The “War Register” having brought the question of increased employment of women to the front, on April 17 the workers’ national committee called a national conference of trade unions with women members and other women’s labor organizations at which the chief resolution demanded “that as it is imperative in the interests of the highest patriotism that no emergency action be allowed unnecessarily to depress the standard of living of the workers or the standard of working conditions, adequate safeguards must be laid down for any necessary transference or substitution of labor.” The safeguards outlined included membership in the appropriate trade union as a prerequisite for war service, “equal pay for equal work,” no war employment at less than a living wage, maintenance with training where necessary, preference being given in this to unemployed women who were normally wage earners, and reinstatement of the displaced men at the end of the war, with, at the same time, “guaranteed employment” to the discharged women.
The “War Register” did not, after all, prove to be of much importance in the extension of women’s employment. Though 33,000 women registered within a fortnight, and 110,714 during the whole period of registration, up to the middle of September, jobs were found for only 5,511 of them,[74] because, it was said, they lacked the necessary skill to fill the vacancies for which they were wanted.[75]
Much more effective than the war register was the work of the interdepartmental committee of the Home Office and the Board of Trade appointed in November, 1915, “to consider the question of utilizing to the full the reserve of women’s labor.”[76] The committee worked principally through local committees, which were at work in thirty-seven towns in November, 1916. The members of these committees were “chosen for their interest in women’s employment,” and included employers, employes and representatives of such societies as the Young Women’s Christian Association and the Women’s Cooperative Guild. An officer of the local employment exchange acted as secretary of each such committee, and representatives of the Home Office and the Board of Trade attended its meetings “in a consultative capacity.”
The work of the committees varied according to local needs, and included efforts to keep up the supply of women in their normal occupations as well as to secure substitutes for men’s work. In several textile towns a shortage of workers in the mills was relieved by securing the services of women formerly occupied, who were now living at home. In one town enough women were obtained by a house to house canvass to restart 400 looms. An appeal for women workers placed in the Glasgow trams brought good results. In places where there were many unemployed or unoccupied women the local committee tried to persuade some of them to migrate to places needing additional labor. In Cambridge, for instance, several meetings were held for this purpose and a loan fund for traveling expenses was raised.
Some of the most important work of the local committees was done in munition centers where it was necessary to bring in women workers. In such places, members of the committee met the strangers on arrival, took them to suitable lodgings, and “initiated schemes for their welfare outside the factory.” In Gloucester, where, the committee investigated lodgings for 2,000 women, it was entrusted by the Ministry of Munitions with establishing a temporary hostel for women for whom lodgings could not be found.
The committees were active in various other forms of “welfare work.” They arranged a conference of “welfare workers,” and fostered the introduction of factory “canteens.” The Woolwich committee started a club and recreation ground for the women employes of the great arsenal, and a nursery for the children of employed mothers.
Several towns reported “active efforts,” including conferences with employers, on the substitution of women for men. Interesting work of this kind was done in Bristol where a number of unemployed women were persuaded to train for “men’s work” in the shoe trade.
The next effort by the two departments was a joint appeal, in March, 1916, to employers to keep up production by taking on women. Noting that there were already complaints of a labor shortage and of idle plants, the appeal continued:
There is one source, and one only, from which the shortage can be made good—that is the great body of women who are at present unoccupied or engaged only in work not of an essential character. Many of these women have worked in factories and have already had an industrial training—they form an asset of immense importance to the country and every effort must be made to induce those who are able to come to the assistance of the country in this crisis. Previous training, however, is not essential; since the outbreak of war women have given ample proof of their ability to fill up the gaps in the ranks of industry and to undertake work hitherto regarded as men’s.[77]
Concerted action by employers was necessary to reorganize their work so as to use the maximum number of women and to let the local employment exchange know their exact requirements for women. The Home Office, the Board of Trade and the factory inspectors would give all the help in their power in making any such rearrangements. “We are confident that the women of the country will respond to any call that may be made, but the first step rests with the employers—to reorganize their work and to give the call.”