Perhaps no one factor in the working conditions of women is more vital to their welfare than the wages they receive. A study of the changes in wages brought about by the war is therefore of special importance. Ordinarily women seldom do precisely the same work as men, and they ordinarily receive wages not more than half as high. Did the difference continue when the women took up men’s jobs? The fear that the women would lower the rates established by the men’s trade unions was, as we have seen, probably the main reason for the opposition of male trade unionists to “dilution.” In what measure was the women’s demand for “equal pay for equal work” attained? The replacement of enlisted men by women and the extensive use of women in the manufacture of munitions invested women’s work as never before with the character of a national service, and this also led to a demand for more adequate wage standards. In considering the subject of wages it should always be kept in mind that, roughly speaking, at the beginning of the war wages and prices were about half as high in England as in the United States, though the difference in prices was not so great during 1917 and 1918.
All three of the factors enumerated above—namely, public recognition of their services to the state, the women’s demand for “equal pay for equal work” and the effort of the men’s unions to maintain wage standards—seem to have played a part in forcing governmental regulation of the wages of women workers. Munitions work was of course the storm center of disputes throughout the war.
Many complaints were made of the inadequate wages paid the first women to be employed on munitions work. An official report[113] admits that women munitions makers taking up men’s jobs in the industry before the Treasury Agreement permitting substitution was made in March, 1915, were paid only 2½d. (5 cents) to 4d. (8 cents) an hour. Twelve to fifteen shillings weekly ($2.88-$3.60) was said to be the usual pay for women in Manchester and on the Clyde. In October, 1914, a leading armament firm hired a number of women to take the place of skilled and semi-skilled men in shell making at 15 per cent lower wages than were paid the men.[114]
The first attempt to secure equal pay for the women who replaced men was made in February, 1915, through the “Shells and Fuses Agreement” of the “Committee on Production,” which provided for equal pay on skilled work. But most of the operations on which women were being substituted were unskilled or semi-skilled and on the latter the employers’ federation ordered the usual women’s rates. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which had assented to the agreement, now awoke to conditions and protested, but in the words of two students of British labor during the war, “it was too late.” They “never again caught up with the situation. Multitudes of women were poured into the engineering trades at a low wage scale.”[115]
The next effort of the trade unionists was the securing of a clause in the Treasury Agreement in March to the effect that “the relaxation of existing demarcation restrictions or admission of semi-skilled or female labor shall not affect adversely the rates paid for the job.” Miss Sylvia Pankhurst immediately sent an inquiry to Lloyd George, asking for an interpretation of this somewhat ambiguous statement. She received the reply:
Dear Miss Pankhurst: The words which you quote would guarantee that women undertaking the work of men would get the same piece-rates as men were receiving before the date of this agreement. That, of course, means that if the women turn out the same quantity of work as men employed on the same job, they will receive exactly the same pay.
She then asked if they were to receive the same war bonuses and increases as men, and what was to be paid women time workers; but her second letter was not answered.
The complaints and agitation continued. Mrs. Pankhurst escorted a procession of women to interview the Minister of Munitions about wages on munitions work. Examples of sweated wages were cited in Parliament. In reply to this deputation, Lloyd George announced his policy in regard to the payment of women munition workers as follows:
The government will see that there is no sweated labor. For some time women will be unskilled and untrained; they can not turn out as much work as the men who have been at it for some time, so we can not give the full rate of wages. Whatever these wages are, they should be fair, and there should be a fixed minimum, and we should not utilize the services of women in order to get cheaper labor.
Finally, in October, 1915, the Ministry sent out to all “controlled establishments” a circular of recommendations for wage rates for women “on men’s work,” drawn up by a Wages Subcommittee of the Central Labor Supply Committee, composed of a woman trade unionist and three representatives of the engineering trade. The circular, which is always referred to as “L2,” fixed a prescribed (not a minimum) time rate of £1 ($4.80) weekly, and the same piece rates for women as for men. The committee had urged that the time rate should be a minimum but to this the Ministry was not willing to agree. A special paragraph emphasized that women doing skilled men’s work should be paid the men’s rate. The Ministry had no power to enforce the recommendations, however, and they were by no means universally observed. Opinions as to their efficacy vary from the official view that “National factories were instructed to adopt these provisions, and many, though not all, private firms put them into force.”[116] to the radical criticism that the “recommendations might have been of value had there been any means of enforcing them. As it was, the circular was merely an expression of opinion which [tended to lull the public] into a state of security unjustified by facts.”[117] The Woman Worker even went so far as to say that “in January last [1916], a very important firm stated that they were the only firm in the United Kingdom that were paying wages in accordance with Mr. Lloyd George’s circular.”[118]
In the fall of 1915 the trade unionists entered on an active campaign to give the Ministry power to fix wages for women and unskilled and semi-skilled men, the men’s unions fearing the permanent lowering of their standard rates, and the women’s organizations being perhaps more concerned in behalf of the underpaid women themselves. In January, 1916, the men’s unions demanded, as the price of their continued help in promoting “dilution,” that the provisions of “L2” should be made compulsory. By the amending act of January 27, 1916, the Ministry of Munitions were empowered to fix wage rates for all females and for semi-skilled men on skilled work in munition plants where clearance cards were required. The National Federation of Women Workers was active in securing the change, and its magazine describes the struggle in its usual picturesque style.[119]
In a month the provisions of Circular L2 were made compulsory.[120] The directions were “on the basis of setting up of the machines being otherwise provided for. They are strictly confined to the war period.” Women time workers of eighteen years and over on men’s work were to be paid a pound ($4.80) for a week of the usual hours worked by men in engineering. Rates for piece work and for work ordinarily done by “fully skilled” men were to be the same as those customarily paid men, but women were not to be put on any form of piece work until “sufficiently qualified.” The principle of “equal pay for equal work” was further laid down specifically in the following clause: “The principle upon which the directions proceed is that on systems of payment by results—equal payment shall be made to women as to men for an equal amount of work done.” Further safeguards of the rates included giving women the same overtime, night shift, Sunday and holiday allowances as the men, and providing that piece rates should not be cut. Women were to be paid at the rate of 15s. a week ($3.60) for time lost by “air raids” or other causes beyond the workers’ control. The order was applied only to controlled establishments in engineering and allied industries on the ground that it was designed primarily to meet conditions in those trades.[121]
The regulation of wages for women doing men’s work covered only part of the munition workers, however. As The Woman Worker remarked, “What about the women who are doing important work not recognized as men’s work? There are many more of these; they are, generally speaking, much worse off; they are less able to protect themselves; and, therefore, this claim on the Minister to fulfill his pledged word is even stronger than for the others.”[122] The Wages Subcommittee which drafted L2 had drawn up wage recommendations for them in November and December, 1915, but no action was taken on the recommendations. The standard of wages among this group of women at the time is illustrated by the rates fixed in an important trade agreement reached in November, 1915, and covering the whole Midlands area. Its weekly rate for an adult woman was 16s. ($3.84). In March, 1916, under powers given the Ministry of Munitions by the munitions amendment act, a “Special Arbitration Tribunal” was established to settle disputes regarding women’s wages referred to it under the anti-strike clauses of the munitions acts, and to advise the Minister on wage awards for women munition makers. The tribunal consisted of a secretary and half a dozen members, two of whom were women. In Miss Susan Lawrence it had a woman long active in behalf of the women workers, and in Mr. Ernest Aves an expert on minimum wage regulation. The tribunal is said to have been “perhaps more important and successful than was expected.”[123] The National Federation of Women Workers at once brought before it several cases dealing with the wages of munition workers in individual factories on “work not recognized as men’s work.” In general the awards made in these cases gave time workers about 4½d. (9 cents) an hour, and piece workers a guaranteed minimum of about 4d. (8 cents), with the provision that the piece rates should yield the ordinary worker at least a third more.
The Minister of Munitions then asked the special tribunal for recommendations as to a general wage award for females on “work not recognized as men’s work.” Because precedent and data were lacking it was said to be extremely difficult to fix these rates. But finally the tribunal made a recommendation along the lines of its special awards, which was issued as an order on July 6, 1916.[124] Four pence (8 cents) an hour was guaranteed piece workers of eighteen or over and adult time workers were given 4½d. (9 cents). A half penny an hour additional was given for work in the danger zone, and special rates might be fixed for dangerous or unhealthy processes. Special rates could be set for workers of special ability. The rates were expressly limited to the war period, “depending on exceptional circumstances arising from the present war.” The award was applied to about 1,400 arms, ammunition, explosives and shipbuilding firms, covering these trades with a few exceptions of firms in the rural districts.
The effect of this order was to raise wages in firms where women had always been employed. Employers complained of difficulties where only part of their women employes were on government work, and of failure to provide special rates for the training period. On the other hand, its provisions aroused a storm of criticism from women trade unionists, who charged that the fixing of standard rather than minimum rates was in contravention of Lloyd George’s pledges. The official retort to this was that “the only undertaking ... by the Minister ... related to the wages of women on men’s work.”[125] No special allowances for overtime, night and Sunday work or for time lost by no fault of the workers were included. The piece work rates were not arranged so that the average worker could earn a higher rate. Only munition work in the narrow sense was covered, and important war industries where leaving certificates were required were omitted, such as the chemical, rubber, cable and miscellaneous metal trades. The Women’s Trade Union League and the National Federation of Women Workers immediately organized a deputation of protest to the Ministry. As a result, a revision of the award was issued in September, which restored the extra payments for overtime and night work, and stated that unless a special exemption was granted by the Ministry, piece rates must be such as to yield a worker of “ordinary ability” a third more than her time rate.[126]
By this time also, according to the official view “it had become increasingly apparent ... that the provisions of Circular L2 ... were too rigid.” No time rates between the £1 a week and the skilled men’s rate were allowed, and women doing especially laborious or responsible work could not receive special pay.
A violent controversy had likewise been going on for months as to the payment of women doing part of the work of skilled men. The unions claimed that the understanding was that women should receive the skilled men’s rate no matter how small a part of the work they did; the employers said that such an arrangement was entirely unreasonable. The Central Munitions Labour Supply Committee, the author of the original “L2,” was called on for advice. Recommendations acceptable both to it and to the Special Arbitration Tribunal were finally worked out and issued as an order January 1, 1917.[127] Even the trade unionists acknowledged that an improvement had been made, and that the standard time rate was less likely to be used as a maximum. The £1 time rate was payable for a working week of forty-eight hours. Any overtime up to fifty-four hours was payable at 6d. (12 cents) an hour, and beyond that at men’s rates. Special rates, not laid down in the order, might be fixed for women time workers on “work customarily done by semi-skilled men,” on specially laborious or responsible work, or where any “special circumstances” existed. Under this clause a number of appeals were carried to the Special Arbitration Tribunal, and special awards made. The clause giving women on skilled work the same rates as men was reenacted, but it was stated that “a further order on this subject will shortly be issued.” This was done on January 24.[128]
The compromise adopted set off a special class of women who did only part of a skilled man’s work, according to a plan worked out by the Dilution Commission in the Clyde district nearly a year before. In this class were to be placed all women who did not do the “customary setting up” of the machines, or who required supervision beyond that usual for the men. Such women were to serve a three months’ “probationary period,” receiving the specified time rate for four weeks, and then rising by equal weekly increments to the skilled men’s rate at the end of the thirteenth week. But, by special permission of the Ministry of Munitions, a maximum of 10 per cent of the skilled men’s rate might be deducted to meet the additional cost of extra setting up and extra supervision. The time rate, which remained £1 for a forty-eight hour week was to be the minimum in all cases, however. A woman doing all the work of a skilled man was still to be paid his rate. Other clauses relating to overtime, cutting of piece rates, allowances for lost time and so on, were the same as in previous orders for “women on men’s work.” The order was applied to some 3,585 “controlled establishments” in arms, ammunition, ordnance, various other forms of “engineering” and miscellaneous metal trades.
Meanwhile, in October, 1916, “munitions” establishments not included in the outstanding wage order for women and girls on “work not recognized as men’s work” were notified that they would shortly be covered unless they could show reasons to the contrary. Many protests from employers resulted, but early in January the former order was reissued with slight modifications and made applicable to a wider range of establishments.[129] It now covered about 3,875 “controlled establishments,” including other forms of engineering, miscellaneous metal trades, and chemicals, asbestos, rubber and mica, as well as munitions work in the narrow sense of the term. The chief modifications were a probationary period (one month for adult women) during which a half penny an hour (1 cent) less might be paid, and permission to apply for a special rate for girls in warehouses as distinct from factories. A companion order fixed rates a farthing an hour lower for about fifty factories in rural districts.[130]
Besides “men’s” and “women’s” work, a third set of governmental wage awards covered women in the woodwork industry where large numbers were employed, especially on woodwork for aeroplanes. The trade unions had agitated the question vigorously on the basis of maintaining their standard rates. But the administration felt that “the aircraft industry has extended enormously since the war began ... to legislate for women’s wages on the customs existing prior to the war might unduly hamper the development of the trade.” The wages fixed in September, 1916, on the basis of recommendations by the Special Arbitration Tribunal were 5d. (10 cents) an hour for experienced adult time workers, and a guarantee of 4½d. (9 cents) for piece workers.[131] These rates were about ½d. (1 cent) an hour higher than those for women not on men’s work, thus approximating the “men’s work” awards. Extra rates were payable for overtime, and the various precautionary clauses of the earlier awards were repeated, except that no recognition of the equal pay principle appeared. The order covered some ninety establishments. Early in 1917 the Special Arbitration Tribunal was asked to advise on rates for woodwork in general. The tribunal found it difficult to preserve the scheme of the men’s rates in the trade, and finally drew up a concise interim order with minimum rates similar to those for ordinary processes on woodwork for aeroplanes.[132]
A new bone of contention appeared in the battle to maintain men’s wage standards for women munition workers when the rising cost of living brought the men in the engineering and shipbuilding trades a general advance of 5s. weekly from April 1, 1917, with the promise that further advances of this kind would be made three times a year if necessary. The Ministry of Munitions held that the terms of the award were such[133] that it did not apply to women’s wages. But under pressure from the Federation of Women Workers the Ministry, on April 16, announced the advancement of the standard time rate for women replacing men from 20s. ($4.80) to 24s. ($5.76) weekly,[134] to go into effect from April 8. On work “not recognized as men’s work” the gain for adult women was 1d. (2 cents) an hour for time work and ¾d. (1½ cents) for piece work.[135] The advance was likewise applied to woodworking processes.[136]
Following another war bonus of 3s. (72 cents) weekly to men workers, awarded by the Committee on Production, the women’s Special Arbitration Tribunal granted adult women a second general advance of 2s. 6d. (60 cents) in August, 1917, with half as much to girls under eighteen.[137] This applied to all “controlled” establishments, having a far wider range than any previous wage order. The powers of the Ministry over women’s wages had been extended by the amendment to the munitions act which allowed “leaving certificates” to be abolished. If this was done, as it was, the Ministry might fix wages in any trade in or in connection with munitions work. Another important extension of the wage awards about this time was their application to Ireland, where wage scales had been very low. A third and a fourth general advance, the first[138] of 3s. 6d. and the second[139] of 5s. weekly for adult women, were granted on December 15, 1917, and September 1, 1918, respectively. The four general advances amounted to a total of 15s. weekly ($3.60), which brought the standard time rate for women munition workers on men’s work up to 35s. ($8.40) weekly at the end of the war. But meanwhile the men workers had been granted still larger bonuses.
In addition, hundreds of special cases continued to be brought before the Special Arbitration Tribunal, which generally granted at least part of the wage increases asked for, but avoided any general declaration of principles when the equal pay issue was raised. Another development of 1918 was the issuance of a “Consolidated Order,” the result of agitation by the women’s unions begun eleven months earlier, which unified the various wage awards and made some improvements and extensions.[140] Perhaps the most important change was the alteration of the standard rates for women not on men’s work into minimum rates, so that women engaged in occupations of special skill, danger and the like could claim extra payments. The order applied to over 8,000 firms. Delay in issuing it was officially ascribed to the reorganization of the Special Arbitration Tribunal, which prevented consideration of the case till December, 1917.
The governmental policies outlined above by which wages were fixed for women munition workers were the subject of some sharp criticisms from labor and radical groups and friends of the women workers. The most fundamental of these criticisms was that the government failed to fulfill the pledge regarding the wages of women substitutes made in the “Treasury Agreement” and reaffirmed in the first munitions act.[141] The question is considered at length in the report of the British War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.[142] Mrs. Sidney Webb, in a minority report, holds that the pledge applied to all forms of work and all forms of payment, and charges that there were two main violations. It was not applied to time workers who took the places of unskilled or semi-skilled men, and women were not allowed the same general cost of living advances as men. The majority denied that the agreement was intended to apply to equal pay in either of these cases, though they felt that the wording of the agreement was not satisfactory. Without attempting to give a verdict in the dispute, it may be said that the partial failure to apply the equal pay principle did cause much unrest among both men and women trade unionists, who felt that the men’s rates were menaced and the women unfairly treated.
Other points of criticism included the limited application of the wage orders, the fixing of “standard,” rather than “minimum” wages, and an alleged failure to enforce the orders. The apparent tendency of the government to act only under pressure was perhaps a still more general cause of irritation. It was not until six months after the passage of the first munitions act, following much trade union agitation, that legislation was asked for which would allow the government to make effective its pledge of “equal pay” for “dilutees.” Even then the first wage orders did not cover all munitions work and not even all controlled establishments. Under the wider application of the “leaving certificate clauses” it was said that some firms could continue to pay sweated wages while tying the workers to their jobs. But succeeding orders were more and more extended and until the power was expressly granted in August, 1917, the Ministry did not believe it could fix wages outside controlled establishments.
Most of the rates, it will have been noticed, were not “minimum,” but “standard” wages, to be paid only in case no special awards were made. This policy was criticized because it was claimed that the standard rates almost always became the maximum. But the Ministry believed that “experience justifies the adoption” of a standard rate, which checked constant agitation for changes.
It was also charged that the orders were frequently not obeyed and that piece rates were illegally cut. In the spring and summer of 1917, indeed, investigating officers of the Ministry of Munitions were ordered to visit all establishments covered by the awards and schedule the actual wages paid. “In many hundreds of cases the smaller firms were found not to pay the wages ordered.”[143] Orders to violators to pay the legal wages with arrears increased the hostility of the contractors to the government program of wage fixing. Finally, in order to overcome their opposition, it was arranged that they should be reimbursed for all “extra and unforeseen wage cost entailed by government action.” Under this arrangement it would seem as if there was little if any incentive not to pay the legal scale of wages. In April, 1918, at which time the standard time rate for women substitutes was 30s. ($7.20) weekly, weekly rates for women in typical projectile factories were 32s. 8d. ($7.84), and actual earnings 42s. 4d. ($10.16), while in a similar group of shell factories rates were 34s. 8d. ($8.32), and earnings 56s. 8d. ($13.60). These wages, while well above the legal standard wage, were far from the £3, £4 and £5 weekly popularly ascribed to the women munition maker and in reality earned only by the exceptional piece worker.
In estimating these or any other wage increases, the greatly augmented cost of living must not be overlooked. The rise was estimated at 40 per cent in February, 1916, when the first compulsory award was made, 70 per cent in April, 1917, at the time of the first general increase, and 95 per cent in September, 1918, when the last war time advance was granted. Rents were held to their former levels by a law which forbade raising them unless structural improvements were made, but fuel, shoes and clothing were all higher, the tax burden was greater and food had more than doubled in price. On this basis the rate set for time workers on “men’s work” in munitions in February, 1916, £1, was equivalent to only 14s. 3d., before the war. The 24s. of April, 1917, corresponded to 14s. 2d., while 35s., the September, 1918, award, amounted to about 17s. 6d. at prewar values. However, it must likewise be remembered that once the awards were really in full force, actual earnings were apparently considerably above standard rates.
All in all it would seem that the Ministry of Munitions was justified in its claim that, “when consideration is given to the diverse nature of the trades, the absence of any data on which the department could work when it first took up the question of regulating women’s wages, the absolute novelty of wage regulation by a government department, the extreme urgency of the many difficulties which arose, the reluctant attitude of employers and the interdependence of commercial work and munitions work, the department feels justified in claiming a very considerable adjustment in the matter of women’s wages.”[144] Even Mrs. Webb, in criticising the government attitude toward its wage pledges, admits that the Ministry of Munitions took the agreement “more seriously than other government departments.” The War Cabinet report sums the results of government activity by showing that “the actual average of women’s wages in the metal and munition trades as a result of the orders was increased rather more than threefold as against a rise in cost of living about twofold, and the disparity of wages between the two sexes was very considerably reduced.”
The trade boards, authorized in 1909 to fix the minimum wage rates for the sweated trades, afford little that is novel in their war activities, but provide an excellent example of the maintenance of existing legal standards in war time. In no case where they had taken steps toward fixing minimum rates did they allow the war to be used as a pretext for interrupting their work. The boards which had been established prior to the war for confectionery and shirt making in Ireland and for tin boxes and hollow ware in Great Britain continued their work, and made awards which went into effect during 1915. Partially effective orders for confectionery and shirt making in Great Britain became obligatory during the same year. Moreover the scope of two boards was extended, of tailoring to cover certain branches of retail work, and of lace finishing to include “hairnets and veilings.” A new board was even set up proposing rates for linen and cotton embroidery in Ireland, which lines had been put under the jurisdiction of the trade boards act before the outbreak of war. But during the war period proper the act itself was not extended to any new industries.
The more direct effect of the war, however, was to cause all of the existing boards to make considerable advances in their minimum rates in an effort to meet the rising cost of living. For instance, the British tailoring board raised the rate for experienced women from 3¼d. (6½ cents) to 4d. (8 cents) an hour in January, 1915, to 4½d. (9 cents) in July, 1917, and 5d. (10 cents) in March, 1918. A special minimum rate of 6d. (12 cents) for experienced women cutters, a class of work in which women had replaced men since the outbreak of war, was fixed in April, 1916. Similarly confectionery had been raised from 14s. 1d., weekly ($3.38), to 16s. 3d. ($3.90), then to 19s. 6d. ($1.68), and by the end of the war 28s. 2d. ($6.76) was proposed. But it should be remembered that 28s. 2d. was in November, 1918, roughly worth but 13s. before the war, and 5d. was equivalent to little more than 2d. Even the most considerable of these changes failed to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. “The Trade Boards have not increased rates proportionately to the increase in the cost of living,” says G. D. H. Cole, “but only by so much as they thought the industries concerned would be able to support after the war.”[145]
A third method by which the wages of many women were regulated was through agreements with the trade unions. Such agreements really formed a phase of the “dilution” question. Women must be prevented from becoming unfair competitors and from undercutting the standard rates. Consequently, as has been described, the agreements usually prescribed that women substitutes should be paid the men’s rate. This was the standard used in admitting women to men’s jobs in such important industries as cotton, woolen and worsted, china and earthenware, and boots and shoes. Women were for the first time admitted to work on the more important knitting machines on condition that they should receive the men’s piece rates. In such instances the real wages of the women were undoubtedly materially improved.
Another important wage agreement made by the railway unions in August, 1915, secured for the women in grades where they had not been employed before the war the minimum pay given men of the same grade. The agreement did not cover women taken on as clerks, however. In October, 1915, the men’s war bonus was increased to 5s. a week ($1.20) and a number of women applied for it. The companies claimed that the August agreement tacitly excluded the women from participation in the bonus, and the Committee on Production, to whom a test case was referred, agreed. But when the men’s bonus was increased to 10s. ($2.40) in September, 1916, it was “generally felt that it would be only fair to grant the women something.”[146] Accordingly, in November, 1916, those over eighteen were given a bonus of 3s. weekly (72 cents) and those under eighteen, 1s. 6d. (36 cents). In three subsequent increases of the bonus during the war period, men and women shared alike, making a total war bonus of 21s. 6d. weekly ($5.16) for women as compared with 33s. ($7.92) for men.
In a few cases, the trade unions were satisfied, because of the reorganization of the work, with something less than the men’s rate for women substitutes. In the agreement for the bleaching and dyeing trades, a minimum of four-fifths of the men’s rate was fixed for time workers though where women turned out the same quantity they were to be paid the same piece wages as men. The Shop Assistants’ Union was content with four-fifths of the men’s rates for the women, since a few men had nearly always to be retained for heavy lifting. As a matter of fact, in many cases the organization was not strong enough to secure even as much as this.
Other government departments were not so generous to women workers as the Ministry of Munitions, and paid even less attention to the equal pay pledge of the Treasury Agreement. The Admiralty adopted a minimum time rate for all workers, which was gradually raised from 20s. ($4.80) to 35s. ($8.40) weekly, but which in the case of women substitutes had no distinct relation to the wages of their male predecessors. Previous to the institution of minimum rates, the Admiralty, like the War Office, had given women workers a war bonus of only 2s. (48 cents) a week when they had given male mechanics and laborers 4s. (96 cents). According to Mrs. Webb, the War Office continued throughout the war to “pay what it saw fit, and even stopped a contractor from paying the wages ordered by the Ministry of Munitions.” Both War Office and Admiralty finally joined, however, in the arrangement by which contractors were reimbursed for wage advances ordered by the government.[147] Wage increases in the Postoffice Department were given in the form of war bonuses, which were larger for men than for women. The war bonuses granted all low paid employes in 1915 were 2s. or 3s. (48 cents or 72 cents) for men and only half that amount for women.
Perhaps the strongest complaints of women’s wages in governmental service were made in connection with the women clerks taken on by the Civil Service. In 1917 they received only 20 to 26s. ($4.80 to $6.24) for ordinary clerical work, and 30s. ($7.20) for supervision of clerical work which involved considerable responsibility. Women were found who were paid 20s. ($4.80) for the same work for which men had been receiving 30s.-40s. ($7.20-$9.60). The Women’s Industrial Council even found it advisable to call a conference on the matter, and to form a committee to take up the question with those responsible. By the end of the war the weekly wages of first-class clerks had gone up to between 50s. and 60s. ($12-$14.40).
The wages paid women substitutes for men in trades in which neither legal regulation nor agreements existed are difficult to discover. Bread, rubber, confectionery and saw-milling are important examples of trades of this sort. In such cases the Joint Committee of Industrial Women’s Organizations believed that “rather more is gained than the current wage for women. There is no reason whatever to suppose that the rates approximate to the rates of the men displaced.”[148] The factory inspectors in 1916 stated that in a few cases there were complaints of very low wages, and women replacing men in bottle works were said to be earning only 11s. ($2.64) a week.[149] On the other hand, an investigation of clerical workers’ war wages showed that many bookkeepers replacing men were receiving the same pay. The wages of stenographers increased perhaps 10s. ($2.40) a week during the war.[150]
As was the case before the war, wages in agriculture remained lower than in most industrial occupations, and, as has been indicated, probably checked the entrance of women into the occupation. In the early days of the war, many farmers asked for women at 15s. ($3.60) a week. At its organization early in 1917 the Land Army established a minimum rate of 18s. ($4.28), later raised to 20s. ($4.80). Through the Corn Production Act, which arranged for the establishment of a minimum wage for farm labor as a condition of guaranteeing grain prices to the farmers, the wages of farm labor were brought under legal regulation in the latter months of the war. On October 10 and 11, 1918, a rate of 5d. (10 cents) an hour or about 22s. 6d. ($5.40) a week was fixed for experienced adult women workers in England and Wales.[151] Six pence an hour was allowed in a few counties in the north of England in which higher rates prevailed. No special provision was made for cases in which the women took up work previously done by men, for whom the legal rates were 30s.-35s. ($7.20-$8.40) weekly. In the circumstances it is not surprising that the Board of Agriculture stated that “there is a certain danger in women’s work as a cheap form of labor.”
The smallest increases in wages occurred in the trades in which large numbers of women were employed prior to the war. In some cases, to be sure, as in power machine operating, steadier work and overtime made earnings considerably higher, and in a trade as far removed from the influence of munitions as cigar making estimated weekly earnings rose as high as 30s. to £3 ($7.20-$14.40) weekly during the war. But in most cases, actual changes in wage rates were small, and were generally in the form of a “war bonus” of a few shillings a week which obviously was not sufficient to cover the rise in prices. Wages for learners were said to have increased more than those for experienced workers. The necessity of a decided rise in wages to keep workers from transferring to men’s trades made itself felt but very slowly. Wages for dressmakers, milliners, pottery and laundry workers and kitchen hands in restaurants were less than 25s. ($6.00) a week at the end of the war, which meant less than 10s. ($2.40) at prewar standards.
But taking the average over the whole field of industry, women’s real wages probably increased somewhat during the war. The average weekly wage of women and girls in seventeen important nonmunitions trades, according to returns made by employers to the Department of Labour Statistics, was 12s. 8d. ($3.54) in May-August, 1915, and 23s. 6d. ($5.64), in May-August, 1918. Among this group of trades the highest weekly wage in May-August, 1918, was 25s. 8d. ($6.16) in ready-made tailoring, and the lowest 16s. 10d. ($4.04) in glass manufacturing.[152] “They were nearer 35s. than 30s. weekly toward the end of the war,” says the British War Cabinet report. This amount, roughly equivalent to over 15s. before the war, contrasts favorably with the estimate of less than 11s. a week as the average wage of working women in 1912. Nor were real wages reduced through unemployment through the war period. Another evidence of a relative gain is the rise in women’s wages from “somewhat less than half men’s in 1914 to rather more than two-thirds” in 1918.[153] The change is ascribed to government intervention, and it is noticeable, indeed, that with wages in munitions work, government work, agriculture and a number of sweated trades all regulated by law, not far from two million women workers had their pay fixed by this method. Such an improvement does not, of course, answer the question of whether or not the women replacing men received equivalent pay.
It will have been evident from the discussion of women’s wages during the war and of the “dilution” problem that “equal pay for equal work” was the chief bone of contention in the replacement of men workers by women substitutes. The question is not always entirely simple. In a large number of cases of substitution industrial methods were reorganized or the woman did not do precisely the same amount and variety of work that the man did. The goal desired by the advocates of “equal pay for equal work” would perhaps be more accurately expressed by the term “economic equality between men and women.” Realizing, in fact, that wherever changes were made on the introduction of women the equal pay basis was difficult to determine, its supporters during the latter part of the war abandoned the term and spoke instead of “pay by the occupation and not by the sex.” But whatever the phrase, the objects were the same, to prevent women from displacing men merely because they were cheaper and at the same time to insure women equal vocational opportunities with men.
Somewhat varied opinions were expressed as to the relative efficiency of men and women on the same kinds of work. The writers of the War Cabinet report on women in industry, a fairly conservative group, felt that the substitution of women in manual labor and out door occupations “was not, on the whole, a success.” They excepted, however, farm laborers and bus conductors, provided the women received sufficient wages to “keep them in the healthy condition required.” On skilled processes, even in April, 1919, it was not felt that there had been time for the women to gain the training and experience on which a sound judgment could be based. Substitution on routine and repetition processes was considered generally successful, women even excelling men in operations which required “refined and delicate manipulation” and being better able to endure monotony.
Three successive reports by the British Association for the Advancement of Science gave increasing recognition to the efficiency of the woman worker. In the first report published in August, 1915, the Association felt that on the whole adult women were less productive than men, except on routine, monotonous work, though young girls were generally considered more helpful than boys of the same ages.
In April, 1916, in its second report, the British Association was not so certain of the lesser capability of women workers. It quoted one railway official to the effect that women car cleaners could not get through as much work as men, but other railway officials believed that “what women lacked in quantity of work they made up in quality.” They could do a surprising amount also “if they had sufficient wages to feed and clothe themselves properly.”[154] Women shop assistants were found as satisfactory as men on all work within their strength. But it was believed that the managerial positions in stores would continue to be reserved for men, who were more likely to be permanent. The statement in the third report of the British Association is that “generally, employers who have had experience speak very favourably of the work which the women are accomplishing. Where labour difficulties have in times past been acute, they tend even to be extravagant in their praise of women.”[155]
The factory inspectors held a favorable view of the efficiency of the women substitutes. In their 1916 report they stated that, where women were found unsatisfactory, it was generally the case that wages were too low to attract competent workers. In reviewing at the close of the war the substitution of women in nonmunition factories, they felt that the women were successful even in heavy out door work provided they were carefully chosen and good working conditions were arranged.
A large steel manufacturer, Lord Airedale of Gledhow, gave interesting testimony as to the efficiency of women. He said: