The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
JAMES J. DAVIS, SECRETARY
WOMEN'S BUREAU
MARY ANDERSON, Director
BULLETIN OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU, NO. 39
,.,.
,
DOMESTIC WORKER~ ANP
THEIR· EMPLOYMENT~
RELATI0Ns··
A Study Based on the Records of the Domestic Efficiency Association
of Baltimore, Maryland
BY MARY V. ROBINSON
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1924
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
[PUBLIC~ No.
259-66TH
CONGRESS.]
[H. R. 13229.)
AN ACT To establish in the Department of Labor a bureau to be known as the
Women's Bureau.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be
established in the Department of Labor a bureau to be known as the
Women's ,B ureati.
SEC 2. That the said bur~au shall be in charge of a director, a
woman, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, who shall receive an annual compensation of $5,000. _,It shall be the duty of said bureau to formulate
standards and policies which shall promote the welfare 'of wagc'e arning women, improve their working conditions, increase their
efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The said bureau shall have authority to investigate and
report to the said department upon all matters pertaining to the
welfare of women in industry. The director of said bureau may
from time to time publish the results of these investigations in such
a manner and to such extent as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.
SEC. 3,. That there shall be in said bureau an assistant director, to
be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, who shall receive an annual
compensation of $3,500 and shall perform such duties as shall be
prescribed by the director and approved by the Secretary of Labor.
SEC. 4. That there is hereby authorized , to be employed by said
bureau a chief clerk and such special agents; assistants, clerks, and
othe1• employees at such rates of compensation and in such numbers
as Congress may from time to time provide by appropriations.
SEC. 5. That the Secretary of Labor is hereby directed to furnish
sufficient quarters, office furniture, and eqtiipment for the work of
this bureau.
SEC. 6. That this act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage.
Approved, June 5, 1920.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
'
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
JAMES J. DAVIS, SECRETARY
WOMEN'S BUREAU
MAR y · ANDERSON, Director
BULLETIN
OF THE WOMEN'S
BUREAU, NO. 39
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND
THEIR EMPLOYMENT
.RELATIONS
A Study Based on the Records of the
Domestic Efficiency Association
of Baltimore, Maryland
BY MARY V. ROBINSON
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1924
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ADDITION AL COPIES
OJ' THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROK
THE SUPERINTEND ENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMEN T PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON , D. C.
AT
lo CENTS PER COPY
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONTENTS.
I. Introd u ct ion_____ __ ____ ____ _____ _______ __ ______ ________ ___
II. The D om estic Efficiency Association of B alt imore___ ___ ____ ___
III. A detailed study of the records of the Domestic E ffi ciency
Associa tion of Baltimore_ __ __ ________ ____ __ ___ ______ ____ _
IV. Some efforts a t readjustment s in d omestic service __ ___ ________
P A RT
Page.
1
9
19
57
APPENDIX T ABLES .
I.
II .
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
Number of applicants recorded, b y sex, race, and occupation ___
Age·, b y sex, r ace, and occupation _ _________ ____ ______ __ _____
Conjugal con dit ion, b y sex, r ace, and occup a tion __ __________ __
Preference as to living in or out of h ome of employer, b y sex,
race, and occupation_______ ________ ___ ____ ___ ____ _______ _
Preference a s to city, suburbs, or coun try, b y sex, race, and
occupation __ __ ____ ______ ___ __ ____ ~- - - - - - -- --- ------ - -- L ength of service in previous employ ment by sex, race, and
occupation at that time_ ___ ___ ___ ____ ________ ____ _____ ___
Length of service in previous employ ment and employer's
reason for termination, by sex and race of employee ________
Employer's reason for termina tion of employment, by sex,
race, and occupation of employee at tha t t ime __ _________ ___
Length of service in previous employ ment, b y sex, race, anti
manner of leaving______ ____ ____ ______ ________ ___ __ ___ _ _ _
Lengt h of service in previous employ ment and t ype of employer's
reference furnished to agency , by sex a nd race of employee_ __
Wage rates of placed applicants, by sex, race, and occupation __
Ill
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67
68
69
70
71
72
76
78
82
84
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
u. s.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
WOMEN'S BUREAU,
Washington, January 17, 1924 .
Sm: I am submitting herewith a report on domestic workers and
their employment relations, a study based upon the records of the
Domestic Efficiency Association of Baltimore, Md.
This organization asked the Women's Bureau to make a study
of a little more than 2,000 records for the purpose of ascertaining
the cause of the high labor turnover among domestics because of a
desire to improve the standards in the service and to effect more
cooperation among the employers. The findings and the analysis
are set forth in the report.
Miss Mary V. Robinson made the study of the records and wrote
the re.port.
MARY ANDERSON, Director.
Hon. JAMES J. DA vis,
Secretary of Labor.
V
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
PART I.
INTRODUCTION.
The "servant question," as it is popularly called, is a matter of
discussion involving probably more talk with fewer satisfactory solutions than do the problems of any other one type of employment.
The question seems to be a complex one in almost every country at
the present time, but perhaps fraught with more complications in the
United States than elsewhere. The two factors affecting the situation in this country more strikingly than in others are the traditions
and ideals of democracy and the mixture of races. The principle
that all men are born free and equal is largely responsible for the
eschewing by many citizens of a form of service with which are
associated subserviency and a social stigma. This odium is partly
due to tradition, partly to the lack of financial and social advancement for persons engaged in domestic service, and partly to the
present custom of applying the term "servants" to such workers and
of viewing them as a class apart. Foreign-born persons newly arrived
· in this country in many cases are not unwilling to enter domestic
service, but eventually they make an effort to break away from it in
order to go into work that appears to them to be on a higher plane.
It is generally ~dmitted by authorities on the subject, and by all
persons who have at any time made an attempt to analyze the
problem, that it is not the work itself that is objectionable, but the
conditions under which the work is performed. All those who have
made a study of the question point out that the failure to adjust conditions and to make domestic work attractive as a means of livelihood
is caused by a lack of recognition of its importance and the necessity
of putting it on a better economic and social basis.
Dr. Lucy M. Salmon, writing about this point in 1897, made the
following statement:
In the first place there must be a truer conception on the part of both men
and women of the important place that household employments occupy in the
economy of the world. The utter neglect of the subject by economic students
and writers must give place to a scientific investigation of an employment which
is at least wealth consuming if not wealth producing. * * * In no other occupation is there so much waste of labor and capital; in no other would a fraction of
this waste be overlooked. It is idle to complain of poor servants and of poor
mistresses so long as domestic service is divorced from general labor questions,
and employers everywhere are ignorant of the economic laws, principles, and
conditions underlying the household. 1
l
Salmon, Lucy M. Domestic service. London, 1897. p. 199.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
The report on domestic service of the Industrial Commission of the
United States, submitted in 1901, stated:
There is no other branch of labor which directly affects so many people as
does household labor, yet there is no branch of labor which has received so little
scientific attention from either economists or people generally. In the wages
paid to domestic employees alone, without reckoning the value of the board and
lodging supplied to them, fully $200,000,000 is expended annually. Any other
industry which involved the expenditure of so large an amount of money in
wages would not be left out of the field of economic discussion and investigation. 2
It must be remembered that the annual expenditure of wages
quoted was that of over two decades ago, when wage rates were considerably lower, and that the amount expended at present for domestic
service would be very much greater. The lack of economic standards
described at that date is, however, equally true of the present time.
Several publications brought out a number of years ago under the
auspices of the Young Women's Christian Association indicate the
efforts that have been made by that organization to get at the economic nucleus of the problem and to point the way to reform. In one
of these bulletins we read:
When employers adopt for their households a business basis, systematizing the
work, regulating hours, granting the worker sufficient time and freedom to live
a normal life among her own people, then both educators and girls will be more
than glad to do their part in · meeting the demand for trained service. The
results to be obtained by an adjustment of household employment to meet the
fundamental requirements of a good job are so full of promise for the peace and
comfort of the home that it is impossible to think that employers will longer
delay the venture. 3
That Clara Helene Barker, another writer on this subject, has not
hesitated to fix the responsibility for the lack of progress in this
respect where sbe believes it to belong, is shown by the following
quotations from her book, published in 1915:
The twentieth-century woman, in spite of her progressive and ambitious
theories about woman's sphere of activity, has allowed her housekeeping methods
to remain almost stationary, while other professions and industries have moved
forward with gigantic strides. She does not hesitate to blazon abroad with
banners and p ennants her desire to share with man the responsibility for the
administration of the State, but she overlooks the disquieting fact that in the
management of her own household, where her authority is absolute, she has
failed to convince the world of her power to govern.4
The present system of housekeepin~ can no longer stand. One of two things
must occur. Either the housewife must adopt business principles in ruling her
household, or she will find before many years elapse that there will be no longer
any woman willing to place her neck under the domestic yoke. 5
2 Laughlin, Gail.
Domestic service. U . S. Industrial Commission. Report on the relations and conditions of capital and labor employed in manufactures and general business, v. 2. 1901 (v. 14 of the com
mission's reports) , p. 765.
3 Roelofs, Henrietta. The road to trained service in the household . p. 13.
(Commission on household
employment, Bul. No. 2. N ational board Young Women's Christian Associations .)
4 Barker, Clara H elene. Wanted, a young woman to do housework,
• • •. New York, 1915. p. l.
6 Ibid., p. 7.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMRSTIO WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
3
These various quotations call for several comments. In the first
place, although they cover a range in years of more than two decades,
they strike the same theme, a theme which must be emphasized in
any discussion of domestic service. The difficulties connected with
this type of employment appear to be just as numerous at the present
time as they were a quarter of a century ago. There are, however,
two decided tendencies making for the solution of the problem for
a certain proportion of the people, but not proving of real benefit
to those compelled to employ domestic workers or to those forced to
engage in such form of service. The first movement is that of a
simplification of domestic requirements: Living in apartments, using
mechanical contrivances, and doing without household employees.
The second movement is for wage-earning women to seek employment
in other types of labor rather than in domestic service. However,
as society is now organized with the famjly and home as the ideal
unit, and as there is every indication that this general system will
continue, domestic and personal service will be required for the
accomplishment of the necessary activities of the home. The
importance of this type of service is apparent, since some most vital
functions fall within its scope, such as the preparation of food to
maintain mankind in health, the maintenance of homes, and the
care of children. The wordsWe may live without friends, we may live without books,
But civilized man can not live without cooks-
not only are a rhyme but have a very strong measure of truth.
Although there is a movement away from domestic employment
by many wage earners, there will be for decades to come the need of
many others to look to this form of service for a livelihood. Though
such service may b_ecome more and more unpopular with white
workers, the great bulk of negro women will have to depend upon
it as a means of maintenance. However, this class of workers also
will tend to drift away from private household employment as other
fields gradually open to them, as they have been opening and will
continue to do,· with more and more negroes acquiring education
and becoming awareof the opportunities of industrial careers. The
result will be that the securing of competent domestic employees will
become increasingly difficult unless business and economic adjustments are made for this type of employment.
Some idea of the importance and extent of domestic service can
be gained from a reference to the 1920 census figures, which show
that there were 1,217,968 men and 2,186,924 women engaged at that
time throughout the country in domestic and personal service. 8
Although this is numerically a very important group of wage earners,
the significance connected with the size of the _group is that it repre,u. S.
Bureau
or the Census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Fourteenth Census, 1920. Population, v. 4, p. 34.
4
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
sents a striking decrease in the number of women employed in domestic service in 1920 as compared with 1910. A recent bulletin published by the Women's Bureau compiled from census material and
entitled "The Occupational Progress of Women" threw some interesting light on this whole subject. It showed that of the 8,549,511
women gainfully employed in the United States in 1920, one-fourth
(25.6 per cent) were engaged in domestic and personal service. In
1910, however, not far from one-third of the women workers in the
country were engaged in such service. In fact, there was an actual
numerical decrease of 344,297 women in domestic and personal
service in this decade, while in all the other large industrial groups
with the exception of agricultural pursuits there was an increase in
the proportions of women employed. The designation "domestic
and personal service" used by the Bureau of the Census comprises a
much larger group than servants only, though the latter form nearly
one-half of the total number of women engaged in this general division
of occupations. For the whole group the women showed a 13.6 per
cent decrease in the 1910 to 1920 decade, whereas the m en showed
only a 1.9 per cent decrease. For some occupations within the main
division, usually recognized as women's work, it is surprising to learn
that there were even larger decreases in the proportions of women
than for the group as a whole, and that the proportions of men in
these same occupations increased, as may be seen from certain
groups in the following list, compiled from census figures:
Increase ( +) or decrease ( - ) from 1910 to 1920 in number of persons of each sex
10 years of age an d over en gaged in domestic and person al service. 1
Male.
Occupation.
Number.
Domestic and personal service
Barbers, hairdressers, and m anicurists_
Boarding and lodging-house keepers ___
Charwomen and cleaners_______ ___ ___
Cleaners and renovators (clothing, etc.)
Cooks __ ______ _________ __ ____ ___ ___
General servants ______ ____ ________ _
Hotel keepers and managers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Housekeepers and stewards __ _____ __ _
Janitors and sextons _________ ________
Laborers (domestic and professional
service) __ __ __ __ _________ ___ ___ __
Launderers and \aundresses (not in
laundry)__ __ ____ __ ___ __ __________
Laundry operatives ___ ____ _____ _____
Nurses (not trained) _ _______________
Restaurant, cafe, and lunch-room
keepers__ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _
Waiters_ ____ ______ __________ ______
1 _ _____ _
F emale.
Per cent .
Number.
Per cent.
- 23, 370
+ 9, 988
- 4, 400
+4, 653
+4, 879
+12, 853
+11, 292
- 8, 820
+ 1, 322
+57, 961
-1. 9 -344, 297
+5. 8 +10, 948
-19. 1 -27, 660
+64. 7
-1, 884
+39. 9
+1, 928
+11.0 -64, 818
+13. 0 - ·216, 762
-17. 5
-101
+8. 3 +31, 017
+63. 3
+7, 586
-19.
-23.
-.
+17.
+35.
-19, 041
-37. 9
-1, 546
-48. 1
-20. 5 -134, 130
+11. 3
+4, 392
+21. 4 +21, 746
-25. 8
+5. 8
+19. 6
+43. 8
+9. 3
+48. 8
+36. 3
-2, 811
+4, 059
+3, 412
+ 22, 027
+9, 569
+5, 128
+31, 123
-13.
+49.
-19.
-7.
6
1
4
0
+72. 9
4
7
7
9
4
1 Exclusive of occupations belonging so preponderantly to one sex as to be noncomparable; for example,
bell boys, butlers, chambermaids, ladies' maids, valets.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
5
An analysis of these figµres indicates the tendency of women to
desert private housekeeping for public housekeeping enterprises,
when opportunity offers, probably because in many branches of
public housekeeping the objectionable features of often long and
indefinite hours and of too close personal relation between employer
and employee are eliminated. For example, there were striking
increases in women barbers, hairdressers, manicurists, cleaners and
renovators (clothing, etc.), housekeepers and stewardesses, janitors
and sextons, laundry operatives, nurses (not trained), restaurant and
cafe and lunch-room keepers, and waiters, all of which occupations
are carried on outside private homes and most of which are characterized on the whole by regular hours. On the other hand, there was
a 19.4 per cent decrease in .boarding and lodging-house keepers, a
7 per cent decrease in charwomen and cleaners, a 19.4 per cent decrease in women cooks, a 23.7 per cent decrease in women general
servants, a 48.1 per cent decrease in laborers (domestic and professional service), and a 25.8 per cent decrease in laundresses not employed in laundries. These occupations, it will be seen, are those,
generally speaking, which are performed in private homes. Although
the men cooks and general servants increased significantly, it is almost
e.a,fe to conclude that the bulk of these were employed in hotels,
restaurants, and clubs, where men are preferred to women for these
occupations, and that the proportion of male domestics in private
households was.not increasing to any noticeable degree. The growth
of hotel and apartment life is doubtless largely responsible for the
striking increase of men in such work.
Apart from the many thousands of women who have succeeded in
leaving the ranks of domestic service in the last 10 years there are
large numbers still engaged in such work who are discontented but
unable to make a change to another type of occupation. This causes
restlessness. In the desire to vary their work they adopt the partial
remedy of frequent changes of job, always seeking more congenial
conditions.
The attempts which have been made by groups of workers here
and there to find a solution of the problem have met with comparatively little cooperation .or success. The employees in this type of
work are scattered and have not the same means of getting together
as have factory employees, for example. Their duties are spread
over mttny hours a day and there is very little time left for consultation with others.
Looking at the problem from the employers' point of view, it is
interesting to see what contribution they have made toward stabilizing domestic employment. In the first place, the average employer
usually expects more than she can get, or more than she should expect,
from a type of labor that has been for the most part haphazardly trained
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIO
S.
and employed. Employers, consequently, in their search for "the
perfect treasure of a servant" add to the labor turnover by dismissing incompetent employees rather than take the trouble to train
them. On the other hand, an equally unsatisfactory situation prevails among householders who retain incompetent help in the fear
that if they do change they may change for the worse. In this way
the chances for establishing efficient standards for domestic service
are diminished.
Let us turn for a bit to the broader aspect of the question. The
dominant motive of what has been designated as the woman movement of the last half century is the desire of women to secure a
greater personal and economic freedom and independence. The
bulletin, "The Occupational Progress of Women," already referred
to as one of the publications of the Women's Bureau, illustrates
forcibly the tendency of women to rise in the occupational scale .
In addition to this, the increase in the number of women in the
professions whose activities call them from personal performance of
domestic duties, the growing tendency of married women to work
outside the home, and the quickened interest of \housands of women
in public and political matters which take at least part of their time
and attention make for an exceedingly intricate situation.
Even with the women who remain in their own homes there are
many who, because of large houses and large families, are in need of
domestic assistance: The :financial status of these women differs
greatly. The majority of them can afford but one general worker
to assist in the many household tasks. Others with more wealth
and more requirements need a corps of specialists to help in the
running of their households. All these women, however, irrespective
· of station in life, have one great desire in common, the desire for
efficient domestic service.
If a census could be taken of all women householders in the country
in search of competent domestic assistance the number would be
exceedingly large. If a census could be taken of all women householders who had succeeded in securing such efficient service the
number would be pathetically small. Nevertheless, were such a
census to report the number of women affe_c ted by the problem of
domestic service who were engaged in some constructive program,
either within their own homes or outside them, to bring about a
better condition of affairs, the number would probably be so small
that it would indicate definitely why so little has been done through
concerted efforts of employers to remedy conditions. It has been
generally proved by recent history that where women have made
up their minds to attain an object and have organized for the accomplishment thereof, they have met with success. It seems reasonfl,ble to expect, l?ince women are most vitally concern~d in this subject,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
7
that they would organize efficiently for this important matter as
they have for other objects, and thus make the much-needed adjustments. The argument can scarcely be advanced that women housekeepers are so busy over private domestic matters that they have no
time to devote to the public domestic problem, since many of these
same women usually find time to tackle other public questions.
Consequently it would seem that women are not willing to apply
twentieth-century methods to this age-old problem. Although they
introduce new and scientific contrivances into the households in the
name of efficiency, they are not ready to apply scientific ideas to
domestic service in the name of either efficiency or humanity.
Revolution in regard to this problem must begin at home, but it
must not stop there. Women must be willing to abolish antiquated
traditions and methods bound up with domestic service in their
own home, but they must carry the battle against prejudices out
into the public arena, for it is only by concerted action that lasting
achievements can be made.
Miss Barker says:
A great power lies in the hands of the modern housewife, a power as yet only
suspected by a few, which, if properly wielded, can raise housework from its
present undignified position to the place it ought to occupy, and that is in the
foremost rank of manual labor for women. 7
Doctor Salmon goes a little more into detail along this same line:
It is true that in thousands of households no difficulty in regard to domestic
service exists, but this fact does not relieve those in charge of such households
from further responsibility in the matter * * * the responsibility of the
employer does not end with his own household, but he is responsible for as much
evil in the general condition of domestic service as he could have prevented by
his investigation and discussion of the subject. 8
The president of the Domestic Efficiency Association, 9 on whose
records the present report is based, adds one more to the appeals for
a broader interest on the part of women employers:
In our opinion the solution lies in training for both servant and housekeeper,
a nd a new attitude on the part of employers.
Why is it that women organize in clubs and societies for the advancement of
every art except the art of conducting the home?
Why has the domestic servant no mention, no recognition, in conferences and
discussions on the questions concerning labor for women?
Is it then of no importance that our food should be well cooked, our meals
well planned, our rooms well cleaned, our children well cared for?
Is it proper and right that these matters so vital to the higher life should be
left to those so low in the social scale that they are unworthy of recognition in the
economic world?
Barker, Clara H elene. Wanted, a young woman to do housework • • •. New York, 1915. p. 813
Salmon, Lucy M. Domestic service. London, 1897. p . 265.
g Mrs. R. M anson Smith, president, Domestic Efficiency Association (Inc.), 15 West Chase Street,
Baltimore, Md.
7
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
Women are able to get what they want when they choose to work for it. Let
them get together and demand proper training for domestic service by the State.
Let women establish hostels, or homes, or even clubs, to do for the girl in
domestic service what has been done for girls in factory and office life by the
Y. W. C. A. and Girls' Friendly Associations.
Let women cast their weight of opinion and influence for these homes, and thil!I
recognized training. Let the press cease its cackling about the vagaries of cooks,
and use its undoubted influence for the elevation of this calling. Then the
trained cook will rise as superior to the cook of the newspaper "funny column"
as the trained nurse has risen superior to "Sairey Gamp" and her midnightly
potations.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PART II.
THE DOMESTIC EFFICIENCY ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE.
Domestic service reform is not a wholly untrodden field. A few
individuals and organizations have been pioneers in this territory,
preaching the need for improvement, pointing out possible remedies,
and experimenting in adjustments, but these have been comparatively few in proportion to the size and urgency of the problem.
There are, however, dotted here and there about the country,
groups of housekeepers organized into associations looking toward
better results for both employer and employee. In January, 1923,
one of these organizations, the Domestic Efficiency Association of
Baltimore, trying to get at the causes of the high labor turnover
among domestics and desiring to improve the standards in the service
and to effect more cooperation among employers, requested the
Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor to
examine and analyze the records of the association. The findings of
this analysis are set forth in the following pages.
The Domestic Efficiency Association of Baltimore was organized
in September, 1921, for the purpose of putting domestic service on a
better and more standardized basis. According to its purposes it
was to be run as an employment bureau for applicants for such work,
but it was not to be a money-making enterprise; it aimed also to
bring about a cooperation of housekeepers with the hope of getting
better results for the employees and to furnish more efficient workers.
It has been the policy to ask householders to become members by
the payment of annual dues of $5, only members being permitted to
apply to the association for domestic workers. The rules which the
members are asked to observe are _as follows:
1. Annual fee, $5.
2. Not to engage a servant who has left her former place without giving a
week's notice, from any agency or any source whatever, unless under very
exceptional emergency circumstances.
3. Not to tempt servants, by offering higher wages, to leave positions where
they are already employed, unless the arrangement is made with full knowledge
of present employer.
4. To give a conscientious report of a servant leaving member's employ.
5. To endeavor not to pay exorbitant wages for incompetent service.
6. To require a full reference of every servant engaged.
7. To make a business contract with every employee according to the rules
of the bureau, under which the employer will sign an agreement to give a week's
9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
notice or full pay, and the employee will also sign an agreement as to giving a
week's notice, or forfeit a week's pay.
8. To do all in one's power toward consideration and fairness for employees.
I promise to observe these rules faithfully so long as I am a member of the
association.
Name ___ ______ ______ ______ __ _______ ______ _____________ __ __ ___ ____ ____ _
Address--- -- -- - -------------- --- --------------------------------------
The rules of the association provide for an additional fee of $2
from an employer for whom a worker is secured, and for a fee of
$1.25 from the employee who is placed. Either employer or employee compelled to make a change within a month can do so without paying another fee.
The association exists primarily in the interests of private housekeeping and not public housekeeping, such as is characteristic of
hotels, restaurants, and so on.
It claims to handle only those applicants who are trained or
experienced and who can produce satisfactory references. Occasionally, in the case of a foreign-born person who is unacquainted in
this country and perhaps inexperienced in domestic service, placement is made if an employer states her willingness to accept what
appears to be a good potential domestic worker. Even in such cases
a character reference from a priest, minister, doctor, or some person
of reputable standing is usually required.
An unpublished report of the association states that in the first
two years of its existence a total of 6,199 applicants-white and negro
men and women~were interviewed, 1,343 of whom were placed. ,,
The scope of the records maintained by the association and placed
at the service of agents of the Women's Bureau comprised three files,
designated as the placed, the waiting, and the out or "dead" files.
In the placed file were kept the applications of those workers who
at any one time were in positions secured by the association. In
the waiting file were the applications of those who had adequate
references and were deemed eligible for positions when opportunity
offered. It was possible, therefore, that applications in the waiting
file might at any time become placements and be transferred to the
placed file, and vice versa, according to whether a worker secured or
lost a position. To be sure, the waiting file contained a considerable
number of applications of persons who were never likely to be placed,
since their references, although sufficient ...according to the rules of
the association, did not measure up to the requirements of housekeepers who were seeking employees. Moreover, in some instances,
the .cards of men and women who had made application for a position
through the association, but had succeeded in securing employment
on their own initiative, were kept in the waiting file, in case these
applicants returned to the association.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
11
The out, or "dead," file contained the cards of applicants who
had failed to secure references or whose references were unsatisfactory; who more than once had left a position without notice; or
who, when sent to fill a position, in one or more instances had failed
to go. The applicants in this file were not placeable according to
the rules of the association and were accordingly " dead " for its
purposes.
On the application blanks were written the worker's name, address,
color, age, religion, and conjugal condition, and a statement as to
his or her health and appearance, and preference as to living in or
out of the employer's home and in city, suburbs, or country. In
many cases on these application cards were written remarks about the applicant's character and capability, which information had been
secured by telephone, by personal interview, or by a questionnaire
from one or more of the persons whose names had been given by the
applicant as references. For a number of employees were filed questionnaires filled out personally by former employers, giving the nature
and length of services performed by the applicant and a statement
as to the method of L aving and the employee's capability, character,
disposition, appearance, regularity, and punctuality. In a number
of instances the reason for leaving the position also was given.
For a rather small proportion of the applicants wage data were
available. The custom of the association was to furnish each worker
who was being placed with an official card bearing the name of the
employer, the name and address of the person recommending the
applicant, and the kind of services to be performed. Th~ applicant
on arrival was expected to hand this card to the householder, who in
turn was requested to enter the rate of wages and send back the card
to the association. The failure of many to cooperate in this respect
was apparent, since for only a comparatively small group of placed
employees were such cards on file.
Another rule of the association has been that an employee must
not leave without giving notice nor an employer dismiss a worker
without notice or a week's wages in advance. In the original rules
of the association, if an employee left without notice he or she was
disqualified for further placements. As this rule seemed too drastic,
however, a revision was made and the applicant, if circumstances
justified, was allowed another opportunity to secure employment.
An important end toward which the association has been working
since its inauguration is a training school for women in domestic
service. A house has been rented and partially equipped for this
purpose. As soon as the necessary funds are available steps will be
taken to give training to a number of women who will live in the
house during their period of preparation.
87023°-24t-2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
A study of the records of the association is of value, since it gives
a representative cross section of the employment relations in domestic
service in a large city where both negro and white and both men
and women domestic workers are found in large numbers, the negroes
predominating and the women outnumbering the men. It was for
this reason that the Women's Bureau undertook to analyze the
records, hoping to get from them a clear outline of the main features
which characterize the situation in a fairly representative community.
An actual picture of the domestic service situation in Baltimore
can be gained from the 1920 census figures, which show that there
were in Baltimore at that period a total of 43,767 men and women in
domestic and personal service, 70.3 per cent of whom were women.
Of these workers 68.2 per cent were negro, 22.8 per cent native-born
white, 8.3 per cent white of foreign birth, and 0.6 per cent of the
Chinese, the Japanese, and other races not Caucasian. 10
From the census figures 11 it is possible also to compare the domestic
service situation in Baltimore with the general situation throughout
the United States. In the country as a whole, a little less than twothirds of the employees in this type of work were women, showing
Baltimore to have a somewhat higher proportion of women in such
occupations. Baltimore also had a strikingly larger proportion of
negro domestic workers than had the country as a whole, a little
over two-thirds (68.2 per cent) in Baltimore as against less than onethird (31.3 per cent) in the country as a whole. When the sexes
were taken separately Baltimore showed 53.2 per cent of the men
and 74.5 per cent of the women in domestic service to be negroes, as
compared with 22.5 per cent of the men and 36.2 per cent of the
women in such work in the country as a whole. Baltimore showed a
smaller proportion of foreign-born men (14.8 per cent) in domestic
work than did the whole country (30.3 per cent), as well as a smaller
proportion of foreign-born women in this kind of service, 5.6 per cent
as compared with 18.3 per cent in the country at large.
It must be remembered that the classification of domestic and
personal service as used by the Bureau of the Census includes a
number of occupations not handled by the Domestic Efficiency Association and places the occupation of chauffeurs, which was a type of
employment covered by the association, in the classification of
transportation. The following figures from the 1920 census 12 therefore, which reveal the numbers of men and women in Baltimore
engaged in the chief occupations handled by the association, are of
interest:
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census, 1920. Population, v . 4, p. 129, 1058-59.
n U. S. Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census, 1920. Population, v. 4, p. 34, 341.
u U. S. Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census, 1920. Population, v. 4, p. 148.
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
l)OMES'1".IC wo:trK.ERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
Male.
Charwomen and cleaners______ ___ __ __ ___________________
114
Chauffeurs_____________________________________________ 5, 210
Coachmen ____ _______________ ___ __________ _____________
31
Cooks _____ _______________________________ ___ ____ _, ____ 1,202
Bell boys ____ ________·________________________ ___ _______
250
Butlers _____ _____ ___ ________ _________ · __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _
354
Chambermaids ________ _____ ____ ___ _______ ______ _______________ _
Laborers ___________________ _______________________ , ___
263
Laundresses______ _________ ______ _______ _______ ______ __
152
Ladies' maids and valets______________________ _____ _____
28
Nurses (not trained) ___ ____ ___ _______ ____ ______ ___ __ ____
195
Nursemaids ________ ______ ___ ____________ __ ____________ ____ ___ _
Porters (d.omestic and personal service)________________ ___
577
Other servants___________________________ _____ __ _______
662
TotaL _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ ___ _
Grand totaL ____ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ ___ __ _ ____ _ _ _
18
Female.
559
9
3,924
14
405
19
8,070
43
1, 145
135
15
10, 618
9, 038
24, 956
33, 994
Since according to these figures there are in Baltimore approximately 34,000 men and women engaged in the kinds of occupation
connected with private household employment, the importance and
value of an organization in the city whose object is to ra_ise the standards and improve the status of these workers are apparent. Accordingly, the facts obtained from an examination of the assod.ation's
records are helpful in presenting first-hand information, both from
employers and from employees, on some of the important matters
connected with the problem.
Although the data on the records are discussed in detail in the next
section of this r~port, the chief findings are presented here in summary
form.
Summary.
The records of the association showed certain facts for 2,293
women and 672 men. In comparatively few cases, however, were
the records complete, so most of the facts given in the following pages
are for only part of the entire group for whom some records were
available.
In Baltimore, as in many other communities located on the border
line between the North and the South, the domestic service situation
is complicated by the fact that there are two races to be considered,
for whom employment standards vary. Two-thirds of the applicants
to the association were negroes, and three-fourths of these were
women.
The system of record keeping in the association involves the use of
three files, one for those who are placed, one for those who are waiting,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
and one for those who for various reasons-lack of references or poor
references-are not considered eligible for placement. Two-fifths of
the applicants were in this last file. So large a proportion as this
must indicate either that on the whole the applicants are of low grade
or that the standard~ of the association are too exacting for the class
of employees they are handling. It is also po~sible that the employees' lack of references which has disqualified them for placement
may be due to a lack of general understanding of the importance of
giving and of securing such references. The need for impressing on
both employers and employees the importance of giving and securing
adequate references was one of the outstanding facts disclosed by this
study.
One important lack in the records, which made it impqssible to
judge satisfactorily the capability of the employees, was the failure
to record any statement from the employee about the position formerly
held and the reason for leaving it_. There are two sides to every story,
and no satisfactory estimate of the situation in domestic service will
ever b e arrived at so long as the domestic workers themselves are not
consulted and their opinions registered. In discussing this matter
the president of the Domestic Efficiency Association states:
Now as a matter of fact, this consideration of "two sides to every story" is one
of the fundamental tenets on which the association was formed. That is, that
it should be a ·fifty-fifty proposition, endeavoring to adjust grievances on both
sides. But the reasons why no records of employees' opinions are shown must be
apparent to anyone who has had extensive dealings with employers. There is no
subject on which women are so touchy, or so irascible, as upon their own personal
management of their own personal homes. Any association which professed to
record the opinions of employees as to their employers would be doomed at its
birth, and a case of fools rushing in where angels feared to tread. That the employees' opinions, however, are considered is a matter of fact, and complaints
from worthy persons are met with tact and discretion.
It is undoubtedly true from the point of view of an association
supported by employers themselves that the recording of such facts
would be a difficult precedent to establish. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental rule for straight thinking on any subject that each side should
be given the same consideration. If records are to be of any value
at all, they should be complete. In studying the records in this
regard, much helpful and illuminating information was given to the
bureau's agents by the secretary who was then in charge of the work
of the association. She knew the ins and outs and qualifications of
many situations and was able, from her own personal knowledge, to
supply the deficiencies of the records. This secretary, however, was
leaving the association, and it was not likely that she would be able
to pass on to her successor the vast fund of information she had
acquired, and w_h ich had not been recorded. If domestic work is to be
put on a higher plane of efficiency it is essential that the women em-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
15
ployers be educated to a realization of the fact that their responsibility
to their employees is not a matter for secret individual adjustment but
is a condition which should be given the benefit of full discussion and
standardization.
The positions applied for give a general index of the popularity of
various kinds of domestic work. For the women, maid's work was
the most popular, followed by cooking in the case of the negroes and
nursing in that of the whites. Of the negro women, 28 per cent
wanted to do maid's work and 25 per cent wanted to do cooking.
Only 16 per cent wanted general work and 15 per cent day's work.
Of the white women more than 40 per cent wanted maid's work and
15.4 per cent wanted to do nursing.
The work of butler and houseman was most in demand by the negro
men, 36 per cent wanting work as butlers and 26 per cent as housemen. More than 40 per cent of the white men wanted work as chauffeurs and 33 per cent as butlers or housemen.
In studying the records .of the kind of work applied for it was
apparent that there was considerable restlessness and dissatisfaction
among the applicants. This was shown by the fact that a little over
two-fifths of both the women and men were applying for work different from that which they had formerly done. Of 161 women who had
been general workers-, only one-third were applying for the same work
again. Ten per cent of the women who had had regular full-time
positions wanted to change to day's work.
In outlining occupational opportunity in domestic service it is
important to see what relationship there is between occupation and
such personal factors as age and conjugal condition. The young
women seem to be more generally employed as nurses, maids, . and
general workers. A large majority of women in these occupations
were less than 30 years old. The older women were more generally
employed as day workers, cooks, and laundresses, more than half of
the women in each of these groups being 30 years of age and over.
The younger men were mostly chauffeurs, housemen, and cooks.
More than half the men in each of these occupations were less than
30 years old.
From the standpoint of the employer it is important to consider the
preferences shown for living in or out of the employer's home. Onehalf of the women and nearly tw~-thirds of the men were willing to
live in. A very much larger proportion of whites than of negroes
were willing to live in: 79.8 per cent of the white women and 80.3
per cent of the white men, and only 35.8 per cent of the negro women
and 62.2 per cent of the negro men.
Considering this matter by age it appears that the women between
20 and 30 years of age are least likely to be willing to live in their
employers' homes. By occupation, the proportions of women willing
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
to live in were 88.9 per cent of the housekeepers, 82.6 per cent of the
nurses, 63.6 per cent of the governesses, 57.8 per cent of the cooks,
50.3 per cent of the maids, 40.4 per cent of the general workers, and
24.4 per cent of the laundresses. Of the men, 71.4 per cent of the
chauffeurs, 68 per cent of the butlers, 64. 7 per cent of the housemen,
and 63.3 per cent of the cooks were willing to live in.
It is interesting and rather unexpected to find that work in the
suburbs was more in demand than work in the city. Seventy-eight
per cent of the women and 76 per cent of the men wanted or were
willing to work in the suburbs.
Work in the country was less popular, but a larger proportion of
white workers (45 per cent of the white women and 79.4 per cent of
the white men) were willing to work in J;he country than of the .
negroes (26 per cent of the negro women and 60.4 per cent of the negro
men).
A study of the records of experience yielded some very interesting
facts. Apparently the domestic workers of Baltimore change their
jobs often, since 66.4 per cent of the women and 59.1 per cent of the
men had not been with one employer for as long as two years. Of
the women 52.2 per cent had worked in one place for less than a year.
The reasons for this lack of stability were brought out to a certain
extent through studying the reasons for leaving jobs. Only 15.9 per
cent of the women and 19 per cent of the men had been dismissed
because they were unsatisfactory. A considerable proportion, 25.7
per cent of the women and 31.8 per cent of the men had left because
the establishment where they had been working had been closed.
Domestic employment is not usually considered a seasonal occupation,
but these figures indicate that the problem of seasonal employment
is a serious one for the average household worker. That the changing
of jobs was not usually caused by dissatisfaction on the part of the
workers is shown by the fact that only 21 per cent of the women and
11 per cent of the men had left of their own accord. Of those who
did leave of their own accord the la.rge majority gave notice before
leaving.
To judge accurately of the quality of service given by the workers
it would be necessary to have much more carefully standardized and
detailed references, but from what references were available it would
seem that on the whole the service rendered by the applicants considered had been fairly satisfactory. Seventy per cent of the women
and 64 per cent of the men had been given excellent, good, or satisfactory references by the employers for whom they had worked the
longest time. Among the small group who had received unsatisfactory references, carelessness in appearance and work was the most
conspicuous failing, while dishonesty, intemperance, and bad dis•
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
17
positions played a minor part in disqualifying applicants for recommendation.
On the whole, contradictory references about the same person from
different employers and the obvious lack of an accepted standard on
which could be based both requirements of work and refere~ces were
the outstanding features of the situation. Until housekeepers accept
a common standard of requirements, and until they can be brought to
see the importance and necessity of giving careful and complete
references, no employment system can hope to achieve any lasting
improvement in the general attitude of domestic workers and of the
public toward this large number of indispensable factors in the social
and community life of to-day.
In discussing this question the president of the Domestic Efficiency
Association brought out in a very interesting manner the agency's
point of view when she said:
Experience has proved that much of the difficulty of domestic service is caused
by employers t~emselves. There is a deplorable lack of patience on the part of
employers. They expect too much at first, and are too easily discouraged if the
servant does not measure up to their expectations; not stopping to realize that
they are dealing with very limited brain power, nor understanding that the
servant is confused by unfamiliar surroundings and would like to do better if she
knew how. It often happens that after one or two days' experience an employer
will call the office and say, "This person is impossible; get me somebody else."
Before a substitute can be procured the employer frequently has changed her
mind, and says, "After all she does pretty well. I think I'll keep her," utterly
unmindful that she may have disappointed another applicant, and given the
office unnecessary trouble and expense!
Another very serious handicap is the reluctance of employers to give a strictly
fair and just answer to questionnaires as to the character and capabilities of their
former employees. We women are creatures of impulse, and are too often swayed
by the feeling of the moment, either for or against, and it is the experience of the
association that the majority do not realize that they may be either ruining the
future of a servant (a serious matter) or may be plunging other employers into
quite useless trouble and difficulty.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PART III.
A DETAILED STUDY OF THE RECORDS OF THE DOMESTIC
EFFICIENCY ASSOCIATION OF ·BALTIMORE.
Detailed studies of domestic service are rare because of the great
difficulty in collecting data. Both householders and domestic
employees when asked to answer questionnaires frequently neglect or
refuse to do so. The experience of the Indistrial Commission of the
United States in its investigation of domestic service, when only a
fractional part of the schedules sent out to employers and employees
were returned with answers, is typical. A study of the Domestic
Efficiency Association's records, which were compiled primarily for
the ordinary activities of the association and not for the purpose of
analysis and discussion, is therefore of value and bas both its advantages and disadvantages. A more natural and accurate picture of
the domestic situation probably can be gained when employers and
employees give opinions for the practical purpose of securing workers
or jobs than when they are asked questions for statistical studies.
On the other hand, records used for a practical pur,1:>0se often fail to
throw light on certain aspects which would be of tremendous interest
in an analytical and scientific investigation. Such records are all
right as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. They are apt
not to be sufficiently comprehensive and well rounded. This condition was true of the records of the Domestic Efficiency Association.
An outstanding example of deficiency in the records kept was that
although the opinions of householders about former employees were
carefully filed, there was no such record of the employees' opinions
of such employers. In a number of cases the employers had made
statements about the efficiency, character, desirability, reasons for
leaving positions, and so on, but there was no first-hand information
from domestic workers to balance and check up on this information.
One side of the story was given-the employers' point of view as to
whether former employees bad been satisfactory-but the domestic
workers' version as to whether the positions had been satisfactory
was not given except in a few instances where the employers, who
were apt to be biased, attempted to present the domestics' opinions.
Some first-hand information from the applicants was available,
the answers given by them to questions of age, conjugal condition,
and preferences as to type and location of work. This information,
however, was somewhat fragmentary, as for many applicants there
19
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
were no answers to the questions. Another difficulty of the analysis
has been the cases where no statement was made of the race of the
applicant, and it has consequently been impossible to include these
with either the negroes or the white workers. Taken all in all, however, the records contained much interesting and illuminating information and constituted a decided contribution in this field. Their
significance lay not only in the facts disclosed, but in the deductions
that can be drawn from them.
Of the 2,675 persons for whom records were available, only 16 per
cent were in the placed file, 43.1 per cent being in the waiting file,
and 40.9 per cent in the out file. The waiting file contained the
largest proportion of applicants, as might be expected, but the proportion of placed applicants seemed surprisingly small. That twofilths of the applicants were in the out file and were thus disqualified
on account of lack of experience or of references, or because of
unsatisfactory references, or failure to comply with the regulations
of the association seems a significant fact pointing to the need for
increased attention to the matter and attempts at adjustment and
improv~ment, such as the proposed training school.
The applicants.
Of the 2,965 applicants, over three-fourths ·were women (77.3 per
cent), which is, according to the census figures, a proportion typical
of Baltimore. As already pointed out, the Bureau of the Census
showed for the country as a whole a much larger number of women
than of men in the ranks of domestic and personal service, approximately two-thirds of such workers (64.2 per cent) being women.
The preponderence of women in this type of employment is not
surprising in view of the fact that only 3. 7 per cent of the men 10
years of age and over gainfully employed were found in this occupational group as compared with 25.6 per cent of the women working
outside the home who were thus classified as to occupation. 13
The applicants to the Domestic Efficiency Association also were
representative of the race situation in domestic service in Baltimore.
Of the 2,800 applicants reported upon as t o race, a little over twothirds (68.9 per cent) were negroes, and the census figures show that
68.2 per cent of the domestic and personal service workers in Baltimore
were negroes. The association's records, however, show a larger
proportion of negroes among the men whose race is reported (78.9
per cent) than do the census figures for the city (53.2 per cent).
The association discloses, on the other hand, a somewhat smaller
proportion of negro women (66 per cent) than does the city as a
whole (7 4.5 per cent). The differences are not sufficient to prevent
the association figures from being fairly representative.
!1 }3qre&q of the
Censqs. :Fourteenth Census, 1920. Population, v. •• p. 3i,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORkERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATlONS.
21
Although the country of birth was given for a number of applicants
to the Domestic Efficiency Association, it was not given consistently
enough to justify a compilation in this respect. It is apparent that
although both the census and the association records show a great
preponderance of negro workers, there was a sufficient number of
white employees to complicate the situation. In the extreme South,
where almost no white persons are employed in the capacity of servants, and in other sections where domestic employees are almost
exclusively white, there are, to be sure, many problems; but in Baltimore there are not only all the individual problems for each race
but additional complications caused by the presence of two quite
different elements in the same type of work. For example, employers
have found it almost impossible to attempt a mixture of white and
negro workers in the same household. More than one householder
stated that her reason for dismissing negro servants was that she was
engaging white persons, or vice versa, and could not employ the two
together. The segregation of the white domestics as a class is even
more marked than in many places and the social stigma more strongly
felt by the white employees themselves. Consequently, the presence
of the white and negro elements in domestic service has a tendency to
increase the labor turnover in such work. According to the association records the proportion of negro applicants among the men (over
three-fourths of the total number reported upon) was considerably
greater than that among the women, two-thirds of whom were negroes.
Occupations applied for.
Many were the occupations for which the domestics applied. In
some cases the applicants asked for a definite clear-cut job, such as
cook, chambermaid, butler, or chauffeur, but in other instances they
expressed a willingness to accept more than one kind of work or a
combination job, such as chambermaid-waitress or cook-houseman.
In order to classify the occupations applied for it was necessary to do
considerable grouping. Accordingly, with the exception of such
stereotyped and frequent combinations as cook-laundress and chambermaid-waitress, when more than one occupation was mentioned by
the applicant it has been classified under the first occupation mentioned with the term" other work,''" inside work," or" outside work,"
appended. For example, if a woman specified that she would do
chamber work and sewing, she has been placed under the group designated as "chambermaid-other work," or if she expressed a desire to
do cooking and the first-floor cleaning she is included in the classification of "cook-other work." Under these combination terms were
placed not only those who ·stated their willingness to perform two
or more kinds of work in one position but those who were applying
for one of two or three specified occupations. Thus, if one said that
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
he wanted employment as a chauffeur or houseman and another
declared his willingness to accept a position requiring the two kinds
of work, both men were included in the "chauffeur-inside" group.
This method of tabulation was used for two reasons-first, for the
sake of simplification, and, second, because it was thought that an
applicant expressing a desire to do one of two kinds of work would
probably be willing to accept a position necessitating the performance
of both kinds.
Some further analysis of the occupations may be helpful. The
term "day workers" was applied to all those who stipulated that they
wanted to work by the day, irrespective of the kind of work desired,
whether cooking, cleaning, or laundry work. "Part-time" workers
were treated in similar fashion. Under" other maids" were included ·
those who were called merely maids and those described as house,
kitchen, pantry, or parlor maids. The nurses were somewhat difficult to classify, since in a number of cases the kind of nursing was not
specified. It was not possible to decide in such instances whether
this meant the care of children or of the sick, although the former was
probably the kind of service most frequently meant since in general
nurses for the sick are registered with nurses' bureaus. The "miscellaneous" group for women comprised dishwashers, mother's helpers,
accommodators, and cleaners. The "miscellaneous" group for men
consisted of dishwashers, janitors, kitchen workers, machinists,
second men, counter men, porters, and traveling companions or
valets. The classification "general workers" for women is one so
frequently used as to need no explanation. Somewhat different from
this, however, is the term "general utility" for men, since it was
applied to those who called themselves "handy m en," who wanted to
do odd jobs or to make themselves generally useful. The following
list gives the types of service included under "other work" for the
various occupations:
Companion-other work:
Chamber work.
Sewing.
Housekeeping.
Cooking.
Acting as lady's maid, governess,
mother's helper, secretary.
Nursing children or invalids.
Cook-other work:
Chamber work.
Waiting.
First-floor cleaning.
Nursing children.
Governess- other work:
Sewing.
Chamber work.
Housekeeping.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Housekeeping-other work:
Sewing.
Chamber work.
Laundry work.
Acting as companion.
Nursing or tutoring children. '
Laundress-other work:
Cleaning.
Waitress-other work:
Cook ing.
Nursing (kind not specified).
Nursing children.
Maid's work.
Chambermaid-other work:
Cooking.
Laundry work.
Acting as lady's maid or companion.
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIO NS .
Chambermaid- other work- Contd.
Nursing (kind not specified).
Nursing children.
Sewing.
Housekeeping.
Child's nurse- other work:
Cha m ber work.
Wait ing.
Sewing.
Invalid 's nurse-other work:
Acting as lady's maid, mother's
helper, governess.
Sewing.
Pract ical nursing.
23
Nursing, kind not sp ecified- other
work:
Chamber work.
Dish washing.
Cooking.
Maid's work.
Seamstress-other work:
Chamber work.
Nursing children.
Acting as mother's helper or companion, lady's maid .
Nursing (kind not specified).
The additional occupations which men applying for certain jobs were willing
to perform are shown in the following list:
Butler-other work:
OutsideActing as cha uffeur.
Gardening.
InsideCooking.
Waiting.
Janitor or fireman service.
Acting as houseman.
Chauffeur-other work:
OutsideGardening.
General outside work.
InsideActing as butler or houseman.
Waiting.
Cook- other work:
OutsideActing as chauffeur.
Cook-other work- Contin ued.
InsideActing as butler, houseman,
janitor, or porter.
Waiting.
Houseman- other work:
OutsideActing as chauffeur.
Gardening.
InsideButler service.
Cleaning.
Cooking.
Kitchen or fireman service.
Waiter- other work:
OutsideButler service.
Houseman service.
Janitor service.
Kitchen service.
The largest number of negro women in any of the occupational
groups were those applying for maid's work of some sort, these constituting 28 per cent of all the negro women applicants. The next
largest group (25.5 per cent) wanted to be cooks, or applied for the
job of cooking in conjunction with some other work. Only 16 per
cent of the negro women expressed a desire to do general work; not
a surprising figure, however, since specialists in domestic service are
apt to receive better wages and to have more clearly defined and
less onerous work. This is probably due to the fact that employers
who engage specialists are better off financially than are those in
need of general workers and hence are able to pay higher wages.
Unfortunately, however, for the great bulk of householders who seek
paid assistance in the hoi;ne requiring only one worker, that employee
must be capable of performing a variety of occupations. Altogether
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
the great majority of negro applicants, over two-thirds, were seeking
jobs as cooks, maids, or general workers. It is rather surprising to
discover that only 2.5 per cent of the negro women were applying
for the position of nurse of any sort, since although there is comparatively little opportunity for them as invalid's nurses there would
seem to be considerable demand for them as children's attendants.
The growing _practice among negro ~omen to engage in day work
instead of taking a regular full-time position in a household is illustrated by the 15.4 per cent who applied for day work. This tendency
is traceable to the desire on the part of the workers to be more independent in regard to days off, to work shorter hours-and usually at
higher wages-per day, and to escape from the monotony of a regular
household position. Furthermore, there is an increasing demand
among housel].olders for day service, where apartment life and
mechanical contrivances make it possible to dispense with the continuous service of domestic employees.
The figures for the white woman applicants tell a somewhat different story. ·Like the negroes, the white women preferred maid's
work, but to a much greater extent, over two-fifths of the white
women applying for such work. Cooking was much less popular
than with the negroes, since a little less than one-tenth of the white
women wanted to be cooks as against one-fourth of the negroes.
General work was even less desired by white women, since only 8.6
per cent of them applied for positions requiring such variety of labor.
That white women were not manifesting anything like so strong a
tendency toward daywork as were the negro women is shown by the
very small proportion, 2.3 per cent, who sought this form of employment. The white women, with 15.4 per cent of those registered, in
quest of jobs as nurses, greatly overbalanced the negroes in this
respect. Since only 20 of the 113 white women wanting such positions were reported definitely as invalid's nurses, this kind of nursing
apparently was not responsible for the difference. Evidently the
white women were more desirous than the negro women of taking
care of children, and perhaps were more desired by employers for
this occupation. White women naturally outranked the negroes
both in the opportunity and in the demand for the higher grades of
domestic occupations, such as companion, governess, housekeeper,
and invalid's nurse, which are usually considered to be on a higher
social plane; 112 white women as compared with 3 negro women
were classified as such.
Among the negro men the largest group were the butlers, since
over one-third (36.1 per cent) applied for such service straight or
with additional work. The housemen, constituting over one-fourth
of the total number of negro men (26.3 per cent), were the next
largest group. The chauffeurs totaled 13.6 per cent of the negro
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
25
applicants, and cooks 10.1 per cent. This last figure is not surprising,
since negro men cooks seek employment in hotels and restaurants
rather than in private homes.
The white men numbered altogether only 134, over two-fifths of
whom were registered as chauffeurs and over one-third as butlers or
housemen. There was only a scattering of men in the other occupations listed.
Former occupations of applicants.
The training of domestic workers, as has been pointed out, is
likely to be very haphazard; they are in m~ny instances apt to get
a superficial knowledge of a number of types of work rather than a
thorough knowledge of one. This would tend to make them shift
from one occupation to another, as they got tired of one sort and
according to the demands of employers for workers in the various
occupations. It is interesting and significant, therefore, to try to
discover the trend in this respect. Did the workers whose records
were secured tend to change from one occupation to anothed Were
they more apt to change from the general to the specific, or from a
posit.ion requiring one kind of work to the occupation of general
worked
The occupations sought by the applicants were given for almost all
the men and women, but for only those applicants for whom references had been secured was there any statement as to former occupation. It has been possible, therefore, to correlate for only a part
of the applicants the former occupation with the kind sought.
Detailed figures not given in this report show that of 1,174 women
reporting, a little over two-fifths were applying for exactly the same
sort of work as in former positions, and a little over two-fifths
were seeking a change in occupation; the remainder wanted to engage
in the same occupation as one of two or more possibilities, or in the
same occupation with additional duties. Thus a woman who had
been a cook would be willing to be a cook and laundress, or to do the
cooking with first-floor cleaning, perhaps. Of those women who were
changing from one occupation to another, there were some who desired
to go from one special occupation to general work or from general
work to one of the occupations included under general work, so that
these women were not trying to get work of a totally different nature.
In fact, of the 161 women who had been general workers, only about
one-third were a.gain applying for general work. Thirty-three wanted
to be cooks either with or without some other work, 42 were seeking
maid's work of some sort, 14 wanted to change to day work, 7 to
part-time work, and there were a few in each of the various other
occupations. On the other hand, 100 women who had been cooks,
maids, laundresses, nurses, and so on- that is, about 10 per cent of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
those who had been doing some special kind of work- expressed a
desire to become general workers. It would appear from this that
there was a tendency and desire to get away from general work rather
than a drift toward it. Possibly a great many domestics go into general work from necessity rather than choice, because of the great
demand on the part of housekeepers for this type of worker.
Another significant trend is that toward day work, since approximately 10 per cent of the women who had had regular full-time positions expressed a preference for day work, desiring by this means to
have more independence in their work, as already suggested in the
case of negroes. Employment by the day seems to be steadily increasing and is believed by some persons to point the way to a solution of
the whole problem of domestic service, provided its many inherent
difficulties as far as the average family" is concerned can be overcome.
That there is not a very strong drift from other types of employment
into domestic service is apparent from the fact that only 3. 7 per cent
of the women applying for positions had been engaged in work other
than domestic; in fact, there was an unimportant sprinkling of women
from factories, laundries, stores, and offices.
Of 334 men for whom was given both the sort of work applied
for and the former occupation, two-fifths were seeking exactly the
same type of work as that done in a former position. A little over
two-fifths applied for different work from the kind given in the
reference. In some cases the difference in the occupation was not
striking; for example, when a former houseman wanted to be a butler
or a butler and houseman. Sometimes the occupation was totally
different, when there was a desired transfer from indoor to outdoor
work. The rest of the men, somewhat less than one-fifth, gave the
former occupation as one of two types of work desired, or expressed a
wish for the same occupation as that in a former job plus additional
duties. For example, a man who had been butler was willing to be a
butler or a houseman, or a former butler signified his willingness to
serve as butler and chauffeur. The men and women showed no
striking differences in the proportions seeking the same and different
kinds of occupations.
The white men varied conspicuously from the negro men in the
proportion seeking the same occupation, almost two-thirds of the white
as against a little over one-third of the latter falling in this class.
The negro and white women, however, differed but little.
The r easons for change of occupation can be a matter of conjecture
only, since no facts were given in explanation. The desire for
variety of work or for less onerous work; the lack of specific training
in any one occupation, or of experience of any real value; the almost
complete. absence of a system of promotion and the feeling that there
might be greater opportunity in one line of work than in another-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
'
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS .
27
may all have been factors contributing to the marked tendency among
both the men and women to change occupations.
Age.
The age span of household employees is somewhat more limited
than in other types of employment. Householders as a rule prefer
not to have workers who are under 18 or 20, perhaps considering
them too young for the kind of service desired and that their youth
places some~hing of a guardian's responsibility upon the employer.
Also householders are likely to refuse to employ applicants who appear
to be getting along in years.
The following summary compiled from Table II in the appendix
reveals the proportions in the various age groups of white and negro
men and women applicants reporting on age:
All women.
Age.
Under 18 years ____ _____ ________ ___ ___ ________ _
18 and tmder 20 years _____________________ ___ __
20 and under 25 years _______ _______________ ___ _
25 and under 30 y ears ______ __ ____ _______ _____ _ _
30 and under 40 years _______________ __________ _
40 and under 50 years _______ ________ ______ ____ _
50 years and over_ __ ________ __ __ ______ ____ ____ _
Age.
,.
Negro
women.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.
4. 9
3. 8
3. 6
9. 2
7. 5
9. 8
30. 5
26. 1
32. 2
20. 3
21. 9
19. 3
22. 9
24. 2
22. 7
10. 9
10. 5
11. 0
2. 3
4. 9
1. 3
All men.
Under 18 years------ - -- - - -- -- ---~- -- ---- -- -- -18 and under 20 years _________ _______ ____ _____ _
20 and under 25 years _________________________ _
25 and under 30 years _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _
30 and under 40 years _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _
40 and under 50 years _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __
50 years and over___ __ ___ ____ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _
White
women.
White men. Negro men.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.
1. 3
0. 9
0. 9
4. 1
5. 1
3. 9
27. 5
41. 8
23. 7
29. 1
27. 8
29. 7
28. 7
13. 9
32. 3
8. 3
8. 9
8. 0
1. 4
1. 3
1. 5
These figures show that a very small proportion of both the women
and men domestics were under 18 or as old as 50, the women showing a slightly larger proportion in each case than did the men, 3.8
per cent of the women being under 18 and2.3 per cent being 50 or over.
One-half of the women and a little over one-half of the men ranged in
age from 20 to 30. The largest proportion of women in any one age
group were found in the 20-to-25 classification (30.5 per cent), whereas
87023°-24t-- 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
the largest group of men was in the 25-and-under:-30 division (29.-1
per cent).
There were fewer women from 25 to 30 years old, perhaps, because
women during these years are more closely tied down by the childbearing function and maternal duties than at any other time. This
theory is upheld by the increase in the proportion of women in the
30-to-40 age division over that in the 25-to-30 classification.
A comparison of figures for the whit e and negro women shows no
striking difference in the age groups of the two races. The proportion
of negro women in the 20-to-25 years group is somewhat larger than
the corresponding proportion of white women. There are, on the
other hand, slightly larger proportions of white women than of negro
in the oldest and youngest age groups, an indication perhaps that their
span of years for domestic service is a little longer than that of the
negroes.
The division of men according to race discloses a more striking
difference, since the largest group of white men or over two-fifths
were in the 20-to-25 year class and the largest proportion of negro
or approximately two-thirds were in the 30-to-40 group. Probably
w~1ite men while still young have more opportunities to leave domestic
work and go into other types of employment.
When the age of the men and women applicants is analyzed in conjunction with occupations, the following facts are revealed: Nurses,
maids, and general workers show a preponderance of women under 30
years of age, 67 per cent, 70.6 per cent, and 81.4 per cent, respectively,
being in this age division; whereas day workers, cooks, and laundresses
show more than one-half of the workers to have been 30 years old or
more; that is, 54.9 per cent, 59.4 per cent, and 73.7 per cent, respectively. Approximately one-fifth of th e cooks and laundresses were
between 30 and 40 years of age. I n fact, since almost one-fourth of
the cooks reporting on age were 40 or over and since no other occupational group contained so high a propor tion in this age division, cooking would seem to be the work preferred by older women, probably
because it offers more opportunity for employment. On the other
hand, maid service would appear to be the most popular form of
service with young women, as almost two-thirds of the applicants for
this kind of work were under 25 years. The nurses, although showing
a smaller proportion altogether under 25, disclose the largest proportion in the youngest age group, those under 18, a circumstance due to
the idea held by young applicants and shared apparently by some
employers that taking care of children does not require maturity or
experience. That there is a difference of opinion in this respect,
however 1 is indicated by the scattering of nurses in the various age
groups, those from 20 to 25 and those from 30 to 40 tying for first
place.- It must be remembered that the nurses include both children's
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
29
and invalid's nurses, although the latter probably were too few in
number to weight the figures to any noticeable extent. In a consider ·
ation of tlie chief occupations of the men the chauffeurs, with almost
three-fourths below the age of 30, show up as the youngest group,
followed by housemen with 70.1 per cent and cooks with 59.5 per cent
as young as this. The butlers stand out as the only group having a
preponderance of applicants who were 30 years of age or over.
Additional evidence of the probability that this type of service offers
considerable opportunity to older men is the fact that 13.6 per cent of
the applicants were 40 or over.
Conjugal condition.
Conjugal condition is an extremely important- question in a study
of domestic service, since it is probably much more of a complicating
factor than is generally recognized by employers or society at large.
Conjugal conditions must be considered in relation to the custom of
having domestic workers live in the home of employers and of demanding from them long and indefinite hours of labor. If the employees
are single women of a marriageable age, both of these customs are
decided drawbacks, as they frequently mean no place and little or
no time for the young women to entertain male callers. Moreover,
many householders are not desirous of encouraging masculine attentions to their employees for fear of losing them through marriage.
Matrimony, however, does not necessarily m~an a withdrawal
of women from employment as domestics in other persons' households,
parti<:ularly in the case of negro women. It usually means added
responsibilities which tend to demand more time than many women
in domestic service are able to find for such important private
matters, especially if they are compelled to live in the home of
employers or to have the usual hours of labor expected in domestic
service. When women live in the homes of their employers they
rarely have opportunity to go to their own homes more than once or
twice a week, and can have but little private life with their families.
If they have small children, as is frequently the case, the mothers
must make some arrangements for the care of the children in their
absence.
Of the 975 negro women reporting on conjugal condition in the
records of the Domestic Efficiency Association, 54.2 per cent were
married and 10. 7 per cent were widowed, separated, or divorced,
making approximately two-thirds who were likely to have family and
home responsibilities in addition to their domestic service (Table III
in the appendix). White women are less likely than negro women to
remain in domestic service after they marry. The Baltimore records
testify to this fact, since of the 460 white women whose conjugal
condition was given, only 29.8 per cent were married, although 16. 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
per cent were widowed, separated, or divorced, totaling in all 46.5
per Cf'nt who were or had been married.
The largest proportion of married negro women in any one occupation, as might be expected, was among the day workers, 83.9 per
cent of whom reporting on conjugal condition were married, vYidowed,
separated, or divorced. Probably family responsibilities were forcing
most of these women to apply for work by the day rather than by
the week. Many of the day workers who were laundresses were permitted to do their work at home. The group designated as laundresses, some of whom may have been day workers, although their
records did not reveal this fact, had almost as high a proportion of
married women (81.7 per cent). The cooks came next, with 70.4
per cent, followed by the general workers, with 57.5 per cent who
were or had been married. Of all the important occupational groups ,
the maids showed the smallest proportion- slightly less than one-half
(49.3 per cent)- to have been married. It must be recalled, however,
that almost two-thirds of the maids were under 25 years of age.
As there were only 11 white day workers reporting, the fact that
they showed a large proportion of married women (81.8 per cent) is
not of much significance. In regard to the white women in other
occupations, approximately two-thirds of the cooks, general workers,
and companions, over one-third of the maids, and less than one-third
of the nurses were or had been married.
It is not so important to study the conjugal condition of the men
engaged in domestic service, since matrimony has less influence upon
the habits and labor turnover of men than of women, although, if
anything, marriage may tend to make them more steady and regular
as workers. Of the negro men reporting on conjugal condition, 69
per cent were married, and of the white men, 45.5 per cent.
Preference as to living in or out of home of employer.
It is of interest to correlate certain conditions with the applicant's
preference in regard to living in or out of the employer's home. In
what occupations were the employees willing to "stay nights" 1 Did
those who were married prefer to live at home 1 And were the young
and the single workers more willing than others to live in the households where they worked 1·
Domestics are usually paid the same rate of wages whether they
live in or outside the home of the employer. As a rule, a householder believes it is to her advantage to have employees living in her
home, thinking that they are in this way more accessible and more
apt to be regular and prompt. She believes that such a system is a
f?.nancial advantage to the workers, since they receive not only their
wages and board but also lodging and laundry. This is not necessarily true, for even though employees may live in the employers'
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THE!R EMPLOYMENT RELAT10NS.
31
homes they frequently must maintain homes for their own families.
For workers without family ties, to be sure, the living-in system does
mean higher wages, since they do not need to pay for lodging. Probably a number of workers who would prefer to live away from their
jobs feel that they can not afford to do so, as it is really equivalent
to giving up part of their pay. Especially is this a factor since the
great increase in rents within the past decade. It is not the custom
for householders to off er higher wages to employees living outside the
household, as might seem to be the logical course. As a rule, it mean:S
comparatively little additional expense to the householder to have
workers living in, since there usually are available quarters, although
in too many instances the rooms offered for this purpose are far from
satisfactory or comfortable. Unfortunately, the Baltimore records
contain no data on the proportion of employers who want servants
to live in, but they do give the preferences, or rather the willingness,
of the applicants in this respect. These opinions have been tabulated
in connection with occupation, sex, and race, and unp11:blished material concerns further the applicant's age and conjugal condition. The
preferences and reasons therefore of the employers may perhaps be
best indicated by the following statement made by the president of
the Domestic Efficiency Association:
The desire to live out so prevalent to-day among the negro workers should be
discouraged for many reasons, but principally on the serious question of health.
Negroes are notoriously easy prey to disease, particularly to tuberculosis, a
veritable scourge among them. Most negro women who demand to go home at
night do so for one of two reasons. Either they do really go to their homes to do
the work they must neglect during the day, or, particularly the younger ones,
want to amuse themselves and spend much too large a portion of the nights at
dances, or movies, or festivals, etc. In either case they are trying to burn their
candles at both ends and their health suffers, while the employer suffers from a
tired servant utterly unequal to the requirements of her day's work.
Table IV in the appendix reveals that of 1,358 women, including
both negro and white, expressing opinions as to whether they would
prefer to live in or out of home of employer, about one-half (49.7 per
cent) expressed a willingness to live in, 37 .6 per cent desired to live
out, 8.5 per cent were willing to live in part of the time provided they
could go home some nights or a few nights a week, and 4.3 per cent
had no preference. A considerably larger proportion of men than of
women were willing to live in, two-thirds of the men and approximately one-half of the women falling into this class. Only 17 .2 per
cent of the men wanted to live out, 9.1 per cent had no preference,
being willing to live either in or out, and 7.1 per cent stated they would
live in part of the time. Probably men who live in employers'
homes have more freedom and independence and are called upon for
less additional night work than are women, since the latter may be
asked to take care of children in the evening. Men as a rule are
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
given more freedom in going and coming at night than are women;
they are more likely to go out for visiting in the evening and less likely
to want to have company at home. Women naturally have a stronger
desire than have men for a place in which to entertain their friends.
Too seldom is such a place available for the women who live in.
The negro and white domestics differed very noticeably in respect
to preference for living conditions, since 79.8 per cent of the white
women as compared with 35.8 per cent of the negro women, and
80.4 per cent of the white men as compared with 62.2 per cent of the
negro men, stated that they would live in. Evidently the white men
and women seeking employment in domestic service were more
desirous of securing a home with the job. This is partly accounted
for by the fact that some of the white employees were foreigners and
entirely foot loose from their families, while the bulk of the negroes
probably belonged to the locality and had homes and families in the
city. Increased rents and a higher standard of living may have h ad
something to do with it.
Unpublished figures correlating conjugal condition with preference
for living in or out show that among the women, irrespective of race,
62.9 per cent of the single women, 33.7 per cent of the marri ed ones,
and 59.1 per cent of those who were widowed, separated, or divorced
were willing to live in. Since 76 per cent of the single men and 55.7
per cent of the married men were willing to live in,1 4 each group
~howed a larger proportion than did the corresponding groups of
women.
In general, therefore, the men appeared more willing to live in
than the women, the white domestics were more willing than the
negroes, and the single workers more willing than the married ones.
To be sure, when those who were willing to live either in or out or to
live in part of the time are added the proportions who insisted upon
living out naturally dwindle.
That there is a rather definite relation between age and a willingness to live in is apparent from unpublished figures on this subject
from which the following statement has been prepared:
Age.
Per cent of women willing or preferring toLive in.
Under 18 years ________ ____ _____ __ ___________ ________ ___
18 and under 20 years ____ __________ __________________ __ _
20 and under 25 years ________ _______ _______ _____ _____ __ _
25 and under 30 years ____ ______ ______ _________ __ _____ __ _
30 and under 40 years ____ ___ ___ ___ ____ ____ _____ __ ______ _
40 and under 50 years __ ________ ·- ____ ___ ___ _______ ______ _
50 years and over ____________ ______ ___ ______ ______ ____ _
11
None of the men reported that they were widowed, separated, or divorced.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Live out.
53. 1
34. 4
4 4.
40.
40.
44.
52.
81.
38. 4
2
3
1
2
7
3
44. 7
43. 6
44. 2
34. 1
12. 5
DOMESTIO WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS,.
33
Per cent of men willing
or preferring toAge.
Live in.
Under 18 years _____ ___ ____ _______________________ __ ___ _
18 and under 20 years __ ___ _____________ ____ _____ __ _____ _
20 and under 25 years ______ ________ ___ ___ ______ ________ _
25 and under 30 years __________ ____ __ ____ _____ ___ ______ _
30 and under 40 years __________________ __ ___ ___ ________ _
40 and under 50 years ______________ ____ ____________ ____ _
50 years and over __ _ ____________ __ __ _-, ________________ _
100. 0
75. 0
72. 8
70. 4
58. 6
50. 0
60. 0
Live out.
25.
14.
11.
18.
0
8
3
6
21. 4
20. 0
It is apparent that for the women the proportion of those willing
to live in decreases gradually with the increase in age from the more
than one-half under 18 years to the two-fifths between the years of
25 and 30 who were so reported. After this the proportion increases
with increase in years, more than one-half of those between 40 and 50
and over four-fifths of those who were 50 and over being willing to
live in. The period from 20 to 30 years is the time when m arriage
and home duties are likely to make it necessary for women to live at
home in order to give some attention to their families. If circumstances permit they are probably willing to live in, but frequently
they are compelled to live out.
As for the men the correlation between age and preferences for
living condition seems to take a slightly different twist. With increase in age there is a steady decrease in the proportion expressing a
desire to live in, with the exception of the oldest a.ge group, in which
the number of men was too small to make the figures of any value.
Even so, the proportion of men in each age group willing to live in is
considerably larger than the corresponding proportion of women.
Apparently men are not compelled by circumstances to live out so
much as are women.
Another question which arises in this connection is : To what
extent does the occupation in which a worker engages affect his or her
willingness to live in ? In view of the additional workers who would
live either in or out, and those who would live in part of the time, a
statement in regard to those in the various occupations who insisted
upon living out might be more significant.
Among the women applicants in the occupational groups with
numbers sufficiently large to make computations worth while (Table
IV in the appendix), the laundresses took the lead in the proportion
wanting to live out (65.9 per cent) .' 15 Nor do householders ordinarily desire laundresses to live in. Moreover, it is possible that
some of the laundresses may have been day workers and that such
16 P&Y
wor~ers are not considered, su:ice they n~tur&lly live out.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
statement was omitted on the worker's application card. The
general workers came next in the proportion of women who wanted
to live out, over two-fifths (42.4 per cent) falling into that category.
Over one-third of the maids (36.7 per cent), 28.7 per cent of the
cooks, 27.3 per cent of the governesses, 10.5 per cent of the nurses,
and 11.1 per cent of the housekeepers expressed a desire to live
away from the job. These figures tally well with what would seem
to be the facts of the case. There would be a strong inclination on
the part of many employers to have workers in all of these five groups
live on the premises, especially as some evening service might be
required in these occupations, almost certainly from housekeepers,
nurses, and governesses, and probably to some extent from maids,
cooks, and general workers. Also, in regard to cooks and general
workers, householders frequently dislike these employees to live out for
fear they may fail to be regular and punctual in the morning. From
the worker's point of view, those who were nurses, governesses, and
housekeepers would undoubtedly expect, from the nature of their
occupations, to render some evening and night service, and consequently would not object to it so st.rongly as would cooks, maids,
and general workers.
An examination of the men in the chief occupational groups
reveals that 12.1 per cent of the butlers, 17.6 per cent of the housemen, 18.4 per cent of the chauffeurs, and 20 per cent of the cooks
wanted to live out.
·
Preference for work in city, suburbs, or country.
There is in general a feeling that domestic workers are much more
willing to work in the city than in the suburbs or country because of
the conveniences, amusements, and companionship of city life.
The D?mestic Efficiency Association numbers among its employer
members not only city residents but many in the suburbs and some
in the country. Accordingly, all applicants were questioned as to
where they would accept positions, and the answers have been
tabulated and are presented in Table V in the appendix. The
figures in general show that although the country was not at all popular as a place for service among domestic workers, there was not
only no discrimination against the suburbs but even a preference for
such a location. Altogether, over three-fourths of the women,
irrespective of race, reporting on this subject (78 per cent) stipulated
the suburbs as the only place or one of the places in which they would
accept employment, whereas less than two-thirds of the women
(62 per cent) gave the city as the only place or one of the places where
they would work. Less than one-third (32.4 per cent) expressed a
preference for the country or a willingness to go to a position so
located,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
35
The men showed a similar preference for the suburbs, since over
three-fourths (76.1 per cent) were willing to accept suburban work.
They showed, however, a much stronger predilection for the country
than did the women, almost two-thirds (64.1 per cent) of the men as
against one-third of the women giving it as the only place or one of
the places in which they would take a position. The city boasted of
a much smaller proportion of possible recruits among the men; that
is, somewhat over one-half of those reporting. The men were, on
the whole, less discriminating than the women in regard to their
place of service, since 31.9 per cent of the former as against 12.9 per
cent of the latter expressed no preference but were willing to work
in _the city, suburbs, or country. This is not surprising, since men
are usually more foot-loose and less tied down to a particular or
limited area by family affairs and responsibilities than are women.
Also, married men more easily than married women can accept a job
which necessitates continued absence from home.
When the matter is looked at from the point of view of race, the
white workers were more willing than the negroes to work in the
country; somewhat over two-fifths of the white women and approximately four-fifths of the white men, as compared with a little less
than one-third of the negro women and three-fifths of the negro men
stipulated the country as the only place or one of the places where
they would work. Since there was a larger proportion of married
women among the negroes than among the whites, this fact may have
been influential in increasing the proportion of negro women expressing preference for work in the city or suburbs. In general, the loneliness of country life probably would serve as a deterrent to negroes
more than to whites, as would the negroes' fewer resources within
themselves. Types of occupation did not seem to enter very strongly
into the question of where the applicants were willing to work.
Among the women, the nurses showed a greater willingness to work
in the country than did the women in the other occupational groups,
since over one-half of them, as compared with 45 per cent of the
companions, somewhat over one-third of the cooks, and a little over
one-fourth of the general workers, the laundresses, and the maids,
gave the country as a possible place for service. Among the men,
the housemen showed the smallest proportion in any occupational
group (57.8 per cent) willing to work in the country, the butlers,
chauffeurs, and cooks each showing approximately two-thirds in
this class.
Length of service in former jobs.
That the labor turnover among domestic employees is very high is
a well-recognized fact. The reasons for this, however, are not so
well known. Since frequent changing about of workers after brief
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
periods of service causes a difficult situation for the housekeepers
and a probably far from advantageous one for the workers, it is
significant to attempt to get at the roots of the trouble. It is possible
to throw some light on this subject from an analysis of the Baltimore
records, which revealed the length of service in former jobs of a considerable number of the applicants. On the whole, this information
was given by former employers in references sent to the association,
and these statements have been tabulated (Appendix Table VI).
Whenever one worker had several references from different employers,
with varying periods of service, only the longest period has been
tabulated.
A little over one-half of all the women reported on for length of
service had worked in one position for less than a year. There was
not a great deal of difference between the white and negro women
in this respect, 48.7 per cent of the former as compared with 53.4
per cent of the latter disclosing less t h an a year in one position.
The similarity in the proportions <?f white and negro women who
worked in one place for less than three months is even more striking,
18.2 per cent and 19.2 per cent, respectively. There was, in fact, a
very close resemblance in all the various service groups for the white
and negro women, which would seem to indicate that race is not an
influential factor in the question of labor turnover among domestics.
The figures for the men tell very much the same story in the
relation between race and labor turnover. In a comparison of men
and women, however, although there are no striking differences in the
matter of length of service, the men seem to present a somewhat
better record, as can be seen from the following statement:
Length of service.
Under 3
months.
3 and
under 6
months
6 months
and under
I year
I year
and under
5 years.
5 and
under 10
years.
17. 0
15. 4
41. 7
34. 4
10. 5
7. 7
10 years
and over.
'
Men _______________ _
Women ______________
•
1
12. 7
18. 9
14. 1
17. 9
4. 0
5. 7
Although the women overbalanced the men in the proposition who
worked for less than six months, 36.8 per cent of the women an<l 26.8
per cent of the men being in these groups, they fell below the men
slightly in the six-months-and-under-one-y_e ar _classes. The men,
with 43.8 per cent working in one place for less than a year, show up
better than the women, 52 .2 per cent of whom had such a record.
The men surpassed the women in the proportions working from one
to five years and from five to ten years, but dropped slightly below
the women for those with a record for 10 years and over in one
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
37
position. It does seem significant that the great bulk of the workers,
two-thirds of the women and approximately three-fifths of the men,
had not worked with the same employer for as long as two years.
There were only 13.3 per cent of the women and 14.5 per cent of the
men who had a record for five years or more in one position. Nine
women and three men had worked
20 years or over without
change o! employer.
Among the women, occupations seemed to have very little bearing
on the length of service. Cooks and general workers showed about
the same proportion with less than one year of service as all the
women taken together; maids showed a somewhat higher and nurses
a somewhat lower proportion than did the figures for all women.
Also, in regard to the longer term of service, that of five years or over,
there were no striking or significant variations from the general for
the individual occupations.
The men in the chief occupational groups showed some deviation
from the 43.8 per cent of all men with less than a year's service with
one employer, since over one-half of both the cooks and the housemen
had worked for less than a year in one place. None· of the cooks and
only 4.9 per cent of the housemen had a record for so long as five
years. The chauffeurs, revealing 10. 7 per cent with such a record,
made a better showing but were surpassed by the butlers, of whom
15.3 per cent had worked with the same employer for at least five
years.
for
Reasons for leaving positions.
The correlation of length of service with reason for leaving obviously
has much significance in an analysis of labor turnover. Some former
employers when called upon by the Domestic Efficiency Association
to furnish references for the applicants, volunteered the reasons why
these employees had left their service. It must be remembered,
therefore, that the data in Table VII in the appendix, bearing on
this subject, are compiled from statements made by employers and
represent only one side of the story. Unfortunately there had been
no attempt to record the workers' statements about why they had
terminated their services with the employers giving the references.
Of the 272 women for whom the reason for leaving was given,
46.3 per cent had left because the employer no longer needed their
services, and of this particular group more than one-half (55.6 per
cent) had left because the establishments in which they had been
employed had closed, the householders giving up their homes entirely or going away for the season, to another home, to a resort, or
to Europe. There were 88 men whose reasons for leaving a former
position were recorded, and over one-half of these were dismissed
because the employer had no further need of their services. Not
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
38
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND - THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
far from two-thirds of this latter group were dismissed because of the
closing of the establishment. Domestic service has not, as a rule,
been viewed as a seasonal job, but that such an element enters to a
serious extent is shown by the fact that a little over one-fourth (27.2
per cent) of the applicants, irrespective of sex or race, for whom a
former employer had stated the reason for leaving, had been discharged either temporarily or permanently because the employers
were closing their homes for a period, or breaking up housekeeping
altogether. To be sure there might have been a possibility of reinstatement for a number of the workers with the reopening of the
establishment. Even so, during the interim these domestics would
be out of work and, unless wages were paid by the absent employer,
forced to find at least a temporary job. If, as applicants, they
requested temporary work they might have difficulty in being
placed, since many housekeepers seeking workers would consider
this a handicap. The applicants therefore would be apt to conceal
the fact that they wanted the position for just a few months, and,
because of the uncertainties in the situation, they could scarcely
be condemned for such a step. Former employers might fail for
some good reason to reengage the workers, or the workers accepting
other positions temporarily might find them more attractive than the
so-called permanent ones, and decide to stay on in the new positions
even when the opportunity came for return to the old employer.
In such cases the employers would have no grounds for resentment,
unles·s they had paid the employees full or part wages as a bonus
during their absence to insure a return to their household. If such
pay were given in advance, the employee, if he were not honorable,
might fail to return when his employer recalled him or he might
come back for a brief period and then leave. An employer feeling
no particular responsibility for the worker's maintenance during
the absence might prefer to pay a bonus on the return. The employee, in the meantime, having secured more congenial employment,
might prefer to forego such a bonus by remaining in his new position.
The bonus arrangement, however, is apt to serve as a strong inducement and is usually satisfactory.
Not all householders, however, can afford to pay wages to employees
when the temporary closing of the home necessitates dismissal of
workers for an interval. Moreover, many of those householders
who have a summer home in- addition to the winter home may feel
it too great an expense to pay two sets of servants at the same time,
one in the -winter and one in the summer quarters. It may be suggested that in such cases the domestics could go away with the householder if they wanted steady employment, but family ties may prevent such employees from leaving the locality of the winter home.
Some employe~s who feel a strong responsibility toward satisfactory
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
39
employees, and are unable to pay a bonus, make it a point to secure
for such employees work of some sort that will mean a maintenance
during the absence.
All such discussion may seem only· to lead around in circles, for
just what would prove the most satisfactory solution is difficult to
say; but it emphasizes the need on the part of employers to give more
careful thought to the problem. Also, it is of great significance in
throwing light on the causes of labor turnover among domestic
workers.
It should be noted that in the group dismissed because of the closing of the establishment were included some men and women who
left positions because the death of employers meant no further need
of their services. Chauffeurs dismissed because automobiles were
sold or put away for the winter also were included.
The general division, "no further need of service by employers,"
embraced also the employees who lost their jobs because the householders decided to reduce expenses or to change from negro to white
workers or vice versa. This division comprised the men and women
who were dismissed because of the termination of a limited engagement; that is, workers acting as substitutes left when the regular
employees returned, or nurses left when patients recovered or
children grew up.
On the whole, a comparatively small group of the applicants for
whom the information was furnished were dismissed from former
positions because they had been unsatisfactory to employers, only
15.1 per cent of the women and 19.3 per cent of the men. There
were in all only 41 women and 17 men in this division, of whom 15
women and 3 men were discharged for inefficiency in work or service,
11 women and 5 men for irregularity or unreliability, 6 women and
3 men on account of trouble with other servants, 2 women and 1
man because of so-called bad disposition, 1 woman and 2 men for
intemperance, and 6 women and 3 men with no reason given.
The great bulk of the workers whose reasons for leaving were
reported by employers-a little over three-fifths (61.4 per cent) of the
women and 69.3 per cent of the men-were said to have been discharged for one reason or another. On the other hand, 21.3 per cent
of the women and 11.4 per cent of the men took the initiative and
left of their own accord for such personal reasons as dislike of living
conditions required for the job, marriage, moving from the locality,
opportunity to change to former or more desirable position, onerousness of the work, or their own family responsibilities involved in the
care of young cruldren or old parents.
Only 39 of the 272 women (14.3 per cent) and 4 of the 88 men
(4.5 per cent) terminated their services because of their physical
condition. This group includes both those who left of their own
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40
DOMEST!C WORKERS AND THEiR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
accord because they were sick and those who were dismissed because
their health or physical condition was such that the employer deemed
it a h andicap. In a few instances a woman's pregnancy was the
cause of dismissal.
·
As only 1 man and 2 women left on account of disagreements about
wages, obviously the high labor turnover among domestic workers is
not traceable to the amount of pay offered for the work. This may
not indicate entire satisfaction, however, as the absence of a system
of promotions, already referred to, and the rarity of voluntary wage
increases, may result in employees changing their jobs without the
matter causing a disagreement or even discussion.
There were no striking differences between the negroes and white
workers who terminated their services with employers for the various
reasons.
In regard to length of service there seemed to be no definite relation between the dismissal of employees on account of the closing of
the establishment and the length of their employment, the proportions in the various service groups discharged from a position on this
account showing no significant variation. In the group of employees
dismissed because their services were unsatisfactory, there is, among
the women, a steady decrease in the proportion discharged for this
reason with the increase in the length of service. The men show
such a decrease also, except that there is a larger proportion dismissed for unsatisfactory services in the six-months-and-under-oneyear group than in the under-six-months group. Among the men
and women there seemed to be a scattering in the various service
groups who left for personal reasons, apparently circumstances
rather than length of service being the influential factor in this
matter. The numbers found under the other reasons are too small
to justify computations in this connection.
Nor does an analysis by occupation of reasons for leaving as given
by employers (AppendL""C, Table VII) disclose any very striking facts.
Among the women the nurses show the largest proportion dismissed
because their services were no longer needed (46.2 per cent) and the
cooks the smallest proportion (38.2 per cent). Although there are
rather similar proportions in the several occupational groups dismissed for unsatisfactory service, the maids reveal the largest proportion (18.3 per cent) and the general houseworkers the smallest (13.1
per cent). This is rather surprising, since, as a rule, it would seem
more difficult for a woman who was expected to perform a variety of
occupations to be satisfactory than for one who was a specialist.
However, the variety of the general worker's duties might cause
allowance to be made for the quality of her work. Probably the
truth of the matter is that although the average householder expects
a general worker to perform each type of work as well as a specialist
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
41
would, and is somewhat disgruntled when she finds the worker only
partially satisfactory, she frequently is afraid to change for fear of
getting a less satisfactory one. A cause of dismjssal in a household
with more than one employee is the inability to get along with other
servants, a difficulty which the general worker does not often encounter, since she is apt to be the only employee in a home. · The
proportions of workers in the various occupations who left for personal reasons were also strikingly similar, that is, between 21 and 27
per cent in each case, the nurses standing first with 26.9 per cent.
The several occupations, however, show a much wider variation in
the proportions who left for physical reasons, cooks heading the list
with 22.5 per cent and nurses coming last with 7.7 per cent.
The numbers of men in the several occupational groups who left
for the various reasons are so small that they detract from the significance of the proportions. The cooks, with two-thirds dismissed
because there was no further need of their services, took the lead
in this respect, followed by the chauffeurs, of whom more than onehalf left for this reason. The bu tiers had the lowest proportions
in this division, somewhat over two-fifths (43.8 per cent). Among
the men dismissed for unsatisfactory service no cooks were reported,
but there were a little over one-fifth of the butlers, one-fourth of the
chauffeurs, and over one-third of the housemen. Personal reasons
of the employees caused 18.8 per cent of the butlers and 9.1 per cent
of the housemen to leave their place of employment, but none of
the chauffeurs or cooks were so reported. In all only 5 ·men were
reported as leaving on account of physical condition, 2 butlers,
1 chauffeur, 1 houseman, and 1 whose occupation was not given.
· In Table IX in the appendix the applicants are classified broadly
with regard to whether they were discharged or left of their own
accord. This group is larger than that already discussed in this
connection as the former group included only those for whom the
employers' reasons for the termination was reported. Of this greater
number of employees, one-third of the women were discharged and
slightly less than two-thirds left of their own accord, the other 1.6
per cent leaving by mutual agreement with the employer. A somewhat higher proportion of the negro women were discharged (34.5
per cent) than of the white (29.5 per cent). The men, showing 37.1
per cent to have been discharged, surpass the women a little in this
respect; also a slightly higher proportion than among the women
left by mutual consent. Although the proportions of negro men
and of negro women who were dismissed are practically identical,
the white men exceeded considerably the white women in this class.
According to this table there does not seem to be much relation
between the length of service and the way in which it was terminated,
unless we consider men and women together, and then there is t\
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
rather gradual decrease in the proportion discharged for one reason
or another with the increase in length of service until those with
a record of five years or over are reached, when the proportion discharged rises a little.
Method of leaving.
Although the preceding discussion gives some idea of the way
in which the applicants left former employers, whether they were
discharged or left of their own accord, there was no light thrown
on the important question of whether or not those who took the initiative in terminating their services gave notice.
Unfortunately the ethics of the business world which obligate
employer and employee to give ample notice when terminating
employment relations are not always practiced in the field of domestic service. Failure to do so, whether by employer or employee,
usually causes considerable inconvenience and even hardship to
the other person. It would seem from general knowledge that
householders are less prone to err in this fashion than are the workers.
The Baltimore records gave very little information on this side
of the question. Some idea, however, of the tendencies of the
workers in the method of leaving is obt ainable from Table IX in
the appendix. The figures reveal that of the women domestics who
left of their own accord, the great bulk-approximately 70 per centgave notice. The white women overbalanced the negroes in this
respect, since over three-fourths of the former (78.4 per cent) as
compared with a little less than two-thirds of the latter for whom
a report was given on this subject had notified their employers of
their intention to leave. A little over four-fifths of all the men who
were reported as leaving of their own accord (81.1 per cent) had
given notice, manifesting a slightly greater tendency toward this
businesslike method than did the women. The separation of men
according to race shows that the white men surpassed the negro
men somewhat in the matter of notifying the employer before they
left, and that the white men not only surpassed the white women
and the negro men the negro women but that the negro men made
a somewhat better showing than did the white women on this basis.
References.
Great stress is laid upon the furnishing of adequate references by
applicants for domestic service. So haphazard, however, is the
whole method of getting and giving references for this work that the
situation is greatly complicated b oth for applicants and for householders. As stated in an earlier section of this report, the Domestic
Efficiency Association insisted that applicants must furnish a satisfactory reference before they could b e considered for placement. In
a nwnber of instances the applicant was disqualified because a former
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
43
employer who might have given a reference had moved and could not
be located. Such a difficulty could be partially obviated by a system
like that in force in Austria, where an employer is required by law to
is.me to a domestic who leaves his service a certificate stating the
duration and nature of his service. The questionnaire sent out to
former employers by the Domestic Efficiency Association for the
purpose of securing references for the applicants contained the
following questions:
How long has applicant been in your service? -- --------------- - ------ -----What services did sh~ perform, and length of service? ___ __________________ _ _
Did she leave of her own accord, and did she give notice? ___ ______ ____ ___ ___ _
Was she satisfactory in her position? ____ ______ __ ____ _______ ·______ _____ ____ _
Was the applicant honest and sober?---- - - ----- - --- --- --------- - ---- -----Has she a good disposition? ____ ______ ____ _ --- - -------- - -------- --- ------Is she neat and tidy in her appearance?------- - --- - - - - - --- - --- - - - - -- - -- - - If she did not live in your home, was she on time in the morning, and did she
come regularly? _____________________ ____________ __ __ ____ ____ __ __ ____ _
Do you know of anything in her private domestic life that would interfere with
her efficiency as a trained servant?---------- - ----- - ------ - ------ - -- - ----
In some cases the persons for whom references were sought merely
answered the questions, volunteering no further information, whereas
others gave additional facts.
Another difficulty in the method of depending too greatly upon the
references furnished by employers is that the whole thing is apt to be
a matter of personal opinion. A domestic who is entirely satisfactory to one householder may be just as unsatisfactory to another;
in fact, the references found in Baltimore records served as concrete
illustrations of this statement, for in a number of cases the references
furnished by different employers for the same individual were absolutely opposite in tenor.
Sometimes these conflicting references gave no definite information, one employer merely stating that a particular worker was
satisfactory and the second employer that he or she was unsatisfactory. In other instances of conflicting opinions, one reference
would be specific in its information and the other general, as examples
of which are the following:
Colored woman __ __ Reference 1. Splendid- good, dependable, fine woman.
Reference 2. Did not like her.
Colored woman____ Reference 1. Honest, clean, very good cook, very nice
person.
Reference 2. Not satisfactory.
White woman _____ Reference 1. Satisfactory.
Reference 2. Honest, clean, industrious, cheerful; five
months' service.
R eference 3. Unsatisfactory.
Colored man_ _ _ _ _ _ Reference 1. Very good man; would take him back; five
years' service.
Reference 2. Would not care to take him back; two
weeks' service.
87023°-24t.,----4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
44
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
White man ________ Reference 1. Trustworthy, honest, reliable; been driver
for quite a while without accident or
trouble of any kind.
Reference 2. Was not satisfactory; dismissed him.
A general reference that is unfavorable seems scarcely fair to the
worker, because if a more detailed statement were given it would
enable the next person considering the applicant to judge whether
or not the objections made by a former employer would constitute
definite handicaps. An employee dismissed by one housekeeper
because of tardiness in the morning might be quite acceptable to
another who would not require the worker to come at an early hour;
or if a worker were an excellent cook, the fact that she was untidy
in her appearance might disqualify her absolutely with some housekeepers but not necessarily with all.
As illustrations of other conflicting references which were a little
more specific but which threw very little light on the type of work
performed are the following:
Colored woman ____ Reference 1. Not always prompt; efficient at times-not
always.
Reference 2. Very good worker. Several months' service.
Colored woman ____ Reference 1. Very excellent woman in every way, always
prompt and reliable.
Reference 2. Not satisfactory.
Colored woman ____ Reference 1. Excellent in every respect; sorry when she
left ; one season.
Reference 2. Clean but absolutely untrained.
White woman _____ Reference 1. Very inefficient . Did not know anything
about care of house.
Reference 2. Very superior woman. Capable in every way.
Reference 3. Inefficient.
Colored man______ Reference 1. Very fine man; very capable.
Reference 2. Is entirely too old to place.
Other conflicting references were more definite in regard to occupation:
Colored woman____ Reference 1. She went off and left child of 27 months in
house alone.
Reference 2. A No. 1 with children and good in any capacity. Six weeks' service.
Colored woman____ Reference 1. Laundry work above average; six weeks'
service.
Reference 2. Perfectly honest. Not a very good laundress.
Colored woman____ Reference 1. Not a good cook.
Reference 2. Splendid cook.
Reference 3. First-class cook; good, reliable woman.
Colored woman____ Reference 1. Is not a good cook.
Reference 2. Very good cook. Efficient, clean, honest.
Colored woman____ Reference 1. Splendid.
Wish I could afford her still.
Waits well. Kept whole house clean.
Reference 2. Consider her second-rate maid.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND 1'HEIR EMPLOYMENT RELAT!ONS.
45
White woman _____ Reference 1. I can not recommend her in any way. Employed as nurse and when family was out
she went off and left the children alone at
night.
Reference 2. Very superior type of girl. Clean, intelligent.
Would make splendid governess or nurse.
White woman_____ Reference 1. Too old and frail to take a position unless
work is very easy.
Reference 2. Efficient chambermaid. Very thorough and
neat in her work. Very willing, honest,
perfectly reliable; three years' service.
Colored man______ Reference · 1. Not a reliable or efficient butler.
Reference 2. Good disposition.
Willing, honest, very
capable.
Reference 3. Very good. Left on account of illness. Good
all-around man.
Some of the references were conflicting in the matter of character
or disposition, of which type are the following examples:
Colored woman ____ Reference 1. Can do if she wants to, but is trifling.
Reference 2. Very industrious while in my employ. Could
recommend her for position of this kind.
Colored woman ____ Reference 1. Wonderful laundress; never disappoints; thoroughly honest.
Reference 2. Excellent laundress. I am a little suspicious of
her honesty.
White woman_____ Reference 1. Always prompt and ready; quiet disposition.
Reference 2. Very satisfactory, but not good disposition.
White woman_ _ _ _ _ Reference 1. Did very well. A very nice girl.
Reference 2. Bad temper. Very impudent; not willing to
recommend.
Colored man_ _ _ _ __ Reference 1. I did not think him reliable-was drinking
while there.
Reference 2. Very nice; willing to please. Cooked meats
well, but did not please in all his cooking;
would make excellent butler.
Reference 3. Fine cook; good butler; honest, trustworthy,
polite.
In some cases when more than one reference was given for an
applicant, the first might constitute what would be termed a good
reference, whereas the second would introduce a derogatory feature
not touched upon in the first. In such an instance the question
would naturally arise: Did the first housekeeper say only the favorable things and omit the unfavorable 1 As illustrations of such are
the following:
Colored woman______ Reference
Reference
Colored woman______ Reference
Reference
Reference
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Very good cook.
Good cook; late in mornings.
Very good cook.
Very good cook; extravagant; dishonest.
I can not recommend her; dishonest.
46
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
Colored woman ______ Reference 1. Perfectly honest and makes good chambermaid.
Reference 2. Very efficient; honest; splendid cook; can
not do nursing; quick temper.
Reference 3. Impossible disposition.
Colored woman______ Reference 1. Very good woman; very nice cook.
Reference 2. Good cook; good natured; extravagant; not
tidy.
fl-0lored woman ______ Reference 1. Unusually good cook; clean; honest.
Reference 2. One of the best cooks I ever had; honest;
cloon, willing, but unreliable about coming to work.
Colored woman______ Reference 1. Very good as chambermaid.
Reference 2. Good worker alone; has most violent temper.
White woman _______ Reference 1. Very nice; honest; the average cook; kindhearted; a little loud sometimes.
Reference 2. A very good cook; not neat in kitchen;
perfectly honest; willing; does not get
along very well with other servants.
White woman_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Reference 1. Consider her good plain cook; honest.
R eference 2. Left without notfce; very disagreeable.
Colored man________ Reference 1. Very reliable, accommodating, and thoroughly trustworthy.
Reference 2. Not competent.
Some of the employers by being too noncommittal in their reference tended to disqualify workers for other positions. Furthermore,
if an employer refused to give a reference this had practically the
same effect as though she were blacklisting the worker. Other
employers made one sweeping derogatory statement without any
qualifications. The injustice of such statements as "girl absolutely
worthless," "an abominable old woman," "found her to be a very
immoral character," or "dreadful," given as the only reference for
workers who received satisfactory references from other employers,
is apparent. It is quite likely when such a condemnatory reference
was given that the householder had been entirely influenced by one
circumstance alone.
It was evident from the records that some of the employers had
given comparatively little thought to the subject, whereas others had
considered the matter carefully and conscientiously. Giving references is not an easy task. However, employers should not dismiss
it in a summary fashion, as is too often done, feeling that they are not
personally concerned. The furnishing of references should be
regarded in the _light of a social duty since the welfare of so many
employers and employees is dependent upon this method. Sufficient
time and thought to make it as reliable as possible should be bestowed
upon each reference that an employer is called upon to furnish.
Many employers fail in this respect. As one writer said in discussing
this subject, it is very difficult for housekeepers called upon for refer-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
47
ences to give "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
On the one side are those who err by withholding anything that is
at all unfavorable, fearing that they may hurt the worker's chances
at further employment; in some instances, where it may be largely a
question of personal opinion, this method is not so objectionable,
but in others it niay be the employer's duty to society to disclose
rather than withhold certain revelations. On the other side are
those who fall short by making only derogatory statements, evidently unable to see any virtue in an employee because of some conspicuous fa ult.
The references found in the Baltimore records have been tabulated
according to kind and correlated with the length of service of the
workers in the home of the employers furnishing such records.
(Appendix, Table X.) When more than one reference had been furnished for a domestic, the one given for the longest period of service
was chosen for this table.
The classification of the references was an extremely difficult
matter, due not only to the different standards of employers and their
personal methods of expression but also to the possibility of making
different decisions upon many of the references. Individual opinions
might easily vary as to whether a reference should be classed as
good or excellent, or whether one was good or only fair. Accordingly, in order to give some idea of the basis of judgment used in
classifying the references, the following examples are offered as
illustrations ·of the terminol9gy of the table:
Excellent.
a. Very excellent woman; beautiful cleaner.
b. Very honest, upright good woman; far above average in every way.
c. Best servant I ever had.
d. She is simply perfect; honest, and reliable in every way.
e. Perfectly capable man; never had a better chauffeur.
f. Perfectly satisfactory; excellent cleaner.
g. Excellent cook and splendid waitress.
Good.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Very good woman; I would like to have her again.
Very good, earnest worker; strong and willing.
Very satisfactory; very neat; prompt and reliable.
Honest, sober, trustworthy.
Very good man, honest, works well, waits well, quiet, very respectful, learns quickly.
f. Willing, efficient, polite, entirely reliable.
Satisfactory.
a. As butler satisfactory; honest; fairly good disposition.
b. Very satisfactory.
Fair.
a. Neat and willing; never done any cooking.
b. Honest; fair waiter; broke dishes.
c. Honest so far as I have seen her.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
Part~y unfavorable.
a. Honest; does work well, but will not work any length of time.
b. Was very good reliable worker, but slow.
c. As butler perfectly honest and willing but not very clean; worth
giving a trial.
d. Capable driver. Too high class for job; used owner's car for own
service.
e. Good worker; honest; fought with cook.
f. Very good, honest, nice; stayed at home when she felt like it.
g. Very good; competent and agreeable, but irregular.
h. Perfectly honest; good butler; I think he can get along with other
help.
i. Splendid girl; can do anything, but not dependable.
j. Good butler; dismissed for bad disposition.
k. Knows something of cooking; poor cleaner; came late.
1. Splendid disposition; kind to children, tidy, clean; seems to stay
short period with every one. I do not think she is absolutely
honest, and I keep things locked when she is here. I do not
think she would really steal much. In some ways a perfect treasure. I am fond of her and would take her back.
m. Prompt, honest, if husband is kept away; does not know how to
cook (applicant for general work).
n. Honest, good-natured; could not remember; clean but not tidy.
o. Clean, honest; not capable of doing work in an apartment. I think
she could do private waiting.
p. Honest and capable; untidy about self; wanted to go home very
often.
q. Honest and fair waiter; obliging, but not very neat and clean.
I can only recommend fairly but not very satisfactory; does not
get along well with other servants.
Unfavorable.
a. Undesirable.
b. Not satisfactory; I think she drinks.
c. Honest but impossible.
d. Impossible from every standpoint.
e. Worthless.
f. Not satisfactory; health bad.
g. Honest; not efficient.
h. Not capable; untruthful.
i. An abominable old woman.
j. Will not stick to his work; unreliable ; I have tried him a number of
times.
N oncornrnittal.
a. Did not do any waiting; was dishwasher.
b. Lived with me 1 year 7 months; left for no special reason.
c. Was with me some time ago; did plain cooking and waiting.
d. Left after 1 day's notice.
The following summary compiled from Table X in the appendix
gives the proportion of workers having the various types of refer~nces:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
49
i
Per cent of women.
Per cent of men.
Type of reference.
Total.
Excellent_ __ __________
Good ________________
Satisfact or y ________ __ ·
Fair ___ ___________ ___
Partly unfavorable __ __
Unfavorable __________
N oncommittaL _______
Untrained ____________
14. 5
49. 7
5. 8
9. 7
8. 4
9. 6
.7
1. 6
White.
11. 9
45. 1
14. 3
10. 8
1. 6
13. 2
1. 6
1. 4
Negro.
15. 4
51. 3
2. 3
9. 2
11. 2
7. 9
.4
1. 7
Total.
7.
51.
5.
15.
White.
4
5
0
6
9. 2
8. 2
2. 9
.3
13.
32.
10.
13.
13.
13.
1.
8
8
3
8
8
8
7
--------
Negro.
6. 3
55. 3
3. 3
15. 5
8.
7.
3.
.
8
6
0
3
In all 70. per cent of the women and 63.9 per cent of the men
received excellent, good, or satisfactory references. The women,
with 14.5 per cent showing excellent references, overbalanced the
men, of whom only 7.4 per cent were in this reference group. Approximately one-fifth of the women (19.5 per cent) had partly or
entirely unfavorable references or were untrained, as compared with
17.7 per cent of the men receiving such references. In the iµtermediate, that is, in the fair and noncommittal reference groups, ·
were 18.5 per cent of the men and 10.5 per cent of the women applicants, who might also be difficult to place. Altogether, 30 per cent
of the women and 36 per cent of the men, in round numbers, might
be kept from being placed by the type of reference given.
It may ·be that the proportion with entirely favorable references
is somewhat higher than should be the case because of the tendency
of some employers to present the good points and withhold the bad
ones, but as an offset to these are the applicants classed as entirely
unfavorable because of the tendency of other employers to condemn
in sweeping fashion.
When we contrast the races in regard to the proportions having
what we might loosely term the good, bad, and indifferent types of
reference, we find that 71.4 per cent of the white women, 69.5 per
cent of the negro women, 56.9 per cent of the white men, and 64.8
per cent of the negro men were in the generally favorable class;
whereas 16.2 per cent of the white women, 20.9 per cent of the negro
women, 27.6 per cent of the white men, and 16.8 per cent of the negro
men fall into the group with referen·ces classified as partly or entirely
unfavorable. In the so-called indifferent group were 12.4 per cent
of the white women, 9.6 per cent of the negro women, 15.5 per cent
of the white men, and 18.4 per cent of the negro men. It would seem
from these figures that white women were the most acceptable
domestics of all, and white men the least, negro men and women
occupying the middle ground, somewhat on a par.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
Has length of service much bearing on the type of reference given 1
Some idea of this can be gained from the following summary of
Table X in the appendix:
WOMEN.
Under 6 months .
Type of reference.
6 months and
under 1 year.
To- White. N e- To- White . Negro. . t a!.
t al.
gro.
- Excellent ____ ______ ___ __ 6.1
Good __ ____ __ __ ______ ___ 45. 3
Satisfactory _____ ._______ 8. 9
Fair _______________ __ ___ 11. 3
Partly unfavorable _____ 11. 7
Unfavorable ___ ____ ____ _ 13. 8
NoncommittaL ________
.8
Untrained _____ _____ ___ 2. 0
3. 3
39. 3
16. 4
14. 8
3. 2
19. 7
1. 6
1. 6
1 and under
5 years.
5 years and over.
To- White. Netal.
gro.
To- White . Neta!.
gro.
------ -- -- ---- - - ---7. 1
46. 3
6. 6
9. 9
14. 8
11. 5
.5
2. 2
12. 8
56. 9
3. 7
9. 2
11. 0
4. 6
.9
.9
12. 5
65. 6
9. 4
3. 1
------3. 1
3. 1
3.1
13. 7
52. 1
1. 4
12. 3
16. 3
4.1
6. 4 13. 6 20. 8
11. 5
20. 6
62. 4
62. 9 61. 9 63. 2
50. 0
5. 0
14. 5 -- ---- 7. 5
17. 6
10. 6
11. 3 10. 9 · 2. 8
5. 9
4. 6 -- ---- - 6. 8
2. 8 --- ---4. 6
3. 2
5. 4
1. 9
2. 9
1. 4
1.4
1. 6
.9
2. 9
20. 3
71.0
1. 4
1. 4
4. 3
1.4
---------------- -- - - -- -- ----- ------ ------ -- -- --- ------
MEN .
Excellent_ ______ __ ______ 8. 2
Good __ ______ ______ ___ __ 47. 5
Satisfactory __ __ ___ __ ___ 4. 9
Fair _________ ____ ___ ____ 18. 0
Partly unfavorable___ __ 11. 5
Unfavorable__ ______ ____ 8. 2
NoncommittaL ______ __ 1. 6
11.1
11.1
11. 1
11. 1
33. 3
22. 2
7. 8
54. 9
3. 9
19. 6
7. 8
5. 9
5. 0
40. 0
12. 5
20. 0
17. 5
5. 0
20. 0
40. 0
20. 0
20. 0
3. 1
40. 6
9. 4
21. 9
18. 8
6. 3
5. 9
75. 2
16. 7
66. 7
3. 6
77. 1
4. 0
68. 0
14. 3 -- -- -42. 9
77. 8
l. 0 -- - - --- ----- - ------ - -- ---- -- -- - -
7. 9
8. 3
8. 4 20. 0
14. 3
22. 2
5. 0 -- ----- 6. 0
4. 0
14. 3 -----3. 0 --- - - -- 3. 6
4. 0
14. 3 -- ---2. 0
8. 3 - --- -- - ----- - - - -- - - ----- -
The proportions of women who were given favorable - references
show a steady rise and the proportions with partially or entirely unfavorable references a steady decline with increase in length of service.
It is interesting to note that one-fifth of the women who had served
5 years or more with one employer were given excellent references.
The resemblance between the white and ·negro women in these respects is very striking. The men are not so consistent as the women
in the increases and decreases. The proportion with good, excellent,
and satisfactory references is larger for the 1-to-5-years' service divisioa than for that showing 5 years and over. The proportions with
unsatisfactory references, however, are just the same for these two
periods, 8 per cent of the total number with references.
As already stated, the reference questionnaires requested information about the morals, disposition, and habits of the applicants. In
a study of labor turnover it is interesting to correlate such statements
as were furnished with the length of service of the workers. The
figures are not presented here, but among the 148 men and 429
women for whom answers were written on the reference questionnaires by employers as to honesty and sobriety, only 2 women and
3 men were definitely accused of dishonesty, and only 1 woman and
3 men of intemperance.· Of these, 5 had held their positions for less
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC W-OR.KERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
51
than 6 months, 3 from 1 to 5 years, and 1 gave no record of service.
Obviously, dishonesty and drunkenness would not appear to contribute to any degree to the labor turnover among domestics.
Nor was the employee's disposition much more of a cause for
dismissal among the group reported upon by written references. Of
413 women, over 90 per cent were said to have good dispositions, only
11 being credited with bad and 26 with fair dispositions. The men
showed the same proportion with a good disposition. Of the 46 men
and women accused of having a bad or only fair disposition whose
length of service was given, 17 had worked for their employers for
at least a year. In the matter of disposition, an incompatibility of
temperament between the employer and employee or the traits of the
employer may be responsible for the inability of employer and
employee to get along together.
According to the reports for 138 men there was comparatively
_little complaint made about the lack of neatness of male domestics,
ess than 10 per cent being characterized as careless in their work or
appearance. The 415 women reported upon showed a somewhat
larger proportion, or a little over 15 per cent, who were unsatisfactory
in this respect, the negro women overbalancing the whites. About
one-half of the men and women in this category whose length of
service was given had been in a position for less than 6 months.
There is indication, therefore, that carelessness in appearance and
work contributed more definitely to labor turnover than did dishonesty, intemperance, or bad dispositions of domestic employees.
The answers to the question whether the employees, if they did
not ·live in the household, were regular in attendance and punctual
in the morning, revealed that of 307 women and 124 men, only 14
women and 10 men were definitely irregular or not prompt and 16
women and 1 man occasionally so. Somewhat less than one-half of
those with such irregular habits whose length of service was given
· showed less than 6 months' · service, but 5 had worked with the
employer for 1 to 5 years. Although, on the whole, a small proportion of the applicants were irregular in attendance and promptness,
those who were did not hold their positions for a long period. The
negro women had a noticeably poorer record in this respect than had
the white women, since only 1.7 per cent of the latter as compared
with 11.5 per cent of the former were described as being irregular or
tardy. There was but little difference between the negro and white
men in this matter.
'
Wages.
It seems to be the consensus of opinion of those who have investigated the question of domestic service, that the wages paid for the
work are not the cause of the wage earners' disinclination to enter this
type of employment or their withdrawal therefrom. It is agreed
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
52
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
that although the wage rate is not high, the supplement to wages in
the way of food, room, and laundry raises this form of work into a
much more remunerative class than that of many wage-earning
women in other fields. Attention, however, must be called at this
juncture to the fact already pointed out in a preceding section of the
report, that for the employees who do not live in the household in
which they work there is not the same addition to the wages, since
workers are given no higher rate when they live out; even though
they must pay for lodging.
The wage data available in the records of the Domestic Efficiency
Association were very limited. In the first place the organization
makes no effort to regulate the wage rates of the workers who· are
placed through its efforts. In a comparatively few instances wages
were recorded, and the rates of 253 women and 29 men who had
been placed were on file. The median weekly wage for the women was
$10.70, that is, one-half of the women were paid more than this amount _
and one-half were paid less. There was a general grouping of the
women around the $10 rate; in fact, only 5.1 per cent of the women
showed a weekly rate of $15 or more, only one woman, a cook,
receiving as much as $16. The cooks, general workers, and maids
were the only occupational groups with a sufficient number of women
to permit a computation of medians. Of these three groups cooks
with a median of $12 were the best paid, general workers coming next
with a median of $10.90, and ·maids last with a $10.55 median.
That the white women were paid slightly higher rates than were the
negro women is indicated by the fact that the median for the former
was $ 11 .40 as compared with the median of $10.60 for the latter.
W age data were obtained for only 29 men, of whom 19 were butlers, 3 were cooks, and 1 was in miscellaneous occupations. The
weekly median for the men taken together, irrespective of occupation, was $15.55, which is $4.85 higher than the median fo~ women.
One man was paid $25 a week, and several received $20 and under
$22. The butlers, who were the only occupational group for whom
it was possible to compute a median, showed a median weekly rate
of $15.55. It was impossible to compute the median for the white
men on account of the small number involved, but the median for
the negro men was $15.45.
The difference in the rates paid to the men and women is quite
marked, although it is not likely that the duties of men were any
more extensive or onerous than 'those of women. The custom of
considering that men must support a family on their earnings is
probably responsible for the lower wages paid to the women. If an
investigation were made, however, it is likely that the proportion
of women in domestic service who were the complete or partial mainstay of dependents would be similar to the proportion of men with
such responsibilities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
53
Conclusion.
It is important to sum up the chief difficulties which confront
employers and employees in the field of domestic service. Certain
conditions connected with this type of work serve as one and the
same source of disaffection, causing, however, one set of disadvantages
for the employers and another set for the employees.
In the first place there is the question of the great need for efficient
and well-trained domestic workers, with the supply of such skilled
labor far below the demand. That employees, as a rule, are given
no systematic training for domestic occupations but are usually
expected to pick up their knowledge haphazardly as best they can
is a definite handicap to both the householders and the employees.
Lack of standardization is the great difficulty resulting where individual households with their different methods and varying standards
must serve as the training schools, especially since the householders
themselves very frequently have had no training that fits them to
be adequate instructors. Many employers, expecting more than
they have a right to from workers so trained, are kept in a turmoil of
dissatisfaction, and the workers, realizing their inability to measure
up to such high expectations, tend to become indifferent and even
shiftless. In no branch of the service, perhaps, is the situation more
in evidence than with the general workers, who are usually called
upon to perform a variety of occupations and to pursue each type of
work as satisfactorily as would a specialist.
.
Another decided handicap to both employers and employees is
the close personal relationship characteristic of domestic service as
it exists at the present time. The employers have the task of assimilating into their households an outside element. This situation is
frequently complicated by a difference in race, standards of living,
and religion. The complication is greater when the domestics live
in the homes where they work.
Great complaint also is raised by householders about the labor
turnover among domestics, about their restlessness and brief tenure
of office. As a match for this, however, employees might well cite
as a grievance the migratory habits of many employers which introduce a seasonal nature into domestic work. Heretofore not enough
stress has been laid on the inconvenience caused to domestics by the
closing, for a season or longer, of establishments in which they are
employed by those employers who make no arrangements for the
maintenance of domestics during such an interval.
Employers may also complain of the lack of ambition and initiative
of most persons who engage in domestic service, but a disadvantage
to such workers, which is generally recognized, is the lack of promotion which they must face. Dr. Lucy Salmon suggests that the idea
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
54
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
"once a cook always a cook" may be applied to all branches of domestic work. On this point, Miss Barker writes:
As to promotion in housework it seems to be almost unknown. Cpnsidering
the many responsible positions waiting to be filled in private families, nothing
could be more desirable than to instill into one's employees the ambition to
rise. An employee who has passed through all the different branches of domestic science, from the lowest to the highest in one family, must be far better
fitted to occupy the highest position in that family than one who applies for the
position with the training and experience gained only in other families where
the mode of living may be very different. Since there is no chance of promotion and in consequence of receiving better pay, the domestic employee is often
tempted to seek higher wages elsewhere, and thus the desire "to make a change,"
so disastrous to the peace of mind of the housewife, is engendered in her employees.16
It may be discouraging to employees to have comparatively little
chance for financial advancement, but it is just as discouraging for
householders in need of domestic assistance to be forced to pay a
goodly wage to unskilled labor, as must be frequently done.
The president of the Domestic Efficiency Association in discussing
this section says:
The suggestion in the foregoing study that the situation might be improved
by promotion and a rising scale of wage after length of service and increased
efficiency, would seem to be a sensible one, but is impossible to carry out so
long as the most ignorant workers can secure from weary housekeepers the same
wage as those more competent. This is one of the many problems only possible
to be dealt with by concerted action. Those whose sentimental sympathy is
lavished on the so-called hard lot of the domestic servant seldom stop to consider that such service in comparison to the training necessary for any other
wage-earning profession is the most highly paid of all. Few domestic servants
to-day receive less than $45 to $55 per month, plus food, lodging, and usually
some clothing. To increase this is only within the power of the very rich, and
is seldom deserved.
The habit practiced by some workers of leaving a position without
notice is a cause of much inconvenience and annoyance to householders. It is true that some employers follow the same method of
dismissing employees, but this is less likely to happen.
The system of references in vogue is also an arrangement difficult
for both employers and employees, for the latter because they must
depend in seeking other positions upon the more or less biased statements of former employers, and for the householders because they
must rely on the opinions of other persons whose standards may be
decidedly different from their ·own.
Perhaps the greatest drawback of all to domestic service is the
custom of having long and indefinite hours of service. Even those
who live out frequently have such a long working day, one of 12
hours or more, and such indefiniteness in regard to the time at which
11
Barker, Clara H~lene. Wanted, a young woman to do housework. • • • New York, 1915. p . 21- 22.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
55
they leave their place of employment, that they have very little
time for personal pursuits. Employers complain bitterly of the
irregularity of domestics who live out in regard to the time of arrival
in the mornings, but they fail to consider that these same domestics
have as strong a cause for complaint of irregularity in respect to the
hour of departure in the evening. Domestic service is of such a
nature that the time for its performance covers a long span of hours.
Nevertheless, a revision of household schedules is often possible as
a means of remedying the trouble to some extent. As conditions are
at present, the long and indefinite hours inflicted upon many household
employees and felt to be necessary for the convenience of the employers, in the final analysis react against the comfort of the employers by keeping out of such service many persons who could
render efficient service and by undermining the competency of those
who do go into it.
This brings us to the heart of the whole problem. A difficulty
shared in common by employers and employees and-to quote from
Doctor Salmon,
* * *
probably the most serious of all, is the prevailing indifference among
housekeepers to the action of economic law-a failure to realize that in domestic
service, as in other occupations, the course followed by one employer has an
appreciable effect on the condition of service as a whole. 17
17
Salmon, Lucy M. Domestic service. London, 1897. p. 117.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PART IV.
SOME EFFORTS AT READJUSTMENT IN DOMESTIC SERVICE.
In an English weekly publication called The Woman's Leader there
appeared on May 18, 1923, a paragraph with the he,ading "More
light on domestic employment" which contained the following statement:
It might be said that everything had been said that could be said on the subject
Words-especially heated words-have not been
lacking. But words conveying accurate information upon a subject so vast and
varied are still urgently needed. 18
of domestic employment.
An idea that may be gleaned from between the lines of this statement is that just as the constant dripping of water wears away a
stone, so that steady harping upon the need for improvement in the
field of domestic service will tend to break down prejudices and lead to
reform. In conj unction with the foregoing discussion, therefore, it
may be helpful to present some of the most conspicuous efforts made,
in various places and in various ways, for the betterment of domestic
service.
In the United States, for example, there have been some scattered
efforts and experiments. Among other movements there have been
attempts here and there on the part of domestic employees to organize
into trade unions, the achievements of which are not expecially noteworthy. Also several organizations of householders aiming to better
conditions have sprung up, such bureaus as the Housekeepers'
Alliance in Washington, the Domestic Efficiency Association of
Baltimore, the Housewives' League of Providence, the Thrift House
of White Plains (N. Y.), and similar ones in Boston and Hartford.
The efforts of the Young Women's Christian Association are shown
by the following paragraphs from the report in 1915 of the Commission
on Household Employment:
In the Young Women's Christian Association there has been more or less effort
at adjustments between employers and employees through employment bureaus,
training classes, and general education. In certain localities there has been
considerable success in enlarging the social life of household employment through
Maids' Clubs, but these activities have affected the conditions in the occupation
itself very slightly. We have knowledge of two Young Women's Christian ·
Associations, one in the East and one in the West, and there are probably others,
which have worked earnestly and consistently for two or more years to place the
occupation on the basis of a skilled trade. The formen, after three years, seems
to be on the road to success through the medium of a vocational school, employment bureau, and an organization of employers pledged to uphold the standards
1s
The Woman's Leader.
May 18, 1923. p. 122.
57
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
58
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
of the school. The second experiment never fully materialized. Although the
Civic Federation offered to back the effort and the association was equipped for a
training course, no pupils could be persuaded to take the course. On the other
hand , although the housekeepers had initiated the scherµe, no potential employers
were willing to enter into a contract with the p r oposed employees, particularly
in regard to definite free time.
This endeavor at a training school can be duplicated on a small or large scale
time and time again in different parts of t he country. Scores of Young Women's
Christian Associations, and other organizations as well, stand ready to conduct
training schools, but there are no young women to enter. 111
These paragraphs indicate that the spasmodic attempts to inaugurate training schools have not met with much success, due doubtless
to the lack of scientific analysis of the industrial and social principles
behind the unwillingness of men and women to embark deliberately
upon training for a career in the field of domestic service.
The conclusions arrived at by Doctor Salmon in her careful and
scientific study of the problem of domestic service more than a
q.iiarter of a century ago are apropos at this point. She writes:
In seeking for some measure of relief from the present oppressive conditions, it
must be said in conclusion that little can be accomplished except through the use
of means which already exist, developing these along lines marked out by industrial progress in other fields. In the foregoing suggestions-that the historical
study of the subject points to relief through the removal of the social stigma;
that the specialization of household employments in consequence of the removal
of as much work as possible and the removal of the domestic employee as well
from the home of the employer leads to a simpler and better manner of life for
both employer and employee; that the introduction of pro_fit sharing is one
means of placing household employments on a business basis; that the establishment in connection with one of our great universities of a school of investigation
open only to graduates of the leading reputable colleges is the only opportunity
for the scientific advancement of the household and all questions connected with
it; and that together with the last, a recognition of the necessity for the readjustment of the work of both men and women must result in making any form of
housework for remuneration honorable for any person, man or woman- in these
suggestions nothing either novel or original has been presented. Progress
has been made through such means; it seems not unreasonable to believe that
further progress will be made through their use. 20
In line with this are the following suggestions presented by the
Commission on Household Employment already quoted from:
Do not let us confuse the terms "life" and " labor." It may be that in the
highest scale of professional service a man's work may become his life. In the
industrial world there is still a sharp dist inction. A young girl's life consists
of her family, her companions, her recreation, her ambition to be somebodyto improve herself, her finding herself a place in social groups-the church, the
club, the union, the neighborhood. An ambitious self-respecting young woman
is willing, is eager, to sell her labor; but never hei: life. Make it possible for the
household worker to sell her labor for more or less definite pieces of time, so that
she may have equal opportunity for self-direction and self-development with the
11 Commission on Household Employment. First report to the fifth national convention of the Young
Women's Christian Associations of the United States, 1915. p. 4-5.
10 Salmon, Lucy M.
Domestic service. London, 1897. p . 273.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
59
office, store, and factory worker, and household employment will be able to compete
successfully with the store and factory. When this is accompliBhed the so-called
"servant problem" will have disappeared. Ambitious, intelligent young women
will be reattracted to household work; with the competition for positions will
come the opportunity to demand skill and training. Above all, home life will
no longer be at the mercy of housework. 21
And the report adds that "the burden of placing household work
on this new basis rests with the employer."
Miss Barker in her discussion of the subject gives much more
definite remedies. 22 She not only points out the need for greater
efficiency among the householders themselves and the failure of
many women to regard housekeeping as a serious occupation, but
she emphasizes the urgent need of applying business principles to
housework. As such essential principles she elaborates upon the
advisability of workers living outside the place of employment,
of the limiting of housework by paid employees to eight hours a day
and to six days a week, with observance of legal holidays and pay for
overtime.
The foregoing illustrations show the kind of efforts and recommendations on the part of individuals and organizations to improve
conditions of domestic service in this country, where this type of
employment has been practically untouched by law. ·T he laws
regulating hours of work of women wage earners in the various
States do not apply to the services of women in domestic occupations
in private households. In fact, in several States women in such
employment are SP.ecifically excluded from the law by the provisions
of the statute itself.
·
Other countries, however, have regulated domestic employment
and although such regulations may have no application to conditions as they exist in the United States it is of interest to consider
the efforts which have been made in this direction. For example,
in Austria a protective law for domestic · employees was passed in
1920, of which the following is a summary:
Immediately on entering employment each domestic servant must, on his request, be if?sued a labor contract showing his rights and duties.
The wages of domestic servants are to be fixed according to local usage. Wages
must be paid not late_r than on the 1st of each month. Servants not receiving
board must be paid the board allowance agreed upon, semimonthly and in
advance. If they are furnished board, it must be wholesome and sufficient and
as a rule be the same as that furnished to adult healthy members of the family.
Servants' quarters must be so constituted that ~hey do not endanger their health
and morals. Their sleeping rooms must have doors that can be locked from the
inside, and they are to be furnished a safe, lockable receptacle for their personal
belongings.
n Commission on Household Employment. First r~port to the fifth national convention of the Young
Women's Christian Associations of the United States, 1915. p . 33.
12 Barker, Clara Helene. Wanted, a young woman to do housework. • • • New York, 1915. 127 p
87023°-24t--5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6(i)
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
The law provides a daily uninterrupted rest of at least 9 hours, which, as a rule,
shall fall within the period between 9 p. m. and 6 a. m. In addition, servants
must be allowed a total of two hours' rest for the partaking of the principal meals.
Servants under 16 years of age are to be allowed .an uninterrupted daily rest of
11 hours and 3 hours' rest during their working time. Any curtailing of rest
periods caused by work not permitting of delay must be compensated extra.
Domestic servants must be granted 8 hours' leave every second Sunday, this
leave to begin not later than 3 p. m. If leave is to exceed 8 hours it must be
previously agreed upon with the employer. In addition, they are to be given 4
hours' leave on one week day of each week, the leave to begin not later than 5
p. m. They must, moreover, be granted time for attending religious services.
During the first year of his service each servant is entitled to one week of annual
leave, during the second year to two weeks, and during; the fifth year to three
weeks. During his annual leave he is to receive full pay and in addition a subsidy in the following amount: In case of one week's leave, half a month's pay; in
case of two weeks' leave, one month's pay; and in case of three weeks' leave, one
and one-half month'11 pay. If a domestic servant is discharged by an employer
with the obvious intent of depriving the servant of his leave, the latter may claim
compensation in the amount of the allowance that would have been due him had
he been granted leave.
In case of sickness a domestic servant is entitled to free medical treatment and
medicines. If taken to a hospital he is, in addition, entitled to full pay. If the
employer moves to another locality, the servant is under no obligation to follow
him and can riot be discharged for refusing to do so, and, as long as the service
contract is not terminated, the servant may in addition to his pay also claim
suitable compensation for the failure of the employer to furnish him board.
The term for giving notice is, as a rule, fixed at two weeks. This term may not
be reduced to less than one week by agreement and must be of equal length for
both parties. If unequal terms have been agreed upon, the longer term shall be
valid. After having received notice of his discharge the servant is entitled to
four hours' leave on two week days in order that he may ha,e opportunity to find
another place of employment. If a servant leaves his employment without valid
reason before the expiration of his service contract the employer may either
demand his return into his service or claim damages for breach of contract. If,
on the other hand, an employer discharges a servant without valid reason, the
latter, without prejudice to his claim for damages, has the right to demand full
pay for the period up to the expiration of his service contract; he is, moreover,
entitled to compensation for any amount he could have saved during that time
or earned through other service. An entirely new feature of the present law is
the provision which stipulates that after 10 years' continuous service with the
same employer the servant is, on discharge, entitled to receipt of a bonus in the
amount of three months' pay. This bonus increases by 5 per cent for each additional year of continuous service up to a maximum amount equivalent to one
year's pay. If the service relation is, however, terminated through fault of the
servant the latter loses his claim to a service bonus.
Whenever a servant leaves his service the employer is obligated to issue him a
certificate which shall merely state the duration a nd nature of the service. Each
servant must be provided with a service card issued to him by the proper communal authority.
The law contains special provisions for servants rendering services of a higher
order, such as governesses, tutors, etc. They shall be furnished a separate room,
whenever possible, and be granted a rest period of three hours per day. After
one year's service they are entitled to two weeks' leave and after two years'
service to four weeks. They must be given 6 weeks' notice in case of discharge.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
61
Disputes between masters and domestic servants are to be settled by the
ordinary courts, i. e., by the court of that locality in which the servant was in
service at the time he brought suit. Regulations to be issued for the enforcement
of the present law shall, however, provide for the establishment of special conciliation boards for the settlement of disputes between masters and domestic
servarits. 23
One of the first legislative a-cts of the new German Government in
1919 was to abrogate the existing oppressive laws regulating domestic
service. In Berlin, in connection with the municipal employment
exchange, a board was established consisting of representatives of
housewives' and domestic servants' associations to draw up a model
form of domestic service contract to be signed by both parties before
an engagement. The following summary of the chief points in the
model is taken from the Monthly Labor Review of July 1919:
It states exactly the kind of work to be done, the number of persons in the
household, the number of rooms, and the number of floors in the house, and
provides that remuneration will include lodging, adequate board, and a monthly
wage of - - marks, to be paid on the last day of each month. (For a beginner
a minimum wage of 15 marks ($3.57) per month plus 5 marks ($1.19) high-cost-ofliving bonus is proposed. The domestic servant must be registered with the
proper local sick fund and the legal deductions must be made from the pay for
invalidity and sickness insurance.)
·
The contract specifies in detail whether washing, carpet hearting, coal carrying,
window washing, floor polishing, etc., is to be done. Information as to the
servant's household experience and education and training is asked.
The door of the room assigned to the servant must be provided with a lock and
key, and the room must have a bed for his or her exclusive use, a window opening
into the outer air, a wardrobe, washing appliances, and a towel. There must
also be means for heating the room. Where heat can not be provided during the
present period of transition, another heated room must be available for the servant during his or her spare time.
Where there is a bathroom in the house, the servants must be permitted to use
it or else they must be granted time and money to have one bath per week outside.
The daily period during which the servant must be at call shall be as a rule
13 hours, of which 2 hours shall be free for meals and other purposes. After
7 p. m. the servant shall only be liable to perform current work such as getting
supper, preparing bedrooms, opening the door, etc. Washing, ironing, scouring,
etc., are not to be undertaken after that time. Any work done after 8 p. m. on
account of visitors or parties must be paid for extra, the overtime rate to be 50
pfennigs (11.9 cents) an hour for work done up to 10 p. m., and 75 pfennigs (17.9
cents) per hour for work done after 10 p. m.
In case of sudden cases of illness of a noninfectious nature in the household
the servant must be ready to perform work outside of the regular working hours.
The servant may, however, decline to care for and attend a person afflicted with an
infectious disease and to clean the utensils required for his care.
The servant shall be given leave every other Sunday after 3 p. m., and each week
one free afternoon of at least 4 hours after 4 p. m. shall be allowed.
The servant shall not leave the house without notifying the employer. Girls
under 18 years of age must return on week days not later than 10 p. m. and Sundays on which they have leave at a time to be agreed upon. For adults, the hours
of return on week days is left to agreement with the employer.
11
.Austrian domestic service law. Monthly labor review, v. 10, no. 6, June, 1920. p. 191-193.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
No deductions shall be made for h ousehold utensils accidentally broken.
After one year's service the servant shall be entitled to at least one week's leave
with full pay and suitable allowance for board. This leave is to increase by one
week for every two years' additional service up to a maximum of three weeks.
Two weeks_' notice shall be ·given on leaving the service or on discharge.
Instead of the service pass book hitherto prescribed testimonials are to be produced by the servant if required to do so. These shall be returned when the
servant begins work.
If disputes arise while the contract is in force, they are to be settled by an arbitration board, consisting of an equal number of representatives of housewives
and servants. 24
A domestic service bill somewhat different in its content was drafted
by the Ministry of Labor in Poland in 1921. As approved by the
legal committee and the committee on the protection of labor of the
Polish Diet, the bill contained th~ following provisions, made public
by the International Labor Office at Geneva in January, 1923, before
final approval by the Polish Constituent Assembly:
Persons are regarded as domestic servants who are employed in a household
for a certain period and are not paid by the day . Persons employed in agricultural undertakings do not come within the scope of the bill.
The working conditions agreed on by the two parties must be specified in writing and copies kept 'both by the employer and the worker. Unless otherwise
stipulated the agreement is valid for a month and can only be canceled after two
weeks' notice. Agreements valid for three months or more can only be canceled
with a month's notice.
The agreement may be canceled without notice by the employer under any
of the following circumstances: (a) If the servant fails to enter on his duties on
the date fixed; (b) if he fails to carry out his duties in spite of warning repeated
three times; (c) if he insults his employer or his family; (d) if he neglects the children intrusted to his care; (e) if he is intoxicated or is guilty of immoral conduct;
(f) if he is guilty of any crime or breach of t he law; (g) if for period of more than
three weeks he is unable to work on account of illness.
The agreement may be canceled without notice by the servant; (a) If he is
insulted b y his employer; (b) if unlawful requests are made to him; (c) if the employer changes his residence; (d) if the employer fails to observe his obligations;
(e) in the event of the death ·of the husband or wife of a near relative of the servant;
(f) in the event of his marriage.
The effective working day may not exceed 12 hours with an interruption of two
hours on week days and 6 hours on Sundays and holidays. The arrangement of
hours of work must be specified in the written agreement and must be such as to
enable the servant to fulfil his religious obligations on Sundays and holidays. He
shall be allowed at least eight consecutive hours of rest at night, which may be
interrupted only in case of illness, accident or a journey, and never for more than
one night in each case. Domestic servants permanently engaged in the care of
children or sick persons are not covered by this provision. All work in excess of
these limits must be paid for at overtime rates and can be allowed only four times
a month at the rate of at most three hours each time.
Domestic servants are entitled to two weeks' holiday with pay after one year's
service. If this holiday is spent away from the home of the employer they are
entitled, in addition to their ordinary wages, to a special indemnity equivalent to
a
· 2,
Model contract of employment for domestic service in Berlin. Monthly labor review, v. 9, no. 1,
Tuly, 1919, p. 168-169.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
63
three times their wages. .They are further entitled to a holiday of not more than
10 days, with pay, in the event of the serious illness or death of a near relative.
If a domestic servant leaves after one year's service, he is entitled to an indemnity
equivalent to at least a fortnight's wages provided he has not been dismissed for
his own fa ult.
If the employer's dwelling contains a room intended for a servant it must be
used for this purpose. The room must contain heating facilities and in other
respects satisfy hygienic requirements.
If a domestic servant is incapacitated by sickness or accideni,. for which the
employer may be considered responsible he is entitled to an indemnity. If there
is no sickness fund in the locality where he is employed, the following provisions
apply: (a) If the sickness is due to conditions of work, the employer must provide
for the treatment of his servant at home or in hospital during the whole period of
the illness or until the payment of the above-mentioned indemnity; (b) if the
sickness is not due to working conditions the employer is only liable to pay the
cost of treatment for three weeks.
The bill contains special provisions as to the work of young persons. Minors
may not be engaged without the approval of their parents or guardians. The
employer must see that provisions of the law concerning continued education are
observed. Hours of work must not exceed 11 per day, and the work must end
one hour earlier than that of adults. Minors are entitled to annual leave after
six months' service. 25
In England since the war there has been a definite movement to
bring about reforms in domestic service. Shortly after the signing
of the armistice the Women's Advisory Committee of the Ministry of
Reconstruction of Great Britain was asked to consider and report
upon the matter of domestic service. After an extensive investigation the committee submitted the following recommendations on
training, machinery of distribution, organization, and conditions:
Recommendations for training in domestic service:
1. That largely increased facilities for training should be provided.
2. That such training should commence on leaving school, extend over
two years, and should include some general education.
3. That the instruction should be of a good standard and should be given
by properly qualified persons . .
4. That the training for houseworkers should be regarded in the same light
as the training for any other skilled worker.
5. That the cost of such training should fall on the local education
authority aided by State grants 1 and not on the parent. 26
Recommendations for machinery of distribution in domestic service:
1. That the system of ann ual licensing and powers of supervision of
agencies which at present exist in the area of the London County
Council should be extended to cover the whole country, in place of
the permissive power t o enforce registration which is at present given
to local authorities under the public health amendment act of 1907.
2. That in order to make such powers actively effective the public must
be made aware of the fact that the conduct of registry offices is
controlled by license, and that it is open to the public to report
nPoland-Bill to regulate the conditions ofdomesticservice. Industrial and labor information, v. 5,
no. 4, January 26, 1923. p. 8-10.
ltl Great Britain.
Ministry of Reconstruction. Women's Advisory Committee. Report on the domestic
service problem. • • • London, 1919. p. 15.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
64
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.
serious complaints to the local authority responsible for the license.
An easy way of informing the public that regulations exist would
be by making it binding on the proprietor of every registry office to
insert at the head of all note paper a short and clear paragraph
giving the name of the local authorit y to whom complaints may be
addressed.
3. That the facilities of employment exchanges should continue to remain open to all domestic workers and employers, and that this
fact should be made widely known to the public.
4. That in order that the needs of such clients may be adequately dealt
with the employment department ~hould provide for the purpose
experienced officers with a wide knowledge of the wants of both
mistresses and maids. Accommodation for interviews should insure privacy and a reasonable amount of convenience for both
parties. Access to thqse daily newspapers which contain advertisements for domestic workers should be available at each employment exchange.
5. That any injury caused to the interest of private agencies in this connection should be duly considered by the Government.2'·
Recommendations for organization and conditions of domestic service:
1. That bodies of trained and certificated workers should be formed.
2. That workers' centers should be formed by local authorities, other
local bodies, or voluntary associations or groups. The work of
these centers in the most complete shape would comprise(a) The provision of a hostel where workers would live during
training, and during and between engagements.
(b) Practical training of workers who would do part of the domestic service of the hostel; also theoretic instruction, where
not provided by the local education authority .
(c) Social clubs and opportunities for general education and
recreation.
3. That where a hostel can not be provided, centers should be formed
in suitable places to afford opportunities for society, general education, and recreation, and to give advice and help toward obtaining
training.
4. That on the governing body of any center there should be a full
representation of workers and employers.
5. That as a means of obliterating undesirable social distinctions and
avoiding a narrow outlook centers, where there are hostels, should
provide some accommodation for women other than domestic
workers, and should admit them to the privileges offered.
6. That to some extent the same advantages should be open to men,
and the possibility of forming bodies of men for work which may
be too heavy for women should be considered by those who organize
domestic work.
7. That under the proposed housing bill loans and subsidies should be
made available in respect of hostels for training.
8. That such of the existing hostels provided by Government departments as are in suitable positions and not required for other purposes should be ma{j_e available for the organization, lodging, and
training of domestic and other workers.
9. That local joint committees of employers and workers should be
formed, and that such committees should be coordinated.
ff
Ibid, p. 19-20.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELA'l'IONS.
65
10. That trade-unions should be recognized and workers given facilities
for joining them.
11. That the work of centers should be coordinated with that of public
authorities. Pending the establishment of joint committees of .
workers and employers or other machinery for regulating conditions, it is recommended12. That the current local rates of wages should be p~id unless these are
insufficient to attract workers to the occupation.
13. That in the case of workers living in the employer's house(a) A substantial reduction should be made in the long hours during which workers are on duty.
(b) That the usual meal times and the usual outings, of which we ·
give particulars, should be allowed.
(c) That in addition free time (two hours or two and a half hours)
be allowed daily, or, as an alternative, a day's leave at intervals, with shorter periods of leave when desired.
(d) That in large establishments the head of the household should
satisfy herself that young girls employed as kitchen maids,
etc., are allowed daily free time and a night's rest of at
least nine hours.
(e) That a fortnight's holiday with board wages should be given
annually, with a half day or more at holiday seasons.
14. That for workers living out the hours of work during the week should
not exceed 48, not including meal times.
- 15. That uniform, when required, should be supplied by the employer.
16. That a written reference should be compulsory, and should be considered complete when it states the length and nature of the employment, whether the worker was honest and competent, and
whether she left at her own desire or the employer's.
17. That where a worker is connected with a center the full amount of
the wages paid by the employer in respect of her services shall be
paid to the worker without deduction.
18. That centers should not make it a compulsory rule that they should
conclude the agreement between an employer and a worker.
19. That in view of the unnecessary domestic work caused by the bad
planning and fitting of houses the local government board should
advise local authorities to circulate information to owners and
builders as to improved methods. 28
That the question has not been allowed to rest merely with recommendations is shown by a recent investigation initiated by the
domestic service inquiry committee which was appointed by the
Minister of Labor in England. In the Manchester Guardian for
June 14, 1923, 29 appeared an interesting article on the proceedings
of the committee, presenting extracts from the evidence of 11 witnesses. These comprised domestic workers, private householders,
employers of domestic labor or public housekeeping enterprises,
and representatives of the Salvation Army, and of the household
service section of the Women's Legion.
II
111
Ibid, p. 29- 30.
Domestic service. • • •
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Manchester Guardian, June 14, 1923. p. 12.
66
DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR ])MPLO MENT RELA'I:IONS.
The honorary general secretary of the Do roestic and Hotel Workers
Union pointed out1 as a representative of employees, the 12 roost
important reasons for the unpopularity of domestic service among
wage earners, stressing the roost conspicuous disadvantages of long
hours, restricted liberty, low status, and loneliness. Moreover, she
suggested certain remedies advocat ed by the union, such as the
· readjustment of household schedules, removal of the social stigma,
the establishment of a standard minimum wage for ·employees who
. measured up to standards of efficiency, the organization of training
centers with a 6 months' course, and the abolition of the living-in
system wherever possible.
The managing director of Trust Houses (Ltd.), who had employed
20,000 domestics in all classes of establishments, submitted a prepared scheme for a national service guild of employers and employed which would supply training, grade the occupations of domestic service, and perhaps set up a minimum wage standard. He detailed a scheme of pensions for domestic servants which he thought
should not be, at first at any rate, a government scheme.
The efforts being expended in England and the publicity being
given to such activities are bound to result in definite attempts at
betterment of conditions, and these attempts will be met with at
least a measure of success.
This example set by England could well be emulated in the United
States, since there is urgent need for a well-organized and comprehensive investigation of the question of domestic service, in view
of the large body of men and women engaged in these types of labor
and forced to continue to look to this sort of employment as a means
of livelihood, and in view of the vast numbers of persons seeking
such service from others. Moreover, the decrease in the numbers
of wage earners entering domestic employment without a corresponding diminution in the demand for household assistants emphasizes the importance of heading up into an organized effort the spasmodic attempts being made here and there to get at the roots of the
difficulties. In such a systematic and far-reaching movement lies
the possibility of eliminating the objectional features of domestic
service and of elevating it to the plane of labor on which it rightly
belongs_.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX.
TABLE
!.-Number of applicants recorded, by sex, race, and occupation.
WOMEN.
Number of applicants.
Occupation.
Other Race not
Total.
White.
Negro.
races
reported
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All occupations _______________________________ _
2,293
736
128
1,429 ---------1-----1----:- - - - + - - - - ~ - - - Companion:
Companion _______ ____ ____ __ ___ ____ _____ ________ _
9
9 ---------- ---------- ---------Companion-other work _______ ________ __________ _
33
32
Cook:
Cook ___________________________________________ _
381
62
293
26
Cook-laundress __ _______________________________ _
19
1
17
1
64
9
54
1
Cook-other work ___ -- ----------"-- -------------262
17
220
25
D ay worker __ ---- ---- ---- --------------------------General worker __ ________ --------- ____ -_-_------ ---- _
303
228
63
12
Governess:
Governess _______ ___ ______ ________ ______ ________ _
28
27 ---------- ---------Governess-other work __________________ ________ _
2
2
Housekeeper:
Housekeeper ____ ________ ______ __________ --- ---- -15
15
---------- - --------- ---- -----Housekeeper-other work ________________________ _
9
7
Laundress:
Laundress ___________________ ----- -__ ---- -- _____ _
94
4
86
4
L aundress-other work __________________________ _
11
10
1
Maid:
Chambermaid __________________________________ _
Chambermaid-waitress-------------------------Chambermaid-other work ________.______________ _
Waitress. __ ______________ --- --- __ ------- ____ ----Waitress-other work ____________________________ _
P
ersonal
maid----------------------------------Other
maid
_____________________ ________________ _
Nurse:
Nurse _________________ ------ -------------- -- ---Nurse-other work _______________________________ _
Child's nurse ___________________________________ _
Child's nurse-other work __ ---------------------Invalid's nurse __-------------- --- --------------Invalid's nurse-other work ____________________ __ _
Part-time worker-----------------------------------Seamstress:
Seamstress _______________ ________ __ ___________ ___
Seamstress-other work_-------------------------Miscellaneous __ ------------------------------------Occupation not reported-----------------------------
108
99
93
86
53
50
18
14
24
13
15
218
271
7
115
172
52
45
10
10
13
3
4
1
1
6
3
---------- ---- -- ----
7
40
M
10
11
15
39
9
9 ----- --- - 14
1
6
1
8
31
7
7
6
91
7 ---------- --- ------- ---------7
2
4 -- -- ---- -- ---- -- -- - 34
49 ---------8
46
26
53
10
18
2
---------- ---------5
---------1
3
---------- ---------------- ---
MEN.
All occupations _________ ______________________ _
Butler:
Butler _______________________ · ____ __ ____________ _
Butler-other work, inside _______________________ _
Butler-other work, outside ______________________ _
Chauffeur:
Chauffeur ______ ________ ___ _____________________ _
Chauffeur-other work, inside ___________________ _
Chauffeur-other work, outside __________________ _
Cook:
Cook ___________________________________________ _
Cook-other work, inside--------- - --------------D
ay worker
__ ---------------------------------------_
Gardener
___________________________________________
General utility worker------------------------------Houseman:
Houseman-------------------------------------Houseman-other work, inside ___
________ ___ __ ___ _
Houseman-other work, outside _________________ _
Nurse, invalid's-------------------- ---- ------------Waiter:aiter _________________ ___ ______ . ____________ . __
Waiter-other
inside-------Miscellaneous
___work,
_. ___ _______
___ ______~--------------. _____________ _
,v
Occupation not reported-----------------------------
672
134
501
170
38
17
22
3
1
135
31
15
95
24
7
48
5
5
33
3
1
27
14
11
9
119
32
9
2
5
6
9
28
10
3
47 ---------- ---------19
2
28
23
14 ---------- ---------6
2
13
101
7
23
1
8
2 - ----- - --- ---------- ----------
9
8
16
8
11
32
20
8 --- ------- ----------
1
4
67
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
O':)
IL-Age, by sex, race, 1 and occupation.
TABLE
00
WOMEN.
Number reported.
Under 16
years.
Occupation.
16 and
18 a nd
18 years.
20 years.
under
under
I
20 and
25 and
30 and
25 years .
30 years.
40 years.
under
under
I
under
40 and
50 and
50 years.
60 years.
under
t:1
Number not reporting age but
recorded as-
Number in each specified occupation whose age wa, -
under
60 years
and over.
~
t_rj
00
Middleaged.
Young.
0
~
Old.
0
I
To·
N e- ToToToToT oToToToToTo-I
ToTot al. White . gro. t al. W . N. tal. IW. N . t al. W. N, I tal. W. N. tal. iw. N. tal. W. N. tal. W. N. tal. W . N. tal. !w. IN. tal. IlW. N . tal. W . N . tal. W. N.
- - - - - - - - - - - -All occupations __ 1,491
Companion _________ __ 28
Cook___ _____ __ ________ 289
Dayworker_ ___ _______ 163
General worker________ 207
i~~~~:!te·
r-_·::::::::: 58i1
Laundress_ __ _________
Maid . ______ __________
Nurse _____ ____ _____ ___
:::;;i~~t~~~~~::::::
524
106
3
~
- - - - - - - - - - 1-- -
~
1
-----
454 1,002
4 1 3 41
27 109 23 83! 360
28 __ _____ _____ __ ____ _____________
3
42 9
_,12 ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___
1 __ _ 1 40
14 142 ________ ____ __ _____ _
2. .. 2· 28
33 172 ____ ___ ___
3 ___ 3 21 __ _ 211 59 1
---1
303
29
2 __ _
1 ___
2
1
26
7
8 18
3 4
- - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - -
80 272 240! 67 163 270 74l192 129 32 93 20 9 10
7 61 l 64 ~
30 200 93 104
1
3...
3'1 3 ___
5 5 ___ 1 3 3 - -: ____ ___ ___
1 1 __ _ ---- --- --- 10 10 --1 38 34 3 30 66 5 61 38 2 3o
5 2 2
1 1 ___
6 1 5 82 23 59
21 25 33: 2 29 52 4 46 21 2 17
4_ __
4. _________
5 ___ 5 17 3 14
4 ___ 4 ____ __ _ ___
3 55 44 1 6 37 33 4 29 16 3 13
8 5 3 14 8 6
~ i --i ---2 --21::: 11
9 ___ 8 22 ___ I 221
ti1 ----i56 ====
::: ::: ---= --= ::: ---= ----=:::
: :::
____ ___ ___ ___ _ ______ -- --1
---1___ :2 ..
___ 2
208
71
-- -
67 15 50 191 59128
10 4 5 20 10 9
82 32 1 46
17 13 3
~ __ _:~ := ~===: ==: ---~ ==: --~ ___ : ==: _j __ _~ === --~
57 33 i 24
20 171 2
47 22 24
3 3 --16 4 11
1 1_ _ _
5 4 1
f f ::: i i ::: ::::1 :::
::: ---~1 --~
::: ~ ; ::: ::::4 :::
:::
8 ___ 8 _ _ __ ___
___ 1
___ 1 11 1 10
___ 4
24 1311
1 1_ _ _
6 3 2 ____ ___ ___
2
1
2 ___
1 ___
30 17 12
5 5 ___
35 24
13 10
9
2
7
6
4
5
3
1
i --~ ~ --2 --~ ---~ ==: --~ ~ i :=: ==== ::: ::: __ _: --= __: ~ ~ --= ---= __: :::
li'~Jli';"'not::«:: ,: ,: ,: ----; ::: --;--;i-; --r;i-( ;:::--;---r--; : :1:---; -;--; -;--;:::--;" ;::--;t--;--;---; -l; - -; : : --;
~I
1
$j
0
!:d
p:i
t_rj
!:d
r:n
>
z
t:,
1-3
~
t_rj
H
!:d
t_=.j
~
r,:j
t'
0
1--<:j
MEN.
All occupations. .
474
Butler ___ _______ ______
Chauffeur_____________
161
g~;\~orker::::-_:-_·_-_--
90, 3'141- - -- 1--- ___
18
41
4
~ ______ :
86
4J 1 3
134 ____ __ ________
45 ____ __ _ ___ ____ ___ ___
4
---1---
18
4
5
i :::: ::====:=:= ::=,=== ====
4 13 120 33 sol 121 22!100 125 111091 36
1 2 25 5 16 44 6 36 54 3 50 18
2 3 34 19 15 22 9 13 17 4 13
3
1
1
1
1
~ ::= ~
=== ===
f _:
~
7 27
2 15
3 ___
4 1/ 31
1 ___ 1
1 1 ___
2' __ _1 2
l ___ 1
1 ___ 1
7 2 5! 20 1 4 16 u 5J~
1 ___ 1
9 ___ 9
4 l 3
2 2 ___
1 1 ___ i _______ __ _
1
f ::: f ___ ==== __ : ::== ::: ::: ___ : ::= __ : ~ ::= f/___ = ::: __ :
i .. : f
i~:~r~FF ,J {tiii iirttttti--fh j: •; ;,:~ ::lnm immm:jm~ 1
::ai ::i
ported___ __ _____ ____
1 Where
16
4
11 --- -[- - _ ___ ____ ___ __ _
1
1
1 ___
4/---
4
5
1
=::i;;;
4
5
2
3
m
; ii/}}
1 __________ __ ____________________________ ___ --- ,---- _____ _
1
the sum of white and negro is less than total, the di ~ere nce represents persons of <tther races or whose race was not reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
---1:;;
~
t_=.j
z
1-3
!:d
t_rj
t'
>
H
H
0
z
rn
TABLE
III.-Conjugal condition, by sex, race, 1 and occupation.
WOME N.
Number in each specified ocrupation who wereNumber reported.
Occupation.
Single.
White'.
Total.
All ocrupations_ __________ _____________ ________
1,463
N egro .
460
975
· Total.
White.
602
246
10
10
92
27
81
14
3
13
279
57
5
4
1
16
16
Negro.
343
1- - - - - + - - ---+- - - - l·- - -- t- - - - 1 - - - ---+-
Compani on_ --------------------- --- -- ----- ---- -----Cook___ ____ _________ _____ ______ ____________ ____ ______
Day worker_ __ _____ ___ ___________ ___ _______ _____ _____
General worker___ _______ _____ ___ ___ _______ ________ __
Governess______________________ _______ __ ________ ____
Housekeeper------- --- -------- ----- -------- ------- --Laundress ____ ----- -- ---------- --- - ----- - -- ---- --- --M aid ___ ----------- - -------------- -- ------- -______ ___
Nurse__ ____ ________ ____ ______ _____ ___ _________ ____ ___
Part-time worker_____ __ __ ____ ___ ___________ ______ ___
Seamstress_ ___ _____ ______ ________ __________ __ _____ ___
Miscellaneous____ _______ _________ ___ ______ ______ _____
Occupation not reported . __ ___ ___ _________ ________ ___
31
307
170
199
17
13
63
497
91
24
31
51
11
37
17
12
253
155
160
1
2
60
286
20
19
200
65
9
2
5
9
l
40
19
1
20
2
13
14
3
2
126
44
1
4
1
Widowed, separated, or
divorced.
Married.
75
2.5
68
11
145
10
4
10
White.
Total.
676
137
14
14
160
118
96
2
3
41
181
22
15
4
1
19
21
5
13
2
2
55
12
2
4
Negro.
528
138
110
81
1
40
124
8
13
1
12
Total.
White.
185
77
7
55
25
22
1
7
9
37
12
4
1
7
14
4
11
1
7
19
9
2
1
I
N egro.
104
40
20
11
9
17
2
2
----------------------------3
5
2
MEN.
A11 ocrupations ____________ ___ _________ ___ _____ 1_
Butler__ _______________ ____ ____ _____ _____ ____ ________
Chauffeur_________________________ ___ ______ __________
Cook___ ________ __________ _______ ____ ______ ___ __ __ ___ _
Day worker______________ __ ________ ____________ ___ __ _
Gardener___________ __ _____ ____ _______ ___________ ____
General utility worker __ -- -- --- --- --- --- ------ - --- --Houseman___ _____________________ _____ ______________
Waiter_____________________________ ________ __________
Miscellaneous_____ _____ __________ __________ _____ __ ___
Occupation not reported_____________________________
1
See footnote to T able II.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
l___
323
143
4_0_6-1-___6_6-j- ----1----1---35 - 1 - - 100
- --1---2_6_1:
__
136
71
44
6
8
3
102
16
24
3
4
2
12
12
1
10
2
2
14
I
114
47
37
6
4
39
24
11
7
13
2
2
1
32
]1
7
2
1
------ --85- - ------- 51
--·· ------ ---- -- -------10
11
8
11
2
5
8
1
1
1
36
1
4
6
97
47
32
9
11
1
4
7
2
82
36
30
1 -- -------- -- -- - - ----
4
4
3 - -- - ----- - -- -------- ---------1 ---------1 -------- --
51
10
5
6
3_o_j_ __2_23_ _ _ _2--,._ _ _1______-_-_-_--_-_-
2
1
49
10
4
5
OJ
co
TABLE
-::r
IV.-Prefer ence as to living in or out of home of employer, by sex, race,1 and occupation. -
0
WOMEN.
Number in each specified occupation whoNumber reported.
T otal. White.
Preferre~ ~i!~~ in part Expressed no preference.
Preferred to live out.
Preferred to live in.
Occupation.
:regro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. I White.
- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -1- - All occupations ___ ____________________ _______ _ 1, 358
Companion _____________ ___________________________ _
Cook . _____________________ _______ ____ ______ _______ _
Day
worker
_____
--------- ------------- -_
General
worker
______________
_________----------_____ ________
Governess __________________ _______________________ _
Housekeeper _____ ____ __________ __ __________________ _
Laundress _______ _____ _________ ____________________ _
Maid ___________ __ __ __ _____________________________ _
Nurse _______ ________ ---------- ----- ---------------Part-time worker
-- --- ---- ------ ---------------Seamstress
_______ __
_______
______
________
_____________ _
Occupation not reported __ _________________ _____ ___ _
27
327
107
198
11
9
41
493
86
13
6
40
416
27
50
31
11
8
1
192
63
1
6
18
919
273
95
165
1
40
292
20
12
21
675
332
25
1 9
7
0
25
40
1
23
7
7
329
145
5
56
2
1
150
57
1
4
24
15
62
1
1
6
7
5
3
94
8
86
84
3
1
27
181
9
11
1
12
8
10
24
71
510
9
93
12
1
4
«5
88
78
79
33
1
27
147
4
4
115
10
1
~
30
8
25
45
4
4
1
101
58
I
-----28- -----i4- --
egro.
12
44
2
12
8
7
6
22
9
1
1
1 --------
4
2
4
13
1
27
25
13
5
12
5
39
3
5
19
11
1
2
10
2 ----- ---
MEN.
All occupations ______ c____ __________________ __
296
230
197
45
143
51
84
9
55
14
15
1
12
9
6
4
1
71
66
35
19
1
6
1
55
l
5
2
1
1
4
56
41
21
21
f-----t---
B u t ler ________________________________________ ____ __
Chauffeur __ ----- ------- ------ --------------- -___ ___
Cook____________________________ ___ ________________
Day worker __ ------------- ------ - -- --------- ------Gardener_ ____ _________ __ __ ______________ _________ __
Gener&l utility worker_________ _____ ____________ ___ _
Houseman___ __________________________________ _____
Waiter ____ ______________________ ____ ________________
Miscellaneous ___ ----------------------------------Occupation not reported_---- -- ------------ --- -----1
ee footnote to Table II
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
97
49
· 30
5
7
1
85
6
6
10
11
27
2
2
22
26
5
5
1
10
8
i1
21
2
5
1
6
11
6
6
3 --- ----- --- - ---- --------
6
3 ----- - -2
2
4 -- -- ---- -------- --- --- -- - ----- -- ---- ---- - --- - - -1 --- --- -- -------- --- ----- -------- --- --- -- --- ---- - --- -- -- -
43
15
14
1 ------ -- -------- --------
11 -------1 --- -----
11
1
4
1
3 -- ------
3
3
2
3
2 -------- -------- --- -- --- -- ------ - ------- ----- ---
7
1 --------
1 -------- -------- -------- - ------- - -- -- --- --------
TABLE
V.-Preference as to city, suburbs, or country, by sex, race,1 and occupation.
WOMEN.
Number in each specified occupation who preferred employment in-
Number reported.
City.
Occupation.
City or
suburbs.
Country.
Suburbs.
City or
country.
Number.expressing no
preference.
Suburbs or
country.
Ne- Toh"
Ne- To- Wh"
N e- To- Wh"t Ne- To- Wh"t Ne- To- Wh't Ne- To- Wh"
NeT tal Wh " Ne- To- Wh"
I e. gro. tal.
I e. gro. tal.
I e. gro. tal.
ite. gro.
o .
ite. gro. tal.
ite. gro. tal. W ite. gro. tal.
ite. gro. tal.
- - - - - - - - - -- l - - - f - - - -1-- - 1- - ·1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
All occupations ________ 1, 14.8
Companion ________ __ _______ _
. Cook _______________ ___ ______ _
Day worker_ ________________ _
General worker _____ __ ______ _
Governess ___________________ _
Housekeeper ________________ _
Laundress ____ _______________ _
Maid _____ ______ __ __________ _
Nurse __ ________________ -----Part-time worker_ __________ _
Seamstress _____ _____________ _
Occupation not reported ____ _
20
277
108
162
8
8
37
403
78
11
8
28
367
763
20
47
8
28
225
98
134
8
15
40
2
27
10
2
6
1
4
1
2
14
1
8
7
2
164
59
1
105
64
216
63
21
9
10
3
43
21
25
3
10
2
4
13
1
-------
-
144
61
33
19
21
4
45
5
10
1
4
7
1
2
1
35
3
8
26
15
25
3
3
2
78
----- ---- - _____ --------- ----- ------- ---- ----- ----------2
9
1
2
8
1
2
34 ----- ------- ---- 232
41
19
21
6
5
16
1
1 ------1
10
----- ---- - -------
-
149
-----
99
_..,
35
6
61
52
11
18
4
1
1 ----2
----------·- --4
2
5
2
----------2
---- -
455
99
6
105
56
80
1
3
18
151
18
7
3
7
6
12
3
10
1
2
1
49
11
3
1
-
352
-- - - -- -- - - -- -- - - --
4
92
3 - -----3
.,2 ----- ------- ----70
1
1 ----1
16
101
7
76
32
2
2
1
14
5
13
1
2
3
16
12
41
13
5
3
10
1 ----2 ----3
7
8
9
1
7
6 ----- ------- -----
8
148
71
3
40
3
11
28
19
1
4
4
1
10
15
11
.,. 76
4
1
5
44
13
2
3
3
28
13
1
3
2
96
18
74
26
20
12
3
1
6
1
24
4
1
9
5
16
MEN.
-----1------- _____
All occupations________
301 \
30 \ 253 \ 12
11
34 I
31
60
10
48
62
4
58
37 \
3
31 j
Butler __ _____________________ i- -9-6____9___8_5___4_1-- - j'---4-+--1-1----2-+--9--+--23-+---3-1 19
18
2
16 _____ _______ _____ 14 I
13
Chauffeur_______________ _____
46
17
29
2
1
3
3
11
6
5
5
2
3 _____ _______ ___ __
5
2
3
Cook___ ___ _______________ ____
33
1
29
1
1
1
1
5
5
9
9 _____ ______ _ _____
5 ______ _
4
Day worker__________________
8
8 _____ _______ _____
1
1 ____ _ _______ _____
4 _______
4 ____ ___________ __ ______ ____ ______ _
G-ardener ___________ _____ ____
6
5 _____ _______ _____ ____ _ _______ ___ __ 2 _______
2 _________________ ____ _______________ ___ ___________ _
Houseman___________________
90
10
77
3 _______
3
14
13
16 _______ 15
21 ______ _ 21 ____ _ _______ _____
9 _______
8
Waiter____________ ___________
5 !_--_-__--_-_-_
5 _____ _______ _____
1 _______
1 _____ _______ ___ __
2 _______
2 ____ _ ____ __ _ _____
1 _______
1
6
~;g~~!tfo~~~trepor-tecc===
11 I
1
====== = ---~- ---3- ======= ---3 - ---3---2- ---~- ======= ---~- ===== ======= =====J---3- ======= ---2-
g ---~-
1
See footnote to Table II.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-----r
27
1
1
2
14
9
3
3
17
1
1
2
TABLE
-::r
VI.-Length of service in previous employment, by sex, race,i and occupation at that time.
I:,:)
WOMEN.
Number in each specified occupation whose length of service wasNumber
reported.
Occupation.
Under 1 month .
1 and under 3
months.
3 and under 6
months.
6 and under 9
months.
9 months and 1
year.
1 and under 2
years.
2 and under 3
years.
To- Whit 8 Ne- To- Whit Ne- To- White Ne- To- Wh"t
Ne- To- W:Wt Ne- To- W bit 8 Ne- ToNe To- Wh"
Na1 e. gro
. gro- tal.
tal.
e. gro. t al.
gro. tal.
. tal.
e. gro. tal.
ite . gro.
• gro. tal. White. gro·. tal.
- -- - - - - - - - -- :---i----1---1-- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All occupations __ ________
23
49
810
231 552
67
37
74
76
19
45
86
23
61 145
36 106
93
25
65
32
11
20 115
Companion:
- - - - - , - - - 1 - - - t - - - f - - -1-- - 1 - ---1---1---t---·1----1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Companion_ _______________
2
2 __________________________________ ___________________ ______ _____ ________________________ _____________ _ ____ _ 2
Companion-other work_____
2
2
1
Cook:
Cook ___________ ___________ _ 154
12
25 122
10
3
5
14
23
5
16
15
6
18
17
30
25
11
2
5
Cook-laundress ___________ _ 11
11
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3 ----- ------- ---- Cook-other work __________ _ 43
10
4
2
4
2
1
4
2
2
33
4
6
7
4
8
4
3
------Day worker ___________________ _ 31
1
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
30
3
2
1
General worker _______________ _ 138
25 111
14
3
22
16
30
4
26
2
10
14
3
11
20
2
5
.
11
6
------6
Governess. ____________________ _
8
8 ----1
3
1
2
2 -- --3 ----------- ----- ------·-H ousekeeper:
Housekeeper __________ ___ __
2 ----- ----- ------- - - -- - ----- - - ----- ----- ----- --- ---- -- --Housekeeper-other work __ _
2
Laundress:
Laundress ________________ _ 31
3
25
2
7
6
4
4 - ---- - ------ ----Laundress-other work _____ _ 15
15
4 ----- ------- ----4
3
1
1
Maid:
Chambermaid_ ____________ 43
2
21
1
4
4
1
5
1
22
11
7
6
3
3
1
1 ----Chambermaid-waitress__ ___ 58
13
2
1
4
5
2
1
3
43
1
13
11
8
1
5
3
2
8
8
9
1
1
2
1
1
1
Chambermaid-other work__ 12
5
1
1
1
1
6
4
1
1 - -- - - ------- -- --Waitress___ ___________ _____ 42
2
2
17
2
5
2
22
8
4
7
4
7
10
3
3
1 ------1
3 ------Waitress-other work________ 16
4
4
1
11
1
1
1
3
1
1 ----2
3
3 ----- ------- ----Personal maid______________
4
1
1 ----- - --- - ----- -- ----4 ----- ---- - ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ----- ---- - ------- ----1 ----- ----- ------- ----Other maid______________ __ 34
2
2
2
2
26
6
4
4
Nurse:
Nurse_____________________ _ 17
10
7
2 ------2
2
3
2
2
1
2
1 ----- ------- ----2
2 ----Nurse-other work. ________ _
6
1
5 ----- ------- ----- ----- ------- ----1
1 ---- --1 ----- - ------ - ---- ----- ---- --- - ---3
1
2
Child's nurse ______________ _ 34
22
7
2
2 ----4
1
3
3
3
4
4 ----1 ----6
5 ----2
1
Child's nurse-other work __ _
2
5
------1
--------------1
1
----1
1
-------------1
------1
1
1
----3
1
Invalid's nurse ____________ _ 14
13
1
3
3 ----1
1 ----1
1 ----- ----- ------- ----1
1 ----2
2 ---~3
2
1
Part-time worker______________ _
1
1 ----- ------- ----- - - --- ------- - ---- ----- ------- ----1 -- ----1 ----- - ------ ----- ----- ------- ----- - ---- -- ----- ----Seamstress ______ • ________ _____ _
4
4
1 ----- ----- ------- ----2
2 --- -- ----- ------- ----- ---- - - ------ ----- ----- ------- ----- -- --- ------- --- -Miscellaneous ________ ___ _• ____ _
2
4
2 ----- ------- ----1
1 -- - -- -- --- ------- ----1
1 ----- ------- ----2
1
1 ----- ------- ----Occupation not reported ___ ___ _ 74
27
46
11
4
6
6
3
3
11
5
6
10
7
1 ------4
2
2
12
9
-- ---
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-------
Number in each speciiied occupation whose length of serve was-
Occupation.
3 and under 4
4 and under 5
5 and under 10
years.
10 and under 15
years.
15 and under 20
years.
To- White. Neta!.
gro.
To- White. Neta!.
gro.
NeTo- Whit
ta!.
-e. gro.
NeTo- wh·
ta!.
ite. gro.
NeTo- Wh't
1
e. gro.
ta!.
years.
years.
20 and under 25
years.
25 years and over.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - - - 1---1---1-- - - t - - - l ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ____ ,___ ,___ ,_ __,_ _
All occupations______________
65
19
43
23
19
62
22
39
23
14
14
2
6 -------
Companion:
. ______________ ___________________ ___ _________________ ___ _________ __________ ___________________________
_
Companion
___ _________________ _____________________ __________ _
Companion-other work _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _
Cook:
Cook____ ______ _________________
10
2
7
7 _______
6
12
3
9
3 _______
3 ______ _______ ______
4 _______
4
1 _______
1
Cook-laundress___ _____ ______ ___
2
2 __ ____ _______ ______ ______ _______ _____ _ ______ _______ ______ ______ _______ ______ ______ _______ ______
1 ______ _
1
Cook-other work_______________
6
3
3 _______
3
2
2
1
1 ______________________________________________________________ _
Day worker________________________
8
8
3 __ _____
3
2
2
1 _______
1
3 _______
3
1 _______
1 ______ ____ ___ _____ _
General worker_____________________
11
2
8
2 _______
2
6
1
.'i
7
2
5
5
1
4 _____________________________________ _
Governess ________________ : _________
1
1 ______ ______ ___ ____ ______
1
1 ______ ____________ _______________________ ______________________ ___ _____ ______ ____ _
Housekeeper:
Housekeeper _____________ __________ ____ ___________________________________________ _______ ____ _ ______ _______
1
1 ___________________________________________ _
Housekeeper-other work______________________________________________
1
1
1 _______
1 ______ ___________________________________________________ _
Laundress:
·
Laundress____ ___________ ______ _
2
1
1
1 _______
1
4
3 _________________ __ ________________________________________________________
_
2
2
2
2 __ ______________________________________________________ _
Laundress-other work __ ________ ____ __ ___________ _______ ___ ___ __ ~----Maid:
Chambermaid____________ ______
1
1
1 _____ _
4
2
2
2
3
2
1 _____________ _____________________ ___ _
Chambermaid-waitress_________
4
1
3
1 _______
1
2
1
1 __________ _______________________ ___ _____________ _________ ____ _____________ _
Chambermaid-other work_ _____
2
1
1 ______ _______________ ______ __________ ___ _________ ______________________ __________________ _______________ _________ _
Waitress_ _________________ ______
3
2
1 __ __ __ _______ ______ ______ _______ ______ ______ _______ ______
1 _______
1 ___________ ________ ____________ _ _____ _
Waitress-other work____________
1 _______ ______ ______ _______ ______
3
3 ______ _____ _____________________ ________________ _________ _____ ________ ___ __ _
Personal maid________________________________________________________
1
1
1 ____ __ ______________ _________ _________________________________ _
Other maid_____________________
3
3
1 _______
1
4
1
1 __________________ : __________________ __ ___ _________________ ___ _
Nurse:
2
1 ______ _______ ______
2
2 ________ _______ ___ __ ________________ ________ ___ __________ ___ ___ ____________ _ __ ___ _
Nurse__ ________ ____ ____• ________
1 _______
1 ___________ ____ ____ ___________ ________ _________ ___ _ ______________________________________________________________ _
Nurse-other work_______________
g~sf:
Invalid's~::::other-W(Jrk:======
nurse _____________ :_ ___
----~I== ========================
============================================_
2 -----~2 ----~______ ----~______ -----~_______ ======
______ ----~1 -----~-----~-----~1 ________ __ _____________
__ ________________________________________________________
~ift;t~:;;~:::::::::::: ----;- :::: :: ----;· --;- ::::::: - -;- --;;
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
---;- -- -;- /----;--- -; ··--;---- ;·-----;- :::::: -- -;- ::::::: ----;- _ _ '._ __
1
::::: :
TABLE
VI.-Length of service in previous employment, by sex, race, 1 and occupation at that time-Concluded.
MEN.
t,
0
Number in each specified occupation whose length of service wasNumber
reported.
Under 1 month .
Occupation.
1 and under 3
months.
3 and under 6
6 and under 9
months.
months.
9 months and
under 1 year.
~
t_:rj
r:n
~
2 and under 3
years .
1 and under 2
years.
0
eTo- White. e- To- IWh"t
Ne- Ttaol-. White. e- To- Whit Ne- To- wh·t
Ne- To- Wh 1"t I Ne- To- wh·t
Ne- To I
1
1
1
tal.
gro- tal .
e. gro.
gro. tal.
e. gro. t al.
e. gro. tal.
e. gro. tal.
e. gro. ta!: IWhite. gro.
All occupations. _________ 276 --46- -2-19- --10- - -~ - - - 25- - - - --22- --39- - -8- --31- --36- - - 3 - --29- -;f - - - - t - - l - - l f - -- -l-- - t - -f- - - t - - - -1 - - - t- - - t - - - - l--
Butler :
Butler ____________________ _
Butler-other work, inside. __
Butler-other work, outside_
Chaufieur:
Chauffeur ___ ______________ _
Chauffeur-other work, inside _________ _______ _____ _
Chauffeur-other work, outside ____ ___ ______________ _
Cook:
Cook ______________________ _
Cook-other work, inside ___ _
Cook-other work, outside __
Day worker_ __________________ _
Gardener ________________ __ ____ _
General utility worker ________ _
Houseman:
Houseman ____ __ __________ _
Houseman-other work, outside. ____________________ _
W aiter
: ___________________ __
Waiter
47
11
10
9
2
2
8 ----- --- ---- -----
- -3- --8-i--42-1---4-1 - 3 5-
7
4
2
1
3
1
12
1
11
1
3
21
3
26
2
~ l--11---;;
2
4
4
1 -------
8
2
9
2
1
1
12
5
2
5 ----- - ------ ----- ----- ------- -----
1 ----- ----- ------- -- --- ----- ---- -- - ----- - ---- ------- - ---- ----- ------- --- -15
11
14
1 ---- --1
1 ------1
1
5 ------4
1
1 ----2 - - - -- -- - ---- --- ' 4 ----- -1
2 -- ----2
1 ---- - -1 - ---- - 1 ----- ------- - ---1 --- -- - --- - -- --- - - -- - - - ------- ----1 - ---- --- ---- ----- ----- ------- - -- -- --- -- ---- --- ----- ---- - ------- - ---- ----- - ------ ----- ----- ------- ----- - ---- ------- ----1
3
1 ------11
2
35
34
5
5
1
1
4
3 -------
4
3 - ------
3
9 -------
9
4
1 - ---- - -
6 ----- ------- -----
13
Waiter-other
work, inside ___ I°
Porter
_________________________
5
Miscellaneous _____ __ _______ ___ _ 20
Occupation not reported ______ _ 15
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
74
8
3
--11-
- +- - -:---1--- - 1 - - - - 1-- - 1 - - - - t - - - - - t - - - 1 - -- :- - - - -
4
2
1
9 ----- ------- ----- ----- -- ----- -----
1 ----- ------- ----- --- -- - ------ ----5 ___ _____ __ ______ __ __ 3
1___________
- -----1
~~
3_
-----1------- -----
1
1
1
5
2
1 ----1
1
5
1
1 -------
1 -------
1 ----- ---- --- -----
1
1 ----- ------- ----1 ------- ----1
1 ----1 ___ :___
1
1 ------- -----
2
1
1 ----- ------- -- --2
2
1 ------1
1 - --- - -- ----4 ------4
Number in each specified occupation whose length of service was00
~c,:,
Occupation
l
~
I
3 and under 4
years.
4 and under 5
5 and under 10
10 and under 15
15 and under 20
20 and under 25
years.
25 years and over.
To• White. Ne•
tal.
gro.
To.
Ne•
tal. White. gro.
To• White. Ne•
tal.
gro.
To• Wh"t
Ne•
1
tal.
e. gro.
To• Whit Ne•
tal.
e. gro.
To• Whit Ne•
tal.
e. gro.
To- I .
Netal. !White. gro.
years.
years .
years.
years.
- - ·1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - -
All occupations ...... ·------·.
19
16
29
. 23
2
2 . ................. .
3
1. . . . . . .
3
f ___________________ ....
~......:.....~.....:. ·............ ·-···· ....... ...... ::=:=: :::::=: ====== ....1-!-······ ......
. ..................................... ···-·· ............. · ···- · .........•................ ·- ·---
Buti~n:~:other-wo-rk,-insicfe:=:====
1 _______
Butler·other work, outside.........................
Chauffeur:
·
Chauffeur ................... .:..
3
2
1
8~:~:~~=~!~:~ :~~~;
~~/jde··· ....
Cook:
Cook . .................. ·-········-···................................
~~~~;_~~~jd~...........
I
2
1
1
2 ..... ..
2
1
1 ...•.....•.....••.....•.•...•...•.•... ··---· .•.....•.•.•. · ····1........ ··-·1· ···-·· · ··-··· .......... 2•..••. 2....... . ..• 1..•..•...... 1• .. . .......•.......•..•..... .•.....•..• ······:······· ...•••
I
2 .••••.•
2 ..•••...••..• ·-···· ••••.••••••••..••••••••••••••••...••.••.••.• · ....... ·····-
Day8J~~~~;~;~
1. . ....... ... 1. ···-·- ···-··· ....... . . ...................................................... ···-·· ·~· ···· ···· ·- ······ '. ······· ..... .
Gardener ....... ·-·····-·--··---·-·-·-····............. .... ............ . ..
1
1 ......
1 ......•
1 .....•...................................•.• ' ••••....•..••
General utility worker.·-----·-··-·2
2
1 .••.•.. ......
1
1 . ....•...•.. •. •.. .• .... ..•.................... . •....... .. -····· '······- ·····Houseman:
2
Houseman·-··--· ... ·-· ...... .. .
1
2
2 ••• •.• ·-····· ••••. . •••·• • ...•. • .....•. •• ·••· •••••.. ·••·•· • .•••• 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Houseman•other work, outside ..
1
1 ······ ............. ······ ................................ ······ ······· ................... ··-···
Waiter:
Waiter .. ·-·--·····-··· ·········
1 .•.••..
1
1 .•••.•.
1
2
1
1 ......................... ···-··· ...•...•........... ···-··
1 ·-·--··
1
Port!aiter-other work, inside.:===========::::===::==:::::::::::::::::=::: .... 1. :=:=::: .... 1. ::=::: ::::::: :::::: :::::: ::::::: :::=:: ::=::= ::::::: :::::: :::::= ::=:::: ::::::
Miscellaneous .......... ·-··---·--·1 .....••
1 ...•.. ···-··· •.....
3 ····-··
3
1
1 •..•. •
1 .•••...
1 ..•... .•.•••. .•.•..
1 .. .....
1
Occupation not reported.·--·----···
1 .......
1
1 ······4 .. .....
4 ...... ······- ·-···· ...................................... ··-··· .....•. _____ _
1 See footnote
to Table IL
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
VIL-Length of service in preV11t'Jus employment and employer's reason for termination, by sex, and race,1 of employee.
WOMEN.
Number leaving employment for specified reason whose length of service wasNumber re•
ported.
1 and under
3 months.
Under
1 month.
Reason for leaving.
i
0
ti,
:a
Cl)
z
~
3 :ai
0
8
0
ti,
Cl)
z
~
6 and under
9 months.
3 and under
6 months.
~0
8
i
:a
0
Iii,
Cl)
z
~
~0
8
i
0
Iii,
:a
Cl)
~
9 months and
under 1 year.
.a
0
z
8
j
0
Iii,
:a
Cl)
z
~
- - ----------11-- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - --- All reasons ••••••••••••••• 249
- - f --
No further need of services:
Closing of establishment...
Reduction of expenses or
number of servants_.....
Termination of limited
engagement..·-··········
Other reasons_.. ...........
Services unsatisfactory:
Inefficiency........•.......
Umeliability or irregularity
Trouble with other servants
Intemperance .. _...........
Disposition not good.......
Reason not reported. ......
Employee's personal reason :
Home relations or responsi•
bilities ..•• .••...... ..... _
Living conditions in em- plo:yment_...............
Marriage..................
Leaving locality.·-········
Another job_ ••••...••••••.
Work too heavy. ·- ········
Other reason ....•. .... .... .
Physical condition of employee.
Mutual agreement... . .........
Wage disagreement............
Other reason...................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
57 186
12
5
2
36
13
6
10
11
6
2
2
2
3
·1
35
4
30
53
13
39
31
6
24
10
2
29
10
4
8
4
3
1
4
2
1
7
1
10
2
14
8
2
8 ··-· ••••••· •.• .
3 •... . . .. ... ... .
1 .... ······· ....
12
2
9
9
11
2
9
11
2
9
3
3 .... ...•..• .... .... ..••••. .•..
5
7
22
48
1
5
10
4
10
38
4
1
2
7
3
6
3 :ai
0
8
0
Iii,
Cl)
z
~
10 years a d
over.
5 and under
10 years .
3 :ai
0
8
8 ~
bl)
Cl)
z
~
0
8
- - -- - - - - - -- 2
9· 14
2i
0
Iii,
:a
a:
Cl)
z
- -- 4
10
65
18
46
11
17
4
12
3
3
4
4
2
1 -------
1 - - -- --- ---- ---2 ----- -2
- - 1 - - -l
62
2
6
30
1 and under
5 years.
5 ·· ·5 -···
6 -···
2
9 -···
30 6
3 --··
3
2 •••• ····-·- --·· •••• ······- ••••
9
8
2 ••••••• 2 ··-· •••••••••••
2 •••••• ••••• --· · ···- -- ----- --·-
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
1
2
2 ---2
1
1
3
2
1
2
1 .... 1 · •·•·•· -·· · ....
1 .... ······- .. .... .. -······ .... ·-··
4
5
3
1
2
1
-·---- ·
·····-·
···-···
1
······2
3
·-·---- -- - ·
3
· ··-·······- · ·---- 1
----·-·
1
1
··-1 - - ·· ·-·· ··· ··· .•••.. .• ·-····· ··-· 1
1
--·- 2
2
1 ·-·-····- · 3
2
1 ·-----·
1
2
1 ·-·· -----··
· -- - 2
2
1 ·-·-···
3 7
1 6 8
2
1 · ·· - ·--·--· ·· · - ···- ··--·-·
1 --·- ·---·-- ·-·- ..•. ····--- --·-
1 ···- ·-----· ....
1 ··-····
1 ·---···
2
2
-··· ···
-···· ··
-······
-··· ·-·
···.•••
...•
-· - -
1 ,-·-· --·- ----·-- •... -··- -·- -·-- -·--
11
1 ---· - ------ ---- - --- --- --- - ---·--- - -··-· - - ···
· · -.•.•....
·--· ••••
--·- 1
·--· 1
-·-- 1
4 ---- ------- - - ·-
•• ••••• •••• 2
1 ••••• ••• •• ••• • •••• •
•·•·••• 1
2
2 ••.. ······- .•.• ....
.•. ..•. .. .. 1
1
1 ..••....
... ... ......... ······- ...... .. ······ - .... ·-·-
1 ·--- ···- ·-·--·- ...• ···- ·-----· •••. ·-·- · -- - ·-· ·--- •..• ······- -·-·
1
2
7
5
2
3
2 ·- --···
........
··- · 1
1
1
1 ···- ··- ·- - 1
2 - ··- ·-- -·-- ·---
··· ---- -·· · 2
2 ·--- . ... ·-··· -· .. .. - ···· ·--- · 1
5
1
4 --·- ·-····· ··-· .••.
·· ·-·-- 1
1
1 .... ·· ---·· ·-·· ······---- -·-· 4
2
2 --- - ··· ··- - ·-·- 1
·- ·-·-· ··-· ··- · ---· -- - ---· ---· ···-- -· ·-·· .•..
·-· ---·
4
4 --·· ·-··· -· ··-· 1
6 1 ·-·-·-· 1 8
2
6
3 ·-· -··· 3 2
·· ·- -··· ··--··- --·- 3
1
2 ·-·- -· ·-· ·· --·· ·-- ·
·-·-·-· ··- ·
·· --·-- ·--····- - - -···
··----·
1
·-- --· - ---··-·--·
1
· -·---·
2
·- · -·-- ·-·-
1 --·- ·····-· ---- --·· ·-·---· ---· · ·-· ·-··--· ··-· --·- ·-····· -··- ··-· ·-····· ·· - -
1 ---· ·-·-·-· ···- -· - - -·----· - - ·- ·-·· ·-·-·-- ·--- ---- -·----· ----
1
1 ·--- ---- ·-·-··- - ·--
MEN.
All reasons--············- 84
14
67
sl
2
i
14
2
12
11
2
9
11
11
5
6
26
5
19
2
- - - - - - - -:- - - t - - - , 1 - -1- - - -1- - t - - t - - - - t - - -l- - l- - - t - -l- - J--- - + - - -l- - + -- - - t - - l- -l- - - ~ - - + - - I - - - - + - -
No further need of services:
Closing of establishment...
Reduction of expenses or
number or servants _·- --Termination of limited
engagement----····-·---Other reason _______ ····---Services unsatisfactory:
Inefficiency_______________ _
¥r~~reb~llt ~t?:re:r~!~ls
Intemperance ___________ .__
Reason not reported_______
Employee's personal reason: _
Home
relations
responsi________or.__________
bilities
Leaving locality.······--·Another job-----··-········
Work too heaVY---········
Other reason.. ••••• _____ ____
Physical condition of eIYiployee_
Mutual agreement ___ ._________
Wage disagreement •••••••••• __
Other reason ••••••_.............
1 See
footnote to Table II.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
6
6
2
8
2
3
~
2
3
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
7
21
2
1 -······
6
6
3
3
---- ------- ---7
2 -------
3
3 ---- -- ----- --- -
2 ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ----
2
4
2
2
3
1
3
3
-- ----- 1
2 ---3
3
1
5
2 -- ---· ·
1 ---·--·
1
1 --- ·-· ·
1
3
4
4
2
2 ---- -- --·- - ·--- ---- ------- --- ·
1 --- ----
3
2
1 - --- --- --- - ·--- - ---- -- -- --- ---·
2 ---- --·- --- ---- -- -- ----·-- ---- ---- ------ - ---- ---- --- --- - ---- ---- ------- --··
---2
-- --------
---- --- ----
1 - -- 1
- -·---- ---1
··----- ---1
-·----- ---- - --- - ---- -- ----
------1
-------
------------1
----· ------- -
---- 1
---- 1
---- 1
---- -- ----- 2
------ --- ------- 1 ---- - ----- 1 - --------- ---- 1
----- -- 2 ----
--- --- - -------- ----- ------ --- --
---- 1 ------ - 1 '------ 1 ------- 1 ------- ---- ------- -- -- ---1 - -- - --- --- - ---- ---- --- 1 -- --- -- 1 ----
--- --- - -------- --- ---- -- ---- -- -
-- - -- -----------
----------------
----- ------- ------ - --- --- ----- -
- --·
--- ·
- ---- ·- ---
1
1
- -------------- ·
--- -
--- - ---- -------------------------·---···---···--1
---1
------ -
-----·- - ---- ----------- - 1
-----------------------··
---1
- --------------- -- ----
----· - ---··------------ ------- -------------------------
------------ ---------- --1
- ----------------------- -
-- -- ---- -- -·- -- ---- --- 1
1
--- - 1 - ------ 1
---- 1 ------- 1
---- ---- ------- --- ---- 3 -- ----- 3
---- 1 - ------ 1
---- ---- --- - - -- -- ----- 3 ----··· 2
- ---------- - -- ---- ---- ----- - ---------------- ----- ····--
------1
---------------2
---- --------------~-----1
--------- - --- -- --------------- -------------------------
-- -·
---·
--- --·-- -- --·
-- -- --1
1
1
--------- -------------
----· --------- - -------- -- ---------- _ ·-------- ---·------ ----··2 ------1 -···-·-- - · -····--
-------- ----------2
1
----
--- --- -- -·
-- --
------1
---------- --------·
-- -- -- -- -- -· -- -1 --- ---- ----- -- --- ------- ----·-- -··-··· ···-
------1
---------------2
8
a=
t_,:j
8
;
0
~
0
t:d
~
t_,:j
~
00
>
z
t::t
TABLE
..:y
00
VIII.-Employer's reason for termination of employment, by sex, race,1 and occupation of employee at that time.
WOMEN.
Number leaving employment for specified reason whose occupation wasNumber reported.
i-------~-------~----------------------~------• Companion.
Reason for leaving.
NeTo• IWh't
1 e. gro.
ta!.
To- Wh"t
Ne1
ta!.
e. gro.
Cook.
Day worker.
General worker.
Governess.
Housekeeper.
To- Wh't
Ne1 e. gro.
ta!.
To- Wh"t
Ne1 e. gro.
ta!.
To- Wh"t
Ne1 e. gro.
tal.
To- Wh"t
Ne1 e. gro.
ta!.
To- Wh"te
Ne1 · gro.
tal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - --1-All reasons ___ _______________ _
No further need of services:
Closing of establishment_ ______ _
Reduction of expenses or number of servants __ _________ ____ _
Termination of limited engagement ____________ ---- --- -----Other reason _________ _________ __
Services unsatisfactory:
Inefficiency __________________ __ _
Unreliability or irregularity ____ _
Trouble with other servants ___ _
Intemperance __________________ _
Disposition not good ___________ _
Reason not reported ___ ________ _
Employee's personal reason:
H?~e relations or responsibil- ·
1t1es ________ ------ ___ -- - -- - -- Living
ment. conditions
____________in
____employ_______ _
M arriage ____________ ______ __ __ _
Leaving locality _______________ _
Another job ___________________ _
Work too heavy ______ ____ _____ _
Other reason ___ ___ _____ ______ __ _
Physical condition of employee ____ _
Mutual agreement. ______ __________ _
Wage disagreement ________ _____ ___ _
Other reason _________ ________ ______ _
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
~ l--2:_
82
259
102
64
25
6
4 --- - -- ---- --- ------
35 ------ ----- -- ------
13
13 ------ ------- -----8
4
1
6
18
17
6
2
6
6
2
5
18
9
57
5
5
2
2
3
11
1
53
4 ______
7
14 ------ ------- ------
4
4
3
4
12
1
4
6
1 ------2 -------
4 ----- - ------- - ----6
2
2 ------
1 ------1 -------
3
2
7
16
8
2
3
4
1 ------ --- ---- ------
1 ------ - ----- ------- --- --1
======= ---======
-======
----- -------- ____ :_
5 ------ - ___ _:_
4
4 ------ --- ---- -----6
2
4
11 ------ - ---- -- -----3 ------3
45 ----- - ------- -----23
2
21
4 ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- -- - --5 ------ ------- -----3 ------3
1 ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- --- --;
11
61
5 ------ ------- -----5
4 ------ ------- -- ---- ---- -- --- -- - - --- --2 ------ -- ----- -----1
1 ------ ------- -----1
1 --- --1 ---- -- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ --- --- ------- ------ ------ ------- ---- --
2 ------ ------- ------
8
4
9
2 -- ----2 -------
13 ------ ---- --- -----3
2
9
20
12
16
8
15
6
14
87
2
42
5
14
------ ---- - -- ---- -- ------ ------- ---- - - ------ ------- ------
======----------------- --1
--- ---
=======
-------------------- --------------- -
~
~
======----2 _____ 1: _
1
------ ------ --- -- -- ----------2
2
-----10
1
9
1
1 ---- --1
- ----1 ------1
======
---------------1
-----------
=·=====
------ ------------1
-------------
======
------------------- ---- --------
======
--------- -- --------------------
======
-======
------= ----------- ---- ------- - --- --------- --- --- - ----- ------------ ------
------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------
Number leaving employment for specified ~eason whose occupation wasReason for leaving.
Laundress.
Maid.
Nurse.
Part-time worker.
I
Seamstress.
t::1
Not reported.
Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro.
- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -1--- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All reasons_--------- ----- -------- -- ---
13
11
No further need of services:
Closing of establishment _______________ _
Reduction of expenses or number of
servants _______ . ----------------------- ____________________ _
Termination of limited engagement.____
2 __ _____
2
Other reason ________________ __ ________________________ ______ _
unsatisfactory:
Services
Ineffi~'ency_____________________________
_______ _______ _______
unreliability or irregularity____________ _
1 _______
1
Trouble with other servants__________________________________
Intemperance_________ _____ _____________
1 _______
1
Disposition not good____________________
1
1 _______
Reason not reported___________________________ ________ _______
93
23
(i5
26
14
3
15
11
1 -------
'l:l
3 ------- -- ---- - ------- ----- -- -- ----- -- --- - -
4
1 -- -----
8
18
~
trj
Ul
j
a
~
22
3
8
2 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- -- - ------- ------- ---- --- ------- ------- ----- -7
8
3
1 ------1 ------- ------- ------ 4 - ---- -4
1
2
1 ------- ------- ----- -- ------- ------- ------- ------- -- ----- -------
4
4
7
3
1
1
1
4
1
3
3
2
2 _______ _______ _______ _____ __ ___ ____ ___ ____ _______
1 __ _____
1
3
2
1
1 _______ ____ ___ ______ _ _______ _______ _______
3
2 ______ _
3 _______ _______ ____ ___ _______ _______ ___ ____ _______ _____ __ _______
1
1
1 __________________________________________________________________________________________ _
1 __ _____ _____ __ ______ _ ___ ____ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ ______ _
1 ______ _
1 ______________ _____ ___ _______ ____ ____ ___ __ ----- . _ ______ _ __ ____ _ _____ __
1
0
t:0
~
trj
t:0
Ul
>
z
t1
~
trj
Em~~~:•~ef:f~~~t~~~~~ibilities__ ____ _ _______ ___ ____ _______
5
1
4
2
2 -- --- -- ------- ------- ------- ------- -- --- -- ------Living conditions in employment.___ ___ _______ __ _________________________________
1
1 ____ ___ _______ _______ _____ __
1
1 __________ ______ ___ ________ _
4 _______
4 ___________ ___ - ------ ------- _______ _______ __ _____ _______ _______
1
1 ______ _
Marriage____ _________________________ __________ ______________
Leaving locality_________ ____________________________________ _
4 _______
4 _______ _____ __ _______ _______ ______ _ ______ _ _______ _______ _______
1 ______ _
Another job___________________________ _______ ____ ____ ________
4
1
3
3
1
2 __ _____ _______ ______ _ _______ __ _____ _______
1 ______ _
1
Work too heavy _____ _____ _______ _______ ________ __ _____ _____ ______________________ __ ______________________________________ ______ ________________ _______________ _______ _
5
2
3
1 ____ ___
1 _______ _______ _____ __ _______ _______ _____ __
3
1
2
Other reason·- ----------- ------~------ --_________________ ____
Physical condition of employee___ ______ _____
4
1
3
13
3
9
2
2 _______ _______ _______ _______ ____ ___ ____ ___ __ ___ __
4
1
3
Mutual agreement.__________ ___ ________ ___ _________ _____________
2
2
1
1 ____________________________________________ ___________________ ____ __ _
1
1 __________________ ______ _________________________________________ __ ____ ____________ _
Wage disagreement_________________________ __ ___________________
1
1 ______________ ------- ------- ____ ___ ___ ____ __ _____ _______ ______ _
l ___ ___ _
Other reason ___ __________ ________ __________________ __ ____________
H
t:0
trj
.~
r4
~
~
trj
z
1-3
'See footnote to Table II.
~
~
~
0
z
f/1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
00
VIII.- Employer's reason for termination of employment, by sex, race,1 and occupation of employee at that time--Goncluded.
0
MEN.
t:;1
0
Number leaving employment for specifi9d reason whose occupation was-
~
Number reported.
t,;l
Cook.
Chauffeur.
Butler.
Reason for leaving.
'/Xl
Gardener.
~
a
Total. White. Ne~o. Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro . Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro.
- -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - - 1- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1----jl-- -,1--- - -All reasons ______________ _______________ _____ _
100
17
77
32
4
27
24
10
1----11-
No further need of services:
Closing of establishment ___ ____ _____ __ _______ __ _
lteduction of expenses or number of servants ___ _
Termination of limited engagement ____ ___ _____ _
Other reason __________________ -------- ------•--Services
unsatisfactory:
Inefficiency
_______ ____________________ _________ _
Unreliability or irregularity ____________________ _
Trouble with other servants ___________________ _
t~:S~f
:'~oi-goocc===
===::: :::::::::::::: :: :_
Reason not
reported ___________________________
Employee's personal reason:
Home relations or responsibilities __ ____________ _
Leaving locality ___________ __________ __________ _
Another job ______ ______________ _______________ _
Work
heavy-------------------------------_
Other too
reason
______ ___ ____ _______________ _______
Physical condition of employee ____ __ ____ ___ _____ __ _
Mutual agreement_ ____________________________ __ __ _
Wage disagreement _____________ ___________________ _
Other reason ________ __ _______ ____________ ______ ____ _
6
5
9
1
2
9
8
6
2
2
1
1
5
1
4
5
3
2
1
4
3 -- ---- -4
2
l
4
3
1
4
3
2 -- ----- -
2
2
5
3
l
11
--- --2 --------
2
:a0
t:d
~
t,;l
22
4
32
6
14
7
2
2
2
1
1
3
l
l
t2· -------5
3
1
2
-------- -------1
7
2
2
4
1
1 ------ -- -------- -------- -------- ---- ---- -------1
1
1
2
t:d
rn
>
z
t1
1-3
2
P:l
t,;l
H
2
1 ------- - ------- - -------- ---- ---- --- ----- --------
2 - --- --- - --------
-------========= ======== ======== -======= ======== ========
2 -------- -------- ------ -- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
1 -------1 -------1
1 -------- -------2
2
1
1
1 -------2
1
4
-------- -------- -------- -------- --- - ---1
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----- ---------1 ------- - -------- -------- --- ------------ -------1 -- -----1 --------- - -----3- ------i- ======== -------- ------i-
-------1
--- ----- --------------- -------------- - --------
======== --------
t:d
t,;l
a::
""d
8to<
~
t,;l
z
1-3
:
§
0
z
!fl
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number leaving employment for specified reason whose occupation wasReason for leaving.
General utility man.
Houseman.
Waiter.
Total. White. Negro. Total. White. Negro. Total. White
Miscellaneous.
Not reported .
Negro. Total. White. N egro . Total. White. Negro.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -All reasons_~ ____ _______ _________________ ____ _
No further need of services:
Closing of establishment__ ___ ____ __ _____ _____ ___
4
Reduction of expenses or number of servants_ ___
1 ___ _____
Termination of limited engagement___ __ ____ ____ ______ __ ___ _____
Services unsatisfactory:
Inefficiency______ ___ ______ ___ ____ ____ __ _________________ ____ ____
Unreliability or irregularity__ __ _____ ______ ___ ___________ ____ ____
Intemperance ________ ___ ________ _______ _____ ___ _______ _____ _____
Reason not reported _____ _____ _________ ___ ___ __ _ ______ __ ·-------
8
11
11
4
3
3
1 ___ ____ _ ____ ____ ___ ___ __
____ ____
__ ______
__ _____ _
--- ---- ___ ____ _
2
4
3 __ ____ __
1
3
2 ________
2
2
1 -------1 ________ - - -- - --- ______ __ - ------- -------- - --- - --- ---- - -- -
2 ____ ____ ______ __ ________ ____________ ____ ______ __ -------- ___ __ ___ -- -- ---________
__ ______
-- - ----________
________ __ ___ ___
1 __ ______
1
______ __ ______ __
1 __ ______
1
-- ----- - - ------- ---- ---- -------- -- -----_______ __ _________ ______ -------- --- ---- -
_______________________ _
__________ ___ __________ _
-------- -- ------ ------------- -- ___ _____ -- -- ----
Emi~in6:1:ef:tfo0isa~{~~~~sibilities___
___________
______
--- ---- ----- ------ - -__----- - -___
---____
----_ _______
-- ----- -_ -_______
-------_ ---------------- -__---- --- -------Leaving locality_________ ______ __ __________
11 -_____
___
11 ___
_____
____ ____
___ ___
1 ___
_____ - - -----1 -___
__ _ ---_________
______ _
Another job ___________ ____ __ _____ _____ __ ____ ____ ___ ____ _____ ___ -- ----- ~
1 _____ __ _
1 __ _____ _ ________ ________________ ____ ________ ____ ______ ___ _______ __ _____ _
Othercondition
rea~n_________
___ ______
__ _________ _______1_ _________
1 - -_____
- - ------- -__
- --- -- ---- - ---------- -_ -________
------- -------- ------------ - ----- 1-- -------Physical
of employee
_____________
_______________
__ - - - - - - 1-- -______
1 ____
____ -_______
______ __ -___
____ -_ ________
_____ ___ --------1
Mutual agreement_ _____ ____ ___ ____ ___ _____ _______ __
1 ______ __
1 ___ ____ __ _____ ____ ______________ __ _____ __ _____________ _________ _ __________ ______ __ _____________ _
Wage disagreement ________________________ ____________________ _____ __________________ ______________________________________
1 __ _____ _
1 __ ____ __ _____ ___ _______ _
Other reason__________________ _____ _____ ____ ______ __
1 __ ___ ___ --~ ----- ________ ________ ____ ____ ________ ___ _____ ______ __
1 ________
1
1 __ ______ _______ _
l
See footnote to Table II.
,_
00
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
00
IX.-Length of service in previous employment, by sex, race,1 and manner of leaving.
1:-:)
WOMEN.
Number leaving employment after specified length of service wh~
Number reported.
Were discharged.
Length of service.
With notioe.
Total.
Total.
w.
N.
£at W.
N.
fat W.
- -- - - - - - -- -- - -- -1--1---1---1 - - - - - Total. ____________________________ _ r,3
149 411 191 44 142
7
Under 1 month ____________________ ___ ___ 36
1 and under 3 mon ths __________ .......... 55
3 and under 6 months ....... . .. ..... . ... . 86
6 and under 9 months . .. ...... ...... ..... 57
g months and under 1 year ........•...... 17
1 and under 2 years .. ........... ... . ..... €8
2 and under 3 years ...................... 30
3 and under 4 years ...• •. .. . . .... .. .. . . . . 23
4 and under 5 years .•..••....... . ........ 11
5 and under 10 years .....•............... 20
10 and under 15 years ..•.... . . ...... .•... 12
15 and under 20 years.................... 6
20 and under 25 years... ..... . ..... ...... 4
25 years and over....... ..... ............ 1
Indefinite._.............................. 33
Time not reported ... ..... .. .........•.. . 114
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
12
17
16
7
17
9
8
2
a
3
2
10
34
26
43
66
39
9
51
20
14
9
15
9
4
23
21
32
18
3
20
9
9
3
5
6
2
7
3
1
3
2
2
1
Without
notice.
6
7
2
r;r
iat
'f:r
6
.... 183
20
21
31
15
3
20
Without
notice.
Manner not
reported.
£at
9
9
3
5
6
3
42 136 373 103 262 181
3
2
7
3
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
16
19
23
11
1
17
6
7
2
5
11
33
53
3~
14
46
19
14
8
15
4
5
1
3
4
1
22
79
6
18
1
22
86
4
10
With ootice.
Total.
4
11
28
1
M anner not
reported.
Left by
mutual consent.
£at
N.
W. N.
W. N .
W. N. 'fJ": W. N.
W. N. £1D. W. N.
W. N.
- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
17
19 ........ ·-·- ···- ··-· --·24
1 . ... 1 .. .. ·--· · ··14
3 .••. 3 .... --·· •...
1
17
5
4
3
Left of own accord.
7
l • • •. 1 ..•. ···- .•.. 10
18 -- ·· ...... . ..... ··-- . ... 28
4
10
1
10
10
13
6
13
7
6
1
5
1
8
23
41
25
8
33
12
7
7
10
4
3
4
6
24
1
15
61
58 119
80
16
62 112
29
81
9
2
7
3
2
2
2
1
4
2
6
4
4
1
18
6 12
7
7
8
31
6 24
4
8
1
9
9 13
26 11 14
2
6
...........
.
5
8
5
10
4
6
2
1
1 .....•.....•
1
2
33 12 21
8
2
l
1
5
4
8
11
5
6
2
3
2 ....
2
5
3
3
1
3
10
5
5
1
2 . ..•.• .• ·-·1
1
6
6
1 -··- . •••. . . • · ··7
4 ---- --- - ---- 8
2
6 ... • ....... •
5
4 · -·· .. ........••.... -··· 1 •..•
1
3
3 .. ..... . ·· · - ·-·· •••......•.••••. ···1
1 .... .. .. .... 3
3 ...•.....•.•
.................... ···- 1
1 ..... ... ··· 8
1
6
4
2
2 10
3
7 ·-· · ---· ---9
4
5 41 12 28 36
8 28 -- - - --·- --- -
MEN.
Total ___ - - --- - ----------- - ------ ___ 167
Under 1 month__________________________
1 and under 3 months ____________________
3 and under 6 months ____________________
6 and under 9 months _______ _____________
0 mon ths and under 1 year_______________
1 and under 2 years ______________________
2 and u nder 3 years ________________ ______
3 and under• years______________________
• and under 5 years______________________
6 a nd under 10 years_____________________
10 and under 15 years_____ ___ __ __________
lo and under 20 years_________ ___ ________
Indefinite_______ __ ______ _________________
Time not r eported __________ ______ _______
1 See foot n ote to Table II.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
17
16
16
8
19
23
9
6
9
3
I
11
20
28 134
2
58
____ ____
____
---- ---- ---- ---- ------- ---·
____
1 ---____ ---____ ---____
2
5
13
16
13
157
6
10
3
85
2
1
61
1
16
17
8
4
81
2
5 ---- -- -31 ____
5 ---___ _ ---__ __
1
1 __ __ ____
3
6
3
2
6
1
3
11
1
6
46
2
62
2
3 ____
9
1
3 ---85 ---1 -
------____
____
------____
____
------____
____
12
8
3
84
------____
____
81
6
2
31
1
1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -
3
2
43 100
15
83
60
11
40
14
2
12
26
2
22
5
3
7
3
84
2
5
13
81
2
3
1
1
5
6
2 ____ 2 ____ ____ ____ 2
3 10
7 ---- 5
2
2 ---- 4 ---- 4 - --11 ____
7 ____
5 ------- ____
2 ---2
11
11 ---____ ____
____ ____
____ ---2
5
5
13
15
8
4
1
3
8
11
12
8
3
134
2
5
4
1
3
7 ---- ---- ---10
4 ---1 ---____ ---2 ____ ____ ___ _
1
____
2
---- ------____ -- --2
5
4 ---- ---- ------- . 32 ------- ----_
32 ____
___________
2
1 __ _________ _
; ,i -T--i--T~~~! ~:~: : ~: ~~~~ ~~~~ ~=~~-T--i- -T -,;---;- -,;- --;- --;- --;-::;: ;;:; ::;: -if;-i ;::; ;:;; ;:;;
6
3 ---- ---- ----
2
2 ---- ---- ----
TABLE
X.-Length of service in previous employment and type of employer's reference furnished to agency, by sex, and race,1 of employee.
WOMEN.
Number having service record as specified whose reference wasNumber re•
ported.
Partly favor•
able.
Fair.
Satisfactory.
Good.
Excellent.
Length of service.
Unfavorable.
Noncommittal
To• Wh't
Ne- To• Wh' Ne• To- Wh't
To• Wh ' Ne• To• Wh"t
To• Wh't
To- Wh't
To• Wh"
Ne1 e. Ne•
1 e., Ne•
1 e. Ne•
1 e. gro.
1 e. Ne•
tal.
tru.
ite. gro. tal.
gro. tal.
ite. gro. tal.
gro. tal.
gro. tal.
gro. tal.
ite. gro.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1·-- - - - - - Total .•• ··-- -----------·-· ••..•• •••. .. . 1, 348
370
55
72
120
79
30
96
62
15
18
28
22
10
27
19
16
3
Under 1 month .... ·····-·········-··········
1 and under 3 months ....................... .
3 and under 6 months ....................... .
6 and under 9 months ....................... .
9 months and under 1 year ... . ..... . .• •. . ••. .
1 and under 2 years .............•.. . ... .•.•••
2 and uncj.er 3 years ..••........... ....• .•. .. .
3 and under 4 years . .••.•.•..............•...
4 and under 5 years ...............•.•.•.•....
5 and under 6 years ..••.•.............•.•.•..
6 and under 7 years .••..•...........•... •.•.•
7 and under 8 years . ..•.•. . . . . . •. . •. •.. •. . . ••
8 and under 9 years ... •.• ....•.. ..........•. •
9 and under 10 years . .......................•
10 and under 15 years ..••••. •.........• •.•...
15 and under 20 years .•.•••.•.........•......
20 and under 25 years ..••• _.....•..•••..•• _..
25 and under 30 years .•• _. ___ • __ .• _.•.•• _. _••
30 years and over ..•.... ·-·····--·············
Indefinite .........• ·- ____ ._ •. __ .•..•.• _••....
Time not reported ..• ···-·-------···--· · ·-···
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
60
18
15
11
5
6
5
2
9
4
9
3
21
11
7
3
4 ••••• ••
2
1
1 ...... .
83
585
zzl
159
---
939 196
38
54
:
~~
3 • •••...
3
1
~
1i
3
2
18
31
~ ~
~g
~
H !······;
::
~
i ...... :
1
26
-
167 482
4
5
13
26
~~ ~~
4 !~
--78
53
3
5
1
4
1:
~
-
---
22 131
40
10
8
4
1
2
1
g ~
~ ====
~
11 122 129
49
8
12
5
5
8 ···-···
14
2
12
11
--1---f--
74
71
10
1
6
4
1. .. .
61 .... ··-···- ... .
==== ··~~ .... ..
==== ===
1
~ ··· ; ======~
···t:~ ::::::~
====
5 ........... · ·-3
2
1
1.......
1 .... ······· ..................•
5 ...• ····· ·· ·-·- •... · -····· ···- .... ...••.. ....
1
1 .... .. .. ····-· · •••.
2
1 ... • .•••• .• -··· ·••·•·· ...•........•.••...........•............•.•.....•
3 .. .. ........... -··- ....... ....
1.......
1 ... ................ ·· ····· ... .
5
1
1 ...••••. ·•·• ··· .•.•• . ••••• ••....•..•.• ·····-· .•..
1
1 .•.•
10
1
1 .. .• •....•••.•. . •.• ·-·- ···--·· ..•..•.• ····-·· .•.. . ....•.•••• ···8
3
3 ....... . ·-····· . •.• -··- ·--···· ···- ...• ··-·-- · ••.. .. .• ·-·---- ·-·1
1
1
=== ······· == = === ....... ===
9 44
83 249
5
7
!...~ ~
i H ! Ii i i
8
3
8
3
3
1
5
2
6
1
17
6
8 .•..•..
1
--1---,f--l-- - - -
86 134
IL .... ~ ~ ~L .. -.: ~~ 11 i :1···= ======: ... :
~
~ ~ !......: ~ ···5 ··--··i ...• ~ ...... : ···2
1
9
3
1
2
6
2
1
1
2
1
1 . . ..
5
3
2
1
6
1 · -·····
1
13
3 .•.••..
3
8 . ..• ··•···· ... .
4
2.... . ..
2
57 10
411 110
- -- -
44 149 670
10 30
56 188
6
27
3
22
1···· ....... ·-·- .... ··-···· ·-·· ........... ·-·· .... ···--·- ·-··
3
9
5i 58
2
19
7
35
10
64
3
4
7
59
3
75
2
31
1
40
1
2
1. . -1
1
MEN.
Number having service record as specified whose reference wasNumber reported.
Excellent.
Length of service.
To-
Ne
To- Whi
t a.I. White. gr;. tal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-TotaL _. ······················-·- -- ---1 month
____ -----····------1Under
and under
3 months
______________ --___ ------______ _
3 and under 6 months _______________________ _
6 and under 9 months _______ ________________ _
9 months and under 1 year ___ _______________ _
1 and under 2 years _________________________ _
2 and under 3 years _________________________ _
3 and under 4 years ____________________ ___ __ _
4 and under 5 years _________________________ _
6 and under 6 years ______________________ ___ _
6 and under 7 years ______________________ __ __
7 and under 8 years _________________________ _
8 and under 9 years _________________________ _
9 and under 10 years _______________ ______ ___ _
10 and under 15 years __________ _____________ _
25 and under 30 years ______________________ __
30 years and over _______________________ _____ _
Indefinite ___________________________________ _
Time not reported ____ •••.•••••••.• ___ ·-. ___ _
1 See
- - -- -
379
8
58
2
20
2
33
5
30
3
10
2
39
38
3
16
8
1
304
P artly favorable.
F air.
Unfavorable.
Noncommittal.
N~- To- Whit Ne- To- Wb ' Ne- 'ro- Wb'
Ne- To- Wh'
Ne- To.,_ . Ne- Toh'
Nete. gro. tal.
e. gro. tal.
ite. gro. 1.al.
ite . gro. tal.
ite. gro. tal. W .nite. gro. tal. W ite. gro.
- - - -- 28
Satisfactory.
Good.
8
--- -
19 195
5
1 _______
1
18 ---- ------- ---4
1
3
24 ---- - ------ ----
28
8
33
2
1
1
3 _______
2
29
3
2
1
14 ---- ------- ----
-
19 168
3 _______
5 -------
21
1
14
2
2 _______
24
1
31
6
14
1
--- 19
-
- - - -- -- -- - 47
36
3 __ __ ------- ---- ---- ----- -- - --5 ---- - ------ ---9
1
8
3
1
2
2 ------2
2
20
11
2
4
6
1
10
2
l _______
1
21 ____ - - - - -- - ----
25
1 __ _____ ---12 ---- - - -- --- ----
59
8
6 ------2 ______ _
6
1
1 _______
1 - ------
5
2
5
1
1
1
4
8
28
l ____
1
3
1
1
4 - ------
3
1
2 _____ __
2 - -----1 --- ----
--- ·31
8
2
2 -------
23
--- 11
1
1 _______ ---2 ---- ------- ----
1 ---- - --- ------- ---4
2 ------2 ---- ------- ---2 ____ -- - ---- -- -- ---- -- --- -- ---2
2 ------2
2
1
1
2 ____ ------- ---- - - - - ------- ---1 - --- --- -- -- --- - -- - - - ------ ----
4 ------2 ----- --
i: : : : : : : : _): : : : J:: :::::: ::::: ··; ::::::: ···: :::: ::::::: :::: __'::::::: ___':::: ::::::: ::::
4
2 ___ _ ------- - - -11 ___
_____ -- ---- ____
---_______
8 -------
4 ------4
4
2
2
3
1 ------2 ------24
5
20
128
2
1
1 -- --
2 __ __ ------- ----
19
101
1
13
1 -- -2 ·11
2 -------
3
1
3l _______2
l _______
13
44
2
3
2 - --- ------- - ---
1
1 - - -- -- - - - ---- - - ---- ---- - - - ---- ---- ---- --- - -- - -- --
2 ____ ------- ---- - --- - ---- -- ---1
1 ____ ---- ------- -- -- ---- -- ----- ---ll ____
------- ------- ----- --_ ________________________________________________
---- -- -- ------- ---1
1 __ __ - - - - -- ----- ----_
___________
__ ____________
l ____ - ------ --- -
11
38
1 ------9
4
1
4
l _______
1 ------26
5
1 ____ -- - --- - ---- ---- ------- -- -- - - -- ------- ----
1
18
4
12
2
1
2
11
2 -- - ---18
5
2
13
2 ------6 ____ ---
2
6
footnote to Table IL
00
01
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
XI.-Wage rates of placed.applicants, by sex, race, 1 and occupation .
WOMEN.
Number placed in positions at rates specified, whose occupation was-
Number
reported.
Cook-other
work.
Cook•
laundress.
Cook.
Weekly rate.
General
worker.
GovP.rness.
Laundress.
Chambermaid. Ch~~~~~:~d-
To. Ke- To. Ne- To- h. Ne- To- uh• Ne- T o- h"
Ne- To- " ' h" Ne- To- Wh"t !Ne- To- w·h·t !Ne- To- ,nh·t Nei e. gro. tal.
I e. gro. tal. ,·v I e. gro.
ta!. White. gro . tal. White. gro. tal. W ite. gro. tal. '• ite. gro. tal. W ite. gro. ta! . n ite. gro. tal.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -1 - -1-- -- 1 - - - - - - - -
Total. __________________ 253
-
--- -
-
--- -
-
--- -- -
- - - --1--+----l-- -
--- ---- --- -
1 ____ 7
12 10· 28
3 26
3
17
6 3
4 - - ----- 2 53
1 - - 1 - - - -f-- - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - - -11 - - - - - - _ , _ _ _ _ _ - - 1 - - - 1 - -i - - t - - 1 -- - t - - -1- - ; .- - -1- - -1- - 1- - 1·2 ______ _____________ -----"- ____ ____ _______ __ __ ____ _______ ____ ____ ____ ___ ____ 3
1 _________________ ____________ _
$5 and under $6________________ 4
4
____
_____
__
____
____
_______
____
____
_______
____
1
_______
1
__________________________
________________
_________________
_
$6 and under $7__ ______________
4
$7 and under $8__ ______________ 2
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$8 and under $9 ___ _____________ 25
5
3 19
4 ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- 6
21
42
21
5 ---- ------1 ---____ ---____ ------_______ ---____ 24
2
1
$9 and under $10 ___________ ____ 21
5 13
1 _______ ____ ____ _______ ___ _ 1 _______ ____ 5
2 17 ____ _______ ____ 2 _______ 1 16
12 ____________ ___ __ _________ ____ 12
4
6 18
2
10
$10 and under $11 __________ ____ 103
16 59 28
1 ____ _______ ____ __ __ _______ ____ 5
1
4 ____ ,____ ___ ____ 2 _______
2
2 ____ 1
1
$11 and under $12 ___ ___________ 13
5
7
1
2 17 ____ _______ ____ 1 __ _____
16
4
9 ____ _______ ____ 2 _______
4
2
1
3
3
$12 and under $13 ___ ___________ 62
15 34 25
$13 and under $14______________ 1
1
1
- - -------------_ ---11 ---1 ----_____ __
1 ---____ --____---___ -__--__ ---2 ------_______ ---1 ---____ ------_______ ---____ ---____ ------_______ ---____ ---1 ------1 ---___ ___
________
---·
$14 and under $15_______ _______ 5
1
3
1
4
2 ___________ ____________ ___ -•-- 2
1
1 ____ ____ ___ ____ ____ _______ ____ 1
1 _________ ______ ---·
$15 and under $16 ___________ ___ 12
3 ·s
7
$16 and under $17______________ 1
1
1
1 ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ,---- --- - ------- --- - -- -- ------- ---- ----i- ------ ---- ---- ------- --··
52 148
71
9
44
1 ______ _
umber placed in positions at rates specified, whose occupation was-
Weekly rate.
Chambermaid,
othflr work.
Waitress.
Other maid .
Nurse (kind
not specified),
Child's nurse.
Nurse (kind
not speci fled
other work).
Part-time
worker.
Not reported.
Miscellaneous.
To. Ne- To- h"
Ne- To.
re- To- Wh.
Ne- To. Ne- To. Ne-To . Ne- '.ro. Ne- To. Neta!. White. gro. tal. W 1te. gro. ta! White. gro. tal.
1te. gro. ta!. White. gro. tal. Wh1te. gro. tal. White. gro. t.al . White. gro. tal. White. gro.
-
- - -- -- - - - - -11- - - - - -
Total____________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
4
-
--- -- -
11
--- -- -- --- -
3
2
-
--- -- -
10
6
3
-
-- -
1 __ ____ _
-
--- -- -
--- -
3 ---- ---
-
3
--- --
14 -------
11
1
1 - -- -- - - 1 - - - - -- ----- ---- ---- - ------ - --1 ---- ------- ---- ---- -- ----- ---- 1 ------- 1
3 -- - ---8 -·-----
3
5
2 ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---·
3 ---- ---- ------- - --- ---- ---- - -- - --- ---- ------- ---- 1 ------1
1 ---- ---- -·----- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- - ------ --··
MEN
t:::,
~t_zj
m
1-3
~
Number placed in positions at rates specified, whose occupation wasWeekly rate
Numlier reported.
Butler, inside other
work.
Butler.
Total_. ___________ __
$11 and
$12 and
$14 and
$15 and
$17 and
$18 and
$20 and
$21 and
under
under
under
under
under
under
nnder
under
$12 ________ _
$13 ____ ____ _
$15 ______ ___
$16 ______ ___
$18 ________ _
$19 ________ _
$2L _______ _
$22 ________ _
29
19
18
aI
12
1
1--------1
Cook.
1
3 ________
0
Not reported.
Miscellaneous.
2
1 _____ ___
1
6
2
3
i ------~- -- ----i-3 ------~-2 -----~- ======== ====== J======= ======== ======== ======== ======== ------i- === ===== ------i- ======== ======== ========
-------2 ------- - - ---- --- -------1 ---- ---- --- ----- --- --- -- ----- --- ---- --- 1 -------1
12
11
1
9
1 ,---- ---1
1 -------1 -------- ----- --- -------2 -------1
1
1 -------- -------- --------1
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- -------- 1 ---·---1
4
15
~
! ------:-::::/-- ---T ------i- ------\::::::: (
::::: :: : ::::: ------•- :::::::: ------•- :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: ------;- ------;- ::::::::
$25 _____ -- -- _-··--- _-------
' Bee ootnote to Table II.
0
00
-:t
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PUBLICATIONS OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU.
• BULLETINS.
1. Proposed Employment of Women During the War in the Industries of 1
Niagara Falls, N. Y. 16 pp. 1918.
No. 2. Labor Laws for Women in Industry in Indiana. 29 pp. 1918.
No. 3. Standards for the Employment of Women in Industry. 7 pp. 1919.
No. 4. Wages of Candy Makers in Philadelphia in 1919. 46 pp. 1910.
No. 5. The Eight-Hour Day in Federal and State Legislation. 19 pp. 1919.
No. 6. The Employment of Women in Hazardous Industries in the United '
States. 8 pp. 1919.
No. 7. Night-Work Laws in the United States. 4 pp. 1919.
No. 8. Women in the Government Service. 37 pp. 1920.
No. 9. Home Work in Bridgeport, Conn~cticut. 35 pp. 1920.
No. 10. Hours and Conditions of Work for Women in Industry in Virginia. 32 pp.
1920.
No. 11. Women Street Car Conductors and Ticket Agents. 90 pp. 1920.
No. 12. The New Position of Women in American Industry. 158 pp. 1920.
No. 13. Industrial Opportunities and Training for Women and Girls. 48 pp. ,
1920.
No. 14. A Physiological Basis for the Shorter Working Day for Women. 20 pp.
1921.
No. 15. Some Effects of Legislation Limiting Hours of Work for Women. 26 pp.
1021.
No. 16. State Laws Affecting Working Women. 1920. 104 pp. 1921. (Superseded PY Bul. No. 40.)
No. 17. Women's Wages in Kansas. 1920. 104 pp. 1921.
No. 18. Health Problems of Women in Industry. 11 pp. 1921.
No. 19. Iowa Women in Industry. 73 pp. 1921.
No. 20. Negro Women in Industry. 65 pp. 1922.
No. 21. Women in Rhode Island Industries. 73 pp. 1922.
No. 22. Women in Georgia Industries. 89 pp. 1922.
No. 23. The Family Status of Breadwinning Women. 43 pp. 1922.
No. 24. Women in Maryland Industries. 96 pp. 1022.
No. 25. Women in the Candy Industry in Chicago and St. Louis. 72 pp. 1023.
No. 26. Women in Arkansas Industries. 85 pp. 1922.
No. 27. The Occupational Progress of Women. 37 pp. 1922.
No. 28. Women's Contributions in the Field of Invention. 51 pp. 1923.
No. 29. Women in Kentucky Industries. 114 pp. 1923.
No. 30. The Share of Wage-Earning Women in Family Support. 170 pp. 1923.
No. 31. What Industry Means to Women Workers. 10 pp. 1923.
No. 32. Women in South Carolina Industries. 128 pp. 1923.
No. 33. Proceedings of the Women's Industrial Conference. 190 pp. 1923.
No. 34. Women in Alabama Industries. 86 pp. 1924.
No. 35. Women in Missouri Industries. 127 pp. 1!)24.
No. 36. Radio Talks on Women in Industry. 34 pp. 1924.
No. 37. Women in New Jersey Industries. 99 pp. 1924.
No. 38. Married \Vomen in Industry. 8 pp. 1924.
No. 39. Domestic Workers and Their Employment Relations. 87 pp. 1924.
No. 40. State Laws Affecting Working Women. (In press.)
No. 41. The Family Status of Breadwinning Women in Four Selected Cities.
(In press.)
No. 42. Minimum Wage for Women in the United States and Canada; a list of
references. (In press.)
No. 43. Standard and Scheduled Hours of Work for Women in Industry. (In
press.)
First Annual Report of the Director. 1919. (Out of print.)
Second Annual Report of the Director. 1920. (Out of print.)
Third Annual Report of the Director. 1921.
Fourth AJ).nual Report of the Director. 1922.
Fifth Annual Report of the Director. 1923.
No.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER