WOMEN-WORKERS. T HE air is full of talk about women-workers, and
on every side the question is being raised, "Ought the labour of women to be placed under special restrictions ? " —that is, ought trades and occupations to be forbidden to women which are not forbidden to men ? The problem, always a difficult and important one, has been made actual by the discussions that have taken place both inside and outside Parliament in connection with Mr. Asquith's new Factory Bill. Round this measure, now under considera- tion by a Grand Committee, is raging a heated contro- versy on female labour. Not only have the Liberal Unionist women protested against further special restric- tions upon women's labour, but at the sister-organisation of Gladstonian women, equally strong protests have been made against more State action. On the other hand, a section of the women of education who are interested in the question, represented by Mrs. Sidney Webb, declare that women need further protection from the law to prevent them entering into improvident bargains. "Women whose food and clothing and shelter were certain, could not understand," argued Mrs. Webb, "the position of a woman seeking work, with the only alterna- tive of starvation if she did not get it. How could she alone insist that her workshop should be in a fit sanitary condition, or that she should not be compelled to work sixteen or eighteen hours a day ? " The problem, as we have said, is a very difficult one. We shall not weary and perplex our readers by going into the minutim of the subject, or by dis- cussing the details of Mr. Asquith's new Factory Bill. Instead, we prefer to say something as to the principles which it appears to us ought to underlie any attempts to deal with the question. As a preliminary, however, we must be careful to explain that we do not in the least desire to attack the existing Factory Acts and the other statutes regulating female and child labour in factories and mines. We hold that those Acts have on the whole done a very great deal of good, and we would not repeal them if we could. In our opinion, however, new claims for regulating female labour must be argued and decided solely on their merits. It is no more conclusive to say that these Acts have been a success, than to argue that because two pills did the patient a great deal of good, ten pills will certainly cure him. It is just as likely that they will kill him. At the same time, we are of opinion that the State can and ought to interfere to prevent the employment of people under insanitary conditions. It is as bad economi- cally, as it is hygienically, and probably as it is morally, for people to work in evil-smelling dens, at a temperature of 80° Fahr. By all means give the sanitary authorities abun- dant power to say, "You shall not employ people unless you can give them a decent place to work in," for we entirely agree that a person, man or woman, anxious for wages with which to buy bread, cannot be expected to refuse a job because it is in an insanitary workshop. So powerfully do we feel this indeed, that, granted there was no other way, we would even do the very strong and arbitrary thing which Mr. Asquith proposes to do—that is, make the wholesale trader and capitalist responsible for the state of the premises on which his out-work was carried on. But clearly the enforcement of sanitation is just as necessary for men as for women. There is no valid argument for special restrictions against women working under insanitary conditions. As regards dangerous trades, a good deal can no doubt be said in the abstract in favour of forbidding them to women, and leaving them open to men. When, however, we come to look at the matter at close quarters, it will be seen that there is a very great danger in this policy of different treatment. At present there are about equal numbers of men and women at work in the United Kingdom. The men do not preponderate by more than about 10 per cent. The women-workers are, of course, scattered over a great many trades, but unfortunately the main fact in regard to these trades is that the women are underpaid. Now suppose Parliament closes two or three trades to women as dangerous, and in the case of others puts restrictions on of a kind which are likely to make the employer say, as he is very apt to say, There's too much bother about Inspectors and Acts of Parliament with female hands ; it'll be cheaper and less worry to engage only men. The result, then, of closing trades to women, or subjecting them to restrictions that do not apply to men, must be to drive a great many women out of trades in which they now find employitent. But these dispossessed women will starve if they can- not get other work. They then will have no option but to seek employment in the trades still open to them. The result will, of course, be a lowering of wages in the trade in which the influx takes place. But the wages of women are perilously low already, and no one who cares for their interests can wish to see them further depressed. Only in cases in which it can clearly be proved that a woman is likely to be gravely injured by a. particular trade and a man not, ought any difference to be made. Otherwise protection for women may mean grievous injury. Unless and until the State is prepared to pay all single women a living allowance, we do not see how it can resist the declaration that women have as good a right to work themselves to death as men have. But even if this is not admitted, and if we adopt the notion that the State must give special protection to women, it will be clearly necessary to take great care that restrictions whioh appear to be demanded in the interests of labour are not really made in the selfish interest of the men. Trade-Union opposition to female labour is a very real fact. Very naturally, organisa- tions whose business it is to keep up wages look with no friendly eye upon female labour. The woman-worker, with her low wages and her pliability to the demands of the employer, is looked upon by the Unions in many trades as a most dreaded competitor. Can it be wondered at that the leaders of opinion in the Unions are anxious to limit the area of competition ? A man would not be human if he did not find that his trade—if threatened by female competition— was one entirely unfitted for women. From that discovery to the demand that Parliament should forbid the employment of women in the threatened industry, is not a very long step. The fact is, men are not as a rule to be trusted to restrict the work of women. If they once begin, they are only too likely to end in selfish tyranny. That we are not exaggerating may, we believe, be shown from the rules of those Unions which are affected by female labour. Unless we are misinformed, women in the tailoring trade are as far as possible restricted to certain forms of work, arbitrarily specified by the Union rules. The Unions have, of course, a legal right to make what rules they like in restraint of female labour, for their rules are not binding except on those who are willing to be bound. The existence of these rules shows, however, the great danger that exists of selfish restrictions being carried out in the name of philanthropy.
But though we are anxious not to put special legal restrictions on women's work, we by no means approve of women working at all trades. There are many which are eminently unsuited to them. It is to be hoped, however, that in these cases public opinion and the general im- provement in the condition of the country will provide a remedy. It is doing so in the case of the industry which of all others is unsuitable to women,—that is, field-labour. Not only do the Census returns show a large-falling off in the number of women employed in agriculture. Experience and observation strongly confirm the fact. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, it was by no means uncommon to see women performing the harder work of agriculture, just as in France or Germany. Now it is the rarest possible sight to see a woman so engaged. But this most desirable change has been brought about not by legislation, but by natural causes. Note, too, that there has been no demand for legal restriction,—a fact which is perhaps not un- connected with the circumstance that the agricultural labourers are not an organised trade. But if this could happen in agriculture, why not in other trades ? Per- sonally, we should like to see women relieved of all hard work. But if that is done, all the single women and widows must be supported directly by the State. And under existing conditions this is impossible. The work done by women is absolutely necessary. Without it the economic machine would collapse. Since then millions of women must work, must, that is, submit themselves to the struggle of competition, we would do nothing to handicap them or to place them at a disadvantage compared with men. We would make, as far as possible, a rigid rule of equality of treatment. We would agree to, nay insist upon, sanitary restrictions in the widest sense, but we would make them apply both to men and women. Only by adopting this principle can we feel sure that we shall escape the danger of Trade-Union tyranny. The present Factory Acts go quite far enough in the way of special restrictions on women. Let us in the future be careful not to deviate from the line of equal treatment.
Previous page
