildings for military purposes.

The only set of statistics covering the increase in juvenile workers,
comparable with the quarterly reports on the increase in the employment
of women, was published by the Ministry of Reconstruction’s committee
on “Juvenile Employment during the War and After” and compared October,
1917, and January, 1918, with conditions in July, 1914.[218] It showed
that between July, 1914, and January, 1918, in the various occupations
outside domestic service the number of working boys and girls under
eighteen had risen from 1,936,000 to 2,278,000, or 17.6 per cent. The
number of boys increased by 94,000, or 7.4 per cent, and of girls
248,000, or 36.6 per cent, the greater increase in the number of girls
being ascribed to the large numbers who turned from domestic service
or home duties to the munition factory. It is interesting to note that
in contrast to the steady increase in the number of women workers
throughout the war, the total number of working boys and girls declined
by 9,000 between October, 1917, and January, 1918.

[218] _Vide_ Appendix K, p. 245.

Analyzing the movement of boys and girls between various occupations,
among the various kinds of manufacturing by far the largest increase
for both sexes was found in the metal trades, that is to say,
munitions. Ten thousand boys were employed in Woolwich Arsenal alone
before the end of the war. The number of boys in the building trades,
wood trades and miscellaneous trades decreased, as well as the number
of both sexes in the nonwar industries of textiles, clothing and paper
and printing. The increase over the whole group of “industries,” was
not, especially with girls, as large as in nonindustrial occupations.
In the latter, boys moved away from “finance and commerce,”
“agriculture” and “postoffice” into “transport” and “government
establishment,” while the increase in the number of girls, though
occurring in every occupation, was especially large in “finance and
commerce.”

Unfortunately the statistics fail to separate the three classes of
juvenile employment which should be considered. These are employment
which would have been permitted previous to the war, that involving the
relaxation of child labor and compulsory education laws and that which
remained entirely illegal. In all three classes, the war apparently
produced an increase in numbers.

With regard to the first class, boys and girls legally entitled to work
under ordinary circumstances, the British Board of Education estimated
that in 1915 the number of children leaving the elementary schools at
the age of fourteen or thereabouts was increased by about 10 per cent,
or 45,000. For 1916, Mrs. Sidney Webb put the increase in the number
leaving in this way at 50,000 to 60,000.[219] On the other hand, Mr.
Herbert Fisher, president of the Board of Education, stated in the
House of Commons in April, 1917, that, with the greater prosperity of
the working classes since the war, the enrolment in secondary schools
had increased.[220]

[219] Owen R. Lovejoy, “Safeguarding Childhood in Peace and War,”
_Child Labor Bulletin_, May, 1917, p. 74.

[220] United States Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau, “Child
Labor in Warring Countries,” _Bureau Publication No. 27_, 1917, p. 12.

The Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education also noted a large
increase in the number of children employed outside school hours.
In June, 1916, twenty “Juvenile Advisory Committees” on vocational
guidance for boys and girls leaving school reported an increase in
the number of employed school children and only one a decrease. In
November, 1917, forty-five out of fifty-seven committees reported an
increase. “With a few exceptions,” it was said, “those in close touch
with the children express the opinion that the consequences to their
health and education have been wholly bad.”[221] In one town 9 per cent,
in another 19 per cent and in another 40 per cent of the schoolboys
were working outside school hours. The number of “half times,” or
children over twelve who alternated between school and work, rose from
69,555 in 1914-1915 to 73,596 in 1916-1917.

[221] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After,” _Reconstruction Pamphlet, No. 15_, p. 3.

_Relaxation of Child Labor and Compulsory Education Laws_

Although definite totals are not obtainable, a deplorable increase
seems to have taken place during the war in the number of working
children between eleven and fourteen who, prior to the war, would
have been protected by child labor and compulsory school laws. “The
growth in the number of children obtaining complete exemption before
fourteen cannot be stated with equal precision,” said the Committee on
Juvenile Employment during the War and After, “but evidence drawn from
various sources shows that with the increase in the entrants for Labour
Certificate Examinations and the general relaxation of local by-laws it
has been considerable.”

In 1911, according to official figures, only 148,000 children under
fourteen were employed in all Great Britain. In August, 1917, Mr.
Fisher said in the House of Commons that “in three years of war some
600,000 children have been withdrawn prematurely from school and become
immersed in industry. They are working on munitions, in the fields,
and in the mines.”[222] But in October, 1917, the Industrial (War
Inquiries) Branch of the Board of Trade, stated that 90,000 boys under
fourteen had left school during the war, a figure serious enough, but
much smaller than Mr. Fisher’s.

[222] House of Commons, _Debates_, August 10, 1917, p. 790.

Probably the great majority of the exemptions were for agricultural
work. “In this district we are again producing a race of illiterates,”
reported one rural area. The exemptions were largely the result of
the activity of the farmers’ associations, which had always opposed
compulsory education for the children of their farm laborers and
which in most cases controlled the local school boards.[223] Farmers
of North Wilts recommended that eleven year old children be released
from school for work for which women “were not strong enough.” Though
probably extra-legal, the exemptions were sanctioned under specified
conditions in a circular of the Board of Education to local authorities
issued in March, 1915.[224] Children of school age were to be exempted
for “light” and “suitable” agricultural employment in cases of special
emergency, when no other labor was available. There was to be no
general relaxation of standards, and exemptions were to be made in
individual cases and for limited periods only.

[223] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, pp. 88-89.

[224] Great Britain Board of Education, _Circular 898_, March 12, 1915.

Even before the publication of this circular, between September 1,
1914, and January 31, 1915, 1,413 children under fourteen, some of
them as young as eleven years, were released from school for farm
work. Between February 1 and April 30, 1915, 3,811 children were
exempted for this purpose. The number holding excuses on January 31.
1916, was 8,026; on May 31 was 15,753, and on October 31 was 14,915.
These figures, moreover, showed only the number of children formally
excused by special exemption, not the number actually at work. About
half the counties made special by-laws lowering the standard of
compulsory attendance required before the war. In Wiltshire, for
instance, all children of eleven who had reached the fourth standard
were not required to attend school, and only those below that grade
who were specially excused appeared in the official lists.[225] Then,
too, in some places schools were closed at noon or altogether at times
of special stress, and in others headmasters were directed to let
children of eleven and over leave without record when needed for farm
work.[226]

[225] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Monthly Review_, June,
1917, p. 889.

[226] _The Woman Worker_, May, 1916, p. 3.

It is noteworthy that the policy of granting exemptions was not
uniformly followed throughout the country, since some local authorities
refused to relax the attendance laws. Twenty-five county councils
reported that no children had been excused between February 1 and
April 30, 1915. The policy of exemption was strongly opposed by the
agricultural laborers’ union, and by the whole labor party which
brought the matter up in the House of Commons in the spring of 1915,
but to little effect. It was charged that the farmers were making use
of child labor in order to keep down wages, and that the supply of
adult labor would be sufficient if proper wages were paid.

The Board of Agriculture advocated relieving the situation by an
increased use of women instead of children. “The Board of Agriculture
have expressed the opinion that if the women of the country districts
and of England generally took the part they might take in agriculture,
it would be unnecessary to sacrifice the children under twelve.”[227]

In the spring of 1916 the Board of Education itself admitted that
in some areas exemptions had “been granted too freely and without
sufficiently careful ascertainment that the conditions ... prescribed
by the government ... were fulfilled.”[228] A circular of February
29, 1916, laid down additional restrictions on excusing children from
school.[229]

[227] Great Britain Board of Education, _Report of the Chief Medical
Officer of the Board of Education for 1915_, p. 106.

[228] _Ibid._, p. 103.

[229] _Ibid._, _Circular 943_, February 29, 1916.

An interesting clause of the circular “suggested that the urgency of
the need for the labor of school children may, to a certain extent, be
tested by the amount of wages offered, and as a general rule it may be
taken that if the labor of a boy of school age is not worth at least
six shillings a week to the farmer, the benefit derived from the boy’s
employment is not sufficient to compensate for the loss involved by
the interruption of the boy’s education.” In an earlier report the
board had noted that only one of the twenty school children reported
engaged in farm work by one county was receiving as much as 6s. ($1.44)
weekly.[230]

[230] Great Britain Board of Education, _School Attendance and
Employment in Agriculture, Returns 1st September, 1914, to 31st
January, 1915_, p. 3.

However, the board had no direct power over the local authorities
except to reduce its money grants when the number of children in
attendance decreased. The number of children excused, according to
the statistics just quoted, reached its highest point in May, 1916,
which would indicate that the circular had little influence with local
officials in reducing the number of country children deprived of
schooling to work on the farms.

In 1917 the board again became more favorable to a modification of
school requirements. On February 2, in answer to a question in the
House of Commons, the president of the Board of Education stated that
“greater elasticity” was to be allowed in the school vacations, so that
boys over twelve might engage in farm work. For this purpose the Board
of Education would give money grants for 320 school sessions annually
instead of 400, as usual, provided vacation classes for the younger
children were organized.

Fewer children seem to have been released from school for industry
or miscellaneous work than for agriculture. Between September,
1914, and February, 1915, only thirty-one children were officially
reported excused from school attendance for factory work and 147 for
miscellaneous occupations. None of these was less than twelve years
old. On account of the small numbers excused the Board of Education did
not repeat the inquiry.

Efforts were made, indeed, as early as 1915 to secure exemptions for
factory work similar to those in agriculture. Employers’ associations
urged that children of twelve and thirteen be excused from school. The
cotton spinners’ and employers’ associations sent a joint petition to
the Home Secretary asking that children be allowed to begin work in
the cotton mills at thirteen instead of fourteen years. The spinners’
union preferred such a lowering of child labor standards to allowing
women to become “piecers.” Certain government contractors also asked
the local education authorities for permission to employ boys of
thirteen.

But at the time the official attitude was much less encouraging in
regard to exemptions for factory work than for agriculture. The Home
Office refused to consent to any relaxation unless the Admiralty or
War Office certified that the observance of child labor laws was
delaying work necessary to the war.[231] The annual report of the
factory inspectors for 1915 mentioned an important prosecution for
illegal child labor. The Board of Education was a little more lenient,
allowing the local authorities to excuse boys of thirteen under certain
prescribed conditions, which included the restriction that the work
must be within the boys’ physical capacity.[232] But during at least
the earlier months of war “generally in urban areas, the information
furnished appears to show that there has been no great variation from
the usual practice in the matter. At all times children have been
granted exemption in very special circumstances, and the only effect of
the war has been that such special circumstances have arisen a little
more frequently than they did in normal times.”[233] The statements as
to increases in the number of children under fourteen leaving school
would suggest, however, that these comparatively rigid standards were
not maintained in the later months of the war.

[231] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, p. 89.

[232] Great Britain Board of Education, _Annual Report for 1915 of the
Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education_, p. 106.

[233] _Ibid._, _Summary of Returns supplied by Local Education
Authorities for the period of September 1, 1914, to January 31, 1915_,
p. 4.

In addition, it is probable that there has been more than the usual
amount of illegal child labor. A note in _The Woman Worker_ of January,
1917,[234] said that the “attention of the Secretary of State has been
directed to the prevalence of illegal employment, in factories ... of
children under 12 ... and children who have not obtained exemption
from school attendance.... It is not countenanced by any of the
departments concerned, nor can it be justified by any pretext of war
emergency.” It was stated that official action against these conditions
had been secured. In several cases penalties had already been imposed.
“The inspectors of factories are instructed to take rigorous action in
respect of any similar offences in future, and without further warning.”

[234] Page 4.

_Changes in Occupations of Boys and Girls_

Certain effects of the war on boys’ work were noted very early. By
the end of 1914 it was observed that in factories strong boys, who
had been apprentices or helpers, were being pushed ahead to the work
of skilled men, while women and girls were taking their places. Such
“indirect” substitution continued frequently to be the first change
made when women were introduced into new lines of work.[235] The
Ministry of Munitions made some effort to keep boys away from shell and
fuse making and other forms of purely repetitive work, and to encourage
them to take up lines which would make them skilled artisans.[236] But
on the whole the number of boys entering skilled trades and starting
apprenticeships greatly declined, for unskilled work at high wages was
offered by munitions plants and other forms of war equipment, and many
parents, under the unsettled conditions of war, were unwilling to have
their sons bind themselves for a term of years.

[235] _Vide_ p. 123.

[236] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Dilution of Labour
Bulletin_, February, 1916, p. 2.

Girls, like adult women, entered many new lines of work for the first
time during the war, and there are but few facts to distinguish between
the two groups of workers. The girls were used in boys’ places for
running errands, on wagons and other forms of delivery work—which had
been much complained of as a “blind alley” for boys—in banks, and in
retail shops. The tendency to transfer boys to men’s work and girls to
boys’ work was also noted in textile mills, boot and shoe and tobacco
factories, iron foundries and some parts of the engineering trade. In
nearly every instance such employment was uneducative. There appeared
to be also a greatly increased demand for girls in some cities in
clerical work. In the new openings on munitions work and other forms
of army equipment their work has not been clearly marked off from
that done by adult women. Complaints were made in March, 1917, that
it was difficult to induce young girls to enter anything but the
munitions industry.[237] The glamor and excitement of direct assistance
to the war undoubtedly made its strongest appeal to girls of this
impressionable age.

A feature almost unknown previous to the war was the movement of boys
and girls under seventeen years of age from their homes to work at a
distance. The _Labour Gazette_ stated of the movement:

It has, to a limited extent, been found desirable to draft
boys and girls from areas where their services are not much
in demand to districts where there is a scanty supply of
labor for essential industries or where opportunities for
training in skilled employments are available. Where such
migration has been carried out through the exchanges special
arrangements have been made to secure the welfare of the
boys and girls in their new sphere.[238]

[237] _London Times_, Educational Supplement, March 15, 1917.

[238] February, 1917, p. 49.

Supervision of the boys and girls thus removed from home care and
training, naturally a most serious responsibility, was carried out
mainly by the advisory committees on juvenile employment, which had
been formed in connection with many exchanges before the war for the
vocational guidance of young workers. In the case of young girls the
work also came under the duties of the local committees on “women’s war
employment.” As “welfare supervision” was developed by the Ministry of
Munitions, the supervisors, and later the “outside welfare officers,”
were likewise instructed to give attention to the matter.

_Wages_

According to information from several sources the rise in wages during
the war was perhaps more marked among boys and girls under eighteen
than among any other class of workers. Boys and girls in munitions
factories in certain parts of the country were often able to earn from
£1 ($4.80) to £2 ($9.60) a week—the latter as much as many skilled men
received previous to the war.[239]

The Ministry of Reconstruction’s Committee on Juvenile Employment
reported that competition for workers drove boys’ wages up 50 per cent
within a few months after the beginning of the war, and at the end of
a year the rise was 75 to 100 per cent. At the repetition piece work
with automatic machinery, common in munition factories, “many of the
boys earned amounts that previously were associated with the earnings
of men, while here and there cases could be found where their earnings
were equivalent to, or even more than, those of the skilled foremen who
supervised their work. Rumor naturally exaggerated the real position,
but there was plenty of evidence available to justify many of the
stories that were current as to boys’ earnings.” It was noted that
“boys do not seem to mind monotonous work if they are well paid for
it,” and rates for the older boys were at times actually higher for
unskilled and semi-skilled than for skilled occupations. In one typical
munitions district their wages averaged somewhat as follows:[240]

Age Unskilled Semi-skilled Skilled
14 3-3½d. an Hr. 4-4½d. 4-4½d.
15 —— 4½d. 5-6d.
16 6d. 6d. 5d.
17 7d. 7d. 6d.

[239] _The Labour Woman_, August, 1916, p. 44.

[240] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After,” _Reconstruction Pamphlet_, No. 15, p. 27.

The rates fixed by the Ministry of Munitions for girls under eighteen
indicated the high level reached in their wages also. For girls under
sixteen they were roughly equivalent to the minima fixed by the trade
boards for adult women, and were somewhat higher for girls between
sixteen and eighteen. The increases granted up to the end of the war
made the standard weekly time rate on “men’s work” 23s. 9d. ($5.70) for
girls under sixteen, 25s. 9d. ($6.18) for girls of sixteen, and 27s.
9d. ($6.66) for those of seventeen. On piece work 30 per cent for girls
under sixteen, 20 per cent at sixteen, and 10 per cent at seventeen was
deducted from the rates of adult women.

_Hours_

Along with the relaxation of hour limitations on women’s work, the
similar restrictions on “protected persons” under eighteen were
modified. The result of the relaxation of standards was thus described
by the Health of Munition Workers Committee:

The weekly hours have frequently been extended to sixty-seven, and in
some instances even longer hours have been worked. The daily hours of
employment have been extended to 14, and occasionally even to 15 hours;
night work has been common; Sunday work has also been allowed, though
latterly it has been largely discontinued.[241]

[241] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 13_, “Juvenile Employment,” 1916, p. 4.

Working hours for boys under eighteen were given more specifically in
an “inquiry into the health of male munition workers,” made for the
committee between February and August, 1916. The investigation followed
the same lines as its companion study on the health of female workers,
including an examination of over 1,500 boys under eighteen and their
working conditions. It was found that “large numbers of boys,” many of
them just over fourteen, were “working a net average of sixty-eight
and one-half hours per week.” In some cases boys under fourteen had a
forty-eight hour week, “but in others boys of eighteen were found to be
working an average of over eighty hours per week and it was ascertained
that they had worked ninety and even a hundred hours per week.”[242] It
is not surprising that the investigator concluded that “hours tend to
be too long for the proper preservation of health and efficiency.”

[242] _Ibid._, _Interim Report_, 1917, p. 103.

In most cases the Home Office claimed that it had allowed Sunday
work only under rather strict conditions. “The Home Office, as a
rule, only authorizes Sunday work on condition that each boy or girl
employed on Sunday shall be given a day in the same week, or as part
of a system of 8 hour shifts in which provision is made for weekly or
fortnightly periods of rest. Apart from this, permission for boys over
16 to be employed periodically on Sunday was on July 1 last [1916]
only allowed in seven cases, and in three cases for boys under 16. In
only one instance are boys employed every Sunday, but this is limited
to boys over 16, and the total weekly hours are only about 56. In
only one case are girls employed periodically on Sunday, and there
the concession is confined to girls over 16.”[243] The employment of
girls under 16 at night had been permitted only “in one or two cases
... through exceptional circumstances.” In March, 1916, it was stated
that the cases were “under review with the object of arranging for the
discontinuance of such employment at the earliest possible moment.”

[243] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 13_, “Juvenile Employment,” p. 5.

The recommendations of the Health of Munition Workers Committee
called for a considerable improvement in these standards. “The hours
prescribed by the factory act [sixty] are to be regarded as the
maximum ordinarily justifiable, and even exceed materially what many
experienced employers regard as the longest period for which boys and
girls can usefully be employed from the point of view of either health
or output.” Nevertheless, “in view of the extent to which boys are
employed to assist adult male workers and of limitation of supply, the
committee, though with great hesitation, recommend that boys should be
allowed to be employed on overtime up to the maximum suggested for men,
but every effort should be made not to work boys under 16 more than
sixty hours per week. Where overtime is allowed substantial relief
should be insisted upon at the week ends, and should be so arranged as
to permit of some outdoor recreation on Saturday afternoon.” But for
girls “similar difficulties did not often arise,” and the committee
advised weekly hours of sixty or less and brought forward the claims of
the eight hour, three shift system. Under the exceptional circumstances
existing, the committee believed that overtime might be continued on
not more than three days a week for both boys and girls, provided the
specified weekly total of hours was not exceeded.

The absolute discontinuance of Sunday work was strongly advised. “The
arguments in favor of a weekly period of rest ... apply with special
force in the case of boys and girls; they are less fitted to resist the
strain of unrelieved toil, and are more quickly affected by monotony of
work.... It is greatly to be hoped that all Sunday work will shortly be
completely stopped.”

In regard to night work, an earlier report of the committee,[244]
published in January, 1916, held that girls under eighteen should not
be employed on a night shift “unless the need is urgent and the supply
of women workers is insufficient. In such cases the employment should
be restricted to girls over 16 years of age, carefully selected for
the work.” But for boys, “it does not seem practical to suggest any
change of system, but the committee hope that care will be taken to
watch the effect of night work on individual boys and to limit it as
far as possible to those over 16.” In the subsequent memorandum on
“Juvenile Employment,” the committee “remained of the opinion that
girls under eighteen and boys under sixteen should only be employed at
night if other labor can not be obtained. Wherever possible it should
be stopped.”

[244] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 5_, “Hours of Work,” pp. 7-8.

The interdepartmental committee on hours of labor, organized late in
1915, which based its action on the recommendations of the Health of
Munition Workers Committee, was instrumental in securing improved
regulations for protected persons in munition factories as well as
for women. The general order of September 9, 1916, made special
arrangements for boys and girls over and under sixteen, respectively.
Sunday work was abolished for each of these classes of workers. The
maximum working week for girls was to be sixty hours, as before the
war. But girls between sixteen and eighteen, like adult women, might
work overtime on three days a week, provided the weekly maximum was
not exceeded. Boys over sixteen were permitted to work as much as
sixty-five hours a week, on three days a week as long as twelve hours
and a quarter, and twelve hours on other week days. Under this scheme
work on Saturday must stop not later than 2 p.m. In “cases where the
work was of a specially urgent character,” the twelve hour day and
sixty-five hour week, but not the overtime, might be worked by boys
of fourteen.[245] The committee had already forbidden the employment
of girls under sixteen at night. The prohibition was extended by the
general order to boys under fourteen and girls under eighteen, and boys
under sixteen were allowed to do night work only in “urgent” cases.

[245] Following is the section of the general order regulating hours
for boys under eighteen:

Scheme D. (Overtime for Boys.)

This scheme applies to male young persons of 16 years of age and over
provided that the superintending inspector of factories shall have
power in cases where the work is of a specially urgent character to
extend the application of the scheme to male young persons between 14
and 16 years of age.

Such young persons may be employed overtime on week days
other than Saturday subject to the following conditions:

(1) The total hours worked per week (exclusive of intervals
for meals) shall not exceed 65.

(2) The daily period of employment (including overtime and
intervals for meals)
(a) Shall not commence earlier than 6 a.m. or end later
than 10 p.m.
(b) Shall not exceed 14 hours.

Provided that where overtime is worked on not more than 3
days in the week the period of employment may in the case of
boys of 16 years of age and over be 15 hours.

(3) Intervals for meals amounting to not less than 1½ hours
shall be allowed during the period of employment with an
additional half hour if the period of employment is more
than 13½ hours or an additional three-fourths of an hour
if the period of employment is 15 hours.

(4) On Saturday the period of employment shall end not later
than 2 p.m.

Long as these hours seem according to American standards, they
undoubtedly represented a considerable reduction from the hours worked
by many munition plants during the early months of the war. But it is
doubtful if these standards were completely reached even in the latter
part of the struggle. An official report published shortly after the
armistice admits that “boys and girls of fourteen and fifteen have been
working for as much as twelve hours a day, sometimes more, and have
been employed for considerable periods on night work.”[246] The Health
of Munition Workers Committee, in its final report dated April, 1918,
was still obliged to recommend the discontinuance of night work by
girls between sixteen and eighteen and urged that it was “undesirable”
for boys under sixteen, though in both cases it was decreasing.
“Special concessions” allowing girls under sixteen to work at night had
by that time been withdrawn.

[246] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After.” _Pamphlets on Reconstruction Problems No.
15_, p. 8.

_Safety, Health and Comfort_

The action of the Ministry of Munitions looking to the betterment
of working conditions for women and girl munition workers, and the
“welfare” movement which followed in other industrial occupations were
described in the section on women workers.

The Ministry of Munitions urged the extension of “welfare supervision,”
on which it laid much stress, to boys as well as to women and girls.
Such action was among the recommendations of the Health of Munition
Workers Committee:

In the past the need for the welfare supervision of boys
has not been so widely recognized as in the case of women
and girls; present conditions have, however, served to call
attention to its urgency and it is receiving the attention
of an increasing number of employers. Boys fresh from the
discipline of a well-ordered school need help and friendly
supervision in the unfamiliar turmoil of their new
surroundings. They are not men and can not be treated as
such. On the other hand, high wages and the absence of
the father have frequently tended to relax home control.
Long hours of work prevent attendance at clubs; healthy
and organized recreation is seldom available. As might be
anticipated under these circumstances, complaint is often
made of boys leaving their work after a few days or playing
truant; this may be the result of slackness and discontent,
or the cause may be found in fatigue, sickness or perhaps
home troubles. If smooth working is to be secured, the real
causes of such discontent and trouble must be ascertained
and appreciated. Experience, however, shows that the
problems involved are outside and distinct from those of
ordinary factory discipline, and they are likely to remain
unsolved unless someone is specially deputed for the
purpose.[247]

[247] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 13_, “Juvenile Employment,” p. 6.

The Ministry’s instructions to the “investigating officers,” who
visited munition plants for the labor regulation department, also
drew attention to the need for “welfare supervision” of boys. “Since
it is recognized on all hands that there is a danger of deterioration
in the working boy between the ages of 14 and 18, it is of urgent
national importance that the boy should be brought under careful
supervision during these critical years of his life.” The duties of
such a supervisor as outlined in this and other official circulars,
were similar to those of the “welfare workers” for women and girls,
with perhaps more emphasis on training and advancement. A “welfare
supervisor of boys” or “boy visitor” should attend to their hiring,
discipline, and dismissal, and should watch their progress and
recommend for promotion, arrange opportunities for recreation,
technical education and saving, and take charge of the health
arrangements.

In its final report, in April, 1918, the Health of Munition Workers
Committee stated that about 150 supervisors had been appointed
during the previous year from a panel established by the Ministry
of Munitions. Most of them were wounded army officers who had been
discharged from active service. In many cases until they were appointed
proper use was not made of the health and comfort facilities installed
at the suggestion of the Ministry’s “Welfare Section.”

Following the advice of these inspectors, employers
often installed canteens, washing facilities, first aid
arrangements and other improvements in the factory. However,
these usually remained unused. Canteens were generally
deserted, since boys preferred to carry their food from
home; wash rooms were abused rather than used, for crumpled
towels made excellent footballs and soap a convenient
missile; while few boys would bother going to the first aid
kit for what they regarded as a mere cut.

In spite, therefore, of the apparent opening for welfare supervision of
working boys, it developed but slowly. The lack of suitable candidates,
owing to the demands of military service, was a serious handicap,
though at the time of its report the committee thought it had been
“started on sound lines.”

The need for the welfare supervision of boys has not been
so readily appreciated as in the case of women and girls,
and time has been required for obtaining the support of
the foremen and the local trades unions as well as of
the employer. These initial difficulties have, however,
not been without their advantages in preventing hasty or
ill-considered schemes.

Other indications of the growth of the movement were the formation of
a “Boys’ Welfare Association” by leading engineering firms, and of a
“Royal Ordnance Factories Trade Lads’ Association” composed of the boys
themselves, which drew its members principally from Woolwich Arsenal.
To coordinate the various clubs, cadet corps and other organizations
started by philanthropists, the Home Office established a “Juvenile
Organizations Committee” in the latter part of 1916, to affiliate and
coordinate all such clubs, and in some cases to arrange financial aid.
The committee took steps to have local committees formed in all the
larger cities. Some criticism was made of the action by the Home Office
on the ground that the matter was within the province of the Board
of Education. The latter body issued a circular in December, 1916,
inviting the local authorities to allow the use of unoccupied schools
in the evening for recreation purposes. In August, 1917, it allowed
grants for evening play centers.

_Effects of War Work on Boys and Girls_

Nevertheless, in spite of the various “welfare” efforts evidence comes
from many sources that war work had some most unfortunate effects on
both the health and the character of a considerable number of boys
and girls. “The view of those best competent to judge is that in the
generation which entered industry between 1914 and 1918 vitality has
been lowered, morale undermined and training neglected,” said the
Committee on Juvenile Employment.

The high wages for unskilled work, absence of fathers in the army and
of mothers in munitions work, excessive hours of labor and greater
pressure of work, interruption of club and other recreational and
educational provisions, the darkened streets and the general excitement
of war time were among the principal factors blamed for the change.

A vivid summary of the situation was made in March, 1917, in the _Final
Report_ of the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Education with
Special Reference to Employment after the War, which gave a depressing
picture of the effect of the war on working boys and girls.

Upon this educational and industrial chaos has come the war
to aggravate conditions that could hardly be made graver,
and to emphasize a problem that needed no emphasis. Many
children have been withdrawn at an even earlier age than
usual from day schools, and the attendances at those evening
schools which have not been closed show a lamentable
shrinkage. We are not prepared to say that much of the work
which is now being done by juveniles in munition factories
and elsewhere is in itself inferior to the work which most
of them would have been doing in normal times, but there
can be no doubt that many of the tendencies adversely
affecting the development of character and efficiency have
incidentally been accentuated.... Parental control, so far
as it formerly existed, has been relaxed, largely through
the absence of fathers of families from their homes.
Wages have been exceptionally high, and although this has
led to an improved standard of living, it has also, in
ill-regulated households, induced habits of foolish and
mischievous extravagance. Even the ordinary discipline of
the workshop has in varying degrees given way; while the
withdrawal of influences making for the social improvement
of boys and girls has in many districts been followed by
noticeable deterioration in behavior and morality. Gambling
has increased. Excessive hours of strenuous labor have
overtaxed the powers of young people; while many have taken
advantage of the extraordinary demand for juvenile labor to
change even more rapidly than usual from one blind alley
employment to another.

Among boy and girl munition workers evidences of a breakdown in health
were perhaps not general, but in a good many cases children working at
night or long hours were found to show signs of exhaustion. In the 1915
report of the chief inspector of factories the principal lady inspector
stated:

Miss Constance Smith has been much impressed by the marked
difference in outward effect produced by night employment
on adult and adolescent workers. “Very young girls show
almost immediately, in my experience, symptoms of lassitude,
exhaustion and impaired vitality under the influence of
employment at night.” A very strong similar impression was
made on me by the appearance of large numbers of young
boys who had been working at munitions for a long time on
alternate day and night shifts.

The special investigator of the “health of male munition workers” noted
that 51 per cent of the 900 boys in one large factory complained of
sleepiness and weariness on the night shift. “It is contrary to the
laws of nature for young children—for such many of these are—to be
able to turn night into day without feeling an effect.... On the night
shifts, boys do not tolerate well long hours. It has to be borne in
mind that the average age of the boys examined would certainly not
exceed 15 years, and it makes one consider very seriously the future of
the rising generation.”

The same inquiry brought out the unfavorable effects of long daily
hours of work on young boys. While among all the 1,500 boys examined
“no very gross degree of ill health was prevalent,” 10.6 per cent of
those working more than 60 hours weekly, and only 6.7 per cent of those
working less than 60 hours, were not in “good” physical condition.
“This difference is a serious one.” In the heavy trades “the effect
upon the boys was commencing to show itself. Many though little more
than fourteen were working twelve hour shifts and doing heavy work. The
boys in these shops manipulate heavy pieces of steel at a temperature
of 900° F. They struck me as being considerably overworked; they looked
dull and spiritless, and conversation with them gave the impression
that they were languid. In fact, all the boys in this group were
working far too hard.”

The investigator contrasted with the poor condition of many boy
munition workers the “healthy and intelligent appearance” of the boys
in one factory where comparatively short hours, no night work and
free Saturday afternoons and Sundays gave them time for outdoor play.
“On the other hand, many of the boys I examined at other factories
are showing definite signs of the wear and tear to which they are
subjected. Pale, anemic, dull and expressionless, their conditions
would excite great commiseration. Conditions outside the factory
contribute their share and if the war is to continue for a long time
and these boys remain subject to conditions such as described, the
effect upon their general health will be difficult to remedy.”

As with women, long periods spent in transit, insufficient sleep and
overcrowded homes, in addition to excessive hours of factory work,
often affected the health of working boys and girls. “While engaged
for twelve hours per day in the factory,” it was said of boy munition
makers, “they spend in a large number of cases from two and one-half
hours to four hours traveling to and from their homes.... These hours,
added to the working hours, leave very little time for meals at home,
recreation or sleep.”[248] Many boys and girls failed to get enough
sleep because of “the temptations of the cinema and the amusements of
the street.” In many cases, even when wages were high, the Health of
Munition Workers Committee found that three persons occupied a single
bed and four or five shared a room. The following cases were given as
typical. A boy of fourteen, earning about 19s. ($4.56) weekly, slept in
the same bed with two young men, while two young girls occupied another
bed in the same room. A boy of sixteen, with wages averaging 22s.
($5.28) a week shared a bed with another boy, while another boy and a
girl slept in the same room.

[248] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Interim Report_, p. 103.

The deterioration in character among working boys was apparently
even more marked than the decline in health. According to Mr. Leeson
juvenile delinquency was 34 per cent greater during the three months
ending February, 1916, than for a similar period in the previous year.
In Manchester, the increase was 56 per cent; in Edinburgh it was 46 per
cent. The delinquency of boys twelve and thirteen, the ages for which
most of the school exemptions were issued, had increased in greater
proportion than that of any other age group. In the London police
district and ten large cities the number of children convicted by
Juvenile Courts increased from 11,176 in 1914 to 16,283 in 1917.

“When every allowance has been made for the inclination of each
generation to despair of the next,” said the special Committee on
Juvenile Employment during the War, “it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that a strain has been put upon the character of boys and
girls between fourteen and eighteen which might have corrupted the
integrity of Washington, and undermined the energy of Samuel Smiles.
The story of a boy who met his father’s attempt to assert parental
authority with the retort, ‘Wait to talk till you have earned as much
as I have,’ is hardly a caricature of the immense accession both
of earnings and of importance which has come, sometimes to their
misfortune, to lads of sixteen and seventeen.”

In feverish eagerness the boys spent their time wandering
from shop to shop, from work to works, making short stays,
frequently of only one or two weeks, in search of the new El
Dorado. Indentures were thrown to the winds; places where
useful trades could be learned were left behind; entreaties
of employers were rejected; parents were often treated with
indifference. The persistence with which the boys took
up the trail to the great machine shops and to the great
national factories or to any other place where the processes
were repetitive and the contracts ran into millions, can be
compared almost to the rush to the Klondyke....

Fearful that such large earnings would only be temporary,
they apparently determined to make hay while the sun
shone. They began to assume the independence which their
comparatively large incomes seemed to justify. They
sometimes became reckless, spendthrift and extravagant. The
gambling instinct was kindled, the longing for adventure
became acute. The boys became restless and unstable in the
works. Avarice begat avarice, until, in some cases, the
boys set such a value on their labor as to make them appear
almost ridiculous.[249]

Even certain labor organizations, which are generally
bitterly opposed to all such plans, advocated attention to
schemes of compulsory saving or deferred payment, as a means
of preventing the waste of abnormally high wages.[250]

[249] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After,” _Reconstruction Pamphlet No. 15_, p. 24.

[250] _The Labour Woman_, July, 1916, p. 34.

Almost the only hopeful feature of the effect of the war on working
children is a changed point of view regarding their future needs. The
bad conditions, together with the losses of the great war, roused
greater interest in the conservation of childhood. The chapter on
“Peace and Reconstruction” will trace the growth of the movement which,
with respect to working children, recognizes that many of them should
be taken out of the labor market altogether, that their opportunities
for education should be improved, and that their first years of work
should be better supervised.

CHAPTER XIV

Effects of War Work on Women

The tremendous movement of women into industry and the shifting from
low paid to high paid occupations have given a foundation for a
permanent improvement in the economic status of women, and it is hoped
that their new independence and interest in public affairs will survive
postwar adjustments and remain as a permanent asset. The physical
endurance of many of the women doing war work was a matter of constant
comment. But the increase in the tuberculosis death rates suggests that
the final results of intensive and difficult work have not yet been
determined. However, certain definite effects of war work upon the
health, home life and personality of women and children should be noted.

_Health of Women War Workers_

Definite investigations of the health of women workers were mainly
confined to the munitions industry and were made by the Health of
Munition Workers Committee. The general conclusion of the committee
that by the latter months of 1915 the health of the munition makers,
both men and women, had been injured through overwork, has been much
quoted in the United States:

Taking the country as a whole, the committee are bound to
record their impression that the munition workers in general
have been allowed to reach a state of reduced efficiency
and lowered health which might have been avoided without
reduction of output by attention to the details of daily and
weekly rests.

The committee’s statements about female workers alone were of similar
tenor:

The committee are satisfied that there is a significant
amount of physical disability among women in factories which
calls both for prevention and treatment ... the lifting
and carrying of heavy weights and all sudden, violent, or
physically unsuitable movements in the operation of machines
should, as far as practicable, be avoided.... Prolonged
standing should be restricted to work from which it is
inseparable.

Conditions of work are accepted without question and without
complaint which, immediately detrimental to output, would,
if continued, be ultimately disastrous to health. It is for
the nation to safeguard the devotion of its workers by its
foresight and watchfulness lest irreparable harm be done
body and mind both in this generation and the next.

The committee desire to state that, in their opinion, if
the present long hours, the lack of helpful and sympathetic
oversight, the inability to obtain good, wholesome food, and
the great difficulties of traveling are allowed to continue
it will be impracticable to secure or maintain for an
extended period the high maximum output of which women are
undoubtedly capable.[251]

[251] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” pp. 3, 10.

The conclusions of the factory inspectors in 1915 as to the health of
women munition makers and the results of later investigation under the
auspices of the committee reiterate similar though perhaps slightly
more favorable conclusions. “Reports of inspectors from all parts of
the country” did not show that, as yet, the strain of long hours had
caused “any serious breakdown among the workers,” though there were
“indications of fatigue of a less serious kind.” “Individual workers
confess to feeling tired and to becoming ‘stale’; there are complaints
of bad time keeping, and there is a general tendency towards a
reduction of hours.”[252]

[252] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, pp. 9-10.

Two examinations of the health of large numbers of women munition
workers were made for the Health of Munition Workers Committee,
the first in 1915-1916 and the second in 1917. The first covered
1,326 women in eleven factories and the second 1,183 women in eight
factories. In both examinations nearly 60 per cent of the women were
pronounced “healthy,” about a third showed evidences of slight fatigue
and only the small remainder exhibited signs of “marked fatigue.”[253]

No. of Per cent Per cent
Date Women No. of Per Cent Slightly Markedly
of Study Examined Factories Healthy Fatigued Fatigued
------------------------------------------------------------------
1915-1916 1,326 11 57.5 34.0 8.5
1917 1,183 8 58.5 35.8 5.7

[253] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers’
Committee, _Final Report_, April, 1918, pp. 21-22.

But these results were not believed to show the full burden of
overwork, since much was unrecognizable and since those worst affected
tended to drop out. The examination could only detect “definite and
obvious fatigue”, amounting almost to sickness. The physical defects
most frequently observed included indigestion, serious dental decay,
nervous irritability, headache, anemia and female disorders. These were
found in about a quarter of the women examined, but it is not stated
whether any of them were supposed to result from the employment.

In the manufacture of fuses, where fine processes involving close
attention were in use, some evidences of eye strain were found. In
one factory 64 per cent of the women in the fuse department had eye
defects, while only 19 per cent of those cutting shells by machine were
similarly affected.[254]

[254] _Ibid._, p. 72.

Another hazard to the overfatigued woman worker is suggested by the
increase in industrial accidents under the stress of long hours. With
a twelve hour day and seventy-five hour week, accidents to women were
two and a half times as frequent in one munition factory as when the
shifts were reduced to ten hours. At another shell factory, when the
working hours of men and women were equalized, lengthening the women’s
week nine and three quarters hours and reducing the men’s nine and a
quarter, the ratio of women’s to men’s accidents rose 19 per cent for
the day shift and 61 per cent for the night shift.

Factors likely to be injurious to health included the frequent twelve
hour shifts and the premium bonus system of payment. There were
numerous complaints of the strain of twelve hour shifts, which usually
entailed ten and a half hours of actual work. Particularly in the case
of married women with children the strain of these hours appeared to
be excessive. The factory inspectors stated in 1915 that especially
at night the twelve hour shift “for any length of time for women
... is undoubtedly trying, and permissible only for war emergencies
with careful make-weights in the way of good food and welfare
arrangements.”[255] The last hours of the twelve hour night shift were
often found to yield but little additional output.

[255] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, p. 14.

Such a judgment is not surprising when the nature of the work
frequently done by women munition makers is considered. To be sure,
such work as filling shells with explosive mixtures was easy and
semi-automatic; but other tasks, for example, examining and gauging,
although light, took much attention and exactness; and some work, such
as turning shells, was comparatively heavy. In lifting shells in and
out of the lathe women were obliged to stretch over the machine, which
involved a considerable strain on the arms with the heavier shells.
For shells over 40-50 pounds, special lifting apparatus was generally
provided, or a male laborer used to lift the shell, but women, in
their haste to proceed, sometimes failed to wait for help. A number of
compensation cases have arisen in which women were seriously injured
by heavy lifting. Yet a woman physician who had medical supervision
of several thousand workers from April, 1916, to November, 1918,
decided that if women were chosen with care they could perform without
risk operations formerly thought beyond their powers. The employes
in question were expected to lift shells up to sixty pounds without
special appliances, but women with pelvic or abdominal defects were not
allowed to enter this work.[256] Ten and a half hours, however, of the
heavier work might prove to be a serious strain.

Moreover, long train journeys were frequently necessary, adding two or
three hours to the time spent away from home. Out of seventy-five women
whose working hours began at 6 a.m. and ended at 8 p.m., none had time
for more than about seven and a half hours’ sleep, and many of them
less than seven hours. Only nineteen of these women were over twenty
years of age.

The premium bonus systems of payment, which became more and more
common, provided increased rates for increased output. In some cases
such systems were said to have proved “a strong temptation to injurious
overexertion.” One example was that of a woman who had “won a ‘shift’
bonus by turning out 132 shells (nose-profiling) in one shift where the
normal output was 100 shells, and had as a result, to remain in bed on
the following day. When it was pointed out to her later that she had
acted foolishly, her reply was that she knew but she ‘wasn’t going to
be beat.’”[257]

[256] Dr. Rhoda H. B. Adamson, “Future Possibilities for the Work of
Women,” _Common Cause_, February 7, 1919, pp. 512-514.

[257] British Association for the Advancement of Science, _Labour,
Finance, and the War_, p. 117.

As counteracting influences to these strains, several factors were
brought forward. Improved pay, and the more nourishing food, better
clothing and living conditions which women workers were often enabled
to secure were mentioned by a number of authorities, including the
Health of Munition Workers Committee, the factory inspectors, the
Association for the Advancement of Science, and the War Cabinet
Committee on women in industry. “The dietary was in most cases more
ample and suitable than the workers had been used to previously,” said
the investigators for the Health of Munition Workers Committee. It
has been observed that many well paid women gave up the supposedly
feminine habit of living on bread and tea for substantial meals of meat
and vegetables. The British Association for the Advancement of Science
noted a higher “physical and mental tone” due to the better standards
permitted by higher wages. The health of low paid workers frequently
improved after entering munitions work.[258] The improvements in
factory sanitation encouraged by the Ministry of Munitions were
likewise helpful in decreasing the risks to health, and the patriotic
spirit of the women also received mention as a partial preventive of
fatigue. “The excitement of doing ‘war work’ and making munitions added
a zest and interest to the work which tended to lessen the fatigue
experienced,” said the physicians who investigated the health of women
munition workers for the Health of Munition Workers Committee.

[258] _Labour, Finance, and the War_, p. 129.

_Effects of Night Work_

It is generally believed that the wisdom of forbidding night work by
women has been clearly demonstrated by experience during the war.
Women, especially married women, did not stand night work as well as
men. The British Association for the Advancement of Science said, in
April, 1916:

It would be well if the experience of those industries in
which night work has become a temporary necessity could be
made widely known. The adverse effects on output, not to
mention the lowering of the health of the workers, should be
a sufficient safeguard against any attempt permanently to
remove the factory act restriction.[259]

[259] _Ibid._, p. 84.

The earlier investigations of the Health of Munition Workers Committee
also confirmed the dangers of night work for women. In one factory
visited at night fatigue was found to prevent many of the women from
getting a meal at the rest period. In another “several women were
lying, during the meal hour, beside their piles of heaped-up work,
while others, later, were asleep beside their machines.”[260]

[260] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 4.

The night work in munition factories had once more emphasized, said the
committee, the “half forgotten facts” about its injurious effects on
women. “In a working class home the difficulty in obtaining rest by day
is great; quiet can not be easily secured; and the mother of a family
can not sleep while the claims of children and home are pressing upon
her; the younger unmarried women are tempted to take the daylight hours
for amusement or shopping; moreover, sleep is often interrupted in
order that the midday meal may be shared.”[261]

[261] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 4.

It must be acknowledged, however, that in its later interim report the
committee was somewhat less unfavorable to night work by women. While
it was found that continuous night work reduced output, a group of
women on alternate weeks of day and night work lost less time than when
on continuous day work. The committee did not, to be sure, consider
night work desirable, but inevitable during the war emergency as long
as production must be increased to its highest point. Because they were
especially likely to do housework during the day and to get very little
sleep, the physicians who examined women munition workers believed
night work to be “too heavy a burden for the average married women.”

Aside from munitions work, the principal evidence as to health
conditions concerned women who were replacing men on outdoor work.
Observers generally expressed surprise at the improvement in health and
appetite which took place, even when the work was heavy. Fresh air,
better wages and better food were believed to account for the gains in
health. Some of the women who became railway porters found the work too
heavy, however, and the nervous strain often proved excessive for women
tram drivers.

A possible decline in health among women workers in general is
suggested by the fact of a 6 per cent increase in the death rate from
tuberculosis among women under forty-five which took place between 1914
and 1916. The Registrar General of Vital Statistics suggested that this
occurred because—

Many thousands of women are now for the first time subjected
to the workshop conditions which have probably tended so
much to maintain the mortality of males at working ages
in recent years. Young women of the most susceptible ages
have thus been subject to risks of infection as well as of
pulmonary disease predisposing to tubercle which they would
have escaped in following their normal occupations; and both
from this cause and from the effect of workshop conditions
on women already infected a number of women have probably
died who would have survived under peace conditions.

Special studies were made by the Health Insurance Medical Research
Committee to test this hypothesis, and they felt, that “further
evidence favoured its accuracy.”[262]

[262] _An Inquiry into the Prevalence and Aetiology of Tuberculosis
among Industrial Workers, with Special Reference to Female Munition
Workers_, p. 4.

Summing up the none too comprehensive evidence on the effects of
four years’ war work on the health of women workers, the War Cabinet
Committee on women in industry did not feel that any extensive
breakdown in health had occurred. Higher real wages often led to better
nutrition and greater comfort, health supervision within the factory
diminished preventable sickness and the nature of the work frequently
stimulated the women’s interest and improved their health and physical
capacity. Yet “it is undoubted that a considerable amount of fatigue
and sickness has occurred.” The rise in the tuberculosis death rate
was held to be significant. The strain was believed greatest among
married women who had to carry the double burden of industrial work
and domestic responsibilities. But on the whole the war demonstrated
that women workers had a greater reserve of energy than they had
been credited with and might safely enter “more varied and arduous
occupations” than had been thought desirable before the war.

_Effects of War Work on Home Life_

Unfortunately it seems probable that conditions of work in the munition
centers have been such as to have a disintegrating effect on home life.
Long working hours, frequent long train trips in addition to those
hours, overcrowded houses, the increased employment of married women
and of women at a distance from their homes have all contributed to
this result.

Two quotations, one from official, the other from labor sources,
illustrate the way in which home life was too often disrupted by
munitions work. According to the first:

While the urgent necessity for women’s work remains, and
while the mother’s time and the time of the elder girls
is largely given to the making of munitions, the home and
the younger children must inevitably suffer. Where home
conditions are bad, as they frequently are, where a long
working day is aggravated by long hours of traveling and
where, in addition, housing accommodation is inadequate,
family life is defaced beyond recognition.... Often far
from offering a rest from the fatigue of the day, the home
conditions offer but fresh aggravation. A day begun at 4 or
even 3.30 a.m. for work at 6 a.m., followed by 14 hours
in the factory and another 2 or 2½ hours on the journey
back, may end at 10 or 10.30 p.m., in a home or lodging
where the prevailing degree of overcrowding precludes all
possibility of comfortable rest. In such conditions of
confusion, pressure and overcrowding, home can have no
existence.[263]

[263] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 5.

Beginning January, 1916, attention to the “welfare” of women workers
outside the factory by the Ministry of Munitions no doubt often
improved the conditions. But early in 1917 a committee of women labor
leaders still felt that home life had in many cases been disorganized.

The result of war conditions has naturally been very marked
in its effects on the health and well being of the women and
children at home. The demand for the work of women ... has
been such that a large number of married women have been
pressed into industrial employment. This means, on the one
hand, a certain neglect of the duty of keeping their homes,
and on the other an extra and heavy burden on their strength
in order to fulfil, however inadequately, some part of these
necessary duties. The children, as well as the women, have
suffered from these results.[264]

[264] Committee of Industrial Women’s Organizations, _The Position of
Women After the War_, p. 9.

To be sure, in the first months of the war the increase in family
income had often meant better food, but even this advantage tended to
disappear with the rapid rise in prices and the actual scarcity of
certain products which occurred from time to time.

_Development of Personality in Women War Workers_

Nevertheless, surprising as it may seem in view of the harm which war
work appears often to have done to home life and sometimes to health,
the development of the woman industrial worker under it may prove to be
one of the most important changes wrought by the conflict.

An interesting article in _The New Statesman_[265] suggested
that “three years of war have been enough to effect an amazing
transformation,” in the average factory woman, especially in the
munition centers. They had gained an independence and an interest in
impersonal affairs seldom found before the war. “They appear more
alert, more critical of the conditions under which they work, more
ready to make a stand against injustice than their prewar selves or
their prototypes. They seem to have wider interests and more corporate
feeling. They have a keener appetite for experience and pleasure and a
tendency quite new to their class to protest against wrongs even before
they become intolerable.” It is “not that an entire class has been
reborn, but that the average factory woman is less helpless, and that
the class is evolving its own leaders.” The writer ascribed the change
in the main to a wider choice of employments, occasional gains in real
wages, praise of the women’s value in war service, and their discontent
with the operation of the munitions acts and other government measures:

[265] June 23, 1917, p. 271.

Again, the brains of the girl worker have been sharpened
by the discontent of her family. She is living in an
atmosphere of discontent with almost all established
things. There is discontent because of the high prices of
milk and meat, because of the scarcity of potatoes, sugar,
butter or margarine, because of the indigestible quality
of the war bread, because of the increased railway fares
and the big profits of many employers and contractors.
There is discontent with the discipline of the army,
with the humiliating position of brothers and husbands
and sweethearts who are privates, with the inadequacy of
army pensions and the delay in giving them. There is rage
against the munitions act, against munitions tribunals and
military tribunals. Every member of the family has his or
her grievance. The father perhaps is a skilled engineer and
is afraid that he is being robbed of the value of his skill
by the process of dilution. The eldest son is in the army,
and perhaps sends home tales of petty tyrannies, and minor,
avoidable irritations. Another son, with incurable physical
defects, is forced into the army and falls dangerously ill.
One daughter goes to another town to work in a munitions
factory, can not get a leaving certificate, and barely
earns enough to pay for board and lodging. Thus the women
of the family are being brought more than ever before into
contact with questions of principles and rights. Questions
of government administration are forced upon their notice.
And in the factory the very men who used to tell them that
trade unionism was no concern of theirs are urging them to
organize for the protection of men workers as well as of
themselves.... The woman worker who was formerly forbidden
by her menfolk to interest herself in public questions
is now assured by politicians, journalists, and the men
who work at her side that her labor is one of the most
vital elements in the national scheme of defence, and that
after the war it is going to be one of the most formidable
problems of reconstruction. Flattery and discontent have
always been the soundest schoolmasters. The factory woman
was a case of arrested development, and the war has given
her a brief opportunity which she is using to come into line
with men of her own class.

Though naturally more guarded in expression, the factory inspectors’
report for 1916 reflected a very similar opinion. The change was
noted principally among women substitutes for men. There, especially
in heavy work, “the acquisition of men’s rates of pay has had a
peculiarly enheartening and stimulating effect.” On the northeast coast
in particular, where prewar opportunities for women had been limited
and their wages very low, their replacement of men in shipbuilding,
munitions, chemicals and iron works had “revolutionized” the position
of the woman worker.

“The national gain appears to me to be overwhelming,” it was stated
further, “as against all risks of loss or disturbance, in the new
self-confidence engendered in women by the very considerable proportion
of cases where they are efficiently doing men’s work at men’s rates of
pay. If this new valuation can be reflected on to their own special
and often highly skilled and nationally indispensable occupations a
renaissance may there be effected of far greater significance even than
the immediate widening of women’s opportunities, great as that is.
Undervaluation there in the past has been the bane of efficiency, and
has meant a heavy loss to the nation.”[266]

[266] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, pp. 6, 7.

The principal effects of the war on the woman worker were strikingly
reviewed by Dr. Marion Phillips, at a “conference of working class
organizations,” held at Bradford in March, 1917. Dr. Phillips held that
the roots of the change lay in the absence of millions of men from
their homes on military service and in the fact that for the first
time the demand for women workers was greater than the supply. As a
result of military demands, wives were deprived of their “dearest and
most intimate counsellors,” their husbands, and were obliged to form
independent judgments, but gained thereby a “new grasp of experience, a
widened outlook and greater confidence in their own judgment.”

The keen demand for women workers resulted in higher wages, greater
opportunities for promotion and more openings in the skilled trades.
Women learned their own value as workers and a growing desire for
equality with male workers was manifested. Higher wages enabled women
workers to obtain more food, and there was a general rise in their
standard of living.

On the other hand, Dr. Phillips notes as unfortunate results on women
workers, the increase in hours, night work and frequent entrance into
unsuitable occupations which overtaxed their strength. There had been a
great influx into industry of women with young children, and a “general
dispersion and scattering of home groups.” Many young women lived in
munition centers in hostels or lodgings away from the restraining
influence of family and friends. It was claimed that this system
encouraged too militaristic a discipline and unfortunate interferences
with the private life of the worker by employers and “welfare
supervisors.” But it is reassuring to see that Dr. Phillips, who is not
likely to underestimate the evils produced by the war, gives as her
final judgment that “the good effects were infinitely more important
than the bad ones.”

CHAPTER XV

Peace and Reconstruction

To a far greater extent than in the United States, England, while the
war was still in progress, looked ahead to the problems which would
inevitably arise when the country shifted back to a peace basis.

As early as the summer of 1916 discussion of methods of adjustment from
war to peace had begun. A “Ministry of Reconstruction” was created in
August, 1917, succeeding a “Reconstruction Committee of the Cabinet,”
which had been appointed over a year earlier. It is noteworthy that as
time went on “the idea of reconstruction, of a simple return to prewar
conditions, was gradually supplanted by the larger and worthier ideal
of a better world after the war.”[267] The aim of the reconstruction
movement came to be not simply to tide over the transition from war
to peace but also to remedy the prewar evils which war experience had
disclosed.

[267] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, _Reconstruction
Pamphlet_ No. 1, “The Aims of Reconstruction,” 1918, p. 4.

Many conferences discussed “reconstruction,” and a multitude of books
and pamphlets kept the printing presses busy. The point of view of
labor was put forward in that remarkable document, “Labour and the
New Social Order,” later adopted as the platform of the reorganized
Labor party. A “Joint Committee on Labour Problems after the War”
representing the most important labor bodies also put out a number of
pamphlets on special subjects. The Ministry of Reconstruction through
numerous subcommittees dealt with a wide variety of concrete problems,
such as shipping, finance, the allocation of raw materials, rural
development, military demobilization, health, housing and education.
The “Civil War Workers Committee,” the “Committee on Joint Standing
Industrial Councils,” and the “Women’s Advisory Committee on the
Domestic Service Problem,” were among those dealing with questions
affecting the woman worker. But when the armistice came many plans
were not complete, and in only a few cases had the machinery for
putting them into effect actually been created. So in spite of the
really remarkable extent of their attention to after war conditions
the English had after all to trust in large part to hastily improvised
schemes or to chance.

There were three principal problems affecting the woman worker which
pressed for attention during the reconstruction period. First, the
prevention of unemployment as the flood of war orders subsided was
alone sufficient to tax the resources of the best statesmanship.[268]
Second, there was the question of industrial opportunities for the
“dilutees,” who had taken up work formerly reserved for skilled men
under government pledges or unofficial agreements that pre-existing
conditions would be restored at the end of the war. Third, equality
of payment where men and women were doing similar work had become a
burning issue, responsible for no small share of the labor unrest
prevalent during the latter part of the war.

[268] The Women’s Employment Committee of the Ministry of
Reconstruction held that the question of what disposition should be
made of the national factories was also one of major importance.
The committee suggested that work in these factories, if they were
retained by the government, could be so regulated as largely to prevent
unemployment by manufacturing goods for which an early demand could
be foreseen. Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, _Report of the
Women’s Employment Committee_ (Cd. 9239) 1919, p. 4.

While unemployment prevention, though no small problem, was merely a
matter of industrial readjustment temporary in nature, action on the
other two questions promised to lead to an extensive reconstruction of
prewar conditions. In whatever was done it was necessary to take into
account the fact that the labor movement was larger and more militant
than before the war, with a definite program which would not be
satisfied even with the best of working conditions, but which demanded
a voice in the shaping of the whole conduct of industry.

_Postwar Unemployment among Women_

It was generally anticipated that an unemployment crisis would follow
the cessation of war activities, in which, as at the beginning of
the struggle, women workers would suffer more than men, since so
large a proportion of them were working in war industries, taking
the places of men only for the duration of the war. Among munition
workers in the engineering trade “the great majority of male workers
will probably continue,” said the Civil War Workers Committee, “but
there can be little doubt that large numbers of women workers will
be definitely discharged.”[269] It estimated that 420,000 women
munition workers would lose their jobs at the end of the war. Public
attention was forcibly called to the danger by the sudden discharge
of several thousand women munition makers in the spring of 1917, on
account of a change in the kind of munitions needed. The women were
suddenly dismissed without the slightest provision for finding them new
positions—“turned off,” said one writer, “with as little ceremony as
one turns off the gas.” Although many women were then needed in other
branches of munition work there was, for a time, much confusion and
distress.

[269] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, Civil War Workers
Committee, _First Interim Report_, p. 5.

The official agency charged with developing a plan for the prevention
of unemployment among war workers was the “Civil War Workers Committee”
appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction. The committee was
authorized to “consider and report upon the arrangements which should
be made for the demobilization of workers engaged during the war in
national factories, controlled establishments, in other firms engaged
in the production of munitions of war and on government contracts, or
in firms where substitute labour has been employed for the duration
of the war,” and its six reports outline such plans in considerable
detail. Most of the recommendations applied to men and women alike.
They included the aid of the government principally through its
employment exchanges, in helping discharged war workers find other
employment, two weeks’ notice or two weeks’ wages to all employes
on government contracts, free railroad passes to those who had left
home to work on munitions and encouragement to private employers, the
government and foreign customers to place postwar orders before the
end of the conflict. As soon as there was “a reasonable prospect of
peace” the employment exchanges should canvass employers for peace
time openings and register available employes. On the ground that
it was impracticable to distinguish between war workers and others
and impossible to select with assurance the trades most liable to
unemployment during the reconstruction period the committee advised a
general extension of the existing plan of unemployment insurance. On
a scheme which had received considerable comment in certain quarters,
that of granting every munition worker a month’s vacation with pay, the
committee reported adversely by a vote of twelve to seven.

In reviewing the probable position of women workers after the war, the
committee noted that outside the metal and chemical industries, the
bulk were in commercial and clerical occupations. It recommended the
establishment of still another committee to “consider the conditions
of women’s employment” in these lines. A fairly comprehensive program
for the “demobilization” of temporary clerks in government departments
was laid out. A special employment exchange working with the Civil
Service Commission, the arrangement of training courses, special
consideration to the temporary clerks in making new appointments and
determination of the future position of women in government employment
were urged. But in behalf of clerical workers in private employment
the only recommendation was the provision, when necessary, of advisory
committees in connection with the employment exchanges. Women farm
workers were not believed to need help in adjusting themselves and on
the railways the future position of the women could be settled only by
agreement between the companies and the unions.

Despite the protests of the workers and the efforts of official
committees, anticipations as to widespread unemployment were all too
accurately fulfilled. In the month before the armistice, October, 1918,
the official _Labour Gazette_ reported the state of employment as “very
good. Much overtime was worked in nearly all the principal trades.”
But by December there was “a marked decline in employment, especially
for women.” In the first week of the new year, nearly 225,000 women
were receiving the weekly “donations” for unemployed war workers,[270]
in contrast to 101,000 men. Four months later, in May, of the 63,930
persons receiving reduced donations after having been paid for thirteen
weeks, nearly two-thirds were women. The number of civilians in receipt
of “donations” rose each week until the first week in March, when
it reached a total of 494,000 women and 234,000 men. From that time
on the number of unemployed war workers gradually decreased, until
on November 21, three days prior to discontinuance, there were only
34,271 female applicants for out-of-work donations.[271] Yet on the
whole, even though there was for a few months an alarming amount of
unemployment among women workers, officials held that British industry
adjusted itself to peace more quickly than it had to war. A long list
of factories which had changed from war to peace products, for instance
from airplanes to furniture and from fuses to electric equipment,
was given as early as February. Government control of raw materials
was used to aid the transition, and priority was given to certain
essentials in using the productive capacity set free from war work.

[270] _Vide_ p. 246.

[271] _Vide_ Appendix L for detailed figures on unemployment among
women workers after the armistice.

The independence among women workers which had developed during
the war was reflected in their attitude during the period of great
unemployment. In the similar crisis at the beginning of the war they
had been inarticulate. But on February 15, 1919, their organizations
arranged a meeting in Albert Hall, London, attended by women
representing nearly every trade, at which women speakers dwelt on the
folly of unemployment while the country was in need of all kinds of
manufactured articles. Resolutions were passed giving the three points
of the “Women’s Charter”—“the right to work, the right to live and the
right to leisure.” It was held that all workers by hand or brain should
unite, and that work should be provided for the unemployed. An adequate
living wage, an eight hour day and a forty hour week were advocated as
standards for working conditions. A deputation was organized to take
the resolutions to the Prime Minister, but apparently he did not reply
to them.[272]

[272] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Monthly Labor Review_,
May, 1919, pp. 242-243.

The measures actually adopted by the government show many traces of
the Civil War Workers Committee recommendations, though, hastily put
in force as they were, they were much less complete, and in some cases
widely different. The arrangements made but little distinction between
men and women workers. The whole process of “demobilizing” war workers
was put in charge of a “controller general” responsible to the Ministry
of Labor, who controlled the employment exchanges, a new “Appointments
Branch” for “men of office rank” and the labor departments of the
Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty and the War Office. The employment
exchanges were made the center for the transfer of war workers. By the
day after the armistice the recall of employment exchange officials
from the army had been arranged. Staff and premises were enlarged and
additional local advisory committees formed. Various efforts were
made to provide raw materials and to hasten the change to peace time
work by munition manufacturers. Instructions to manufacturers asked
them to avoid an immediate general discharge of workers, to abolish
all overtime and piece work at once, and to retain as many workers as
possible on short time. If wages under this plan fell below certain
levels, which were for women 25s. ($6.00) a week, the government agreed
to make up the difference. In case of actual discharge, a week’s
notice or a week’s pay was to be given, and free railway passes home
or to new work places were provided. “The loyal and cordial cooperation
of all employers” in carrying out the directions was invited, but
nothing is at hand to show to what extent they were observed or how far
they lessened unemployment. It will be noted that men and women workers
were treated practically alike under this scheme. The “Waacs” and other
women auxiliaries of the army and navy were demobilized under the same
conditions as all members of the military forces, receiving, besides
certain gratuities, a civilian outfit, four weeks’ pay and a railway
pass.

Special provision for unemployed women through training courses was
outlined in a pamphlet issued by the government in the spring of
1919.[273] It was stated that a large number of typical women’s trades,
such as clothing, textiles, food manufacture and laundry work, would be
covered by short training courses of from one to six months’ duration,
usually three months. In addition a special course in housekeeping
would be offered. The courses might be given in any suitable place,
such as a factory, as well as in trade schools and the government
instructional factories formerly used for training munition workers.
Approved students were to receive 15s. to 25s. ($3.50-$6.00) a week
while taking the course, with traveling fares if necessary, and an
additional 10s. ($2.40) weekly if obliged to live away from home.

[273] _Vide The Common Cause_, May 9, 1919, p. 1.

When the government adopted for immediate action the plans for
relieving unemployment previously outlined it also put forward
certain other schemes for decreasing unemployment during the later
reconstruction period, which included the stimulation of orders
and contracts, public and private, an increase in public works and
improvements and the extension of contributory unemployment insurance
to practically all workers.

The chief reliance of the government in dealing with unemployment
after the armistice was not a contributory insurance plan, but a
system of unemployment “donations.” Before the war contributory
unemployment insurance, paying 7s. ($1.68) a week to unemployed workers
for fifteen weeks a year from a fund created through small weekly
contributions for employers, employes and the government, covered
2,200,000 workers in six trades, almost all of whom were males. In
1916 the law was extended for a period of from three to five years
after the end of the war to include most of the chief war industries
with an additional 1,500,000 employes, including many women. But by
an emergency order made within a few weeks after the armistice, the
contributory insurance law was temporarily superseded by a scheme of
“donations” applying also to all war workers not previously covered
and all ex-soldiers and sailors. Free policies were issued, at first
good in the case of civilians for six months beginning November 25,
1918, and in the case of soldiers, for twelve months from the date of
demobilization. The policies provided their holders with donations
while unemployed for thirteen weeks if civilians and twenty-six
weeks if soldiers. The original scale was 20s. ($4.80) weekly for
women workers, which was raised after a few weeks to 25s. ($6.00).
Additional payments were made for dependent children, amounting to 6s.
($1.44) weekly for the first and 3s. (72 cents) for each succeeding
child. A later amendment permitted payments to civilians for an
additional thirteen weeks at a reduced rate, which was, for women,
15s. ($3.60) weekly. Later, in May, 1919, when according to the terms
of the original order all donation policies held by civilians would
have expired, they were renewed for an additional six months. Except
for ex-service men and women, the system was finally discontinued
on November 25, 1919. At this date 137,000 civilians were receiving
donations, of whom 29,000 were females. All donations were paid through
the employment exchanges and could be stopped if the recipients refused
“to accept suitable employment.”

Undoubtedly the system of unemployment donations prevented much
suffering among thousands of wage earners to whom the country was
indebted for their war work. But as a whole its operation can not be
said to have been satisfactory, particularly among women employes. An
entire session of the House of Commons was devoted mainly to criticisms
of the system and its defence by the Minister of Labor. Complaints of
“slackers” who were taking a vacation at the taxpayers’ expense were
met by charges that women were being forced to take places at sweated
wages by refusals to pay the unemployment donations. In the five months
ending April 25, 1919, claims for donations numbering 141,770 were
disallowed, in 100,442 of which cases appeals to the referees were
made. Only 27,536 of the appealed claims were finally allowed, 81 per
cent of the women’s claims being denied, about half of them on the
ground of “refusal to accept suitable employment.”[274]

[274] _Labour Gazette_, May, 1919, pp. 171 and 187.

The Ministry of Labor, which administered the unemployment donations,
admitted that an unsatisfied demand for women workers existed in
domestic service, laundries, the needle work trades and in some
districts in the textile industry at the same time that half a million
women were out of work. But the places open were either very highly
skilled or grossly underpaid and unattractive. For one firm which
needed 5,000 workers, the employment exchanges could find only fifty
women who seemed qualified, of whom the firm hired only fifteen.

The association of laundrymen even appealed to the government to bring
pressure to bear on the women to accept work, but apparently no action
was taken in answer to the demand. The women workers themselves said
that when the government had raised the rate of unemployment donations
from 20s. to 25s. weekly on the ground that a single woman could not
live on less, they could not be expected to enter laundries at 18s.
($4.32) a week.

Other less prominent difficulties of adjustment were the reluctance of
soldiers’ wives to enter new kinds of work when they would retire from
industry in a few months, and the unwillingness of women in general to
go from the comparatively high wages of munitions to the low wages of
learners and to factories lacking the conveniences of the new munitions
plants.

Criticism of the system was so widespread that an official
investigating committee was formed which issued two reports.[275] The
committee concluded that there had been no widespread fraud, though
under the plan as first put in operation it was possible legally for
persons who were not genuinely seeking work to abuse the scheme. The
committee felt, however, that the emergency had been great and that
if the later safeguards had been introduced in the beginning the
whole system might have broken down. They recommended, among other
points, swifter prosecution of fraud, a contributory rather than a
noncontributory plan, and discontinuance of allowances based on the
number of dependents. They felt that applicants must not expect exactly
the same sort of work or wage rates that they had had during the war,
and that donations should be stopped if similar work was refused.

[275] Committee of Inquiry into the Scheme of Out-of-Work Donation.
_Interim Report_ (Cmd. 196), _Final Report_ (Cmd. 305).

_The Domestic Service Problem_

Some of the main difficulties and the keenest discussion centered on
the question of domestic service. That the Ministry of Reconstruction
found it advisable to appoint a “Women’s Advisory Committee on the
Domestic Service Problem,” which made a formal report, indicates the
extent of agitation on the subject. It will be recalled that during the
war the number of household servants decreased by 400,000. Householders
seemingly expected that as soon as the war was over this shortage would
be made up from the ranks of ex-munition workers. But this failed to
occur. Some dissatisfaction with the wages offered, most frequently
10s. to 13s. ($2.40 to $3.12 a week, with board) was expressed, but
the chief complaint was that of long hours and unsatisfactory personal
treatment.

Various schemes for attracting workers by improving conditions were
put forward, some of which involved radical changes from the usual
customs. The majority of the official Women’s Advisory Committee,
however, placed its chief emphasis in solving the problem merely on the
provision of improved methods of training, notably a two year course
to be entered by girls of fourteen. Other groups, such as the Fabian
Women’s Group and the Women’s Industrial Council, advocated plans which
in essence abolished all “living in,” and provided for hostels giving
training which would send qualified workers into the homes for a fixed
number of hours. By May the Young Women’s Christian Association was
ready to open a hostel in London from which workers were to be sent
out on an eight hour basis. Employers were to pay 10d. (20 cents)
an hour to the hostel, and the workers were to receive 30s. ($7.20)
for a forty-eight hour week, and to pay the hostel £1 ($4.80) weekly
for board, for a guarantee against unemployment, for use of uniform
and club privileges. If the hostel was successful, others were to be
started.[276]

[276] _London Times_, May 1, 1919.

Meanwhile an active movement for union organization among domestic
servants was begun, and forty branches having 4,000 members were formed
in the four or five months after the armistice. The chief aim of the
union was said to be the raising of the status of domestic service
so that the workers would be proud of it. Its standards seemed to be
comparatively modest—a minimum weekly wage of 12s. 6d. ($2.40) for
general servants and 15s. ($3.60) for cooks, a ten hour work day during
a fourteen hour period, part of Sunday and another half day off weekly
and abolition of uniforms. This last demand perhaps represented the
sharpest departure from prevailing customs. In Glasgow a “Mistresses’
League” was formed to cooperate with the union, and it was the general
opinion of persons interested that both sides needed organizing.

Still “a house is not a factory,” and there were not wanting friends of
the women worker to point out that domestic service must necessarily
remain to some extent individual and unstandardized.

I am profoundly sceptical as to the various “industrialised”
suggestions put forward—the introduction of shifts, etc.
How could a household worker strictly on a shift system deal
with the irregular incursion of visitors, children home for
the holidays, measles, influenza, spring cleaning and other
ills to which mortal flesh is heir?...

From the maid’s point of view, I take it the main
disadvantages of domestic service are twofold; the question
of free evenings and the uncertainty as to the type of
household. Time off in the afternoon is naturally of less
value than time off at night. Similarly a maid may find
herself on taking a new situation in a comfortable home or
very much the reverse.

In a house organized on proper lines, domestic service has
compensations as well as drawbacks. A just mistress will
arrange for adequate time off, even if the home can not
be laid down each week with mathematical exactness. She
will see that her maids are properly housed, that their
food is adequate and properly cooked, that their work is
organized on sensible lines and gives as much scope as
possible for individual responsibility. In a household which
lives literally as a family and is inspired with mutual
consideration and good will “that servant problem” simply
does not exist. When mutual consideration and good will are
lacking neither corps, caps, correspondence nor conferences
will create the cement by which a contented household is
held together.[277]

[277] Violet Markham in _The Labour Woman_, June, 1919, p. 59.

It is difficult to tell how far these new schemes will change the
conditions of housekeeping and lessen unemployment by attracting women
to domestic service. But the fact that they were put forward is an
interesting sign of the extent of the movement for reconstructing the
national life on better lines.

_Dilution and Equal Pay_

The other two chief problems of the women workers in the
reconstruction period, that of the “dilutees,” who had taken up men’s
work during the war, and that of “equal pay for equal work” and an
adequate standard of wages for women workers generally, were closely
related to each other. Much of the opposition of the men workers to
the entrance of women into new occupations was based on the fact that
women’s wage standards were lower than those of men. In most cases, it
will be remembered, dilution had taken place under promises that it
would last only during the war. Parliament, by the Munitions Act, had
given the government’s pledge that departures from prewar practices
should be merely temporary in the establishments covered.[278] Similar
clauses, often even more explicit, were found in practically all
the substitution agreements made by private employers with labor
organizations.[279] Meanwhile the fixing of women’s wages by law
had been widely extended, and, in the opinion of close students of
labor problems, “a removal of the statutory regulations might well be
followed by a serious and immediate fall in wages.”[280]

[278] _Vide_ p. 55.

[279] _Vide_ p. 62.

[280] G. D. H. and M. I. Cole, _Regulation of Wages_, p. 17.

The government in several instances took action on matters connected
with women’s wages and occupations after the war, but it is not too
harsh to say that a disposition to tide over difficulties temporarily
rather than to define any very clear line of policy was evident. Two
laws were passed affecting the after war wages of women. The Trade
Boards (minimum wage) Act was extended in 1918, before the close of
the war, as a measure of preparedness for peace. “There is reason to
fear that the after war dislocation of industry will make the problem
of adequate wages for unskilled and unorganized workers, especially
women, very acute,” said an official explanation of the changes in the
act.[281] “Eight years’ satisfactory results of Trade Boards pointed to
these as the best way of meeting the situation.” The new law provided
that boards might be formed wherever wages were _unduly_ low, instead
of _exceptionally_ low as in the original law. The general wage
level for women workers was so low before the war that it had often
been difficult to prove an “exceptional” condition. Provisions were
also made to have minimum wage awards come into force more quickly.
By the spring of 1919 new Trade Boards had been formed in eight
industries.[282] They apparently fixed wages for women on the basis
of the necessary cost of living for a single woman—28s. ($6.72) for a
forty-eight hour week in laundries, for example.

[281] _Labour Gazette_, August, 1918, p. 307.

[282] Tobacco; aerated waters; boot and shoe repairing; paper bag
making; brush and broom making; hair, bass, and fibre trade; laundries;
corsets.

But the Trade Boards covered only a fraction of the industries of the
country, and further measures were considered necessary to prevent a
dislocation of wages. Following the advice of a committee appointed
by the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Wages (Temporary Regulation)
Bill was passed November 21, 1918. This act required employers to
pay the “prescribed” or “substituted” rate which prevailed at the
time of the armistice for a period of six months. In May, 1919, the
provisions of the act were extended for another six months. Under
this law an Interim Court of arbitration was set up which handled the
arbitration of disputed wage cases. During the year of its existence
it made 932 awards and advised on several others. On November 20,
1919, this Interim Court was displaced by the Industrial Courts Act,
which in addition to its function of voluntary arbitration, extended
certain parts of the Wages Temporary Regulation Act until September 30,
1920.[283] At the close of the war the greatest number of women were
substituting for men on semi-skilled and repetition processes, and it
was therefore semi-skilled men who were menaced most immediately by
the danger of undercutting by the women. But in the rapid extension of
specialized work during the war lay an evident threat to the position
of the skilled worker. A right solution of the two questions, in which
the interests of all the groups concerned would be safeguarded, would
apparently involve a modification of prewar conditions, rather than a
return to them.

[283] Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, _Labour Gazette_, December,
1919, pp. 514, 515.

Three points of view were evident in English opinion about women’s
work and wages after the armistice. The first point of view was,
briefly, that women workers would and should return to their prewar
occupations. But little attention was given to the question of their
wage level. Whether such a return was possible or just to the women
themselves, or whether they might not be excluded for a time but
remain potential competitors with low wage standards, thus bringing
about the very danger they were trying to avoid—all this was seemingly
not considered. Though relatively seldom expressed in print it was a
viewpoint held widely and tenaciously. Government officials, visiting
America in November, 1917, for instance, said that marriage, the return
of married women to their homes and the revival of the luxury trades
and domestic service, would relieve the situation. Many old line trade
unionists also believed that women should not be allowed to remain in
most of their new lines of work, and demanded the literal fulfilment
of all pledges to that effect. The general secretary of the Postal
and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, at a conference of “Working Class
Associations” said as to the basis of suitable occupations:

My own view, for what it is worth, is that this problem could be
solved with very little trouble. I think a careful study of the
census returns for the last thirty years would help to solve the
problem of the basis of suitability. We could safely conclude that
the occupations which, according to the census, show a steady and
persistent increase in the number of women employed are suitable
occupations for the extension of women’s labour. I think we must
face it ... that, as far as we can see at present, the prewar
standard for fixing wages as between men and women is likely to
remain.

A second point of view, which might be termed the “moderate” one,
compromising between prewar and war conditions, advocated the retention
of women in all “suitable” occupations, together with an extension
of protective labor legislation, protection of the wage level by
minimum wage fixing, and “equal pay for equal work” where men and
women remained in the same occupations. This opinion was evident
in the two chief official reports on women’s work which have been
issued since the armistice, that of the Home Office on “Substitution
of Women in Nonmunition Factories during the War” and that of the
“War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.” The former described
a fairly large range of new employments as “suitable” for women,
including positions in scientific laboratory work, supervision and
management, as well as factory processes. Even with all unsuitable
occupations set aside, there remained “a body of industries and
operations offering a hopeful field of fresh employment to women,
where their war experience can be turned to account, and should prove
a national asset of great value.” Among the approved trades were light
leather tanning, fancy leather manufacture, box and packing case
making, furniture, scientific instrument making, flint glass cutting
and engraving, and cutlery, except scissors manufacture. The factors
causing an occupation to be disapproved were the heaviness of the work,
the use of dangerous machinery or poisonous substances, the presence
of exceptional heat, wet or dirt and the necessity for night work or
solitary employment.[284] Basing its conclusions on considerations of
“efficiency” and relative output, the War Cabinet Committee decided
that women would probably not remain in heavy manual labor and out
door work. There had not been time during the war to judge of their
effectiveness in skilled work, but in routine and repetition processes,
into which the war had hastened their “normal” movement, they had
been successful and were likely to stay permanently. Repetition work
in the metal trades, light work in chemical plants, certain processes
in printing, woodworking and manufacture, agriculture, commerce
and government positions, and many of the new administrative and
professional openings for educated women, were mentioned by the War
Cabinet Committee as providing possibilities for the continued work of
women.[285] But both reports recognized that many other factors besides
suitability, notably the attitude of the trade unions, would play an
important part in determining the position of the woman worker.

[284] _Vide_ Appendix M (p. 249) for list of “unsuitable” occupations.

[285] The report of the “Machinery of Government Committee” took a
similar position, advocating in a rather guarded way the increased
employment of women in the civil service, including the upper division,
from which they had been excluded before the war.

The chief purpose of the investigations of the War Cabinet Committee
was to decide on the proper relation between the wages of men and
of women. The majority of the committee concluded that when men and
women did radically different work, it was “not possible to lay down
a relation between their wages.” However, for the protection of women
workers they urged a universal minimum wage for adult women, sufficient
to cover the necessary cost of living for a single woman. The extension
and strengthening of protective labor laws was also endorsed, and
the possibility of such regulation through international action was
welcomed. But when the two sexes had entered the same occupations, the
committee subscribed to the principle of equal pay for equal work, “in
the sense that pay should be in proportion to efficient output.” The
committee believed that piece rates should be equal and time rates
should be fixed by trade union negotiation. In the frequent case in
which a woman was doing part of a man’s job, the total rate should be
unchanged, and the different workers should be paid in proportion to
the value of their contribution. Where processes were simplified on the
introduction of women, the women should be paid the unskilled men’s
rate, unless it could be proved that their work was of less value.

The third position regarding women’s wages and women on men’s jobs was
clear cut and uncompromising and was perhaps typified in a minority
report to the War Cabinet Committee by Mrs. Sidney Webb. In this report
Mrs. Webb expressed the belief that existing relations between men’s
and women’s employment were harmful to individuals and to the nation.
All occupations should be opened to qualified persons regardless of
sex, at the same standard rates and under the same working conditions.
“Equal pay for equal work” was an ambiguous and easily evaded phrase.
A national legal minimum wage should also be fixed, in which “there
should be no sex inequality.” As a corollary to the proposals Mrs.
Webb believed that some form of public provision for the needs of
maternity and childhood should be established. “There seems no
alternative—assuming that the nation wants children—to some form of
state provision, entirely apart from wages.”[286]

[286] Great Britain, _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry, Minority Report_, p. 255.

Eighteen months after the signing of the armistice it was still hardly
possible to know definitely what the after war wages and occupations
of the woman worker would be. After war industrial conditions in
themselves naturally stimulated some return of women to their former
occupations. Many of the women substitutes were found in munition
making which was immediately curtailed, while the luxury, the needle
and other “women’s” trades, depressed during the war may be expected
to revive in time. The reluctance of women to enter these trades under
the prevailing wage standards was very pronounced, however. Another
important factor in forcing women back to prewar lines of work was the
carrying out of certain war time substitution agreements. For example,
the newly formed industrial council of the wool textile industry,
representing employers and employes, adopted on February 3, 1919, the
substitution agreement made between employers and work people of the
West Riding of Yorkshire three years before. By the terms of this
agreement, the returning soldiers were to get their places back when
fit for employment. Women were not to be employed on men’s work if
men were available and were to be the first discharged if there was a
shortage of work. As long as women substitutes remained in the industry
they were to be paid on a basis equivalent to that of men workers.

But in other cases, even though similar agreements exist, it appears
probable that they will be modified to allow women to keep at least
some of their new jobs. Although the Amalgamated Society of Engineers
had the legal sanction of the Munitions Acts for excluding women from
engineering at the end of the war, at a conference between employers
and the union for drafting an after war trade agreement their president
expressed his willingness to allow women to remain in semi-skilled
repetition work. According to this official much of this kind of work
would be carried on in munition plants converted into factories for
the manufacture of articles formerly imported. Officials expect the
so-called “Whitley” industrial councils of employers and employes to
make many similar adjustments, but it has been noted that the council
in the woolen industry merely reverted to prewar conditions and
arranged to shut out the women. Moreover, in many new occupations,
notably clerical and commercial work, which women entered without
conditions, and where their efficiency has been demonstrated, it seems
almost certain that they will remain. The awakened spirit among women
workers and the growth of labor organizations among them, which will
give voice to their demands, must also not be forgotten in judging
whether women will not continue to occupy at least a part of their
new field of work. The radical point of view, that there should be
no barriers against their continuing all their new occupations has
attracted much attention from its logical presentation and the new note
that it strikes.

The position of the government on “dilution” is not wholly clear.
During the Parliamentary campaign of December, 1918, Lloyd George,
in answer to questions from Lady Rhondda of the Women’s Industrial
League, stated that he intended to carry out the terms of the Treasury
Agreement of 1915, which promised to restore prewar practices. But
“the government had never agreed that new industries come under the
Treasury Agreement.” Women could find employment in these, which were
already extensive, and in their prewar occupations. The Prime Minister
also stated that he was “a supporter of the principle of equal pay
for equal output. To permit women to be the catspaw for reducing the
level of wages is unthinkable.” In his stand at this time, Lloyd George
appeared to approach the middle-of-the-road compromising position of
the majority of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.

A somewhat similar stand was taken in the “Restoration of Prewar
Practices Act” of August 15, 1919, which arranged for the fulfilment
of pledges made in the Treasury Agreement. It required the owners of
the establishments covered—mainly those engaged in munitions work—to
restore or permit the restoration of prewar trade rules and customs,
and to allow such prewar practices to be continued for a year.

Rules laid down by the Ministry of Labour are quoted, however, which
would turn out all the “dilutees,” both male and female, and give
back to the skilled men their former monopoly. The rules state that
wherever a part of the force must be discharged, the “dilutees” must
go first and that if a skilled man applies for work, a “dilutee” must
be discharged if necessary.[287] It is probable that these rules apply
only to establishments covered by the Munition Acts, but, as far as
they go, they leave the women nothing of their war time gains.

[287] _Scientific American_, June 7, 1919.

On the other hand, in assenting to the recommendations of the national
Industrial Conference, the government agreed with those who argued
for the same protective legislation for both sexes along with state
maternity provisions. This national industrial conference, representing
employers and employes was called in the spring of 1919 during great
labor unrest. It urged legislation for a forty-eight hour week and a
universal minimum wage for both sexes, and such bills were pending in
Parliament in September, 1919.

The conference also proposed that public provision for maternity
care be extended and centralized under the Ministry of Health to
whose creation the government was pledged. Maternity protection will
undoubtedly hold a prominent place in legislation during the next few
years. The successful strike of the women bus workers for equal pay,
supported as they were by their male coworkers and by the public, gave
hope for the coming of industrial equality between men and women. Such
equality immediately raises the question of pay for the services which
married women render to the state. The rearing of healthy children is
of vital national importance and the endowment of motherhood, provision
of milk and proper food for pregnant and nursing mothers and the
extension of maternity centers and hospitals with medical and nursing
care, are already under consideration by the newly created Ministry of
Health.

_Child Workers After the War_

On the needs of children there was much more general agreement. The
most pressing problem was prevention of unemployment during the
readjustment from war to peace time production. The larger issue lay in
greater public control over the first years of working life, to the end
that the young workers might grow into better citizens. Both problems
were undoubtedly made more difficult by the harm done to boys and girls
in body and character by the war. But at the same time the war had
roused a greater appreciation of the value of these future citizens and
a greater determination to improve their chances.

Alarming forecasts were made as to the probable extent of unemployment
among boys and girls at the end of the war by a committee of enquiry
appointed by the Ministry of Labour at the suggestion of the Ministry
of Reconstruction.[288] A number of munition firms which were canvassed
said that they intended to discharge nearly half their boys and three
quarters of their girls when peace was declared. It was estimated that
60,000 out of the 200,000 working boys and girls in London would be
thrown out of a job. Acute unemployment was predicted in occupations
that had engaged more than three-tenths of all working girls—the metal,
woodworking and chemical trades, government establishments, transport
and perhaps commerce.

[288] _The Labour Gazette_, December, 1919, p. 524.

It was likewise anticipated that it would be particularly difficult
for boys and girls dismissed at the end of the war to find new places.
Not only would openings be few and the numbers of adults seeking work
be large, but the high wages children had received for repetition
work on munitions would make them unwilling to learn trades or to
accept lower pay. When a number of boys were discharged from munition
plants in 1916-1917, although labor at that time was very scarce,
great difficulty was found in getting them new places because of
their unwillingness to accept ordinary wages. To meet the crisis the
Ministry of Reconstruction committee suggested a comprehensive program
for unemployment prevention. The discharge of war workers should be
regulated and placement centered in the employment exchanges, whose
juvenile employment committees were to be strengthened. Government
establishments should hold back dismissals until notified that places
were open. A canvass for possible openings and for probable dismissals
should be made in advance of the end of the war.

The second point in the committee’s plan was keeping newcomers out of
industry. The exemptions allowing children under fourteen to leave
school should be abolished, scholarships provided for many capable
children at secondary schools, and the working weeks for all under
eighteen reduced to forty-eight hours. For those still uncared for,
training during unemployment should be provided. Training centers
should be opened in all towns of over 20,000 population and allowances
made to parents whose children attended. For the boys most demoralized
by war work it might even be necessary to open residential training
camps where they could remain at least six or eight weeks.

The third main point in the program was the improvement of working
conditions, including for all occupations a week of forty-eight hours
for work and continuation school together, the abolition of night work,
and a searching physical examination before entering industry. A novel
recommendation was that it should be made a legal offence to employ
young persons under conditions “impeding their training.”

But as was the case with the women workers, the comprehensive plans
worked out under the Ministry of Reconstruction had not been adopted
when the armistice was signed, and juvenile workers were helped through
the unemployment crisis only by the incomplete makeshifts hastily
adopted in the first few days after November 11. Chief among these
was the provision of unemployment donations, the payment of which
was conditional on attendance at a training center wherever one was
available. The donations were payable for the same period as those
for adults, that is, for thirteen weeks during the first six months
of peace, later extended for a second six months, but were less in
amount, being 14s. 6d. ($5.48) weekly for boys and 12s. 6d. ($3.00) for
girls. During the first few months of 1919, about 50,000 young persons
received the donations.

The number receiving donations steadily declined until on November 21,
1919, when civilian donations ceased, there were 8,000 boys and 2,287
girls on the Labor Exchange donation lists.[289] By February of that
year 116 training centers had been opened, providing nearly sufficient
in London, and a smaller number elsewhere. More were opening daily, but
it was hard to find teachers and rooms. The centers were managed by the
Board of Education, in close cooperation with the employment exchanges.
About 13,500 boys and girls were in attendance daily.[290]

[289] _The Labour Gazette_, December, 1919, p. 524.

[290] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, _Pamphlets on
Reconstruction Problems, No. 15_, “Juvenile Employment,” 1919, p. 19.

The Fisher Education Law is, to date, the chief constructive measure
looking toward a permanent improvement in the condition of juvenile
workers. This measure was the result of proposals made by 1917 by an
official committee on “Juvenile Education in Relation to Employment
after the War,” which were strikingly like those put forward by a
number of workers’ organizations. All exceptions allowing children to
leave school before the age of fourteen were abolished. Any gainful
employment by children under twelve was forbidden, and children between
twelve and fourteen might work only on Saturdays and for a few hours
after school. Attendance at continuation schools by all young workers
was required, and the age limit will be eighteen years when the law
goes into full effect. Eight hours a week and two hundred and eighty
hours a year must be given to continuation school, the time for
attendance being taken out of working hours. Unfortunately, those who
in some ways most need the protection of the law, namely, the boys
and girls who left school for work prematurely during the war, do not
come under its provisions. Two special sections exempted those who had
already left school from returning, and those fourteen years old or
more when the law was passed, from attendance at continuation classes.
Nevertheless by the enactment of this law the final effect of the war
on English child labor standards should be to lift them to a higher
level than ever before.

Even at this time of writing it is difficult to measure the final
effects of the war upon the economic conditions of the women and
children. Too many unfinished plans and unfulfilled pledges still
remain for action by the government. Far reaching changes are, however,
in prospect and some of them actually under way. Foremost among
these is the aroused spirit among the workers, who are demanding and
peacefully securing a real share in the management of industry. In this
awakening the woman worker has fully participated. The disadvantages
of war work, in long hours, overstrain, the disruption of home life,
may pass as industrial conditions return to normal. The gains in the
way of better working conditions, higher wages and a wider range of
occupations seem likely to be more permanent. Most important of all
is the fact that because of her broader and more confident outlook on
life, the woman worker is able consciously to hold to the improved
economic position to which the fortunes of war have brought her.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

The following table, from a “Report to the Board of Trade on the State
of Employment in the United Kingdom,” of February, 1915, compares the
number of males and females on full time, on overtime, on short time,
and unemployed, between September, 1914, and February, 1915.

STATE OF EMPLOYMENT IN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND DECEMBER, 1914, AND
FEBRUARY, 1915

(Numbers Employed in July = 100 per cent.)
------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| September, 1914 | October, 1914 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| M | F | M | F |
Full time | 60.2 | 53.5 | 66.8 | 61.9 |
|3,913,000|1,337,500|4,342,000|1,547,500|
| | | | |
Overtime | 3.6 | 2.1 | 5.2 | 5.9 |
| 234,000| 52,500| 338,000| 147,500|
| | | | |
Short time | 26.0 | 36.0 | 17.3 | 26.0 |
|1,690,000| 900,000|1,124,500| 650,000|
| | | | |
Contraction in | 10.2 | 8.4 | 10.7 | 6.2 |
Nos. employed | 663,000| 210,000| 695,000| 155,000|
| | | | |
Enlisted | 8.8 | ... | 10.6 | ... |
| 572,000| ... | 689,000| ... |
| | | | |
Net displacement | | | | |
(-) or | -1.4 | -8.4 | -0.1 | -6.2 |
replacement (+) | -91,000| -210,000| -6,500| -155,000|
------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| December, 1914 | February, 1915 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| M | F | M | F |
Full time | 65.8 | 66.6 | 68.4 | 75.0 |
|4,277,000|1,665,000|4,446,000|1,875,000|
| | | | |
Overtime | 12.8 | 10.8 | 13.8 | 10.9 |
| 832,000| 270,000| 897,000| 272,500|
| | | | |
Short time | 10.5 | 19.4 | 6.0 | 12.6 |
| 682,500| 485,000| 390,000| 315,000|
| | | | |
Contraction in | 10.9 | 3.2 | 11.8 | 1.5 |
Nos. employed | 708,500| 80,000| 767,000| 37,500|
| | | | |
Enlisted | 13.3 | ... | 15.4 | ... |
| 864,500| ... |1,010,000| ... |
| | | | |
Net displacement | | | | |
(-) or | +2.4 | -3.2 | +3.6 | -1.5 |
replacement (+) | +156,000| -80,000| +243,000| -37,500|
------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Appendix B

The following table indicates some of the processes formerly reserved
for men on which the factory inspectors found women employed by the end
of 1915:

INDUSTRY PROCESSES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Linoleum Attending cork grinding and embossing machines,
machine printing, attending stove,
trimming and packing.
Woodworking—
Brush making Fibre dressers, brush makers and on boring
machinery.
Furniture Light upholstery, cramping, dowelling, glueing,
fret-work, carving by hand or machine,
staining and polishing.
Saw mills On planing, moulding, sand-papering, boring,
mortising, dovetailing, tenoning, turning and
nailing machines. Taking off from circular
saws; box making, printing and painting.
Cooperage Barrel making machines.
Paper mills In rag grinding and attending to beating and
breaking machines, and to coating machines,
calenders and in certain preparations and
finishing and warehouse processes.
Printing Machine feeding (on platen machines and on
guillotines) and as linotype operators.
Wire rope On stranding and spinning machines.
Chemical works Attending at crystallising tanks and for yard
work.
Soap As soap millers and in general work.
Paint At roller mills, filling tins and kegs, labeling
and packing.
Oil and cake mills Trucking, feeding and drawing off from chutes,
attending to presses.
Flour mills Trucking.
Bread and biscuits Attending to dough-breaks, biscuit machines,
and at the ovens assisting bakers.
Tobacco Leaf cutting, cigarette making, soldering,
trucking and warehouse work.
Rubber At washing machines, grinding mills, dough
rolls, solutioning, motor tube making.
Malting Spreading and general work.
Breweries Cask washing, tun-room work, beer bottling
and bottle washing.
Distilleries In the mill and yeast houses.
Cement Attending weighing machines, trucking.
Foundries Core making, moulding.
Tanning and At the pits, in finishing and drying, and in
currying oiling, setting up, buffing and staining.
Woolen mills Beaming and overlooking, attending drying
machines, carding, pattern weaving.
Jute mills On softening machines, dressing yarn,
calendering.
Cotton mills In blowing room on spinning mules, beaming,
twisting and drawing, and in warehouse.
Hosiery Folding and warehouse work.
Lace Threading.
Print, bleach and
dye works Beetling, assisting printers at machines,
warehouse processes.

Appendix C

The following tables from the second report of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science bring out in detail, first, the gradual
disappearance of unemployment and short time and the increase of
women’s numbers in industry from September, 1914, to April, 1916;
second, the changes in numbers of women in the various occupations,
both industrial and nonindustrial in December, 1915, and April, 1916,
compared with July, 1914, and, third, similar details as to the number
of women who were undertaking “men’s work.”

STATE OF EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AT VARIOUS DATES SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF
WAR, COMPARED WITH STATE OF EMPLOYMENT IN JULY, 1914

(“Industrial” employment only. Numbers employed July, 1914 = 100 per
cent.)

Sept., Oct., Dec., Feb., Oct., Dec., Feb., April,
1914 1914 1914 1915 1915 1915 1916 1916
Contraction (-)
or expansion (+)
in numbers
employed -8.4 -6.2 -3.2 -1.5 +7.4 +9.2 +10.9 +13.2

Employed on 2.1 5.9 10.8 10.9 13.9 14.5 12.8 ...
overtime

Employed on 36.0 26.0 19.4 12.6 5.6 6.1 4.6 ...
short time

EXTENSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN DECEMBER, 1915 AND APRIL, 1916

--------------------------+-----------------+----------------------
| Estimated | Increase (+) or
| Industrial | Decrease (-)
Occupations Group | Population. | of Females in
| July, 1914, +----------+-----------
| Females |Dec., 1915|April, 1916
+-----------------+----------+-----------
Building | 7,000 | + 3,600 | + 6,400
Mines and Quarries | 9,000 | + 800 | + 2,300
Metal Trades | 144,000 | +71,700 | +126,900
Chemical Trades | 40,000 | +19,400 | + 33,600
Textile Trades | 851,000 | +29,700 | + 27,800
Clothing Trades | 654,000 | + 6,700 | + 11,700
Food Trades | 170,000 | +31,700 | + 30,900
Paper and Printing Trades | 169,000 | ... | - 900
Wood Trades | 39,000 | + 7,400 | + 13,200
Other Trades | 96,000 | +25,400 | + 35,700
+-----------------+----------+-----------
All “Industrial” | | |
Occupations | 2,180,000 | +196,500 | +287,500
+-----------------+----------+-----------
Commercial | 474,500 | ... | +181,000
Professional | 68,500 | ... | + 13,000
Banking and Finance | 9,500 | ... | + 23,000
Public Entertainment | 172,000 | ... | + 14,000
Agriculture | ... | ... | ...
Transport | 9,500 | ... | + 16,000
Civil Service | 63,000 | ... | + 29,000
Arsenals, Dockyards, etc. | 2,000 | ... | + 13,000
Local Government | | ... |
(incl. Teachers) | 184,000 | ... | + 21,000
Domestic Service | ... | ... | ...
+-----------------+----------+-----------
Total for “Nonindustrial” | | |
Occupations | 983,000 | ... | +310,000
+-----------------+----------+-----------
Total for all Occupations | 3,163,000 | ... | +597,500
--------------------------+-----------------+----------+-----------

EXTENT OF SUBSTITUTION OF FEMALE FOR MALE WORKERS IN DECEMBER, 1915,
AND APRIL, 1916.

-----------------------------+-----------------------------------
|Estimated number of Females on work
| in substitution of Males’ work
+------------------+----------------
Occupations Group | December, 1915 | April, 1916
-----------------------------+------------------+----------------
Building | 6,100 | 8,800
Mines and Quarries | 2,700 | 4,400
Metal Trades | 70,300 | 117,400
Chemical Trades | 9,600 | 16,200
Textile Trades | 57,600 | 73,400
Clothing Trades | 30,400 | 42,300
Food Trades | 29,500 | 35,000
Paper and Printing Trades | 22,500 | 23,600
Wood Trades | 11,400 | 17,400
Other Trades | 27,000 | 37,400
+------------------+----------------
All “Industrial” Occupations | 267,100 | 375,900
+------------------+----------------
Commercial | ... | 189,000
Professional | ... | 16,000
Banking and Finance | ... | 25,000
Public Entertainment | ... | 32,000
Agriculture | ... | ...
Transport | ... | 18,000
Civil Service | ... | 31,000
Arsenals, Dockyards, etc. | ... | 13,000
Local Government | |
(incl. Teachers) | ... | 37,000
Domestic Service | ... | ...
+------------------+----------------
Total for “Nonindustrial” | |
Occupations | ... | 361,000
+------------------+----------------
Total for all Occupations | ... | 736,900
-----------------------------+------------------+----------------

Appendix D

The following table, compiled from the quarterly reports in the _Labour
Gazette_ and a special report of the Board of Trade, gives the increase
in the employment of women between April, 1916, and July, 1918, for
the most of the important occupational groups. It can not be compared
directly with the similar tables, previously given, prepared by the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, because of slight
differences in the estimates of the numbers employed in July, 1914.

EXTENSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, APRIL,
1916-JULY, 1918

(Classified by employers’ position, not by nature of work.)
-------------------+---------+-------------------------------------------+
|Estimated| Estimated increase since July, 1914 |
|No. Empl +-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+
| July, | April,| July, | Oct., | Jan., | April, |
| 1914 | 1916 | 1916 | 1916 | 1917 | 1917 |
-------------------+---------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+
Industrial | | | | | | |
Occupations[291] |2,176,000|275,000|361,000|393,000| 423,000| 453,000|
Government | | | | | | |
Establishments[292]| 2,000| 25,000| 79,000|117,000| 147,000| 198,000|
Commercial | 496,000|166,000|240,000|268,000| 274,000| 307,000|
Professional | | | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 50,500| 13,000| 14,000| 15,000| 18,000| 21,000|
Banking, Finance | | | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 9,500| 23,000| 32,000| 37,000| 43,000| 50,000|
Hotels, Theaters | 181,000| 12,000| 20,000| 16,000| 10,000| 13,000|
Agriculture | | | | | | |
(perm. labor | | | | | | |
Gt. Britain) | 80,000|-14,000| 20,000| 500| -14,000| ... |
Transport | | | | | | |
(not municipal) | 17,000| 23,000| 35,000| 41,000| 51,000| 62,000|
Civil Service | 66,000| 39,000| 58,000| 67,000| 76,000| 89,000|
Local | | | | | | |
Government[293] | 198,000| 21,000| 30,000| 34,000| 44,000| 47,000|
Other | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
-------------------+---------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+
Total |3,276,000|583,000|889,000|988,500|1,072,000|1,240,000|
-------------------+---------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+

[291] Not owned by government.

[292] Includes arsenals, docks, government shell filling factories, etc.

[293] Includes teachers and transportation workers for municipalities.

-------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------
| Estimated increase since July, 1914 |Per cent of
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+increase
| July, | Oct., | Jan., | April, | July, |July, 1914-
| 1917 | 1917 | 1918 | 1918 | 1918 |July, 1918
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------
Industrial | | | | | |
Occupations[294] | 518,000| 529,000| 533,000| 537,000| 565,000| 26.0
Government | | | | | |
Establishments[295]| 202,000| 211,000| 207,500| 197,000| 223,000|11,200.0
Commercial | 324,000| 333,000| 343,000| 354,000| 364,000| 73.4
Professional | | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 20,000| 50,000| 50,000| 57,000| ... | 4.0
Banking, Finance | | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 54,000| 59,000| 61,000| 63,000| 65,000| 687.0
Hotels, Theaters | 22,000| 28,000| 26,000| 25,000| 39,000| 21.5
Agriculture | | | | | |
(perm. labor | | | | | |
Gt. Britain) | 23,000| 7,000| -6,000| 9,000| 33,000| 41.3
Transport | | | | | |
(not municipal) | 72,000| 77,000| 76,000| 78,000| ... | ...
Civil Service | 98,000| 116,500| 124,000| 159,000| 168,000| 255.0
Local | | | | | |
Government[296] | 49,000| 51,500| 51,500| 53,000| 52,000| 26.5
Other | ... | ... | ... | ... | 150,000| ...
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------
Total |1,382,000|1,462,000|1,466,000|1,532,000|1,659,000| 50.6
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------

[294] Not owned by government.

[295] Includes arsenals, docks, government shell filling factories, etc.

[296] Includes teachers and transportation workers for municipalities.

Appendix E

The following table, compiled from the _Labour Gazette_, and a special
report of the Board of Trade, gives a quarterly estimate of the number
of women replacing men for the period between April, 1916, and April,
1918.

NUMBER OF FEMALES SUBSTITUTED FOR MALE WORKERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IN
CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS, BY QUARTERS, APRIL, 1916-APRIL, 1918

-------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+
| April,| July, | Oct., | Jan., | April, |
| 1916 | 1916 | 1916 | 1917 | 1917 |
-------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+
Industrial | | | | | |
Occupations[297] |213,000|264,000|314,000| 376,000| 438,000|
Government | | | | | |
Establishments[298]| 13,000| 79,000|117,000| 139,000| 187,000|
Commercial |152,000|226,000|264,000| 278,000| 308,000|
Professional | | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 12,000| 15,000| 15,000| 17,000| 20,000|
Banking, Finance | | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 21,000| 31,000| 37,000| 42,000| 48,000|
Hotels, Theaters | 27,000| 31,000| 30,000| 31,000| 35,000|
Agriculture | | | | | |
(perm. labor, | | | | | |
Gt. Britain) | 37,000| 35,000| 20,000| 23,000| 32,000|
Transport | | | | | |
(not municipal) | 24,000| 35,000| 41,000| 52,000| 64,000|
Civil Service | 30,000| 41,000| 64,000| 73,000| 83,000|
Local | | | | | |
Government[299] | 18,000| 26,000| 31,000| 40,000| 41,000|
-------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+
Total |547,000|783,000|933,000|1,071,000|1,256,000|
-------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------+---------+

[297] Not owned by government.

[298] Includes arsenals, docks, government shell filling factories, etc.

[299] Includes teachers and transportation workers for municipalities.

(A) = Per cent No. of substitutes in April, 1918,
is of total No. employed in July, 1914
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------
| July, | Oct., | Jan., | April, | (A)
| 1917 | 1917 | 1918 | 1918 |
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------
Industrial | | | | |
Occupations[300] | 464,000| 490,000| 503,000| 531,000| 24.4
Government | | | | |
Establishments[301]| 191,000| 202,000| 197,000| 187,000|9,350.0
Commercial | 328,000| 337,000| 342,000| 352,000| 70.9
Professional | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 21,000| 22,000| 22,000| 22,500| 44.5
Banking, Finance | | | | |
(mainly clerks) | 53,000| 55,000| 57,000| 59,500| 626.3
Hotels, Theaters | 38,000| 44,500| 45,000| 44,500| 24.5
Agriculture | | | | |
(perm. labor, | | | | |
Gt. Britain) | 43,000| 33,000| 31,000| 40,000| 50.0
Transport | | | | |
(not municipal) | 74,000| 78,500| 78,000| 79,500| 21.3
Civil Service | 99,000| 107,000| 123,000| 153,000| 231.8
Local | | | | |
Government[302] | 43,000| 44,000| 44,000| 47,000| 23.7
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------
Total |1,354,000|1,413,000|1,442,000|1,516,000| 46.2
-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------

[300] Not owned by government.

[301] Includes arsenals, docks, government shell filling factories, etc.

[302] Includes teachers and transportation workers for municipalities.

Appendix F

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FEMALES DIRECTLY REPLACING MALES IN VARIOUS
BRANCHES OF INDUSTRY IN JANUARY, 1918.

(Compiled from the Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in
Industry.)

_Trade_
Metal 195,000
Chemical 35,000
Textile 64,000
Clothing 43,000
Food, Drink and Tobacco 60,000
Paper and Printing 21,000
Wood, China and Earthenware, Leather 23,000
Other 62,000
Government Establishments 197,000
-------
Total 700,000

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FEMALES DIRECTLY REPLACING MALES IN VARIOUS
BRANCHES OF COMMERCE IN APRIL, 1918.

(Compiled from the Report of the Board of Trade on the Employment of
Women in April, 1918.)

Wholesale and Retail Drapers, Haberdashers, Clothiers, 41,000
Wholesale and Retail Grocers, Bakers, Confectioners 92,000
Wholesale and Retail Stationers and Booksellers 16,000
Wholesale and Retail Butchers, Fishmongers, Dairymen 30,000
Retail Chemists 12,000
Retail Boot and Shoe Dealers 8,000
-------
Total (including some not specified above) 352,000

Appendix G

ESTIMATE BY THE BRITISH WAR CABINET COMMITTEE ON WOMEN IN INDUSTRY ON
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WOMEN IN VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS AT THE END OF
THE WAR.

Earnings under 25s. weekly:
Dressmakers, milliners (first five years), laundry
workers, pottery workers (most grades), knife girls
and kitchen hands in refreshment houses.

Earning between 25s. and 30s. weekly:
Cutlery workers, soap and candle makers (unskilled),
corner tenters (cotton), woolen and worsted weavers,
backwashers (Scotch Tweed), dyers and cleaners, biscuit
makers, cigarette makers, pottery workers (certain
grades), waitresses in refreshment depots.

Earning between 30s. and 35s. weekly:
Ammunition makers (women’s work), chainmakers, salt
packers, fine chemical workers, soap makers (most
operations), card-room operatives (cotton), clothing
machinists, workers in grain milling and brewing, cigar
makers, shop assistants (co-operative).

Earning between 35s. and 40s. weekly:
Workers in the light casting trade, chemical laborers,
big tenters and ring-spiners (cotton), wool combers,
tailoring fitters and cutters, boot operatives,
bakery workers, jigger women in potteries, tanners,
shop assistants (large stores).

Earning between 40s. and 45s. weekly:
Workers in engineering, chemicals (shift work) and
explosives; textile dyers, tobacco machinists, motor
drivers (for shop), railway carriage cleaners,
telephonists, railway clerks.

Earning between 45s. and 50s. weekly:
Cloth lookers (cotton), hosiery machinists, web dyers,
gas index readers and lamp-lighters, railway porters,
ticket collectors, telegraphists.

Earning between 50s. and 60s. weekly:
Ledger clerks, Civil Service clerks (Class I).

Earning over 60s.:
Women on skilled men’s work in engineering omnibus
conductors (London), gas workers (heavy work for
South Metropolitan Gas Co.).

Appendix H

NUMBER OF ORDERS MODIFYING THE LABOR LAWS, ISSUED FROM AUGUST 4, 1914,
TO FEBRUARY 19, 1915

(_Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1914_,
p. 56.)

Textile:
Wool 748
Hosiery 231
Cotton 159
Flax 28
Hemp and jute 29
Silk 8
Dyeing and finishing 37
Leather and leather equipment 105
Canvas equipment 137
Munitions 151
Shipbuilding 15
Electrical supply 35
Metal accessories 141
Machinery 57
Wood 44

Clothing:
Uniforms 514
Fur coats 9
Boots 245
Caps 28
Shirts 73
Bedding 33
Surgical dressings 21
Tobacco 10
Food 37
Tin boxes 37
Camp equipment 52
Wire and wire netting 34
Wagons, etc. 34
Rubber 16
Miscellaneous 73
-----
Total 3,141

Appendix I

The following list of modifications of the hour laws in 1915 was
compiled from the _Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and
Workshops for 1915_.

_Industry_ _Persons Affected_ _Latitude_
Munitions. Women. As in 1914.
Boys over 14.
Girls over 16.

Woolen and worsted Women and young 6 hours weekly overtime,
(from May). persons. in 2-hour shifts on
3 days or 1½ hours on
4 days. No overtime
on Saturday.

Weaving (July-Nov.). Women and young 8 hours weekly overtime
persons over 16. in 2-hour shifts on
4 days.

Hosiery. Protected persons. 1½ hours overtime on 4
days, or 1 hour on
5 days, but not on
Saturday or Sunday.

Cotton. Protected persons. 6 hours overtime weekly.

Margarine. Not stated. Not stated.

Window shades. Not stated. Not stated.

Flax. Not stated. Not stated.

Rope walks. Not stated. 6 hours overtime weekly.

Bleach and dye works Not stated. 6 hours overtime weekly.
(surgical dressings;
raising and finishing
flannelette).

Tanning and currying. Women. 4 hours overtime weekly.
Boys over 14.

Canvas equipment. Not stated. 5 hours overtime weekly.

Shipbuilding. Boys over 14. (a) Overtime, 5 hours a
week for boys under
16; 7½ hours for
those over 16.
(b) Eight hour shifts.
(c) Day and night shifts.

Bread baking. (a) Boys 17. (a) Night shift (not
exceeding 9 hours).
(b) Boys 15 and (b) Any period of 9 hours
over. between 4 a.m.
and 8 p.m.

Pastry baking (a) Women and boys (a) Night shift (not
(Scotland). of 17. exceeding 9 hours).
(b) Boys 15 and (b) Any period of 9 hours
over. between 4 a.m.
and 8 p.m.

Chocolate.[303] Women. When necessary, on account
of hot weather,
between 6 a.m. and
10 p.m. for two
spells of 4 hours
each, one in the
morning and one in
the afternoon.
Leather Women and young Overtime 1½ hours per day.
equipment.[304] persons over 16.

Aerated waters.[305] Women. Extension of overtime
allowed by S. 49.

Glass. Boys over 13 Extension of S. 55.
(educationally
qualified).

Oil and cake mills. Women and boys 8-hour shifts, or day and
over 16. night shifts.

Flour mills. Women and boys 8-hour shifts, or day and
over 16. night shifts.

Toys and games.[306] Women. Overtime as allowed by
S.49 and night shifts
during the Christmas
season.

Dairies. Women and young 5 hours on Sundays, with
persons. weekly limit of 60 hours.
No other overtime during
the week.

Paper mills. Women. 8-hour shifts, or day and
night shifts.

Pottery. Not stated. Suspension of certain
regulations.

Sandbags.[307] Women and young Overtime, 3 hours
persons. per week.

Cement Women. Night shift.
(Essex and Kent).

Waterproof capes Women and young (1) Overtime, 4½ hours
(War Office persons per week.
contracts).[308] over 16. (2) Permission for
Christians to work on
Saturday and Jews on
Sunday.

Manchester warehouses. Women and boys Overtime, 2 hours on not
over 16. more than 4 days a week
and on not more than 12
days in any 4 weeks.

Lace and patent net Women, girls (1) Different periods
factories (processes over 16; boys of employment for
of threading, brass over 14. different workers.
bobbin winding, (2) Where (1) is impractic-
jacking off able overtime 1½ hours
and stripping). per day, but with a
weekly limit of 60
hours exclusive of
meal times.

Non-textile works Women, girls Rearrangement of the
engaged on work for over 16; boys statutory hours but
the Crown, or on over 14. period of employment
work required in not to exceed 14 hours
the national on any one day, or 60
interest.[309] hours (exclusive of
meal times) in any
week.

[303] The order expired and was not renewed.

[304] The order expired and was not renewed.

[305] The order expired and was not renewed.

[306] The order expired and was not renewed.

[307] The order expired and was not renewed.

[308] The order expired and was not renewed.

[309] A new order, which was allowed in all nontextile works not
otherwise provided for. It allowed greater elasticity than was provided
by the Factory Acts, and permitted, for example, such moderate
overtime during the week as could be compensated by an earlier stop on
Saturdays.

Appendix J

GENERAL ORDER REGULATING OVERTIME ISSUED BY THE HOME OFFICE SEPTEMBER
9, 1916.

The following is the full text of the parts of the order applying to
women:

Scheme A. (Three Shifts.)

This scheme applies to women and female young persons of 16 years of
age and over, and male young persons of 14 years of age and over. Three
shifts, none of which may be longer than 10 hours, may be worked in
each period of 24 hours, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Each worker shall have one break of 24 hours or more in every week,
or of 32 hours or more in every alternate week, or of 40 hours or more
in every third week.

(2) Each worker shall have an interval of two unemployed shifts between
each two shifts of employment.

(3) An interval of not less than half an hour shall be allowed if the
shift is 8 hours or less, and an interval of not less than one hour if
the shift is more than 8 hours.

Provided that the superintending inspector of factories may authorize,
subject to compliance with condition (1) and to such other conditions
as he may impose, different arrangements as regards hours of work and
breaks at the week end for the purpose of changing over the shifts.

Scheme B. (Two Shifts.)

This scheme applies to women and female persons of 16 years of age
and over and male young persons of 14 years of age and over, provided
that the employment in the night shift of girls under 18 or boys under
16 years of age shall be subject in each case to the approval of the
superintending inspector of factories. Two shifts of 12 hours each may
be worked, subject to the following conditions:

(1) No person shall be employed more than 6 turns by day or more than 6
turns by night in any week.

(2) Unless otherwise sanctioned by the superintending inspector no
person shall be employed on Sunday except in a night shift commencing
on Sunday evening or ending on Sunday morning.

(3) The total hours worked per week (exclusive of meal times) shall not
exceed 60 provided that in the case of male young persons 16 years of
age and over the total hours worked per week (exclusive of meal times)
may be 63.

(4) Intervals for meals amounting to not less than 1½ hours shall be
allowed in the course of each shift, of which in the case of the night
shift one-fourth of an hour or more shall be allowed as a break within
4 hours of the end of the shift.

(5) Each worker shall have an interval of one unemployed shift between
each two shifts of employment.

Providing that the superintending inspector may authorize, subject
to such conditions as he may impose, a system of one long shift, not
exceeding 13 hours with a corresponding reduction in the other shift,
so that the average weekly total of hours shall not exceed the limits
specified above in paragraph (3).

Scheme C. (Rearrangement of Statutory Hours.)

This scheme applies to women and female young persons of 16 years of
age and over, and male young persons of 14 years of age and over.

In the case of such women and young persons the hours of work and
intervals for meals allowed by the (factory and workshop) act may be
arranged, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The total hours worked per week (exclusive of intervals for meals)
shall not exceed 60.

(b) The daily period of employment (including overtime and intervals
for meals)—

(1) Shall not commence earlier than 6 a.m. or end later than 10 p.m.
(2) Shall not exceed 14 hours.

(c) Intervals for meals amounting to not less than 1½ hours shall be
allowed during the period of employment, with an additional half an
hour if the period of employment is more than 13½ hours.

(d) No overtime shall be worked on Saturday.

Naval Ship Repairing Work.

In cases of special emergency women, female young persons of 16 years
of age and over, and male young persons of 14 years of age and over,
employed on repair work for His Majesty’s ships may be employed for
special hours on any day of the week on the express instructions of the
senior naval officer in charge and subject to such conditions as he may
lay down as regards intervals for meals and rest, provided that in any
case—

(1) No male young person over 16 years of age shall be employed for
more than 67½ hours in the week (exclusive of intervals for meals and
rest).

(2) No other young person or woman shall be employed for more than 65
hours in the week (exclusive of intervals for meals and rest).

Miscellaneous Provisions.

No woman or young person shall be employed continuously at any time
for more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour,
except that where not less than one hour is allowed for dinner, an
afternoon spell of six hours may be worked, with an interval of quarter
of an hour only for tea, if the factory inspector is satisfied that
adequate provision is made for the worker to obtain tea in the works
and for tea to be actually ready for them as soon as they stop work.

If work commences before 8 a.m. and no interval is allowed for
breakfast, an opportunity shall be given to take refreshment during the
morning.

A woman or young person shall not be allowed to lift, carry, or move
anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to the woman or young
person.

Different schemes of employment may be adopted and different intervals
for meals fixed for different sets of workers.

Employment on night shifts shall be subject to the provision, to
the satisfaction of the factory inspector, of proper facilities for
taking and cooking meals, and in the case of female workers, for their
supervision by a welfare worker or a responsible forewoman.

Circular letter 198802 to accompany Home Office Order of Sept 9, 1916.

No requirement is laid down in the order that workers on the night
shift shall change periodically to the day shift. The matter is left to
the individual employers to determine in consultation with their work
people. Care should be taken in selecting women and young persons for
night work. They should not be put on night work indiscriminately.

Appendix K

DISTRIBUTION OF YOUNG PERSONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT EMPLOYMENTS IN JULY,
1914, OCTOBER, 1917, AND JANUARY, 1918

(Compiled from Ministry of Reconstruction,
_Juvenile Employment During the War and After_, pp. 10, 11, 77.)
--------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Total Boys and Girls Under 18 |
+----------+-----------+-----------+
|Estimated | Estimated |Increase or|
| numbers | numbers | decrease |
| employed |employed in|July, 1914-|
|Oct., 1917|Jan., 1918 |Jan., 1918 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Building | 50,000| 48,000 | -12,300 |
Mines and Quarries | 168,000| 178,000 | +11,300 |
Metal Trades | 404,000| 409,000 | +173,800 |
Chemical Trades | 47,000| 48,000 | +22,300 |
Textile Trades | 329,000| 324,000 | -15,000 |
Food, Drink and Tobacco | 96,000| 96,000 | +7,200 |
Clothing Trades | 169,000| 169,000 | -19,600 |
Paper and Printing | 75,000| 74,000 | -11,700 |
Wood Trades | 54,000| 55,000 | +10,000 |
Other Industries | 80,000| 81,000 | +10,000 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Industries Total | 1,472,000| 1,482,000 | +176,000 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Municipal gas, water, | | | |
electricity | 4,000| 3,500 | +2,000 |
Government establishments | 32,000| 30,000 | +27,000 |
Agriculture | 136,000| 130,000 | -9,000 |
Transport | 101,500| 102,500 | +25,100 |
Finance and commerce | 427,000| 416,000 | +94,000 |
Professional occupations | 29,000| 27,000 | +8,000 |
Hotels, cinemas, theaters | 30,000| 32,000 | +7,000 |
Postoffice | 24,000| 23,000 | -4,000 |
Other civil service | 13,500| 14,500 | +11,400 |
Local government | | | |
(including education, | | | |
but excluding Municipal | | | |
trams, water, gas, | | | |
electricity) | 18,000| 17,500 | +4,500 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Grand Total | 2,287,000| 2,278,000 | +342,000 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+

--------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Total Boys Under 18 |
+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Estimated| Estimated |Increase or|
| numbers | numbers | decrease |
| employed|employed in|July, 1914-|
|Oct., 1917|Jan., 1918 |Jan., 1918 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Building | 44,000| 42,000| -17,000|
Mines and Quarries | 164,000| 174,000| +9,000|
Metal Trades | 296,000| 303,000| +113,000|
Chemical Trades | 22,000| 22,000| +7,500|
Textile Trades | 116,000| 114,000| -10,000|
Food, Drink and Tobacco | 43,000| 43,000| +3,000|
Clothing Trades | 45,000| 45,000| -3,000|
Paper and Printing | 30,000| 30,000| -10,000|
Wood Trades | 34,000| 34,000| -500|
Other Industries | 43,000| 44,000| -1,000|
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Industries Total | 837,000| 851,000| +91,000|
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Municipal gas, water, | | | |
electricity | 3,000| 3,000| +1,500|
Government establishments | 22,000| 21,000| +18,000|
Agriculture | 118,000| 113,000| -14,000|
Transport | 89,500| 90,500| +14,400|
Finance and commerce | 224,000| 216,000| -22,500|
Professional occupations | 18,000| 17,000| +3,000|
Hotels, cinemas, theaters | 17,000| 19,000| +6,500|
Postoffice | 10,000| 9,000| -7,800|
Other civil service | 4,500| 4,500| +1,500|
Local government | | | |
(including education, | | | |
but excluding Municipal | | | |
trams, water, gas, | | | |
electricity) | 10,000| 10,000| +2,400|
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Grand Total | 1,353,000| 1,354,000| +94,000|
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+

--------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Total Girls Under 18 |
+----------------------+-----------+
|Estimated | Estimated |Increase or|
| numbers | numbers | decrease |
| employed |employed in|July, 1914-|
|Oct., 1917|Jan., 1918 |Jan., 1918 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Building | 6,000| 6,000| +4,700 |
Mines and Quarries | 4,000| 4,000| +2,250 |
Metal Trades | 108,000| 106,000| +60,800 |
Chemical Trades | 25,000| 26,000| +14,850 |
Textile Trades | 213,000| 210,000| -5,000 |
Food, Drink and Tobacco | 53,000| 53,000| +4,200 |
Clothing Trades | 124,000| 124,000| -16,550 |
Paper and Printing | 45,000| 44,000| -1,750 |
Wood Trades | 20,000| 21,000| +10,500 |
Other Industries | 37,000| 37,000| +11,000 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Industries Total | 635,000| 631,000| +85,000 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Municipal gas, water, | | | |
electricity | 1,000| 500| +500 |
Government establishments | 10,000| 9,000| +9,000 |
Agriculture | 18,000| 17,000| +5,000 |
Transport | 12,000| 12,000| +10,700 |
Finance and commerce | 203,000| 200,000| +116,500 |
Professional occupations | 11,000| 10,000| +5,000 |
Hotels, cinemas, theaters | 13,000| 13,000| +500 |
Postoffice | 14,000| 14,000| +3,800 |
Other civil service | 9,000| 10,000| +9,900 |
Local government | | | |
(including education, | | | |
but excluding Municipal | | | |
trams, water, gas, | | | |
electricity) | 8,000| 7,500| +2,100 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
Grand Total | 934,000| 924,000| +248,000 |
--------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+

Appendix L

POSTWAR EMPLOYMENT

(Tables Compiled from _Labour Gazette_, May, 1919, pp. 287-288;
October, p. 418; November, p. 473.)

1. Number of Out-of-Work Donation Policies Outstanding Weekly for Ten
Months of 1919.

-------------+------------------------------------------+
| Civilians |
Week +--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
Ending | Men | Boys | Women | Girls| Total |
-------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
Jan. 3 | 101,390| 16,988| 224,955| 13,374| 356,707|
Jan. 10 | 119,315| 16,462| 265,479| 16,365| 417,621|
Jan. 17 | 139,113| 18,131| 303,813| 18,018| 479,075|
Jan. 24 | 156,671| 20,543| 343,742| 22,259| 543,215|
Jan. 31 | 177,361| 22,562| 399,864| 25,362| 625,149|
Feb. 7 | 191,371| 24,538| 427,734| 26,790| 670,433|
Feb. 14 | 212,205| 26,752| 452,810| 28,183| 719,950|
Feb. 21 | 218,278| 28,195| 470,294| 31,544| 748,311|
Feb. 28 | 227,836| 28,019| 494,471| 32,037| 782,363|
Mar. 7 | 234,402| 27,356| 494,365| 34,398| 790,521|
Mar. 14 | 208,540| 26,327| 485,784| 31,070| 751,721|
Mar. 21 | 207,973| 27,567| 474,452| 28,082| 738,074|
Mar. 28 | 209,486| 26,461| 488,655| 29,380| 753,982|
Apr. 4 | 214,263| 26,148| 469,550| 30,189| 740,155|
Apr. 11 | 217,538| 26,093| 455,736| 30,134| 729,501|
Apr. 18 | 210,119| 23,882| 452,144| 29,279| 715,424|
Apr. 25 | 215,687| 23,679| 443,941| 28,964| 712,271|
May 2 | 214,761| 23,040| 422,890| 29,242| 689,933|
May 9 | 191,651| 19,175| 366,536| 20,871| 598,233|
May 16 | 178,284| 16,845| 312,373| 17,023| 524,525|
May 23 | 164,569| 14,988| 250,010| 14,869| 444,436|
May 30 | 150,250| 12,912| 207,897| 13,231| 384,290|
June 6 | 135,317| 10,405| 169,621| 9,880| 325,223|
June 13 | 123,134| 8,439| 146,578| 7,910| 286,061|
June 20 | 116,158| 7,551| 132,649| 7,491| 263,849|
June 27 | 106,661| 6,615| 113,462| 6,544| 233,282|
July 4 | 100,270| 5,905| 100,576| 6,077| 212,828|
July 11 | 96,472| 5,341| 91,413| 6,155| 199,381|
July 18 | 92,762| 4,985| 83,755| 5,707| 187,209|
July 25 | 93,828| 5,226| 72,813| 5,354| 177,221|
Aug. 1 | 100,228| 6,529| 73,878| 6,176| 186,811|
Aug. 8 | 98,298| 6,245| 64,029| 5,673| 174,245|
Aug. 15 | 94,863| 6,669| 61,065| 6,093| 168,690|
Aug. 22 | 92,345| 6,267| 55,526| 5,182| 159,320|
Aug. 29 | 83,035| 5,006| 49,038| 4,053| 141,132|
Sept. 5 | 72,113| 4,008| 40,701| 3,041| 119,863|
Sept. 12 | 66,686| 3,236| 36,230| 2,471| 108,623|
Sept. 19 | 63,557| 3,111| 34,448| 2,334| 103,450|
Sept. 26 | 62,435| 3,151| 32,915| 2,230| 100,731|
Oct. 17[310]| 70,589| 4,371| 29,622| 2,586| 107,168|
Oct. 24 | 86,036| 6,551| 30,396| 2,672| 125,655|
Oct. 31 | 94,058| 7,349| 30,940| 2,838| 135,185|
-------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| Demobilized Members of H. M. Forces
Week +--------+-------+--------+------------
Ending | Men | Women | Total | Grand Total
-------------+--------+-------+--------+------------
Jan. 3 | 23,938| 50| 23,988| 380,695
Jan. 10 | 31,543| 88| 31,631| 449,252
Jan. 17 | 40,400| 131| 40,531| 519,606
Jan. 24 | 47,209| 170| 47,379| 590,594
Jan. 31 | 53,316| 238| 53,554| 678,703
Feb. 7 | 63,277| 380| 63,657| 734,090
Feb. 14 | 84,298| 394| 84,692| 804,642
Feb. 21 | 132,471| 841| 133,312| 881,623
Feb. 28 | 165,429| 828| 166,257| 948,620
Mar. 7 | 200,686| 1,025| 201,711| 992,232
Mar. 14 | 235,737| 1,161| 237,898| 988,619
Mar. 21 | 264,257| 995| 265,252| 1,003,326
Mar. 28 | 305,251| 1,012| 306,263| 1,060,245
Apr. 4 | 336,570| 961| 337,531| 1,077,686
Apr. 11 | 347,895| 917| 348,812| 1,078,313
Apr. 18 | 369,992| 1,013| 371,005| 1,086,429
Apr. 25 | 379,799| 1,258| 381,057| 1,093,328
May 2 | 402,151| 1,316| 403,467| 1,903,400
May 9 | | | 409,959| 1,008,192
May 16 | | | 403,356| 927,881
May 23 | | | 402,036| 846,472
May 30 | | | 386,921| 771,211
June 6 | | | 385,652| 710,875
June 13 | | | 378,768| 664,829
June 20 | | | 381,247| 645,096
June 27 | | | 372,843| 606,125
July 4 | | | 366,197| 579,025
July 11 | | | 365,768| 565,149
July 18 | | | 362,982| 550,191
July 25 | | | 363,663| 540,884
Aug. 1 | | | 366,671| 553,482
Aug. 8 | | | 362,741| 536,986
Aug. 15 | | | 361,833| 530,523
Aug. 22 | | | 350,755| 510,075
Aug. 29 | | | 336,952| 478,084
Sept. 5 | | | 326,751| 446,614
Sept. 12 | | | 311,959| 420,582
Sept. 19 | | | 305,253| 408,703
Sept. 26 | | | 302,272| 403,003
Oct. 17[311]| | | 337,948| 445,116
Oct. 24 | | | 343,672| 469,327
Oct. 31 | | | 344,242| 479,427
-------------+--------+-------+--------+------------

[310] Figures for Oct. 3 and 10, on account of special arrangements
made during the railway strike of these weeks, are not given.

[311] Figures for Oct. 3 and 10, on account of special arrangements
made during the railway strike of these weeks, are not given.

2. Number of Unemployed Women and Girls by Industries.

a. In Insured Industries.

---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
| Number | Number | Number
| Insured |Unemployed|Unemployed
Trade |January 12,| April 25,|October 31,
| 1919 | 1919 | 1919
---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
Building | 6,152 | 950 | 55
Construction of Works | 1,825 | 46 | 1
Shipbuilding | 8,810 | 522 | 21
Engineering and Ironfounding | 419,524 | 35,614 | 1,426
Construction of Vehicles | 17,577 | 6,336 | 107
Sawmilling | 812 | 331 | 17
Other | 171 | 1 | ...
+-----------+----------+-----------
Total Insured Under Act of 1911| 454,871 | 43,800 | 1,627
| | |
Iron and Steel Manufacture | 12,805 | 400 | 18
Tinplate Manufacture | 3,550 | 92 | 23
Wire Manufacture | 9,431 | 828 | 46
Anchors, Chains, Nails, Bolts, | | |
Nuts, Rivets, etc. | 12,690 | 2,888 | 169
Brass | 8,413 | 219 | 6
Copper, Tin, Lead, Zinc, etc. | 10,561 | 738 | 62
Hardware and Hollowware | 49,749 | 5,437 | 228
Tools, Files, Saws, Implements, | | |
Cutlery | 6,432 | 827 | 64
Clocks, Plate, Jewelry | 6,175 | 388 | 27
Needles, Pins, Typefounding, | | |
Dyes, etc. | 6,664 | 336 | 15
Electrical, Scientific, etc., | | |
Appliances and Apparatus | 28,866 | 2,152 | 151
Miscellaneous Metal | 5,185 | 1,455 | 70
Ammunition and Explosives | 197,128 | 5,818 | 100
Chemicals | 34,071 | 2,631 | 193
Leather and Leather Goods | 31,313 | 2,679 | 162
Brick, Tile and Artificial | | |
Building Material | 9,804 | 1,172 | 59
Sawmilling, Machined Woodwork and| | |
Wooden Cases | 30,176 | 2,049 | 51
Rubber and Manufactures Thereof | 35,319 | 2,369 | 151
+-----------+----------+-----------
Total Insured Under Act of 1916| 496,332 | 32,478 | 1,595
+-----------+----------+-----------
Grand Total | 951,203 | 76,278 | 3,222
---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------

b. In Uninsured Industries.

---------------------------------+--------------------------------
| Number of Policies of
Trade |Women and Girls Remaining Lodged
+--------------+-----------------
|April 25, 1919| October 11, 1919
---------------------------------+--------------+-----------------
Agriculture | 1,956 | 152
Conveyance of Men, Goods and | |
Messages | 11,932 | 962
Mines and Quarries | 982 | 78
Cotton | 81,635 | 1,171
Woolen and Worsted | 4,670 | 162
Other Textiles, including | |
Printing, Dyeing, etc. | 35,835 | 1,951
Commercial | 24,124 | 8,616
Food, Drink and Tobacco | 19,926 | 1,818
Dress | 26,519 | 2,924
Domestic Offices and Services | 84,529 | 7,348
General Laborers, Factory | |
Workers, etc. | 56,900 | 3,740
Other Uninsured Industries | 48,877 | 5,632
+--------------+-----------------
Total | 397,885 | 34,554
---------------------------------+--------------+-----------------

Appendix N

AVERAGE WAGES OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN NON-MUNITION TRADES IN THE UNITED
KINGDOM.

(Calculated from Monthly Returns made by Employers to the Department of
Labour Statistics.)[312]

-------------------------------------------------------------
LAST WHOLE WEEK IN EACH MONTH.
--------------------+--------+----+------+-----+-----+------+
|Ordinary|May-|Sept.-|Jan.-|May- |Sept.-|
Industry |week in |Aug.| Dec. |April|Aug. | Dec. |
| 1906 |1915| 1915 |1916 |1916 | 1916 |
--------------------+--------+----+------+-----+-----+------+
| s. d. |s. d|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|
Cotton | 16 2 |17 1|17 0 |17 11|18 4|18 9 |
Woolen and worsted | 12 1 |15 3|15 6 |16 1|16 8|17 11 |
Linen | 9 9 |10 7|10 10 |11 3|11 11|12 5 |
Jute | 12 5 |18 4|18 10 |18 10|19 2|20 2 |
Hosiery | 12 3 |15 9|15 10 |16 8|17 2|17 1 |
Lace | 11 7 |13 3|13 6 |14 0|14 4|14 10 |
Silk | 9 9 |12 0|12 5 |12 11|13 5|13 7 |
Carpet | 11 10 |16 8|16 4 |17 1|17 0|17 8 |
Bleaching, etc. | 11 0 |14 5|15 0 |15 7|15 9|17 3 |
Boot and shoe | 10 6 |15 4|14 10 |14 7|16 3|16 7 |
Shirt and collar | 11 4 |13 7|13 7 |14 1|14 7|14 10 |
Ready-made tailoring| 10 10 |15 2|14 2 |14 10|15 7|16 0 |
Printing | 9 8 |12 3|12 7 |13 7|13 6|14 5 |
Bookbinding | 10 2 |12 3|12 8 |13 0|13 0|14 3 |
Pottery | 10 1 |12 2|12 5 |12 3|12 10|13 1 |
Glass | 8 6 |10 3|11 2 |10 9|11 1|11 9 |
Food preparation | 10 0 |14 5|14 10 |15 2|15 2|17 6 |
| | | | | | |
Total | 12 8 |14 9|14 10 |15 4|15 10|16 8 |
--------------------+--------+----+------+-----+-----+------+
-----------------------------+------+-----+------+-----+-------
|Jan.- |May- |Sept.-|Jan.-|May-
Industry |April |Aug. | Dec. |April|Aug.
|1917 |1917 | 1917 |1918 |1918
-----------------------------+------+-----+------+-----+-------
|s. d. |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.
Cotton |19 7 |20 7|21 5 |23 3|24 1
Woolen and worsted |19 8 |19 9|21 9 |22 8|25 3
Linen |13 8 |15 4|17 1 |18 8|20 4
Jute |20 4 |22 7|23 9 |24 4|24 7
Hosiery |18 5 |20 0|20 7 |22 6|23 10
Lace |15 6 |16 9|17 11 |18 6|19 2
Silk |14 9 |15 7|17 2 |18 7|20 5
Carpet |18 9 |20 4|21 3 |22 11|24 4
Bleaching, etc. |18 6 |20 10|22 3 |23 10|24 9
Boot and shoe |17 6 |19 6|20 6 |22 3|22 10
Shirt and collar |15 9 |17 2|18 3 |19 11|21 5
Ready-made tailoring |17 4 |18 9|21 5 |23 2|25 8
Printing |15 9 |16 4|18 2 |19 10|21 8
Bookbinding |15 2 |16 1|17 11 |19 11|21 6
Pottery |13 8 |16 11|17 7 |19 1|21 7
Glass |12 1 |13 9|14 9 |15 6|16 10
Food preparation |18 3 |20 2|21 7 |23 0|24 5
| | | | |
Total |17 8 |19 1|20 5 |21 10|23 6[313]
-----------------------------+------+-----+------+-----+-------

[312] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, _Report of the
Committee on Women’s Employment_, p. 82.

[313] Includes “Paper Making.”

Appendix M

List of trades in which women have been substituted for men during the
war, but “which from their nature and other conditions of work appear
in the main unsuitable for female labor in normal times.”

(Compiled from the British Home Office report on the “Substitution of
Women in Nonmunition Factories during the War,” pp. 16-26.)

Sawmilling Rope and Binder Twine
Wood Wool Manufacture Heavy Edge Tools
India Rubber Scythes and Sickles
Heavy Chemicals Wire Ropes (heavy)
Oil and Seed Crushing Shale Oil Refining
Glasshouse processes Cement Manufacture (most processes)
Flint Glass Feltmongering
Glass Bottles Matting
Papermaking Linoleum Manufacture
Flour and Corn Milling (except a few light processes)
Sugar Refining Paints and colours
Gas Manufacture China and earthenware

INDEX

Accounting, women employed in, 47.
Addison, Christopher, 140, 152.
Agriculture: employment of women in, 3, 14, 29, 33, 36,
40, 45, 47, 73;
wages paid, 5, 34, 72, 117;
Board of, 71, 73;
efforts to substitute women’s labor in, 63, 70-74;
Women’s Farm and Garden Union, 73;
Women’s National Land Service Corps, 73;
Women’s Land Army, 74;
establishment of training courses in, 85;
employment of children in, 171.
Adjustments, postwar, 215.
Aeroplanes, employment of women on work on, 35.
Airedale of Gledhow, Lord, 121.
Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 51-53, 56, 90, 100, 222.
Ammunition industry, employment of women in, 30.
_See also_ Munitions industry.
Anderson, Miss, 40.
Armature winding, employment of women in, 42.
Arsenals, employment of women at, 37, 60.
Aves, Ernest, 104.

Baillie, G. H., 60.
Bakers, employment of women as, 38, 42, 61.
Banks, employment of women in, 33, 39-40, 42, 45.
Bleaching, employment of women in, 61.
Bill posters, employment of women as, 42.
Billeting of Civilians Bill, 165.
Blast furnaces, employment of women in, 42.
Boot and shoe trade, employment of women in, 30, 61.
Boys, employment of. _See_ Children, employment of.
Boys’ Welfare Association, 184.
Brewing, employment of women in, 37.
Brick making, employment of women in, 38, 67.
British Association for Advancement of Science, 28, 32, 34, 120.
Brush making, employment of women in, 61.
Building trades, employment of women in, 38.
Butchers, employment of women as, 38.

Cement work, employment of women in, 38.
Cemetery laborers, employment of women as, 42.
Central Committee for Prevention and Relief of Distress, 21.
Central Committee on Women’s Employment, 23.
Central Labor Supply Committee, 56, 101, 106.
Chauffeurs, employment of women as, 42.
Chemicals industry, employment of women in, 34, 37, 42.
Children: Fisher Education Law, iv, 12, 226;
employment of, on war work, 2, 4, 17;
legislation regulating employment of, 12, 18-19;
compulsory schooling, 18;
effects of war on employment of, 167-190;
demand for labor of, 167;
relaxation of child labor and compulsory education laws, 170;
numbers employed, 168, 170;
illegal employment of, 174;
supervision of, 176;
wages of, 177;
hours of, 178;
Boys’ Welfare Association, 184;
effects of work on, 185;
postwar employment of, 224.
China making, employment of women in, 38, 61.
Cinema operators, employment of women as, 42.
Civil service. _See_ Government work.
Civil War Workers Committee, 206.
Clerical and Commercial Employments Committee, 69-70.
Clerical work: employment of women in, 33;
training courses in, 85.
Clothing industry, employment of women in, 30, 35, 42, 61, 67.
Clyde strike, 51.
Cole, G. D. H., 114.
College women in agricultural work, 73.
Comfort, legislation providing for, 7.
_See also_ Safety, health and comfort.
Commercial occupations, employment of women in, 29, 39, 45-46.
Competition in securing workers, efforts to avoid, 80.
Conference of Working Class Associations, 218.
Construction work, employment of women in, 42.
Control of workers: controlled establishments, 55;
under Munitions Acts, 92;
prohibition against strikes, 92;
leaving certificates, 93.
Copper works, employment of women in, 42.
Core makers, employment of women as, 42.
Cork cutters: employment of women as, 42.
Corn Production Act, 117.
Cost of living, effect of, on wages, 112.
Cotton trade, dilution in, 61, 67.
Crane drivers, employment of women as, 42.
Cranes, electric, employment of women on, 38.
Currying, employment of women in, 67.

Delinquency, juvenile, 9, 188.
Dilution, 50-74;
made possible by Munitions Act, 6, 51;
“Treasury Agreement” concerning, 52;
attitude of trade unions toward, 90;
complete, 122;
group, 123;
dilution bulletins, 153;
children used in, 175;
return of soldiers to former positions, 221;
postwar results of, 215;
table showing processes on which women were employed, 232;
extent of, in December, 1915, and April, 1916, 235;
numbers substituted, April, 1916-April, 1918, 236;
table of direct substitution, January and April, 1918, 238;
table showing average weekly earnings, 239;
list of trades in which women have been substituted
but which appear unsuitable in normal times, 248.
_See also_ Substitution.
Diseases, occupational: munitions work, 154.
Distress, Central Committee for Prevention and Relief of, 21.
Distribution of young persons between different employments
in July, 1914, October, 1917, and January, 1918, 245.
Docks, employment of women at, 37.
Domestic service: employment of women in, 3, 14, 29, 36, 38, 42;
postwar problems of, 213;
wages, 213.
Donation system for unemployed after the war, 10, 208, 211.
Dressmaking trade: employment of women in, 14, 36, 38;
wages, 118.
Dyeing industry, employment of women in, 61.

Earthenware making, employment of women in, 38, 61.
Educational work: employment of women in, 29, 47;
National Federation of Women Teachers, 88.
_See also_ Schooling.
Effects of war work:
signs of injury to health not generally apparent, 8;
on children, 9, 167, 190;
on home life, 9, 199;
increase in juvenile delinquency, 9, 188;
on women, 191-203;
development of personality, 9, 200.
Efficiency, relative, of men and women workers, 120.
Efforts, organized, to recruit women’s labor, 50.
Electric motor building, employment of women in, 38.
Electric welding, employment of women in, 42.
Engine cleaners, employment of women as, 42.
Engineering industry: employment of women in, 30;
restrictions against employment of women, 51;
dilution introduced in, 56-61;
Committee on Production in Engineering, 51.
Equal pay question, 119;
postwar problems regarding, 215.
Extension of employment of women, 28;
tables showing, 29, 236;
voluntary registration, 65.

Fabian Society, 21.
Fabian Women’s Group, 214.
Factory work, employment of women in, 29.
Farm and Garden Union, Women’s, 73.
Farm work. _See_ Agriculture.
Federation of Women Workers, 96.
Fisher, Herbert, 2, 169-170.
Fisher Education Act, iv, 12, 226.
Flour making, 67.
Food industry, employment of women in, 35, 38.
Food Production, Department of, 73.
Forge works, employment of women in, 42.
Foundry work, employment of women in, 42.
Furniture manufacturing, employment of women in, 38.

Gardeners, employment of women as, 42.
Garrod, H. W., 161.
Gas meter inspectors, employment of women as, 42.
Gas works, employment of women in, 40.
Gauging tools, employment of women in, 38.
General Federation of Trades Unions, 20.
Girls, employment of. _See_ Children, employment of.
Glass decorating, employment of women in, 61.
Glass making, employment of women in, 38, 42.
Government work, employment of women in, 14, 29, 39-40, 47-48.
Grain milling, employment of women in, 37.

Health Insurance Medical Research Committee, 198.
Health of women war workers, 191;
legislation protecting, 7, 16, 19.
_See also_ Safety, health and comfort.
Health of Munition Workers Committee, 8, 82, 135, 146-147,
178, 182-183, 191.
Hat making, employment of women in, 61.
Hay balers, employment of women as, 42.
Home life, effects of war work on, 199.
Hosiery industry, employment of women in, 30, 61.
Hotels, employment of women in, 29, 45.
Hours: legislation concerning, 7, 16;
for children, 19, 178;
in workrooms established to relieve unemployment, 26;
chapter on, 126-145;
prewar legislation regarding, 126;
demand for overtime, 126;
in munitions industry, 127;
working hours in 1915, 129;
establishment of shifts, 130;
complaints against overtime, 131-134;
report on effects of overtime, 134-135;
control of, by Ministry of Munitions, 139;
recommendations concerning, of Committee
on Women’s employment, 145;
improvement in working conditions necessitated by, 146;
increase in accidents attributed to long, 193;
modification of laws concerning, 241.
Housing conditions: establishment of hostels, 163;
Billeting of Civilians Bill, 165.
Howard Association of London, 9.
Hutchins, B. L., 30.

Illegal employment of children, 174.
Improvement in working conditions, plans for, 39.
Increase of women in industry, 2, 28.
Industrial Courts Act, 217.
Industry, employment of women in, 2, 28-29.
Independent Labour Party, 21.
Insurance agents, employment of women as, 42.
Insurance offices, employment of women in, 33.
Interdepartmental Hours of Labour Committee, 138.
Interim Court of Arbitration, 217.

Joint Committee of Industrial Women’s Organizations, 117.
Juvenile employment: increase of delinquency due to, 9, 188;
Committee on, 170, 177, 185.
_See also_ Children, employment of.

Keeling, Frederic, 17.
Kent, A. F. Stanley, 134.
Kitchener, Lord, 28, 129.

Labor: control of, by Munitions Acts, 7;
removal of Trade Union restrictions, 6, 50, 55;
child, 17;
attitude at outbreak of war, 20;
attitude of women’s labor organizations toward war, 20;
protest against substitution, 31;
agreements concerning dilution, 50-61;
organized efforts to recruit women’s, 50;
Women’s Labor Department, 73;
number of orders modifying labor laws, 240;
unions, _see_ Trade Unions.
Laboratory assistants, employment of women as, 42.
Labor Advisory Committee, 54.
Labor Regulation Department, 56.
Labor Supply Department, 56.
Labor Party, attitude of, at outbreak of war, 20.
Lace making, 61.
Lamplighters, employment of women as, 40.
Land Army, 73-74, 85, 117.
Laundry work, employment of women in, 38.
Lawrence, Susan, 104.
Leather industry, employment of women in, 30, 61-62, 67.
Leaving certificates, 7, 93;
injustice of, to workers, 94;
opposition of trade unions to, 96;
amendments regarding, 97.
Leeson, Cecil, 9, 188.
Legislation: Fisher Education Act, iv, 12;
Munitions Acts, 7, 50-51, 54-55, 92;
restricting hours, 7;
providing safety, health and comfort, 7;
Minimum Wage (Trades Boards) Act, 11, 216;
prewar protection through, 16;
prewar, concerning child labor, 17;
providing compulsory schooling, 18;
to avoid competition in securing workers, 80, 89, 126;
Corn Production Act, 117;
affecting hours, 139;
Police, Factories, etc., Act of 1916, 147-150;
Billeting of Civilians Bill, 165;
relaxation of child labor and compulsory education laws, 170;
Wages (Temporary Regulation) Bill, 217;
Industrial Courts Act, 217;
Restoration of Prewar Practices Act, 1919, 223;
number of orders modifying labor laws, 240;
modification of hour laws, 241-243.
Lift attendants, employment of women as, 42.
Lockouts prohibited by Munitions Act, 92.
Lloyd George, David, 52, 54, 58-59, 101, 122.
Lorry drivers, employment of women as, 42.

Macarthur, Mary, 24, 89.
Machinists, employment of women as, 42.
Maharajah Sandia of Gwalior fund, Prince of, 166.
Manufacturing industries, number of women engaged in
before the war, 14.
Married women, entry of, into industry, 76.
Marine engineering, employment of women in, 42.
Markham, Violet, 69.
Messengers, employment of women as, 40.
Metal trades, employment of women in, 34-35, 37, 42, 60.
Military hospitals, employment of women in, 47.
Military supplies, employment of women in manufacture of, 42.
Millers, wages of, 118.
Minimum Wage (Trades Boards) Act, 11.
Mining, employment of women in, 38.
Mistresses League, 214.
Moulders, employment of women as, 42.
Munitions Acts: of July 2, 1915, 54;
First Munitions Amendment Act, 7, 55, 139;
abrogation of trade union restrictions through, 50-51;
control of women workers under, 92.
Munitions work: employment of women in, 30, 32, 35, 37, 42, 49;
organized efforts to recruit women’s labor for, 50;
efforts to increase production, 51-52;
dilution, 56-61;
training for, 84;
governmental regulation of wages, 99;
wages, 108-113;
criticism of governmental fixing of wages, 110-113;
hours, 127-128;
diseases contracted in, 154;
employment of children in, 168.
Munitions tribunals, 7, 92, 97.

National Advisory Committee, 56.
National Federation of Women Teachers, 88.
National Federation of Women Workers, 24, 87-89, 104-105.
National Service Department, 68.
National Union of Women Workers, 86.
Night work, effects of, on women, 196.
Nonessential industries, transfers of workers from, 75.
Nonindustrial occupations, employment of women in, 33, 39.
Nurses, demand for, 47.

Optical instruments, women engaged in skilled work on, 38.
Overtime work: demand for, 126;
effect of, on women, 196;
general order regulating, 243.
Oxy-acetylene welders, employment of women as, 88.

Painters, employment of women as, 42.
Pankhurst, Mrs, 101.
Pankhurst, Sylvia, 100.
Paper industry, employment of women in, 35, 42.
Parks, employment of women in, 40.
Peace and reconstruction, problems of, 204-227.
Phillips, Marion, 203.
Pipe plasterers, employment of women as, 42.
Police, Factories, etc.
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1916, 147-150.
Police women, employment of, 40.
Postwar conditions: prevention of unemployment, 205;
unemployment, 206;
adjustments, 215;
approved trades for women, 219;
employment of children, 224;
table showing postwar employment, 246.
Postwomen, employment of, 33, 42.
Power machine operating, training courses in, 85.
Power stations, employment of women in, 40.
Prewar conditions: number of women and children employed, 14.
Prewar legislative protection, 16.
Prince of Wales, The, 21.
Printing industry, employment of women in, 35, 42, 61.
Professions, number of women engaged in, 14, 45, 47.

Quarrying, employment of women in, 38.
Queen’s Work for Women Fund, 24.

Railway service: employment of women in, 33, 39, 42, 46;
agreements as to wages by unions, 115.
Reconstruction, problems of, 204-207.
Recruiting of new workers, 5.
Red Cross hospitals, employment of women in, 47.
Registration, voluntary, 63-64, 69.
Relief, Central Committee for, 21.
Restoration of Prewar Practices Act, 1919, 223.
Rhondda, Lady, 222.
Rowntree, B. Seebohm, 149, 156.
Royal Ordnance Factories Trade Lads’ Association, 184.

Safety, health and comfort: legislation providing for, 7, 16;
organized efforts for, 147;
Police, Factories, etc., Act of 1916, 147-150;
occupational diseases contracted in munitions work, 154;
welfare supervision, 155;
attack on welfare movement, 158;
improvements in conditions outside factory, 161;
provisions for children, 182.
Sawmill laborers, employment of women as, 42.
Scavengers, employment of women as, 40.
Schooling: Fisher Education Act, iv, 12, 226;
legislation providing compulsory, 18;
relaxation of compulsory education laws, 170.
Schools, training, establishment of, 84.
Scientific instrument making, employment of women in, 61.
Sewage farms, employment of women at, 40.
Sheet metal working, employment of women in, 42.
Shipbuilding, Committee on Production in Engineering and, 51.
Ship engineering, employment of women in, 42.
Shipyards, employment of women in, 38, 42.
Shoe trade: employment of women in, 30;
training courses in, 85.
Shops Committee, 69.
Smith, Constance, 186.
Society of Incorporated Accountants, 47.
Solderers, employment of women as, 42;
voluntary registration, 63-64, 69.
Sources of workers: transfers from non-essential industries, 75;
transfers between districts, 79.
Special Arbitration Tribunal, 104, 106, 109, 125.
Spelter works, employment of women in, 42.
Steel works, employment of women in, 38.
Stokers, employment of women as, 38.
Street cleaners, employment of women as, 40.
Street traders, child, 4.
Strikes prohibited by Munitions Act, 92.
Substitution: in munitions work, 3;
“equal pay” principle, 5;
protest of labor unions against, 31;
total number of women substituted for men workers, 40;
objections to, 41;
substitution officers, 68.
_See also_ Dilution.
Sweated labor, government provision against, 101.
Sweated trades, wage fixing in, 113.

Tables: extension of employment of women
during four years of war, 29;
increase or decrease in number of women
employed since July, 1914, 39;
extension of employment of females in industry
during four years of war, 44;
number of women engaged on government orders
in private concerns, April, 1917, and April, 1918, 45;
increase in employment of women in commerce, July, 1914-April,
1918, and percentage of firms reporting a shortage
of female labor in April, 1918, 46;
number of females employed by steam railways, 46;
number of females employed by government departments, 48;
prewar occupations of 44, 137;
females insured against unemployment in January, 1917, 79;
number of Women Trade Union members, 88;
_see also_ “Appendices,” 229-249.
Tailors’ pressers, employment of women as, 42.
Teachers, women, 47;
National Federation of, 88.
Technical schools, establishment of, 84.
Telephone repairers, employment of women as, 42.
Tennant, Mrs. A. J., 69.
Testing dynamos, employment of women in, 38.
Textile industry: employment of women in, 14, 35, 38, 42, 61, 65;
organized workers in, 87.
Theaters, employment of women in, 29, 45.
Tinsmiths, employment of women as, 42.
Tobacco industry, employment of women in, 61.
Toy making, training for, 85.
Trades, approved, for women after the war, 219.
Trades Boards: Minimum Wage Act, 11, 216;
wage fixing by, 113.
Trade League, Women’s, 87, 105.
Trade Unions: General Federation of, 20;
restrictions of, removed, by Munitions Acts, 50, 55;
“Treasury Agreement,” 52-53;
agreements allowing dilution, 61;
women and the, 87;
women not admitted to some, 87;
increase of women members, 87;
number of women members in, 88;
reasons for growth of women members in, 89;
difficulties to interest women in, 89;
postwar effect on
number of women members in, 91;
opposition of, to leaving certificates, 96;
agreements effecting wage changes, 114.
Trades Union Congress, 20.
Training: establishment of training centers, 84;
for unemployed women, 210.
Tramway service, employment of women in, 39, 42.
Transferred workers, 81-82.
Transfers of workers: from non-essential industries, 75;
from domestic service, 76;
between districts, 79.
Transport work, employment of women in, 29, 39-40, 45.
Transportation problems of workers, 162.
“Treasury Agreement,” 52-56;
wage regulations contained in, 100, 110;
arrangements for fulfilment of pledges in,
by Restoration of Prewar Practices Act, 223.
Tuberculosis, increase in, among women, 198.

Unemployment: postwar, 10;
donation system, 10, 208, 211;
proportion of occupied to unoccupied women before the war, 14;
at outbreak of war, 21;
efforts to relieve, 23;
prewar occupations of women insured against, 79;
of children, 167, 225;
prevention of postwar, 205;
training courses to relieve, 210.

Violations of Munitions Acts, penalties for, 55.
Vocational courses, establishment of, 85.

“Waacs,” 4, 48, 69.
Wages: raises in, due to war conditions, 4;
“equal pay” principle, 5, 100, 119;
effects of peace on, 11;
Minimum Wage (Trades Boards) Act, 11, 216;
prewar, 15, 18;
legislation governing prewar, 16;
of children, 18, 117;
in workrooms established to relieve unemployment, 26;
fear of trade unions that employment of women would
undercut rates of, 31-32;
in agriculture, 34, 72, 117;
dilution, 62, 64;
chapter on, 99-125;
fixing of, 99, 102-104, 106-108, 113;
governmental provision against sweated labor, 101;
Special Arbitration Tribunal, 104;
for woodworkers, 108;
effect of cost of living on, 112;
changes under trade union agreements, 114;
settlement of disputes, 125;
postwar, 209, 215;
Interim Court of Arbitration, 217;
Industrial Courts Act, 217;
Wages (Temporary Regulation) Bill, 217;
recommendations concerning postwar, 220;
table showing average weekly earnings, 239;
table showing average wages of women and girls in
nonmunitions trades, 249.
Waiters Union, admission of women to, 90.
War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, iv.
War Emergency Workers National Committee, 23, 26, 63.
War Register, 64-65.
Webb, Sidney, 15, 18.
Webb, Mrs. Sidney, iv, 110, 113, 116, 169, 220.
Welfare work: “outside welfare officers,” 6;
legislation providing for, 8;
for transferred workers, 81-83;
improvements in working conditions result of, 146-166;
welfare supervision, 155;
attacks on, 158;
supervision of children, 176;
outside of working hours, 199.
“Whitley” industrial councils, 222.
Woman’s Freedom League, 63.
Woman’s Army Auxiliary Corps, 48.
Women’s Cooperative Guild, 65.
Women’s Industrial Council, 214.
Women’s National Land Service Corps, 73.
Woodcutting, employment of women in, 42.
Wood trades, employment of women in, 42.
Woodworking industry, employment of women in, 34-35, 37, 61;
wage awards, 108.
Woolen and worsted industry, employment of women in, 30, 61.
Woolwich Arsenal, employment of women in, 60;
welfare work in, 66.
Working Class Associations, conference of, 218.
“Wrafs,” 4, 48.
“Wrens,” 4, 48.

Young Women’s Christian Association, 65.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Economic effects of the world war upon women and children in Great Britain" ***

Home