HOME INDUSTRIES.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."' Sin,—In your sympathetic reference in the Spectator of November 27th to the injurious effects of fur-pulling on the workers, there is one error which I should like to point out. I am incorrectly reported as having said that "the children of the home workers do their share of the pulling." This is not the case. The only redeeming feature of this industry is that children do not appear to be employed in it. The allu- sion was to other home industries in which the extravagant expenditure of childish strength is handing down a terrible national inheritance of feebleness and inefficiency. Your article says farther that "the woman who works at an un- healthy trade injures herself, or at most her children ; " whereas one of the main arguments in favour of the regula- tion of home work is that work done under insanitary con- ditions is a danger to the community. Of this the fur-puller's fluff, swept out of every hole and corner of filthy rooms, to be afterwards sold for cheap bedding, is only one example. The effect of such resolutions as were passed at the Conference of November 23rd would be, not loss of employment to the home worker—since the same demand for felt hats and electric sealskin would exist—but the gradual conversion of home work into work done in factories, enlarged to accommodate the increased number of ;workers, a change which would, I venture to think, be of equal benefit to the public and to the workers.—I am, Sir, &c., 60 Bedford Gardens, Kensington, W EDITH F. Hock&
Previous page
