Of the above trades, cardboard box-making, sugar confectionery, jam-making, and food preserving come within the scope of the Trade Boards Act, and for these occupations minimum wages have been fixed. The jam and food preserving trade showed in 1906 the low average for women of 10s.
11d., 45 per cent of the women employed earning less than 10s. and over 26 per cent less than 9s. for a full week. This trade is also remarkable for heavy seasonal fluctuations.
By whatever standard the average weekly earnings of women in the trades which have been noted are judged, the outstanding conclusion is that they are generally low to a degree which suggests a serious social problem.
Averages of less than 13s. are frequent in all three Tables which have been presented, and the reader should be again reminded that these averages are for women over eighteen years of age working a _full_ week.
Girls and also women working short time have been excluded. For the sake of brevity, details have not been given in many cases of the percentages of women earning wages between certain stated limits. But it needs to be recognised that an average suggests wages which are below as well as above that figure. Generally it may be stated that where an average is given, from 40 to 50 per cent of the women employed earn wages at less, and in many cases at very much less than the average.
Various attempts have been made to calculate the minimum sum required by a woman living independently of relatives to maintain herself in decency and with a meagre degree of comfort. The estimates point to a sum of from 14s.
6d. to 15s. a week as the minimum requirement, and this a.s.sumes that the worker possesses knowledge, which she has probably in fact had no chance to acquire, of how best to spend her money and satisfy her wants in the order not of her own immediate desires, but of their social importance. At present prices the minimum would be 17s. or 18s.
In the light of this estimate we may note that in the clothing trade group, for example, 259 per cent of those returned earned less than 10s.
per week, and applying this percentage to the total number as shown by the Factory Returns to have been employed in this particular industry in 1907, namely, 432,668, we arrive at the conclusion that no fewer than 111,681 women were in receipt of wages which, measured by a not very exacting standard, were grossly inadequate.
The figures with which we have been dealing are, however, those for a week of full time. No allowance has been made for sickness or holidays, and what is more important, short time or slackness.
Almost every trade fluctuates throughout the year, and in many cases this fluctuation is considerable. For example, in the Dress, Millinery (workshop) Section the wages paid in the month of August were only 78 per cent of the monthly average, or, for London alone, 66 per cent. Though short time in one month is partially offset by overtime in another, there is but little doubt that in most trades and in most years the balance comes out on the wrong side, and, properly studied, the Wage Census volumes reveal the fact that unemployment and short time are important factors when considering women"s wages from the point of view of the maintenance of decent conditions of living.
In many respects the wages for a full-time week which we have so far been considering are indeed an artificial figure. High weekly wages in a trade where there is much slackness may obviously be less than the equivalent of low wages in a trade where conditions are steadier. If we are to consider wages in relation to the needs of the worker, therefore, it is the year rather than the week which should be taken as the unit. For many reasons, however, earnings _per year_ are extremely difficult to determine, and nothing more than an approximation is practicable.
Dr. Bowley"s[55] method is to compare the full-time weekly wage multiplied by fifty-two with the total wage bill for the year, divided by the number employed in the busiest week: that is, the week when it may be a.s.sumed that all persons dependent on the trade will be employed except those who are prevented by ill-health. Supposing, for example, the total wages bill in a certain trade were 400,000, and the number of persons employed in the busiest week were 16,000. The average amount per person per year would be 25 as compared with, say, 29 : 5s., which represents 52 times an a.s.sumed full-time weekly wage of 11s. 3d. We can thus say in this supposit.i.tious case that the yearly earnings of the workers in fact equal only 52 25/29-1/4, or 44 weeks at the full-time weekly wages.
Owing to certain gaps in the statistical information these results are subject to certain qualifications of a nature somewhat too technical to enlarge upon in such a book as this. They may be accepted, however, as substantially establishing the fact that overtime does not in general counterbalance short time and slackness, and that in the foregoing review of earnings on the basis of a full-time week we have been dealing with figures which are distinctly rosier than the facts warrant.
THE MOVEMENT AND TENDENCIES OF WOMEN"S WAGES
A retrospect of women"s wages based on such data as are available confirms the view that, low as is the present level, the movement is nevertheless in an upward direction.
In the cotton trade, employing more than half the women in all textile trades, women"s wages have risen continuously throughout the period of which we have information. Mr. G. H. Wood, F.S.S., who has made the movement of wages his special study, estimates that taking the general level of women"s wages in 1860 as 100, the level in 1840 would be expressed by 75 and in 1900 by 160, so that in the period of sixty years covered by these figures women"s rates of wages would appear to have increased by more than 100 per cent. Though perhaps not so considerable, a similar movement has occurred in other trades, and it is interesting to note that in Mr. Wood"s view women"s wages have risen relatively more than men"s. Unfortunately, however, the statistics which are available, and on which his conclusion is based, do not include the great clothing and dressmaking industry which, from the point of view of women"s employment, is so important. An enquiry on the lines of the 1906 Census was indeed attempted in the year 1886, but the results are meagre. It may be noted, however, that comparison of the results with those for 1906 tends to show that in some branches of the clothing trades wages declined. This fall in the rate of wages, if such a conclusion is justified, is, however, probably to be regarded as an exception to the general tendency as exhibited in the cotton and certain other trades.
The occupation of women in many fields of employment with which they are still princ.i.p.ally a.s.sociated, such as spinning and the making of clothes, is probably as ancient as the industries themselves. The employment of women as wage-earners in such work is, however, comparatively recent. As a member of a family, or as a servant or retainer, woman has worked for generations in many tasks which formerly were, but now, with the increased specialisation of industry, have ceased to be, part of the ordinary routine of domestic activity. From this condition it was an easy transition to the frequent employment of women to a.s.sist in their master"s craft, or in the deliberate production for sale of a surplus of articles beyond what were required for family needs.
It was probably not until the factory system developed, however, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, that women were employed to any considerable extent as wage-earners in industry, and even when they were so employed there was an intermediate stage in which it was not unusual for the father or head of the family to appropriate their earnings and apply them as he pleased. Gaskell lamented the fact that the custom was creeping in of paying individual wages to women and children, thinking that it would break family ties. Though it still sometimes happens that members of a family work together in mills, Gaskell"s fears were undoubtedly justified. Family ties, however, are of many kinds, and it is probably not correct to a.s.sume that the disintegration of the family as a producing or industrial unit indicates a relaxation of these emotions of affection, loyalty, and responsibility which spring to mind when the family is regarded in its social and ethical relationships.
The fact must, moreover, be noted as bearing directly upon the chief problem of women"s wages that although the family as a producing unit is no longer of considerable importance, as a spending unit it exercises a fundamental influence on the industrial system. From the point of view of food, lodging, medicine, and other items of expenditure, a person is more interested as a rule in the collective income of the family group to which he belongs than in his own individual contribution. Many mining districts in which men can earn large wages show a low wage level for women, while in such a district as Hebden Bridge, where, as the phrase goes, it pays a man better to have daughters than sons, the opposite condition prevails.
In both cases the wages are influenced, broadly speaking, by the standard of comfort of the family rather than by that of the individual.
If it were the invariable rule for a worker to belong to a family group, and if families were uniform as regards the number and s.e.x distribution of their members, there would be no great cause to regret the influence of the collective family budget upon wages. But conditions are not uniform, and in districts or trades in which the wage level is largely affected by the presence of women whose fathers and brothers are relatively well-to-do, the position of a woman living alone in lodgings is apt to be a hard one. Where a father earns enough to maintain his family in reasonable comfort, the daughters going to work in a factory may be willing to accept wages no more than sufficient to provide them with clothes and pocket-money, but quite inadequate to afford their workmate who is living independently a sufficient livelihood.
These considerations are closely connected with the question whether, in estimating what is a fair wage for a woman, we should proceed on the basis of a woman living alone in lodgings, or whether we should admit as a proper consideration the fact that in many cases the woman would live with her parents and family, and would have the advantage, if not of a.s.sistance from them, at least of that economy in expenditure which the family group represents.
Statistics as to the number of women who live independently are difficult to obtain, and it is doubtful whether such women form the majority of those employed. It may be granted, however, that in certain districts and certain trades the proportion is small, and in these cases it might be asked whether we should not ignore the type which is exceptional and consider the wages paid on the basis of actual rather than hypothetical needs. This, it may be argued, is already done in the case of children or young persons, in connection with whom the question is never asked whether the wages paid are sufficient to maintain them independently.
The answer appears to be clear, though it brings us up against certain moral considerations. It may be true that the women in a certain industry or town, in spite of low wages, are all in fact well nourished and comfortable, members as they are of families which as families are well-to-do. Great as may be the respect which kinship deserves, it is submitted, however, that no normal woman should be compelled by economic exigencies to live with persons towards whom she has not voluntarily undertaken responsibilities, and that the freedom which economic independence implies is a right to which every woman willing to work may properly lay claim.
Even, therefore, though we dismiss from consideration the great number of women who have no choice but to live entirely on their own earnings, there are still grounds on which the position can be maintained that the single woman living alone with reasonable frugality is the proper test by which, from the point of view of what is right and desirable, wages should be measured.
It should be noted, moreover, that the issue is not solely between women who live alone and women who are partly supported by their families. There are also the women who have dependents. According to the 1911 population Census over one-fifth[56] of occupied women were not single, but married or widowed, and many of these doubtless have children to support. The Fabian Women"s Group enquiry showed that about half the women workers canva.s.sed had dependents. The Labour Commission of the United States, in course of investigating the condition of women and child wage-earners, found that in a group of 300 families 43 per cent of the family income was contributed by unmarried women over sixteen.[57] Again, Miss Louise Bosworth, in a study of _The Living Wage of Women Workers_, published in 1911, found that "the girls working for pin-money were negligible factors." So far from girl workers being mostly supported at home, it appears that in many cases the earnings of the single daughter or sister living with her family, small as they are, are an important element in the family income.
It has been shown in the previous section that even in the relatively well-paid women"s trades there are large numbers of adult women in receipt of wages which are scarcely compatible with mere physical existence, much less a decent and comfortable life. Men"s wages, even in low-paid trades, are usually sufficient to enable a man who has not undertaken family responsibilities--which after all are entirely voluntary--to obtain a sufficiency of food and warmth. The remuneration of working-cla.s.s women are in the majority of cases, however, barely adequate to satisfy this austere standard. We naturally ask, therefore, why this difference should exist.
The occupations in which men and women are indifferently employed are relatively few in number. Even where men and women are employed side by side in the same trade they are usually engaged on different processes.
The points where overlapping occurs are, however, sufficiently numerous to enable us to make the generalisation that in those industrial processes in which both men and women are employed the efficiency or output of the man is greater than that of the woman worker. In other words, the man is _worth_ more, and his higher wages are an expression of this fact.
Even where the man"s dexterity or skill is no greater than that of the woman"s his wages still tend to be greater. Usually if an employer can get both men and women workers he is prepared to pay somewhat more to a man even though the man"s output per hour is no greater than that of a woman.
Put bluntly, a male worker is less bother than is a female worker. A female staff is always to some extent an anxiety and a source of trouble to an employer in a way that a male staff is not, and to many employers it has the great defect of being less able to cope with sudden rushes of work. Men are, after all, made of harder stuff than women, and only in the grossest cases do we ever give a thought to men being overworked. With women, however, not only the Factory Act, but also decent feeling requires an employer to be vigilant to see that undue strain is not placed on them.
The greater remuneration of men in those occupations where both men and women are employed on the same processes is then due to the fact that the men are preferred to women, and employers are accordingly willing to pay more to get them.
Such occupations, however, probably form the exception rather than the rule, and we have to consider the cases where there is apparently no s.e.x compet.i.tion whatever. The nursery-maid wheels the baby"s perambulator on the pavement; the mechanic drives his motor van in the road. They do not compete for employment in any sense. Generally, indeed, custom has indicated with a fair degree of preciseness what are men"s occupations and what are women"s. Why, then, in distinctively women"s occupations should the wages paid be lower than men"s? The answer is not easy, but the key to the problem is to be found in the broad statement that the field of employment of women is much more restricted than that of men. Hence the compet.i.tion of women for employment reduces their general wage level to a lower point than that of men, or, as an economist would put it, the marginal uses of female labour are inferior to those of male labour.
What is needed, therefore, is an enlargement of the sphere in which women can find employment; not, be it noted, an increase merely in the number of occupations, but in the _kinds_ of occupations. Pursuit of this end will no doubt raise questions regarding the displacement of male labour, but it is fortunate that in many cases woman"s claim would be most strenuously contested in respect of those occupations which are least suited to her, and which she ought not to enter. The need of discrimination must be emphasised. An excursion to the black country should convince even the most ardent feminist that at the present time tasks are permitted to women which from every point of view--their dirtiness, their arduousness, and the strain which they impose on certain muscles--are entirely unsuitable.
It would be folly to increase the number of such tasks. Attention should be directed to those occupations in which womanly characteristics would have their value, and in which a woman would not be physically at a disadvantage. It is to be hoped that public sentiment would then be the ally rather than the enemy of the movement. The displacement of male typists by female typists, and the larger employment of women in clerical occupations, and as shop a.s.sistants, to say nothing of the introduction of women officials in the sphere of local and central government, undoubtedly represent an advance in the right direction. Paradoxical as it may seem, an effective means of enlarging the field of women"s activities might be found in the awakening of public feeling against employments which are unsuitable. The process of a.n.a.lysis and comparison which is implied by criticism of such employments would undoubtedly indicate directions in which women"s work could be utilised more satisfactorily. This is a consideration of paramount importance in view of the opportunities and necessities to which the present war has given and will give rise. It is for those who influence public opinion to see that in the readjustment of the economic relationship between men and women reasonable discrimination is exercised.
The prohibition of the employment of women on unsuitable work, combined with educational effort which would make women capable of better and more responsible work, would give women-workers access to many kinds of employment from which they are practically excluded at present. Much that is unsatisfactory and regrettable in industrial life is the result of sheer inertia and drift, and many an employer would find new and cleaner and more remunerative methods of employing women if stimulated by the law and encouraged by an ability on the part of the women to respond to new methods. The principle of the Factory Acts, and of the minimum wage, requiring a minimum of safety or comfort and of remuneration, should be reinforced and strengthened not merely for the sake of its face value--great though it is--but also for the sake of its stimulating effect on the management of businesses and its consequent tendency to increase remuneration. At the same time an attempt should be made to encourage in girls some sense of craftsmanship and loyalty to their callings, so that their organisation in trade unions or guilds would become possible. With a few exceptions collective bargaining and the collective maintenance of a standard of remuneration are, as regards women"s employment, merely sporadic and intermittent. It is the young woman, the irresponsible immature untrained amateur worker, without an industrial tradition to guide her, who is the despair of organised labour. The irresponsibility and indifference to organisation which she displays are, as often as not, due to the fact that her employment may not afford a decent livelihood, and that she is forced to look forward to and seek marriage as the only way out of an impossible life. But it is also true to say that her inadequate wages are due to her irresponsibility and indifference. There is inextricable confusion between cause and effect--a vicious circle which can only be broken by patient methods of training, helped by the initial impulse of a legal minimum wage and a legally prescribed standard of general conditions.
CHAPTER VII[58]
THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
_The Shock of War._--The great European War broke out in the summer of 1914.
The shock was felt at once by trade and industry. July ended in scenes of widespread trouble and dismay. The Stock Exchange closed, and the August Bank Holiday was prolonged for nearly a week. Many failures occurred, and there was at first a general lack of confidence and credit. Energetic measures were promptly taken by the Government to restore a sense of security, and unemployment among men during the ensuing year was much less than had been antic.i.p.ated. Unemployment among women was for a time very severe. For this unfavourable position of women there are several reasons.
In the first place, any surplus of male labour was met at once by a corresponding new demand for recruits and the drafting of many hundreds of thousands of young men into the army, aided by the rush of employment in Government factories and workshops, served to correct the dislocation of the male labour market. Women were unfortunate in that the cotton trade, by far the largest staple industry in which a majority of the employees are women, was also the trade to suffer the greatest injury by the war.
_The Cotton Trade._--Employment had begun to be slack some time previously, and the cutting off of the German market was naturally a considerable blow. Exact statistics are almost impossible to obtain, as the numbers of looms stopped or working short time varied from week to week; but figures collected for the week ending October 3 show that between 58,000 and 59,000 members of the Amalgamated Weavers" a.s.sociation were out of work, and over 30,000 were on short time. At Burnley, over half the looms were stopped; at Preston, over a third. In November, when things had greatly improved, about 36 per cent of the looms were still standing idle.
The amount of short time, or "under-employment," was also very considerable, as is shown by the fact that the reduction in earnings exceeded the reduction in numbers employed. The following table is taken from the _Labour Gazette_, December 1914, and shows the state of employment in the princ.i.p.al centres of the cotton trade. The figures include men as well as women; but as women predominate in the industry, they may be considered as a fair index to the women"s position.
WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 28, 1914, COMPARED WITH SAME MONTH IN PREVIOUS YEAR.
+-------------------------------------------------+ | |Decrease per cent in| | Districts. | Numbers | Amount of| | |Employed.| Earnings.| |----------------------------|---------|----------| |Ashton | 176 | 262 | |Stockport, Glossop, and Hyde| 116 | 220 | |Oldham | 84 | 175 | |Bolton | 26 | 135 | |Bury, Rochdale, etc. | 74 | 177 | |Manchester | 33 | 155 | |Preston and Chorley | 146 | 317 | |Blackburn, etc. | 180 | 409 | |Burnley, etc. | 43 | 476 | |Other Lancashire towns | 154 | 320 | |Yorkshire towns | 130 | 201 | |Other districts | 112 | 206 | | |---------|----------| | Total | 121 | 271 | +-------------------------------------------------+
In all these districts women would be affected much the same as men, and would be out of work in about the same proportion, but as women form a majority of the occupation, a much larger number of women were in distress and were without any resource comparable to that open to the men of recruiting age. In these circ.u.mstances the funds of the Unions suffered a terrible strain. The workers" organisations were faced with the dilemma whether to pay stoppage benefit to members with a generous hand, in which case they ran the risk of depleting their funds and losing the strength necessary for effective protection of the standard of life; or, on the other hand, to guard their reserve for the future and leave many of their members to suffer distress with the inevitable result of loss of health and efficiency.
As the winter 1914-15 wore onwards unemployment in the cotton trade gradually became less acute, but for several months the suffering of the operatives must have been considerable.
_Some other Trades._--In London the position was of course extremely unlike that of Lancashire, but we again find the women suffering heavily, and (but for comparatively a few) without the support and a.s.sistance of a union. At the first news of war, dressmakers, actresses, typists, secretaries, and the followers of small "luxury trades" (toilet specialities, manicuring, and the like) were thrown out of work in large numbers. Not only in London, but in the country at large, the following trades were greatly depressed: dressmaking, millinery, blouse-making, fancy boot and shoe-making, the umbrella trade, cycle and carriage making, the jewellery trade, furniture making, china and gla.s.s trades. In some cases the general dislocation was intensified by a shortage of material due to war: the closing of the Baltic cut off supplies of flax from Russia, on which our linen trade largely depends. The closing of the North Sea to fishers stopped the curing of herrings, which normally employs thousands of women, and both the chemical and confectionery trades suffered from the stoppage of imports from Germany.
The Board of Trade"s Report on the State of Employment in October 1914 gave the reduction of women"s employment in London as 105 per cent in September, 70 per cent in October. But this estimate was for all industries taken together, some of which were in a state of "boom" owing to the war, and it is certain that the occupations referred to above must have suffered much more heavily than the average. Many girls spent weeks in the heart-sickening and exhausting search for employment. In November the dressmaking, mantle-making, and shirt- and collar-making were in a worse condition than in the previous month, although trade generally had improved.
_The Woollen and Clothing Trades._--In these trades the war brought a veritable "tidal-wave" of prosperity. The industrial centres of our Allies were to a considerable extent in the hands of the enemy; thus, not only new clothes for our regular troops and reserves, and uniforms for the new armies that were shortly recruited, but also those for the troops of our Allies were called for in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The woollen towns of this district became the busiest places in the world, and orders overflowed into Scotland and the somewhat decayed but still celebrated clothing region of the West of England.
The first expedient to cope with the enormous pressure of orders was to relax the Factory Act. In normal times no overtime is allowed in textile industries to workers under the operation of the Act (viz. women, girls under eighteen, boys under eighteen, and children), and employment is limited to ten hours a day. In view of the tremendous issues involved, permission was given to employ women and young persons for two hours"