_WOMEN AND MACHINERY._
There is a general opinion amongst the women workers themselves that the
introduction of machinery has ruined these trades for them. But we have
found that certain opinions prevail, not because they have stood the
test of investigation, but because they are passed round, and have never
been subjected to enquiry. We have already referred to the question in a
general way.[77]
[Footnote 77: P. 48.]
[Sidenote: Effect of machinery.]
The impression of workers that machinery is displacing them, must be
received with a great deal of reserve as they rarely take long or broad
views.
Mechanical aid is very imperfect in most of these trades, and in book
folding, envelope making, black bordering, etc., its use has hitherto
been greatly restricted owing to the nature of the work.
The census figures, moreover, seem to be pretty conclusive that, taking
the trade as a whole, machinery cannot have had such a very destructive
influence upon women's employment.[78]
[Footnote 78: An old-established publisher commits himself to the
statement that machinery has increased women's work by 20 per cent. The
manager of a leading Scottish paper and stationery firm stated, with
reference to envelope making: "The use of machinery is always extending;
but only in the direction of increasing the output; there has been no
displacing of workers; the result has been rather to increase their
employment."]
The following statement by a Trade Union official is at once the most
emphatic and most detailed of a considerable mass of information on this
subject:--
"Folding and stitching machines have largely superseded female
labour and men's labour too. _E.g._, A. (a certain weekly paper),
if folded, etc., by hand, would employ thirty hands--now it is all
done by machinery. B. (another similar paper) by hand would employ
100 girls and, say, twenty or thirty men--now no girl touches it
except just to insert 'things,' _e.g._, advertisements, and men
merely pack it; machinery does the rest. Even wrapping is done by
machinery--one machine with one man does the work of eight men.
At X. (a well-known London firm) ten folding machines do the work
of 100 girls."
As a matter of fact the papers referred to have been created by the
cheap work of machines, and no labour has been displaced by their
employment. They have rather increased the demand for labour. But the
statement shows the efficiency of machinery worked under the best
conditions.
Another statement by a woman worker, typical of many others, is as
follows:
"Machinery is ruining the trade, and workers are being turned off;
thirty were turned off a few months ago, and twenty more will have
to go soon."
This applies to a certain well-known London firm of bookbinders, and it
is curiously corroborated by other investigators who found in other
firms traces of the women discharged from this one. The firm's own
statement, however, was that they had to turn away "ten hands (young
ones), the other day, because of the introduction of folding machines";
but this information was received five months before the woman employed
quoted above was seen.[79]
[Footnote 79: An Edinburgh firm states that one folding machine can be
managed by two girls and it does the work of eight women hand-folders.
The firm does not state if it turned away hands, but it considered that
there is too great a strain placed upon girls in watching this machine
constantly, so their work is varied.]
[Sidenote: Displacement.]
That there is some displacement, either directly or by the substitution
of younger workpeople, cannot be gainsaid with reference to particular
processes.
The class most affected is the sewers. The evidence in support of their
displacement places it beyond dispute, and though the increased facility
for sewing has created an extra demand for folding, and some sewers have
turned to folding in consequence, this class as a whole has suffered by
machinery. Folders have been less affected.
The way in which the displacement is brought about is of some interest.
We have, to begin with, the general apparent inability of women to
manage machines, and we find that the folding machine has tended to
reintroduce men to aid in work which for many years has been exclusively
women's.[80] Here we have a case of men and machinery doing women's
work. On the other hand, the sewing machine does not appear to have had
that tendency, the only explanation apparently being that convention
determines that in these trades sewing machines and women go together.
Sewing machines are domestic implements in men's eyes. It is very
curious that it should be so, but we are driven to that as the only
possible explanation of well-observed facts. In this instance machines
alone displace women.
[Footnote 80: The manager of a firm with an extensive business in
popular periodical literature says: "Folding, which was all hand work
and women's work, is now largely done by machines managed by men.
Wrapping, of which the same was true, is also largely done by machines
which are managed by men.... If the machine is large and complicated,
men will replace women, if it is small and simple, women will replace
men."]
No process--excepting the few rare instances in the typographical
trade--seems to have been opened up to women in consequence of the
introduction of machinery; and, on the other hand, the instances where
young persons, either boys or girls, have been put to women's work owing
to the introduction of machinery are very rare. So all that has happened
has been that machines have somewhat changed the character of women's
work, and their chief effect, beyond the displacement of sewers, has
been to prevent the taking on of some learners who otherwise might have
been employed in certain branches of these trades.
Conclusions can be arrived at with more accuracy in respect of the
paper-colouring and enamelling processes.
Paper colouring and enamelling hardly exists as a separate trade now.
Paper is coloured or enamelled, as a rule, in the mill where it is made,
and the processes are carried out by machinery.
This trade, then, affords a definite instance of the replacement of
women's work by machinery, handwork being now a rare survival. In one
firm where forty-five women were formerly employed twelve now work. The
process of colouring by hand is very simple. The sheet of paper to be
coloured is placed in front of the woman who wets it over with the
required colour by means of a long thin brush like a whitewash brush,
which she dips into a bowl. She then takes another round brush, about 10
ins. in diameter, and brushes over the whole surface, so that the colour
shall lie quite evenly. The process is now complete, and the sheet of
paper is taken up and hung on a line to dry. Enamelling is done in
precisely the same way, enamel, instead of colour, being applied.
These hand processes apparently survive in the case of small quantities
of paper which it is not worth while to colour or enamel by machine.
Those who have seen the process cannot regret the abolition of hand
labour. The work is rough and dirty; the workers and the walls are all
splashed over with the colour, the result being picturesque, but not
healthy. When dry powder or dust is used in the process, meals may not
be taken on the premises. The work does not attract a high grade of
workers; they are of the job-hand type, friendly, rough and ready, and
by no means tidy or "genteel."
Paper colouring and enamelling was once a man's trade but women replaced
men for the same reason that machinery has now replaced women, _i.e._,
cheapness.
Machine ruling has also been slightly affected. One of the investigators
reports of an Edinburgh factory: "In this factory I was shown a ruling
machine which was provided with an automatic feeder, in the form of two
indiarubber wheels, which drew each sheet of paper into the machine with
great exactness. The machine, after ruling one side, turned the paper
and ruled the other without any adjustment by hand being necessary.
After being set, this machine required only the occasional supervision
of one man operative. It was estimated that its output equalled that of
twelve persons on the old machines, whilst on some work of a simple kind
which was merely to be run through, it might replace the work of
thirty."
[Sidenote: Cheap labour and mechanical appliances.]
In these circumstances it is hardly to be expected that much evidence
could have been collected leading to very definite conclusions regarding
how far the cheapness of women's labour retarded the introduction of
machinery, and the efficient organisation of these industries.
With the large up-to-date employers, the fact that women's labour is
cheap counts for little in face of the fact that machinery is rapid, and
enables them on a small area and with a productive capital charge, to
turn out large volumes of produce. "When we see a good machine," said
one of these employers, "we try it, and we do not think of the cheapness
or dearness of the labour it may displace." But with small employers,
and with those producing for a lower class or special market,
considerations of wages do enter greatly into calculations of the
utility of a new machine, and to some slight extent the cheapness of
women's labour has retarded the application of machinery in
these trades. One investigator states of a large West End
stationer:--"Undoubtedly he would put up steam folding and stamping
machines if women's labour were not so cheap." A printer who prints some
of the best-known weekly papers and reviews is reported to have
said:--"Taking it broadly, the cheapness of men's or women's work
undoubtedly tends to retard the introduction of machinery."
But the most striking proof of the connection between cheap labour and
handwork is given by one investigator who, whilst being taken over
certain large printing works was shown women folding one of the
illustrated weekly papers. Folding machines were standing idle in the
department, and she was told that these were used by the men when
folding had to be done at times when the Factory Law prohibited women's
labour.[81] Another employer stated that he had introduced folding
machines as a consequence of the legal restrictions placed upon women's
labour, whilst another well-known bookbinder said:--"If women would take
a fair price for work done it would not be necessary to employ
machinery."
[Footnote 81: _Cf._ pp 80, 81, etc.]
A large printer of magazines reports: "The saving in cost, and therefore
the inducement to put in machinery, is much less if higher wages are
paid for men doing the work." The scarcity of women's labour, we are
told, induced a Manchester printing firm to adopt folding machines;
whilst, on the other hand, the cheapness of women's labour has kept
linotypes out of Warrington composing rooms.