Chapter VI: The Intelligence Office and Household Work

Sources of information: Talks with girls waiting for positions and answers by them to questions on blanks; talks with, and answers to, questions on blanks, and letters from 350 employers; literature wherever it relates to offices.

At first a study of employment agencies did not seem to involve the great problem called "domestic service." But only a little way in the investigation it became apparent that it was really a household problem, from one point of view, for fully three fifths of them are run chiefly to supply households. There are three ways in which household workers are secured: with or without references from offices; by advertising; or from friends of the employer or employee. Certainly the first is the only one which is always available and upon which the public feels it has a direct claim.

The scope of this chapter will not permit a broad discussion of household labor, for that has been done elsewhere by far abler writers, and there are comprehensive plans for further study. But there is such a close relation between homes and offices, that such facts as have been found in the study of offices are presented in the hope of throwing additional light upon the subject of household work.

The two problems of household labor with which the office is most intimately concerned— the supply and competency— are the only phases of the subject with which this chapter deals. The facts as presented may seem to discriminate against the employer, but the refusal to enter housework and to receive training must be studied from the employee's point of view, and, in this investigation, through the office.

The data which have been thus gathered may be grouped under three main heads—conditions for which offices are directly responsible, those for which they are indirectly responsible, and those over which they have practically no control. There is probably no large city in this country, unless it is in the South where the negro predominates, where the supply of household workers is equal to the demand, or where the length of service compares with that in other occupations. To the last statement there are many exceptions, for many of the employers reported "no servant trouble." For some small measure of this insufficient supply, offices seem responsible, but competition in other lines of work and the encouragement of uneducated and unqualified girls by mercantile training schools to take up work for which they are not fitted, and the amount of immigration, are, indeed, conditions beyond their control. It is a safe estimate that fully three fifths of all household workers are placed by offices. Employers consider them their "mainstay" and "last resort," and any proposal for their abolition would send consternation into thousands of householders" hearts. Their work, with the possible exception of the immigrant and negro ones and some of the reform enterprises, seems to be to exchange girls already in positions, rather than to develop facilities for increasing the number; and they maintain their control of the situation, by diverting the available supply from honest homes, so that a definite increase is never permitted. We believe that the investigation shows that if they did not encourage, and oftentimes compel girls to go into disreputable houses as employees or inmates, some of the cry of scarcity of household workers would disappear. The factory and the store take many girls from housework, but less cry is made about offices which send many thousands of girls into disreputable houses, where the good pay and easy times as employees spoil them for work in honest homes. The immense fees, gifts, and bribes which are offered make such houses the foe of the household and a danger to the employee. We further believe that for similar reasons some offices favor hotels and encourage many girls who prefer families to enter these and so spoil them for homes. When they object that they cannot go back to homes, the office replies, "Oh, we will get you a place later and you don't need to tell." But it does tell in both manner and character. In many instances girls prefer hotels, for the privileges are greater, but we also know many instances where they have been forced into them by offices which had "nothing else," and refused to return the fees.

By encouraging specialization, offices increase the demand. General houseworkers are fast disappearing, and only the unskilled workers will do all kinds of work. It is a tendency of the times to specialize, but offices sometimes arbitrarily force this choice. When we applied for general housework, they voluntarily advised us to "ask for a position as waitress or maid even if you don't know how; it pays more"; or said, "You are a back number—you get much work and little pay in general housework." Some actually refused to get us positions, saying, "We do not deal with such second-class help"; and employers who asked for them were often scorned as "not having much of an establishment," and received little attention. This means that families which can afford but one employee are constantly urged to employ two, and wherever they yield, the available supply for other households is decreased. When a combined cook, chambermaid, and waitress becomes a waitress only, two others must be found to make up for the other two thirds, or the employer must "help out."

Unquestionably the treatment given employees in some offices, as shown in the opening chapter, drives girls away from housework. They have said: "We are treated like dogs in these offices—no wonder we'd rather go to factories"; or, "Nobody cares for a girl except for her money—we don't have to pay to get into stores"; or, "You know about the place where you are going when it's a factory that wants ye." One woman said she spent the good part of a year in an office looking for housework, and then "got a job in a day in a factory for nuthin." Some employer was looking for her; why did they not meet? There is but little about most offices to make girls feel the dignity or worth of household work, and nothing which indicates that it may prove attractive.

The change in the nationality of immigrants is to a small degree influenced by these offices through their systems of importation. When it is remembered that New York has over two hundred Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Bohemian, and Jewish offices, and they and their many friends and relatives and neighbors are all influencing others to "come over," this becomes quite important. The Irish and Germans—desirable immigrants for households—are coming in much smaller numbers. The last report of the Commissioner of Immigration shows that for 1903 the number of female steerage passengers was: Austro-Hungarians, 58,027; Russians, 43,158; Germans, 15,225; Swedes, 16,220; and Irish, 19,334.

Advocates of the restriction of immigration have not sufficiently considered the effect upon the question of household work. Few American girls are willing to do the kind or amount of work which the immigrant does, and she is the "general houseworker," the "helper" of the present, and must be even more so of the future. Some Western communities and a few Eastern families claim to have solved the problem by employing Chinese labor, and advocates of unrestricted immigration might find this an argument against the attacks of trades unions.

At their worst, offices are only indirectly responsible for incompetency. They cannot compel a girl to take training, but they can prevent impositions by refusing to give false references and to recommend girls whom they know to be unworthy. Because of the grade and conditions of offices many of the best employees will not patronize them. The preceding chapters have shown that some are training-schools for immorality, intemperance, deceptions, and vice, and hotbeds of gossip, so that no further comment upon them is needed.

It may be of interest to note that many employers who did not use offices wrote, saying they had no "servant problem," giving, as reasons, "They remain a long time," or, "many years"; "I secured my help through friends"; "My servants only leave to marry, and I have kept in touch with them after marriage for several years. My experience will not help you any except to prove that competent servants can be found"; "I cannot recall any grievances against servants, though we have many in the house"; "We have no trouble, we understand exactly the terms of the contract, and do not try to get something more, or different, out of each other"; "I have had so little trouble that I scarcely know how to answer these questions"; and, "Three of my maids are married and have called to show me their babies, and one says she feeds her children as I taught her, so they are not all bad, and while there are many trials there are a few compensations also." On the other hand, of those who patronized offices the length of service of girls was given as less than eighteen months, seventy-two replies; three years, seventeen replies; and two years, sixteen replies. Some said, "We have had so many servants we could not keep track of the time they stayed."

But there are other causes and explanations of incompetency which the office cannot influence, and these are best seen in the attitude of employers and employees. Ideas of incompetency are such that offices cannot establish any standards or rules,— indeed in many cases they can scarcely understand them. Two requests—one overheard in the office, and the other made of us—show what some employers expect: "I want a waitress-just an ordinary one," one said. Being an employer that day, we conversed and found that she required one who was "honest, neat, strong, quick, capable, earnest, willing, trained, good-tempered, nice-looking, not impertinent, sober, willing to resign all the attentions of men, religious, and willing to wear a cap." Another who interviewed us wanted a sanctimoniouslooking waitress for a family of ten, who would be willing to quote Scripture if requested when clerical guests were entertained; to sit on the back porch on Sunday evenings with Bible in hand, and be able to turn her eyes heavenward whenever the mistress and parson guests passed. We were assured, if thus capable, much would be overlooked and many gifts given.

Employers give, as reasons for incompetency, "lack of education and knowledge, carelessness, laziness, lack of experience in this country, and no special training." One sums it up thus: "The want of skilled labor in anything like the proportion to the demand, want of any standard of excellence, unbusinesslike way in which women deal with their housekeeping, and want of any conscientiousness on the part of servants generally." Over two thirds of them declare that the service is inferior to that in former years, and that the advance in wages, in their experience, is twenty-five per cent.

Among the many suggestions which employers make for remedying the existing incompetency are some of interest. About three fifths are of the opinion that better school instruction would render better service. Out of thirty-nine replies, two thirds recommended training schools, and among their suggestions are included: "A training school with graded diplomas for servants, and one for employers instilling some common sense in both"; "as one who has grown gray and wrinkled from the worry of dealing with incompetent help, I beg to suggest that the only solution to our present unhappy state is a stricter requirement of servants. They should be trained, licensed, and tracked from place to place, so that all who run may read their record, and for this purpose the State should provide a system of employment bureaus"; "The trouble is in the hasty taking of people and failure to explain in advance the exact duties of the position. I think most ladies fail to systematize the work of a servant, especially for off-time and Sundays, and often get out with them at the start by not showing the manner of wishing work done or in finding fault at the wrong time"; "Offices have so many incompetents because the lady will take almost any one sooner than be without, even if she feels she will not keep her long, and the girls know it"; "Servants demand as much and give as little as they can; they are shiftless, spoil pots and pans, use quantities of material for cooking, waste coal, and throw away good food. Perhaps a profit-sharing scheme giving to the servant a part of what she saved would work in such cases."

One makes the following classification:

"Help is the lowest class; servants, those who work under direction and are trained; and employees. The first have to make money somehow, but will only work as much as convenient. Their first thought is their holidays, and they leave their work any time to go on a jaunt. Servants are more faithful. If they are sick, one cares for them just as they do for a horse or cow; if they are only help they care for them as if they were charity cases. Employees supply their own tools, or you have to supply a special set for each one. They are paid for their time and leave at any stage and demand pay for what they have done, and for the time spent in coming and going. They might be useful for apartments. They demand damages for any injury in your house, but if a servant made such a demand it would disqualify them."

Another says: "A good servant carries out her employers' wishes and is faithful to their interests, and will not neglect them for her own affairs—no matter how important." Others say: "Recognize that they are working at a trade; pay the experts by the hour; let them share in the family life; give them the best labor-saving inventions; clearly define their duties; don't order suppers after the hired girl has ended her day's work; eliminate the talk about social superiority and recognize the servant as a human being worthy of consideration; teach ignorant mistresses that caprice is not popular with the women who sell their time for specific duties"; and, "If employers had more things to occupy their minds, they would not magnify household troubles and exaggerate the evil."

One letter from a conservative employer is quoted entire, since it must prove to doubting employees that an employer can see their side and be sincere.

The great difficulty we are now in has come mostly from mismanagement on the part of the ladies themselves — the good housekeepers are suffering from the ignorance of their lady friends more than the ignorance of these women. The late dinners, either at 7 P.M. or 8 P.M., deprive them of their evenings. The holidays due to the maids are given begrudgingly. The new American basement houses give no place for the maids to sit in when work is over, and very few housekeepers give their help a place to sit in beside the kitchen, where the cook does not wish them to be. The most lavish wages are given to incompetent maids and no recommendation required, or given them, so that dishonest women gain positions most anywhere.

Old-fashioned housekeeping has become a lost art. The housekeeper should pass through each department of work once a day. The employee should be given her dues as to personal liberty-her sleeping quarters separated by a screen from her companions, if greater privacy is impossible. She should have a corner where she can wash, dress, and go to bed without inspection from the others. She should be able to go out one hour a day, and have one half-day a week for her own purposes, and every other Sunday free. She should be allowed to receive her own friends as callers at stated and convenient times to her employer. Unless all this is looked into and observed we shall continue to have second-class help in our kitchen, for decent, self-respecting women will not 'live out,' as they say, when treated without considera-tion for their self-respect. When these reasonable privileges are given them, then the housekeeper should dismiss a girl for impertinence, for asking high wages until her work is worth it, for dishonesty, drinking, and unfaithfulness in her work. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways. If the employer treats her servants unjustly, they will fall short in their duties. These ranks of impertinent creatures that infest the intelligence offices have generally been trained into their ways by poor housekeepers. Biddy has been used to odd, dark corners, without daylight often, to work in, few holidays begrudgingly granted: her beau's visits are on area steps or sitting on the refrigerator in a small hallway, or out in the front 'airee,' or with legs dangling from the wash-tubs in a tiny kitchen. Her dishes are thick in piles, to wash up after nine o'clock at night, and she has a secret contempt for her mistress, who is 'shopping' all day, or 'out' from morning till night and often from night till morning. She, therefore, looks on the lady as one who knows little more than herself, but owes her position to money, not to mental superiority, simply luck gave them their positions—Biddy below and the Lady upstairs.

The emphasis upon the need of training for employees is marked, but it is clear that this is a matter which cannot be approached from the standpoint of the office. It is also clear that the need of training of employers is equally great, and one also which the office can never discuss. There can be no doubt that ignorance, false ideas, and inability to see the problem from any other than their own standpoint, or from a greater horizon than their own kitchen, or the experience with one or two girls, do discourage any desire for training. That there are such narrow points of view is illustrated by one reply to the circulars sent out: "I can't see that there is any such big problem as you suggest. I have solved it by living on nuts and fruit, and having my work done out." How many families could do this?

From the employees' standpoint, incompetency is viewed differently. They say: "Employers don't want girls to know what their work is, for then they can get them to do anything," or, "They can't boss every minute if a girl knows her work," or, "You don't know how many people want things done 'my way' or 'mother's way,' even if it is all out of date and not suited to a modern house." One girl says: "I know ten different ways of doing chamberwork besides the one I learned at the trade school—that was money wasted." They say there is a "demand for skilled workers who are willing to learn a new way every day."

There are many explanations of incompetency and aversion to training. Many girls take housework as a makeshift, meaning to marry or change to some other occupation. Parents are sometimes at fault because they think what has been taught at home is sufficient. Others are suddenly thrust into the labor world and have neither money nor opportunity. Then the large immigrant class has no conception of the requirements of an American city home. One employer, in desperation, took a newly arrived Bohemian woman to her Brooklyn home. She could not speak one word of English, and the sign language was used entirely. Only by the most strenuous arguments and constant watching did they manage to keep her, for she insisted upon taking her bath in the back yard, because it was the custom in her own country, where there were no second stories.

There is another class of girls, chiefly American and Irish, which is aggressively opposed to training. They say: "I can get just as good without it"; "Shure, now, why should I be I'arnin' when I kin shove me oar in anywhere and get a good job?" and half an hour later, she left for the Back Bay at $5 per week. To the question, if they would study if instructions were free, fully one half frankly said "No," giving as their reasons that "it is a waste of time," that "we know enough for what we have to do"; that "if we knew more, more is expected for the same wages." Training schools cannot improve conditions unless girls will attend them, and we believe part of the fault lies in the school. The girls themselves partly explain the failure of training schools, when they say: "Those schools are not for us; no one ever finds out what we want to learn; they start out with a theory and everything must fit that, and we won't fit—that's all." Again, "If we want to be waitresses, or chambermaids, or general maids or laundresses, why cannot we learn that one thing? that's a profession just as much as sewing or typewriting; but no, they want us to spend half a year upon general preparation when we don't need it." The public is slow to realize this, and many employers insist upon their waitresses' and maids' knowing other things so as to "fill in." It seems that a distinction must be made between one who wants to study household work so as to direct employees or manage her own home, and one who wants it as a trade. As a matter of fact, many of the patrons of these schools are girls who are about to be married, and others who are seeking instruction for purposes other than to become employees. The general-housework girl is still in demand and must be trained, and so must the specialist; and training schools do arbitrarily say to a girl that she must take a prescribed course, and if she cannot they lose all touch with her.

Selecting at random some half-dozen announcements of domestic training schools, we found that not one offered such a separate course as the employees asked for, or which could be completed within their idea of a reasonable time. Scarcely one offered instruction by women in touch with employees, though their names were familiar as writers and lecturers. These are not likely to understand the needs and attitude of ignorant, foreign, or awkward employees. Furthermore, two thirds of the courses noted were over the heads of the mass of women who are household workers. "Chemistry of cooking, household values, bacteriology, food manufacture"—what can these possibly mean to women who cannot read and write, who do not know one word of English, or one utensil from another? and Swedes, Germans, and others are literally shut out by language limitations. Employees, so far as they will admit they want training, insist that schools shall be conducted for them alone, the courses based upon their needs, and all idea of patronage removed. So long as employers run such schools simply from the point of view of bettering conditions in their own households they will fail, for desirable girls seek training for themselves and their own economic welfare rather than with the idea of benefit to others.

Some time ago, the Woman's Educational and Industrial Union in Boston conducted such a training school, but it failed for lack of patronage. The Woman's Domestic Guild of New York opened a training school, with an expensive equipment and management, and has furnished lunches and other attractions, but they have not been well patronized. None of these schemes was based upon what the employee wished to study or enjoy, but upon what employers wanted or thought best. Some attractive features of training must be devised to reach employees.

From a close intimacy with employees in offices and from answers to the circulars there can be no question but that the conditions of household labor are responsible for about all that the offices are not, remembering, of course, that by character and training many girls are not fitted for household work. These conditions the office can influence only in the smallest degree. Whether it has any legitimate function in attempting to improve these conditions is an open question and certainly a profitable one for discussion. These conditions may be grouped under three heads: health, economics, and sociability.

There is a general impression that housework is more healthful than any other kind of occupation. Certainly in cities this assertion is open to grave doubts and has never been carefully studied. We had only to go a little way into the conditions in boarding-houses to feel much less sanguine as to its truth. And, indeed, after visiting some homes, we felt even greater doubts. The conditions under which many thousands of houseworkers live in cities is indeed satisfactory, and far superior to that in tenement homes, but it is equally true that there are some tenements in which the conditions are far superior to those found in some fashionable boarding-houses and crowded apartments. Certainly the long hours, the averages for which appear later, and the kind of labor, such as frequent stair-climbing, or scrubbing on hands and knees, washing, or carrying large trays or heavy coal scuttles, do not necessarily constitute the most healthful work. A glance at the columns of advertisements reveals the fact that it is housework that invariably demands a "good, strong girl." Employees say "stair-climbing ten to twenty times a day is thought nothing of," and yet most women know that this is most injurious. In many instances we found girls working under an unusual physical strain, and yet shop girls and factory employees have received the legislation for hours, seats, and sanitation because of the fond belief that housework regulates itself. A few comparisons have been made of healthful conditions in the factory and household, and they do not favor the latter so much as would be expected. A recent study by an experienced observer shows that housework is not necessarily good all-round work, and that among such employees weak backs, and women's diseases are prevalent.

In the matter of healthful exercise, housework has scarcely been questioned. We doubt if in many other occupations this consists of anything less desirable than washing in steaming rooms and going directly into the open air. Certainly breathing the dust from sweeping and beating rugs would not be advocated as an ideal form of exercise. Then there are employees, thousands of them, who do not go out of the house between their "times off." How does this compare with the vigorous outdoor walk which a factory girl must take to her car or to her home each day? The great majority of employers stipulate that the rest time of an employee must be spent in the house, and one employer said, where we were filling a position; "Why, I should want you a dozen times if I thought you were out of the house." This was in response to a simple request for a walk around the block. Another said, "A walk during the afternoon! Don't she get enough doing work?" But every one will admit that recreation implies at least change and usually separation from work. The average healthy woman knows that two or three consecutive days in the house without outdoor walks or drives, or social contact, or at least outdoor breathing, make her depressed, restless, and oftentimes irritable. This is not a question of mistress and maid, but of nerves and muscles and bodily functions, which no one has yet found to be different for different social classes. Certainly housework as performed in the average home cannot rank high in view of what science and experience are teaching of the best forms of exercise, and certainly play and games, the greatest of all recreations, are totally eliminated from the houseworker's sphere. The factory and store girls have these in their working girls' club, settlement gymnasium, or recreation centre.

"Food of the houseworker is far superior to that of the factory girl!" This is also a matter which has not been carefully studied and is open to serious question. There are many thousands of homes where employees get very good food, but there are also thousands of homes where factory employees get it. Girl after girl in good offices advised us against taking positions which were "all right except the food." In many small families employing one or two employees they are given "what is left." The housekeeper usually tries to provide enough, but when an unexpected guest arrives, or for other reasons there is not enough, it is the employee who goes without. Many of them say frankly, "We do not get enough of the kind of food we need." The custom of the house sometimes works hardship for the employee. The breakfast may consist of cereals, toast, and coffee. To the girl accustomed to a very different plan this may well seem insufficient for a hard morning's work. When there is an abundance of food, the kind does not always meet the needs of the girl. Meat may be only an occasional luxury, while salads and other foods, to which a girl may not be accustomed, and to which her system will not readily adjust itself, predominate. Some large households, especially where there are housekeepers, buy two grades, one for the family, and one for the employees, of such articles as tea, coffee, sugar, and meats, and some employees have said to others while waiting: "We buy our own tea there"; or, "We could n't keep the place; they found out we bought our own things because the. stuff given us was so bad." Careful inquiry reveals the fact that this separate buying is a prevalent custom. Unless the employee herself provides against it, food is often cold, and the tendency is to "fill up on tea and coffee and bread and butter." Employers will ask us: "What do you expect?" And we must reply: "You want to attract the girl from the factory and store; if she does not like her food, she changes or supplements it."

One woman who has kept an office for many years in New York and has heard many stories from girls said: "The chief reason why good girls are so scarce is because they receive such poor food, and not enough of that; there is very little variety, especially in houses where two distinct tables are run. They don't want delicacies, but a variety of good, plain food." It is not the purport of this chapter to suggest remedies, and these facts are given simply as elements in the health problem, and must be considered, for they are matters which are weighed by employees.

There can be no question but that defective sanitation and heat cause many girls to leave homes otherwise good. It is a common occurrence to find that the only room in a house or apartment having no heat is that for the employee. One employer for five years could keep no one in winter, but steadfastly refused to recognize this as a cause. Some rooms are in basements, having no sunlight or heat. One employer complained to us that her last girl was not neat and clean, and she hoped we were, and then showed us our room, which was partitioned off from the coal-bin and could not have been kept clean under any conditions! And she insisted there was no connection between the two! The overcrowding is in many instances serious, and certainly girls can have no privacy in many rooms which the writer has seen. Bathing facilities are frequently restricted or are made so hard that girls do not care. We were offered laundry tubs for a bath, which only a good athlete could have used, and which would have been impossible for a two-hundred-pound cook.

Cleanliness of bed-clothing and rooms is so neglected in some good homes that some tenements would shine beside them. One cook told us she was obliged to furnish her own mattress, as the one given her was filthy beyond description, and the family had no sense of pride about it. In some small basement rooms we found from two to six people, and in houses with good systems we found there were no regulations as to change of linen in "servants' quarters." They did it "when they got ready." In apartment houses they are frequently crowded in at the top of the house, and men and women live together with no small amount of freedom, but those who know the value of conventionalities appear none the less shocked when their "girls go astray." The protection afforded girls in many homes is far inferior in many ways to that in factories and stores, and is the more hopeless because it is steadfastly assumed that they are protected. In flats and crowded apartments the employees' rooms often open off the kitchen, and are frequently upon airshafts and have no other light or ventilation, and are so small that tenements are often not worse. Sleeping-rooms so near the kitchen are not good for the family or employee, and yet no one protests against the kind of quarters which are designed for household workers in most new apartment houses.

The economic conditions include those which are more familiar because most of the studies have been along this line. It can be truly said that in a general way wages are no limitation upon the supply. All previous investigations and the employees admit that they are paid more than in factories and shops. We found that the only way in which wages markedly affected the supply was in their non-payment. Some employers make a practice of keeping employees a few weeks or months and then discharging them without pay. Many women who run boarding-houses get their "help" in this way. As most of their possessions are exempt by law, an action usually results in inability to collect. Girls have said: "I quit housework 'cause I could n't get my money"; or, "Mistresses cheat so." When a girl is green she is glad to get anything, and so accepts half or two thirds of that due her. We had only to consult the records of Women's Protective Associations and Legal Aid Societies to verify this. In 1891, in Boston, an investigation conducted by some trades unions revealed that "out of 128 complaints, eighty-two were of household employees for wages, and that some of the individual accounts were as high as $600 or $700." A member of a Woman's Protective Association said: "You would be surprised at the rank of the families who 'keep up appearances' on just such methods, and who compromise or settle when we go to them because they can't afford such notoriety."

The lack of system and of arrangement of work seems to be one of the greatest means of limiting the supply. An investigation in Boston in 1898 revealed that the average daily working time, exclusive of Sundays and the day out, was 11.25 hours. This included both "busy and call time." A more recent inquiry showed a minimum of [FRACTION 7 1/2] hours and a maximum of [FRACTION 15 1/2] hours daily; another gives the average as a fraction over twelve hours daily, with a maximum of sixteen; and in another, based upon both employers' and employees' statements, the former gave the daily average as 9.05 hours, and the latter as 12.12 hours. Allowing for exaggeration on both sides, the average of these brings it somewhere near the results obtained in Boston. In the volume on Domestic Service, Professor Salmon states that 37.66 per cent. work ten hours, and 36.96 per cent. more than ten hours. We found very few who would admit that they worked less than ten hours. Many employees say that "call time" is no rest and corresponds to the way girls work in stores. They are not busy every minute every day, but they are "always ready to be" and that "prevents interest and enjoyment in anything but a trashy novel you can drop anywhere." A general average places the daily working time at about twelve hours.

Were the hours the same as in factories, stores, and offices, there are restrictions upon free time which seem to be almost unsurmountable barriers. This is due as much to the custom of the family as to real necessities. They include such as, where an employee may go, time of return, whether she shall receive calls, etc. There are also many interferences, and sometimes the delay of an hour in the regular time out makes the girl's plan impossible. More than one half of the employees talked with said that the length and indefiniteness of hours, and absence of any real compensation for overtime prevented their entering households. A thing of no value to the employer, as a cast-off hat, a desirable girl does not consider as a compensation for an extra hour or two, although the spirit in which it is offered is a recognition of her right. In answer to the question of employers what demands they considered unreasonable, there were many bearing on hours, such as, "unreasonable evening hours," "too many social functions and holidays," "insisting on holidays and hours when there is illness in the family," "out after 10.30 without permission," "night keys so they could come in at any hour," "that visitors should stay later than ten o'clock," "not ask permission but just going out on regular days."

Investigations show beyond a doubt that employees do not have as much free time as those in other fields. They have one afternoon and Sunday afternoon usually, though it is frequently three or four o'clock before they can leave. They may have one evening, but more than this they must secure by special request. Employees in the stores may be detained a little on busy days, but they are so dressed that they can go out to dinner or to the theatre from there. Then the houseworker must ask permission to be out late. In addition the tendency is to give shopworkers an additional afternoon in summer, so they have for at least part of the year one afternoon, all day Sunday,—with the much coveted morning rest,—and all their evenings each week, and, what is more than all this, they do absolutely as they please with this time. Housework must compete with these conditions or offer attractive substitutes before it can draw upon stores and factories for its employees.

We inserted in one of the leading papers an advertisement for a chambermaid in a boarding-house, wages good, but nothing was said about privileges or references. We received just five indefinite illiterate replies. Then we inserted a similar advertisement, but added, "no other work, evenings free, state experience, and enclose references," and we received fifty-four replies, about which there were some interesting things. Many of them—over one half—came from women who had not done housework before, but were in their own homes and stated that that was their only experience. The reasons given for applying were such as "death of parents"; "rented rooms"; or "ran boarding-houses and failed"; "illness of husband"; and "small children dependent upon her"; "present position involved too much responsibility"; and that a "position giving evenings would enable her to care for her child." One was from a nurse who found "the care of invalids too confining," another from a woman who had "the daughter of a friend in her charge to find work for," and a third wanted to know "if my husband and child can board at the house, as I wish to help along with expenses and he is not very well." Some, who were doing day's work, thought it would be steadier, and others who had no experience were "willing to learn." Another fact was that several were from small towns many miles away, from women who wanted to come to the city. Answers from those in the city were usually from good neighborhoods. They showed that most of the writers were possessed of fair education, and the number of personal references offered was extremely gratifying—being addresses and telephone numbers of former employers and friends. In a small way this shows that improved conditions attract a better quality of employees.

A few girls included impossibility of promotion as an objection, and said there was but little increase of wages, unless they changed places. As compared with other occupations this is unquestionably true. This partly explains why hotels and large households often secure better houseworkers, for they do offer some such opportunity. Offices, stores, and factories recognize this and always hold out at least the inducement of a rise, but the small household can at best only increase wages.

The kind of work is often a drawback, especially when it is general housework. Many say it is harder, more confining, and more objectionable than factory work. While waiting in a good office a well-dressed employer came in and asked for a girl for general housework. She seemed somewhat irritated when told they were scarce, and said, "Well, I want a girl not afraid of work, one who can bring in coal and wash skylights and tend the furnace and chop wood. She does n't have to do it in my house, but I want her to know how—that's my principle. I am all right to live with if a girl will work, but I am the devil to get along with if she won't." Employees complain of the constant change in work. When they go to a new place it's "do it all some other way," or their work is gradually increased.

Most employees insist that the privileges granted do not compensate for other conditions. They consider, extra free time, single rooms, medical care, use of books and magazines, use of bathroom and sewing-machine, seat at table, tickets to entertainments, use of dining-room or a sitting-room, vacations, having pets, frequent callers, and any time over the usual stipulation as privileges. Many things regarded as such are common, everyday rights which they obtain in other labor. Many said they preferred less wages and more privileges, if they had a choice.

In answer to the question, "What privileges do you consider unreasonable?" fully one third of the 350 employers said that their "servants made no unreasonable demands"; and some added: "They have been with us many years"; or, "We remember they are not living at home, so we give them special privileges"; or, "We live in the country, and besides their regular time we give them an afternoon in the city once each month with fare both ways"; or, "I keep a bank account and pay six per cent. interest on all their savings." The other replies in answer to what demands were unreasonable in order of frequency were:

"objection to children; doing no work other than engaged for; too much company, men callers; breaking dishes without deduction; right to cast-off clothing; excessive church-going, personal untidiness; request early leaving of dining-room so could entertain callers; specified foods; that the mistress keep out of the kitchen; money willed for long and faithful service; pensions; eat with the family; travel in Europe; cook not wanting to clean the kitchen; waitresses refusing to do fine linen; removal of other inharmonious servants, waiting on children, refusing to do things in the way requested; sudden leave of absence with no substitutes; use of food for entertaining friends; and using machine without asking."

Carelessness in making definite contracts was shown, in a preceding chapter, to influence length of service. These are a necessity before employees will feel sure about places. In a factory they know the hours, wages, and kind of work. We have been engaged, when everything we thought we had understood was contradicted by the employer when we reached her home. In the volume of labor legislation there is practically none for the house-worker. It is about the only occupation without legal limitations and organization. It thus lacks both protection and dignity in the eyes of girls seeking occupations. "Rights," as every employer knows, is a favorite word with employees, but there are hundreds of households where such a word would not be tolerated, except in the matter of wages. One male employer says, "I have all the time and energy and brains of my valet and he gets his wages." No other occupation can afford such luxuries except from its organizers, promoters, and profit-sharers.

Hotels, large households, and occasionally an office like the Woman's Educational and Industrial Union of Boston sometimes insist upon written contracts, but in the case of hotels they are often one-sided. Here is a fair sample of one in a prominent New York hotel, and found in other cities.

"I agree to work by the day at the monthly rate named below, and further agree that this contract will terminate by my resignation or discharge at any time during the month without notice on either side, and I further agree that if at any time during my employment my employer shall desire to search my person, trunk, clothing, and effects I will submit to such examination without objection and hereby waive all claims for damages on account of such examination."

Nothing is said about breakage, but on the back, out of sight, are the columns "breakage, absence, cash, balance." Some girls not knowing the customs and being unable to protest, have told us that the exorbitant rates at which breakage was charged up, especially to green girls, cost them all their wages. Proprietors must protect themselves, but do not need all of the protection.

The social conditions which limit the supply are quite as important as the economic ones. Most important is loneliness. Some have a marked aversion to going into a house where there is but one employee. It means they must work alone, eat alone, sit alone, and there is no loneliness so great as where one can observe the happy social life of others and yet have no part in it. Even when an employer is friendly an employee cannot be naturally social in her own way. Such a relationship is forced, and though we may not understand what to them is a "good time," we must appreciate that we can at least offer no substitutes. A fair girl returned to an office from which she had been sent to an excellent home on the outskirts of Boston. When asked why she came back, she said, "Oh, it was a big house in a big grounds and no one was home and the only other servant was so deaf she could not hear a thing and it seemed so dreary I knew I just could n't stand it." The wages offered were unusually good. To many girls the possibility of companionship is often the sole determining factor.

There are, of necessity, restrictions upon the number of callers an employee may have, and some employers object to men, not realizing that this practically throws the girl upon the street for such companionship unless she is fortunate enough to have a home. This desire for male company is considered undesirable, but home-makers must realize how fundamental is this desire of most women for a home and children. Employers constantly complain: "Servants will not go where there are children." Are women who are indifferent to all attractions of men likely to prove fond of children? Employees are unanimous in saying that under present conditions they attract only inferior men, and it is not necessarily for personal reasons, for many go away in summer and conceal their occupation, or go into different occupations, and this is changed at once. As women rise in grade of housework or change to higher occupations, just in that degree do they attract more skilled workers among men. This inability to get desirable men for company must not be underestimated. One employee writes, "We want to marry as well as any one else, but we can't get the respect of a man when we have to visit down cellar, or when we must sit on the back steps." The fact that employees pay intelligence offices for the privilege of entertaining friends there, shows that there is a real need, and no amount of wages or other privileges will induce employees to leave factories and stores for such prospects. Not many employers would make similar sacrifices, and yet women's inclinations and natures are much the same.

Necessarily in households there are restrictions upon the hospitality which employees may extend, and the places in which they must receive their friends are sometimes such as to humiliate a girl of the dullest sensibilities. Personal independence is interfered with, and, as one girl says, "We are bossed eternally; they ask us where we are going, where we have been, and what we did, and who our friends are"; and one employer said she discharged her girl for lying to her about where she spent the evening." An employee writes: "Our employer feels, somehow, that she is our guardian and has the right to supervise all incomings and outgoings, to question us about what we do in our leisure, and to be 'mistress' as well as employer. All this meddling is usually kindly meant, but none the less it reduces us from the status of a free employee to that of a vassal." This loss of personal independence is a real grievance. They have no choice of food or places to sleep, of what they will wear indoors, of how the work is to be done, or of hours. One employer says:

"In engaging help my greatest difficulty is to get a girl willing to stay at home evenings. A girl cannot do her work well unless she has the proper amount of sleep and rest, but it is almost impossible to make a servant eelf that the woman is her friend who won't let her run every night. Why, because a girl is a servant, she should be allowed to run the streets all hours of the night, I can't understand."

The factory says to the girls "Unless you do your work well, you lose your position"—but nothing more. But in manufacturing communities we find women regulating this themselves, and social functions, as dances, suppers, etc., falling on Friday and Saturday nights, and quieter visiting during the week. But the housekeeper says, "You cannot run the streets, because I do not think you do your work well." The modern economic tendency among women shows that if the better quality of women are to go into household work personal independence must remain conditional only upon the quality, regularity, and necessities of work, not upon others' opinions or theories of life.

One of the most common complaints is that employees are ungrateful and that they leave when employers are good to them. One employer says, "I found on careful thought that all my goodness came back to me, and that for every old thing I gave my girl I had taken an hour or more from her regular free time, and I feel now that she had a right to change, though I was ten years seeing it."

Household workers are subjected to indignities and familiarity. They get the benefit of uncontrolled tempers and bad dispositions, while a girl in a store, by the publicity of her position, is often spared the worst. There are marks of inferiority which distinguish only the household workers. We have heard many good employees refuse places because caps and aprons were required. We have previously referred to the use of the first name and intrusive questions, and we are convinced that with many these are vital considerations. Some have given up their places because of the familiarity of male members of the family—a position rendered more dangerous than those in stores by reason of the isolation. Undesirable workers have admitted going into housework because it gave them better opportunities to meet men.

There is no occupation where there is so little organized social life. Institutions have tried to form clubs, but employees do not want patronage, so much as the facilities for starting their own societies. This lack of organization is due to different grades of workers, different nationalities, and to isolation and lack of time. In Boston, the Young Women's Christian Association conducts a club which meets at its rooms Thursdays and is fairly successful, but not spontaneous. All other working girls have their organizations; they are invited to vacation homes, and their working girls' clubs are a success, but there are almost no household workers found among them.

As a closing comment upon the inability to induce factory and shop girls to go into households we refer to the report of the Woman's Educational and Industrial Union of Boston, which made a systematic effort to get into touch with working women. Five hundred and sixty-four women were reached, and made aware of the movement to interest them. The material gathered shows that

"hours by length and indefiniteness were a tremendous drawback, likewise the industrial isolation and social stigma. It would be lonely for a woman of intellectual resources and, to those used to companionship of the shop, impossible. Nearly one fourth of the shop women spoke of their loss of independence, and some shrank from the idea of a woman employer; others said housework was too hard and that washing and ironing was impossible. Only a few really disliked housework, but added that a little more pay was no inducement. In brief, the result suggests no hope of rejection, by shop and factory, of their work in favor of housework, excepting under unusual circumstances."

Though 564 women were notified, there were but thirty-six applicants, and twelve of these were charity cases who could get no work, and seven others were not girls changing from factories. Only three were successfully placed and remained in their positions, and of these the report says, "One was a Russian tailoress who was forced to abandon her work on account of her eyes; one was a telephone operator who could not stand the nervous strain, and the third gave up the factory to escape the extra duties imposed upon her at home." These three alone, out of the 564 women, remained in service. The report concludes: "Emphasis must be laid upon interesting and awakening the employers. Widespread interest would culminate in specific changes, and bit by bit domestic service would become a possible alternative to the shop and factory."