Women's Work

by A. A. Brooke; Margaret Whitley

Factory Legislation Incomplete.—There is an idea abroad, which is quite unwarranted, that our body of factory legislation is more or less final in its character, and that it has, in fact, accomplished the purpose for which it was intended by its authors. The provisions of the Factory Acts range themselves for the most part under three heads. They deal either with educational matters, with the regulation of the hours of labour, or with sanitary conditions. It needs no argument to show that great progress in public opinion has been taking place in respect of these three points. The Public Health Act is sufficient evidence of the progressing standard of health in surroundings and conditions; the Education Act is certainly not of a final kind, and on no question has public feeling developed more rapidly of recent years than on that of the adaptation of the hours of labour to human capacity and health. If, on the one hand, the standard by which we are to test the effectiveness of such legislative provisions as come under these heads is much higher than it was a few years luck; on the other hand, it must be remembered that industrial conditions are not a hard and fixed quantity, that they vary with the progress of invention, the incidence of competition, the creation or alteration of tariff frontiers, and many other causes. The knowledge of chemical methods alone has introduced revolutionary changes into many industries, so that regulations which were drawn up ten years ago to meet a given state of things may be out of place or inoperative now. The Factory Acts, for instance, were designed in large part to protect women and children from the exhausting effects of prolonged toil, the idea at the root of the measures being the same great principle which underlies our whole system of public health. But when the agitation for the ten hours’ day culminated in the Factory Act the question, after all, was not settled. It was within the bounds of possibility that such mechanical contrivances could be devised as to make the period of legalised toil quite as harmful to the operatives, or, indeed, more so, than the longer day. The question whether intense toil concentrated into a relatively short period, is more or less trying to the human frame than if the same toil were dispersed over a relatively longer period, cannot be settled off-hand. But the fact undoubtedly remains, as I have shewn in the chapter on textile industries, that machinery has been speeded up to a point which is immensely in excess of that which prevailed when the hours were longer. At the present time, therefore, the strain upon the attention and the wear and tear of the nervous system are greatly in excess of former times, and the worker must be “on the stretch” the whole time to attend properly to the work. The illustration will serve to show how the factors governing the industrial situation shift from time to time, and act and react on one another, and that if factory legislation and administration are to be really effective they must keep pace with the times and adapt themselves to changing conditions.

The fact that so large a number of additions and modifications have been made in our factory legislation since 1802, when the first intervention of the State on behalf of factory children took place, shews that some attempt at least has been made to grapple with this part of the question. It may suffice for our immediate purpose to note the clear intention and spirit of British factory legislation; viz., the protection of those who are unable to help themselves in the matter of securing humane conditions of labour. Thus, the State does not allow children to work all their time in a factory until they are thirteen years of age, and not then unless they have attained to a standard of school proficiency, which is fixed by the Secretary of State; nor does it allow half-timers to begin work until they are eleven. Then again, no child or young person of either sex under sixteen years of age is allowed to enter a factory without obtaining a certificate from the certifying surgeon as to his or her fitness for the work. If a fatal accident happens in a workshop, or a serious or fatal accident in a factory, the certifying surgeon has to give in his report on the case. Then again, night-work is absolutely forbidden for women and children. But the State contemplates much more than this. It provides that workmen as well as women and children shall secure conditions such as are not prejudicial to their health and well-being. There are clauses in the Factory Acts—permissive, it is true, for the most part—bearing upon the efficient ventilation of factories and workshops, and providing for the installation of fans in certain cases; for the purifying of the atmosphere where noxious, poisonous, or offensive matter or injurious dusts are given off in the process of work; and for a certain allowance of space and air. Anyone who goes through the Acts carefully can have no doubt that the protection originally accorded to women and children has now in certain important respects been recognised by the State as a claim to be enforced on behalf of every class of workmen. Nor must we forget, in estimating the functions of the State in relation to labour, that the Factory Acts form one of an entire class of legislation which is based on the principle that human life and health are the direct care of the organised community, and can under no circumstances become, whether by hire or sale or any other form of contract, the property of the employing class. Thus the Mines Regulation Act forbids the employment of women underground, and fixes the age of twelve as that in which boys may go below ground; whilst it formulates a complete and most elaborate code of precautionary measures in the interests of the workmen. The Employers’ Liability Act belongs to the same category, for it throws upon the employer in a large number of cases the responsibility for injury done to his workpeople in the course of their employment.[18] It is clear then that the State is committed to a principle the maintenance of which involves responsibilities of the profoundest importance, and for the carrying out of which in their entirety not only vigilance and a highly organised staff of trained inspectors are necessary, but close and scientific acquaintance with various forms of industry, and with the physiological effects of these various forms upon life and health—in a word, administrative experience of an extremely high order. And this brings us to an inquiry as to the administrative efficiency as well as the legislative symmetry of these great industrial measures.

[18] The Bill recently rejected by the House of Lords contained a clause enabling workpeople to claim compensation from employers who had omitted to take reasonable precautions for securing healthy conditions, in the event of such neglect injuring their health.

Reasons for Inefficiency.—But notwithstanding such admirable intentions on the part of the State many abuses still thrive amongst women workers, excessive hours are frequently worked, and hundreds and thousands of women break down every year or become prematurely old from overwork, or from the very unhealthy conditions which the Factory Acts are designed to put an end to. In spite of certifying surgeons and the code of public health enjoined by the Acts the children who enter our factories turn out totally unfitted for the strain, and grow up into half-developed beings or fall victims to some form of industrial disease. To some the criticism may suggest itself that these things cannot be cured by Act of Parliament or by encroaching on the liberty of the individual. However, as modern States have agreed that the protection of human life is one of the first reasons of their existence, and as common-sense, to say nothing of humanity, does not see much to regret in the limitation of the liberty of one class to inflict grave hardships upon another, such an objection will not take us much further. Moreover, there is a sufficient explanation of the comparative breakdown of good intentions without laying the blame upon Acts of Parliament. The gap between intention and performance, which is presumably to be found in most of our institutions as well as in individuals, is in truth not lacking in our protective labour regulations, and the vaguer the intention the greater the gap. And it would not be fair to lay the blame for the failure in giving substance to the Acts altogether upon those who administer them.

Factory Acts a Compromise.—The Factory Acts are of the nature of a compromise between two different social schools. The vague phraseology, the lack of a definite standard, the readiness to grant exceptions to certain trades, and, under certain conditions, the large discretion left in the hands both of the Secretary of State and the Inspectors of Factories, these are amongst the signs of the contending elements among which the Acts represent a compromise. Where, as in the case of the textile trades, a definite working day is laid down and overtime is absolutely prohibited, the administration of the Acts is a comparatively simple matter. The factory inspector and the factory clock between them are a match for the employer who is disposed to let his machinery run beyond the legal limit. On the other hand, where the emphatic “shall” which applies to the textile trades is changed into “may,” where overtime is permitted on account of a press of orders, or of season requirements, or the perishable nature of certain commodities, the standard of administration must inevitably become relaxed like the Acts themselves. Several instances, somewhat too technical perhaps to be given here, might be produced in which the Acts have been so drafted as to place the staff of inspectors in an almost impossible position. Thus they are supposed in a general way to see that factories and workshops are properly ventilated, and that conditions of health are favourable. When overtime is worked each person is supposed to have an allowance of 400 cubic feet of space, and the inspector is expected to be the judge of what is healthy or injurious in various processes of manufacture. These surely are cases in which a feeble and uninformed intention, rather than defective executive measures, must be held responsible for lack of results. It is obviously unreasonable to throw the responsibility upon an inspector of introducing a variety of highly-technical hygienic appliances into buildings which have been designed and erected without regard to health, and in which plant and machinery have been laid down with a single eye to production—just as unreasonable in fact as to try to preserve a town from typhoid fever by taking precautions after a defective drainage system has been completed instead of before.

Experts Required.—Again, a staff of experts is necessary for carrying out the public health side of such an Act as this, and yet the Home Secretary, with no experts to consult, is expected to preside as a minister of industrial health over the welfare of the vast mass of the working population, whilst duties are thrown upon the inspectors which could only be efficiently discharged with the help of expert sanitarians, engineers, architects, chemists, and medical men. The requirement of 400 cubic feet of space is an instance of the official brain working in a vacuum, and here again the administrative side is not to be blamed. How is a factory inspector to see that every person who works overtime gets his 400 feet? How can he calculate? Is he to set his calculation against that of the manufacturer who is anxious to keep all his hands working extra hours, and who assures him that, after making due deduction for bench room, machinery, and the like, each person will enjoy his allotted share? Assuming that it is a physical possibility for the inspector with his measuring apparatus to get round to every place of work where overtime is carried on, to keep a record of all the alterations made in the workshop and the number of persons occupied and so forth, is it to be supposed that the inspector will carry out what is presumably the intention of the law, namely, that each person shall have 400 feet of air to breathe—a very different thing from 400 feet of space, inasmuch as furnaces and gases breathe air just as much as human beings, whilst nearly every trade sets up conditions which tend to pollute or deteriorate it to some extent? Let us bear in mind that the life and health of multitudes of people hang upon the distinction between a clear and definite regulation which is framed to be carried out and a vague and misty one which may represent a principle and an intention, but cannot be reduced to practice in its clouded shape, and we shall understand the vital importance of a clear, straightforward, and definite regulation.

Reforms Needed.—Our answer then to the question, “How is it that, in spite of Factory Acts, things are still so bad to-day for many of the most defenceless workers?” is, that the State has not troubled to understand where the shoe pinches, and that in its eagerness to concede something to supposed trading interests it has allowed confusion and licence to interfere with the working of those humane enactments. I therefore propose to examine briefly the various points which call urgently for immediate reform.

(1) In respect of Health. (a) Periodical medical examination in trades where women and children are largely employed. The Certifying Surgeon—who by the way ought to be employed directly by the State and not by the manufacturers—at present only examines the children and young persons before they begin work in the factory, and has no jurisdiction over workshops except upon the special order of the Secretary of State. His duties should be extended to workshops, and periodical examination should be made of the women, children, and young persons—especially of the two latter classes—where ground exists for supposing that the conditions of any trade are injurious to health. A body of experience should be brought together as to the special effects of given industries upon health with a view to such improvements and modifications being made in mechanical and other manufacturing processes as to minimise injurious effects.

(b) Definite Hygienic Regulations. Each industry in which injurious processes are carried on should be subjected to periodical investigation by experts, working in conjunction with the Certifying Surgeons and factory inspectors, whose duty it should be to recommend such improvements as are feasible with a view to the protection of health. Steps have already been taken under Section 8 of the Factory Act, 1891, for drawing up special rules for injurious trades, but in view of the constant changes which take place in manufacture, it seems highly desirable that there should be a regular staff of experts in connection with the Home Office, so that the Factory Department could be in touch with such industrial changes and inventions as take place from time to time. Another very necessary step seems to lie in the direction of some system of licensing buildings erected for industrial purposes, so that a proper survey by sanitary and architectural experts may be made, and any necessary structural alterations carried out before the work is begun. Just as the Education Department now lays down definite hygienic regulations to be observed in the construction of schools, so the Factory Department, in connection perhaps with the local authorities, should seek to enforce a standard of healthiness.

(2) The Employment of Mothers. As the law stands at present, the only regulation with regard to the employment of mothers is one which forbids their employment in factories and workshops within a month after the birth of a child. This was one of the recommendations made by the Berlin Conference. In the opinion of Dr. Tatham, for many years the medical officer of health for Manchester, and now head of the Statistical Department in the office of the Registrar-General, as well as of many other medical men who have studied this question for years on the spot, this period is far too short in regard both to the health of the mother and the welfare of the child—two points which it is practically impossible to separate in considering this question.