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.