To a far greater extent than in the United States, England, while the war was still in progress, looked ahead to the problems which would inevitably arise when the country shifted back to a peace basis.

As early as the summer of 1916 discussion of methods of adjustment from war to peace had begun. A “Ministry of Reconstruction” was created in August, 1917, succeeding a “Reconstruction Committee of the Cabinet,” which had been appointed over a year earlier. It is noteworthy that as time went on “the idea of reconstruction, of a simple return to prewar conditions, was gradually supplanted by the larger and worthier ideal of a better world after the war.”[267] The aim of the reconstruction movement came to be not simply to tide over the transition from war to peace but also to remedy the prewar evils which war experience had disclosed.

Many conferences discussed “reconstruction,” and a multitude of books and pamphlets kept the printing presses busy. The point of view of labor was put forward in that remarkable document, “Labour and the New Social Order,” later adopted as the platform of the reorganized Labor party. A “Joint Committee on Labour Problems after the War” representing the most important labor bodies also put out a number of pamphlets on special subjects. The Ministry of Reconstruction through numerous subcommittees dealt with a wide variety of concrete problems, such as shipping, finance, the allocation of raw materials, rural development, military demobilization, health, housing and education. The “Civil War Workers Committee,” the “Committee on Joint Standing Industrial Councils,” and the “Women’s Advisory Committee on the Domestic Service Problem,” were among those dealing with questions affecting the woman worker. But when the armistice came many plans were not complete, and in only a few cases had the machinery for putting them into effect actually been created. So in spite of the really remarkable extent of their attention to after war conditions the English had after all to trust in large part to hastily improvised schemes or to chance.

There were three principal problems affecting the woman worker which pressed for attention during the reconstruction period. First, the prevention of unemployment as the flood of war orders subsided was alone sufficient to tax the resources of the best statesmanship.[268] Second, there was the question of industrial opportunities for the “dilutees,” who had taken up work formerly reserved for skilled men under government pledges or unofficial agreements that pre-existing conditions would be restored at the end of the war. Third, equality of payment where men and women were doing similar work had become a burning issue, responsible for no small share of the labor unrest prevalent during the latter part of the war.

While unemployment prevention, though no small problem, was merely a matter of industrial readjustment temporary in nature, action on the other two questions promised to lead to an extensive reconstruction of prewar conditions. In whatever was done it was necessary to take into account the fact that the labor movement was larger and more militant than before the war, with a definite program which would not be satisfied even with the best of working conditions, but which demanded a voice in the shaping of the whole conduct of industry.

Postwar Unemployment among Women

It was generally anticipated that an unemployment crisis would follow the cessation of war activities, in which, as at the beginning of the struggle, women workers would suffer more than men, since so large a proportion of them were working in war industries, taking the places of men only for the duration of the war. Among munition workers in the engineering trade “the great majority of male workers will probably continue,” said the Civil War Workers Committee, “but there can be little doubt that large numbers of women workers will be definitely discharged.”[269] It estimated that 420,000 women munition workers would lose their jobs at the end of the war. Public attention was forcibly called to the danger by the sudden discharge of several thousand women munition makers in the spring of 1917, on account of a change in the kind of munitions needed. The women were suddenly dismissed without the slightest provision for finding them new positions—“turned off,” said one writer, “with as little ceremony as one turns off the gas.” Although many women were then needed in other branches of munition work there was, for a time, much confusion and distress.

The official agency charged with developing a plan for the prevention of unemployment among war workers was the “Civil War Workers Committee” appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction. The committee was authorized to “consider and report upon the arrangements which should be made for the demobilization of workers engaged during the war in national factories, controlled establishments, in other firms engaged in the production of munitions of war and on government contracts, or in firms where substitute labour has been employed for the duration of the war,” and its six reports outline such plans in considerable detail. Most of the recommendations applied to men and women alike. They included the aid of the government principally through its employment exchanges, in helping discharged war workers find other employment, two weeks’ notice or two weeks’ wages to all employes on government contracts, free railroad passes to those who had left home to work on munitions and encouragement to private employers, the government and foreign customers to place postwar orders before the end of the conflict. As soon as there was “a reasonable prospect of peace” the employment exchanges should canvass employers for peace time openings and register available employes. On the ground that it was impracticable to distinguish between war workers and others and impossible to select with assurance the trades most liable to unemployment during the reconstruction period the committee advised a general extension of the existing plan of unemployment insurance. On a scheme which had received considerable comment in certain quarters, that of granting every munition worker a month’s vacation with pay, the committee reported adversely by a vote of twelve to seven.

In reviewing the probable position of women workers after the war, the committee noted that outside the metal and chemical industries, the bulk were in commercial and clerical occupations. It recommended the establishment of still another committee to “consider the conditions of women’s employment” in these lines. A fairly comprehensive program for the “demobilization” of temporary clerks in government departments was laid out. A special employment exchange working with the Civil Service Commission, the arrangement of training courses, special consideration to the temporary clerks in making new appointments and determination of the future position of women in government employment were urged. But in behalf of clerical workers in private employment the only recommendation was the provision, when necessary, of advisory committees in connection with the employment exchanges. Women farm workers were not believed to need help in adjusting themselves and on the railways the future position of the women could be settled only by agreement between the companies and the unions.

Despite the protests of the workers and the efforts of official committees, anticipations as to widespread unemployment were all too accurately fulfilled. In the month before the armistice, October, 1918, the official Labour Gazette reported the state of employment as “very good. Much overtime was worked in nearly all the principal trades.” But by December there was “a marked decline in employment, especially for women.” In the first week of the new year, nearly 225,000 women were receiving the weekly “donations” for unemployed war workers,[270] in contrast to 101,000 men. Four months later, in May, of the 63,930 persons receiving reduced donations after having been paid for thirteen weeks, nearly two-thirds were women. The number of civilians in receipt of “donations” rose each week until the first week in March, when it reached a total of 494,000 women and 234,000 men. From that time on the number of unemployed war workers gradually decreased, until on November 21, three days prior to discontinuance, there were only 34,271 female applicants for out-of-work donations.[271] Yet on the whole, even though there was for a few months an alarming amount of unemployment among women workers, officials held that British industry adjusted itself to peace more quickly than it had to war. A long list of factories which had changed from war to peace products, for instance from airplanes to furniture and from fuses to electric equipment, was given as early as February. Government control of raw materials was used to aid the transition, and priority was given to certain essentials in using the productive capacity set free from war work.

The independence among women workers which had developed during the war was reflected in their attitude during the period of great unemployment. In the similar crisis at the beginning of the war they had been inarticulate. But on February 15, 1919, their organizations arranged a meeting in Albert Hall, London, attended by women representing nearly every trade, at which women speakers dwelt on the folly of unemployment while the country was in need of all kinds of manufactured articles. Resolutions were passed giving the three points of the “Women’s Charter”—“the right to work, the right to live and the right to leisure.” It was held that all workers by hand or brain should unite, and that work should be provided for the unemployed. An adequate living wage, an eight hour day and a forty hour week were advocated as standards for working conditions. A deputation was organized to take the resolutions to the Prime Minister, but apparently he did not reply to them.[272]

The measures actually adopted by the government show many traces of the Civil War Workers Committee recommendations, though, hastily put in force as they were, they were much less complete, and in some cases widely different. The arrangements made but little distinction between men and women workers. The whole process of “demobilizing” war workers was put in charge of a “controller general” responsible to the Ministry of Labor, who controlled the employment exchanges, a new “Appointments Branch” for “men of office rank” and the labor departments of the Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty and the War Office. The employment exchanges were made the center for the transfer of war workers. By the day after the armistice the recall of employment exchange officials from the army had been arranged. Staff and premises were enlarged and additional local advisory committees formed. Various efforts were made to provide raw materials and to hasten the change to peace time work by munition manufacturers. Instructions to manufacturers asked them to avoid an immediate general discharge of workers, to abolish all overtime and piece work at once, and to retain as many workers as possible on short time. If wages under this plan fell below certain levels, which were for women 25s. ($6.00) a week, the government agreed to make up the difference. In case of actual discharge, a week’s notice or a week’s pay was to be given, and free railway passes home or to new work places were provided. “The loyal and cordial cooperation of all employers” in carrying out the directions was invited, but nothing is at hand to show to what extent they were observed or how far they lessened unemployment. It will be noted that men and women workers were treated practically alike under this scheme. The “Waacs” and other women auxiliaries of the army and navy were demobilized under the same conditions as all members of the military forces, receiving, besides certain gratuities, a civilian outfit, four weeks’ pay and a railway pass.

Special provision for unemployed women through training courses was outlined in a pamphlet issued by the government in the spring of 1919.[273] It was stated that a large number of typical women’s trades, such as clothing, textiles, food manufacture and laundry work, would be covered by short training courses of from one to six months’ duration, usually three months. In addition a special course in housekeeping would be offered. The courses might be given in any suitable place, such as a factory, as well as in trade schools and the government instructional factories formerly used for training munition workers. Approved students were to receive 15s. to 25s. ($3.50-$6.00) a week while taking the course, with traveling fares if necessary, and an additional 10s. ($2.40) weekly if obliged to live away from home.

When the government adopted for immediate action the plans for relieving unemployment previously outlined it also put forward certain other schemes for decreasing unemployment during the later reconstruction period, which included the stimulation of orders and contracts, public and private, an increase in public works and improvements and the extension of contributory unemployment insurance to practically all workers.

The chief reliance of the government in dealing with unemployment after the armistice was not a contributory insurance plan, but a system of unemployment “donations.” Before the war contributory unemployment insurance, paying 7s. ($1.68) a week to unemployed workers for fifteen weeks a year from a fund created through small weekly contributions for employers, employes and the government, covered 2,200,000 workers in six trades, almost all of whom were males. In 1916 the law was extended for a period of from three to five years after the end of the war to include most of the chief war industries with an additional 1,500,000 employes, including many women. But by an emergency order made within a few weeks after the armistice, the contributory insurance law was temporarily superseded by a scheme of “donations” applying also to all war workers not previously covered and all ex-soldiers and sailors. Free policies were issued, at first good in the case of civilians for six months beginning November 25, 1918, and in the case of soldiers, for twelve months from the date of demobilization. The policies provided their holders with donations while unemployed for thirteen weeks if civilians and twenty-six weeks if soldiers. The original scale was 20s. ($4.80) weekly for women workers, which was raised after a few weeks to 25s. ($6.00). Additional payments were made for dependent children, amounting to 6s. ($1.44) weekly for the first and 3s. (72 cents) for each succeeding child. A later amendment permitted payments to civilians for an additional thirteen weeks at a reduced rate, which was, for women, 15s. ($3.60) weekly. Later, in May, 1919, when according to the terms of the original order all donation policies held by civilians would have expired, they were renewed for an additional six months. Except for ex-service men and women, the system was finally discontinued on November 25, 1919. At this date 137,000 civilians were receiving donations, of whom 29,000 were females. All donations were paid through the employment exchanges and could be stopped if the recipients refused “to accept suitable employment.”

Undoubtedly the system of unemployment donations prevented much suffering among thousands of wage earners to whom the country was indebted for their war work. But as a whole its operation can not be said to have been satisfactory, particularly among women employes. An entire session of the House of Commons was devoted mainly to criticisms of the system and its defence by the Minister of Labor. Complaints of “slackers” who were taking a vacation at the taxpayers’ expense were met by charges that women were being forced to take places at sweated wages by refusals to pay the unemployment donations. In the five months ending April 25, 1919, claims for donations numbering 141,770 were disallowed, in 100,442 of which cases appeals to the referees were made. Only 27,536 of the appealed claims were finally allowed, 81 per cent of the women’s claims being denied, about half of them on the ground of “refusal to accept suitable employment.”[274]

The Ministry of Labor, which administered the unemployment donations, admitted that an unsatisfied demand for women workers existed in domestic service, laundries, the needle work trades and in some districts in the textile industry at the same time that half a million women were out of work. But the places open were either very highly skilled or grossly underpaid and unattractive. For one firm which needed 5,000 workers, the employment exchanges could find only fifty women who seemed qualified, of whom the firm hired only fifteen.

The association of laundrymen even appealed to the government to bring pressure to bear on the women to accept work, but apparently no action was taken in answer to the demand. The women workers themselves said that when the government had raised the rate of unemployment donations from 20s. to 25s. weekly on the ground that a single woman could not live on less, they could not be expected to enter laundries at 18s. ($4.32) a week.

Other less prominent difficulties of adjustment were the reluctance of soldiers’ wives to enter new kinds of work when they would retire from industry in a few months, and the unwillingness of women in general to go from the comparatively high wages of munitions to the low wages of learners and to factories lacking the conveniences of the new munitions plants.

Criticism of the system was so widespread that an official investigating committee was formed which issued two reports.[275] The committee concluded that there had been no widespread fraud, though under the plan as first put in operation it was possible legally for persons who were not genuinely seeking work to abuse the scheme. The committee felt, however, that the emergency had been great and that if the later safeguards had been introduced in the beginning the whole system might have broken down. They recommended, among other points, swifter prosecution of fraud, a contributory rather than a noncontributory plan, and discontinuance of allowances based on the number of dependents. They felt that applicants must not expect exactly the same sort of work or wage rates that they had had during the war, and that donations should be stopped if similar work was refused.

The Domestic Service Problem

Some of the main difficulties and the keenest discussion centered on the question of domestic service. That the Ministry of Reconstruction found it advisable to appoint a “Women’s Advisory Committee on the Domestic Service Problem,” which made a formal report, indicates the extent of agitation on the subject. It will be recalled that during the war the number of household servants decreased by 400,000. Householders seemingly expected that as soon as the war was over this shortage would be made up from the ranks of ex-munition workers. But this failed to occur. Some dissatisfaction with the wages offered, most frequently 10s. to 13s. ($2.40 to $3.12 a week, with board) was expressed, but the chief complaint was that of long hours and unsatisfactory personal treatment.

Various schemes for attracting workers by improving conditions were put forward, some of which involved radical changes from the usual customs. The majority of the official Women’s Advisory Committee, however, placed its chief emphasis in solving the problem merely on the provision of improved methods of training, notably a two year course to be entered by girls of fourteen. Other groups, such as the Fabian Women’s Group and the Women’s Industrial Council, advocated plans which in essence abolished all “living in,” and provided for hostels giving training which would send qualified workers into the homes for a fixed number of hours. By May the Young Women’s Christian Association was ready to open a hostel in London from which workers were to be sent out on an eight hour basis. Employers were to pay 10d. (20 cents) an hour to the hostel, and the workers were to receive 30s. ($7.20) for a forty-eight hour week, and to pay the hostel £1 ($4.80) weekly for board, for a guarantee against unemployment, for use of uniform and club privileges. If the hostel was successful, others were to be started.[276]

Meanwhile an active movement for union organization among domestic servants was begun, and forty branches having 4,000 members were formed in the four or five months after the armistice. The chief aim of the union was said to be the raising of the status of domestic service so that the workers would be proud of it. Its standards seemed to be comparatively modest—a minimum weekly wage of 12s. 6d. ($2.40) for general servants and 15s. ($3.60) for cooks, a ten hour work day during a fourteen hour period, part of Sunday and another half day off weekly and abolition of uniforms. This last demand perhaps represented the sharpest departure from prevailing customs. In Glasgow a “Mistresses’ League” was formed to cooperate with the union, and it was the general opinion of persons interested that both sides needed organizing.

Still “a house is not a factory,” and there were not wanting friends of the women worker to point out that domestic service must necessarily remain to some extent individual and unstandardized.

It is difficult to tell how far these new schemes will change the conditions of housekeeping and lessen unemployment by attracting women to domestic service. But the fact that they were put forward is an interesting sign of the extent of the movement for reconstructing the national life on better lines.

Dilution and Equal Pay

The other two chief problems of the women workers in the reconstruction period, that of the “dilutees,” who had taken up men’s work during the war, and that of “equal pay for equal work” and an adequate standard of wages for women workers generally, were closely related to each other. Much of the opposition of the men workers to the entrance of women into new occupations was based on the fact that women’s wage standards were lower than those of men. In most cases, it will be remembered, dilution had taken place under promises that it would last only during the war. Parliament, by the Munitions Act, had given the government’s pledge that departures from prewar practices should be merely temporary in the establishments covered.[278] Similar clauses, often even more explicit, were found in practically all the substitution agreements made by private employers with labor organizations.[279] Meanwhile the fixing of women’s wages by law had been widely extended, and, in the opinion of close students of labor problems, “a removal of the statutory regulations might well be followed by a serious and immediate fall in wages.”[280]

The government in several instances took action on matters connected with women’s wages and occupations after the war, but it is not too harsh to say that a disposition to tide over difficulties temporarily rather than to define any very clear line of policy was evident. Two laws were passed affecting the after war wages of women. The Trade Boards (minimum wage) Act was extended in 1918, before the close of the war, as a measure of preparedness for peace. “There is reason to fear that the after war dislocation of industry will make the problem of adequate wages for unskilled and unorganized workers, especially women, very acute,” said an official explanation of the changes in the act.[281] “Eight years’ satisfactory results of Trade Boards pointed to these as the best way of meeting the situation.” The new law provided that boards might be formed wherever wages were unduly low, instead of exceptionally low as in the original law. The general wage level for women workers was so low before the war that it had often been difficult to prove an “exceptional” condition. Provisions were also made to have minimum wage awards come into force more quickly. By the spring of 1919 new Trade Boards had been formed in eight industries.[282] They apparently fixed wages for women on the basis of the necessary cost of living for a single woman—28s. ($6.72) for a forty-eight hour week in laundries, for example.

But the Trade Boards covered only a fraction of the industries of the country, and further measures were considered necessary to prevent a dislocation of wages. Following the advice of a committee appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Bill was passed November 21, 1918. This act required employers to pay the “prescribed” or “substituted” rate which prevailed at the time of the armistice for a period of six months. In May, 1919, the provisions of the act were extended for another six months. Under this law an Interim Court of arbitration was set up which handled the arbitration of disputed wage cases. During the year of its existence it made 932 awards and advised on several others. On November 20, 1919, this Interim Court was displaced by the Industrial Courts Act, which in addition to its function of voluntary arbitration, extended certain parts of the Wages Temporary Regulation Act until September 30, 1920.[283] At the close of the war the greatest number of women were substituting for men on semi-skilled and repetition processes, and it was therefore semi-skilled men who were menaced most immediately by the danger of undercutting by the women. But in the rapid extension of specialized work during the war lay an evident threat to the position of the skilled worker. A right solution of the two questions, in which the interests of all the groups concerned would be safeguarded, would apparently involve a modification of prewar conditions, rather than a return to them.

Three points of view were evident in English opinion about women’s work and wages after the armistice. The first point of view was, briefly, that women workers would and should return to their prewar occupations. But little attention was given to the question of their wage level. Whether such a return was possible or just to the women themselves, or whether they might not be excluded for a time but remain potential competitors with low wage standards, thus bringing about the very danger they were trying to avoid—all this was seemingly not considered. Though relatively seldom expressed in print it was a viewpoint held widely and tenaciously. Government officials, visiting America in November, 1917, for instance, said that marriage, the return of married women to their homes and the revival of the luxury trades and domestic service, would relieve the situation. Many old line trade unionists also believed that women should not be allowed to remain in most of their new lines of work, and demanded the literal fulfilment of all pledges to that effect. The general secretary of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, at a conference of “Working Class Associations” said as to the basis of suitable occupations:

My own view, for what it is worth, is that this problem could be solved with very little trouble. I think a careful study of the census returns for the last thirty years would help to solve the problem of the basis of suitability. We could safely conclude that the occupations which, according to the census, show a steady and persistent increase in the number of women employed are suitable occupations for the extension of women’s labour. I think we must face it ... that, as far as we can see at present, the prewar standard for fixing wages as between men and women is likely to remain.

A second point of view, which might be termed the “moderate” one, compromising between prewar and war conditions, advocated the retention of women in all “suitable” occupations, together with an extension of protective labor legislation, protection of the wage level by minimum wage fixing, and “equal pay for equal work” where men and women remained in the same occupations. This opinion was evident in the two chief official reports on women’s work which have been issued since the armistice, that of the Home Office on “Substitution of Women in Nonmunition Factories during the War” and that of the “War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.” The former described a fairly large range of new employments as “suitable” for women, including positions in scientific laboratory work, supervision and management, as well as factory processes. Even with all unsuitable occupations set aside, there remained “a body of industries and operations offering a hopeful field of fresh employment to women, where their war experience can be turned to account, and should prove a national asset of great value.” Among the approved trades were light leather tanning, fancy leather manufacture, box and packing case making, furniture, scientific instrument making, flint glass cutting and engraving, and cutlery, except scissors manufacture. The factors causing an occupation to be disapproved were the heaviness of the work, the use of dangerous machinery or poisonous substances, the presence of exceptional heat, wet or dirt and the necessity for night work or solitary employment.[284] Basing its conclusions on considerations of “efficiency” and relative output, the War Cabinet Committee decided that women would probably not remain in heavy manual labor and out door work. There had not been time during the war to judge of their effectiveness in skilled work, but in routine and repetition processes, into which the war had hastened their “normal” movement, they had been successful and were likely to stay permanently. Repetition work in the metal trades, light work in chemical plants, certain processes in printing, woodworking and manufacture, agriculture, commerce and government positions, and many of the new administrative and professional openings for educated women, were mentioned by the War Cabinet Committee as providing possibilities for the continued work of women.[285] But both reports recognized that many other factors besides suitability, notably the attitude of the trade unions, would play an important part in determining the position of the woman worker.

The chief purpose of the investigations of the War Cabinet Committee was to decide on the proper relation between the wages of men and of women. The majority of the committee concluded that when men and women did radically different work, it was “not possible to lay down a relation between their wages.” However, for the protection of women workers they urged a universal minimum wage for adult women, sufficient to cover the necessary cost of living for a single woman. The extension and strengthening of protective labor laws was also endorsed, and the possibility of such regulation through international action was welcomed. But when the two sexes had entered the same occupations, the committee subscribed to the principle of equal pay for equal work, “in the sense that pay should be in proportion to efficient output.” The committee believed that piece rates should be equal and time rates should be fixed by trade union negotiation. In the frequent case in which a woman was doing part of a man’s job, the total rate should be unchanged, and the different workers should be paid in proportion to the value of their contribution. Where processes were simplified on the introduction of women, the women should be paid the unskilled men’s rate, unless it could be proved that their work was of less value.

The third position regarding women’s wages and women on men’s jobs was clear cut and uncompromising and was perhaps typified in a minority report to the War Cabinet Committee by Mrs. Sidney Webb. In this report Mrs. Webb expressed the belief that existing relations between men’s and women’s employment were harmful to individuals and to the nation. All occupations should be opened to qualified persons regardless of sex, at the same standard rates and under the same working conditions. “Equal pay for equal work” was an ambiguous and easily evaded phrase. A national legal minimum wage should also be fixed, in which “there should be no sex inequality.” As a corollary to the proposals Mrs. Webb believed that some form of public provision for the needs of maternity and childhood should be established. “There seems no alternative—assuming that the nation wants children—to some form of state provision, entirely apart from wages.”[286]

Eighteen months after the signing of the armistice it was still hardly possible to know definitely what the after war wages and occupations of the woman worker would be. After war industrial conditions in themselves naturally stimulated some return of women to their former occupations. Many of the women substitutes were found in munition making which was immediately curtailed, while the luxury, the needle and other “women’s” trades, depressed during the war may be expected to revive in time. The reluctance of women to enter these trades under the prevailing wage standards was very pronounced, however. Another important factor in forcing women back to prewar lines of work was the carrying out of certain war time substitution agreements. For example, the newly formed industrial council of the wool textile industry, representing employers and employes, adopted on February 3, 1919, the substitution agreement made between employers and work people of the West Riding of Yorkshire three years before. By the terms of this agreement, the returning soldiers were to get their places back when fit for employment. Women were not to be employed on men’s work if men were available and were to be the first discharged if there was a shortage of work. As long as women substitutes remained in the industry they were to be paid on a basis equivalent to that of men workers.

But in other cases, even though similar agreements exist, it appears probable that they will be modified to allow women to keep at least some of their new jobs. Although the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had the legal sanction of the Munitions Acts for excluding women from engineering at the end of the war, at a conference between employers and the union for drafting an after war trade agreement their president expressed his willingness to allow women to remain in semi-skilled repetition work. According to this official much of this kind of work would be carried on in munition plants converted into factories for the manufacture of articles formerly imported. Officials expect the so-called “Whitley” industrial councils of employers and employes to make many similar adjustments, but it has been noted that the council in the woolen industry merely reverted to prewar conditions and arranged to shut out the women. Moreover, in many new occupations, notably clerical and commercial work, which women entered without conditions, and where their efficiency has been demonstrated, it seems almost certain that they will remain. The awakened spirit among women workers and the growth of labor organizations among them, which will give voice to their demands, must also not be forgotten in judging whether women will not continue to occupy at least a part of their new field of work. The radical point of view, that there should be no barriers against their continuing all their new occupations has attracted much attention from its logical presentation and the new note that it strikes.

The position of the government on “dilution” is not wholly clear. During the Parliamentary campaign of December, 1918, Lloyd George, in answer to questions from Lady Rhondda of the Women’s Industrial League, stated that he intended to carry out the terms of the Treasury Agreement of 1915, which promised to restore prewar practices. But “the government had never agreed that new industries come under the Treasury Agreement.” Women could find employment in these, which were already extensive, and in their prewar occupations. The Prime Minister also stated that he was “a supporter of the principle of equal pay for equal output. To permit women to be the catspaw for reducing the level of wages is unthinkable.” In his stand at this time, Lloyd George appeared to approach the middle-of-the-road compromising position of the majority of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.

A somewhat similar stand was taken in the “Restoration of Prewar Practices Act” of August 15, 1919, which arranged for the fulfilment of pledges made in the Treasury Agreement. It required the owners of the establishments covered—mainly those engaged in munitions work—to restore or permit the restoration of prewar trade rules and customs, and to allow such prewar practices to be continued for a year.

Rules laid down by the Ministry of Labour are quoted, however, which would turn out all the “dilutees,” both male and female, and give back to the skilled men their former monopoly. The rules state that wherever a part of the force must be discharged, the “dilutees” must go first and that if a skilled man applies for work, a “dilutee” must be discharged if necessary.[287] It is probable that these rules apply only to establishments covered by the Munition Acts, but, as far as they go, they leave the women nothing of their war time gains.

On the other hand, in assenting to the recommendations of the national Industrial Conference, the government agreed with those who argued for the same protective legislation for both sexes along with state maternity provisions. This national industrial conference, representing employers and employes was called in the spring of 1919 during great labor unrest. It urged legislation for a forty-eight hour week and a universal minimum wage for both sexes, and such bills were pending in Parliament in September, 1919.

The conference also proposed that public provision for maternity care be extended and centralized under the Ministry of Health to whose creation the government was pledged. Maternity protection will undoubtedly hold a prominent place in legislation during the next few years. The successful strike of the women bus workers for equal pay, supported as they were by their male coworkers and by the public, gave hope for the coming of industrial equality between men and women. Such equality immediately raises the question of pay for the services which married women render to the state. The rearing of healthy children is of vital national importance and the endowment of motherhood, provision of milk and proper food for pregnant and nursing mothers and the extension of maternity centers and hospitals with medical and nursing care, are already under consideration by the newly created Ministry of Health.

Child Workers After the War

On the needs of children there was much more general agreement. The most pressing problem was prevention of unemployment during the readjustment from war to peace time production. The larger issue lay in greater public control over the first years of working life, to the end that the young workers might grow into better citizens. Both problems were undoubtedly made more difficult by the harm done to boys and girls in body and character by the war. But at the same time the war had roused a greater appreciation of the value of these future citizens and a greater determination to improve their chances.

Alarming forecasts were made as to the probable extent of unemployment among boys and girls at the end of the war by a committee of enquiry appointed by the Ministry of Labour at the suggestion of the Ministry of Reconstruction.[288] A number of munition firms which were canvassed said that they intended to discharge nearly half their boys and three quarters of their girls when peace was declared. It was estimated that 60,000 out of the 200,000 working boys and girls in London would be thrown out of a job. Acute unemployment was predicted in occupations that had engaged more than three-tenths of all working girls—the metal, woodworking and chemical trades, government establishments, transport and perhaps commerce.

It was likewise anticipated that it would be particularly difficult for boys and girls dismissed at the end of the war to find new places. Not only would openings be few and the numbers of adults seeking work be large, but the high wages children had received for repetition work on munitions would make them unwilling to learn trades or to accept lower pay. When a number of boys were discharged from munition plants in 1916-1917, although labor at that time was very scarce, great difficulty was found in getting them new places because of their unwillingness to accept ordinary wages. To meet the crisis the Ministry of Reconstruction committee suggested a comprehensive program for unemployment prevention. The discharge of war workers should be regulated and placement centered in the employment exchanges, whose juvenile employment committees were to be strengthened. Government establishments should hold back dismissals until notified that places were open. A canvass for possible openings and for probable dismissals should be made in advance of the end of the war.

The second point in the committee’s plan was keeping newcomers out of industry. The exemptions allowing children under fourteen to leave school should be abolished, scholarships provided for many capable children at secondary schools, and the working weeks for all under eighteen reduced to forty-eight hours. For those still uncared for, training during unemployment should be provided. Training centers should be opened in all towns of over 20,000 population and allowances made to parents whose children attended. For the boys most demoralized by war work it might even be necessary to open residential training camps where they could remain at least six or eight weeks.

The third main point in the program was the improvement of working conditions, including for all occupations a week of forty-eight hours for work and continuation school together, the abolition of night work, and a searching physical examination before entering industry. A novel recommendation was that it should be made a legal offence to employ young persons under conditions “impeding their training.”

But as was the case with the women workers, the comprehensive plans worked out under the Ministry of Reconstruction had not been adopted when the armistice was signed, and juvenile workers were helped through the unemployment crisis only by the incomplete makeshifts hastily adopted in the first few days after November 11. Chief among these was the provision of unemployment donations, the payment of which was conditional on attendance at a training center wherever one was available. The donations were payable for the same period as those for adults, that is, for thirteen weeks during the first six months of peace, later extended for a second six months, but were less in amount, being 14s. 6d. ($5.48) weekly for boys and 12s. 6d. ($3.00) for girls. During the first few months of 1919, about 50,000 young persons received the donations.

The number receiving donations steadily declined until on November 21, 1919, when civilian donations ceased, there were 8,000 boys and 2,287 girls on the Labor Exchange donation lists.[289] By February of that year 116 training centers had been opened, providing nearly sufficient in London, and a smaller number elsewhere. More were opening daily, but it was hard to find teachers and rooms. The centers were managed by the Board of Education, in close cooperation with the employment exchanges. About 13,500 boys and girls were in attendance daily.[290]

The Fisher Education Law is, to date, the chief constructive measure looking toward a permanent improvement in the condition of juvenile workers. This measure was the result of proposals made by 1917 by an official committee on “Juvenile Education in Relation to Employment after the War,” which were strikingly like those put forward by a number of workers’ organizations. All exceptions allowing children to leave school before the age of fourteen were abolished. Any gainful employment by children under twelve was forbidden, and children between twelve and fourteen might work only on Saturdays and for a few hours after school. Attendance at continuation schools by all young workers was required, and the age limit will be eighteen years when the law goes into full effect. Eight hours a week and two hundred and eighty hours a year must be given to continuation school, the time for attendance being taken out of working hours. Unfortunately, those who in some ways most need the protection of the law, namely, the boys and girls who left school for work prematurely during the war, do not come under its provisions. Two special sections exempted those who had already left school from returning, and those fourteen years old or more when the law was passed, from attendance at continuation classes. Nevertheless by the enactment of this law the final effect of the war on English child labor standards should be to lift them to a higher level than ever before.

Even at this time of writing it is difficult to measure the final effects of the war upon the economic conditions of the women and children. Too many unfinished plans and unfulfilled pledges still remain for action by the government. Far reaching changes are, however, in prospect and some of them actually under way. Foremost among these is the aroused spirit among the workers, who are demanding and peacefully securing a real share in the management of industry. In this awakening the woman worker has fully participated. The disadvantages of war work, in long hours, overstrain, the disruption of home life, may pass as industrial conditions return to normal. The gains in the way of better working conditions, higher wages and a wider range of occupations seem likely to be more permanent. Most important of all is the fact that because of her broader and more confident outlook on life, the woman worker is able consciously to hold to the improved economic position to which the fortunes of war have brought her.