The Expert Maid-Servant

by Christine Terhune Herrick

Too much stress can hardly be laid upon this necessity for honesty in the references given. It is the protection of the maid as well as of the mistress. So long as any servant can secure a good place by a forged reference or by one granted to incompetency by easy good-nature, she will not feel that her employment depends upon her merits. The conscientious trained worker stands on precisely the same plane as the careless, unqualified shirk. A good part of the reformation of the much criticised domestic service lies with the mistress who deplores its faults. When a maid understands that laziness, impertinence, dishonesty, ill-temper, incompetency, will be mentioned in her reference just as frankly as the contrary good qualities, she will take more pains concerning the recommendation that will win or lose her a place.

As a matter of course, there is always the chance that an unscrupulous or bad-tempered mistress may take advantage of the power of the reference. But this risk is small, especially in the present condition of our domestic service. We have not yet reached the point attained by the English, with whom a false reference—that is, one not written by a genuine employer of the servant holding the reference—is punished by fine or imprisonment. From present appearances, it does not seem likely that we shall ever get to that. But the mistresses might at least have the sense of mutual responsibility that marks "living-out girls." If a place is once known as hard, or a mistress as unreasonable, unkind, or a "driver," it is difficult to find servants to fill it. There is an unorganized trades-union among servants which helps to protect them, in a measure. The mistresses have too little esprit de corps when references are in question.

It is difficult to describe to a prospective maid exactly what her work will be, but she can have a general outline of it given to her. Concerning her privileges it is possible to be more explicit, although the privileges vary with the position the maid occupies in the household. Where one servant is kept, it is customary to allow her every other Sunday afternoon and evening out, and an afternoon and evening besides on a week-day, once a fortnight—or else an evening every week. When two servants are employed the same privilege is allowed to each, and it is the general rule that one shall take the work of the other on the days and evenings out of the latter. Thus, the second maid prepares dinner as well as serves it, when the cook is out, while the cook does the waiting and serving and answers the bell, in addition to doing her own work, when the second maid has her holiday. In some households it is the custom to have supper instead of dinner on the night when the cook goes out, thus lightening the task of the waitress. The Sunday evening supper is practically universal, as it gives the maids their heaviest work in the early part of the day and lessens the labor of the afternoon and evening. In the household where three women servants are employed, it is the custom to have but one out at a time, except on Sundays. More or less planning is required to divide the work satisfactorily under these circumstances, and the method in which the division is accomplished must be decided by the features of each case. Whatever the peculiarities of the position, they must be made plain to the maid when she is engaged, and not left at random to be decided upon later.

The arrangements once made, it must be understood that the rules formed are not to be lightly broken, either by mistress or maid. The employée is to know that she can count positively on a certain day a week, and the mistress must submit to great personal inconvenience sooner than vary from this rule. If, for instance, it is more agreeable for her to entertain guests on Thursday than on Wednesday, and the former is the maid's evening out, the mistress should waive her own preferences and convenience sooner than break in upon the maid's outing. The same principle should be followed by the maid. Her day out is agreed upon to be this or that. She should not feel that she can change it to suit herself, merely by requesting the indulgence of her mistress.

In other matters about the household there should be a fixed routine, and this should be understood from the outset. Meals will be served at certain hours, the maid will be expected to have them on time and the family to be prompt at the table. Such system as this does much towards simplifying the work of a household and gives a maid a feeling of stability that helps her to do her work to better advantage. She knows what she has to do in the line of work and what to depend upon in the way of time, and as a consequence the wheels of the home move more smoothly.

Such a hard-and-fast rule as this cannot prevail, perhaps, in every household. Take the case of a physician, for instance, of a newspaper man, of some business-men. It is almost out of the question for them to conform to an immutable regulation. If a doctor has been up all night with a patient, it is rank absurdity to say that he must be on hand in the morning for an eight-o'clock breakfast, or that if a commuter loses his train he must stop in town and get his dinner sooner than derange the times and seasons of the domestic economy. In such cases it is well to remember that the house is made for the family and not the family for the house. But instances like these are exceptions, and do not affect the general application of the rule.

On the other hand, it may be urged that there are happy and, in the main, well-conducted homes where a different principle is followed. In these the establishment is considered more as the home and less as a piece of machinery. Concessions are rendered to the preferences of the servants when they wish to vary their days out, and they in turn are ready to accommodate themselves to the wishes of their employers when a change of holidays seems desirable. Such liberties as these it is not safe to advise. They are the exceptions, and, in the long run, the stricter plan will probably prove more satisfactory to all concerned.

At the time of engaging the maid, the mistress should make stipulations as to the minutiæ of caps, aprons, broad collars and cuffs, and the like. In some parts of the country there are maids who object to anything that seems to suggest a livery or uniform, and, if there are protests to be made and met, the process should be disposed of at the start.

Many mistresses and maids fail to grasp the fact that the engagement between them is in the nature of a legal contract. Mistress and maid are equals in the eyes of the law, and an agreement is as binding upon one as upon the other. It should be perfectly understood at the beginning for what term the maid is engaged and at what rates. In some places it is the custom to pay by the week, and the servant is then engaged by that term. In other localities she is engaged and paid by the month, although she is frequently taken at first on a week's trial, with the understanding that, if she gives satisfaction and is suited with the place, she is to continue her services by the month. When the latter period is the term of engagement, it is understood that the employer is expected to give not less than a week's notice of discharge to a maid, and that the latter should announce a week before her month is up her intention of leaving. Should the mistress prefer, she can give a week's wages in lieu of a week's notice, but the former method is in more general use.

When a servant is engaged by the week, two or three days' notice is demanded on either side. The "month's notice" with which English books have made us familiar is not common here, unless the servant has been for a long time in the place. Immorality, drunkenness, dishonesty, and absolute refusal to obey orders are sufficient causes for dismissing a servant without warning or wages; but this is an extreme measure, and should be resorted to only in circumstances of great provocation. Even then, complications are often avoided by paying a servant something, if not all of what is due. The servant who leaves without warning in the middle of her term is not legally entitled to her wages, but in this case, also, trouble is usually saved by paying her up to date.