During the season of 1916 it was estimated that 140,000 women registered. Seventy-two thousand certificates and 62,000 armlets were issued,[81] although many of the regular women workers on the land refused to register for fear of becoming in some way liable to compulsory service. Women registrants were said to be found in almost every kind of farm work, even to ploughing, but were naturally more often successful in such lighter forms as weeding, fruit and hop picking, the care of poultry, dairy work and gardening. They were considered especially good in the care of all kinds of animals.
The elaborate plans of the government and the low wages paid were commented on in characteristic style by The Woman Worker.[82]
Women on the Land
It is announced in the papers that the government have decided to start a recruiting campaign for women to work on the land. Four hundred thousand are wanted; and they are to be registered and to be given an armlet. Now, work on the land is useful work, and much of it is suitable to women; but there are points about this scheme which we should do well to look at. It is said that a representative of the Board of Trade at a meeting at Scarborough, said that the wages would be from 12s. to £1. Twelve shillings is not a proper living wage for a woman; and our masters seem to know this. The Daily News, in explaining the government scheme, says, “It is frankly admitted that much of the most necessary work is hard and unpleasant, and by no means extravagantly paid. That is why the appeal is made exclusively to the patriotism of the women. There is no question (as in the army itself) of any really adequate reward.” Well, why not? The farmers are doing very well. The price of corn is higher than has ever been known before. Why should women be deprived of “any really adequate reward”?
Why should women assist in keeping down the miserably low wages of agricultural laborers? If there was “no question, as in the army itself,” of any really adequate profits, then there might be something to be said for the government. As it is, no armlets and no “patriotism” ought to make women work at less than a living wage.
Another minor but interesting development of 1916 was that of organized gangs of women farm workers under a leader. Several of these were successful in doing piece work jobs for different farms in rotation. Others cultivated unused allotments and waste lands. The principal women’s colleges, especially the University of London, provided 2,890 “vacation land workers” in gangs for fruit picking and the like. Two successful bracken cutting camps were also maintained, at which women worked for eight weeks under semi-military discipline.
In January, 1917, the Board of Agriculture further developed its organization by starting a “Women’s Labor Department.” Organizing secretaries were placed in the counties, grants were made to certain voluntary organizations, and 16 traveling inspectors were sent out to advise on grants, inspect living conditions and the like. Steps were also taken to obtain closer cooperation with the men’s county agricultural committees. As has been indicated, the number of women workers failed to increase between 1916 and 1917 as much as between 1915 and 1916, but in 1918 a more decided increase occurred.[83] Later, when the Department of Food Production was formed, it took over both the men’s and the women’s county agricultural committees.
The only English organization dealing with agricultural work by women prior to the war was the “Women’s Farm and Garden Union,” which promoted the training of educated women for gardening. In February, 1916, this body secured land for a training school from the Board of Agriculture, and formed the “Women’s National Land Service Corps,” which was joined by about 2,500 women up to January, 1918. Members received six weeks’ training and were then sent out to the farms, preferably in groups of two or three who could live in a cottage together, “perhaps with a friend to do the cooking.” Others lodged in the villages or with their employers. The members of the corps were said to be “educated girls who had gone into the work mostly from patriotic motives.” Girls entirely dependent on their earnings were not encouraged to join, “because of the low rate of pay.” The corps refused to send out workers, it should be noted, unless the pay covered living expenses, unless, considering the women’s ability and experience, it was equal to men’s rates, or if their workers would undercut or supplant local women. The corps believed that it had accomplished more than its numbers would indicate, in that its carefully chosen members had often convinced doubtful farmers that women could do more agricultural work, and that several of its workers had organized the village women into whole or part time gangs.
In March, 1917, the Department of National Service launched its scheme for a “Women’s Land Army,” using the corps as a nucleus. Women were to enlist for farm work for the duration of the war under semi-military conditions of mobilization. Applications for service were made through the Ministry of Labor, but selection, training and placement was in the hands of the women’s war agriculture committees and officials of the Board of Agriculture. Members of the Land Army were selected with great care so that they could be guaranteed to be strong and physically fit. Out of 40,000 women applying up to July, 1917, only 5,000 were accepted. If necessary, the women were given four weeks’ training with pay, and railway fare to their place of employment. When once at work they were not allowed to leave except with permission of the “district representative.” The numerical results of this elaborate organization were not very large, though the influence of the army’s selected members in showing that women could do farm work was perhaps out of proportion to the numbers. Between 7,000 and 8,000 permanent women workers were placed on farms by the Land Army up to January, 1918, in addition to about 1,000 seasonal workers in gangs.