Under the conditions of modern warfare the industrial army in factory, field and mine is as essential to national success as the soldiers in the trenches. It is estimated that from three to five workers are necessary to keep a single soldier at the front completely equipped. Accordingly, it is not surprising that Great Britain during four years of warfare saw what was little short of an industrial revolution in order to keep up the supply of labor, to heighten the workers’ efficiency, and to secure their cooperation. No changes were more interesting and important than those which concerned working women and children.
Upon women and children fell much of the great burden of keeping trade and industry active and of supplying war demands when several millions of men were taken away for military service. “Without the work of the women the war could not have gone on,” said representatives of the British Ministry of Munitions while in New York in November, 1917. Before the increased demand was felt, however, the dislocation of industry during the first few months of war brought far more suffering to women workers than to men. In September, 1914, over 40 per cent of the women were out of work or on short time. The “luxury” trades, which employed a large proportion of women, were most severely affected, and the women could not relieve the situation by enlisting as the men did. The prewar level of employment was not reached until April, 1915. Between that date and July, 1918, the number of females gainfully occupied increased by 1,659,000 over the number at work in July, 1914.
It is more difficult to ascertain the exact increase in the number of working children and young persons under eighteen, but apparently more children left school for work directly at the end of the compulsory education period and more were illegally employed. Official reports show an increase from 1,936,000 in July, 1914, to 2,278,000 in January, 1918, or 17.6 per cent, in the number of boys and girls under eighteen who were gainfully employed. In addition, in August, 1917, Mr. Herbert Fisher, president of the Board of Education, admitted in the House of Commons that in the past three years some 600,000 children under fourteen had been “put prematurely to work” through the relaxation of child labor and compulsory school laws. But in October of the same year the Board of Trade stated that 90,000 boys had left school for work during the war. The earlier exemptions, statistics of which have been published, were almost entirely for agriculture, but judging from Mr. Fisher’s statement a considerable number of exemptions were made for mining and munitions work during the third year of the war.
One of the most notable effects of the war was the number of occupations which women entered for the first time, until, in the winter of 1916-17, it could be said that “there are practically no trades in which some process of substitution [of women for men] has not taken place.” According to official figures, 1,816,000 females were taking men’s places in April, 1918.
During the first year of the war, however, women took men’s places for the most part in transportation, in retail trade and in clerical work rather than in manufacturing. In factory work, while some women were found to be undertaking processes slightly above their former level of skill in establishments where they had long been employed, the most general change was a transfer from slack industries to fill the expanding demands of firms making war equipment. There women were employed in the same kinds of work they had carried on before the war. The rush into the munitions industry, where women engaged in both “men’s” and “women’s” work, was one of the most important features of the second year of war. While a few additional women had begun to be taken on very early in the war, the increases were not large until the autumn of 1915 and early winter of 1916. During 1915-1916 also a decline was first noticed in the number of women in domestic service, in the printing trades, and in such typical “women’s trades” as confectionery and laundry work.
In the third year of the war the substitution of women for men on a large scale was extended from munitions to numerous staple industries having a less direct connection with the war. In many cases, of course, the women did not do precisely the same work as their masculine predecessors. Especially in the engineering trades almost an industrial revolution occurred between 1914 and 1917. Skilled processes were subdivided, and automatic machinery was introduced, all the changes tending toward greater specialization and the elimination of the need of all round craft skill. Early in the war it was generally considered that women were not as efficient as men except on routine and repetition work. But as the women gained experience it was observed that more and more of them were undertaking the whole of a skilled man’s job, and the testimony as to relative efficiency, on work within a woman’s strength, became far more favorable. During the last year of the struggle, while a few new fields were invaded, the process of substitution had progressed nearly as far as possible, and the year witnessed mainly a settling down into the new lines of work previously entered.
Though the increase in women workers in agriculture was less marked than in industry, beginning with the summer of 1916, the numbers rose, being 113,000 in 1918, in contrast to 80,000 in 1914. The widening of professional opportunities and the opening of some executive positions in industry and commerce were other important features of the changes in women’s work.
Women even engaged in work ordinarily a part of soldiers’ duties. Besides thousands of military nurses, a special corps of women under semi-military discipline was recruited for work as clerks, cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs and mechanics behind the lines in France. These “Waacs,” as they were popularly called, numbered over 50,000 by the end of the war. The “Wrens” did similar shore duty for the Navy, and the “Wrafs,” woodcutting for the Board of Trade. The women were able to take up their new lines of work with surprisingly little formal training, the chief exceptions being short practical courses for farm workers and semi-skilled munition makers.
Changes in the work done by children were considerably different for girls and for boys. For girls the choice of occupations widened much as for adult women. But for boys, though a few received earlier promotion to skilled men’s work than would ordinarily have been the case, on the whole training for skilled trades declined. With the men drawn into the war and with the increasing cost of living, it was natural that an increase should take place in the number of child street traders, and in the number of children working outside school hours.
Under war conditions the wages of both women and children were raised, probably the largest gains being made by boy and girl munition makers. The smallest rise seems to have occurred in the unregulated, so-called “women’s trades,” like laundry work. The trade boards made a number of increases in the industries within their jurisdiction, but the changes were seldom proportionate to the increase in the cost of living. Instead, what it was believed the industry would be able to support after the war was usually the determining factor. The economic position of the women who took men’s places was undoubtedly improved, though, even taking into account differences in experience and efficiency and the numerous changes in industrial method, the plane of economic equality between the two sexes was rarely attained. The government had the power to fix women’s wages on munitions work and in so doing it seemed at first to go on record in favor of the equal pay principle. But, in practice, the principle was not applied to unskilled and semi-skilled time work and the women failed to receive the same cost of living bonuses as the men, though unquestionably the wages of women substitutes in munitions work was much higher than the prewar level of women’s wages. Where other industries were covered by trade union agreements, women in most instances received “equal pay,” but in the remaining cases of substitution, for instance in agriculture, though considerable increases were gained, the men’s rates were by no means reached.
It is of interest to learn how England secured women workers to meet the demands of war. For the most part they came from three different groups. First, workers changed from the low paid “women’s trades” and various slack lines of work to munitions and different kinds of “men’s work.” Second, the additional women workers were mainly the wives and other members of working men’s families, most of the married women having worked before marriage. Soldiers’ wives often found their separation allowances insufficient. In general both patriotic motives and the rising cost of living undoubtedly played a part in sending these women and many young boys and girls into industry. Finally, a comparatively small number of women of a higher social class entered clerical work, agriculture and the munitions factories, in many instances in response to patriotic appeals.
Many of the women and children were recruited through the activities of local representative “Women’s War Employment Committees” and “County Agricultural Committees,” formed by the government, and working in close cooperation with the national employment exchanges. A large number of women, about 5,000 a month in the winter of 1917, and even a good many young boys and girls were sent through the exchanges from their homes to work at a distance. According to representatives of the Ministry of Munitions, the securing of their well being outside the factory under such circumstances was the most serious problem connected with their increased employment. Efforts to provide housing, recreation and improved transit facilities were at first in the hands of the voluntary committees, but later it proved necessary for the Ministry to appoint “outside welfare officers” to supplement and coordinate this work. The “hostels” with their large dormitories and common sitting rooms which were frequently open in munition centers for the women proved unsatisfactory because of the rules required and the difficulties of maintaining necessary discipline. In many cases, also, they were unpopular with the women themselves. In an attempt to solve the housing problem, the government, in the summer of 1917, was forced to enact a measure making compulsory the “billeting” of munition makers with families living in the district, but this does not seem to have been put into actual practice.
Trade union restrictions on the kinds of work women were allowed to perform were set aside for the war period and “dilution” was made widely possible by the munitions acts, in the case of munitions of war, and by agreements between employers and employes in many staple industries. In all cases the agreements included clauses intended to safeguard the standard wage rate and to restore the men’s places and the trade union rules after the war. Even where the munitions acts gave the government power to force “dilution” it proceeded mainly through conferences and agreements.
Officials of the Ministry of Munitions claimed to believe that the substitution of women or any other important change intended to increase production could only proceed peacefully if labor’s consent and cooperation were secured. They believed also that provisions to safeguard labor standards are essential to gain such cooperation, and that anything in the nature of coercion or a “labor dictatorship” would necessarily fail to reach the desired aim of enlarged output.
Considerable irritation was aroused among the munition makers, both men and women, by the control exercised over them through certain features of the munitions acts. Strikes were forbidden and provision for compulsory arbitration was made. Special munitions tribunals were set up which might impose fines for breaches of workshop discipline. In order to stop the needless shifting from job to job which was hampering production, a system of “leaving certificates” was established. Workers who left their previous positions without such cards, which could be secured from employers or from the tribunals only under specified conditions, might not be employed elsewhere for six weeks. The clearance certificate system was obviously open to abuses, especially during the first few months of its operation, before a number of safeguards were introduced by the first munitions amendment act, in January, 1916. It created so much unrest among the workers, that it was abolished in October, 1917. The British Government’s experience with these features of the munitions acts which approach nearest to the conscription of labor illustrates the difficulties attendant upon such devices for obtaining maximum output without interruption.
The effect of the war on the working hours of English women and children centers in the changes made in the restrictive legislation in force at the outbreak of the war. This legislation forbade night and Sunday work, and hours in excess of ten and a half daily and sixty weekly in nontextile factories; and ten daily and fifty-five weekly in textile factories. But from the beginning of the war up to the latter part of 1915 hours were lengthened and night and Sunday work became frequent, both by means of special orders from the factory inspection department and also in defiance of the law. Two special governmental committees were finally created to deal with the unsatisfactory situation. The studies by one of them, the Health of Munition Workers Committee, on the unfavorable effects of long hours on output, were a determining factor in securing a virtual return to prewar standards of daily hours, and provided scientific arguments to strengthen the active postwar movement for a general eight hour day.
The introduction of women into factories and offices for the first time often led to the making of special provisions for their safety, health and comfort. In the interests of output, the Ministry of Munitions fostered such developments in the establishments under his control, encouraged the engagement of “welfare supervisors” for women, girls and boys and gave special attention to the well being of munition makers outside the factory. The Ministry allowed owners of controlled establishments to deduct the cost of special welfare provisions for women, such as wash rooms and rest rooms, from what would otherwise be taken by the excess profit tax. It provided housing accommodations on a large scale—for 60,000 workers, it is said, between July, 1915, and July, 1916, and subsidized similar projects by cities and private organizations. That the war brought increased recognition of the importance of measures for safety, health and comfort was evident from the passage of a law in August, 1916, empowering the Home Office as a permanent policy, to make special regulations for additional “welfare” provisions in factories.
It was hardly possible to judge the full effects of war work on women and children by the summer of 1919. Among women, while individual cases of overfatigue undoubtedly existed, signs of injury to health were not generally apparent. The effects when the excitement of war work is over and the strain relaxed were still to be reckoned with, however. Higher pay, which meant warmer clothing, sometimes better housing and especially better food, was believed to be an important factor in counteracting injury to health. It doubtless accounted for the improvement in health which was not infrequently noted in women entering munitions work from low paid trades and which is a sadly significant commentary on their former living conditions. Among boy munition makers the evidences of overwork and a decline in health were much more striking.
Particularly in the crowded munition centers, home life suffered on account of the war. Overcrowding, long hours spent in the factory and in traveling back and forth, an increase in the work of mothers with young families, the absence of husbands and fathers on military service, and the more frequent departure from home of young boys and girls for work at a distance, all contributed to the undermining of the home.
Yet even the additional responsibility placed on many women by the absence of their men folk seems to have been one of the stimulating influences which are said in three years of war to have “transformed” the personality of the average factory woman. As a class, they have grown more confident, more independent, more interested in impersonal issues. The more varied and responsible positions opened to women, the public’s appreciation of their services, their many contacts with the government on account of war legislation also helped to bring about the change, which promises to be one of the most significant of the war.
Among the younger workers, on the contrary, it was feared the relaxation of discipline, unusual wages, long hours of work, the frequent closing of schools and boys’ clubs and the general excitement of war time were producing a deterioration in character. “Had we set out with the deliberate intention of manufacturing juvenile delinquents, could we have done so in any more certain way?” said Mr. Cecil Leeson, secretary of the Howard Association of London. A marked increase in juvenile delinquency was noted, particularly among boys of eleven to thirteen, the ages for which school attendance laws have been relaxed and premature employment allowed.
With the coming of peace and the extensive readjustments in industry which necessarily followed, new problems confronted the woman worker. Chief among these were the danger of unemployment during the transition period, the question of what should be done with the “dilutees,” who had taken up work formerly reserved for skilled men, frequently under pledges that they should be displaced at the end of the war, and the burning issue of “equal pay for equal work” as between men and women. In Great Britain a remarkable amount of attention had been paid, while the war was still in progress, to preparation for the adjustment to peace as well as to the improvement of evils disclosed by war experience. In addition to much unofficial discussion and organization an official Ministry of Reconstruction had been formed, having numerous subcommittees. But the end of the war came sooner than had been expected when the government’s plans were still incomplete, so that the English had, after all, to trust largely to hastily improvised schemes or to chance to carry them through the transition.
As had been anticipated, for a time a large number of women were unemployed, the reported total rising as high as 494,000 in the first week of March, 1919, but gradually falling from that point to 29,000 in November. In place of the comprehensive program outlined by one of the committees of the Ministry of Reconstruction, the government’s main reliance in dealing with unemployment was a system of doles or “donations.” An unemployed woman worker might draw 25s. ($6.00)[5] weekly for thirteen weeks and then 15s. ($3.60) weekly for a like period. Many complaints were made about the administration of the donations, particularly in the case of women workers. On one hand it was alleged that the women were refusing to accept positions offered and “taking a vacation at the taxpayers’ expense.” On the other hand protests were made that unemployed women were forced by the denial of donations to take places at sweated wages, especially in laundry work and domestic service. The plan of unemployment donations, originally established for six months, was renewed for an additional six months in May, 1919, and finally ended for civilians in November.
Three distinct points of view were evident in regard to the closely allied problems of dilution and “equal pay for equal work.” Not a few persons held that women would and should return to their prewar occupations, in which they seldom did the same work as men. A large body of moderate opinion held that an entire return to prewar conditions was impossible. Women should be retained in all “suitable” employments, with due protection through labor laws and minimum wage fixing. Where men and women were employed in the same occupation, the equal pay standard should prevail. The more radical view was that all occupations should be open to both sexes at the same wage standard. As a corollary to this policy there was proposed the endowment of motherhood.
Even by the end of 1919 it was hardly possible to state definitely what the after war occupations and wages of the woman worker would be. But it appeared probable that she would continue in some, if not all, of her new occupations, and that her improved wage standards would be protected. After war industrial conditions in themselves naturally stimulated some return to prewar employment by reviving the luxury trades and curtailing munitions work. In certain cases, as in the woolen trade, agreements between employers and employes shut out the women. But in other important cases, as in engineering, it is probable that a compromise will be reached, permitting women to stay in at least the semi-skilled lines of work. Considerable protection has been given war time wage rates. The Minimum Wage (Trade Boards) Act has been widely extended. By two separate enactments, war time wage rates were continued until September 30, 1920, unless other agreements were reached or official awards put in force. Government proposals for eight hour day and minimum wage legislation for both sexes and for an extension of maternity care reflect the position of the feminist advocates of occupational equality between the sexes.
Undoubtedly the war, while it had a most unfortunate effect on many boy and girl workers, at the same time roused the nation to a far greater appreciation of their value as future citizens. There was general agreement on their needs during the reconstruction period. Action must be taken to modify the effects of any postwar unemployment, while as a permanent policy more attention must be paid to their welfare during the first years of working life. Unemployment donations, the payment of which was contingent on attendance at training centers, if available, was the method adopted to meet the unemployment crisis. The Fisher Education Act represents the government’s effort permanently to improve the condition of young workers. This law requires school attendance of every child under fourteen. Gainful employment outside school hours is absolutely forbidden, except a very limited amount by children between twelve and fourteen. Working boys and girls are required to go to continuation school eight hours a week until eighteen years of age when the law goes into full effect, and the time of attendance must be taken out of working hours. It is unfortunate that the children who in some ways most need the help of the act, namely those who went to work during the war, are expressly exempted from its provision. Nevertheless, by the enactment of this law, the final effect of the war on English child labor standards will apparently be to lift them to a higher plane than ever before.
Final judgment can hardly yet be passed on the effects of the war on the woman worker. Some far reaching changes are, however, already evident. While the disadvantages of war work, its long hours, overstrain and disruption of home life, seem likely to pass as conditions return to normal, the gains in the way of better working conditions, higher wages and a wider range of opportunities, seem more likely to be permanent. Many professional doors have for the first time been opened to her. Most important of all is the fact that because of her awakened spirit and broader and more confident outlook on life, the woman worker is able consciously to hold to the improved position to which the fortunes of war have brought her.