(3) Long hours.
(4) Insanitary surroundings.
(5) Living in.
Wages.—First as to wages. We often hear it said that a young woman serving in a shop is better paid than a governess; and it is true that a young woman of business ability and good appearance engaged as show-woman in a millinery or mantle department can earn from £200 to £300 or even £400 a year—far more than women teachers, except in rare cases, can dream of earning. But these are the plums of the profession, and they are few and far between. The wages of shop assistants are exceedingly variable, small shopkeepers only giving a few shillings a week, the proprietors of large establishments being able to afford a better wage. In the larger shops an entrance premium is often demanded, or at least the assistant must serve for several months without wages. Women assistants, for no apparent reason, receive considerably lower wages than men. The former may earn from £10 to £25 a year with board and lodging, the latter from £20 to £40.[7] Generally speaking the wages of female shop assistants are estimated to be 33 per cent. lower than those of male assistants. I have not been able to find any reason for the difference beyond the willingness of women to take less than men. It would be interesting to know whether there is any real difference in efficiency between the sexes. I believe that in purely manual occupations lack of efficiency is enough to account for women’s lower wages; but in clerical and routine work the reason is not so obvious.
[7] It is difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of the average wages of women shop assistants. The figures in the text were given me by the Secretary of the National Union of Shop Assistants. Miss Collet (Report to Labour Commission, p. 86) gives a table of salaries varying from £7 16s. to £75 per annum. Probably about 10s. a week is the average wage, but many who have worked for some years earn, it would seem from the table, about £1 a week, generally without board.
Fines.—The nominal wages of a shop assistant, however, whether high or low to start with, are subject to serious deductions by the way. Few large retail houses are free from a system of vexatious fines, deducted nominally from premiums on sales. I have before me a fine-book belonging to a large London house containing nearly a hundred rules, to the breach of which fines varying from 6d. to 5s. are attached, with threats of even worse penalties behind. Thus for standing on a chair the fine is 6d.; permitting customers to go unserved without calling special attention of buyer or shopwalker, 1s.; second offence reported. Omission of particulars as to filling up duplicate forms and returning change, at discretion up to 5s.; for sending bad coin to cashier, the loss to be made up, and 1s. fine as well. For not having premiums credited on exchange or return of goods, fine 2s. 6d., second offence dismissal. Wrong or insufficient address, 2s. 6d., and so on through a dozen closely-printed pages, until one wonders how human ingenuity could devise so many punishable offences. In another book of rules, more moderate in dimensions, and animated by a less vindictive spirit than the above, a fine of 6d. is levied for taking wrong change, and only half the deficiency is charged when bad coin is presented. Allowing a customer to go unserved without calling the attention of the “buyer,” however, still incurs a fine of 1s. Regulations such as these sufficiently explain the over-eagerness of shop assistants to sell, which is often so annoying to their customers. The unhappy victims of the fine-book have no choice but to cajole or worry the customer into buying, since their very livelihood depends upon success. Where such minute attention to details is necessary as in shop work, fines may be to some extent a necessary evil; but there can hardly be sufficient reason for the endless multiplication of petty exactions which an examination of fine-books reveals. One would gladly see the system exchanged for some plan of profit-sharing which would secure the co-operation of assistants by more agreeable means. It is true that a bonus on purchases is sometimes given during the annual sale, but this apparent boon is again accompanied by a liability to fines which must detract considerably from its advantages.[8]
[8] Miss Collet (Report, The Employment of Women, p. 88) quotes a witness who stated that her fines sometimes exceeded her premiums. “Anyone,” added this witness, “who left the counter on account of illness was fined for absence.”
Agreements.—On entering a situation shop assistants are often obliged to sign agreements which place them practically at the mercy of their employers. In some cases they agree to accept instant dismissal if fault is found with their work or conduct, in which case they bind themselves not to take action in a court of law. A girl may thus be discharged at a moment’s notice, and find herself literally in the streets,[9] The formation of a strong Trade Union among shop assistants is probably the only measure that can avail to check such injustice.
[9] Miss Collet (ibid. p. 88) states that “in the majority of cases a moment’s notice [of dismissal] was the rule. No wages are in the latter case paid in lieu of notice, and the only provision to secure that they shall not be absolutely penniless when they leave is the retention by the employer of the first week or fortnight’s wages, which are paid to them on dismissal. The matron of a home said that in one case a shop assistant who came to her was unable to obtain even this from her former employer. The power to dismiss at a moment’s notice is not merely reserved for grave offences, but seems to be frequently exercised on most trivial grounds,” and the examples given by Miss Collet fully bear out the truth of the statement.
Long Hours.—The most trying feature of a shop assistant’s life, however, is the long hours of labour. Upon this point agitation is at present centred, and rightly, since the length of the working day is not only an evil in itself, but renders the other ills which assistants suffer more difficult to bear and less easy to remove. In order to amend the conditions of their life assistants must have leisure to combine, for nothing breaks the spirit like unceasing toil. At present, as was pathetically remarked by a shop assistant, “counter and bed is the common lot of most of us,” and energies enfeebled by a long day’s work are unequal to grappling with the problem of reform. Both sexes work under the same conditions; women keep the same long hours as men; nor would they regard with approval special legislation in their favour, fearing lest the indirect result of such legislation should be to restrict their employment. How far such a result is really probable it is not easy to say. The Secretary of the Early Closing Association, giving evidence before the Select Committee on the Shop Hours Regulation Bill (1892), expressed himself satisfied that the limitation of women’s hours proposed by the Bill would not prejudice their employment; but though the contention is probably correct as far as the drapery trade is concerned, it is by no means certain that it would hold good of other trades, and women cashiers and clerks would certainly be replaced by men in shops where the latter are most largely employed. On the other hand, the greater cheapness of women’s labour might enable it to keep its place. It is probable, however, that in any case the restriction would be used as an excuse for lowering women’s wages still further.