But there still remains a slight residuum of nightwork which has to be done by men. To this extent, and to this extent only, can restriction be said to have hindered the employment of women.
We have tried to ascertain how much this really means to the women workers. Thirty-three firms stated that work of the same character as that performed by women in the daytime was sometimes given out to men at night. We cannot, however, assume that the work is always given to men on account of legal restrictions, and it does not follow that the abolition of such restrictions would induce all masters to introduce women for nightwork. Several of them, indeed, emphatically deny that they would adopt this practice; and in some instances we have been told that it was not observed in the best firms before the law prohibited it, e.g., "Mr. A. remembers the time before the Act of 1867 (he has been in the trade since 1851). He could have worked women at night, but never would because of questions of morality."
These statements are, however, only part of the case, because nightwork is generally overtime, and we must consider how far employers care to practise it.
There seems to be an almost unanimous opinion against overtime, and any mention of factory legislation appears to suggest overtime at once to both employers and employed. Experience has driven it home to them that overtime is a most uneconomical method of work;[70] and as there does not appear to be any demand for women's labour at night except occasionally as overtime, the factory law in this respect is only a protection to the employée engaged by the employer who is still experimenting with this unproductive use of labour.
[70] "When the factory (now a large provincial lithographer's, almanac maker's, etc.), was a small one, and it employed only a few hands, they used to work a great deal of overtime. They used all the time they were allowed by the Factory Acts and sometimes tried to get in more. But now they do not find it pays to work overtime."
It is of some importance to note that a responsible spokesman for the men engaged in London houses informed one of our investigators that when men are put on at night to fold "they take it easy, and six men do in two hours what two women do in two hours. They don't bother to walk up and down gathering, but sit at it in a row, and hand sheets on from one to the other."
Testimony of employers.
Some employers, like Mr. Bell,[71] admit candidly enough that legislation enables them to be more humane (and humanity in this respect pays) than they could otherwise afford to be. The Act is "a great relief," such an employer has said. "Legislation is an excellent thing; existing hours are quite long enough. If a person has not done her work by the time they are up, she never will do it." "The Factory Acts are a very good thing," another has said. "Long hours diminish the output"; or again: "Factory legislation is a capital thing; I only wish it could be extended to men." "Women are not so strong as men, and therefore the law rightly steps in." "I think it would be very inadvisable to employ women at night. I think legislation a very good thing. Overtime is not really worth it." "Legislation is a very good thing. I don't believe in long hours. Employers are often shortsighted and think that workers are like machines—the longer you work them the more they do, but this is not really the case; if they work from 9 to 7 they have done as much as they are good for." "The good done by the Factory Acts has quite outweighed any evils or hardships." Another employer remarked: "I shouldn't like my own daughter to do it, and I don't see why other women should do so. I should think it a very bad thing for women to go home in the early hours of the morning." On hearing that restrictions were objected to on the score that they hindered the employment of women, he replied scathingly that it was rubbish, but that "ladies must have something to talk about."
[71] Cf. p. 78.
From this it is evident that protection is viewed favourably by many employers, on the specific ground that it prevents systematic overtime. On the whole, they are of the opinion that nightwork is harmful to women, and that after overtime the next day's work suffers. Some are doubtful whether they would employ women at night even if the law permitted it. Nightwork, they assert, is unfit for women, not merely on account of the harm to health, but because of the insult and temptation to which they are exposed in going home. Whether these views would have been held so generally before the passing of the Factory Acts it is not possible to say; probably the results have justified the Act, and experience has provided moral reasons for legal limitations.