The act of 1886 limited the hours of children employed in shops to seventy-four; but as no provision was made for inspection to enforce it, the act became a dead letter. The Act of 1892 extended the benefits of restricted hours to “young persons,” but left the appointment of inspectors optional. A few large towns are enforcing the Act by appointing inspectors. As, with these exceptions, each employer is free to do what seems right in his own eyes, shop hours vary indefinitely, and it is impossible to give any figures that are of universal application. An assistant giving evidence before the Select Committee stated that in Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammersmith she had worked from 88 to 90 hours a week, but in Holloway only 63½. Other cases as bad, or even worse, might be cited. A representative of the Early Closing Association estimated the average hours in the southern and eastern districts of London at from 75 to 91 per week, but I am inclined to think this estimate exaggerated.[10] London shops in the poorer districts however are great sinners in the matter of late hours. As a rule hours are shortest in the central districts of large towns, since the exodus of the wealthier classes to the suburbs as evening comes on renders it useless to keep shops open after six or seven o’clock. Saturday afternoon’s holiday is gained in the same manner. As we move towards the suburbs, and towards the working class districts, the hours become longer, and on Saturday, instead of the desired half holiday, toil is prolonged far into the evening, it may be even till midnight. In Manchester, which is said to stand well on the whole from the shop assistant’s point of view, the hours in the central district are about 66 to 68 weekly, in some few cases 50 only, and in the suburbs 80; but in many parts of the city much longer hours are kept, and late Saturday night shopping prevails in the working class districts. To some extent this is inevitable; but in a city like Manchester, where the Saturday half-holiday is general, such extremely late shop hours can hardly be necessary, and with regard to other towns also the necessity of late hours for the shopping of the working classes is probably much exaggerated. It is well known that so long as shops are open customers will come, and if purchases could be made at three o’clock in the morning, individuals would probably be found who preferred that time to any other. The Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Shop Hours Regulation Bill of 1888, reported that they were “satisfied that the hours of shop assistants range in many places as high as from eighty-four to eighty-five hours per week,” and were further “convinced that such long hours must be generally injurious and often ruinous to health, and that the same amount of business might be compressed into a shorter space of time.” Eighty-five hours too, as we have seen, are by no means the extreme limit of weekly work. It is a common thing for shops opened at eight in the morning to be kept open until nine o’clock at night; and what chance, it may be asked, has a girl released at that hour after a long day’s toil of enjoying healthy recreation? A rational life is impossible under such conditions.
[10] Miss Collet’s tables give 50 to 74 hours, exclusive of meals, but no attempt is made to find the average hours. And, as Miss Collet remarks, “those working long hours are most inaccessible, from the very fact that they have no time to go to social meetings, and have less courage to complain.” Miss Orme gives the average hours in Welsh shops at 54¾ a week, the highest being 62½ and the lowest 51½.
Standing.—The long hours of standing are of course apt to be injurious to the health of women, and especially of young girls. Physicians give evidence of diseases contracted in this manner, and the report of the “Sanitary Commission” of the Lancet, though moderate in expression, is sufficiently explicit upon this point.[11] It must be remembered, however, that constitutions differ, and I have been informed by a young woman who had served ten years in a shop (where, however, short hours are kept) that while she herself had grown used to the standing, her sister, serving in the same shop, was quite unable to endure the fatigue, and had failed seriously in health. A few years ago some well-meaning persons, urged on by the Lancet, exerted themselves to get seats provided for shop assistants, and their efforts were apparently successful. Subsequent investigations by the Lancet commissioner, however, disclosed a serious flaw in the arrangements. In one shop he found that although seats were provided anyone “found idle” was fined 6d. “At another very large establishment,” reported the commissioner, “which boasts of the seats it provides, anyone found using them is reprimanded the first time, and dismissed on a repetition of the offence.” The episode is instructive as showing how impossible it is for outsiders to reform trade abuses. Shop assistants must themselves combine for the removal of their grievances if any improvement is to be effected. In the same way “consumers’ leagues,” for the avoidance of late shopping or for boycotting shops where sweating is carried on, are doomed beforehand to failure. Combination among the workers, backed by judicious legislation, is the only sure method of securing reform.[12]
[11] The Report of the Lady Assistant Commissioners fully confirms the same opinion.
[12] An ingenious method in use in some Welsh towns deserves notice. Shops which are kept open late are picketed by men carrying cards, on which is printed, “You are requested to do your shopping before 7 p.m.” Miss Orme had such a card handed to her at Swansea, and on enquiry found that the agitation thus raised by the National Union of Shop Assistants had been very successful in shortening hours.
Insanitary Conditions.—An evil almost as great as the long hours of labour is the insanitary condition of many shops. In large establishments proper arrangements are usually made, though it often happens that the building is draughty or ill-ventilated. But in small shops there is sometimes no sanitary provision whatever, and assistants must have recourse to the nearest public house, the only lavatory available. Shops that are merely “fronts” have of course no offices attached, and in those built on to private houses the proprietor often reserves the house premises entirely for his own family. The abuse is a crying one, and from its nature it is difficult to expose. Small shops are also often close, ill-ventilated, and full of foul odours, though perhaps women do not suffer from the latter cause as much as men, being less employed in provision shops, pawnbrokers’, or fur shops. Women cashiers, however, who are confined all day in the elevated boxes rendered necessary by the rolling ball system of giving change, suffer severely from the accumulation of gas and bad air towards the ceiling.
Living-in.—Another matter with regard to which discontent is rapidly spreading is the system of compulsory “living-in,” which prevails widely in drapery and large outfitting establishments. This custom is, I believe, unknown in Scotland. A drapery firm in the North of England, for example, employs 300 assistants of both sexes, and all are obliged to live in the house provided by the employer. In shops where “living-in” is compulsory board and lodging is usually valued at £40 per annum. It is a common complaint, however, among assistants that if after some years’ service they obtain the privilege of living “out” they only receive an allowance of £15 or £20 per annum. This statement has been made over and over again, and its truth can hardly be doubted. For the sum charged by the employer the inmates of a large house ought to be comfortably fed and housed; but though in some cases the arrangements are all that could be desired, yet against the majority grave accusations are made with regard to over-crowding, bad food, and uncomfortable household arrangements.[13] The bedroom accommodation is said to be insufficient, and the furniture scanty; the food provided is often poor, and sometimes uneatable. Sundry small filchings in the shape of charges for blacking boots, use of piano and library, are also strongly resented. There is seldom any provision for social life, perhaps because there would be no time to enjoy it. Usually the two sexes are lodged apart, but some boarding houses are apparently mixed, for in one set of house rules it is stated that talking in the dining-room during meals is “strictly prohibited,” that the young men are not permitted to enter the young ladies’ sitting-room, and visitors are not allowed in the house. At most establishments only twenty minutes or half-an-hour is allowed for dinner, and the assistants are liable to be called off if required in the shop. On this system meals must be simply bolted, to the no small injury of the digestion; and it is not surprising that dyspeptic derangement is a common ailment of shop assistants.
[13] The Lady Commissioners’ reports are full of these complaints.
Sundays.—When Sunday comes round a diametrically opposite policy is followed, and after being kept in close confinement during six days of the week the unhappy assistant finds himself or herself put outside the door on the seventh. Either the boarders are given to understand that their presence is not desired within doors, or else no meals are provided, and the assistants are left to shift for themselves as best they may. No doubt the best-conducted houses are careful of their assistants’ comfort on Sundays. Extreme cases, in which the assistants are absolutely shut out, are probably rare; but some are known to exist, and the tendency to make Sunday an uncomfortable day for those who remain indoors appears to be pretty general. The disastrous consequences of throwing female assistants—often mere girls—upon their own resources on the day in the week when respectable means of shelter or refreshment are least accessible can easily be imagined. Here again a strong Trade Union seems to afford the only possible chance of dealing with the evil. The stress of competition is ever at work, driving employers to diminish their expenses in every possible way in order to sell their wares at the cheapest rate; and it is so easy to effect the needful economies out of the domestic establishment of their assistants. It will be readily perceived too that the system of compulsory “living-in” places the assistants more completely in the power of their employers than is desirable for any body of workers, and the assistants themselves do not hesitate to affirm that this is the chief cause of its maintenance. Incidentally also it disfranchises the men, who are not able to claim even the lodgers’ franchise. Attempts are made in some places by philanthropic societies to provide homes for girls employed in shops where living-in is not compulsory. These may be useful in some cases, but their usual defect is a too maternal government, which the girls resent.