General Increases Based on
Cost of Living Changes
A new bone of contention appeared in the battle to maintain men’s wage standards for women munition workers when the rising cost of living brought the men in the engineering and shipbuilding trades a general advance of 5s. weekly from April 1, 1917, with the promise that further advances of this kind would be made three times a year if necessary. The Ministry of Munitions held that the terms of the award were such[133] that it did not apply to women’s wages. But under pressure from the Federation of Women Workers the Ministry, on April 16, announced the advancement of the standard time rate for women replacing men from 20s. ($4.80) to 24s. ($5.76) weekly,[134] to go into effect from April 8. On work “not recognized as men’s work” the gain for adult women was 1d. (2 cents) an hour for time work and ¾d. (1½ cents) for piece work.[135] The advance was likewise applied to woodworking processes.[136]
Following another war bonus of 3s. (72 cents) weekly to men workers, awarded by the Committee on Production, the women’s Special Arbitration Tribunal granted adult women a second general advance of 2s. 6d. (60 cents) in August, 1917, with half as much to girls under eighteen.[137] This applied to all “controlled” establishments, having a far wider range than any previous wage order. The powers of the Ministry over women’s wages had been extended by the amendment to the munitions act which allowed “leaving certificates” to be abolished. If this was done, as it was, the Ministry might fix wages in any trade in or in connection with munitions work. Another important extension of the wage awards about this time was their application to Ireland, where wage scales had been very low. A third and a fourth general advance, the first[138] of 3s. 6d. and the second[139] of 5s. weekly for adult women, were granted on December 15, 1917, and September 1, 1918, respectively. The four general advances amounted to a total of 15s. weekly ($3.60), which brought the standard time rate for women munition workers on men’s work up to 35s. ($8.40) weekly at the end of the war. But meanwhile the men workers had been granted still larger bonuses.
In addition, hundreds of special cases continued to be brought before the Special Arbitration Tribunal, which generally granted at least part of the wage increases asked for, but avoided any general declaration of principles when the equal pay issue was raised. Another development of 1918 was the issuance of a “Consolidated Order,” the result of agitation by the women’s unions begun eleven months earlier, which unified the various wage awards and made some improvements and extensions.[140] Perhaps the most important change was the alteration of the standard rates for women not on men’s work into minimum rates, so that women engaged in occupations of special skill, danger and the like could claim extra payments. The order applied to over 8,000 firms. Delay in issuing it was officially ascribed to the reorganization of the Special Arbitration Tribunal, which prevented consideration of the case till December, 1917.
Criticism of Governmental
Wage Fixing in Munitions Work
The governmental policies outlined above by which wages were fixed for women munition workers were the subject of some sharp criticisms from labor and radical groups and friends of the women workers. The most fundamental of these criticisms was that the government failed to fulfill the pledge regarding the wages of women substitutes made in the “Treasury Agreement” and reaffirmed in the first munitions act.[141] The question is considered at length in the report of the British War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.[142] Mrs. Sidney Webb, in a minority report, holds that the pledge applied to all forms of work and all forms of payment, and charges that there were two main violations. It was not applied to time workers who took the places of unskilled or semi-skilled men, and women were not allowed the same general cost of living advances as men. The majority denied that the agreement was intended to apply to equal pay in either of these cases, though they felt that the wording of the agreement was not satisfactory. Without attempting to give a verdict in the dispute, it may be said that the partial failure to apply the equal pay principle did cause much unrest among both men and women trade unionists, who felt that the men’s rates were menaced and the women unfairly treated.
Other points of criticism included the limited application of the wage orders, the fixing of “standard,” rather than “minimum” wages, and an alleged failure to enforce the orders. The apparent tendency of the government to act only under pressure was perhaps a still more general cause of irritation. It was not until six months after the passage of the first munitions act, following much trade union agitation, that legislation was asked for which would allow the government to make effective its pledge of “equal pay” for “dilutees.” Even then the first wage orders did not cover all munitions work and not even all controlled establishments. Under the wider application of the “leaving certificate clauses” it was said that some firms could continue to pay sweated wages while tying the workers to their jobs. But succeeding orders were more and more extended and until the power was expressly granted in August, 1917, the Ministry did not believe it could fix wages outside controlled establishments.
Most of the rates, it will have been noticed, were not “minimum,” but “standard” wages, to be paid only in case no special awards were made. This policy was criticized because it was claimed that the standard rates almost always became the maximum. But the Ministry believed that “experience justifies the adoption” of a standard rate, which checked constant agitation for changes.
It was also charged that the orders were frequently not obeyed and that piece rates were illegally cut. In the spring and summer of 1917, indeed, investigating officers of the Ministry of Munitions were ordered to visit all establishments covered by the awards and schedule the actual wages paid. “In many hundreds of cases the smaller firms were found not to pay the wages ordered.”[143] Orders to violators to pay the legal wages with arrears increased the hostility of the contractors to the government program of wage fixing. Finally, in order to overcome their opposition, it was arranged that they should be reimbursed for all “extra and unforeseen wage cost entailed by government action.” Under this arrangement it would seem as if there was little if any incentive not to pay the legal scale of wages. In April, 1918, at which time the standard time rate for women substitutes was 30s. ($7.20) weekly, weekly rates for women in typical projectile factories were 32s. 8d. ($7.84), and actual earnings 42s. 4d. ($10.16), while in a similar group of shell factories rates were 34s. 8d. ($8.32), and earnings 56s. 8d. ($13.60). These wages, while well above the legal standard wage, were far from the £3, £4 and £5 weekly popularly ascribed to the women munition maker and in reality earned only by the exceptional piece worker.
In estimating these or any other wage increases, the greatly augmented cost of living must not be overlooked. The rise was estimated at 40 per cent in February, 1916, when the first compulsory award was made, 70 per cent in April, 1917, at the time of the first general increase, and 95 per cent in September, 1918, when the last war time advance was granted. Rents were held to their former levels by a law which forbade raising them unless structural improvements were made, but fuel, shoes and clothing were all higher, the tax burden was greater and food had more than doubled in price. On this basis the rate set for time workers on “men’s work” in munitions in February, 1916, £1, was equivalent to only 14s. 3d., before the war. The 24s. of April, 1917, corresponded to 14s. 2d., while 35s., the September, 1918, award, amounted to about 17s. 6d. at prewar values. However, it must likewise be remembered that once the awards were really in full force, actual earnings were apparently considerably above standard rates.