Effects of the War on the Employment of Children
In addition to the great increase in the number of employed adult
women, war conditions led also to a large growth in the number of
employed young boys and girls. The demands of industry, economic
necessity and patriotic motives undoubtedly all played a part in the
movement. During the unemployment crisis of the autumn of 1914 it
was, for a few months, difficult to find places for young workers.
In the month ending September 11, 1914, 22,000 boys and 23,000 girls
registered at the employment exchanges as against 14,500 boys and
12,700 girls in the corresponding month of 1913. The problem was
serious enough in London to cause the establishment of recreation
clubs, workrooms and classes for unemployed boys and girls. Children
who had recently left school were urged to return.
But on account of the acute need for labor as more and more men were
taken into military service, a strong demand for boys and girls at
rising wages soon succeeded the depression. By December, 1914, the
number of boys registering at the employment exchanges was lower than
before the war, and in the first six months of 1915 there were more
vacancies than applicants. The increase in the employment of boys was
not as steady as that of women, however. Coincident with the spread
of substitution by women from 1917 on, the rate of increase fell off,
especially in the metal trades, where there was an actual decline of
9,000 between April and October, 1917. The check to employment was
so serious as to come to the attention of the Ministry of Munitions,
which asked dilution officers to bring to the attention of the Juvenile
Employment Committees cases where considerable numbers of boys were
to be discharged. Beginning with October, 1917, the Royal Air Force
relieved the situation to some extent by using boys from fifteen to
eighteen years of age as mechanics, hiring about 5,000 up to April,
1918.
On the whole juvenile employment increased during the war. As was
the case with many married women, the rising cost of living and the
inadequate separation allowances received by soldiers’ families
frequently made it imperative for boys and girls to seek gainful
occupation at the earliest possible opportunity. Notably on munitions
work patriotic motives proved a strong incentive to attract many young
people. Moreover, the natural desire of not a few children to be
through with school restraints and to enter adult life was reinforced
by the excitement of war time and by the taking over of numerous school
buildings for military purposes.
The only set of statistics covering the increase in juvenile workers,
comparable with the quarterly reports on the increase in the employment
of women, was published by the Ministry of Reconstruction’s committee
on “Juvenile Employment during the War and After” and compared October,
1917, and January, 1918, with conditions in July, 1914.[218] It showed
that between July, 1914, and January, 1918, in the various occupations
outside domestic service the number of working boys and girls under
eighteen had risen from 1,936,000 to 2,278,000, or 17.6 per cent. The
number of boys increased by 94,000, or 7.4 per cent, and of girls
248,000, or 36.6 per cent, the greater increase in the number of girls
being ascribed to the large numbers who turned from domestic service
or home duties to the munition factory. It is interesting to note that
in contrast to the steady increase in the number of women workers
throughout the war, the total number of working boys and girls declined
by 9,000 between October, 1917, and January, 1918.
[218] _Vide_ Appendix K, p. 245.
Analyzing the movement of boys and girls between various occupations,
among the various kinds of manufacturing by far the largest increase
for both sexes was found in the metal trades, that is to say,
munitions. Ten thousand boys were employed in Woolwich Arsenal alone
before the end of the war. The number of boys in the building trades,
wood trades and miscellaneous trades decreased, as well as the number
of both sexes in the nonwar industries of textiles, clothing and paper
and printing. The increase over the whole group of “industries,” was
not, especially with girls, as large as in nonindustrial occupations.
In the latter, boys moved away from “finance and commerce,”
“agriculture” and “postoffice” into “transport” and “government
establishment,” while the increase in the number of girls, though
occurring in every occupation, was especially large in “finance and
commerce.”
Unfortunately the statistics fail to separate the three classes of
juvenile employment which should be considered. These are employment
which would have been permitted previous to the war, that involving the
relaxation of child labor and compulsory education laws and that which
remained entirely illegal. In all three classes, the war apparently
produced an increase in numbers.
With regard to the first class, boys and girls legally entitled to work
under ordinary circumstances, the British Board of Education estimated
that in 1915 the number of children leaving the elementary schools at
the age of fourteen or thereabouts was increased by about 10 per cent,
or 45,000. For 1916, Mrs. Sidney Webb put the increase in the number
leaving in this way at 50,000 to 60,000.[219] On the other hand, Mr.
Herbert Fisher, president of the Board of Education, stated in the
House of Commons in April, 1917, that, with the greater prosperity of
the working classes since the war, the enrolment in secondary schools
had increased.[220]
[219] Owen R. Lovejoy, “Safeguarding Childhood in Peace and War,”
_Child Labor Bulletin_, May, 1917, p. 74.
[220] United States Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau, “Child
Labor in Warring Countries,” _Bureau Publication No. 27_, 1917, p. 12.
The Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education also noted a large
increase in the number of children employed outside school hours.
In June, 1916, twenty “Juvenile Advisory Committees” on vocational
guidance for boys and girls leaving school reported an increase in
the number of employed school children and only one a decrease. In
November, 1917, forty-five out of fifty-seven committees reported an
increase. “With a few exceptions,” it was said, “those in close touch
with the children express the opinion that the consequences to their
health and education have been wholly bad.”[221] In one town 9 per cent,
in another 19 per cent and in another 40 per cent of the schoolboys
were working outside school hours. The number of “half times,” or
children over twelve who alternated between school and work, rose from
69,555 in 1914-1915 to 73,596 in 1916-1917.
[221] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After,” _Reconstruction Pamphlet, No. 15_, p. 3.
_Relaxation of Child Labor and Compulsory Education Laws_
Although definite totals are not obtainable, a deplorable increase
seems to have taken place during the war in the number of working
children between eleven and fourteen who, prior to the war, would
have been protected by child labor and compulsory school laws. “The
growth in the number of children obtaining complete exemption before
fourteen cannot be stated with equal precision,” said the Committee on
Juvenile Employment during the War and After, “but evidence drawn from
various sources shows that with the increase in the entrants for Labour
Certificate Examinations and the general relaxation of local by-laws it
has been considerable.”
In 1911, according to official figures, only 148,000 children under
fourteen were employed in all Great Britain. In August, 1917, Mr.
Fisher said in the House of Commons that “in three years of war some
600,000 children have been withdrawn prematurely from school and become
immersed in industry. They are working on munitions, in the fields,
and in the mines.”[222] But in October, 1917, the Industrial (War
Inquiries) Branch of the Board of Trade, stated that 90,000 boys under
fourteen had left school during the war, a figure serious enough, but
much smaller than Mr. Fisher’s.
[222] House of Commons, _Debates_, August 10, 1917, p. 790.
Probably the great majority of the exemptions were for agricultural
work. “In this district we are again producing a race of illiterates,”
reported one rural area. The exemptions were largely the result of
the activity of the farmers’ associations, which had always opposed
compulsory education for the children of their farm laborers and
which in most cases controlled the local school boards.[223] Farmers
of North Wilts recommended that eleven year old children be released
from school for work for which women “were not strong enough.” Though
probably extra-legal, the exemptions were sanctioned under specified
conditions in a circular of the Board of Education to local authorities
issued in March, 1915.[224] Children of school age were to be exempted
for “light” and “suitable” agricultural employment in cases of special
emergency, when no other labor was available. There was to be no
general relaxation of standards, and exemptions were to be made in
individual cases and for limited periods only.
[223] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, pp. 88-89.
[224] Great Britain Board of Education, _Circular 898_, March 12, 1915.
Even before the publication of this circular, between September 1,
1914, and January 31, 1915, 1,413 children under fourteen, some of
them as young as eleven years, were released from school for farm
work. Between February 1 and April 30, 1915, 3,811 children were
exempted for this purpose. The number holding excuses on January 31.
1916, was 8,026; on May 31 was 15,753, and on October 31 was 14,915.
These figures, moreover, showed only the number of children formally
excused by special exemption, not the number actually at work. About
half the counties made special by-laws lowering the standard of
compulsory attendance required before the war. In Wiltshire, for
instance, all children of eleven who had reached the fourth standard
were not required to attend school, and only those below that grade
who were specially excused appeared in the official lists.[225] Then,
too, in some places schools were closed at noon or altogether at times
of special stress, and in others headmasters were directed to let
children of eleven and over leave without record when needed for farm
work.[226]
[225] United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, _Monthly Review_, June,
1917, p. 889.
[226] _The Woman Worker_, May, 1916, p. 3.
It is noteworthy that the policy of granting exemptions was not
uniformly followed throughout the country, since some local authorities
refused to relax the attendance laws. Twenty-five county councils
reported that no children had been excused between February 1 and
April 30, 1915. The policy of exemption was strongly opposed by the
agricultural laborers’ union, and by the whole labor party which
brought the matter up in the House of Commons in the spring of 1915,
but to little effect. It was charged that the farmers were making use
of child labor in order to keep down wages, and that the supply of
adult labor would be sufficient if proper wages were paid.
The Board of Agriculture advocated relieving the situation by an
increased use of women instead of children. “The Board of Agriculture
have expressed the opinion that if the women of the country districts
and of England generally took the part they might take in agriculture,
it would be unnecessary to sacrifice the children under twelve.”[227]
In the spring of 1916 the Board of Education itself admitted that
in some areas exemptions had “been granted too freely and without
sufficiently careful ascertainment that the conditions ... prescribed
by the government ... were fulfilled.”[228] A circular of February
29, 1916, laid down additional restrictions on excusing children from
school.[229]
[227] Great Britain Board of Education, _Report of the Chief Medical
Officer of the Board of Education for 1915_, p. 106.
[228] _Ibid._, p. 103.
[229] _Ibid._, _Circular 943_, February 29, 1916.
An interesting clause of the circular “suggested that the urgency of
the need for the labor of school children may, to a certain extent, be
tested by the amount of wages offered, and as a general rule it may be
taken that if the labor of a boy of school age is not worth at least
six shillings a week to the farmer, the benefit derived from the boy’s
employment is not sufficient to compensate for the loss involved by
the interruption of the boy’s education.” In an earlier report the
board had noted that only one of the twenty school children reported
engaged in farm work by one county was receiving as much as 6s. ($1.44)
weekly.[230]
[230] Great Britain Board of Education, _School Attendance and
Employment in Agriculture, Returns 1st September, 1914, to 31st
January, 1915_, p. 3.
However, the board had no direct power over the local authorities
except to reduce its money grants when the number of children in
attendance decreased. The number of children excused, according to
the statistics just quoted, reached its highest point in May, 1916,
which would indicate that the circular had little influence with local
officials in reducing the number of country children deprived of
schooling to work on the farms.
In 1917 the board again became more favorable to a modification of
school requirements. On February 2, in answer to a question in the
House of Commons, the president of the Board of Education stated that
“greater elasticity” was to be allowed in the school vacations, so that
boys over twelve might engage in farm work. For this purpose the Board
of Education would give money grants for 320 school sessions annually
instead of 400, as usual, provided vacation classes for the younger
children were organized.
Fewer children seem to have been released from school for industry
or miscellaneous work than for agriculture. Between September,
1914, and February, 1915, only thirty-one children were officially
reported excused from school attendance for factory work and 147 for
miscellaneous occupations. None of these was less than twelve years
old. On account of the small numbers excused the Board of Education did
not repeat the inquiry.
Efforts were made, indeed, as early as 1915 to secure exemptions for
factory work similar to those in agriculture. Employers’ associations
urged that children of twelve and thirteen be excused from school. The
cotton spinners’ and employers’ associations sent a joint petition to
the Home Secretary asking that children be allowed to begin work in
the cotton mills at thirteen instead of fourteen years. The spinners’
union preferred such a lowering of child labor standards to allowing
women to become “piecers.” Certain government contractors also asked
the local education authorities for permission to employ boys of
thirteen.
But at the time the official attitude was much less encouraging in
regard to exemptions for factory work than for agriculture. The Home
Office refused to consent to any relaxation unless the Admiralty or
War Office certified that the observance of child labor laws was
delaying work necessary to the war.[231] The annual report of the
factory inspectors for 1915 mentioned an important prosecution for
illegal child labor. The Board of Education was a little more lenient,
allowing the local authorities to excuse boys of thirteen under certain
prescribed conditions, which included the restriction that the work
must be within the boys’ physical capacity.[232] But during at least
the earlier months of war “generally in urban areas, the information
furnished appears to show that there has been no great variation from
the usual practice in the matter. At all times children have been
granted exemption in very special circumstances, and the only effect of
the war has been that such special circumstances have arisen a little
more frequently than they did in normal times.”[233] The statements as
to increases in the number of children under fourteen leaving school
would suggest, however, that these comparatively rigid standards were
not maintained in the later months of the war.
[231] _Labour Year Book_, 1916, p. 89.
[232] Great Britain Board of Education, _Annual Report for 1915 of the
Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education_, p. 106.
[233] _Ibid._, _Summary of Returns supplied by Local Education
Authorities for the period of September 1, 1914, to January 31, 1915_,
p. 4.
In addition, it is probable that there has been more than the usual
amount of illegal child labor. A note in _The Woman Worker_ of January,
1917,[234] said that the “attention of the Secretary of State has been
directed to the prevalence of illegal employment, in factories ... of
children under 12 ... and children who have not obtained exemption
from school attendance.... It is not countenanced by any of the
departments concerned, nor can it be justified by any pretext of war
emergency.” It was stated that official action against these conditions
had been secured. In several cases penalties had already been imposed.
“The inspectors of factories are instructed to take rigorous action in
respect of any similar offences in future, and without further warning.”
[234] Page 4.
_Changes in Occupations of Boys and Girls_
Certain effects of the war on boys’ work were noted very early. By
the end of 1914 it was observed that in factories strong boys, who
had been apprentices or helpers, were being pushed ahead to the work
of skilled men, while women and girls were taking their places. Such
“indirect” substitution continued frequently to be the first change
made when women were introduced into new lines of work.[235] The
Ministry of Munitions made some effort to keep boys away from shell and
fuse making and other forms of purely repetitive work, and to encourage
them to take up lines which would make them skilled artisans.[236] But
on the whole the number of boys entering skilled trades and starting
apprenticeships greatly declined, for unskilled work at high wages was
offered by munitions plants and other forms of war equipment, and many
parents, under the unsettled conditions of war, were unwilling to have
their sons bind themselves for a term of years.
[235] _Vide_ p. 123.
[236] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, _Dilution of Labour
Bulletin_, February, 1916, p. 2.
Girls, like adult women, entered many new lines of work for the first
time during the war, and there are but few facts to distinguish between
the two groups of workers. The girls were used in boys’ places for
running errands, on wagons and other forms of delivery work—which had
been much complained of as a “blind alley” for boys—in banks, and in
retail shops. The tendency to transfer boys to men’s work and girls to
boys’ work was also noted in textile mills, boot and shoe and tobacco
factories, iron foundries and some parts of the engineering trade. In
nearly every instance such employment was uneducative. There appeared
to be also a greatly increased demand for girls in some cities in
clerical work. In the new openings on munitions work and other forms
of army equipment their work has not been clearly marked off from
that done by adult women. Complaints were made in March, 1917, that
it was difficult to induce young girls to enter anything but the
munitions industry.[237] The glamor and excitement of direct assistance
to the war undoubtedly made its strongest appeal to girls of this
impressionable age.
A feature almost unknown previous to the war was the movement of boys
and girls under seventeen years of age from their homes to work at a
distance. The _Labour Gazette_ stated of the movement:
It has, to a limited extent, been found desirable to draft
boys and girls from areas where their services are not much
in demand to districts where there is a scanty supply of
labor for essential industries or where opportunities for
training in skilled employments are available. Where such
migration has been carried out through the exchanges special
arrangements have been made to secure the welfare of the
boys and girls in their new sphere.[238]
[237] _London Times_, Educational Supplement, March 15, 1917.
[238] February, 1917, p. 49.
Supervision of the boys and girls thus removed from home care and
training, naturally a most serious responsibility, was carried out
mainly by the advisory committees on juvenile employment, which had
been formed in connection with many exchanges before the war for the
vocational guidance of young workers. In the case of young girls the
work also came under the duties of the local committees on “women’s war
employment.” As “welfare supervision” was developed by the Ministry of
Munitions, the supervisors, and later the “outside welfare officers,”
were likewise instructed to give attention to the matter.
_Wages_
According to information from several sources the rise in wages during
the war was perhaps more marked among boys and girls under eighteen
than among any other class of workers. Boys and girls in munitions
factories in certain parts of the country were often able to earn from
£1 ($4.80) to £2 ($9.60) a week—the latter as much as many skilled men
received previous to the war.[239]
The Ministry of Reconstruction’s Committee on Juvenile Employment
reported that competition for workers drove boys’ wages up 50 per cent
within a few months after the beginning of the war, and at the end of
a year the rise was 75 to 100 per cent. At the repetition piece work
with automatic machinery, common in munition factories, “many of the
boys earned amounts that previously were associated with the earnings
of men, while here and there cases could be found where their earnings
were equivalent to, or even more than, those of the skilled foremen who
supervised their work. Rumor naturally exaggerated the real position,
but there was plenty of evidence available to justify many of the
stories that were current as to boys’ earnings.” It was noted that
“boys do not seem to mind monotonous work if they are well paid for
it,” and rates for the older boys were at times actually higher for
unskilled and semi-skilled than for skilled occupations. In one typical
munitions district their wages averaged somewhat as follows:[240]
Age Unskilled Semi-skilled Skilled
14 3-3½d. an Hr. 4-4½d. 4-4½d.
15 —— 4½d. 5-6d.
16 6d. 6d. 5d.
17 7d. 7d. 6d.
[239] _The Labour Woman_, August, 1916, p. 44.
[240] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After,” _Reconstruction Pamphlet_, No. 15, p. 27.
The rates fixed by the Ministry of Munitions for girls under eighteen
indicated the high level reached in their wages also. For girls under
sixteen they were roughly equivalent to the minima fixed by the trade
boards for adult women, and were somewhat higher for girls between
sixteen and eighteen. The increases granted up to the end of the war
made the standard weekly time rate on “men’s work” 23s. 9d. ($5.70) for
girls under sixteen, 25s. 9d. ($6.18) for girls of sixteen, and 27s.
9d. ($6.66) for those of seventeen. On piece work 30 per cent for girls
under sixteen, 20 per cent at sixteen, and 10 per cent at seventeen was
deducted from the rates of adult women.
_Hours_
Along with the relaxation of hour limitations on women’s work, the
similar restrictions on “protected persons” under eighteen were
modified. The result of the relaxation of standards was thus described
by the Health of Munition Workers Committee:
The weekly hours have frequently been extended to sixty-seven, and in
some instances even longer hours have been worked. The daily hours of
employment have been extended to 14, and occasionally even to 15 hours;
night work has been common; Sunday work has also been allowed, though
latterly it has been largely discontinued.[241]
[241] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 13_, “Juvenile Employment,” 1916, p. 4.
Working hours for boys under eighteen were given more specifically in
an “inquiry into the health of male munition workers,” made for the
committee between February and August, 1916. The investigation followed
the same lines as its companion study on the health of female workers,
including an examination of over 1,500 boys under eighteen and their
working conditions. It was found that “large numbers of boys,” many of
them just over fourteen, were “working a net average of sixty-eight
and one-half hours per week.” In some cases boys under fourteen had a
forty-eight hour week, “but in others boys of eighteen were found to be
working an average of over eighty hours per week and it was ascertained
that they had worked ninety and even a hundred hours per week.”[242] It
is not surprising that the investigator concluded that “hours tend to
be too long for the proper preservation of health and efficiency.”
[242] _Ibid._, _Interim Report_, 1917, p. 103.
In most cases the Home Office claimed that it had allowed Sunday
work only under rather strict conditions. “The Home Office, as a
rule, only authorizes Sunday work on condition that each boy or girl
employed on Sunday shall be given a day in the same week, or as part
of a system of 8 hour shifts in which provision is made for weekly or
fortnightly periods of rest. Apart from this, permission for boys over
16 to be employed periodically on Sunday was on July 1 last [1916]
only allowed in seven cases, and in three cases for boys under 16. In
only one instance are boys employed every Sunday, but this is limited
to boys over 16, and the total weekly hours are only about 56. In
only one case are girls employed periodically on Sunday, and there
the concession is confined to girls over 16.”[243] The employment of
girls under 16 at night had been permitted only “in one or two cases
... through exceptional circumstances.” In March, 1916, it was stated
that the cases were “under review with the object of arranging for the
discontinuance of such employment at the earliest possible moment.”
[243] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 13_, “Juvenile Employment,” p. 5.
The recommendations of the Health of Munition Workers Committee
called for a considerable improvement in these standards. “The hours
prescribed by the factory act [sixty] are to be regarded as the
maximum ordinarily justifiable, and even exceed materially what many
experienced employers regard as the longest period for which boys and
girls can usefully be employed from the point of view of either health
or output.” Nevertheless, “in view of the extent to which boys are
employed to assist adult male workers and of limitation of supply, the
committee, though with great hesitation, recommend that boys should be
allowed to be employed on overtime up to the maximum suggested for men,
but every effort should be made not to work boys under 16 more than
sixty hours per week. Where overtime is allowed substantial relief
should be insisted upon at the week ends, and should be so arranged as
to permit of some outdoor recreation on Saturday afternoon.” But for
girls “similar difficulties did not often arise,” and the committee
advised weekly hours of sixty or less and brought forward the claims of
the eight hour, three shift system. Under the exceptional circumstances
existing, the committee believed that overtime might be continued on
not more than three days a week for both boys and girls, provided the
specified weekly total of hours was not exceeded.
The absolute discontinuance of Sunday work was strongly advised. “The
arguments in favor of a weekly period of rest ... apply with special
force in the case of boys and girls; they are less fitted to resist the
strain of unrelieved toil, and are more quickly affected by monotony of
work.... It is greatly to be hoped that all Sunday work will shortly be
completely stopped.”
In regard to night work, an earlier report of the committee,[244]
published in January, 1916, held that girls under eighteen should not
be employed on a night shift “unless the need is urgent and the supply
of women workers is insufficient. In such cases the employment should
be restricted to girls over 16 years of age, carefully selected for
the work.” But for boys, “it does not seem practical to suggest any
change of system, but the committee hope that care will be taken to
watch the effect of night work on individual boys and to limit it as
far as possible to those over 16.” In the subsequent memorandum on
“Juvenile Employment,” the committee “remained of the opinion that
girls under eighteen and boys under sixteen should only be employed at
night if other labor can not be obtained. Wherever possible it should
be stopped.”
[244] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 5_, “Hours of Work,” pp. 7-8.
The interdepartmental committee on hours of labor, organized late in
1915, which based its action on the recommendations of the Health of
Munition Workers Committee, was instrumental in securing improved
regulations for protected persons in munition factories as well as
for women. The general order of September 9, 1916, made special
arrangements for boys and girls over and under sixteen, respectively.
Sunday work was abolished for each of these classes of workers. The
maximum working week for girls was to be sixty hours, as before the
war. But girls between sixteen and eighteen, like adult women, might
work overtime on three days a week, provided the weekly maximum was
not exceeded. Boys over sixteen were permitted to work as much as
sixty-five hours a week, on three days a week as long as twelve hours
and a quarter, and twelve hours on other week days. Under this scheme
work on Saturday must stop not later than 2 p.m. In “cases where the
work was of a specially urgent character,” the twelve hour day and
sixty-five hour week, but not the overtime, might be worked by boys
of fourteen.[245] The committee had already forbidden the employment
of girls under sixteen at night. The prohibition was extended by the
general order to boys under fourteen and girls under eighteen, and boys
under sixteen were allowed to do night work only in “urgent” cases.
[245] Following is the section of the general order regulating hours
for boys under eighteen:
Scheme D. (Overtime for Boys.)
This scheme applies to male young persons of 16 years of age and over
provided that the superintending inspector of factories shall have
power in cases where the work is of a specially urgent character to
extend the application of the scheme to male young persons between 14
and 16 years of age.
Such young persons may be employed overtime on week days
other than Saturday subject to the following conditions:
(1) The total hours worked per week (exclusive of intervals
for meals) shall not exceed 65.
(2) The daily period of employment (including overtime and
intervals for meals)
(a) Shall not commence earlier than 6 a.m. or end later
than 10 p.m.
(b) Shall not exceed 14 hours.
Provided that where overtime is worked on not more than 3
days in the week the period of employment may in the case of
boys of 16 years of age and over be 15 hours.
(3) Intervals for meals amounting to not less than 1½ hours
shall be allowed during the period of employment with an
additional half hour if the period of employment is more
than 13½ hours or an additional three-fourths of an hour
if the period of employment is 15 hours.
(4) On Saturday the period of employment shall end not later
than 2 p.m.
Long as these hours seem according to American standards, they
undoubtedly represented a considerable reduction from the hours worked
by many munition plants during the early months of the war. But it is
doubtful if these standards were completely reached even in the latter
part of the struggle. An official report published shortly after the
armistice admits that “boys and girls of fourteen and fifteen have been
working for as much as twelve hours a day, sometimes more, and have
been employed for considerable periods on night work.”[246] The Health
of Munition Workers Committee, in its final report dated April, 1918,
was still obliged to recommend the discontinuance of night work by
girls between sixteen and eighteen and urged that it was “undesirable”
for boys under sixteen, though in both cases it was decreasing.
“Special concessions” allowing girls under sixteen to work at night had
by that time been withdrawn.
[246] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After.” _Pamphlets on Reconstruction Problems No.
15_, p. 8.
_Safety, Health and Comfort_
The action of the Ministry of Munitions looking to the betterment
of working conditions for women and girl munition workers, and the
“welfare” movement which followed in other industrial occupations were
described in the section on women workers.
The Ministry of Munitions urged the extension of “welfare supervision,”
on which it laid much stress, to boys as well as to women and girls.
Such action was among the recommendations of the Health of Munition
Workers Committee:
In the past the need for the welfare supervision of boys
has not been so widely recognized as in the case of women
and girls; present conditions have, however, served to call
attention to its urgency and it is receiving the attention
of an increasing number of employers. Boys fresh from the
discipline of a well-ordered school need help and friendly
supervision in the unfamiliar turmoil of their new
surroundings. They are not men and can not be treated as
such. On the other hand, high wages and the absence of
the father have frequently tended to relax home control.
Long hours of work prevent attendance at clubs; healthy
and organized recreation is seldom available. As might be
anticipated under these circumstances, complaint is often
made of boys leaving their work after a few days or playing
truant; this may be the result of slackness and discontent,
or the cause may be found in fatigue, sickness or perhaps
home troubles. If smooth working is to be secured, the real
causes of such discontent and trouble must be ascertained
and appreciated. Experience, however, shows that the
problems involved are outside and distinct from those of
ordinary factory discipline, and they are likely to remain
unsolved unless someone is specially deputed for the
purpose.[247]
[247] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Memorandum No. 13_, “Juvenile Employment,” p. 6.
The Ministry’s instructions to the “investigating officers,” who
visited munition plants for the labor regulation department, also
drew attention to the need for “welfare supervision” of boys. “Since
it is recognized on all hands that there is a danger of deterioration
in the working boy between the ages of 14 and 18, it is of urgent
national importance that the boy should be brought under careful
supervision during these critical years of his life.” The duties of
such a supervisor as outlined in this and other official circulars,
were similar to those of the “welfare workers” for women and girls,
with perhaps more emphasis on training and advancement. A “welfare
supervisor of boys” or “boy visitor” should attend to their hiring,
discipline, and dismissal, and should watch their progress and
recommend for promotion, arrange opportunities for recreation,
technical education and saving, and take charge of the health
arrangements.
In its final report, in April, 1918, the Health of Munition Workers
Committee stated that about 150 supervisors had been appointed
during the previous year from a panel established by the Ministry
of Munitions. Most of them were wounded army officers who had been
discharged from active service. In many cases until they were appointed
proper use was not made of the health and comfort facilities installed
at the suggestion of the Ministry’s “Welfare Section.”
Following the advice of these inspectors, employers
often installed canteens, washing facilities, first aid
arrangements and other improvements in the factory. However,
these usually remained unused. Canteens were generally
deserted, since boys preferred to carry their food from
home; wash rooms were abused rather than used, for crumpled
towels made excellent footballs and soap a convenient
missile; while few boys would bother going to the first aid
kit for what they regarded as a mere cut.
In spite, therefore, of the apparent opening for welfare supervision of
working boys, it developed but slowly. The lack of suitable candidates,
owing to the demands of military service, was a serious handicap,
though at the time of its report the committee thought it had been
“started on sound lines.”
The need for the welfare supervision of boys has not been
so readily appreciated as in the case of women and girls,
and time has been required for obtaining the support of
the foremen and the local trades unions as well as of
the employer. These initial difficulties have, however,
not been without their advantages in preventing hasty or
ill-considered schemes.
Other indications of the growth of the movement were the formation of
a “Boys’ Welfare Association” by leading engineering firms, and of a
“Royal Ordnance Factories Trade Lads’ Association” composed of the boys
themselves, which drew its members principally from Woolwich Arsenal.
To coordinate the various clubs, cadet corps and other organizations
started by philanthropists, the Home Office established a “Juvenile
Organizations Committee” in the latter part of 1916, to affiliate and
coordinate all such clubs, and in some cases to arrange financial aid.
The committee took steps to have local committees formed in all the
larger cities. Some criticism was made of the action by the Home Office
on the ground that the matter was within the province of the Board
of Education. The latter body issued a circular in December, 1916,
inviting the local authorities to allow the use of unoccupied schools
in the evening for recreation purposes. In August, 1917, it allowed
grants for evening play centers.
_Effects of War Work on Boys and Girls_
Nevertheless, in spite of the various “welfare” efforts evidence comes
from many sources that war work had some most unfortunate effects on
both the health and the character of a considerable number of boys
and girls. “The view of those best competent to judge is that in the
generation which entered industry between 1914 and 1918 vitality has
been lowered, morale undermined and training neglected,” said the
Committee on Juvenile Employment.
The high wages for unskilled work, absence of fathers in the army and
of mothers in munitions work, excessive hours of labor and greater
pressure of work, interruption of club and other recreational and
educational provisions, the darkened streets and the general excitement
of war time were among the principal factors blamed for the change.
A vivid summary of the situation was made in March, 1917, in the _Final
Report_ of the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Education with
Special Reference to Employment after the War, which gave a depressing
picture of the effect of the war on working boys and girls.
Upon this educational and industrial chaos has come the war
to aggravate conditions that could hardly be made graver,
and to emphasize a problem that needed no emphasis. Many
children have been withdrawn at an even earlier age than
usual from day schools, and the attendances at those evening
schools which have not been closed show a lamentable
shrinkage. We are not prepared to say that much of the work
which is now being done by juveniles in munition factories
and elsewhere is in itself inferior to the work which most
of them would have been doing in normal times, but there
can be no doubt that many of the tendencies adversely
affecting the development of character and efficiency have
incidentally been accentuated.... Parental control, so far
as it formerly existed, has been relaxed, largely through
the absence of fathers of families from their homes.
Wages have been exceptionally high, and although this has
led to an improved standard of living, it has also, in
ill-regulated households, induced habits of foolish and
mischievous extravagance. Even the ordinary discipline of
the workshop has in varying degrees given way; while the
withdrawal of influences making for the social improvement
of boys and girls has in many districts been followed by
noticeable deterioration in behavior and morality. Gambling
has increased. Excessive hours of strenuous labor have
overtaxed the powers of young people; while many have taken
advantage of the extraordinary demand for juvenile labor to
change even more rapidly than usual from one blind alley
employment to another.
Among boy and girl munition workers evidences of a breakdown in health
were perhaps not general, but in a good many cases children working at
night or long hours were found to show signs of exhaustion. In the 1915
report of the chief inspector of factories the principal lady inspector
stated:
Miss Constance Smith has been much impressed by the marked
difference in outward effect produced by night employment
on adult and adolescent workers. “Very young girls show
almost immediately, in my experience, symptoms of lassitude,
exhaustion and impaired vitality under the influence of
employment at night.” A very strong similar impression was
made on me by the appearance of large numbers of young
boys who had been working at munitions for a long time on
alternate day and night shifts.
The special investigator of the “health of male munition workers” noted
that 51 per cent of the 900 boys in one large factory complained of
sleepiness and weariness on the night shift. “It is contrary to the
laws of nature for young children—for such many of these are—to be
able to turn night into day without feeling an effect.... On the night
shifts, boys do not tolerate well long hours. It has to be borne in
mind that the average age of the boys examined would certainly not
exceed 15 years, and it makes one consider very seriously the future of
the rising generation.”
The same inquiry brought out the unfavorable effects of long daily
hours of work on young boys. While among all the 1,500 boys examined
“no very gross degree of ill health was prevalent,” 10.6 per cent of
those working more than 60 hours weekly, and only 6.7 per cent of those
working less than 60 hours, were not in “good” physical condition.
“This difference is a serious one.” In the heavy trades “the effect
upon the boys was commencing to show itself. Many though little more
than fourteen were working twelve hour shifts and doing heavy work. The
boys in these shops manipulate heavy pieces of steel at a temperature
of 900° F. They struck me as being considerably overworked; they looked
dull and spiritless, and conversation with them gave the impression
that they were languid. In fact, all the boys in this group were
working far too hard.”
The investigator contrasted with the poor condition of many boy
munition workers the “healthy and intelligent appearance” of the boys
in one factory where comparatively short hours, no night work and
free Saturday afternoons and Sundays gave them time for outdoor play.
“On the other hand, many of the boys I examined at other factories
are showing definite signs of the wear and tear to which they are
subjected. Pale, anemic, dull and expressionless, their conditions
would excite great commiseration. Conditions outside the factory
contribute their share and if the war is to continue for a long time
and these boys remain subject to conditions such as described, the
effect upon their general health will be difficult to remedy.”
As with women, long periods spent in transit, insufficient sleep and
overcrowded homes, in addition to excessive hours of factory work,
often affected the health of working boys and girls. “While engaged
for twelve hours per day in the factory,” it was said of boy munition
makers, “they spend in a large number of cases from two and one-half
hours to four hours traveling to and from their homes.... These hours,
added to the working hours, leave very little time for meals at home,
recreation or sleep.”[248] Many boys and girls failed to get enough
sleep because of “the temptations of the cinema and the amusements of
the street.” In many cases, even when wages were high, the Health of
Munition Workers Committee found that three persons occupied a single
bed and four or five shared a room. The following cases were given as
typical. A boy of fourteen, earning about 19s. ($4.56) weekly, slept in
the same bed with two young men, while two young girls occupied another
bed in the same room. A boy of sixteen, with wages averaging 22s.
($5.28) a week shared a bed with another boy, while another boy and a
girl slept in the same room.
[248] Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers
Committee, _Interim Report_, p. 103.
The deterioration in character among working boys was apparently
even more marked than the decline in health. According to Mr. Leeson
juvenile delinquency was 34 per cent greater during the three months
ending February, 1916, than for a similar period in the previous year.
In Manchester, the increase was 56 per cent; in Edinburgh it was 46 per
cent. The delinquency of boys twelve and thirteen, the ages for which
most of the school exemptions were issued, had increased in greater
proportion than that of any other age group. In the London police
district and ten large cities the number of children convicted by
Juvenile Courts increased from 11,176 in 1914 to 16,283 in 1917.
“When every allowance has been made for the inclination of each
generation to despair of the next,” said the special Committee on
Juvenile Employment during the War, “it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that a strain has been put upon the character of boys and
girls between fourteen and eighteen which might have corrupted the
integrity of Washington, and undermined the energy of Samuel Smiles.
The story of a boy who met his father’s attempt to assert parental
authority with the retort, ‘Wait to talk till you have earned as much
as I have,’ is hardly a caricature of the immense accession both
of earnings and of importance which has come, sometimes to their
misfortune, to lads of sixteen and seventeen.”
In feverish eagerness the boys spent their time wandering
from shop to shop, from work to works, making short stays,
frequently of only one or two weeks, in search of the new El
Dorado. Indentures were thrown to the winds; places where
useful trades could be learned were left behind; entreaties
of employers were rejected; parents were often treated with
indifference. The persistence with which the boys took
up the trail to the great machine shops and to the great
national factories or to any other place where the processes
were repetitive and the contracts ran into millions, can be
compared almost to the rush to the Klondyke....
Fearful that such large earnings would only be temporary,
they apparently determined to make hay while the sun
shone. They began to assume the independence which their
comparatively large incomes seemed to justify. They
sometimes became reckless, spendthrift and extravagant. The
gambling instinct was kindled, the longing for adventure
became acute. The boys became restless and unstable in the
works. Avarice begat avarice, until, in some cases, the
boys set such a value on their labor as to make them appear
almost ridiculous.[249]
Even certain labor organizations, which are generally
bitterly opposed to all such plans, advocated attention to
schemes of compulsory saving or deferred payment, as a means
of preventing the waste of abnormally high wages.[250]
[249] Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, “Juvenile Employment
during the War and After,” _Reconstruction Pamphlet No. 15_, p. 24.
[250] _The Labour Woman_, July, 1916, p. 34.
Almost the only hopeful feature of the effect of the war on working
children is a changed point of view regarding their future needs. The
bad conditions, together with the losses of the great war, roused
greater interest in the conservation of childhood. The chapter on
“Peace and Reconstruction” will trace the growth of the movement which,
with respect to working children, recognizes that many of them should
be taken out of the labor market altogether, that their opportunities
for education should be improved, and that their first years of work
should be better supervised.