No Report
| No. | Per Cent. | |
| Male | 7 | .03 |
| Female | 331 | .03 |
| Total | 338 | .03 |
In this table 44.6 per cent of the males as over against 30.8 per cent of the females are reported as being efficient, while 19.4 per cent of the females and only 0.05 per cent of the males are listed as inefficient. This should not lead to the conclusion that the male Negro domestic workers of Washington, D. C., were more efficient than the female Negro domestic workers of that city, since the 202 male domestic workers do not represent the rank and file. They represent men of family responsibilities, and students working their way through high school and college. Both of these groups had a more or less definite responsibility and aim in doing domestic work and therefore were more willing, at least for a time, to accommodate themselves to conditions obtaining in it. The office received no report concerning .03 per cent of the workers. Occasionally both employer and employee were so well pleased with each other that neither was heard from unless the office in its follow-up work discovered the happy situation.
The opinion of employers that 19.4 per cent of 9,773 Negro female domestic workers of Washington, D. C., were reported inefficient does not, without other data, justify this as a scientific conclusion. Some typical examples of their inefficiency are interesting.[20] The inefficiency is due in large measure to pure ignorance which for the most part is the sequel to lack of opportunity and training. For example, the older type cook, who cannot read and write, finds it difficult, if not impossible, to carry all the different modern salad and dessert combinations in her memory and cannot supplement her instructions by the use of literature on domestic science.
Employment agencies in Chicago in 1923, moreover, have hardly told the whole truth in giving the following figures on the efficiency of 200 female domestic workers and 200 male domestic workers: Women, satisfactory 175, or 87.5 per cent; unsatisfactory 10, or 5.0 per cent; neither satisfactory nor wholly unsatisfactory 15, or 7.5 per cent. Men, satisfactory 125, or 62.5 per cent; unsatisfactory 45, or 22.5 per cent; neither 30, or 15 per cent.
Efficient domestic workers apparently regret that they are in an occupational group representing such a high degree of ignorance and inefficiency. They sometimes take pride in saying that they have never worked for poor people. Such a class of workers is represented by a Washington, D. C., domestic worker who gave as her former employers Mrs. John Hays Hammond, Mrs. Arthur Glasgow, Senator Beveridge, Senator Guggenheim, and President Wilson. She took pride in the fact that she could even show anyone a piece of the president's wedding cake.
Honesty in domestic service is so closely associated with efficiency that practically no reference for a domestic worker is complete without some statement about this qualification. In 1890 Miss Salmon raised a serious question with regard to the honesty of Negro domestic workers in the South. Her question was based on answers received from schedules sent to employers of that section.[21] In 1901, 92.6 per cent of 583 domestic labor employers representing the whole United States testified that their employees were honest and responsible. Most employment bureaus were also agreed upon the general honesty of domestic workers.[22] In 1899 the Philadelphia Negro domestic worker of the Seventh Ward was described as purloining food left from the table but as having the balance in his favor in regard to honesty.[23] In 1906 opinions of former employers of 902 Negro wage-earners in domestic and personal service in New York City were that 91.3 per cent were honest; 7.1 per cent were either honest or fairly so; 0.6 per cent were dishonest, and no statement was given for 1.0 per cent.[24]
Out of 9,638 Negro domestic workers reported upon for Washington, D. C, between the years of 1920-1922, only .2 per cent were rated by their former employers with assurance as being dishonest; 90.4 per cent were listed as being honest. There were various answers for the 9.4 per cent. Some did not remain long enough to have judgment passed upon them. Others were in a doubtful class but with no proof against them, and the like. This low percentage of dishonesty eliminates the tradition of taking food except in seven cases. The seven cases of food taking are included because they were directly reported and regarded by the employers as dishonest. Some employers, according to their own statement of the case, do not regard taking food left from the table as stealing, although such is against the will of the employer. According to the southern tradition of a low wage and taking food to piece it out, domestic workers are still virtually expected to follow this custom.
200 women and 200 men domestic workers of Chicago have the following record for honesty: Women, honest, 199, or 99.5 per cent; dishonest, 1, or 0.5 per cent; men, honest, 197, or 98.5 per cent; dishonest, 3, or 1.5 per cent.