V. Living Conditions, Health, Social Life, Organizations of Negro Domestic Workers, and Their Relation to Employment Agencies
Living conditions here refer only to those on employers' premises. The general living conditions of Negro domestic workers in different parts of the country, or even in different localities of the same section, vary so widely that the subject cannot be treated here. For example, in the South laundresses for the most part take bundle wash to their small homes, and do large "washes" there. Such a situation makes it difficult for southern Negro laundresses to live comfortably and healthfully. Laundresses in the North are relieved of this problem by going to the homes of employers, but, on the other hand, are affected by the excessive rents and the overcrowding in their own homes.
Living conditions on employers' premises for domestic workers vary to some extent in different homes of the same city but to a larger extent in the different sections of the country and in different cities of the same section. In Montgomery, Alabama, for example, out of two hundred Negro female domestic workers interviewed, 54 or about 27 per cent were living in a two-room detached frame house on the rear of the employers' premises. The remaining 73 per cent did not "sleep in" or live on their employers' premises. In Philadelphia, living conditions on employers' premises are reported as being good. They consist, in the main, of a third floor room. Very few basement rooms are offered as living quarters for domestic workers in that city. In Indianapolis, about 50 per cent of those working by the week among the 471 domestic workers go home nights. Living conditions for those "sleeping in" are fair as a rule. Some have basement rooms but a majority of them have rooms either on the third floor or in the attic or over a garage. A small percentage of the homes have a bath room for the maid.
Employment agencies in Boston, New York City, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles give favorable reports on the living conditions of domestic workers who "sleep in." While the reports from Baltimore are not as conclusively favorable as for the above-named cities, one fact stands out prominently, namely: that in the main, only apartment houses in that city offer basement rooms as living quarters for domestic workers. Employment agencies in all of the cities mentioned state that there are far more calls for workers to "sleep in" than there are workers who are willing to do so.
Out of 500 domestic workers in Washington, D. C., selected at random from 3,000 permanent employees for the year 1921-22, about 64.1 per cent were requested to "sleep in." Out of an equal number of employers requesting workers to "sleep in," selected in the same manner, about 83 per cent provided basement rooms as sleeping quarters for such workers; about 10 per cent either provided first floor or third floor rooms—some of them with baths; about 7 per cent either offered attics or they failed to furnish a statement as to the location of the rooms. Occasionally an employer would like to have the worker "sleep in" but because of having only a basement room to offer, she would forego her wish in the interest of the health of the employee. Two of the workers sent out from this office were partially incapacitated by the poor living and working conditions. One of the problems, however, involved in housing domestic employees is the frequency of the turnover which necessarily brings in different kinds of workers, varying in degrees of personal cleanliness and health.
Closely connected with the living conditions, too, are the working conditions of domestic employees. In fact, one of the strains of such service often is the lack of break between the place of work and of living, which makes for resulting monotony and much loneliness. Much of a domestic worker's life is spent in the kitchen, in the laundry or on the premises of his employer. The only available accurate data on this point have come from Indianapolis, Ind. This was secured in response to a questionnaire sent to the employers who were patrons of the employment office at Flanner House. The following table gives a summary of the replies as to the appliances employers had in their homes for use of Negro domestic workers.
Replies from 523 Employers Showing the Appliances in the Homes for Doing Laundry Work, in Indianapolis, Ind., April, 1922
| Table XVIII | Per Cent | |
| Number having electric machines | 249 | 47.6 |
| Number having water power machines | 2 | .4 |
| Number having hand power machines | 5 | .9 |
| Number not having machines of any kind | 267 | 51.1 |
| 100.0 | ||
| Number having electric irons | 479 | 91.6 |
| Number having gas irons | 5 | .9 |
| Number having mangles—ironing machine | 31 | 5.9 |
| Number having stationary tubs | 202 | 38.6 |
| Number having driers | 3 | .6 |
According to this record about 48.9 per cent of the 523 employers had washing machines of some kind and about 51.1 per cent had none at all; about 38.6 per cent had installed stationary tubs and 0.6 per cent had driers. To one who is conversant with the old way of doing laundry work with heavy portable wooden tubs, and with the lighter weight zinc tubs, into which water was lifted for washing and from which it was lifted after washing, and then placed upon either a dry goods box or a wash bench of uncertain height, this table shows marvelous improvement in working conditions of Negro laundresses in Indianapolis and indicates unusual possibilities there and elsewhere. However, unless there were, in each of the homes having washing machines, a stationary tub, or a rubber tube for draining the water out of the washing machine, there still would be that lifting of water, and possibly undue exertion because of the uncertain height of the portable tub. The principle of having the tub set at the right height involves relief from straining the back, an important item in relation to good health. There were about 98.4 per cent of the 523 employers who had either electric or gas irons or mangles. Such appliances facilitate ironing as well as enable a laundress to do better work. Washing machines and mangles make it possible to do the bed linen at home instead of sending it to a steam laundry. Driers are particularly serviceable in winter when drying out of doors is difficult as well as being hard on the laundress because of the cold weather.
The employment agency that sent out the questionnaire congratulated the employers on the marked improvement made in appliances for laundering, and added that like improvements will in time be made in the type and conditions of work rooms in which laundresses must labor.
The Health of Negro Domestic Workers
Although the health of domestic workers is an extremely important matter because of the nature of their work and the homes into which they go, and because their support depends so largely upon their physical ability to work, no records apparently are kept by the various employment agencies relative to the health of the workers. In 1899 out of 152 male and 395 female domestic workers in Philadelphia, 80 per cent of the men had not been ill during the year, and 74 per cent of the women had not been ill during the year. This per cent of good health excluded colds. The most prevalent disabilities among them were: consumption, lagrippe, quinsy, sore throat, rheumatism, neuralgia, chills and fever, and dyspepsia.[34] That there is much opportunity for danger from infection incident to the ill-health of domestic workers cannot be denied.[35]
Very careful note was taken for one week in March, 1922, of the health of women domestic workers reporting at the United States Employment Agency, Washington, D. C. It was not a typical week because of the fact that it followed an epidemic of lagrippe. However, out of 1,043 domestic workers, only 325 or about 31 per cent had not been ill during that winter and had no complaint whatever. Lagrippe, surgical operations, indigestion, heart trouble, weak back, and neuralgia were the illnesses of which they most commonly complained.
There were among the number above, five evident cases of mental disturbance, one of which was taken to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for observation and treatment. Another from the number had been discharged from the same hospital after treatment for mental trouble. This fact was not known by the Agency until an officer from the hospital visited the woman at her place of work to see how she was getting along. Three cases that were suspected of having tuberculosis were referred as waitresses at different times to a public hospital, at some risk of course to the reputation of the office, largely to see what the reaction of the nurse in charge would be. In each case the nurse reported that she could not use such a person about the food. Yet such persons were taken into some of the most desirable homes in Washington as household employees.
Social Life of Negro Domestic Workers
The social life of the older domestic Negro workers centers largely in their church and secret order society connections. From 1916 to 1920 seven out of every eleven Negroes in the United States were enrolled in churches. Many of them are willing to accept a place at a much lower wage than another if it gives them their Sundays off so that they may attend their churches.
It is important then to see the scope of such organizations in Negro city life. Kansas City, Missouri, with a Negro population in 1910 of 23,566, had 19 Negro churches and 16 Negro missions in 1913, with a total membership of 7,156. In this city there were 135 different lodges, or households (women's chapters), with a total membership of 8,055, 4,226 men and 3,829 women. The average initiation fee in the men's orders was $11.50 and in the women's $4.51 with additional monthly dues of 50 cents and 25 cents respectively. Endowment insurance policies of these lodges for which there is an annual fee from $2 to $4 are for the most part optional. These 8,055 members pay into their lodges annually $55,411.40. Their property in Kansas City is valued at $46,100. Each of the 135 orders has sick benefits ranging from $2.50 to $4.50 a week and all of them, with one exception, pay burial expenses in case of death.[37] In Harlem, New York, with a Negro population of about 90,000 in 1920 there are 25 Negro churches and about 16 missions. There are in this densely populated section six moving picture theatres which cater largely to Negro patronage.[38] Gainesville, Georgia, with a Negro population in 1910 of 1,629 had a Negro church membership of 1,023. Five of the Negro lodges in that city admit women, some of whom are members of several lodges.[39] In the lodges composed as they are very largely of the masses of the Negro people with a few of the more intelligent leaders as officers, there are many possibilities for improving the efficiency of the domestic workers.
Just what is the social life of the younger Negro domestic workers, many of whom are away from their own families, is a question. Of the 471 Negro domestic workers registered at the Indianapolis office, about 44.5 per cent were rooming and only about 2.3 per cent were living with parents or relatives. As possible attractions for such workers there are the moving picture and low vaudeville theatres, usually located in Negro neighborhoods, the pool and billiard rooms, cabarets and questionable dance halls.
Dr. Rubinow says that of 2,300 domestic white workers, a large majority of whom were under 30 years of age, interviewed by the Michigan Bureau of Labor, only 51 belonged to fraternal societies of any kind. Of 230 questioned by the Domestic Relation Reform League, 20 belonged to clubs and 15 to classes of some kind, and 118 entertained no men callers. A domestic worker, he says, not only loses caste among other groups of workers, but she loses at the hands of her employers even her family name. She lives a life of loneliness, "in a family but not of it."[40]
Organization of Domestic Workers
In order to show concretely what domestic workers themselves have attempted to do to improve their conditions, some discussion of their organizations as an expression of that attempt is in place here. It is not certain how many of these organizations are still active nor how many have Negro members. Some of them have such members, no doubt. However, three of them are composed entirely of Negroes.
In Los Angeles, California, the "Progressive Household Club" with a membership of 75 domestic workers is still active. This club was organized primarily for the purpose of furnishing a cheerful and welcome home for a domestic worker taking a rest or not employed for a time. It has a self-supporting home which will accommodate twenty-five girls. Their recreational and educational features are not startling, as the secretary writes, but they enable the girls to pass some cheerful hours out of their "humdrum" lives. This club was among the 15 other domestic workers' clubs organized in 1919 and 1920. In 1919 a Domestic Workers' Alliance with a membership of over 200, affiliated with the Hotel Waitresses under the American Federation of Labor, was granted a charter. During that year, the secretary of Hotel and Restaurant Employees of the International Alliance and International League of America reported that this organization had established a domestic workers' union in each of the following cities: Mobile, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; and Lawton, Oklahoma. A union of domestic workers was also organized in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1919. The following March a charter was granted to a domestic workers' union in Richmond, Virginia.[41] In 1920 there were 10 unions of domestic workers affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. These unions were located in the following cities: Los Angeles and San Diego, California; Brunswick, Georgia; Chicago and Glencoe, Illinois; New Orleans, Louisiana; Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania; Denison, Harrisburg, and Houston, Texas. The New Orleans Union, a Negro organization, was composed of about 200 members. All of these organizations have now ceased to be affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. There is, however, one union of domestic workers in Arecibo, Porto Rico, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
Relation of Negro Domestic Service to Employment Agencies
In view of the volume and extent of turn-over in domestic service, employment agencies, especially in the North, East, and West, have a close relationship to both employers and workers. A person in need of domestic help secures it either by advertising in the help wanted section of the newspapers, by applying to one or more employment agencies, by means of inquiries among friends and acquaintances who may have been a former employer of some available laborer, by accepting some one who may by chance apply in person or by hiring a former worker.
In some of the southern cities where there is no local employment agency, domestic workers are secured in all other of the above-mentioned ways. For example, this condition prevails in Montgomery, Alabama. Although the United States Employment Service, the Department of Labor, and the Municipal Employment offices of Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama, are co-operating, there is no State license applying to local employment agencies except those soliciting laborers to go outside of the State, according to a recent statement from the Alabama Tax Commission. A like condition exists in the State of Louisiana. Georgia, however, issues licenses to employment agencies for domestic positions. In this State as in some others, there is no law regulating the fee which an agency may charge either employer or employee for service rendered. Neither Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, nor Maryland, and several other States have such a fee regulated by law. However, in Pennsylvania, every employment agent must file with the commissioner for his approval a schedule of fees, proposed to be charged for any service rendered to employer or employee, and these may be changed only with the approval of the commissioner. Every employment agent in this State is required to give a receipt to any applicant for any money which the applicant pays him; and if an applicant fails through no fault of his to secure a position to which he is referred, the entire amount paid by such a person to the agent is to be refunded. Such a law obtains in some other States.
In Baltimore there are 50 employment agencies, mainly of a domestic nature. The usual fee charged an employer, though not regulated by law, is $2. An agency ordinarily agrees to supply an employer with help for at least 30 days without additional cost.
New York State issued in 1918, 674 licenses to employment agencies engaged in various kinds of employment business. In 1919, 719 employment agency licenses were issued; in 1920, 728 and in 1921, 788. The law stipulates that the fees charged domestic work applicants by employment agencies shall not in any case exceed ten per cent of the first month's wages. If a domestic worker does not accept a position to which he is referred or fails to obtain employment, the full amount which he paid the agency is to be refunded after three days allowed for obtaining facts. If an employee fails to remain one week in a position, the agency is required to furnish the employer with a new employee, or return 3.6 of the fee paid in by the employer, provided the employer notifies the agency within thirty days of the failure of the worker to accept the position or of the employee's discharge for cause. If the employee is discharged within one week without his fault, another position is furnished him or 3.5 of the fee returned.
Employment agencies in New York State must also give receipts for money paid them. Day workers receiving a rate of $3.60 to $4.00 per day each pay an initial fee of 50 cents to the agency furnishing them with work. Employers of domestic labor pay the agency for one month's service a flat rate of from $6 to $10 for general houseworkers and from $3 to $5 for part-time workers. For a temporary laborer, employers pay a fee of $1 and for a day worker they pay a fee of 50 cents. For commercial and industrial placements an employee pays to the agency 5 per cent of her first month's wage, but no charge is made for the employer furnishing the work.
The laws of Massachusetts regulating employment agencies of a domestic nature are almost similar to those of New York State, the difference in the main being in the size of the fees. In Massachusetts an intelligence office keeper is entitled to receive from an applicant, employer or employee, a fee of 25 per cent of the first week's wages; and in case of day work a fee of 10 per cent of a day's pay. The Michigan domestic employment agency fees for employee and employer are about the same as that for New York State.
In the District of Columbia, a domestic employment agency is entitled to receive in advance from an employer $2 for each employee for at least 30 days service, and from an applicant for work $1. One-half of this fee is to be returned on demand if such applicant does not have a fair opportunity of employment within 15 days from date of payment. When an applicant actually receives employment at a wage of $25 a month or more he pays the agency an additional $1. However, it is a common practice among Washington employment agencies to have applicants pay $2 in advance of securing a place for work. In the light of the total amount of money paid in wages of domestic and personal service, especially with such a heavy turnover, the fees paid to employment agencies by both employers and employees evidently amount to quite a considerable sum.
Thirty years ago Miss Salmon in her study of domestic service pointed out, not only the exorbitant fees charged by employment agencies, but the vice and crime nurtured by them.[42] In 1915 investigations of Miss Kellor in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and other cities brought out some more striking facts. In Philadelphia 84 per cent of the employment agencies were in private residences and 3 per cent of them were in business buildings. In New York 85 per cent of these agencies were conducted in very close contact with the families of the agents. In Chicago 81 per cent of them were in buildings occupied by families. In Boston 73 per cent of the agencies were in business buildings and only 27 per cent were in residences. The poor business methods of many private intelligence offices, surrounded by gambling dens, fortune tellers, palmists and midwives, and their frauds are insignificant as compared with their conscious, deliberate immorality. Miss Kellor says that many Negro intelligence offices are hopelessly immoral but that some city authorities often argue that since they do not affect the whites there is no reason for disturbing them.[43]
The Third Biennial Report of the Department of Labor and Industry of Maine for the year 1915-1916 contains a warning against employment agencies collecting fees in excess of the law. This report recommends that the important economic task of employment be taken out of the hands of the agents and placed under management of the State. A similar note was voiced by one of the committees of President Harding's conference on unemployment.
The large experience with both municipal and State offices and with the United States Employment Service has given unmistakable evidence that the recruiting and placement of labor is a public necessity and a general benefit to the whole community. It can therefore well become a matter conducted under public supervision and at public expense. Domestic service, especially in large cities and particularly because of the absence of organization and group connection of the workers, is especially in need of such public direction.