Safety, Health and Comfort
The lengthening of hours for women employes was often accompanied
by a considerable improvement in general working conditions. “Since
the committee was appointed in September, 1915,” said the Health of
Munition Workers Committee in its final report in April, 1918, “there
has become apparent an increased appreciation of the importance of
the whole question of industrial hygiene; there is no doubt that the
environment and conditions of the workers are vastly better than they
were, though there is still much need for further improvement.” As
women were brought into many workshops for the first time a general
cleaning up often took place, and special accommodations in the way of
cloakrooms, washrooms and restrooms became necessary. The long hours,
the increasing distances which many workers lived from the factory and
the institution of night shifts made some provision for getting meals
there almost imperative. It became much more common for men and women
to work together, especially on night shifts, and in many cases an
effort was made to solve the problems thus raised, and those coming to
the front wherever large numbers of women were taken on, by appointing
woman “welfare supervisors.” Where large numbers of women were brought
from a distance to work in munition centers, considerable attention was
paid to the betterment of living conditions outside the factory. While
the lengthening of hours was abandoned with the passing of the war
emergency, the improvements enumerated seem likely to mean a permanent
rise in English standards of working conditions.
The 1915 report of the chief factory inspector noted that—
The introduction of women into works where they have not
hitherto been employed has been often accompanied by a
striking degree of solicitude on the part of the managers
for their welfare and comfort.... A question arises ...
why has the manufacture of munitions of war on a terrible
scale led at last to systematic introduction of hygienic
safeguards that factory inspectors have advocated for many
years, such as supervision of women by women in factories,
provision of means for personal cleanliness, proper meal and
restrooms, and qualified nurses? Probably it is in part due
to a recognition that wages alone can not adequately reward
those who serve the State in time of need, but it also
points again to the new general awakening to the dependence
of efficient output on the welfare of the human agent.[189]
[189] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1915_, pp. 14, 15.
Similarly, many large business offices, when they hired women for the
first time, made special arrangements for their health and comfort.
_Organized Efforts_
Except for the requirement by the Home Office that “canteen”
(restaurant) facilities should be provided wherever women were employed
at night, the efforts just described were not in the beginning the
result of any organized action. But soon there appeared three agencies
which were mainly responsible for the development of facilities for
safety, health and comfort. These were the Health of Munition Workers
Committee, with its recommendations on these subjects, the Ministry
of Munitions, especially its Health and Welfare Section, and the Home
Office, under the increased powers for securing the welfare of employes
granted it by the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act of 1916.[190]
[190] 6 and 7 Geo. 5, 1916, Ch. 31.
The Health of Munition Workers Committee laid great stress on
provisions for safety, health and comfort, as well as on the limitation
of hours. Of female workers the committee said in January, 1916, “The
effect upon the health and energy of women and girls which results from
clean, bright and airy workrooms, well warmed in winter can hardly
be exaggerated. The factory act secures a minimum of these essential
things, but the highest standard attained in the best factories is not
too high.... The provision of washing accommodations ... has become
increasingly important ... cloakrooms should also be provided.... The
provision of adequate and suitable sanitary accommodations is a matter
of special importance.”[191] At that time it was the judgment of the
committee that “if the present long hours, the lack of helpful and
sympathetic oversight, the inability to obtain good, wholesome food
and the great difficulties of traveling are allowed to continue, it
will be impracticable to secure or maintain for an extended period
the high maximum output of which women are undoubtedly capable.” The
committee attached high value to “canteens” or factory restaurants,
remarking that “the munition worker, like the soldier, requires good
rations to enable him to do good work.... The industrial canteen
has in fact proved itself one of the most effective instruments in
securing and maintaining a high standard of industrial work.” Three of
the committee’s memoranda dealt with the subject, and gave complete
directions for setting up and equipping a canteen, with model bills
of fare. Other memoranda covered “welfare supervision,” which will be
discussed in the latter part of this section, “washing facilities and
baths” and protective clothing for women workers.
[191] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 7.
“Welfare work” came within the scope of the seemingly boundless energy
of the Ministry of Munitions at a rather early date. In November, 1915,
a circular of instructions by the Ministry of Munitions contained
recommendations for the comfort of women munition workers.[192] A list
of appropriate occupations was given. Lavatory and cloakrooms with
female attendants should be provided for the exclusive use of females,
and they should be supplied with aprons and caps, to be washed without
charge. Later _Instructions to Investigating Officers_ urged that it
was “of the first importance that the conditions under which [women]
work should be thoroughly good.” Suitable appliances, such as lifting
tackle for particularly heavy work, should be provided to lessen
the physical strain. The Minister of Munitions was prepared to give
“liberal financial help” to welfare arrangements by allowing them to
be paid for out of what would otherwise be taken by the excess profits
tax.[193]
[192] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Circular L6_.
[193] Under this head were included (1) cloakrooms having separate pegs
and arrangements for drying clothes, (2) wash rooms with hot and cold
water, soap and towels, (3) sanitary conveniences, (4) rest and first
aid rooms, separated, if the latter were used by men, (5) chairs or
stools, (6) caps and aprons.
In January, 1916, the munitions amendment act gave the Ministry
of Munitions more definite control over the introduction of these
provisions, such as it had over working hours. The Ministry was
empowered to regulate working conditions for females in establishments
where the leaving certificate system was in force. In matters already
regulated by the factory acts the concurrence of the Secretary of State
was required.
Coincident with its enlarged powers and with the recommendations of the
Health of Munitions Workers Committee, the Ministry started in January,
1916, an extensive “welfare department” as part of the labor regulation
section. Its director was Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree, a manufacturer
well known for his social studies and for the development of welfare
schemes in his own establishment. The aim of the department was to
“raise the well being” of women and child munition workers to as high a
point as possible in all factories in which the Ministry had power to
regulate working conditions.[194] Numerous specialists were attached
to the department, such as physicians for work on the prevention of
industrial poisonings, and “welfare officers” to visit the factories.
After their inspections these officials made recommendations for
changes, which the department then urged on the firms. It was said that
it seldom proved necessary to use the legal powers. The department
worked in close cooperation with the Home Office, which was in charge
of factory inspection.
[194] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.
Some of the principal factors in working conditions to which the
department was directed to give attention were clean workrooms, the
suitability of occupation to individual workers, factory “canteens,”
proper hours and rest periods, wages and the prevention of dangers
to health and safety. The department’s standard for hours was a
working period which “conserved strength, gave a chance for rest and
recreation” and was not longer than those recommended by the Health of
Munition Workers Committee. Wages must be sufficient to cover “physical
needs and reasonable recreation.” “Amenities,” washing accommodations
and cloakrooms, for instance, should also be provided, “such as men and
women coming from decent homes may reasonably demand.” The department
was to “enquire” into all these matters, but not necessarily to deal
with them all directly. For instance, the interdepartmental hours
committee was the final authority on cases of reduction of hours.
In industry outside munitions work the growing importance ascribed to
“welfare” provisions was reflected a few months later in a part of the
“Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act” of August 3,
1916. The Home Secretary was empowered by this measure to issue special
orders “for securing the welfare of the workers” when the nature of
the work or “special circumstances” made it advisable. Such orders
might cover either a single establishment or a special class, all the
workers in the establishments in question or merely some special class.
The welfare provisions might be compulsory only when applied for by
some specified proportion of the workers. Such improvements in working
conditions above the ordinary statutory requirements might include
“arrangements for preparing or heating and taking meals; the supply of
drinking water; the supply of protective clothing; ambulance and first
aid arrangements; the supply and use of seats in workrooms; facilities
for washing; accommodations for clothing; arrangements for supervision
of workers.”
In one respect, however, labor leaders believed that the bill contained
a backward step. It permitted deductions from wages to pay for the
additional benefits, though during its passage through Parliament
the labor members secured considerable safeguards of this power.
Contributions could be used only to pay for benefits “which, in the
opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to
be provided by the employer alone, and if two-thirds of the workers
affected ... assent.” Aside from the dangers of abuse under this
provision the measure seems to provide a method for securing decided
improvements in working conditions and for arrangements better suited
to the varying needs of different industries than is possible under
general statutes.
How far the various rules and recommendations actually resulted in
better working conditions is an interesting question. Apparently
considerable gains were made, though further advances were still
practicable. In the munitions industry, for instance, national
factories are said to have “naturally adopted welfare in all its
phases,”[195] while the arrangement that improvements could be made out
of what would otherwise be taken as excess profits tax was a strong
inducement to action by “controlled” establishments. But in the early
months of 1916 soon after its formation the welfare department of
the Ministry of Munitions undertook, in cooperation with the factory
inspectors, a survey of “controlled” and “national” munitions plants to
see which ones most needed its attention. At that time, out of 1,396
plants covered, 31 per cent graded “A,” 49 per cent “B,” and 20 per
cent “C.”
[195] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.
It is well to grasp the point that B and C conditions meant
in varying combinations partial or complete lack of messroom
accommodations or facilities for cooking food; inadequate
or nonexistent cloakrooms and washing appliances even for
dusty and greasy occupations; lack of supply of seats; need
of first aid and rest rooms; supervision even of numerous
young girls by men only, and other defects in factories
mostly working twelve hour shifts, and reached often by
considerable journeys from the workers’ homes.[196]
Allowance must be made, however, for “great progress” during the year.
Undoubtedly a number of the factories class B ... have qualified for
class A, and to a lesser extent this is true of class “C.”[197] In a
similar vein the _Women’s Industrial News_ said in April, 1916, that
the standard of comfort advocated by the Health of Munition Workers
Committee for restrooms, cloakrooms and canteens was “rare” but that
“it was possible to hope for a gradual improvement in conditions.”
A study of women in the engineering industry, made in the middle
of 1917 and written from a critical point of view, not likely to
overestimate improvements, stated that, “in one factory after another
the essential precautions of health are enforced, including the
appointment of women medical officers and provision of hot breakfasts
and milk in the ‘danger’ sheds” while new factories are built with
every up-to-date canteen, restroom, sanitary, heating and lighting or
other convenience.[198] In June, 1917, Dr. Addison, then Minister of
Munitions, reported canteen accommodations in national and controlled
establishments for about 810,000 workers, there being a total of some
1,750,000 persons employed. In October the Health of Munition Workers
Committee stated that canteen accommodations had been provided for
920,000 or 45 per cent of all munition makers.
[196] Great Britain Home Office, _Report of the Chief Inspector of
Factories and Workshops for 1916_, p. 9.
[197] _Ibid._
[198] Barbara Drake, _Women in the Engineering Trades_, p. 74.
To be sure, women workers have had not a few grievances about the
canteens. A delegation of organized women workers called on government
officials in December, 1916, to protest against the poor food and the
“rough and ready manner” in which it was served.[199] One canteen was
described as so third-rate that “any bloomin’ good pull-up for car men
is a regular Hotel Cecil to it.” But the numerous canteens run by one
of the religious organizations for women were highly praised by the
workers themselves.
The _Dilution Bulletins_ give some interesting and significant results
secured in munitions work through betterments in working conditions. In
one factory it was estimated that 2,500 hours’ work weekly was saved by
prompt attention to slight accidents and illness. Another firm declared
that free meals more than repaid in increased output. In another,
output improved after good washrooms and cloakrooms were put in. Seats
with backs increased production 10 per cent in one case. The Health of
Munition Workers Committee ascribed both “direct and indirect” benefits
to the installation of canteens. “Among the former has been a marked
improvement in the health, nutrition and physical condition of the
workers, a reduction in fatigue and sickness, less absence and broken
time, less tendency to alcoholism and an increased efficiency and
output; among the latter has been a saving of the time of the workmen,
a salutary though brief change from the workshop, greater contentment,
increased opportunity for recreation and a better midday ventilation of
the workshop.”[200]
[199] _The Woman Worker_, January, 1917, p. 13.
[200] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Final Report_, April, 1918, p. 58.
In nonmunitions industries there was some grumbling at alleged delay
by the Home Office in taking advantage of the “Police, Factories, etc.
(Miscellaneous provisions) Act.” Up to the end of 1916 the only action
taken under the law had been to hold formal conferences on future
welfare requirements in the pottery and tin plate industries. Without
use of the act, the factory inspectors reported “great progress” in
1916 in improving conditions in a most varied group of industries;
sugar refineries, confectionery, breweries, oil seed crushing, rope
works, paper mills, woodworking, cloth and webbing making and tobacco,
and also in the tin plate industry in advance of an order. Advances
in these trades were believed to have been greatly assisted by the
publicity given “welfare” in the munitions industry.
The first order under the act went into effect on October 1, 1917.
It required a supply of pure drinking water and drinking cups in all
factories employing more than twenty-five persons. A second order was
issued in October, to go into effect December 1, 1917. It applied only
to blast furnaces, copper and iron mills, foundries and metal works. In
all such establishments having more than 500 employes, an “ambulance
room” in charge of a trained nurse must be provided, and the provision
of “first aid” outfits was made compulsory wherever twenty-five or
more persons were employed. The third order covered the provision of
protective clothing, cloakrooms and canteens in tin plate factories.
Apparently the only addition to the orders made in 1918 covered similar
provisions for certain tanneries.
_Occupational Diseases in Munitions Work_
Besides the general dangers to health from poor working conditions,
a number of specific occupational poisonings menaced the health of
women munition workers. They might be exposed to poisonous gases,
lead, fulminate of mercury which might cause mercurial poisoning or
eczema, tetryl, which also caused eczema, picric acid, or nitrous
fumes, together with the danger of dermatitis from the lubricating
fluids used on metals, and of suffocation from cordite used in filling
shells. The worst risk, however, was that of contracting toxic jaundice
from the “dope” (tetrachlorethane) used in varnishing the wings of
airplanes and from “T. N. T.” (trinitrotoluene), an explosive with
which many women were filling shells. In the year 1916, 112 cases
of toxic jaundice among female workers and thirty-one deaths were
reported to the Home Office. Up to the summer of 1916 the majority of
the cases seem to have been caused by “dope poisoning.” On August 8 of
that year a representative of the War Office and Admiralty stated that
several satisfactory nonpoisonous “dopes” had been discovered, and the
manufacture of the poisonous substance ceased in September. The new
dopes were not without harmful effects on the health of the workers,
causing in some cases headache, dryness of the throat, coughs, nausea
and serious anemia, but not jaundice.
Workers on “T. N. T.” sometimes contract an annoying eczema as well as
the more dangerous toxic jaundice, and it is feared that the substance
renders some women permanently sterile.[201] Even when they are not
sickened by the poison, the hair and skin of workers handling “T. N.
T.” often turn bright yellow. For this reason workers on the substance
have received the nickname of “canaries.”
Instructions for the prevention of “T. N. T.” poisoning were issued by
the Ministry on February 19, 1917. They were designed to prevent the
absorption of the poison through the skin, which was believed to be
the principal means of infection. Working “costumes” to be washed at
least weekly, and washing accommodations were to be provided, and each
worker was to receive free daily a pint of milk. After a fortnight of
work on “T. N. T.” processes at least a fortnight on other work was to
be given, and a weekly medical examination was compulsory, with removal
of any workers found affected. A special person was to be appointed
in each work place to see that the rules were carried out. The
statistics on cases of toxic jaundice caused by “T. N. T.” show that
these precautions were effective in greatly reducing the disease. From
October through December, 1916, 86 cases and 23 deaths were reported,
while during the same period in 1917, although many more workers were
exposed, only 29 cases and four deaths were reported. In April, 1918,
it was claimed that the disease had been “almost abolished,” no fatal
case having been returned since February.[202]
[201] _The New Statesman_, February 3, 1917, pp. 415-416.
[202] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Final Report_, April, 1918, p. 76.
_Welfare Supervision_
In the improvement of working conditions of women during the war
much stress has been laid on what is known in England as “welfare
supervision.” At the beginning of the war it was estimated that there
were about eighty such supervisors in the country.
The first steps in this direction were taken by the Home Office, in its
early permits allowing night work, which were made dependent on the
supervision of women. The Health of Munition Workers Committee devoted
one of its first memoranda to the subject.[203] The committee spoke
of the need, as an aid in obtaining the best possible output, of some
special machinery for taking up grievances and matters of discipline
and personal welfare:
The committee desire to record their unanimous conviction
that a suitable system of welfare supervision ... is
essential in munition works where women and girls are
employed, and, they must add, urgently necessary.
[203] _Memorandum No. 2_, “Welfare Supervision,” January, 1916.
Under the Ministry of Munitions the idea of “welfare supervision” was
extensively developed, and became, in fact, to a large section of
the public the most prominent feature of the Ministry’s campaign for
better working conditions. The chief duties of “welfare supervisors”
within the factories as outlined by Mr. Rowntree, the head of the
welfare department,[204] and by an official circular of the Ministry
of Munitions included the following: The supervisors should hire or
keep in touch with the hiring of new workers and the choosing of
foremen, and investigate dismissals, resignations, cases of sickness
and lost time, and of poor output caused by ill health. They should
have a general supervision over working conditions, especially over
night work, and over canteens and rest rooms and should cooperate
with the plant doctor and nurse. They should keep watch of the wages
received, should investigate complaints by the workers and help in the
maintenance of discipline. No woman’s case should be brought before a
“Munitions Tribunal” until the welfare supervisor had been consulted.
[204] John and Katherine Barrett, _British Industrial Experience during
the War_, Sen. Doc. 114, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.
One of the chief functions of the welfare department came to be the
introduction of “welfare supervisors” or “lady superintendents” into
munition plants. The work was started in 1916 with thirty-four women,
all of whom were appointed through the exercise of the legal powers
of the Ministry of Munitions. The department organized a “board of
qualified women” to interview applicants and to recommend to employers
those found suitable.[205] Over 1,000 such women were at work at the
time of the armistice, about half of whom came from the panel formed
in this way and the remainder of whom were chosen by the boards of
management. Officials of this kind were appointed in all national
factories and in those in which “T. N. T.” was used.
[205] B. Seebohm Rowntree, “The Value of Welfare Supervision to the
Employer,” _System_ (Eng. ed.), June, 1916.
The Health of Munition Workers Committee pronounced against the policy
of governmental appointment of “Welfare supervisors.”
Welfare supervisors the Committee held should not be
appointed by the State. They will probably continue for some
time to come at any rate to be appointed by the employer, as
the person responsible for the maintenance of satisfactory
conditions of employment, though the workers are likely to
an increasing extent to seek some voice in the selection.
Though the establishment by the Ministry of Munitions of
a panel of candidates has been justified as a temporary
expedient, it is not desirable that any Department of State
should do so as a permanent arrangement.
The welfare department advised that the “welfare supervisor” be “a
woman of good standing and education, of experience and sympathy, and
having, if not an actual experience, at least a good understanding
of industrial conditions.” Experience as a teacher or forewoman was
valuable. The worker was to be paid by the employer—in government
factories by the Ministry of Munitions—and her “duty was to the
firm.” Her success would be found to be dependent on her employer’s
recognition of her importance and her own personality. Although the
welfare department encouraged the opening of numerous training courses,
it proved difficult to find a sufficient number of women with suitable
qualifications, and some attempts at welfare supervision are said
to have been “futile and misdirected” because of a poor choice of
supervisor. Particularly where untrained relatives of members of the
firm were employed, there was danger of undue interference with the
personal affairs of the employes.
The justification of “welfare supervision,” according to the official
point of view, lay in an increased output. A supervisor could look
out for details for which the management had no time, but which
insured good conditions for its women employes. “Working on this
line, lady superintendents perform a most useful service, relieve
the management of a large mass of difficult detail; and increase the
firms’ output by promoting the health, efficiency and happiness of the
workers.” The factory inspectors described a plant where discipline
was unsatisfactory, the factory acts violated, and women night workers
were not provided with meals or supervised by women. At the end of
five months of welfare supervision it was “improved almost beyond
recognition. Irregularities had disappeared; a good mess room and
excellent kitchen and an ambulance room had been built; satisfactory
first aid outfit provided.”
_Attack on the Welfare Movement_
Nevertheless the whole program of “welfare work” and especially
“welfare supervision” was the subject of severe criticism from the
labor movement and radicals in general. The feminist Rebecca West
even went so far as to say of it that “to women the capitalist can do
with impunity all the things he no longer dares do to men.”[206] Mary
Macarthur, the secretary of the National Federation of Women Workers,
described “welfare” as “the most unpopular word in the terminology of
the factory worker.”
[206] Rebecca West, “Mothering the Munition Maker,” _The New Republic_,
Oct. 13, 1917, p. 300.
The aim of increased output was attacked. The betterment of industrial
conditions should be directed toward “improved health, comfort and
development” for the workers as ends in themselves, instead of
regarding the worker as a means of greater production.
But in most cases a distinction was made between “structural
improvements” and better hours and wages on one side and “welfare
supervision” on the other. The former were considered “desirable and
even imperatively needed,” though it was not best that they be gained
through any “welfare movement.” “Structural improvements” should result
from factory legislation and the action of factory inspectors; wages
and hours should be fixed by collective bargaining between employers
and trade unionists. But there were few kind words for “welfare
supervision.” The ideal of the “welfare supervisor” was “docile,
obedient and machine-like” women workers. “The good welfare worker
was the most dangerous” because she was most likely to be successful
in reducing independence and turning the workers from trade unionism.
As long as she was responsible to the employer, she might be obliged
to use her position only to become “a more efficient kind of slave
driver.” Her duties, as officially outlined, were “an indiscriminate
medley,” much of which involved an interference with the private
and personal affairs of the workers. Barbara Drake felt that they
covered “the whole life of the worker, working or playing, living or
dying.”[207] Other attacks were more moderate and recognized that much
depended on the personality of the supervisor:
[207] _Women in the Engineering Trades_, p. 75.
While some supervisors in the future—like some forewomen in
the past—will do much to safeguard and improve our girls’
working lives, others will begin their career full of queer
notions as to “discipline” and openwork stockings, and
firmly persuaded, till experience teaches them better that
“Trade Unionism is of the devil.”[208]
The Health of Munition Workers Committee admitted that “the confident
support of the workers has yet to be obtained. Undoubtedly unwise
appointments have been made; complaints have been considerable and
often well founded, though their importance may have been over
emphasized.” But “on the other hand some mistakes were inevitable in
the initiation of what was largely a new enterprise in industrial
organization. The conditions of employment of women have vastly
improved. It has been and is likely to be of material advantage that
there should exist a body of persons specially concerned to promote the
health and well being of the worker.”[209]
More moderate critics, while seeing dangers in “welfare supervision” as
a permanent policy, felt that it might be of value under the emergency
conditions of the war.
The help in need of the welfare officer can not, perhaps,
be too far extended ... in order to meet the predicament
of scores of thousands of inexperienced women and young
people drawn into mushroom munition factories from every
kind of home and employment, working day and night (until
the limit of human endurance perhaps), stranger to the town
and countryside. To the efforts of the welfare officer the
workers owe, indeed, not a little of the improved conditions
and comfort enjoyed in many national and other model
munition factories.[210]
[208] _Women’s Trade Union Review_, Jan., 1917, p. 12.
[209] Great Britain, Health of Munition Workers’ Committee, _Final
Report_, 1918, in United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Bulletin
No. 249_, p. 263.
[210] _Women’s Industrial News_, April, 1917, p. 19.
As a substitute for the “welfare supervisor” the radicals brought
forward plans for “workshop committees.” A “joint committee on
industrial women’s organizations” conferring on the “reconstruction of
factory life” in the spring of 1917, passed a resolution that “all the
concerns of the worker” should be cared for in each shop by a trade
union committee. Schemes of this sort were indeed occasionally in
successful operation. The factory inspector’s report for 1916 described
the “workers welfare committee” of one large factory, made up of
thirteen persons, one representing the management, who were elected at
a general meeting of the employes. The workers agreed to a deduction of
a little more than 1 per cent of their wages, which gave the committee
an income of over £50 (about $240) weekly. With this fund help was
given local hospitals and convalescent homes which were used by the
employes, war relief funds and cases of distress among the force.
Daily newspapers were provided in the canteen and “concerts twice a
week at dinner time. ‘Whatever we want we can have,’ said a member of
the committee.” Such a compromise, it would seem, could preserve the
benefits of “welfare supervision,” while satisfying the workers and
giving them valuable experience in administrative work.
_Improvements in Conditions Outside the Factory_
The activity of the Ministry of Munitions did not halt at the factory
gates, but extended outside into matters of housing, transit, provision
of recreation, and the care of sickness on the ground that the abnormal
conditions of the new munition centers affected the efficiency of the
workers. Mr. H. W. Garrod of the Ministry of Munitions believes that
perhaps the most difficult problems it encountered in connection with
women workers arose concerning the welfare of the women who were moved
away from home to work at a distance at the rate of 5,000 a month or
more.
Work of this nature for women away from home was at first in the
hands of the “local advisory committees on women’s war employment.”
The official conception of the duties of “welfare supervisors” also
included attention to such items. In January, 1917, the Health of
Munition Workers Committee brought out a memorandum on “Health and
Welfare of Munition Workers outside the Factory.” In this it stated:
The necessity in the present emergency of transferring
workers from their homes to distant places where their
labor is required has created an unparalleled situation,
and problems of the first importance to the nation are
arising simultaneously in munition areas in various parts
of the kingdom, especially as regards women and girls.
The committee are of opinion that the situation calls for
some more complete and systematic action than can be taken
locally by isolated bodies of persons, however public
spirited and sympathetic they may be.... It is, therefore,
from no lack of appreciation of the work of these committees
that the Health of Munition Workers Committee must express
the opinion that the time has now come to supplement and
reinforce them by a larger degree of State action than has
hitherto been deemed necessary.
In accordance with their recommendation the welfare department of the
Ministry of Munitions appointed a number of “outside welfare officers”
who aided the committees and who were held responsible for the
successful accomplishment of the work.
The picture of transportation difficulties given by the committee forms
an interesting sidelight on conditions in and about the new munition
centers:
Health, timekeeping, temper and output all suffer, when to
the day’s work is added the discomfort and fatigue of a long
walk to and fro in bad weather or in darkness, or a scramble
to squeeze into a crowded railway carriage, tram or omnibus,
with a long journey in a bad atmosphere. In the darkness of
early morning and at night, when no lights are allowed to
be shown on the railway, separate compartments for women
are desirable, and no traveling without a light inside
the carriage should be allowed; in some places carriages
without blinds or other means of shading the windows are
used for the convenience of work people of both sexes. Under
these circumstances artificial light cannot be used and the
journey is made crowded together in total darkness.[211]
[211] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 17_, “Health and Welfare of Munition Workers
Outside the Factory,” 1917.
In the more crowded centers living accommodations were equally
overtaxed. “The sudden influx of workers in several districts has so
overtaxed the housing accommodations that houses intended for one
family are now occupied by several.”[212] And “beds are never empty
and rooms are never aired, for in a badly crowded district, the beds,
like the occupants, are organized in day and night shifts.”[213] High
charges and poor service added to the discomforts of the overcrowding:
About eighteen months ago I visited a Midland town where
the girls, although they were earning from twenty-five to
fifty shillings instead of the fifteen to eighteen shillings
which was their weekly wage in peace time, were living
in conditions more unhealthy and uncomfortable than they
had ever endured before. It was common for a girl on the
day shift to go back to a bed from which a worker on the
night shift had just arisen. Girls on a twelve hour shift
would have to lodge an hour and a half from the factory, so
that their working day amounted to fifteen hours. To get a
roof over their heads they would have to put up with dirt,
bad cooking, rowdy companions and above all extortionate
charges; the poor also can cheat the poor. I have known the
wives of foremen earning over five pounds a week to charge a
girl fifteen shillings a week for bed and breakfast.[214]
[212] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 2_, “Welfare Supervision,” p. 3.
[213] _Ibid._, _Memorandum No. 4_, “Employment of Women,” p. 5.
[214] Rebecca West, “Mothering the Munition Maker,” _The New Republic_,
Oct. 6, 1917, p. 267.
The housing situation, however, was taken in hand by the Ministry of
Munitions on an extensive scale. Sometimes it was relieved by the
improvement of transit facilities or the payment of workers’ fares
to outlying districts. It is claimed that in the first year after
the passage of the munitions act accommodations for 60,000 people
were provided, and that “whole villages were built.” In some cases
the government advanced money to local authorities or philanthropic
organizations and in other cases itself undertook the work. The
accommodation provided especially for women workers generally took the
form of large dormitories or “hostels.”
A comprehensive description of the hostels, drawn from two unpublished
reports of the “hostels subsection” of the Ministry of Munitions
Welfare Department, was published by the _Monthly Labor Review_ of
the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.[215] According to this
account, the hostels subsection had 276 hostels for women out of a
total of 494 under inspection in May, 1917. About half were private,
most of which were owned by employers and a few by charitable or
benevolent associations. Accommodations were provided for from twenty
to several hundred women, the government hostels being the larger. Most
of the buildings were one story, and of temporary wooden or concrete
construction. Sometimes existing buildings like board schools were
remodelled into hostels. The majority did not even pay expenses, and
only one was reported to return a commercial profit. Some served merely
as clearing houses, keeping girls one or two nights on their first
arrival at their new work places, until they found permanent lodgings.
The temporary clearing house work was considered one of the most
important functions of the hostels.
[215] June, 1918, pp. 206-210.
The success of the hostels was, however, doubtful. In May, 1917, they
were said to be only half filled, although this is ascribed in part to
the policy of building them in advance of the demand, so that there
might be no excuse for delaying the progress of dilution and the
introduction of women workers from other communities. In January, 1918,
the hostels were two-thirds filled, but this was perhaps rather caused
by the greater housing shortage than by their increased popularity.
Particularly in the north of England and Scotland, where they were
associated with the idea of reformatories, the women preferred lodging
with a family even where “they had to pay 12s. ($2.88) a week for
a third of a bed.” Representatives of the Ministry of Munitions
believe that the partial failure of the system was due to the rules
and regulations necessary when large numbers of women were brought
together, the difficulties arising if even one woman of questionable
character got into a dormitory, and the lack of privacy and of a
homelike atmosphere.
There was much criticism by trade unionists of the hostels, especially
when these were under company control. It was not considered wholesome
or right that girls should eat and sleep with their work mates. A girl
who lost her position lost her board and lodging at the same time,
and, if far from home, might be in a helpless and dangerous position.
The girl in a company hostel was “under the firm’s forewoman by day
and the firm’s matron by night, and all the time under the firm’s
welfare supervision.” The official rejoinder to these criticisms, as
illustrated by the attitude of the welfare department of the Ministry
of Munitions, was that hostels were regarded “as a temporary war
expedient and as a means of keeping up efficiency and output because
they provide proper housing and feeding of the workers. Hostels are
in no sense regarded as a permanent solution of the housing problem.”
But it was believed that because they provided better accommodations
than many of the workers had previously enjoyed, they might serve
permanently to improve their standard of living.
The Billeting of Civilians Bill, which went into effect May 24, 1917,
represented still another effort to solve the housing problem in the
crowded munition centers. Civilians engaged in war work of national
importance, might, at the request of the government department
concerned, be billeted like soldiers[216] with householders in the
vicinity. Local committees were organized to administer the law and
fix the scale of payments. But up to April, 1918, no use had been
made of the power of compulsory billeting. “It is doubtful how far
it is workable in practice,” said the Health of Munition Workers
Committee.[217]
[216] A number of soldiers may be assigned to a town, and householders
may be required to furnish them with board and lodging at a fixed rate.
[217] _Final Report_, April, 1918, p. 127.
Other interesting points in the work of the Ministry of Munitions for
“welfare” among women workers outside the factory included provision
for recreation and for day nurseries. Especially in the hostels
attention was given to recreation. The long hours and hard work did not
leave much energy for classes, but modern books were in great demand
and gardening was popular. A Hindu prince, the Maharajah Sandia of
Gwalior provided a fund of £6,000 for the development of recreation
schemes. Lectures and concerts, library books, lantern slides and a
holiday camp for boys were among the items provided out of this fund.
At a few of the large establishments, such as Woolwich Arsenal, clubs
were organized and recreation grounds were arranged.
The Ministry of Munitions established the policy of aiding the opening
of day nurseries for the children of women munition workers. In 1916
the Ministry decided to make special grants to such institutions to
the amount of 75 per cent of the cost of initial equipment and 7d.
(14 cents) for each child daily. The Board of Education was to be
responsible for the supervision of the nurseries, thirty-one of which
had been opened up to April, 1918. The majority were open by night as
well as by day. This entire movement was severely criticised by certain
groups. “I have said nothing of the risk of planting _crèches_ near
explosive work nor of risks to the babies’ health in carrying them on
crowded trains at nightfall or dawn,” said Dr. Marion Phillips, a well
known representative of labor. “This whole method means a very forcible
breaking up of the family life of the community.” In France many
_crèches_ for the children of working mothers were established, but in
England the movement was not popular and gained but little headway.
Whatever may be the verdict concerning the desirability of the various
welfare measures outside the factory as a permanent policy, the greater
appreciation of the need of good working conditions within the shop,
and the actual improvements made, are noteworthy progressive steps in
the history of British working women during the war.