[Sidenote: Wages and expenditure.]

An attempt has been made to discover how far the earnings of women workers in these trades are only supplementary to family income, and how far the family worker is entirely dependent upon them for her livelihood. On the whole (but with important exceptions) they appear to be supplementary. In cases, certain fixed weekly payments are made for board and lodging to the relatives who are heads of the households, but these payments are not enforced in times of unemployment and are reduced when work is slack. Even when being made in full they do not always represent the actual cost of accommodation and living. It is becoming less and less common, it seems, for the wives of idle and improvident husbands to eke out their household income by casual or seasonal work, but the practice is still followed and in London prevails to a relatively considerable extent. In such cases the women do not work for mere pocket-money, nor again, do their wages cover the full cost of their living.

"Miss ---- lives at home and her parents are evidently in comfortable circ.u.mstances," runs one report of a book-folder. "I went into the best parlour, where there was a piano--also a high hat in the corner!"

The following gives a somewhat fuller picture of these workers:--"Mrs.

---- is a widow and has no children. She looks about sixty and is probably about fifty. She lives on the top floor in model dwellings (three rooms, for which she pays 5_s._ 9_d._) Her husband died in 1891 of consumption, and she does not know what she would have done had she not been made forewoman (in a book-folding room). She does not see how a pieceworker can support herself. She must live at home. Most of the girls working under her live at home and give their mothers 7_s._ a week, keeping the rest for themselves. She was doing some washing and mangling when I called. A little girl comes to help clean, but otherwise she does everything for herself."

A fairly large employer in London stated that his "girls are living with their parents and work for pocket-money." Another "would think that about half lived at home." One woman stated, "A bit of extra money comes in handy. It is nice for a woman to put a little by--you cannot expect her to save out of her husband's money"; another said: "A woman ought never to let her husband know what she earns--if she is foolish enough to do that, he at once becomes lazy and extravagant. A woman should only work after marriage either to save a little money, or to help a sick or delicate husband." A well-known London general stationery dealer reports: "Some of the women employed are the wives of the porters and packers, but in the majority of cases the husbands are worthless, and the earnings of the women are the chief support of the household." In one case reported upon, a girl, working in a Bible and prayer-book house, having to support herself, could not do it, and began pilfering prayer-books to make both ends meet. She was turned away as a thief.

For the purpose of throwing light upon the problems with which this chapter deals, particulars have been obtained from one firm in London where eighty-six women are employed. The married women are described as follows:--

1. A widow.

2. Has a husband, a bookbinder in good work, but they are extravagant.

3. Has a husband in work.

4. A widow.

5. A widow with a daughter to support.

6. A widow.

7. Has a husband in work. Has been summoned for boys not attending school.

8. Has a husband who drinks. Looks after her children and goes home at dinner time.

9. A widow with recalcitrant boy.

10. Has a husband in work.

11. Has a husband irregularly employed. Very poor and slatternly.

12. Has a husband who drinks.

Of the unmarried workers, one learned the trade when on in years because, owing to a misfortune, she had to bring up her brothers and sisters. She was very slow and her earnings only averaged about 7_s._ per week. Two support themselves. The others live at home and pay 6_s._ or 7_s._ per week, or hand over everything they make, and receive back small sums for pocket-money.

A report from another well-known firm of bookbinders in London states that in a room of ten women, five support themselves. In some instances it is noted that married women have to receive charitable aid in looking after their children when they themselves go to work. Of a large printing firm it is said, "Most of the girls at ... don't seem to mind if they make money or not. They couldn't possibly keep themselves on what they earned." This was the statement of a girl working with the firm and erred in being too absolute; but an examination of the wage returns showed that, somewhat modified and limited, it was true. A manager of a co-operative bookbinding establishment estimated that, from his experience, not more than 25 per cent. of the girls working in that trade, regarded their wages as the only means by which they supported themselves. The forewoman of a large stationery department stated that only three out of twenty girls under her had to depend on their own wages. The conclusion of a report submitted by an official of the Typographical a.s.sociation in Coventry may be taken as being true of the provinces generally. "The females for the most part are young girls, with a sprinkling of experienced and older hands who leave when about entering married life."

Evidently it is a very common thing for such workers to pay so much into a common purse from which general family expenses are drawn, and into which the individual contributions vary with the state of trade.

The industrial effect of these conditions is obvious. The women keep no vigilant eye upon wages which are fixed rather by use and wont than by compet.i.tive pressure. Employers have rarely[90] to offer high pay as an inducement to women to enter these trades, and, consequently, there is always a downward drag upon wages, and although the women spasmodically interest themselves in their conditions, they feel so little dependence on wages that they can never be taught to make that steady upward pressure which would improve the organisation of these trades and yield more return for labour. Hence, the low rate of wages obtainable by those who have to maintain themselves is kept down almost solely by the circ.u.mstance that such a large proportion of the women employed remain part of families and share in general family income. It should be noted that it is often the policy of employers to be "careful only to take respectable young girls who live with their parents." The economic influence of this "respectable" standard is obvious.

[Footnote 90: The establishment of a laundry in the vicinity of a well-known provincial firm of printers resulted in an increase of wages in the shape of a guarantee that no wages should be paid under 6_s._ per week.]

[Sidenote: Influence on family income.]

On the question whether an extensive prevalence of "supplementary earnings" tends to reduce the wages paid to other members of the family, our investigations in these trades threw no light. Only in one case, where a husband and wife were questioned, was the opinion stated that, "Now that women go into trades so much, a man and a woman together only make as much as a man used to." The question is one which can be answered only by investigation in other trades, the circ.u.mstances of which are more favourable for its elucidation.

[Sidenote: Wages rates and married women.]

What little influence the married woman has upon wages seems to be to raise and not to lower them. That is the unanimous opinion of the forewomen in London, and they know best.[91]

[Footnote 91: The following are extracts from the opinions of forewomen on this point:--

"They don't lower rates; they want more."

"They don't lower rates of pay; it is rather the reverse, for they are most troublesome about the price; _e.g._, the other day a married woman, a new hand, made four or five girls refuse to do some sewing at the price quoted, so they and she sat idle and wasted their time till the forewoman saw what she could do for them. She (the forewoman) pointed out to the girls how foolish it was to waste their time like that, and they said that they wouldn't have done it by themselves."

"So far from working for less if they don't get enough, they say--'Thank you' and walk off."

"They are the first to grumble; they don't think it worth coming unless they can make something good."

"Married women are more trouble than the unmarried; they are at the bottom of any agitation, and won't come if you are slack, for they wouldn't get enough to pay for washing."

"They are more independent than single workers, and teach the others to stand out."

"They think it a favour to do your work."

"They won't work for less, for they generally have more than themselves to keep."

A forewoman of a book-folding department in a large firm said that though not employing married women on her regular staff, she had had some experience of them as job hands, and found that they would not do ordinary work at ordinary rates, it not being worth their while. "They have not got to earn money, as they have husbands to fall back upon."

To this should be added the testimony of one thoughtful observer, who has considered the question during a long experience in the trade. He has never come across a case where married women have lowered the rate of pay; on the other hand, the elder women often complain that the young girls who are living at home don't mind having _d._ or _d._ cut off.

See also the Report on Home Work, published by the Women's Industrial Council, 19, Buckingham Street, Strand, 6_d._, for further details confirming this view.]

In a good many instances, the married women complained that the unmarried ones accepted reductions, and at a Conference held at Manchester in connection with this investigation, the opinion was unanimously expressed that married women do not lower wages, but, "on the contrary, the casuals grumble most and get most."[92] "I know of a case," writes a Plymouth correspondent, "where a married woman would not work for less than 15_s._, which she obtained and retained for a year or two." Out of a batch of ninety employers who had definite opinions upon the influence of married women upon the standard of wages, seventy-seven said they did not lower it, and thirteen that they did. The married woman is more able than the unmarried girl to appreciate the relation between wages and living expenses, and when she returns to the workshop, it is as a worker who accepts the life of the wage earner as a final fact and not as a mere interval between school and marriage.

[Footnote 92: The casually employed sometimes give trouble owing to unpunctuality, and several employers have complained against married women on this ground. But the investigation as a whole does not show the complaint to be at all general.]

The married woman is more independent and disinclined to accept low rates when offered, and she is generally chosen to go on deputations making complaints to employers. A Trade Union official said that theoretically the married woman ought to reduce wages, but that he was bound to say that his experience in the trade taught him that she did not. She has acquired the right to grumble, and she is put down in a considerable proportion of the reports as the centre from which general discontent in the workrooms emanates. Many employers object to her in consequence.

She seems to regard herself as a permanent worker when she is a widow, and generally remains for a considerable time--twenty or thirty years--with her employers without thinking of changing. She is not so "particular" as her unmarried co-worker, and does not give herself so many "airs." She cleans litho-rollers without "turning up her nose." She is, in short, part and parcel of the fellowship of wage earners; her unmarried sister is not.

She is more rarely found in the provinces than in London in these trades. Leeds and Bradford, and Bristol and the surrounding district may be taken as typical, and the reports of the investigators who visited these towns are quoted in full below on this point.

[Sidenote: The employment of married women. (a) London.]

In London, several firms refuse to employ married women as regular hands. In some cases this is a policy of the forewoman only, and not a rule of the firm. In others the head of the firm is responsible for the order. The motives vary. Some refuse on principle, holding that husbands should support their wives; _e.g._, "She won't countenance husbands living on their wives' earnings and idling themselves"; or, again, that it is "hard on single girls," or undesirable to have married women working amongst unmarried girls, because, "They spoil a shop by talking about all sorts of things." Other employers refuse to have them because they are too irregular--"You can't get them in in time"; others because "one has no hold over them," or because "they are tiresome, being so c.o.c.ky." "Out of seventy-five girls," runs one of our reports, "he had none married till recently, when he failed to get enough unmarried.

Dislikes having them because influence bad."[93]

[Footnote 93: Reasons given for not employing married women, taken from a batch of London reports:--

(1) Irregular. (2) Principle. (3) Principle. (4) Principle. (5) No hold. (6) Chance. (7) Principle. (8) Chance. (9) Irregular. (10) Irregular. (11) Principle. (12) Moral principle. (13) Moral principle. (14) Principle (?). (15) Principle (?). (16) Expediency. (17) Principle. (18) Principle. (19) Principle. (20) Principle. (21) Principle. (22) Rule. (23) Rule. (24) Rule. (25) Expediency. (26) Principle. (27) Principle. (28) Principle. (29) Principle. (30) Principle. (31) Irregular.]

As a rule, however, there is a certain number of married women on the staff, and all houses who have recourse to job hands in busy seasons must, on occasions, have married women on their premises, though they may object to employ them as regular workers.