5.Fire Escapes.
Miss Tracey.—In one factory I visited to see an escape recently put up at the instance of the local authority, and I found quite a good iron staircase and platform. This was reached by a window which had been made to open in such a way that it completely blocked the staircase and gave but a tiny space even on the platform, and the aid of the local officer was again invoked. Miss Stevenson reports that in the newer cotton mills a proper outside iron staircase with a handrail is to be found, but the construction of the older fire escapes shows a great lack of common sense. In the first place, the narrow, almost perpendicular ladder without a handrail is peculiarly unsuited for the use of women. The openings from the platform to the ladders are exceedingly small, and the exit window is generally 3 to 4 feet above the floor level, no steps or footholds being provided. To increase the difficulty the exit window is sometimes made to swing out across the platform, cutting off access to the downward ladder. In two cases the ladder, and in one case a horizontal iron pipe also, ran right across the window, rendering egress impossible except to theslender. In both cases the next window was free from obstruction.
Miss Taylor.—Sometimes as many as 100 persons are employed on each floor of a high building, so that if the outside staircase had to be used those in the upper floors would, as they descended, meet the occupants of the lower floors crowding on to the landings. I have never been to a factory where they had such a fire drill as might obviate the possibility of overcrowding on these escapes. The women flatly, and I think, rightly, decline to attempt the descent, on the plea that they do not wish to incur the danger of it until it is absolutely necessary. I have sometimes been told by the managers of the factories that they themselves would never reach the bottom safely if they attempted to go down. Such escapes are to be found on quite 50 per cent of the cotton mills in Lancashire, and as they were put up on the authority of the sanitary authority it is difficult to get rid of them, but one cannot help thinking that there may be very serious loss of life if the circumstances of a fire should be such that the workers were obliged to resort to these outside escapes.
6.Lead Poisoning.
Miss Tracey.—I spent many days in visiting the cases which had been certified, and in visiting other cases of illness which were not directly certified, as due to lead. I visited these workers at their homes and found them in different stages of illness and convalescence. Their pluck will always remain fixed in my mind; although many of them were unable to put into words the sufferings they had gone through, yet not one of them but was eagerly wishing to be well enough to go back to work. When, as is so common now, women are accused of malingering, I often wish that complainants would accompany me on my investigation of cases of accident or poisoning at the workers’ homes, for I know that, like me, these people would return in a humbled frame of mind, recognising courage andendurance under circumstances which would break many of us. Without these home visits it would have been impossible to gauge the extent and severity of the outbreak of illness.
7.Hours of Work and Overtime.
Miss Tracey.—Often we receive complaint of the burden of the long twelve hours’ day, and the strain it is to start work at 6A.M.A well-known man in a Lancashire town was telling me only the other day about how he would wake in the morning to the clatter of the girls’ and women’s clogs as they went past his house at half-past five in the dark on their way to the mills. He had exceptional opportunity of judging of the effect of the long day’s work, and he told me how bonny children known to him lost their colour and their youthful energy in the hard drudgery of this daily toil. How the girls would fall asleep at their work, and how they grew worn and old before their time. We see it for ourselves, and the women tell us about it. Sometimes one feels that one dare not contemplate too closely the life of our working women, it is such a grave reproach. I went to a woman’s house to investigate what appeared a simple, almost commonplace, accident. She was a middle-aged, single woman, living alone. Six weeks before my visit she had fainted at her work, and in falling (she was a hand gas ironer) she had pulled the iron on her hand, that and the metal tube had severely burnt both arm and hand. She was quite incapacitated. She told me she left home at 5.15, walked 2½ miles to the factory, stood the whole day at her work, and at 6, sometimes later, started to walk home again, and then had to prepare her meal, mend and do her housework. This case is only typical of thousands of women workers. She got her 7s. 6d. insurance money, and that was all. She made no effort to enlist my sympathy, but just stated the facts quite simply. Her case is not so bad as many, for in addition to their own needs, a married woman or a widow with children has also to see to the needs of the family, meals, washing and mending, and the hundred and one other duties that are required to keep a home going.
In Scotland Miss Vines says that the largest proportion of complaints relates to excessive hours of employment, while on investigation they are found sometimes to be within the legal limits, and “there is no doubt that the working of the full permissible period of employment does sometimes entail an intolerable strain on the workers.”
Miss Meiklejohn.—There has again been in West London a marked decrease in the overtime reported this year. The opinion seems to be that systematic overtime in the season does not really help forward the work, and that the extension should be used, as was intended, in an emergency only. There is a tendency to shorten the ordinary working hours, as well as to work as little overtime as possible.
8.Employment of Women before and after Childbirth.
There can be little doubt that provision of maternity benefit under the Insurance Act has materially lightened the burden of compliance with the limit of women for four weeks after childbirth before they may return to industrial employment. Complaints of breach of s. 61 have dropped to eight in 1913, and complaints (outside the scope of the section) of employment just before confinement have dropped to one. Even in Dundee, where this evil of heavy employment of child-bearing women has been probably the worst in the kingdom, an improvement of the situation is seen.
Miss Vines.—I visited a group of twelve jute-mill working mothers within a month after their confinement and found that only one of them had returned to work, nine of the mothers were married and experiencing the good effects of the Insurance Act benefit. The unmarried women were, of course, getting less benefit, and were not so well off; one of them worked as a jute spinner in a jute mill till 6P.M.on the night her baby was born.
9.Truck Act.
Principal.—The illustrations sent me of the mass of work done in 1913 under the modern part of the law relating totruck are too numerous to be reproduced here. Typical instances must be selected from different industrial centres for the main points of (a) disciplinary fines, (b) deductions or payments for damage, short weight, etc., (c) deductions or payments for power, materials or anything supplied in relation to labour of the worker; abuses of the “bonus” system may be connected with (a) or (b). The main features of these illustrations are the poverty of the workers, the rigidity and poverty of mind that controls workers by such methods, and the need for fresh and living ideas to sweep away all these defective, obsolete ways of control.
Disciplinary Fines.
Miss Tracey.—I had a long struggle with the occupier of a large laundry in Lancashire over fines for coming late. The work started at 6, and it was said that only three minutes (supposed to be five), were allowed as grace. The weekly wages were phenomenally small, but no work was demanded on Saturdays unless under exceptional circumstances. If a girl came to the laundry after the gate was closed (three minutes after 6A.M.), she was shut out till after breakfast, a fine was inflicted for late attendance, and if this happened more than once, one-sixth of the total wage was deducted for Saturday, although no work was required. I found these fines to amount to as much as 1s. 8d. out of a wage of 4s. 6d., and other sums in proportion. This iniquitous custom had been followed for twenty years, and I was assured that it was a case of “adjustment of wages” and did not come under the Truck Act. However, my view eventually prevailed; certain sums were repaid and the whole system done away with, without bringing the case into Court. In other respects, the laundry was a good one, and no work on Saturday is an arrangement that is of great benefit to young and old workers alike. The plan now adopted is that a girl consistently unpunctual during the week will be required to come in on Saturday morning to do a few hours’ work—this plan has worked so well that no one, when I last visited, had been in the laundry on Saturday at all.
Miss Slocock.—(1) Two girls, aged respectively eighteenand nineteen, employed as cutters, were fined £2 : 14s. and 11s. 2d. for cutting some handkerchiefs badly and damaging the cloth. The deductions were made at the rate of 1s. per week, and at the time of my visit, each worker had already had 10s. 6d. deducted from her wages. Proceedings were considered, but the employer, directly his attention was drawn to the matter, refunded 5s. 6d. to one worker and agreed not to make any further deduction from the other, so that one girl paid 5s. for damage amounting to 11s. 2d. and the other 10s. 6d. for damage amounting to £2 : 14s. These amounts, 11s. 2d. and £2 : 14s. represented exactly the whole loss to the firm caused by the damaged work, and the employer thought that he was acting legally so long as the deductions did not exceed that amount. The fact that the Truck Act specifically draws attention to this limitation is constantly brought to my notice, and used as an excuse for putting the whole cost of any damage on the workers. The average gross weekly wage earned by these workers for the eleven weeks during which deductions were being made was 8s. 1d. and 10s. 10½d. respectively.
(2) Two workers employed as shirt machinists were told they would both be fined 5s. for spoiling two shirts each by mixing the cloth. The difference in the cloth was so slight that I could hardly distinguish it in daylight, and the workers had machined the shirts by artificial light. The contract under which these deductions were made provided that the cost price of the material damaged should not be exceeded; the firm admitted that the cost price of the material was not more than 1s. 6d. each shirt, and a fine of 2s. 6d. from each worker (1s. 3d. for each shirt) was ultimately imposed.
Miss Escreet.—Many instances of deductions for damage have touched the borderland where non-payment of wages for work done badly approximates to a deduction of payment in respect of bad work. Action in such cases is very difficult—when sums like 5s. 5d. and 3s. are deducted from wages of 10s. 7d. and 13s. 4d. in a weaving shed and metal factory respectively, there is no question that the workers look rightly for the protection of the Truck Acts, whichwere surely framed to control this very kind of arbitrary handling of hardly earned wage. Enquiry into these cases invariably brings to light other considerations than the mere fact of damaged work. Some managers find it difficult to realise that bad work is bound to be a feature attendant on pressure for great output, especially if the workers are inexperienced and ill-taught, or if the piece-work rates are so low that the workers cannot afford to use care, and are obliged to trust to luck and a lenient “passer.”
10.Lenience of Magistrates to Employer.
Principal.—We have to occasionally reckon with Benches who consider a few shillings’ penalty, or even 1d. penalty, sufficient punishment for excessive overtime employment of girls, or with others who are reluctant to convict, or punish with more than cost of proceedings, law-breaking employers who are shown to have been thoroughly instructed in the law they have neglected to obey. It is in my belief an open question whether the tender treatment of the Probation of Offenders Act was ever designed to apply to the case of fully responsible adults officially supplied by abstracts with the knowledge and understanding of an industrial code which is intended to protect the weakest workers.
(A Leaflet issued from a Trade Union Office)
———— & DISTRICT WEAVERS, WINDERS,WARPERS & REELERS’ ASSOCIATION.(Branch of the Amalgamated Weavers’ Association)Offices:Textile Hall, ————.WINDERS AND THE BARBER KNOTTER.[75]A Few Facts for Non-Union Winders.Have you ever considered what it costs you through not joining your Trade Union?Study the following facts:Many winders have five per cent. deducted each week from their wages for using the “Barber” Knotter.Five per cent. on 15s. per week is 9d.9d. per week is £1 17s. 6d. for every 50 weeks you work. If you work with one of these knotters for three years your employer has been paidmorethan the original cost; but they continue to stop the five per cent. and the knotter still belongs to the employer. If you work at a mill ten years and pay five per cent. all the time you cannot take the knotter with you when you leave.Think about it. You pay for it three or four times over, but it doesn’t belong to you.Oh, no!We ask you to pay5d.to your Trade Union so that we canstop your employer from keeping 9d. out of your wages.If you would rather pay 9d. to your employers than 5d. to your Trade Union you haveLESS SENSEthan we thought you had.“But,” you say, “we can earn more money with a knotter.” Quite true, but you are paid on “production,” so if you getmore money it is only because you turn more work off, and in turning more work off yourEmployers get a Greater Productionbut they makeYOUpay for it.The knotter enables you to piece up at a quicker rate; this saves time. It enables you to make smaller knots, thus making better work. The two combined makesQuantity and Quality.The employers getbothand make you pay for it.We say to you that it is no part of your duty to pay for improved machinery. If it is beneficial to the employers to improve any part of any machine they’ll do it without consulting you, but we hold that if by doing this they get a greater and better production then they ought toADVANCEyour wages and not deduct five per cent. from them.Think! Think! Think!View the matter over in your own minds.Reason the matter from your own point of view.If you are satisfied with the present system, well,DON’T GRUMBLE.If you’re not,What are you going to do to stop it?Have you a remedy? If so, what is it?If you haven’t,WE HAVE!Organisation is the only solution!Trade Unionism will solve the problem for you, butYou’ll have topayand notpout!""act"shout!Pay 5d. and keep the 9d.! Fight and don’t Funk.DON’T HESITATE—AGITATE!If you have eyes—SEE! If you have ears—HEAR!JOIN THE UNION!Bring your grievances to the Officials!But join—Delay is Dangerous—Join at once!————, Secretary.
———— & DISTRICT WEAVERS, WINDERS,WARPERS & REELERS’ ASSOCIATION.
(Branch of the Amalgamated Weavers’ Association)Offices:Textile Hall, ————.
WINDERS AND THE BARBER KNOTTER.[75]A Few Facts for Non-Union Winders.
Have you ever considered what it costs you through not joining your Trade Union?
Study the following facts:
Many winders have five per cent. deducted each week from their wages for using the “Barber” Knotter.
Five per cent. on 15s. per week is 9d.
9d. per week is £1 17s. 6d. for every 50 weeks you work. If you work with one of these knotters for three years your employer has been paidmorethan the original cost; but they continue to stop the five per cent. and the knotter still belongs to the employer. If you work at a mill ten years and pay five per cent. all the time you cannot take the knotter with you when you leave.
Think about it. You pay for it three or four times over, but it doesn’t belong to you.Oh, no!
We ask you to pay5d.to your Trade Union so that we canstop your employer from keeping 9d. out of your wages.
If you would rather pay 9d. to your employers than 5d. to your Trade Union you haveLESS SENSEthan we thought you had.
“But,” you say, “we can earn more money with a knotter.” Quite true, but you are paid on “production,” so if you getmore money it is only because you turn more work off, and in turning more work off your
Employers get a Greater Production
but they makeYOUpay for it.
The knotter enables you to piece up at a quicker rate; this saves time. It enables you to make smaller knots, thus making better work. The two combined makes
Quantity and Quality.
The employers getbothand make you pay for it.
We say to you that it is no part of your duty to pay for improved machinery. If it is beneficial to the employers to improve any part of any machine they’ll do it without consulting you, but we hold that if by doing this they get a greater and better production then they ought toADVANCEyour wages and not deduct five per cent. from them.
Think! Think! Think!
View the matter over in your own minds.
Reason the matter from your own point of view.
If you are satisfied with the present system, well,DON’T GRUMBLE.
If you’re not,What are you going to do to stop it?Have you a remedy? If so, what is it?
If you haven’t,WE HAVE!
Organisation is the only solution!
Trade Unionism will solve the problem for you, but
Pay 5d. and keep the 9d.! Fight and don’t Funk.
DON’T HESITATE—AGITATE!
If you have eyes—SEE! If you have ears—HEAR!JOIN THE UNION!
Bring your grievances to the Officials!
But join—Delay is Dangerous—Join at once!
————, Secretary.
Resolutions submitted by the National Federation of Women Workers to the Trade Union Congress, 1915.
“(a) That all women who register for war service should immediately join the appropriate trade union in the trade for which they are volunteering service, and that membership of such organisation should be the condition of their employment for war service, and that those trade unions which exclude women be urged to admit women as members.
“(b) That where a woman is doing the same work as a man she should receive the same rate of pay, and that the principle of equal pay for equal work should be rigidly maintained.”
Manchester and District Women’s War Interests Committee.
The Committee was formed as a result of the Joint action of the Women’s Emergency Corps and the Manchester and District Federation of Women’s Suffrage Societies. Representatives were invited from the Women’s organisations ... and the trade unions interested in women in munition works. The Gasworkers and the Workers’ Union also asked for representation and were accepted.
The Committee carried through an investigation of women in munition works, and discovered that 12s. to 15s. was the standard wage, which was lower than the standard, or usual women’s rates in the district, which were about £1.
It was therefore proposed that the Committee work for a minimum wage for women in munition works, and the programme, of which a copy is enclosed, was drawn up. This was presented to the Trade Union section of the Lancashire No. 1 Armaments Output Committee and received their hearty support.
The Amalgamated Society of Engineers recognised the National Federation of Women Workers as the organisation to take in women munition workers, and the local secretaries were instructed to co-operate with this body wherever a branch exists. There being no branch in the Manchester area the Amalgamated Society of Engineers recognised the Women’s War Interests Committee as the representative women’s organisation. Great help has been given to the Committee by their officials.
The Committee does not itself undertake to organise the women, but passed a resolution to the effect that it would co-operate with any movement towards organisation of the women which is undertaken as a result of joint agreement with the interested trade unions.
The following proposals have been agreed upon by the Committee for the employment of women in ammunition works, to form the basis of representations to the Ministry of Munitions:—
Wages.—That a guaranteed minimum of £1 per week of 48 hours should be paid to every adult woman worker (over 18 years) employed on munitions. Piecework rates, irrespective of class of labour employed, should remain unaltered.
Hours.—That a three-shift system of 8 hours is preferable to continuous overtime for women. No woman should be employed on night work for more than two weeks out of six.
Conditions.—That ample canteen provision be provided, this to be obligatory where night work is in operation.
CHAPTER I.
Introductory.
Pearson, Karl.Woman as Witch, in the Chances of Death, vol. ii.; and Sex Relations in Germany, in the Ethic of Freethought, p. 402.
Mason, Otis.In the American Antiquarian, Jan. 1889, p. 6.
Ellis, Havelock.Man and Woman. Fourth Edition. Introduction and chap. xiv.
Reclus, E.Primitive Folk, pp. 57-8. Contemporary Science Series. 1891.
Frazer, J. G.The Magic Art, ii. 204.
Man, E. H.Journal of the Anthropological Institute. August 1893.
Servants in Husbandry.
Thorold, Rogers.History of Agriculture and Prices, i. pp. 273-274, and iv. 495. Compare Bland, Brown, and Tawney, English Economic History, p. 347, for approximation between men’s and women’s wages.
Eden, Sir Frederick.State of the Poor, iii. lxxxix.
Textiles: Wool and Linen.
Schmoller.Strassbürger Tücher- und Weberzunft, p. 354.
Archaeologia. Vol. xxxvii. pp. 91 and 93; vol. x. Plates XX., XXI., and XXII.
Andrews.Old English Manor, p. 272.
Deloney.Jack of Newbury, p. 59.
Wright, T.Womankind of Western Europe, pp. 59, 177-8.
Aubrey.History of Wiltshire. Quoted in Archaeologia xxxvii. p. 95.
Warden, A.The Linen Trade. Longman, 1867. (2nd ed.), pp. 355-6.
Rock, D.Textile Fabrics, p. 11. 1876.
Eckenstein, Lina.Women under Monasticism.
Ancren Riwle. Reprinted in the King’s Classics, p. 317.
Bücher.Industrial Evolution. Translated by S. M. Wickett, pp. 265-7.
James, John.History of Worsted, p. 289.
Victoria County History. Yorkshire, ii. p. 43.
Wright, T.Homes of Other Days, p. 434.
Chaucer.Wife of Bath’s Prologue.
Beard, C.Industrial Revolution, p. 25.
Fitzherbert.Book of Husbandry. 1574. Edited by Skeat, par. 146.
Temple, Sir W.Quoted in Cunningham’s Growth of Industry and Commerce, Modern Times, p. 370. (Ed. 1907.)
Shuttleworth Accounts, Chetham Society, vol. xlvi. p. 1002.
Markham, G.The English Housewife, pp. 167, 172. (Ed. 1637.)
Weaving and Spinning as a Woman’s Trade.
Abram, A.Social England in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 133-4.
Ancient Book of the Weavers’ Company. (Facsimile in the British Museum Library.)
Fox and Taylor.Weavers’ Gild of Bristol, p. 38.
Unwin, G.Industrial Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, p. 229.
Lambert.Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, pp. 206-10.
Thomson, D.The Weaver’s Craft, p. 22.
Records of the City of Norwich, ii. p. 378.
For Rates of Pay to Weavers, etc., see a volume of tracts in the British Museum Library, numbered 1851, c. 101.
Howard Accounts. Published by the Roxburgh Club, vol. li.
Markham, G.The English Housewife, pp. 174-5. (Ed. 1637.)
Dunlop and Denman.English Apprenticeship and Child Labour, chap. ix.
Development of Capitalistic Industry.
Unwin, G.In the Victoria County History, Suffolk, ii. pp. 258-9.
Baines, E.History of Cotton Manufacture, p. 91.
Green, Mrs. Alice.Town Life in the Fifteenth Century, ii. p. 100.
Ordinances of Worcester. Edited by Toulmin Smith. Early English Text Society.
Hamilton.History of Quarter Sessions, pp. 164, 273.
Leonard.Early English Poor Relief.
Ashley, W. J.English Economic History, Part II., chapter on the Woollen Industry.
Young, Arthur.Northern Tour, vol. i. p. 137. Second edition. 1770.
Young, Arthur.Tour in East of England, ii. pp. 75, 81.
Warner, Townsend.In Traill’s Social England, vol. v. p. 149.
Mantoux.La Révolution industrielle, p. 36.
Bonwick.Romance of the Wool Trade, p. 435.
Lancashire Worthies, i. p. 307.
Weber, Marianne.Ehefrau und Mutter, Tübingen, 1907, p. 252.
Silk.
Campbell, W.Materials for History of the Reign of Henry VII., pp. 13, 15, 168, 170, etc.
Victoria County History, Derby, ii. p. 372.
Other Industries.
Traill.Social England, vol. i. p. 658.
Lapsley, G. T.“Account Roll of a Fifteenth-Century Ironmaster,” in the English Historical Review, vol. xiv., July 1899, p. 51.
Victoria County History. Derbyshire, pp. 328-9, 332, 343.
Some Account of Mines. British Museum, 444, a 49, p. 62.
Galloway.Annals of Coal Mining, pp. 91, 232, 234, 354passim.
Case of Sir H. Mackworth. British Museum, 522, m. 12 (2).
Case of the Mine Adventurers in the same volume, No. 26.
Young, Arthur.Northern Tour, vol. ii. pp. 189, 254-5. Second Edition. 1770.
Young, Arthur.Six Weeks’ Tour, pp. 150, 109. 1768.
CHAPTER II.
The Cotton Industry.
Baines, Edward.History of the Cotton Manufacture, 1836, pp. 97, 100, 115, 116 n., 446.
Guest.History of the Cotton Manufacture.
Radcliffe, W.Origin of the New System of Manufacture, 1828, p. 59, etc.
Gaskell, P.Manufacturing Population of England, 1833, pp. 42, 43, 60.
Beard, C. A.The Industrial Revolution.
Mantoux.La Révolution industrielle, pp. 208-11.
Ellison, T.The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, 1886.
Law, Alice.Social and Economic History, in the Victoria County History, Lancashire, vol. ii. p. 327.
Chapman, S. J.The Lancashire Cotton Industry.
Cunningham, W.Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times, p. 654. (Ed. 1907.)
The Decay of Handspinning.
Eden, Sir Frederick.State of the Poor, vol. iii. pp. 768, 821, 847.
The Handloom Weaver’s Wife.
Gaskell, P.Manufacturing Population, p. 40.
Mantoux.La Révolution industrielle, pp. 442-3.
Report of Committee on Ribbon-Weavers, 1818, vol. ix. p. 124.
Report on Handloom Weavers, 1834, vol. x. Evidence of Brennan.
The Factory.
Tuckett, J. D.History of the Labouring Population, pp. 208-9.
Aikin, J.Country Round Manchester, pp. 167, 192.
Ure.Philosophy of Manufactures, pp. 312-3.
Gaskell, P.Manufacturing Population of England, chap. i.
Taylor, W. Cooke.Factories and the Factory System, 1844, pp. 1, 45-6.
Fielden, J.Curse of the Factory System, 1836, p. 43.
Assistant Poor Law Commissioners. Report on Employment of Women and Children in Agriculture, p. 25. Parliamentary Papers, 1843, xii.
Gaskell, Mrs.Mary Barton.
The Woman Wage-Earner.
Report on Artizans and Machinery. Parliamentary Papers, 1824, vol. v. Evidence of Dunlop and Holdsworth, compare evidence of M‘Dougal and William Smith.
Report on Manufactures and Commerce. Parliamentary Papers, 1833, vol. vi. p. 323.
Report on Combinations of Workmen. Parliamentary Papers, 1838, viii. q. 3527-31.
Report on Handloom Weavers, 1840, vol. xxiii. p. 307.
Gaskell, P.Artizans and Machinery, pp. 143, 331.
Gaskell, P.Manufacturing Population of England, pp. 186-8.
Report on Employment of Children in Factories. Parliamentary Papers, 1834, xix. p. 297.
Schultze-Gävernitz.The Cotton Trade in England and on the Continent. Translated by O. S. Hall. 1895.
The Industrial Revolution in Non-Textile Trades.
Children’s Employment Commission. 1843. Reports on Birmingham District.
Children’s Employment Commission. Parliamentary Papers. 1864, vol. xxii.; Third Report, p. x.
Timmins, S.Resources of Birmingham and the Hardware District. 1866.
Labour Commission. Reports on Employment of Women, by Miss Orme, Miss Collet, Miss Abraham, and Miss Irwin. Parliamentary Papers, 1893-94, vol. xxxvii.
British Association, 1902-1903. Reports to the Economic Section by the Committee on the Legal Regulation of Women’s Labour.
CHAPTER IV.
Women in Unions.
Report on Combination Laws. Parliamentary Papers, 1825, vol. iv. Appendices 6, 10, 16.
Board of Trade. Seventeenth Report on Trade Unions, 1912.
Board of Trade. Sixteenth Labour Abstract, 1915.
Articles of the Manchester Small Ware Weavers, printed at Manchester, 1756. (Manchester Library.)
Webb, Sidney and Beatrice.History of Trade Unionism, pp. 104-5, 121-3, etc.
Chapman, S. J.History of the Lancashire Cotton Industry, pp. 213-5, etc.
Report on Standard Piece Rates of Wages in the U.K. Parliamentary Papers, 1900, vol. lxxxii.
Reports of the Women’s Trade Union League, 1874 to present time. (34 Mecklenburgh Square.)
Women in the Printing Trades. Edited by J. Ramsay MacDonald. 1904.
Report by Miss Busbey on Women’s Unions in Great Britain. Bulletin of the Labour Department, U.S.A. No. 83.
Labour Commission. Evidence of Mrs. Hicks and Miss James. Parliamentary Papers, 1892, vol. xxxv.
Reports of the National Federation of Women Workers. (34 Mecklenburgh Square.)
Also reports of trade union and other societies and information given privately.
America.—History of Women in Trade Unions. Vol x. of Report on Women and Child Wage-Earners in the U.S.
Admission to American Trade Unions. By F. Wolfe, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University Studies, 1912.
Women in Trade Unions in San Francisco. L. R. Matthews University of California Publications in Economics, vol. iii 1913.
Making Both Ends Meet. Clark and Wyatt. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Chaps. ii. and v.
The World of Labour. G. D. H. Cole. Bell, 1913. Chap. v.
Report on Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence, Mass., in 1912. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1912.
CHAPTERIVa.
Women in Unions(continued).
Germany.—Braun, Lily.Die Frauenfrage, 1901.
Gnauck-Kühne, Elisabeth.Die Arbeiterinnenfrage. M. Gladbach, 1905.
Sanders, W. Stephen.Industrial Organisation in Germany. Special supplement to theNew Statesman, October 18, 1913.
The Organisation of Women Workers in Germany. Special Report to the International Women’s Trade Union League of America. Submitted by the Women Workers’ Secretariat of the General Commission of Trade Unions of Germany. Berlin, 1913.
Erdmann, A.Church and Trade Unions in Germany. Published by the General Commission of Trade Unions in Germany. Berlin, 1913.
CHAPTER VII.
Effects of the War on Women’s Employment.
Reports of the Board of Trade on the State of Employment in the United Kingdom in October and December 1914, and February 1915.
Interim Report of the Central Committee on Employment of Women.
The Labour Gazette.
Labour in War-Time. By G. D. H. Cole. Bell, 1915.
Report on Outlets for Labour after the War by a Committee appointed by Section F of the British Association. Manchester Meeting. 1915.
Articles in theNew Statesman,Common Cause,Englishwoman,Economic Journal, etc.