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.