The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
~
ATES DEPA:RTtvIENT 0
WAGES
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FRANCES PERKINS, Secretary
WOMEN'S BUREAU
MARY ANDERSON, Director
+
FACTORS AFFECTIN G WAGES
IN
POWER LAUNDRI ES
BY
BERTHA M. NIE BURG
AND
BERTHA BLAIR
B ULLETIN OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU
No. 143
UNITED ST ATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1396
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Price 10 cent,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
•
CONTENTS
Letter of transmittal _______________ ________________ ______________ _
Findings ________________________________________________________ _
Introduction _____________________________________________________ _
Conditions leading to survey _____ ___________ ___ ___ _________ .. __ _
Adoption of President's Reemployment Substitute Agreement__
The approved code of fair competition ____________________ __ _
Request for survey ____________________________ _________ ___ _
Purposes of the survey ________________________________________ _
Scope of survey _____ _________________________________________ _
Choice of cities ______.____________________________________ _
Laundries included _______________________________________ _
Data secured _____________ _____ __________________________ _
The laundry trade in 22 cities _____________________________________ _
Importance
hand and Chinese laundries compared with power laun-_
dries _____ of
_________________________________________________
Hand laundries __________________________________ -. ___ _____ _
Chinese laundries ___________ ________________________ _____ _
Volume of power-laundry business in 1934 ____ ___________________ _
umber reporting __. _________________ _____ _______________ _
R eceipts of 1934 compared with those of 1933 ____ ____ ____ ___ _
R eceipts of 1934 compared with those of 1929 ___ __ __________ _
Proportion of laundries reporting business gains or losses in 1934
over 1933 or 1929 business __ ----- ----- --- ------- --------Types of laundry service ___________________________________ ____ _
Commercial and linen-supply services _______________________ _
i!1f-~~i!u~e~~i~~~~= ======= == ======================= ======
Kind and amount of labor employed _____________________ ____________ _
Occupations _________________________________________________ _
Sex of workers ____________________ ____ ____ ___ _____ ___________ _
Race of workers _____________________ __________ ______ _________ _
Adequacy of wage rates paid laundry workers ___ __ ______ __ __________ _
Annual per capita amount paid workers _________________________ _
All employees ____________ _______________ ______ ___________ _
Women employees ___ ___________________________________ _ _
Average weekly earnings, by occupation, sex, and race _________ ___ _
Productive workers ____________________________ ___________ _
Office workers ___________________________________________ _
Branch office workers _______________________ ______ ________ _
Mechanics and routemen _______ ___ __ __ ___ _________________ _
in average weekly earnings ______
in laundries
within
the same_
Differences
city _____________________________
_________
__________
Wage rates of women laundry operatives ________________________ _
Occupations and methods of payment _______ _____ ___ _______ _
Prevailing wage rates ______________ _______________________ _
Influence of wage rates on average yearly earnings ___ ______ __ _
Infl.11ence of code rates on women office workers' earnings _________ _
Service load as reflected in hours of work and amount of employment_ __ _
Daily and weekly hours of work _______________________________ _
Hour provisions of the code _______________________________ _
Scheduled weekly hours of work in November 1934 ___________ _
Irregular daily hours ____________ _______ ___ ___________ _
Weekly hours ________________ _________ ____ __________ _ _
Regularity of employment during 1934 __________________________ _
Resort cities _________________________ ____________________ _
III
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page
Vll
1
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
13
15
17
17
17
17
19
19
20
20
22
23
23
24
24
26
26
26
26
30
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
33
36
36
37
37
40
41
42
42
42
42
42
42
46
49
•
IV
CONTENTS
Page
Individual operatives' earnings differences during one week ____ ____ ___ _ _
Prices of laundry service in cities with different wage scales ___ ________ __
Different types of service ______ ___________ ________________ _____ _
Valid price comparisons __ ___________________ ___________ ___ _
List prices on shirts and sheets _________________________ ________ _
Prices on damp-wash family bundle _ _________ __ _____ ___________ _
Prices on family-finished service _____ ______ ____ ______ _________ ___
Comparison of wage rates and retail prices ___________ _______ __ __ _
Shirt prices and hand-ironers' wage rates _____ _______________ _
Sheet prices and flat-work ironers' wage rates ___ __ __________ __
Family-bundle prices and machine-pressers' wage rates ___ _____ _
Comparison of volume of business per productive worker and per productive pay-roll dollar __________ ___ _______ ________ _________ _____ ___ _
Volume p 3r productive worker in cities of 100,000 and over __ ___ ___ _
Volume
per productive worker
in cities
of less than
100,000_______
popula-_
tion ____________________
__ ___
_____________
__ _______
Varip,tions in v_olume per produ~tive worker in laundries in one city __
Volume of business per productive pay-roll dollar _______ __ _______ _
Operating expenses of power laundries in 1934 ___ __ ___ ____________ ___ _
Methods of management cost distribution ___.: ___________________ _
Labor cost percentages ___ ________ _________ __ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ __ __
Administrative, office, and indirect overhead _____ _____ ________ ___ _
Major cost percentage differences _____________________________ _
Appendixes:
A. Classifi cation used in power-laundry costs data __ __ ___________ _
B. Schedule .forms ________ ____________ ______ __________ ______ __
51
55
55
56
57
57
59
60
60
60
62
63
63
64
65
65
66
67
68
69
73
75
78
TEXT TABLES
I. Number of laundry operatives in the United States in 1930, by
geographic and population code grouping __________________ _
II. Total number of hand and power laundries and the number and
percent of workers in each t ype of laundry in 1935 in the 22
cities sur veyed ___ ______________________________________ _
III. Power-laundry receipts in 1934, 1933, and 1929 in 22 cities ____ _
IV. Number of power laundries reporting increases or decreases in
receipts in 1934 as compared with 1933 _________ ____ ___ ___ _
V. Number of power laundries reporting increases or decreases in
receipts in 1934 as compared with 1929 __ ____ _________ ____ _
VI. Kind and amount of laundry service rendered in 1934, by city ___ _
VII . Number and percent of men and women laundry employees in
each occupational group, by race and by city __________ ___ _ _
VIII. Annual per-capita amounts paid to employees in 1934 in 18 cities __
IX. Average weekly earnings of all employees and of occupational
groups during 1934, by sex and race for each city __________ __
X. Range in a verage weekly earnings during 1934 of productive labor
in different laundries within the same city _________________ _
XI. Number of laundries reporting specified rates as prevailing for
experienced women in three productive occupations, by city __ _
X II. Range of prevailing hourly rates reported for experienced women
in three productive occupations, and rate set by the code for all
productive workers, by city ______________________________ _
XIII. Number of laundries operating specified schedule of weekly hours
for various occupations in November 1934, by city __________ _
XIV. Individual operatives' differences in 1 week's earnings according
t o race a nd sex, by city __ _____ __ ______ __________ _________ _
x v. Individual operatives' differences in earnings in Miami according
to race a nd sex in 1 week in November 1934 and 1 week in the
period F ebruary to April 1935 ____________________________ _
X VI. Prevailing retail prices a nd range of retail prices charged for
laundry services, by city ___ ____________ ___ _______________ _
XVII. R etail prices charged for services related t o wage rates that prevailed for three occupations ______________________________ _
XVIII. Comparison of dollar volume of laundry business per productive
worker and per productive pay-coll dollar in 1934 _______ ___ ,_
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
18
21
22
23
25
27
31
34
36
38
40
43
51
54
58
61
64
CONTE TS
V
Page
XIX. Percent which each cost item is of total operating expenses in
power laundries functioning under different types of management in cities of 100,000 population and over, 1934_ __ __ _ __ __
XX. Percent which each cost item is of total operating expenses in
power laundries functioning under different types of management in cities with population of under 100,000, 1934_____ ___
70
72
CHARTS
I. Fluctuations in employment and earnings in power-laundry productive occupations in cities of 100,000 or more population in 1934 __ _
Frontispiece
II. Fluctuations in employment and earnings in power-laundry produc47
tive occupations in cities of less than 100,000 population in 1934 .. _ _
III. Comparisons of employment and earnings fluctuations in powerlaundry productive occupations in a resort city and a commercial
48
city in New J ersey and in Florida in 1934 ___ __________ ________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LETTER OF TRA SMITIAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
WOMEN'S BUREAU,
Washington, June 30, 1936.
I have the honor to submit herewith a study of the
influence of various factors upon wage payments made to laundry
workers in cities of varying populations located in different sections
of the country. The study was begun at the request of the deputy
administrator. for the Laundry Code and the Labor Advisory Board
of the National Recovery Administration in accordance with the
woviso attached to Presidential approval of the Laundry Code that
'the adequacy of the minimum wages established in this code be
given further study."
The survey was conducted, however, so that its findings have
guidance value for employee, employer, and the interested public in
their single or joint efforts to raise the industry to a high operating
level in all cities.
As in earlier surveys, the Bureau had the wholehearted cooperation
of the Laundryowners National Association and of members of the
industry. It counts upon this continued cooperation to bring about
more uniform standards for women workers within the industry with
resultant advantage to those now maintaining highest standards.
The survey was planned and directed by Bertha M. Nienburg,
chief economist. She had the able assistance of Bertha Blair in the
analysis of data and in the preparation of the report. The field work
in different sections of the countl'Y was supervised by Ethel Erickson,
Louise R. Foeste, and Frances Valentine. Material assistance was
rendered the Bureau by a special fund allotment from the National
Recovery .Administration and by assignment of clerical staff from
the Massachusetts and the ew Jersey Emergency Relief Administrations.
Respectfully submitted.
MARY ANDERSO N , Director.
Hon. FRANCES PERKINS,
Secretary of Labor.
MADAM:
VII
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CHART !.- FLUCTUATIONS IN EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN POWER
LAUNDRY PRODUCTIVE OCCUPATIONS IN CITIES OF 100,000 OR MORE
POPULATION IN 1934.
Weekly average=lOO
PAYROLL-----
EMPLOYMENT-
~~i[f.X
r:····::'.',~
CHICAGO
---;;2,/':
--..;-..
-.&:,,,.,.~'---------~=-...........
- __~-;:.~-:.•..o'll·~~---~
1 0 0 1 - - - - - -....~
-.. - 90 ~-~
:9ot~f. . ,
BOSTON
::1
v>
110!
~r /
t
&O
'•
::r>*F -..:: ... µ::ea
PROVIDENCE
,..,, ..--•-••••••
~ ••
~
: : [ ~ •
1101
100
V
........---·--\ f~:;:;;;,..-:::,v,1::~.=¾
NEW ORLEANS
90
,..........
;
\
A
..... ;;:?'
loo . •~~s
\
r . ...,¢, is,,
o
~C
WASHINGTON
-✓
'
r·--- • s/,~•...".>e~ ex:
.,
v
~
\..•.._ ___.,.......
-•-•
V
\
-. C\,Ac'
90
\
IIOI ~100 7
90
~
~ORC~:.ER
~~~
~/ -
1101
PEORIA··----~
90 , .........r--.-....----✓-Y
100
I,,,
Ir
1,
I,
1,
JAN FEB MAR
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
• .
·------,....-.. . .4
V"
t, I t , 1 I , t t I 1 , , , It t t I t , 1
APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV
I ,
1 1
I
I t
,
I,
t
•
\
_
·'
It,
I I
DEC
l
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER
LAUNDRIES
The development of the power-laundry industry has relieved several million housewives of much of the heavy task of washing and ironing household linen and family wearing apparel. What was done by
several million women is now accomplished by approximateiy 200,000
men and women operating power-driven machines. The lessened
physical burden is obvious. Gains to respective communities must
be measured not alone, however, in terms of released woman energy,
but in terms of income brought back into the home through the
concentrated efforts of the few.
The Women's Bureau survey of 1934, covering 348 power laundries
employing approximately 23,000 persons in 22 cities located in New
England, in the Middle Atlantic, East North Central, South Central,
and South Atlantic regions, not only measures the amount the industry pays out in employee-wages in respective communities but
attempts to ascertain the importance of various factors claimed by
the industry to have vital bearing upon wage payment differences.
FINDINGS
I. The amounts paid employees during 1934 differed greatly in
cities in the several geographic areas covered by the survey.
The average annual amounts paid to all men and women employees
in 1934 ranged from $405.72 in Raleigh, N. C., to $885.75 in Boston,
Mass., a variation of 118 percent.
The average annual amounts paid to women laundry operatives,
who form approximately three-fifths of all employees, ranged from
$266.86 in Charleston, S. C., to $634.39 in Boston, Mass., a variation
of 138 percent.
II. There was no relationship between average annual amounts
paid to women operatives and the size of city in which the laundries
operated. Southern cities, however, paid less in wages than cities in
New England or in Middle Atlantic and Midwestern States.
Average annual payments to all women laundry operatives are
shown in descending rank for 18 cities. 1
1 Annual pay-roll data are not available !or Asbury Park, N . J., and because o!wide variations in numbers
employed in resort cities during the year Miami and Orlando, Fla., and Atlantic City, N. J ., are not
included.
84461°-~6-2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
2
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
Metropolitan Boston, Mass __
Brockton_. Mass _______ ___ _ _
Providence, R. L __ ________ _
Metropolitan Newark, N. J __
Worcester, Mass ___ .. ___ ____ _
Metropolitan Washington,
D. C ___________________ _
Chicago, Ill __ __ ___________ _
Decatur, Ill _______________ _
Peoria, Ill _ ____ ____ _______ _
$634. 39
600. 64
553. 68
542. 23
508. 08
498.
492.
425.
425.
69
12
99
87
Camden, . J_ ____________ _ $372. 84
N e,v Orleans, La __________ _ 298. 88
Jacksonville, Fla ________ __ _ _ 286. 39
Savannah, Ga __ ___________ _ 285. 59
Charlotte, N. C ___________ _ 285. 56
Memphis, Tenn __ ___ __ ____ _ 282. 21
Greenville, S. C ___________ _ 279. 53
Raleigh, . C _________ ____ _ 267. 55
Charleston, S. C ___________ _ 266. 86
III. These city differences in average annual payments to women
operatives are due primarily to city differences in wage rates paid.
Contributing causes are differences in weekly hours employed and in
regularity of employment throughout the year.
Laundries in the two cities in which women laundry operatives were
paid the largest amounts. Boston and Brockton, paid hourly rates of
30 cents or more to the larger number of women workers. Worcester
also paid a 30-cents-an-hour rate, but a shorter workweek than in
the other two Massachusetts cities resulted in lower average weekly
and average annual earnings. Brockton, a smaller city than Worcester, maintained high average annual earnings by laundry collections
from shore summer resort populations, thus affording longer hours of
employment and increased earnings to employees during the summer
months.
Providence and Newark, cities whose laundries ranked third and
fourth, respectively, in annual amounts earned by women operatives,
paid a prevailing wage rate of 27½ cents an hour, which accounts for
much of the difference in annual earnings between these cities and
Boston. Boston employees, however, also worked~somewhat longer
weekly hours.
While 25 cents an hour was the prevailing wage rate paid women
in Chicago, many laundries paid lower rates. As a consequence, even
though weekly hours of employment were on the whole longer than
in Boston, and a summer increase in business occurred, in part due
to the Century of Progress Exposition, the lower rates were sufficient
to account for annual earnings of women operatives in Boston
almost 30 percent above those in Chicago . The annual earnings of
women operatives probably will be greater in 1936 as a minimum
wage of 28 cents an hour has been fixed for laundries in Chicago by
the State Minimum Wage Commission.
.
W ashington 1 Peoria, and Camden had the same prevailing rate
as Chicago, or 25 cents an hour, and Decatur's rate fell to 22½ or
25 cents. But the weekly hours of employment in these last three
cities were decidedly lower than in Chicago, and consequently annual
earnings were materially lower. In Washington weekly hours and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINDINGS
3
the summer increase in business corresponded to conditions in Chicago; the larger proportions of Washington laundries paying 25 cents
an hour, however, brought the year's earnings to a little higher level
in that city than that of Chicago women operatives.
A 14-cent rate per hour prevailed in Jacksonville, Savannah,
Charlotte, Memphis, Greenville, and Charleston and accounted in
large measure for earnings of less than $300 a year among women
operatives in these cities. The slight variation in annual earnings
in these cities is due for the most part to more regular weekly employment throughout the year in some cities than in others.
Only in New Orleans, a city of over 450,000 population, and in
Raleigh, N. C., a city of less than 38,000 population, did the wage
rates paid to women operatives fall below 14 cents an hour to any
great extent. W cekly hours were . decidedly longer in New Orl eans
than in any of the other cities surveyed . Consequently annual per
capita earnings of
ew Orleans women laundry operatives were
higher than in the smaller cities in which 14 cents was the prevailing
rate.
The three resort cities, Miami, Orlando, and Atlantic City, pursued
the sam e policy during the visitor season; that is, while extra operatives were taken on, those who were employed during the 9 months
of resident business were permitted to work very long hours during
the rush period. This raised the yearly earnings of regular employees
materially, although the average annual amount pa1d to all women
productive workers, based on the maximum number employed in
any one week, does not reach $300 per woman.
IV. Contrary to general opinion there is no consistent relationship
between retail prices the public pays for laundry services and wage
rates paid women operatives in any geographic area.
The lowest prevailing price for a machine-pressed family-finished
bundle, 10 cents a pound, was charged by Boston and by Jacksonville
laundries where prevailing wage rates paid women operatives were
30 cents an hour and 14 cents an hour, :respectively. Laundries in
Chicago and Raleigh reported 11.8 cents as prevailing poundage
rates, and prevailing operatives' wage rates per hour were 25 cents
and 14 cents or less, respectively.
In 13 of the 22 cities, of which half were southern, the list price
for laundering men's shirts was 15 cents . Out of the 82 laundries
charging this price, the wage rate paid hand ironers who finish the
shirts was 14 cents or less in 32 percent, 15 but less than 25 cents in
24 percent, 25 cents in another 24 percent, and from 26 to more
than 30 ~ents in 20 percent of these laundries.
Of the laundries scattered in different sections of the country that
charged 8 cents as the {ist price per sheet, as many paid flat-work
ironers 14 cents or less per hour as paid from 20 to 25 cents per hour.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
V. The dollar volume of laundry turned out by men and women
productive operatives in 1934 varied markedly from city to city.
Southern cities generally secured lower output per worker. Such
city variations frequently do not bear an equitable relationship,
however, to city variations in amounts paid productive operatives.
Chicago laundries report $4 7 .21 as the weekly volume of business
per productive worker employed, or 11 percent more than was reported by Boston laundries and 20 percent more than by Washington laundries. While Chicago and Washington retail prices were
somewhat higher than in Boston, so hat quantitative output per
productive worker was less than is shown by dollar volume, there is
no warrant in these differences in output for 14 percent lower earnings
of productive operatives in Chicago than in Boston, or for 19 percent
lower earnings in Washington than in Boston.
Comparison of laundries in New Orleans and in Washington, cities
having about the same population, shows dollar output per productive
worker to be approximately 42 percent higher in Washington than
in New Orleans, while the earnings difference in the same laundries
was 68 percent.
Between laundries in Memphis and those in Providence, cities of
about 250,000 population, there was a difference in dollar output
from low to high of about 50 percent, while the variation in earnings
of all productive workers was 85 percent.
In cities of less than 100,000 population, differences in dollar volume
of output per productive worker tend to be greater than differences
in average earnings of productive workers.
VI. Racial differences do not influence variations in earnings in
Middle Atlantic and Lake cities as much as in the South.
In Washington and in New Orleans about the same proportion of
white and Negro women operatives were employed in power laundries.
In Washington the average weekly earnings of white women were
9 percent higher than those of Negro women, in New Orleans 21
percent higher.
·
In Atlantic City, where about two-fifths of the women operatives
were Negroes, the earnings of white women were less than 5 percent
higher, whereas in Raleigh they were 34 percent higher than those of
Negro operatives.
VII. A comparison of laundry receipts with productive pay-roll
expenditures in the several cities shows payments to productive
operatives in southern cities to-be lower than is warranted by differences in output per productive operative in the several cities.
Jacksonville laundries, where prevailing rates of pay to women
productive workers were 14 cents, New Orleans and Raleigh laundries,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINDINGS
5
where rates were 10, 11, 11½, 12, or 14 cents an hour, secured the
largest dollar volume of work for each productive pay-roll dollar spent,
or $4.33, $4.08, and $4.06, respeotively.
Memphis laundries, ranking seventeenth in the cities in average
weekly earnings of productive workers, ranked seventh in value
relationship between receipts and productive pay roll.
In Southern cities of less .than 100,000 population the dollar volume
of laundry received for each dollar productive pay-roll expenditure
exceeded that in three larger New England cities.
The lowest receipt yield occurred in Worcester and Boston laundries
where $2.84 and $3.02 worth of business was done respectively for
every dollar expended on productive pay rolls. These cities paid wage
rates to women productive operatives of 30 cents or more per hour.
VIII. There is a marked tendency for the entire labor cost to
approximate 50 percent of total operating costs in laundries in many
cities. Productive labor cost percentages, however, vary from city to
city, largely in inverse ratio to routemen's cost percentages.
In Boston and Providence manager- or owner-executive-operated
laundries productive labor costs were 30 percent or more while
routemen's costs did not exceed 12 percent of total costs. In Chicago
and New Orleans productive labor costs were 25 percent or less while
routemen's costs ranged from 16 ½ percent to slightly over 20 percent.
The same general relationship in cost percentages was found in
cities of less than 100,000 population. In Savannah owner-operated
laundries, where productive labor costs were 32 percent, routemen's
cost percentages were 12 percent; in Atlantic City laundries of this
type where productive labor costs were 29 percent, routemen's cost
percentages were 15 percent.
IX. Such differences as exist in costs other than labor costs are
not peculiar to any section of the country nor to cities of different
size.
The proportion spent on productive supplies differed but slightly
from city to city and formed approximately 10 percent of total
operating costs in owner- and manager-operated laundries.
Building, machinery, and power plant overhead ranged from 10
percent of total costs in Greenville to 24.6 percent in Charlotte, in
owner-operated laundries.
The entire cost of collection, delivery, and sales promotion in
owner- and manager-operated laundries was approximately 23 per·cent in 14 of the 20 cities reporting. It reached 29 percent or. higher
only in Chicago, Newark, and New Orleans.
Differences in proportionate cost of administrative and indirect
overhead ranged from 9 percent in Chic.ago manager-<'Jer~t~d
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
FA0I'ORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
laundries to 20 percent or more in owner-operated laundries in Brockton and Orlando.
X. The President's Reemployment Agreement and the Code of
Fair Competition under the National Industrial Recovery Act, even
though not legally in effect, exerted marked influence upon wage rates
paid and prices charged in 1934.
While not all laundries adhered strictly to code rates, in all cities
save New Orleans and R aleigh code rates or higher wage rates
prevailed.
Attempts to adopt uniform names for the several types of laundry
service offered to the public and to agree upon a narrow price range
within which charges for these services were to fall proved successful
in the larger New Jersey cities, in Memphis, Tenn., and in Peoria, Ill.
While a seeming uniformity in prices was being brought about in
New Orleans and in Jacksonville; it was caused by price wars waged
in attempts to force laundry consolidations.
XI. Provisions for work-hours limitations of the Code of Fair
Competition under the National Recovery Act did not meet with
noticeable response anywhere.
The tendency in smaller laundries was to operate each day in accordance with the demands of the work at hand, which usually resulted
in a workweek of less than 40 hours for women operatives. In
laundries where work was organized so that 8 hours was .the prevailing
day, the workweek for productive workers seemed to fall between 40
and 45 hours during the year in many cities. Prevailing hours were
shortest in Camden, Charleston, Asbury Park, and D ecatur, and were
longest in R aleigh and New Orleans.
Save in resor t cities employment in power laundries is very regular
from week to week, with little difference in business demands during
the year between cities of varying population or between cities in
different sections of the country. Such increase as does occur in
laundry business comes during the summer months and is met · by
increase in workers employed and by more regular daily hours for all
employees.
XII. Although laundries within a city tended to pay similar wage
rates, operate similar weekly hours, and offer . similar prices to the
public, extremes within cities were almost as great as the ranges
between cities.
·
·Hourly wage rates for the same type of ironing varied from 15 to 28
cents in the several Chict!,go power laundries; from 2?½ to 37 cents
in the several Boston laundries; from 20 to 30 centEl in yYashl;i:igton
laundries ; and from io to 15 cents in Qreenville launqries. ,. >•.::·:~·
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINDINGS
7
In Chicago white women operatives' average earnings during the
year ranged from $6.51 to $16.24 per week in the several laundries;
in New Orleans, from $6 .11 to $11.44; in Jacksonville Negro women
operatives' earnings varied in different establishments from $3.75 to
$6. 71 per week.
The greatest variation in prices charged for laundering shirts occurred in Chicago and Boston where 10 cents was the lowest price
charged and 20 cents the highest. However, the 10-cent price was
reported by only one laundry in Chicago and by five in Boston, and
the 20-cent price by one and three laundries, respectively. In Washington the prices charged for sheets ranged from 7 to 10 cents.
Prices on machine-pressed family bundle varied by 100 percent in
laundries within Providence and in laundries within Worcester.
XIII. Variations within the same city in the dollar volume of
business per productive worker employed leave no doubt but that
correction of fundamental defects in management of some laundries
is necessary before all laundry employees will receive fair value for
services rendered and the consuming public will pay only fair value for
services received.
The weekly dollar volume of laundry business per productive man
and woman worker ranged from $33.75 to $57.87 in Chicago; from
$27.14 to $56.58 in Boston; from $34.88 to $54.06 in Newark; from
$20.49 to $31.55 in Charlotte; and from $19.13 to $35.99 in Jacksonville.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER
LAUNDRIES
INTRODUCTION
CONDITIONS LEADING TO SURVEY
R educed consumer incom e following upon 1930 depressed business
conditions was immediately reflected in power-laundry service sales.
The laundry industry had experienced continuous busmess expansion
through 1929, but efforts to retain trade by sharp price cutting could
not stem the downward trend of service sales. The dollar volume of
business in 1933 was 55 percent of that done in 1929, due in part to
price cuts but also to decreased use of laundry service. The resulting
effect upon laundry workers was not only to reduce their numbers
but, in all probability, also to lower wage rates, until the total 1933
pay roll was but 55 percent of the 1929 pay roll. 2
Adoption of President's Reemployment Substitute Agreement.
The laundry industry recognized the dangers to employee and
employer in continuing price-cutting warfare and was quick to adopt,
in the fall of 1933, the President's Reemployment Substitute Agreemen t as the first step toward lifting wages from the low level to which
they had fallen . D uring the period m which a laundry code was
under discussion before the National R ecovery Administration, and
after a code was framed and general adoption was being urged by the
Laundryowners National Association, the special hour and wage
provisions a.greed upon under the President's Reemployment Agreement were in effect. Maximum hours were limited to 45 a week.
Minimum hourly rates of pay were based on geographic location,
the United States being divided into five areas, and the rates for the
different areas varying from 14 cents (southern area) to 27½ cents
(east ern area).
The approved code of fair competition.
A code for the laundry trade was drawn up. It was approved by the
President February 16, 1934, with the proviso that "said code of fair
competition be and is hereby approved for a period of 90 days, within
which period the adequacy of the minimum wages established in
this code shall be given further study by the Administrator, who
shall submit his report and recommendation to me for my further
order."
The code did not go into effect automatically, however, for an
E xecutive order specified that the provisions of the code should not
be in effect in trade areas until certain requirements had been fulfilled, among which was the establishment of code control boards.
I t was to be th e duty of th ese boards to obtain signatures of at least
85 percent of the members of th e trade in an area to a petition testifying to the existence of "an em ergency productive of widespread
unemployment ." Also, they were to determine uniform names for
laundry services, to define such services as a necessary preliminary
2 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Manufactures: 1933. P ower Laun dries, Cleaning and D yeing Establishments, Rug-Cleaning E stablishments, p. 4.
84461 ° - 3 6 -3
9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
to setting prices, and to determine "fair and reasonable minimum
wholesale and retail pricesv, which were designed to prevent the
recurrence of vicious price cutting such as had taken place.
Although headway was being made in establishing these control
boards, conditions m the laundry industry prevented the speedy
accomplishment of these prerequisites to the enforcement of the code.
Laundries already abiding by the provisions of the President's Reemployment Agreement continued to do so. However, on June 28 a
Presidential order was issued designed to bring into line establishments where substandard working conditions prevailed. It called
for the adoption by all laundries of the wage and hour and general
labor provisions that had been approved February 16, 1934.
Requests for survey.
Thereupon, the deputy administrator of the Laundry Code and the
Labor Advisory Board requested the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor to conduct the survey called for by the President in
his approval of the code on February 16, 1934-a survey to determine
the adequacy of minimum-wage provisions. These requests received
the approval of the Secretary of Labor and the executive secretary
of the National Industrial Recovery Board in February 1935, and
the survey was begun accordingly in March 1935.
Because the constitutionality of any code for service trades was
in doubt at this time, it was decided to plan and conduct the investigation so that the findings would be of value not alone in code provision
discussions and decisions but in any other consideration of factors
determining labor policies within the industry. While, therefore,
the investigation pivots about problems brought to the fore in code
hearings, the facts disclosed have permanent guidance value for
employer, employee, and the interested public.
·
·
PURPOSES OF THE SURVEY
The code for the laundry industry was presented to the National
Recovery Administration by the Laundryowners National Association, which, through its associated membership, was said to represent
approximately 82 percent of the power-laundry business of the country. The arguments presented in support of the various provisions,
therefore, may be said to represent the ideas of the industry generally
on these matters at that time.
The Code of Fair Competition for the Laundry Trade set up
different wage rates for all employees according to three population
groups. For productive workers different rates were also set up for
five geographic areas, while for office workers the rates varied for the
North and ·the South.
Representatives of the industry based their arguments for payment
of different wage rates in different parts of the country on the assumption that the wages a laundry can pay to its workers are determined
by the prices it can charge for its services. The prices a laundry can
charge are :fi,~ed, in turn, by the number of unregulated competitors
such as washwomen and domestics and the average income per
family, which vary greatly from one part of the country to another.
The existence of large numbers of such competitors in the South was
the mairi reason given for the impossibility of increasing the rate over
the 14-cent minimum proposed.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
INTRODUCTION
Against the proposal to set higher rates generally than those pro. posed, the industry argued that this would only make more precarious the condition of 1n industry already financially overburdened.
Furthermore, it was argued that in comparison with other industries
the yearly earnings of laundry workers showed up favorably; that
though the rates set were lower than those paid in other industries,
employment was steadier and annual earnings, therefore, greater.
To test the soundness of these arguments, which actually determined the code provisions, as well as to test the adequacy of minimum
wages established by the code, the survey ascertained:
I. Existing annual earnings made possible by different rates paid and hours
worked in cities of various populations in each geographic area; data separated
by principal occupations, by sex, and by color for productive occupations.
II . Irregularity of service load, whether seasonal or daily, in cities having varying population needs.
III. Differences in prices charged the public in various sections of the country
which may have affected rates paid workers.
IV. Differences in cost of doing business in different sections of the country
which may have affected rates paid workers.
V. Other factors that influence the ratio between the amount the laundry
business collects from the public and the amount it distributes to its employees.
SCOPE OF SURVEY
Choice of cities.
As has been stated , the code, as t emporarily approved, allowed for
productive workers differentials in wage rates among five groups of
States and among cities of differing population within each of these
groups. The rates established were on the hourly basis as follows:
Hourly rate set by code for cities ofGeographic grouping
Ai _________ ________ _____________ _
B 2 ______________________________ _
Ca _______ _________________ __ ____ _
D •---- - - --- - - ------- -- -. ------------ --Es
______________________
More than
600,000
Cents
30
25
22½
20
14
100,000 to 600,000 Less than 100,000
Cents
27½
25
22½
20
14
Cents
25
22½
20
18
14
1 Includes California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada,
ew Hampshire, northern New Jersey, ew York, western Oregon, Rhode I sland, Vermont, western Washington, and Wyoming.
2 Includes AriZ0na, Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota. Nebraska, southern New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, eastern Oregon, Pennsylvania, South D akota, Utah, eastern Washington, and Wisconsin.
3 Includes Delaware, southern Illinois, southern Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, and northern Missouri.
• Includes Kentucky, southern Missouri, New Mexico except Albuquerque, Oklahoma, western Texas,
northern Virginia, and West Virginia.
1 Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia. Louisiana, Mississippi, Albuquerque, N. Mex., North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, eastern Texas and trade areas of El Paso and San Antonio, and
southern Virginia.
·
In order to ascertain the economic validity of population and geographic areas as wage-rate determinants it was necessary to carry
the survey into cities falling in the major groups in approximate
proportion to the number of wage earners affected by these groups.
As shown in table I , compiled from the United States Census of
Occupations, 1930, of the five groups set up by the code the A and
B groups together had the majority of the workers, more than twothirds of the women and four-fifths of the men. The third largest
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
group was in area E (the South), and a greater proportion of the
women than of the men were employed there. As these three geographic areas covered well over four-fifths of all women laundry
workers, the Women's Bureau's survey was confined to cities classified
by the code in these groups.
TABLE
!.- Number of laundry operatives in the United States in 1930
graphic and population code grouping
All cities
Geographic grouping
Cities of more
than 600,000
Cities of 100,000
to 600,000
1
by geo-
Cities of 25,000
but less than
100,000
2
Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
---- - - -- - - - - - - United States _______________ 380,229 3160, 475 30,961 43,602 17, 136 44,328 26,551
60, 149
------ ---·--- -- -- -- 50,597 18, 708 20,391
6,540 11,730 10,570
18,476
A _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35,818
51, 167 10, 731 18,842
5,415 13,977
7,800
18,348
B __-- - --- --- -- -- --- -- - -- -- -- --- --- 23,946
832
3,199
1,134
2,691
c _____ ---- ------- --- -------------- 3,488 10,259 1,522 4,369
3,849
2,271
3,406
9,536 -------- ---- ---- 1, 135
5,687
D _____ -- --- -- --- -- - --- -- -- - ---- -- 26,520 -------- -------- 3,214 11,573
7,990
4,776
14,947
E _____ -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - Men
1 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census, 1930. Population, vol. IV, Occupations. The
numbers reported in this census include all those who, when interviewed, gave laundry work as their occupation, although they may not have been employed at the time the census was taken.
2 See footnotes to foregoing summary for list of States in each group.
a Total exceeds details ·because 5,581 men and 12,396 women in towns of less than 25,000 population, of
which the number in each area is not known, are included.
The 1930 census shows that the 30-cent rate, which is the highest
rate set by the code, applied to laundries in four cities only, Boston,
New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, there being only four
cities with a population of more than 600,000 in group A. In the
same group there are 28 cities of 100,000 to 600,000 population; for
cities of this size the code set a 27½ cent minimum rate.
An examination of the State minimum-wage rates covering women
in this industry in these cities where code rates were set at 30 cents
and 27}~ cents shows that in Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif.,
and in New York City higher minimum-wage rates had been established by law than those fixed by the code. Since the code provided
that when this occurred the rate set by State law should be considered
binding, workers in laundries in the California cities were guaranteed
a somewhat higher minimum rate ($16 for a week of 48 hours) than
that fixed by the code. For New York City laundry workers a minimum wage of 31 cents an hour had been fixed by State law, whereas
the code rate was 30 cent-6. The code rate was higher than that set
by State law in Boston only, consequently Boston was chosen as the
large city in group A to be included in the survey. Of the 28 cities in
group A with a population of 100,000 to 600,000, 20 were covered by
minimum-wage laws under which rates were the same as, or higher
than, the 27½-cent rate that the code had set. 3 Laundry workers in
the following eight cities would have benefited by the rate fixed by
the code: Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven, Conn.; Elizabeth,
Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson, N. J.; and Providence, R. I.
Providence and Newark were chosen, therefore, as indicative of
changes brought about by the reemployment or code agreements,
a Cities of 100,000 to 600,000 in group A where State minimum wage rates are in force are: Long Beach,
Oakland, San Diego, Calif.; Cambridge, Fall River, Lowell, Lynn, New Bedford, Somerville, Springfield,
and Worcester, Mass.; Albany1 Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, and Yonkers, N. Y.; Portland , Oreg.;
and Seattle and Tacoma, Wasn .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INTRODUCTION
13
while Worcester was included for comparison with Boston conditions.
Two cities of less than 100,000 population in group A were surveyed,
Brockton, Mass., and Asbury Park, . J.
In group B Chicago was chosen as representative of a large city,
while Washington, D. C., Camden, N. J., and Peoria, Ill., were chosen
to represent varied conditions .in cities of 100,000 to 600,000 population, and Atlantic City, N. J., and Decatur, Ill., as examples of cities
of less than 100,000 population in the B geographic grouping.
There are no cities in group E of over 600,000 population. Memphis, Tenn., New Orleans, La., and Jacksonville and Miami, Fla.,
represent cities of over 100,000 population in the 14-cent-per-hour
geographic group in this survey. Cities with less than 100,000
population surveyed in the South were Savannah, Ga., Charlotte and
Raleigh, . C., Charleston and Greenville, S. C., and Orlando, Fla.
In other words, the survey covered the laundry industry in 22 cities
in New England, the Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, South Central,
and East North Central States.
Laundries included.
The survey was conducted by agents of the Women's Bureau, who
visited in person associations of employers and employees and State
departments of labor and conferred with individual laundry owners
and managers. They also consulted local sales agents of laundry
machinery and supplies and leading Chinese of the Chinese quarters
in large cities. From these groups a current list of all laundries
serving the public in each city was obtained, together with information as to the type of laundry conducted and the numbers of men and
women employed therein. (See table II, p. 18.) Only thus could
the relative importance of the hand and the Chinese laundries in each
city be determined. The survey excluded hotel and institutional
laundries and manufacturers' laundries that served only a specific
industry or institution and did not compete for business in the open
market. In these 22 cities there were 605 laundries employing 33,770 ·
persons in 1935.
Although the Chinese laundries were shown to be a competitive
factor of some importance in a few cities, this census revealed that
the power laundry did by far the greatest share of the laundry business
and employed the greatest number of workers. Consequently, it was
advisable to confine the detailed study of factors affecting wages and
prices to power laundries.
From all of the commercial power laundries in the following cities
detailed data were secured: New Orleans, Memphis, Camden, Peoria,
Savannah, Charlotte, Brockton, Greenville, and Orlando. In Worcester, Charleston, and-Decatur all the laundries in each city except
one employing a small number of workers were included, and in
Jacksonville, Miami, Atlantic City, and Raleigh all but two.
In a few cities the trading areas of the industry included more than
the area within the city limits and in such cases laundries located in
the surrounding territory that did business in competition with those
located in the city were included in the city survey.
In four of the larger cities agents did not attempt to secure detailed
data for every power laundry as they did in the other cities visited
but took precautions to include a. representative number of small,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
medium, and large laundries and laundries specializing in various
types of work in each locality, to insure representative data. Seventyone of the 91 power laundries in metropolitan Boston were scheduled.
In Chicago, where the survey was confined to laundries located within
the city limits, information was secured from 50 of a total of 193.
In Newark, where, like Boston, the situation in the industry made it
important to include laundries in the surrounding territory, 21 of the
63 were visited. In Providence the proportion of laundries visited
was about one-third, but they were the largest laundries, employing
by far the majority of the laundry workers in the city. In each ,c f the
cities mentioned the laundries visited employed more than one-third
of the laundry workers, the proportion amounting to 96 percent in
Boston, 78 percent in Providence, 40 percent in Chicago, and 36
percent in Newark.
As shown by the summary following, the detailed survey included
348 power-laundry establishments, employing almost 23 ,000 workers.
This number represents more than one-half (57.5 percent) of the
actual number of power laundries and more than two-thirds (68 percent) of the laundry workers that the Bureau found employed in 1935
in 22 cities. Also, the same 23,000 workers represent more than onetenth of the more than 200,000 laundry operatives who, according to
the 1930 Census of Occupations, were employed in the sections of
the country included in groups A, B, and E.
The 22 cities included in the survey are listed, in the summary
following and the various tables, in descending order according to
population.
Employees
Laundries
Percent of
Total
Number
Total
Number all employ7umber in included in number in included in ees includ1935 1
survey
1935 1
survey
ed in survey
City
All cities ______ _____ ____ __. ______ ____
Chicago, IlL ____ __• ________ __ _____ ____ ___
Boston, M ass.2_ - - - -- -- ------------ ------ -
605
2
if
:;hWr1!~~;,1tt·_
Newark,
N. J .2__ ___=======================
________________ ______
Memphis, T enn ___________________ _____ __
Providence, R. !.__________________ _______
Worcester, Mass__ _______ ___ ______ ________
Jacksonville, Fla__ __ ________________ _____ _
Camden, N . J. _____________ ______________
Miami, Fla_____ ____ _______ _____ _________ _
Peoria, Ill_____ __ _____________________ _____
Savannah, Ga_ ________ __ _____ _________ ___
Charlotte, N. c ___________ _______________
Atlantic City, N . J . - - -- -- -- --- ----------Brockton, M ass_____ ___ ______ ______ _______
Charleston, S. c_____ ________ ___________
Decatur, Ill.._ __ __ ___ ___ ______________ ___ _
Raleigh , N. C_____ _____ ______ _______ ____ _
Greenville, S. c_ __________ ________ _______
Orlando, Fla_____ _____ __________________ __
Asbury Park, N. J.___ ___ _________ ________
1
1
193
33,770
22,962
68. 0
-1--- -
50
71
12, 119
3, 622
4, 840
3,486
39. 9
96.2
~~
33
15
21
16
15
9
11
12
22
12
3, 922
1,504
3, 817
1, 458
1, 498
432
661
407
950
405
3,729
1,493
1, 372
1, 458
1, 162
429
634
407
805
405
95.1
99. 3
35. 9
1()0. 0
77. 6
99.3
95. 9
100.0
84. 7
100.0
9
8
9
8
9
4
450
621
466
140
186
131
289
280
195
217
450
621
386
140
169
125
190
280
195
186
100. 0
100. 0
82. 8
100. 0
90. 9
95.4
65. 7
100. 0
100. 0
85. 7
91
63
16
47
10
13
12
24
12
11
4
5
5
7
6
7
10
Data secured by Women 's Bureau. See table II, p. 18.
Metropolitan area.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
348
1- -- -1 - -- - -1 - - - --
4
4
.5
6
7
5
INTRODUCTION
15
Data secured.
Full information called for on the schedules could not be secured
from every one of the 348 laundries. Back pay-roll records were not
preserved by some laundries, others did not keep any record of sales
volume for each type of work done, and some laundries had cost
records in such a state of disorder as to make efforts at untangling
them too costly. However, a sufficient proportion reported on the
various items to make data extremely significant.
D ata covering the number of employees in each laundry were secured uniformly so far as was possible for the pay-roll week ending
November 10, 1934, in the following detail: The number of productive workers, men and women, Negro and white; the number of engineers, firemen, mechanics, and general around-the-plant laborers; the
number of office workers, men and women; and the number of routemen and drivers. Rates of pay that prevailed for the different groups
of workers during this same week in November were secured from the
pay roll, and any adjustments in rates that had occurred sinoe that
period were noted. This information was gotten also for each of the
main groups of productive workers, including markers and sorters,
wash men, flat-work operators, press operators, hand ironers, and
assemblers and packers. Though there was some variation in rates
paid to individual workers, by scrutinizing the pay roll carefully
agents were able to report for each establishment, except the very
small ones, just what rates prevailed for each type of work.
The pay-roll totals for each week in 1934 were copied by agents of
the Women's Bureau in a portion of the laundries covered. The
numbers of men and women productive laundry workers of each race,
together with the amount each group earned, and the numbers of
men and women employed in other factory capacities-in the offic~,
in branch offices, or as routemen-and the amount each group received, were secured for each of the 52 weeks. These data not only
show the regularity of employment both as to numbers and as to
earnings but reveal clearly the pay-roll load carried throughout the
year by each laundry. As a check against this method of determining the average payments made by laundries to their employees,
individual earnings for the pay-roll week in November were copied
in a portion of the establishments.
Records of daily working hours were not generally kept after time
cards had been used for pay-roll purposes. Although an attempt was
made to secure departmental hours from pay rolls of November 10
for each major branch of the service, the statement of laundry managers as to prevailing daily and weekly hours was sometimes the only
source of information available concerning hours worked. Consequently hours-of-work data must be considered as indicative of general
trends only, in specific laundries in the different cities.
In addition, considerable information was secured about the business itself. Receipts for the year 1934 were reported for a large
number of establishments, together with information as to the kinds
and amounts of different laundry work done by each laundry, such
as family bundle work, finished, semifinished, or damp wash, list
price, commercial flat work, and linen supply work, the amount of
each kind of business done being reported in dollars and cents. In
order to measure the changes in business volume, receipts for the
years 1929 and 1933 were secured wherever available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
From laundries that were doing any retail business, agents secured
price lists showing the amounts charged for the different services
offered. The price date chosen was November 1934 in order that
comparison could be made between wage rates and prices charged.
Notations were made of any price changes that had occurred between
that time and the actual time of the survey as well as any facts about
price changes that had taken place earlier. Laundries were not
willing to disclose prices on commercial flat and linen supply to the
Bureau's agents. In numerous instances no uniformity of price
existed, the custom being to offer bids for each job that was solicited.
Still further examination of the problems of the trade was made
possible through the cooperation of members of the industry in making
available to the Women's Bureau the record of their expenditures.
This information was secured in considerable detail and wherever
possible for 1934. In order to insure uniformity, the break-down of
costs adopted by the Women's Bureau was that used by the Laundryowners National Association, described in detail on pages 75 to 77
of this report.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE LAUNDRY TRADE IN TWENTY-TWO CITIES
IMPORTANCE OF HAND AND CHINESE LAUNDRIES
COMPARED WITH POWER LAUNDRIES
Much h~s been said by power-laundry owners of the competition
from hand and Chinese laundries during the depression. Their
economic strength in the 22 cities visited was measured, therefore,
by data secured by the Bureau's agents. Lists of all laundries in
each city were secured from agents of the laundry-supply and machine
companies selling in each area, from local laundry owners' associations,
from State labor departments, and from Chinese leaders in the Chinese
section of the city. All laundries operated by white or Negro races
were either visited in person or called on the telephone. The difficulty
of conferring with Chinese laundry operators made it necessary to
consult Chinese leaders and laundry-machine agents selling to Chinese
laundries concerning the type of laundry done, its extent, and the
numbers employed by the establishments.
Hand laundries.
The hand laundry operated by white or Negro persons is a very
small factor in the laundry business save in Miami and Charleston.
By "hand laundry" is meant a laundry that specializes in hand
ironing of fine articles or apparel. These laundries often use a power
washing machine or give out the washing to be done by a power
laundry. In these two southern cities the hand laundries employed
about 10 percent of all laundry workers. (See table II.) Miami
power-laundry operators considered them so much of a problem that
the industry was using its influence in support of legislation to
regulate these small laundries, referred to usually as fly-by-night
es tab lishmen ts.
Table II does not include the washwoman who takes washing into
her home from other homes, a person considered the principal competitor of power laundries in Charlotte, Charleston, and Jacksonville.
In these cities the volume of manufacturing business was claimed to
have decreased at least 50 percent during the depression, and as a
result all cities reported extensive unemployment. This had had a
direct effect on the amount of business done by the laundries, for
persons formerly employed in manufacturing were so much in need of
money they were willing to launder clothes at a very low price.
Chinese laundries.
In metropolitan Boston the Chinese laundries ~mploy ~pproximately 37 percent of the laundry workers. The laundries are under
the supervision of a central organization and are located at regular
intervals throughout the apartment-house districts. The washings
of these laundries are done for the most part by four wet-wash laundries
operated by Chinese. A number of laundries are now installing ironing
machines operated by white girls in order to overcome some racial
prejudice believed to exist among American women. Such a wellorganized business is indeed an important factor which cannot fail
to affect the competitive conditions encountered by power laundries
operated by the white race.
84461 °-36-4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17
TABLE
IL-Total number of hand and power laundries and the number and percent of workers in each type of laundry in 1985 in the SS citiu
·
surveyed 1
Total laundries
City
Chicago, IlL ___________________________ _
Boston, Mass.2 _________________________ _
Washington, D. c.2 ___________ ___ ______ _
New Orleans, La ____ ___________________ _
Newark, N . J .2_______ _________________ _
Memphis, Tenn . __ ____________________ _
Providence, R. !_ ______________________ _
Worcester, Mass _______________________ _
Jacksonville, Fla _______ ~- ______________ _
Camden, N. J ____ ____________ __ _______ _
1
We~ria~'
it_~====: =: =:: :: == :: : =: == ========
Savannah, Ga _____ ____________________ _
Charlotte, N . c _______ _________________ _
Atlantic City. N. J_ __ _________________ _
Brockton, Mass. ____________ ________ ___ _
Charleston, S. c _______________________ _
Decatur, Ill ____________________________ _
Raleigh, N. c __________ ___ _____________ _
Greenville, S. C _______________________ _
Orlando, Fla ___________________________ _
Asbury Park, N . J_ ____________________ _
1
Other band laundries
Chinese band laundries
Power laundries
Employees
Employees
Employees
Number of Number of Number of l - - -- ~ - -- - - I Number of 1----------1 Number of 1----~----laundries employees laundries
Percent of laundries
Percent of laundries
of
Number Percent
Number
total
Number
total
total
893
1,502
346
30
231
20
48
12
29
12
74
17
16
16
11
21
19
7
8
6
11
11
13,654
5,801
4,581
1,560
4,043
1,463
1,498
434
697
407
1,072
414
470
640
466
159
233
136
291
280
197
219
193
91
37
15
63
16
47
10
13
12
24
12
9
8
11
4
5
5
7
6
7
10
12,119
3,622
3,922
1,504
3,817
1,458
1,498
432
661
407
950
405
450
621
466
140
186
131
289
280
195
217
88. 8
62. 4
85. 6
96. 4
94. 4
99. 7
100.0
99. 5
94. 8
100. 0
88. 6
97. 8
95. 7
97.0
100. 0
88. 1
79. 8
96. 3
99. 3
100. 0
99.0
99.1
675
1,400
1 300
13
11 31
62
61
1,425
32,145
1·000
41
q44
10. 4
37.0
13.1
2. 6
3.6
25
11
9
2
37
2
------ ------ ------------
110
34
59
15
82
5
0.8
.6
1. 3
1.0
2.0
.3
2
2
9
13
. 5 - ----------- ------------ ---------- -!. 9
7
23
3. 3
79
5
4
5
15
9
8
11
1.4
2. 2
1. 7
1. 7
- --- - 17
88
2
1
------- 19
22
5
2
7
41
107
10.0
3
3
12
8
2.6
1.3
------------ ------------ ------------
11. 9 ------------ ------ ---- -- -----------9. 4
6
25
10. 7
3. 7 ------------ --- --------- -----------. 7 - -- - - - ---- -- -- - -------- . -----------94
1
2
2
1.0
.9
Data secured by Women's Bureau agents from laundry supply and machine companies selling in each area, from local laundry owners' associations, from State labor depart•
ments, and from Chinese leaders in the Chinese section of the city. The most recent U. S. Census report of the number of power laundries was for the year 1933, whereas the
Women's Bureau .figures shown above are for March, April, or May of 1935. The Women's Bureau census included all power laundries regardless of the amount of their business,
but the U . 8. Census reports only those that had done a business of $5,000 or more during the year. In some cities there were quite a number of small laundries. This explains the
larger number of power laundry establishments reported by the Women's Bureau. Another explanation may be the fact that in some localities, such as Boston, the Women's
Bureau covered a larger area than was the case with the U. S. Census.
2 Metropolitan area.
• Number is estimate given by proprietors of 4 wet-wash laundries and agreed to by agent o{ laundry machine company selling to Chinese laundries.
' Chinese Embassy estimates 300 to 350 laundries, 2 employees.
• Corrected to report by ''mayor" of Chinatown, estimated 1 employee to each of 104 laundries.
• No workers except members of family.
7 9 hand laundries (Chinese and other) have no workers except .members of family.
• I laundry bas no workers except members of family.
• 3 laundries have no workers except members of family.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
....
00
~
'-i
zt:::t
~
1-1
t,,J
Ul
THE LAUNDRY TRADE IN TWENTY-TWO CITIES
19
Even in Brockton, a shoe-manufacturing city which supports only
four power laundries, there are 17 Chinese laundries, whose owners
do most of the washings themselves.
In the spring of 1935 the large number of Chinese laundries in
Chicago were operated by owners either in partnership or with an
assistant. In predepression days Negro women were employed by
about 100 Chinese laundries as hand ironers, for which service they
are reported to have received more than when employed in power
laundries. Decreased business caused the Chinese owners to give all
work to members of their own race, so that few women are now employed in Chinese laundries. The Chicago Chinese laundry has
electric was:tiing machines and some have the small flat-work ironer.
In Washington, D. C., about 13 percent of the laundry workers are
Chinese. Here, too, the business is carried on by the Chinese owner
and a Chinese assistant or partner and is usually small in volume.
Except in Boston, therefore, competition from Chinese laundries
may be said to occur chiefly in men's wear and in flat work from
apartment dwellers.
VOLUME OF POWER-LAUNDRY BUSINESS IN 1934
As has been stated in the introduction, United States Census
Bureau figures show a marked and steady increase in the volume of the
Nation's laundry business up to the time when the effects of the
general industrial depression began to be felt. From 1925 to 1927
there was an increase in business of 92 million dollars and between
1927 and 1929 an increase of 87 million. The effects of the depression
began to be seen in the 1929-to-1931 biennium, when a decrease of
75 million dollars throughout the United States was reported, and
in the next 2-year period there was a decrease of more than 170
million. That is, in 1933, business was only 55 percent of what it
was in 1929.
To what extent had the laundry industry regained a footing in
1934? As the data secured during the survey are representative of
conditions along the Atlantic coast and in the Lake and South Central
States, the reports on changes in volume of business may be considered indicative of laundry business trends in these sections of the
country.
Number reporting.
Out of a total of 348 power laundries from which data were requested
280 were able to report 1934 receipts accurately-receipts that totaled
$32,697,536. Not all of these companies were operating in 1929 or
in 1933-, nor were some under the same management during these
years. Consequently each earlier year yielded fewer reports on
amount of business done. However, even 1929 receipts reported in
the survey formed almost as much as, or formed more than, the
total listed by the 1929 Census in such cities as Jacksonville, Peoria,
and Camden-probably because laundries outside the city limits
serving the city were included in the Bureau's survey. Surveyreported receipts for 1929 were from 60 to 76 percent of the FederalCensus-reported receipts for Boston, Memphis, New Orleans, Providence, and Worcester; and for Chicago and Miami they were 24 and
30 percent, respectively.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
Receipts of 1934 compared with those of 1933.
Receipts for 1934 represented 7.6 percent increase over those of
1933 for the 226 laundries reporting. In only two cities did the
laundries reporting show decreases--Camden and Atlantic City. In
Camden this decrease is due in part to the fact that some of Camden's laundry business was taken by a large laundry across the
Delaware River in Philadelphia that did not observe the President's
Reemployment Agreement rates. This decrease in receipts, therefore,
does not mean an actual decrease in the use of laundry service by
Camden citizens but rather it is indicative of competition from
laundries outside the State. Atlantic City, too, has laundries from
Philadelphia entering the city, and hotels do their own Jaundry, but
here the very small difference in receipts of local laundries in 1933
and 1934 was regarded as indicative of the fact that the city had not
regained its full stature as a resort city in 1934.
Heaviest increases in 1934 receipts occurred in southern cities.
Miami, where survey-reported receipts for 1933 were 79 percent of
those appearing in the 1933 Census, showed a 50 percent increase in
one year. This city even reported an increase in 1934 over 1929.
Orlando, a smaller Florid~ winter-resort town, reported a 19 percent
pick-up; Savannah and Charleston had almost the same proportional
in~rease in business in 1934 over 1933; Raleigh reported 27 percent
gam.
In New E ngland, Boston and Providence record 4 to 5 percent
increases in business receipts; Brockton a 7 percent increase, and
Worcester less than 3 percent in 1934 over the previous year. In
Illinois, Peoria had a marked increase of almost 15 percent, Decatur
about 7½ percent, but the additional business recorded for Chicago
was less than 5 percent. New Orleans and Memphis made only
slight gains.
Receipts of 1934 compared with those of 1929.
But even so, 1934 gains were not large enough to overcome the
losses incurred since 1929, for the business receipts of all laundries
reporting for both years still show a loss of 32 percent in 1934 as
compared with 1929. Only Miami reported a material increase in
1934 receipts over those of 1929. The business of Washington laundries was 12 percent less than 1929 business, while that of Savannah
and Brockton was 19 percent less.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
!IL-Power-laundry receipts in 1934, 1933, and 1929 in 22 cities
Laundries reporting total receipts for-
umber
of laundries
Total
1933 and 1934
1934
City
Receipts
Number
of laundries
1929 and 1934
Receipts for
Receipts .for
1934
1933
Percent
change
since 1933
Number
of laundries
Receipts for
R eceipts.for
1934
1929
Percent
change
since 1929
1 _________ ______ ___ _______
280
$32, 697, 536. 20
226
$27, 789, 831. 95
$25, 818, 798. 23
+7.6
180
$23, 410, 683. 29
$34, 551, 426. 64
-32. 2
Chicago, UL ___ __ ______ ___ ____ _____ __
Boston, Mass.2 ___ _____ _____ __________
48
60
7, 9i9, 521. 26
5, 952, 961. 93
39
51
6, 8.'!7, 172. 44
5, 265, 089. 03
6, 521, 900. 99
5, 031, 896. 15
+4. 8
+4. 6
34
44
6, 049, 706. 80
4, 452, 188. 57
10, 601, 644. 16
5, 733, 546. 25
-42.9
-22. 3
Washington, D. c.2 ___ ______ ____ _____
New Orleans, La ____ _________________
Newark, N. J.2 ______ ____________ __ ___
Memphis, Tenn ____ ___ _________ ____ __
Providence, R. !_ ___ _____________ ____
Worcester, Mass _____ ____________ ____ _
Jacksonville, Fla ____ ____________ _____
Camden, N. J_ __ ____ ____________ ___ __
Miami, Fla. ________ __ __________ ___ ___
Peoria, IIL ____ _______ __________ ___ ___
24
12
15
15
14
6
9
4
13
11
5, 083, 251. 40
1, 71, 178. 56
1, 928, 201. 57
1, 478, 569. 55
1, 936, 669. 46
488,113. 55
806,793.28
385,220.66
1, 068, 228. 30
663,042.60
20
7
13
11
10
6
8
3
12
7
4, 402, 70C. 51
637,294.31
1, 712, 667. 40
1, 426, 505. 89
1, 669, 226. 12
488,113.55
770,998.28
222,013.85
1, 061, 007. 00
583,071.49
3, 866, 226. 41
616,414. 54
1, 700, 562. 21
1, 406, 408. 32
1,605, 712. 20
476,671.67
691,007.89
237,785.46
705,988. 71
507,988.34
+13. 9
+3. 4
+. 7
+ 1. 4
+4 .0
+2.4
+11.6
-6.6
+50. 3
+14.8
9
7
10
8
7
5
7
3
6
8
2, 071, 354. 45
1, 474, 890. 40
1, 524, 341. 46
1, 159, 335. 00
1, 429, 651. 93
456,329.18
734,998. 28
358,885. 30
774,523. 33
612,749.48
2, 354, 694. 41
2, 099, 593. 98
2,079, 742. 23
2,085,991.30
1, 984, 183. 97
699,868.02
1, 050, 342. 89
651,683. 25
583,441.20
988,844.32
-1 2. 0
-29.8
-26. 7
-44.4
-27.9
-34.8
-28.8
-44.9
+32.8
-38.0
Savannah, Ga ___ ______ _____ _____ ___ __
Charlotte, N. c __ ____ __________ ___ ___
Atlantic City, N. J _____________ ______
Brockton, Mass _______ ______ ____ ___ __
Charleston, S. c ______ __________ ___ ___
Decatur, IIL _____ ___ __________ _____ __
Raleigh, N. C _____ __ __ _______ _____ ___
Greenville, S. c _____ ________ _______ __
Orlando, Fla ___ ___ _______ ___ __ _____ __
Asbury Park, N. !_ ___ ________ _____ __
6
8
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
6
6
3
291,254.63
652,986.90
373,343.80
278,659.09
358,204. 22
1,045, 294. 53
587,655.94
343,273. 21
-18. 7
-37. 5
-36. 5
-18.8
1
2
291,254. 63
399,585. 79
4
245,222.35
+18.8
714, 574. 68
714,574. 68
661,110.87
8
+ 8.1
441,688.27
403, 259. 75
405, 114. 10
-.5
6
286,943.90
278,659.09
260,531.36
3
+1.0
201,864.43
169,293.62
142,279.93
3
+19. 0
260,654.86
4
260,654.86
242,567.87
+1. 5
233,831.48
218,831.48
172,423. 64
3
+26.9
233,671.45 -- --------- --- ---- - ---- ---- -------- - -- ----- ---------- 130,734. 65
3
113,390.25
95,163. 85
+19. 2
152,234.57
152,234. 57
148,793. 45
3
+2. 3
When less than 3 firms reported, receipts are not listed though the amounts are included in totals.
Metropolitan area.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-- ------- -- -------------- -- -- --- ---------- - ------ - - --4
260,654. 86
556,344.08
-53.1
-- --------- -------- -- - ---- - -- -- --- --------- ---- -- --- --- --- ---- -- ---------- - ----- ---- -- -- ----- --- ----- ------
3
113,390.25
154,387. 73
-26. 6
------ ----- -------- -------- ------- - -------- ----- -- - -- -
22
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
Proportion of laundries reporting business gains or losses in 1934
over 1933 or 1929 business.
The increase in business from 1933 to 1934 was enjoyed by almost
three-fourths of the power laundries reporting, as is shown on table
IV. While Miami accounted in large part for laundries reporting
50 percent or more increase in receipts, gains of 15 percent or more
occurred in one or more laundries in every city save Memphis and
Camden. Table V, however, shows that 1934 laundry receipts were
in excess of 1929 in only one-eighth of the laundries reporting. That
these laundries were scattered in a number of cities, however, would
indicate that gains made were due to greater efficiency or greater
aggressiveness of specific laundry management.
TABLE
IV .-Number of power laundr·ies reporting increases or decreases in receipts
in 1934 as compared with 1933
City
Laundries reporting increase in receipts in 1934 compared LaunTotal
with 1933
dries
numreportber of
ing
delauncrease
dries
30,
25,
2Q,
15,
10,
5,
in
rereport50
less less less Jess
less Less ceipts
per- less than
ing rethan than than than than
in 1934
ceipts Total cent than
5
20
15
30
25
10
50
comper- pared
in 1933
or
per.
perperperperperand
more cent cent cent cent cent cent cent with
1934
1933
----------11 --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - ---TotaL ____ ______ _____ _
20
20
I 57
226
H\9
17
11
39
49
Chicago, Ill._ _______________ _
2fi
2
1
6
9
13
Boston, Mass.2 ______ _______ _
a14
11
13
37
1 -----Washington, D. c_2 ________ _
19
1 -- -- -1
1
5
1
7
3
New Orleans, La __________ _
2
1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -----1
Newark, N. J.2 _____ _______ _
5
-------------------1
1
2
1
Memphis, Tenn ___________ _
87 - ----- ------------------1
3
4
I
1 ______ ______ ______ ____ __
5
Providence, R. !. __________ _
Worcester, Mass __ ______ ___ _
5 ------ --- --- ------ -----1 - ----1
3
Jacksonville, Fla ___________ _
7
1 --- --- ----- - - --- -3
1
1
1
Camden, N. J _____________ _
2 - -- - -- ------ ------ ---- -- -- -- -1
1 ---- -Miami, Fla ________________ _
12
5
5 ----------- ------ ------ ------ --- ----Peoria, IlJ __________________ _
7
Savannah, Ga _____________ _
Charlotte, N . c __________ __ _
Atlantic City, N. J_ _______ _
Brockton, Mass ____________ _
Charleston, S. c ___________ _
Decatur, UL ___ ___________ _
Raleigh, N. C _____________ _
Greenville, S. c ________ ___ _
Orlando, Fla ___ _________ ___ _
Asbury Park, N . J_ ___ _____ _
1
11 laundries reported decreases of as much as 10 percent.
area.
2 Metropolitan
a 5 laundries reported decreases of from 10 to 13 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
1 ------ ------
4
1 -- ---8
1 ---- -4 ------ __., ___ - ---- 2 ------ - --- -- -----3
2 - --- -2
1 -- -- -3
1 -----2
1 ------ -----3 ------ - ---- 1
]
1 --- - --
1
------- ---1
-- -- - ----------1
---- -------
1
1
--- -- --- - ---- -- 1
-----1
......
1
2
1
----- ------------- --------------- -- --- ---
2
-----1
1
1
1
1
-- --------------- ----
1 ------ --
-----4
2
----------- -- --1
-----1
------
---------------
2
1
-------2
---------------------2
23
THE LAUNDRY TRADE IN TWENTY-TWO CITIES
TABLE
V .-Number of power laundries reporting increases or decreases in receipts
in 1934 as compared with 1929
Total
number of
Laundries reporting decrease in receipts in 1934 compared
with 1929
laun-
dries
10,
reportLess 5, less less
ing rethan
than
than
ceipts Total 5 per10
20
in 1929
perpercent
and
cent
cent
1934
City
20,
less
than
30
percent
30,
less
than
40
percent
TotaL _____________ _
Washington, D . c.2______ _
New Orleans, La ___ ______ _
Newark, N. J .2 ___________ _
Memphis, Tenn __ ________ _
Providence, R. !_ _______ _ _
Worcester, Mass _____ ____ __
JRcksonville, Fla _________ _
Camden, N. J_ ___________ _
Miami, Fla ____________ ___ _
Peoria, Ill ________________ _
Savannah, Ga __ _______ ___ _
Charlotte, N. C __________ _
Atlantic City, N. J ______ __
Brockton, Mass __________ _
Charleston, S. c _____ ____ __
Decatur, IlL _____________ _
Raleigh, N. C ____ ________ _
Greenville, S. c __________ _
Orlando, Fla _____________ _
Asbury Park, N . J_ ______ _
180
158
31
39
10
2
6
i
--
-- --
17
27
36
31
30
122
5
11
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
-----2-
50
percent
50
percent
or
more
1929
- - - -- - - - [ - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - --- - - Chicago, TIJ _________ ___ ___ _
Boston, Mass.2___________ _
40,
less
than
Laundries
reporting increase
in receipts
in 1934
compared
with
9
3
2
6
3
~ ------- -----~-
~ -----2- --··- i- -------i
8
------- ·-·---6 ------___ ____ _______
1
32
2
I
56 ------_______ ------___ ____ -___----____
3
3
11 -- - ---I - -------1
3 - -------1
1
1
1 ---- -- -3 ------- ------- -- - ---- ------2
1 ------1 ------- ------- ----- -- - -- --- 4
7
1 ---- -- - - - - ---- - -----1
1
4
1
3
5
6
2
1
4
2
- - - - --1
------- - - -- -------------1 ------3 ------2 -------
1
--- - ----------------------------- - -- -------------------
------------------1
- - ------- ----- - --- ------2
-------
--- - --1
1
1
-------------------------------
1
1
1
--- --- ------------------1
1
-------
------- · - ----3
1
1
2
------- ------ ----- -- ------2
2
1
1
1
1
-------1
----------------- ---- - ------ ------- - - -------- - --- ------- -------1
1 --------
1 3 laundries in Miami reported increases of 98.1 percent, 100.0 percent, and 115.2 percent and a Boston
laundry reported an increase of 69.6 percent.
2 Metropolitan area.
TYPES OF LAUNDRY SERVICE
Although all types of laundry service were available in the 22 cities
visited and although by far the larger number of laundries did familybundle work, local demands have resulted in variations in the volume
of different kinds of services rendered in the several cities. Such
service variations affect the scale of prices charged the public and in
turn determine the number of women who are employed in lowerwage-paying laundry occupations.
Commercial and linen-supply services.
Linen-supply services, that is, services which supplied the articles
to and laundered them for hotels, restaurants, Pullman-car service,
doctors' offices, office buildings, or manufacturing establishments
requiring a regular supply of laundered articles, formed a· much
smaller proportion of the business in Washington than in other large
cities. This is unquestionably due to the fact that in Washington
several large hotels do their own hotel laundry, whereas in other
cities surveyed hotel washing was given to independent power
laundries. This service is rendered under contract so that laundries
in which it is done can plan their work for several months ahead.
The volume of commercial work, that is, work contracted for at a
wholesale price, is also much larger in some cities than in others. In
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
Chicago it formed about 20 percent of all types done by laundries
reportmg during this survey, whereas in Washington, Providence,
and Memphis it was less than 10 percent. Since such contract work
s_erves as a steadier of employment, as does a linen-supply business,
greatest competition among laundries in metropolitan cities was
found for these types of service. Because the work is bid for in
private interviews and no prices are published, companies have fixed
prices to hold old or secure new contracts even though it was not
possible to pay employees reasonable wages or make a profit under
such prices.
Family-bundle work.
Family-bundle work is the latest branch of laundry taken over by
the power laundry, and yet its receipts formed over half the business
in Chicago, Boston, Providence, Worcester, Camden, Atlantic City,
Brockton, Decat:ur, and Asbury Park. While many names are given
to the major services offered the family at a bundle rate, these services fall into four groups in the main, namely: Damp wash or laundry
washed and returned in a semidry condition for ironing at home; the
thrifty bundle, in which wearing apparel is returned damp, the flat
work ironed; the third type, in which personal wear is ironed on a
press and the flat work ironed, and in which only a definite proportion of personal wear is permitted in the bundle rate; and lastly the
finished or de luxe service, in which every piece is gone over to insure
perfect ironing. Boston has a number of laundries that do only damp
wash, which means that men workers predominate in these establishments, as men usually do the washing. For the most part,
however, laundries render any service desired.
List-price service.
Where family-bundle work forms less than half the laundry receipts of a city, the condition is due primarily to a continuation of
the older list-price service, a service in which a fixed price is charged
for each type of article laundered. In Washington this still formed
42 percent of reported receipts, probably because the large number
of Government employees living alone increases greatly the shirt
and collar business and the apartment flat work. But even in Memphis it formed almost a third of the laundry receipts. List-price
work would seem to be more prevalent in the southern than in the
northern cities.
While a list-price business brings higher prices per article than in
family-bundle service, it is not possible to determine whether the
volume of this type of business was sufficient to make it more remunerative to the laundry and to the workers than bundle services, for
almost all laundries that do list-price work also have a family-bundle
service. Then again much of the list-price work is dropped in a
laundry office door so that the cost of deli-very is eliminated, whereas
family bundles are heavy and must be collected and returned to the
home.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
THE LAUNDRY TRADE IN TWENTY-TWO CITIES
TABLE
VI.-Kind and amount of laundry service rendered in 1934, by city
Percent each service forms of total receipts
City
Number
of
laundries Total receipts
reporting
Familybundle
gervice
of all
kinds
Chicago, Ill ___________ ___
Boston, Mass.2 ___ _____ __ _
44
58
$7, 467, 561. 71
4, 847, 090. 29
55.6
57.8
Washington, D. c .2______
23
7
12
13
6
9
4
11
8
4, 802, 715. 71
1, 270, 900. 88
1, 323, 492. 85
1, 801, 863. 60
486,321.96
793, 198. 28
229,213. 85
916,938. 30
541,606. 87
48. 5
37. 4
48.1
76. 7
58.9
31.4
82. 3
24. 6
44. 0
6
8
8
4
.4
4
4
4
3
3Q9, 585. 80
714,556. 43
441,688. 27
286,943.00
191,542.43
233,831.48
233,671.45
130,734.65
152,234. 57
49. 8
43.8
53. 9
69. 6
25.3
32. 3
33. 2
47.3
87.1
New Orleans, La _______ __
Memphis, Tenn __________
~~;~~~~~s!=========
Jacksonville, Fla ______ ___
Camden, N. J_ ______ _____
Miami, Fla __________ ____
Peoria, DL _________ __ __ _
Savannah, Ga ____________
Charlotte N. C _______ ___
Atlantic 0ity, N. J_ _____ _
Brockton, Mass ____ ______
Charleston, S. c __ ______ _
Raleigh, N. Q _______ ___ __
Greenville, S. c __________
Orlandoilla ________ _____
Asbury ark, N . J _______
.
List retailprice service Commercial
service at
(price
contract
charged for
wholesale
each piece of
price
laundry) 1
12. 7
10. 8
3
42.1
44. 9
31.3
16. 5
(1)
27. 5
17. 7
20.8
26. 7
20. 7
23. 6
7. 5
12. 6
28. 4
14.. 4
3 32. 1
23. 5
3. 1
Towel,
coat,
apron,
overall,
and linen
supply
19. 8
17.1
11. 9
14. 3
6.1
3. 2
17.8
12.1
(•)
8. 5
6. 7
(1)
------(1)-----
23. 4
17. 7
10. 9
35. 9
18. 5
-------------18. 7
10. 2
8.1
13.1
17. 7
13. 3
-------------(')
29. 2
9.8
19. 4
24. 6
25. 5
---------33. 0
53. 3
34. 6
---------------------
; Includes some unclassified services for which separate figures were not available.
t Metropolitan area.
' Includes some fl.at work at wholesale price for which separate figures were not available.
• Some fl.at work at wholesale price for which separate figures were not available is included in list retail•
price service.
1 Not reported .
84461 °-36--ri
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
KIND AND AMOUNT OF LABOR '.EMPLOYED
Occupations.
Employees in the power laundries from which detailed information
was secured numbered 22,962, of whom 67 percent were w9men.
The majority of workers were employed in actual laundering operations. This group, termed "productive workers" throughout the
report, forms a surprisingly equal part of the entire force in most cities
or about three-fourths of the working staff. It is true th'1t in Savannah and Atlantic City this group formed 80 percent and that in Decatur it fell to 62 percent of the entire staff, but such conditions 1'.epresent extremes.
The next most numerous group are the routemen, who collect and
deliver laundry bundles and often serve as the laundry s salesmen.
These men formed from 11 percent of the staff in Washington laundries to 18 percent in New Orleans and Brockton, or 14 percent of the
staff for all laundries. Power-plant and other mechanical workers
and men and women engaged in general types of laboring work around
the plants were but 5 percent of the entire force. Office workers
formed about the same proportion of the staff. Only a relatively few
laundries visited had branch offices with the clerk-office-manager type
of assistance.
Sex of workers.
Routemen and mechanics are men, and almost all general laboring ·
work is done by men. But women predominate on the productive
labor force and in offices. While 82.6 percent of the productive labor
force in all cities surveyed were women, this was exceeded in cities in
which the proportion of list-price work was extensive, such as in
Washington, Memphis, Jacksonville, and Peoria. For, wherever
finished ironing of wearing apparel forms a material part of the work,
the proportion of women workers is increased, as such ironing is their
province. Women also were 82 percent of the office staff.
Race of workers.
Negro women formed a material part of the force only on productive laundry work. In the far South their number ranged from about
58 percent of the productive staff in Raleigh to 77 percent in Memphis. Very few were employed in New England cities. But in
Washington, D. C., the productive staff was approximately 55 percent
Negro women and 8 percent Negro men. In Chicago the proportion
of Negro men was the same as in Washington but the proportion of
Negro women productive workers was about 36 percent. Peoria and
Decatur, Ill., however, were without Negro workers.
1
~6
I
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
,
TABLE
VII.-Number and percent of men and women laundry employees in each occupational group, by race and by city 1
Total for 22
cities
Chicago, Ill.
(50 laundries)
Boston, Mass.1
(71 laundries)
Washington,
D.
c .2
(35
laundries)
New Orleans,
La. (15 laun•
dries)
Newark, N. 1.1
(21 laundries)
Memphis,
Tenn. (16
laundries)
Providence,
R. I. (15 laun•
dries)
Occupational group
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
ber
Per•
cent
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
Num•
ber
Per·
cent
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
Num•
ber
AD employees •• ..•••••••••••.•••• . 22,962
100.0
4,840
100.0
3,486
100. 0
3, 729
100.0
1,493
100. 0
1,372
100.0
1,458
100. 0
1,162
100.0
Men.........•• ...•.•.... ··-············ 7,598
Women ................• ..... •..••.•.... 15,364
33.1
66.9
1,858
2,982
38.4
61. 6
1,198
2,288
34. 4
65.6
1,041
2,688
27.9
72.1
1,031
69.1
840
61. 2
1,061
72.8
783
32. 6
67. 4
75.2
2,749
um•
_______________,___ - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -
--------------3,499
72. 3
2,622
74. 3
Productive labor ••• ··········-·········· 17,069
- - - --100.0
Men, white ........• ··········-···· . .
Men, Negro ........•••••• •••.•..•.. .
Women, white ....••••.••••••..••...
W OJ11en, Negro ... •.••. •..•••••••.•.•
Mechanical and indirect labor ...••••• •..
Men. ...................•..•• ••••••..
Women ..............•......•••••.•.
Office employees................•...•.•..
2,009
961
7,940
6,159
11. 8
5. 6
46.5
36.1
442
297
1,519
1,241
12. 6
8. 5
43. 4
35. 5
512
18
2,040
52
1,120
4.9
270
5. 6
188
1,063
57
94. 9
5. 1
260
10
1, 159
5. 0
255
100.0
19. 5
Per•
cent
---
- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - 462
- --397
30. 9
27. 2
532
379
38.8
--
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 73. 7
1,062
1,008
73. 5
1, 112
71.1
76.3
881
75. 8
--- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - 100.0
100.0
100.0
.7
77.8
2. 0
191
225
836
1,497
6. 9
8. 2
30. 4
54. 5
51
63
314
634
4. 8
5. 9
29. 6
59. 7
178
50
633
147
5.4
184
4. 9
71
4.8
62
17. 7
5.0
62.8
14. 6
100.0
45
66
141
860
4. 0
5. 9
12. 7
77. 3
100.0
159
3
707
12
18. 0
.3
80. 2
l. 4
74
4.5
4. 9
5.1
57
- - - - - --- - - - --- - - --- - - - - - - --- --- --- --- - - - - ---- -100.
0
--------------5. 3
172
16
195
--------------5. 6
169
15
211
--------------5. 7
68
3
69
--------------4. 6
61
1
65
--------------4. 7
69
5
---------------
65
4.5
56
1
65
-·-----5. 6
100. 0
Men.....••.•••••••.•••••.••••..•.. ..
Women._ •••..•......•••••••.•••.•..
948
Branch office employees ..•.•.•••••••....
299
211
Men......••..•••.•..•.•.....•..•.•..
Women _..•••••••. •..•.......•.•.•..
39
260
Routemen.... •.••. .•.... .' ...•••••••••. .
3,315
1
1
100.0
Num•
Per•
Num•
Per·
cent
ber
ber
cent
--- --- --- ---
18. 2
81. 8
1.3
69 ••••••..
186 -······ ·
40
18 •••.••.•
177 ········
0.8
0. 1
38 ••••••••
173 . ••••••.
63 ••••••••
183
19
4. 9
6 ••·•·•••
6 ••·•••••
59 •••··•••
12 -··· ·· ··
53 ••••••..
1. 3 •••.......••••••
3 ·····-··
62 ····-· ··
0. 2
0. 1
100. 0
13. 0 .
87. 0
14. 4
14 ••••••••.••••••• ••••••·•
26
3
776
16. 0
478
13. 7
16
167
402
2 ·····•·· ········ .. .... .•
17
10.8
272
18. 2
237
17. 3
1 ········ · ···· ··• ··• • •·••
2
204
14.0
158
13. 6
These figures were taken from the pay roll for the week of Nov. 10, 1934, except where this week was not considered representative by the management..
Metropolitan area.
tv
-.J
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
tv
VIL-Number and percent of men and women laundry employees in each occupational group, by race and by city-Continued
Worcester,
Mass.
(9 laundries)
Jackson ville,
Fla.
(11 laundries)
Camden, N . J .
(12 laundries)
Miami, Fla.
(22 laundries)
Peoria, Ill.
(12 laundries)
00
Savannah, Ga. Charlotte, N. C. Atlantic City,
(9 l~~~~ies)
(8 laundries)
(9 laundries)
Occupational group
Number
Percent
Num-
ber
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Fercent
umber
Percent
Percent
Number
Number
Fercent
All employees ____________________ _
429
100. 0
634
100. 0
407
100. 0
805
100. 0
405
100. 0
450
100. 0
621
100. 0
386
100.0
Men _________________ ---- --- - - - - -- -- --- - -
136
2<l3
31. 7
175
459
'Zl. 6
205
202
50 . 4
49. 6
272
533
33. 8
66. 2
117
28. 9
101
349
22.4
77. 6
192
429
30. 9
69. 1
116
270
30.1
Men, white _________________________ _
Men, Negro ___ _________ ____ ___ ___ __ _
Women, white _____________________ _
Women, Negro ___________ __________ _
62
2
271
1
100.0
18. 5
.6
80. 7
.3
2{3
32
111
322
100.0
5. 3
6. 5
22. 6
65. 6
!:Sl
40
191
2
100.0
25. 8
12. 7
60. 8
.6
58
37
245
243
100. 0
9.9
6. 3
42. 0
41. 7
43
100. 0
13. 9
10
20
69
261
100. 0
2.8
5. 6
19. 2
72. 5
'Zl
36
73
340
JOO. 0
5 7
7. 6
15. 3
71. 4
33
17
155
106
100. 0
10. 6
5. 5
49. 8
34. 1
Mechanical and indirect labor_ ______ ___ _
12
2. 8
25
3. 9
18
4. 4
30
3. 7
10
2. 2
29
4. 7
15
3. 9
Men ________________ - -- -- -- -- -- ----- Women ___ ------------ - ------------Office employees __________________ ____ __ _
10,.,
69. 9
71. l
288
72. 4
68. 3
Women ____ ----------------------------= == = = = - - = = = = = = = = = = = == =
80. 6
311
76. 7
476
80. 0
360
76. 3
309
72. 4
583
77. 1
314
77. 4
491
78. 3
336
Productive labor__ ____________________ __
- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Men _____ __ _________________________ _
Women __ _-------- ------- - ------ ---· _
Branch office employees ________________ _
~
19
-------4. 4
1 . - -----18 - ------ -
0. 2
Men ____________________ ______ ___ ___________ __ ______ _
1
Women__________________ __ _________
Routemen _______________ _______________ _
14. 2
61
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25 ------ --
-------26
18 - -------
30 - ----- --
4.1
11
2. 7
2
--- -----
!)
- --- ----
33
24
1 -------- ----- - - - -- ------
1
23
12
12. 5
64
15. 7
4. 1
11 -------22 --------
2. 1 --- - -- -- --- -----
79
20
4. 9
20 --- -----
10 --------
3 -- ------
4 -------17 - - -- ----
-------- ---- ---- -------- -------- -------- --------
12 --- ----14 -------13
----- ---------86. 1
266
----- --- --- --- --
135
--- ----- -------- ---- ---4. 7
21
5. 9
24
21 --------
3. 0
0. 5
2
16. 8
50
12. 3
fi7
15 - ------'Zl -- -----2 --- ----- ------ -- ------- 22
2. 3
3. 5
1 --------
8 -------14 --------
8 --------
0. 4 ---- -- -- -- -- - - --
0. 3
------- - -------- --- -----
12. 7
15. 1
94
I
50
13. 0
Brockton,
Mass.
laundries)
(4
Charleston,
S. C.
laundries)
Decatur, Ill.
laundries)
(4
(4
RalP.igh, N. C.
(5 laundries)
Grcem·ille,
S . C.
laundries)
(6
Orlando, Fla .
(7 laundries)
Asbury P ark
N. J.
(5 laundries)
Occupational group
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Numbcr
Percent
Numbcr
Percent
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --1--- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -All employees ______________________________________ _
Men ____ ________________ __ __ _________ ___ ______ __________ __
Women __________________________ ___ _____________________ _
Productive labor ___________ ________ ____ _________ _________ _
Percent
Number
Percent
- -- - - - - - - - --
100. 0
169
100. 0
125
100. 0
190
100. 0
280
100. 0
195
100. 0
186
52
88
37. 1
62. 9
51
118
30. 2
69. 8
43
82
34. 4
65. 6
60
87
193
31. 1
68. 9
57
138
29. 2
70. 8
67
36. 0
13(1
31. 6
68. 4
119
64. 0
79. 3
78
62. 4
146
76. 8
216
7'1. 1
114
73. 8
140
98
70. 0
Men, white _____ ___ ______ ______ _______ ______ _____ _____
21
21. 4
Men, Negro ________________________________________ __ ________ ____ ___ _
77
78. 6
Women, white_ _____ ___ ____ _____ ___ ___ _____________ ___
,vomen, Negro __ - ------- -- --- -- ---- ------ --------- --- --- --- -- ---- --- Mechanical and indirect labor __________________________ _.
4. 3
Men __ ___ _________ __ _______ ___ ____ ___________ _____ ___ _
5
Women ___ ________ ___________ ________ __ ______ ___ _____ _
134
100. 0
13
7
16
98
4
4
9.
5.
11.
73.
7
2
9
1
2. 4
----- - --
JOO. 0
100.0
9
10
8. 0
10 - -------
11
7. 9
1 -- -- - - - 10 - --- ---·
3. 6
2
12 - - - -- ---
o. 8
0. 6
23
8
4. 1
7
3. 8
84
6
3. 2
14
5. 0
11. 2
2
4 -- - ---- -
Branch office employees ___ ________ _______________ __ ____ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ _
14
93
15. 0
5. 7
62. 9
16.4
36
6 - - - -----
2. 6
75 3
JOO. 0
21
8
88
5. 6
9. 3
19. 0
66. 2
---- --- - -- -- ----
11. 5
88. 5
100. 0
6. 2
4. 2
25. 0
64 . 6
12
20
41
143
6
14
42
69
JOO. 0
100. 0
4. 1
9. 6
28. 8
57. 5
------ -- --- -----
1 ------ - - -------- - ------- ---- ---- -------- -------- ---- - - --
Men ____ _________ _____ ______ __ ________ ______________ __
Women __________ _____ ____ _______________________ ____ _
ber
140
100.0
Office employees __________ __ ___ ______ ______ ______ ______ __ .
N"um-
9
6
13
8 --- - ---7 - ----- - 1 ------- - - - -- -- -- ------ - - - - ------ - - - -- ---
14
5. 0
I
4 ---- -- --
11
5. 6
3 - - ---- -8 ---- ----
o. 7
- - -- --- - - - ----- -
1
7 - -------
1. 0
0. 5
Men____ ____________ __________ _____ _________ __ ______ __ _________ ___ ____
1 ____ _______ ___ ___ ____ ___ _______ _ _______ _
Women--- ,------------ - ----- -------- ---------- ------ --_ ____ ___ ______ ___ __ ____________ _
___ _____ ______ _______ __ _
Routemen __ ---------- ____________ -------- -------- --- -- -- .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
17. 9
24
14. 2
22
17. 6
33 ,
17. 4
34
12. 1
30
15. 4
30
16. 1
ADEQUACY OF WAGE RATES PAID LAUNDRY
WORKERS
When society measures the " adequacy of minimum-wage rates"
paid by any industry, it is concerned with the earnings which tha.t
mdustry pays to its workers, not during any one week, but throughout
the year. Its measurement of an industry's value to the community
rests not on the yearly earnings of any individuals who may have
worked for -the industry during the year but on the relation of the
total amount paid out in wages to the total number of individuals
whose services the industry requires at any time iI). the year.
Consequently the Women's Bureau transcribed pay-roll records
for each of the 52 weeks for all firms having available _records in towns
of less than 100,000 population, and for a representative number of
large, medium-sized, and small firms in larger cities. The number of
men and women and the amounts paid each sex in each branch of the
service were totaled for each week. Data for white and Negro races
were separated in "the productive occupations only.
The adequacy of wage rates paid, as deteri:p.ined by dividing the
total amount paid to laundry employees during the year by the maximum number whose services were required during the year, is shown
on table VIII. Later tables (IX and X) show the average amounts
earned weekly in 1934 by the number of employees whose services
were used each week. This weekly earnings average multiplied by
52 weeks approximates the year's average amount paid all workers
by the industry in 18 of the 21 cities reporting because of the -slight
variations in numbers employed from week to week in these laundries
during the year as is shown on charts 1 and 2. In the three resort
cities studied, however, the differences between the smallest and
largest numbers ~mployed were such as to warrant consideration of
the adequacy of wage rates only in the light of the limited employment
afforded during many months of the year. These cities, therefore,
have not been included in table VIII.
In order that the exigencies in personal affairs, as well as any
tendency of power laundries to permit more workers to report for
duty than could be given a full week's work, may be measured as an
influence on earnings, individual earnings during the week of November 10 are shown on table XIV.
ANNUAL PER CAPITA AMOUNT PAID WORKERS
All employees.
Boston and Brockton power laundries paid larger annual amounts
per capita to all their employees than did laundries reporting in any
of the other cities included in the survey. In Boston the per capita
annual earnings in 1934 totaled $885. 75, or over $100 more during
the year than was paid out by Chicago power laundries. Brockton
workers had earnings only about $52 below those of Boston laundry
workers and $134 more than laundry employees in Decatur, the Illinois
city falling in the same population grouping.
Table VIII shows clearly that differences in per capita yearly earnings of employees are not due to the size of the city but vary, rather,
30
..
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31
ADEQUACY OF WAGE RATES PAID
with geographic location. For example, workers in Charleston earn
only $10 less per year than laundry employees in the much larger city
of New Orleans; the earnings opportunities of laundry workers are as
great in Charlotte as in Jacksonville; while in Decatur, a city of less
than 60,000 population, laundry workers earn more per year than in
Peoria, a city of 105,000 population.
Women employees.
The per capita annual amount paid to women employees was
materially lower in every city than the per capita amount paid to
men and women employees together. In Chicago this difference was
greatest, or $253, while in Savannah it was least, or $104 per annum.
Women given employment in productive laundry occupations in
Brockton and Boston had respectively $600.64 and $634.39 to live on
in 1934. In ewark and Providence they had $542.23 and $553.68.
In Washington and in Worcester the per capita amounts paid women
productive workers were $498.69 and $508.08 in 1934. In the city of
Chicago women laundry operatives employed during the year were
paid but $492.12. In New Orleans power laundries paid $298.88,
in Raleigh and Charleston, $267.55 and $266.86, respectively, per
woman productive worker per year.
The question may well be raised whether adult women can live
healthfully on $634 a year paid them by laundries in the city with the
largest per capita pay roll. And no one will claim that less than $300
a year, the per capita sum paid during 1934 in 8 of the 18 cities
included in this discussion, will permit of adequate living!
T A BLE
Vlll. -Annual per ca pita amounts 1 paid to employees in 1934 in 18 cities
All employees
Total
City
Chicago, IJL ____ ______ ____________ _
Boston, Mass.'---------------- --- --Washington, D . c .2 _________ ____ ____
New Orleans, La ______ ____________ __
Newark, N . J .2 ____ __ ___ ___ ______ ___
Memphis, T enn __ ____ _____________ _
Providence, R. !_ ___ _____ ___________
Worcester, M ass ___ _________ ____ ____
Jacksonville, Fla ___________ ___ ______
Camden, N. J_ _____________________
Peoria, Ill ______ _______ _____ ________ _
Savannah, Ga ___ ·--- -· ___________ __
Charlotte, N. C __ __ ___ ______________
Brockton, Mass _______ ___ ____________
Charleston, S. c. __ ___ _____ ____ _____
~=~~1:;,·~\:c:===================
Greenville, S. c ___ __________ ____ __ _
Productive labor
Women
Total
Women
MaxMaxM axM aximum
imum
imum
imum
num- Annual num- Annual num- Annual num- Annual
per
per
per
per
ber
ber
ber
ber
capita
capita
emcapi ta
emcapita
ememployed earnings ployed earnings ployed earnings ployed earnings
in any
in any
in any
in any
week
week
week
week
- - -
--
2,466
1,153
$773. 24
885. 75
1,556
814
$519.64
661. 05
1,838
884
$562. 62
707. 38
1, 446
738
$492.12
634. 39
1,120
1,056
539
1, 089
227
119
628
306
322
715. 89
499. 56
793. 55
465. 65
746. 68
662. 67
481. 76
598. 20
614. 66
796
734
351
820
151
82
472
164
241
524. 69
320. 02
570. 08
301. 51
593. 23
518. 97
302. 87
384. 15
450. 87
841
765
402
540. 51
334. 74
598. 83
308. 28
617. 23
590. 27
331.14
426. 9S
470. 98
718
674
328
774
139
77
458
159
221
498. 69
298. 88
542. 23
282. 21
553. 68
318
415. 79
480. 75
833. 83
489. 32
699. 80
405. 72
457. 16
243
4{i9
84
94
92
123
223
311. 47
299. 81
619. 59
281.50
503. r2
284. 36
290. 34
305. 16
328. 85
660. 12
357. 99
486. 51
315. 92
317.11
235
442
76
91
79
124
213
285. 59
285. 56
600. 64
266. SG
425. 99
267. 55
279. 53
660
126
140
141
197
319
- -- -- --- -- ---
863
180
94
509
233
248
254
512
90
111
90
144
250
508. 08
286. 39
372.84
425.87
1 The total amount paid for labor in 1934 in power laundries divided by the maximum number whose
services were required during the year. Because wide variations in numbers employed in resort cities
make special consideration of laundry problems in these cities necessary, Miami, Orlando, and Atlantic
City are not included in this table. Pay-roll data are not available for Asbury Park, N. J.
2 Metropolitan area.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS, BY OCCUPATION, SEX, AND
RACE
The average weekly earnings based on 52 weeks' records are shown
for women and men in the several occupational laundry groups on
table IX. This table reveals clearly the difference in earnings between
the sexes and the races.
Productive workers.
Women productive workers averaged highest weekly earnings
during the year in Brockton and Boston, as would be expected from
the amounts paid to the entire number whose services were used
during the year. These earnings were $13.05 and $12.80 per week,
respectively. Only white women were employed in these laundries.
Men employed as clothes washers, attendants at extracting or drying
machines, or at marking and identifying clothes earned $19.89 and
$21.45 per week in the two cities, respectively.
In Chicago both white and Negro women and men were employed
in the productive occupations in power laundries. The white women
averaged $11.14 per week during the year, the Negro women $9.83;
white men on laundry work averaged $17 .61, Negro men $15.02.
The staff of Negro women and men workers in productive laundry
occupations in Washington, D. C., exceeded white employees in
number. Women Negro laundry operatives in this city earned
$10.18 per week compared with $11.10 earned by white operatives;
Negro men on the productive force received $14.64 while white men
averaged $17.66 per week during 1934.
In New Orleans, where the proportion of white and Negro women
productive workers was the same as in Washington, earnings of
Negro women laundry operatives were $5.72, and white women
earned but $6.91 a week during the year. In other words, the Negro
women laundry operatives in New Orleans earned $4.46 less than the
Negro women employed in the same occupations in Washington, D. C.,
while the white women in the former city averaged $4.19 less per week.
Men laundry operatives' earnings were $3.26 and $3.86 less for the
two races in the Gulf city than in the Nation's capital.
Newark productive laundry workers earned amounts similar to
those earned by such workers in Chicago, the white women earning
$11. 61 and white men $1 7. 90. But in Camden white women operatives earned but $7.45 per week during the year, white men $12.50,
and Negro men $10.25. In Atlantic City, too, white and Negro
women operatives' earnings were low, $7 .98 and $7 .64 per week
during the year, and while men's wages were better than in Camden
they were still $3 to $4 lower than in Newark.
In Providence and Worcester white women laundry operatives
averaged a little over $11 per week, but in Peoria and Decatur, Ill.,
two other cities where white women were employed almost exclusively,
their earnings dropped to $9.22 a~d $8.84, respectively. Men laundry
op·e ratives' earnings did not fall proportionately in the Illinois
cities, for Decatur's men earned $18.16 and Peoria men operatives
$17.44, as compared with men's earnings of $16.67 in Providence,
R. I., and $18 .65 in Worcester, Mass.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ADEQUACY OF WAGE RATES PAID
33
In the southern cities, as in the northern, white men employed as
laundry operatives always earned more than the Negro operatives.
The average weekly earnings, based on a year's record, of Negro
women laundry operatives in southern cities ranged from $5.01 per
week in Jacksonville to $6.97 per week in Miami. White women
operatives' earnings in southern cities ranged from $6.67 in Charleston
to $9.21 in Memphis.
Office workers.
While the average weekly earnings of white women operatives in
the northern city reporting highest earnings were 96 percent greater
than those in the southern city reporting lowest earnings, the difference between the highest and lowest earnings of women office workers
was not quite so great. New Orleans' women clerks earned the least,
or $11.60 per week during the year, whereas Newark clerks earned
the most, or $19.90 per week.
Women office workers averaged from $18.08 to $19.90 per week in
laundries in Miami, Decatur, Chicago, Boston, Providence, and Newark. Their earnings averaged $14 and less than $17 per week in
Washington, Memphis, Jacksonville, Peoria, Charlotte, Atlantic City,
Brockton, and Raleigh, and $13 and less than $14 per week in Camden,
Charleston, and Orlando. Cities in which women office employees
earned $11.60 and under $13 were New Orleans, Greenville, Savannah,
and Worcester.
Men office workers' earnings varied more widely than women's, but
comparisons from city to city are not valid because wherever a few
men only are employed in an office their duties may assume supervisory
proportions.
Branch office workers.
While workers employed in branch offices are few because only a
few laundries in the cities visited maintained branch offices, in all but
two cities these workers earned less than the average for clerical workers in the main offices.
Mechanics and routemen.
Men employed in laundry power plants or as mechanics about
laundries usually earned noticeably more than the white men engaged
as washermen or in other productive laundry occupations. In Chicago the latter group earned $17 .61, as compared with $24.58 a week
for mechanics. In Boston the comparison was $21.45 and $29.49 per
week; in Washington, $17 .66 for productive men workers and $23 .52
for mechanics.
Routemen, however, earned more than mechanics in every city
except Providence and Brockton. Routemen's average earnings exceeded $30 per week in Chicago and Boston; they ranged from $25
to $29.61 in Washington, Newark, Providence, Peoria, Atlantic City,
Brockton, and Greenville. They were lowest in Savannah. These
earnings include not only flat rates of pay but commissions on laundry
collected.
84461°-36---6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
IX.-Average weekly earnings
1
of all employees and of occupational groups during 1934, by sex and race for each city
All employees
Productive labor
Men
City
Chicago, IlL __ _____ _____ _____ __
Boston, Mass.2_____ _____ ____ ___
Washington, D. c.2 __ ___ _____ ___
New Orleans, La ____ ___ __ ___ ___
Newark, N . J.2 ____ ___ ____ ___ ___
Memphis, Tenn _______ ___ ______
Providence, R. !_ __ __ __ ____ ____ _
Worcester, Mass __________ ___ ___
Jacksonville, Fla _________ _____ __
Camden, N. ]_ __ ___ _______ ___ __
Miami, Fla ____ _______ ____ __ ___ _
Peoria, Ill _____________ ________ _
Savannah, Ga __ __ ____ ___ _____ __
Charlotte, N. c __ ________ ______
Atlantic City, N. J_ ___ _________
Brockton, Mass ___ _____ ___ _____
Charleston, S. C __ ___ _________ __
Decatur, IlL __ __ _____ ___________
Raleigh, N. C _____ ___ ____ ____ __
Greenville, S. c __ ___ __ __ _______
Orlando, Fla __ __ ______ ______ ___ _
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number of
laundries
reporting
Total
Men
Women
"tj
Women
>
a
Total
White
Negro
White
Negro
1-3
0
t:i::1
Ul
Average
Avernumage
berem- weekly
ployed earnper
ings
week
- -- - -
Aver-
AverAverAverAverAverAverage
AverAverage
age
age
AverAv11rAverage
Average
Average
age
numage
numnumage
age
age
nu
mage
numnumage
number em- weekly berem- weekly ber em- weekly berem- weekly ber em - weekly berem- weekly berem- weekly
ployed earn- ployed earn- ployed earn- ployed earn- ployed earn- ployed earn- ployed earnper
ings
per
ings
per
ings
ings
ings
ings
per
per
per
ings
per
week
week
week
week
week
week
week
--- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- - -- --- --- --- - -- ---
23
15
2,259
1, 109
$16. 23
17. 70
863
336
$24. 47
27. 63
1,396
773
$11. 14
13. 38
1,661
845
$11. 97
14. 24
234
139
9
9
7
6
4
4
9
3
12
7
1,047
1,005
498
990
219
108
602
291
587
292
14. 72
10. 09
16. 52
9. 85
14. 83
14. 04
9. 66
12. 08
11. 61
13. 07
315
313
178
257
73
35
163
133
170
77
23. 45
17. 96
24. 62
19. 45
20. 93
20. 01
18. 78
17. 32
19. 65
22. 29
732
692
320
733
146
73
439
158
417
215
10. 97
6. 53
12. 02
6. 48
11. 77
11. 19
6. 26
7. 66
8. 34
9. 71
774
716
366
770
173
85
480
221
445
221
11. 30
6. 87
12. 65
6. 64
12. 32
12. 59
6. 76
8. 65
8. 66
10. 15
47
42
61
39
39
17
24
33
38
25
4
8
8
2
3
4
4
6
5
299
627
381
116
130
133
164
292
170
8. 49
9. 73
11. 88
17. 37
10. 13
14. 25
9. 38
9. 62
9. 66
66
194
112
40
42
46
51
91
46
Hi. 44
17. 79
233
433
269
76
88
87
113
201
124
6. 24
6. 12
8. 11
13. 17
5. 79
10. 23
5. 96
6. 21
6. 59
239
480
308
8)
102
84
129
6. 24
6. 74
9. 03
14. 18
7. 47
10. 04
6. 80
6. 74
6. 90
5
20. 96
25. 28
19. 17
21.81
16. 92
17. 11
17. 96
227
129
28
33
13
12
11
6
14
8
$17. 61
21. 45
138
3
$15. 02
16. 23
772
703
$11.14
517
$9. 83
12. 80 -- -- - - -- - ---- -- -
14. 64
17. 66
70
13. 80
41
11. 38
7
17. 90
17. 53
39
9. 84
13. 58
16. 67 -------- --- ----18. 65 - -- ----- -- - - --- 16. 02
32
10. 70
12. 50
10. 25
35
15. 36
29
13. 18
17. 44 -- ----- - --------
218
211
281
95
133
67
119
153
207
196
11. 10
439
10.18
6. 91
422
5. 72
11. 61
9. 19
17
9. 21
597
5. 57
11. 77
11.03
1
11. 10
9. 53
1
8. 36
5. 01
305
7. 45 -- ------ -------8. 19
171
6.97
9. 22 -------- ------ - -
13. 72
14
9. 68
16. 63
9. 66
36
14. 96
13. 46
16
19. 89 -- ----- - -- -- --- 20. 10
11. 14
6
18. 16 ----- - -- - -- ----20. 54
12
9. 71
12. 84
21
9. 74
14. 56
11.
70
5
52
74
160
67
15
73
42
43
31
7. 62
168
5. 32
342
5. 25
8. 47
7.64
99
7. 98
13. 05 ---- -- -- - ----- - 5. 24
6. 67
69
8.84 -- ---- - - --- -- --5.12
6. 86
69
7.84
149
5.45
7.47
85
5. 67
>
"tj
"tj
tr.I
a
1-3
~
z
0
~0
tr.I
Ul
z
"'d
0
~
tr.I
t:i::1
~
z
t:,
0
t:i::1
~
tr.I
Ul
Mechanical and indirect labor
Total
City
Men
Office employees
Women
Total
Men
AverAver•
Aver•
Aver•
age
age
age Aver• age
age
Aver- num•
num- Aver•
num• Aver•
DUm•
num•
agA
age
age
age
ber weekly ber weekly
ber weekly
her
ber weekly
em•
em- earn- em• earn- em• earn• em•
ployed earnings Plt,yed
ings ployed
ings ployed
ings ployed
per
per
per
per
per
week
week
week
week
week
--- - - - - - - - --- - Aver•
- -
Chicago, IlL. ..... .•..... .
Boston, Mass.2 ...........
Washington, D. c.2 .......
New Orleans, La .........
Newark, N . J .2.. . ... .... .
Memphis, 'l'enn ..........
Providence, R. 1. .••••... .
Worcester, Mass ... ...... .
Jacksonville, Fla ...•.... ..
Camden, N . J. ..•........
Miami , Fla ..•............
Peoria, Ill ................
Savannah, Ga ...... .. ....
Charlotte, N . C ..... . ....
~tlantic City, N. J. ......
Brockton, Mass . .. . ..... .
Charleston, S. C ...... ....
Decatur, Ill ... . ....... .....
Raleigh, N. C ............
Greenville, S. c._ ........
Orlando , Fla .......•......
1
2
3
140 $24. 21
53 29. 22
134 ~24. 58
52 29. 49
56
43
22
44
9
3
22
15
22
16
23. 07
12. 88
28. 27
16. 21
'l7. 03
16. 21
18. 10
18. 04
20.35
24. 8,1
54
7
30
14. 95
16. 50
22. 68
29. 82
16. 62
21. 96
14.14
11. 83
14. 73
7
28
14
4
3
11
6
14
7
14
5
3
11
6
15
7
40
21
38
9
3
22
1,5
22
16
6 $15. 75
1 15. 00
23. 52
2 10. 65
13. 42
5. 76
3
29. 03
1 12. 55
17. 85
6
6. 06
27. 03 ------- ---- - -16. 21 -- ----- -- - - -··18.10 ----- -- ------18. 04 ---- - -- --- -- -20. 35 -- - -- --
-------
24. 83 -- - - -- - - ---- --
14. 95 -- - - --17. 26
2
22. fi8 -- - ---32. 97
1
16. n2 ----- -21. 96 ----14. 14 ------12. 25
1
14. 73
--
-- - - - -5. 60
-----14. 61
---------- --- -----5.92
------- ----- --
101 $19. 11
77 23. 34
50
45
26
43
13
5
24
7
24
19
14
22
10
9
5
15
3
12
10
18. 22
11. 86
20. 21
17. 85
19. 69
12. 61
21. 53
19. 19
20. 22
14. 73
14. 73
20. 28
16. 73
17. 49
17. 86
20. 11
16. 92
13. 18
14. 62
Average pay roll per week divided by average number of employees per week.
Metropolitan acea.
1 man employed 1 week at $30.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Women
Men
-28.89
15. 00
21. 59
27. 67
16. 63
74 $18. 60
66 19. 40
13
2
8
l
26. 57
33. 42
24. 52
13. 88
43
42
21
33
12
5
11
5
16
18
3
8
1
1
2
2
1
5
3
23.92
29. 44
35. 00
45. 00
23. 72
31. 33
21. 04
14. 85
17. 82
11
14
9
8
3
13
2
7
7
3
5
10
1
Total
Aver•
Aver•
Average Aver• age
age
AverAver• num·
num•
num•
age
age
age
ber
ber
ber
weekly em- weekly
em• weekly
em•
earn- ployed
earn• ployed earn- ployect
ings
ings
ings
per
per
per
week
week
week
- -- - - - - --- - --
27 $20. 58
11 47. 56
7
Branch office employees
--- -- - - - ------
33 $14. 72
15. 70
3
Routemen
Women
AverAveragPage
Aver• num•
Avcr• num•
age
age
ber
weekly em• weekly ber
em•
earn• ployed earn• ployed
ings
ings
per
per
week
week
- - - -- - - - --- -
6 $l5. 20
(3)
(3)
27 $14. 62
15. 60
3
16. 48
13. 71
31 13. 71 -------- ------31
11.60
11. 33
2
10. 27
16 10.40
14
19. 90 -- - ---- ------- ----- -- ----- -- --- -- -- -- - ---14. 83
18. 23
14. 43
2 12. 53
l
3
12. 44
15. 02
15. 22
14. 00
!3. 95
18. 36
15. 13
11. 89
13. 38
rn. n -- - ---- -- - ---- -- -- --- --- ·---- ----- -- ---- -- -
12. 61 --- - -- - -- ----- ----- -- ------- ---- --- -- - - - -ln. 15
1
12. 7.3
8. 37
5
4 13. 21
13. 72 -- - ---- ------- --- -- -- - -- ---- --- -- -- --- -- -13. 54
18. 08
1 25. 00
24
23 13. 05
14. 79
2 16. 11
J li. 56
1 13. 33
2
-- ----1
-- --- -1
11. 50 - -- ---- ------------- -- --- -- ------15. 00 --- ---- -- --- -------- ------- -- - --· 2(\_
Oil
1
7. 85
2
2
11.M
11. 94
1
20. 00
2
------1
-------
11. ,50
----- -lfi. 00
-- - ----
l
7.85
---- -- - ------ - ·--- -- ------- ------- -- ----- ------- --- -- --
1
l
Total
11. 42
11. 87
1
1
11. 66
12. 00
Average
weekly
earn•
ings
- --
325
132
$33. ?.7
32. 02
137
184
85
129
29. 61
21. 49
29. 10
23. 96
25. 46
22. 19
22. 28
24. S5
23. 76
25. 16
25
15
72
48
71
34
37
94
48
22
19
23
2fi
36
22
19. On
20. 43
26. 19
26. 20
21. 01
22. 63
19. 95
25. 52
21.88
36
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
DIFFERENCES IN AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS IN LAUNDRIES WITHIN THE SAME CITY
The preceding table has given the average weekly earnings during
the year 1934 for laundry workers within a city. T able X reveals
that within the same city there was much variation from this average.
For example, in Chicago white women oper atives' earnings per week
ranged from $6.51 in one laundry to $16 .24 in another, while Negro
women's earnings varied from $7 .02 per week in one laundry to $18.61
in another laundry. In Washington one laundry's Negro women productive operatives earned but $6.96 while another laundry's white
operatives averaged $13.40 weekly earnings during the year. In
Jacksonville the range in average weekly earnings of Negro women
operatives was from $3.75 to $6.71.
TABLE
X.-Range in average weekly earnings during 1934 of productive labor in
different laundries within the same city
Range in average weekly earnings for-
City
Number
of laundries
Women
Men
White
Negro
White
Chicago, 1JL ___________ __
Boston, Mass.I __________ __
23
Washington, D . c.1_______
New Orleans, La _________
Newark, N. J.1 __ ___ _____ __
Memphis, Tenn . _______ __
Providence, R. !_ __ ____ __ _
Worcester, Mass ______ ____
Jacksonville, F la ____ ____ __
Camden, N. J ___ ________ _
Miam i, Fla ______ __ _______
Peoria, Ill _______ ___ _____ __
9
9
7
6
4
4
9
3
12
7
12. 94
10. 71
15. 09
7. 90
14. 51
17. 50
8. 16
10. 00
5. 38
12. 91
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
9. 25 to 17. 03
23. 68
16. 89
9. 16 to 15. 51
21. 86
15. 79 to 19. 33
30. 67
6. 40 to 11. 76
18. 22 ------ --- -- -----19. 25 -- ---- - ----- -- -- 23. 28
7. 90 to 14. 24
18. 62
10. 05 to 12. 44
18. 64
8. 93 to 17. 73
26. 19 -- ---- --------- --
8. 17 to
6. 11 to
8. 53 to
7. 46 to
9. 89-to
9. 95 to
6. 25 to
7. 10 to
6. 51 to
6. 54 to
4
11. 73
5. 03
9. 96
19. 69
12. 04
13. 8'.l
15. 20
7. 46
11. 76
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
20.11
8. 94 to 10. 41
34. 52
7. 77 to 11. 10
24. 07 2 8. 38 to 17. 62
20.11 - - ---- ------ - - - - 22. 56
6. 86 to 12. 45
20. 77 -- --- ---- -- -- -- -30. 45
7. 49 to 12. 62
15. 92
8. 65 to 11. 18
20.92 3 6. 38 to 12. 95
6. 73 to
7. 19 to
6. 08 to
12. 93 to
5. 99 to
7. 08 to
5. 98 to
6. 10 to
6.44 to
Savannah, Ga ___ __ _____ __
Charlotte N. C ____ ___ __ __
Atlantic 6 ity. N . J_ _ ___ __
Brockton, Mass __ _____ ____
Charleston, S. C _______ ___
Decatur , IIL ____ _____ ____
Raleigh, N. C ____________
Greenville, S. c __ __ ____ __
Orlando, Fla ____________ __
15
8
8
2
3
4
4
6
5
$11. 86 to $35. 31 $11. 02 to $21. 04
14. 72 to 26. 92 --- - --- ---- -- ----
1Metropolitan area.
2
1 man employed only 26 weeks.
Negro
$6. 51 to $16. 24 $7. 02 to $18. 61
7. 22 to 14. 86 -- -- ---- -- ----13.40
11.44
12. 77
10. 23
11. 34
12. 38
12. 11
· 9. 24
11.06
10. 53
6. 96
4. 73
8. 98
3. 77
to 11. 73
to 7.07
to 10. 38
to 5. 76
----- --- ----- ----- - ---- -- ----
3. 75 to 6. 71
-- - - - ------ ---5. 68 to 9. 40
---- -- -- - --- -- -
7. 95
4. 68 to 6. 21
10. 79 3. 58 to 6. 16
9. 71
7. 02 to 8. 19
13. 27 --- - - ---- -- ---16. 56
3. 67 to 5. 85
9.37 -- --- ------ --- 11. 95
4. 61 to 6. 21
12. 03
4. 87 to 6. 73
8. 95 '3. 85 to 6. 43
1 1 man employed only 4 weeks.
'2 women employed only during January (5 weeks).
WAGE RATES OF WOMEN LAUNDRY OPERATIVES
Variations in the year's earnings in laundries may be due to differences in wage rates, in weekly hours of employment, or in regularity of
employment during the year. Each factor is considered separately in
the pages that follow.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ADEQUACY OF WAGE RATES PAID
37
Occupations and methods of payment.
Women laundry operatives are employed principally in four types of
work: Marking and sorting incoming laundry for identification and
re-sorting finished ironing for delivery; folding and feeding flatwork
into large flatwork ironers, and folding it after ironing; operating
power presses on body apparel; and hand ironing. While some men
also are employed in the identifying department, women alone do
ironing.
By far the majority of laundries in the 22 cities paid women workers
by the hour. Piece rates were paid to women when a "shirt line "
was a method of operation, that is, when several women ironed
different parts of shirts by machine or by hand and were paid a group
piece rate for total number of shirts finished by the group. Other
laundries paid piece rates to hand ironers and to a few machine ironers.
A few laundries used a daily or weekly basis of pay, but as payments
were made only for actual hours worked this system was in reality an
hourly payment system.
Beginner's rate------nonexistent.-As idle, experienced laundry workers
were available in every city visited there was practically no " beginner's rate" to be found in 1934. Rates paid in the different occupations varied, and some workers in the same occupations received more
than others. But for the most part one rate prevailed for the larger
numbers in any occupation in the larger laundries.
Prevailing wage rates.
Consequently the Women's Bureau agents transcribed without
difficulty the prevailing wage rates in the major occupations for white
and Negro women and men as of the week ending November 10, 1934.
When the pay roll of this date was not procurable the rates paid the
workers in the week preceding the interview were taken. Table XII,
showing the range of prevailing hourly rates reported for the same
occupation in the same city, must be read along with table XI, which
shows numbers of laundries in each city where specific rates prevailed.
For, while the extremes ·vary widely, usually the larger number of
firms in a city paid the same rates of pay.
Influence of code rates.- vVhile laundries did not a.dhere strictly to
code rates, these rates exerted a marked influence upon rates paid in
1934. The 27}~-cent code rate called for in Newark, Providence,
and Worcester actually became the pre, ailing rate paid in the majority of the laundries reporting in the two cities first named, whereas
Worcester laundries, operating under a State minimum-wage rate of
28% cents, maintained a 30-cent rate. Operating under the 25-cent
code minimum, Washington, Peoria, and Camden laundries in large
number reported this as the prevailing rate paid to women, while
Brockton paid a higher rate, or 30 cents, probably under the influence
of the 30 cents paid in nearby Boston laundries. The 227~-cent code
rate, or higher rates, prevailed in Atlantic City and Decatur laundries.
Fourteen cents became the usual rate paid to women in Memphis,
Jacksonville, Miami, and Charleston.
Only in New Orleans and in Raleigh did the majority of laundries
report prevailing rates less than code minimum.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
XL-Number of laundries reporting specified rates as prevailing for experienced women in 3 productive occupations, by city
City
Number of laundries in which the prevailing hourly rate for experienced workers wasNumber
Total
reportPaid
number ing preby the
Over 25,
Over
Over
Over
of laun- vailing 8, less
piece
27½,
Over
hourly than 14 14 cents 14, less 20cents 20, less ~cents less than 27l,2
dries
27J,i
than 20
than 25
cents less than 30 cents 30cent.s
rate
cents
30 cents
cents
cents
cents
No
such
work
done
No
report
FLAT WORKERS
Total. ____ ___ _____ · ______ _____ _
348
295
Chicago, Ill ____ ____________ _________ _
Boston, Mass.1 __ ___________________ _
50
71
41
53
Washington . D. c .1__ ___ ___________ _
New Orleans, La _______ ____________ _
Newark , N. J.1 _______ ______ ___ ___ __ _
Memphis, .Tenn _____ _______________ _
Providence, R. !_ _________ __________ _
Worcester, Mass ________________ ___ __
Jacksonville, F la ___ ______ ____ ______ _
Camden, N. J ______________________ _
Miami, Fla _________________________ _
Peoria, Ill _______________ ___ ________ _
33
15
21
16
15
9
30
15
19
13
14
p
ll
9
Savannah, Ga _______________ _______ _
Charlotte, N. c ___ ___ ______________ _
Atlantic City, N. J. _________ _______ _
Brockton, Mass _____ ____ __ ____ _____ _
C h arleston, S. C ____ _____ ___________ _
Decatur , IIL ___ _______ ____________ __
Raleigh, N. C ___ __ __ _______________ _
Greenville, S. c ____ __ __ _____ _______ _
Orlando, F la _________ ______________ _
Asbury Park, N . J_ ________________ _
12
22
12
9
8
9
4
4
4
5
6
7
5
27
53
18
13
17
68
25
27 - - -- - ---- ----- - -1
1 --------
-- - --- -- ----- -- - --------
12
3 ---------- ___ - _ _______ _ --- _--·-12 -------------- - -------- -- - --- - -
4
2
11
8
23
25
23 --------- ----- -- - - --- -----
25
l
18
1 --------
22
13
3 - - ---- -- --------
-- - -- -- - - - --- - -- ------- - --------- -------- ----- ---- -- - - - - -- - - ---- - - ----- --- --- --- - - ----- ---
__ --- _-- _-- -- --- _____ --- - -- -- -- __
14
1
2
2
- - ----- - ----- --- ----- --- ------- -- -- --- --- ---- ----- - - -- -- - - --------------- --- - - - -- - ------1
11
1
1 --------
-------- -------- ----- - -- - - ----- - -------- --- - - -- - --- -- - - -- ----- - - - - ------ --
9 -------- -------- -------- --- - - --3 - -- ----- -------- ---- - - - - -------- -------3
11
3 ______ __ _____ ___
21
11
1
9
1 -- - -- - - -
8
4
8
5
8 ------- - ----- --3 -------- ------ -4
4
4 ---- ---- - - --- --5
4
6
1
7
1
4 -------- --------
39
1 ------ - - - - ------
8
------- -- ----- --- ------ -- - ------ --------- - ----- - - - ---- ----- --- --- -_______ ___ _____ ___ ______ ____ ___ ___
--------- - - - - - --- --- - -- - - - --- -- - --
.l
2 _-- --- - _ -- __ ---3 -------- ------- -
.l -------- - - - - -- - ---- ---- -------- --------
-------1 -------1
- ------3
6 - ------- ------- -------- ------ - l
------ -- -------1 - - - - - ---
--- ----- -- ----- - - - ---- -- -- - -- --- --------- - ----- -- ---- --- -- --- - · -- - -------- ------ -- --- - ---1
------- - - - - --- -- - --- ---- ----- --- ------ -- - -------- --- ------ -------- - - ---- - - - - ----- - --- ----- - -------------- ----- - -5
3 --- ----- - -------- ------- -- -------- ------ - 1 ---- -- - - ----- ---------- ------ - - - - - --· -- ---- - --- - -------- --- - ---- --------1
2 - ----- -1 --------
- ---- -- - ---- -- -- - -- --··-- -------- ---- -- --- -------- ------ - -- ------ -- -------- -- ---- -- -------- - ------ -
-------- --------
3
1 ------- - - -- ------ ------ -- - --- -- --- ------ -- -------- --- - ---- - -------
----- --- -------- -------- -- --- -- - --------- - ··--- - -- ---- -- --- --- - ---- -- ------ -------- --- - --- - --- -----
1 -------- - - - - ---- ------- - ------ - -- - - - - - - - - ------ - -- ----- - -- --- --- -- - --- ---- -------- -- ----- ··
2 -------- -- - - ---- ------ - - ---- --- - - --- --- -- ------ -- - -------- -------- ---- -· -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - ---- ------ -------2
1 --------- --- --- -- --------1 -------1 - ----- -- - -------
PRE SS OPERATORS
Toto] _______ ___ -------- - - ____ --
348
Chicago, Ill ___ _____________ ________ __
Boston, Mass.I ______ ___ _______ ___ ___
Washington, D . C.l _____ __ _________ _
New Orleans, La ____ ____ _________ __ _
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
33
15
219
19
38
19
34 --- - - --- ------- - - ----- -2
30 - ------ - - --- - --- -- - - --- - --------
12
49
4
20
2 -- ---- - 1 -------- ------- - - - --- - ---
28
26
84
4l
4
1
14
14
15
26
12
14
17 ------- - ----- - -- -------- -- - ----- - ------14
1 ----- - -- ---- - ---1
1
9
1 -------- ---- -- -- ------ -- -- ------- -------- -- ------- -------- -------3
2
1
1 - - ----- 6 -------- --------
Newark, N. J _t _____________________ _
Memphis, Tenn _________ ___________ _
Providence, R. !_ ____ ____ __ ________ _
Worcester. Ma~s ______ ____ _________ __
Jacksonville, Fla ____________ _____ __ _
Camden. N. J_ _____________ _______ __
Miami, Fla ___ _______ __ ____ ___ ______ _
Peoria, IJL __ ________ - -- -- _-- --- - --- Savannah, Ga _____ _________________ _
Charlotte. . c __________ __________ _
Atlantic City. . J_ ______ __________ _
Brockton, Mass ____________ ________ _
,Oharleston, . c __________ ____ ____ __ _
Decatur, IIL __________________ __ ___ _
Raleigh, r _ C ______ __________ ___ ___ _
Green ville. . C. _____ ______________ _
Orlando, Fla _. ____________ ___ ______ _
Asbury Park, . J_ ____ __ __ ________ _
21
16
15
9
ll
12
22
12
9
8
8
10
10
8
9
3
19
11
--- --- -- ----- - - 9
--- ---- · - - -------- ----- -- -----8
- ----- -- - --- ----
-- ----------- -------- -------1
------ -13
- ------ - ·---- - -1
--- -- ------- ----- - - - -·
---------------------3
--------
------------ ---- - ------- ---- --- --- -- --- - ---
--- --- ------------------- ------ - -- -3
1
6
--- ---- ---------1
------ - ------- - --- --- ---___ -- ___ .
2
3
-------3
------------- ---- - - --___ --- ---------
1
------- -4
- - ---- ------- -- ---------- ---- - ___
---- - ----
131 ·-------,--------
--- --- -- '
4
- --- ---- - --- ---5
1 -------1
1
5 - - - - ---- -------7
1
1 -------- - -------- -- - - -- - ----- - 1 I
-------- - ------2
___ ______ -- ---- _
2
1 - - ----- - ------ - -
9
8
4
4 --·----- -------- -------- -------- ------ - -- -------- -- -- - ---- - ----- -- ----- --- -- ------ --- ----1
2 ________
4 -________
- ------ ----------------- -- --------2l -________
------- ------________ -------3 - ------ 2-- -____
___ -__ -________
1 ----- - -l ---- - - -l
--- --- --86 ___ _____
4
3 -- ---- -- ------ -- -------- --- - ---- ---- -- - - - - --- - -- --------- --- ---,- - - ------ --
4
4
5
6
7
5
1
2 --------
1 --------
4
4 - - --- - -- - - ------ -------- - --- ---- - ------ -- --- ----- - ------ -- - ----- -- -------- --- - ---- -------- - ------4 --- - ---- - - ------ - --- --- - --- - ---2
2 --------- -------- -- ----- -- -------- - - - --- -- --- - - --- - --- ---- - -- - - - --
5
5
2 --- ----- -- ------ - --- - - -- - - ------- - - -- ---- - - - ---- -- --- - ---- --- - - - -5
1 -- - ----- ----- --- - -- ----- - -- ------ - - - - ---- --- ---- -- --- --- -- -------3 ----- --- -------- ---- ---- - --- - - -- - --- - --1 ----- - - - 1 -- ------- --- --- -1
1
1 ------- -
HAND IRONERS
TotaL ________________ ______ __ _
348
Chicago, Ill _____________ ____ ________ _
Boston, Mass.I _______________ ____ __ _
50
71
34
31
Washington , D . c .1 _________ ______ __
New Orleans, La _____ ________ ______ _
Newark, N . J. 1____________ _________ _
Memphis, 'T'enn ______________ ______ _
Providence, R. L _____ ____________ __
Worcester, Mass ___ ___________ ____ __ _
Jackson ville, Fla __ ·-- --------- --- - -Camdeu, . J _____ _____________ ____ _
Miami, Fla ______ __ _______________ ___
Peoria, IJL ________ __ _______ ________ _
33
15
21
16
15
9
11
12
22
12
21
11
16
12
11
8
7
3
18
12
Savannah, Ga ____ ___________ __ __ ___ _
Charlotte, N . C ___________ _________ _
Atlantic City, .. J ___ ________ ______ _
Brockton, Mass __ _______ . ____ ______ _
Charleston, . c ___ __ ___ ______ ______ _
Decatur, Ill ____ ______ _______ _______ _
Raleigh, . 0 ---- ------------------Greenville, S. C ______ _____ _________ _
Orlando, Fla ____ __ ___ _________ _____ _
Asbury Park, . J ___________ ______ _
1
Metropolitan area.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
8
9
4
4
4
5
6
7
5
21
36
14
19
33
61
51
15
12
10
29
2
------- --- --- -----------1
- - ------------------------------l
---------- ----8
_--- - . -4
- ----- ----- --- --- --- -------________
--- --- -- ------ -- 1
- - --- --- 3
---- ------ ---------- -----__ ------_______
6
3
3 -------- -------6
2
4 -------- --- ----8 -------- ------ -- --- --- -- -------3 ---- - --- ------ -- -------- -------3
3 -------- -- -----4 -------- - - - ----- -------- -------4
---- - --- -- ------ -------5
2
2 --------
------ --------3
------ ------ ---
----- - --------2
-- -------------
------- --- - -- ----------- ------- -------- --
--------- ---- ------- -.
--- -- ----------
---- ----- --- ----- - - ----. _
1
1
---- - - --- ------ ·- - -- ----2 - --- ---1
1
1
1 -----· - -- --- --· 1
2 - --- ---1
--- -- - -- - ·------- ---- ---- -- -----1
1
1 ----··-- ---- -----
1
------- 4
---- ·- -2
2
14
--- ------------------------------- -- -- ----3
-------8
1
1
- - -- ---3
_- -----1
7
------------------ ---1
27
1
- ------·-- ------- - --------· ---- ------ ------ - --- - - -
3
1
1
------ -------- ------------- - --------------131
8
1
------------ --1
------ ------- -------- -------2
________
5
-------- -- --- - - 8
2
- ------- - --- ---10
--- ---- - --- --- --------- -· - - ---7
-------- -------2
-- ------ ________
13
49
"0 -- --- - -- - ------ - -
1 ----- --- ------- -
1
1 --- --- - - _ ·- --- --
-------2
2 --- --- - - - -----3
6 - -------___________
------ 1
3 -------__ ________
___
_______ _
1
----- --- -- - --- - --------- -----
1 - - -·---- ----- - -- ----- -·· -- ------
-------- -- - --- -- ---- - ---- -------- ---- ----- -- - ----- - --- - --- --------
------- -
--- ----- ---- - - -- --------- -------- - - -- ----- ------- - --------
------- ·
- - -- - --- - - --- --
1 -------- - ----- -- -- ----·- - - ------ - -------- --------- -- ------ - - ------
4 -· ------ -------- -- ---- -- --------
10
2
3
1
5
·---- - ------3
1 - - - ----4 -------- ----- ---
1
1 ---------
1 ---- - -- -- --------
1
1
1 --- - -- -1
1
1 --- -----
~
c:.o
40
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
XII.-Range of prevailing hourly rates reported for experienced women in
three productive occupations, and rate set 11'!1 the code for all productive workers,
by city
T AB LE
Flat workers
City
Hand ironers
Press operators
Code
R ange of Number R ange of Number Range of
rate N umber
c,f laun- prevailing
of laun- prevailing
(cents) of Jaun- prevailing
hourly
hourly
hourly
dries
redries
redries rerates
rates
ra tes
porting (cents)
porting
porting
1
(cents) 1
(cents) 1
--- ·
Chicago, IlL ___ ________ __ _____
Boston, Mass.2_______________ _
25
30
41
53
13 to 28 ____
23½ to 37 __
34
31
13½ to 3Q __
23½ to 42__
34
30
Washington, D . c.2____ ____ ___
N ew Orleans, La ___ ___________
Newark, N. J.2_________ __ _____
25
14
27½
30
15
10
20 to 30 ____
10 to 14 __ __
27½ to 3L
21
18 to 32 ____
10 to 17 ____
27½ to 37 __
17
11
M emphis, Tenn _______________
Providence, R. !_ _____________
Worcester, M ass __ _______ ____ __
Jacksonville, Fla ______________
Camden, N. J_ ____ ____________
Miami, Fla __ ____ __ ___ ___ ______
Peoria, IIL _________ ____ __ ____ _
14
13
14
12
11 to 20 ____
27 to 33 ___ _
30 to.33 ___ _
IO
10
8
9
3
19
11
11 to 14 ____
27 to 30 ____
20 to 33 ____
14 _____ ____
25 ______ ___
14 to 20____
18 to 25 ____
8
8½ to IL_
6
6
Savannah, Ga ______ __ __ _______
Charlotte, N. c ______________ _
Atlantic City, N. J_ ___________
Brockton, Mass ______________ _
Charleston, S. c ______________ _
Decatur, Ill ___________________
Raleigh, N. C ___ ______ ______ __
Greenville, S. c __ ___________ __
Orlando /la __ __________ ___ __ _
Asbury 1 ark, N. J_ __________ _
1
2
27½
27½
14
25
14
25
14
14
22½
25
14
9
9
3
21
8
8
3
10 to 14 ____
22½ to 25__
30 to 33½--
4
14 ___ __ ____
22½
4
14
14
14
25
5
6
7
22½ to 25__
10 to 14 ____
10 to 15 __ __
12 to 15 ____
22½ to 30 __
4
16
11
8
7
3
18
12
8
3
3
4
4
5
5
4
14_ _______ _
25 ___ ______
14 to 23½-18 to 30 ____
8.½ to 14 ___
10 to 14 ____
22½ to 3L
30 to 33.½-14 ___ ______
22½ to 30 __
11 to 12;-2-IO to 15 ____
12 to 15 __ __
22½ to37½.
9
8
20 to 37.
23½
to
41_½.
25 to 36.
10 to 15.
27½
to
11
35½ .
11 to 14.
27 to 32.
30 to 33.
14 to 15½.
25.
14 to 25.
18 to 30.
8
8½ to 14.
6
8
3
4
4
5
5
5
3
10 to 14.
22½ to 31.
30 to 33,½.
14.
22½ to 25.
10½ to 14.
14 to 15.
12 to 17.
25 to 27½.
When the same rate is reported for each laundry, this rate is shown.
Metropolitan area.
Influence of wage rates on average yearly earnings.
Obviously the variations in wage rates adhered to as a mm1mum
rate and often as the prevailing rates in many laundries was the
primary cause of the wide variations in earnings in cities. But had
the influence of the code minimum on the prevailing wage rate been
the only determining factor in these differences, Chicago, Washington,
Peoria, and Camden women operatives, for example, would have
earned a sixth less than the $634 average earnings of Boston operatives
for the year, or approximately $529 per woman. Instead, Chicago
women operatives earned but $492; vVashington operatives, $499;
Peoria women, $426; and Camden women laundry productive workers
but $373.
Again, southern women operatives whose employers paid the code
rate would have earned 53}~ percent less than Boston productive
workers, or about $296 yearly, instead of which all but one city's
women productive workers averaged less than this. Only in New
Orleans was a larger yearly yield secured and here a number of
laundries paid but 10 cents, 11;6 cents, and 12 cents an hour to their
women workers. Clearly differences in weekly hours and numbers of
weeks of employment have played a noticeable part in yearly earnings.
These factors are discussed on pages 42 to 49.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
ADEQUACY OF WAGE RATES PAID
INFLUENCE OF CODE RATES ON WOMEN OFFICE WORKERS'
EARNINGS
Provisions of the code pertaining to office workers .-For persons
employed in the offices of laundries the code set weekly rates that were
based on a workweek of 40 hours, the maximum number of hours of
work allowed under the code for this group of laundry employees.
The code provided for differentials in wage rates between only two
geo•graphic areas, in contrast to the five defined for productive
workers, but within each area different rates were set for cities of
more than 500,000 population, those with 100,000 to 500,000, and
those with less than 100,000 population. The following summary
shows that for cities of each size the weekly wage differential was a
dollar between the southern area and the northern area. In such
places as New Orleans, Jacksonville, Miami, and Memphis the minimum wage rate for office workers was $12.50 while for cities of similar
size in the northern area the minimum was $13.50.
Northern area
Population
Cities of more than 500,000 '- ----------------- ------ --Cities of 100,000 to 500,000 3_ _ _ _______________ __ ____ _ __ _
Cities of less than 100,00() ___ _______ ____________________
Weekly
rate set
by code
$14. 00
13. 50
13. 00
Computed
hourl y rate
for 40-hour
week
$0. 35
. 34
. 33
Southern area
Weekly
rate sat
by code
$13. 00
12. 50
12. 00
1
Computed
hourly rate
for 4C-hour
week
$0. 33
. 31
. 30
1 The southern area includes the following States: Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky,
Maryland, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas.
1 There Is only 1 city of this size in the southern area, Baltimore.
The 12 cities of this size in the northern
area are : New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, Cleveland, St. Louis, Boston, Pittsburgh,
San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Buffalo:
s There are 60 cities of this size in the northern area and 20 in the southern area.
Only in New Orleans, Worcester, and Greenville did the average
weekly earnings of women clerical workers in laundries during 1934
fall below minimum code rates. In Worcester and Greenville the
women employed were very few, but New Orleans laundries reported
42 women office workers earning an average of $11.60 as compared
with the $12.50 decided upon in the code.
The clear indications are that higher rates than were fixed by the
code were paid clerical workers in the laundries in all but a few cities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SERVICE LOAD AS REFLECTED IN HOURS OF WORK
AND AMOUNT OF EMPLOYMENT
DAILY AND WEEKLY HOURS OF WORK
Hour provisions of the code.
The maximum number of hours of work per week for productive
and office workers was limited to 40 during 28 weeks of the year.
For the other 24 weeks the terms of the code were rather ambiguous
as to the regulation of hours. For 6 weeks in each 13-week period
of the year the code allowed these workers a 46-hour schedule, though
it was specified that during no 13-week period should any employee
be required to work more than a total of 30 hours in excess of the
40-hour weekly schedule. There was no limitation of daily hours,
but no employee was permitted to work more than 6 days in any
7-day period.
A longer week of 48 hours was allowed for engineers, firemen, and
maintenance employees. The overtime provision for productive
workers described above also applied to engineers, firemen, and maintenance employees, though they were allowed 54 hours a week instead
of 46. Deliverymen working in towns of 25,000 or more population
and clerks in retail outlets were restricted to the 48-hour week, but
in smaller places deliverymen could work as much as 6 hours in excess
of 48, or 54 hours a week. For all groups of workers hour schedules
were the same in all parts of the country.
The provisions of the code restricted laundry operatives to a much
shorter week than had been made possible by legislation in any State
and, therefore, may be said to have been an advance over State
legislation.
Scheduled weekly hours of work in November 1934.
Irregular daily hours.-The public has not been wholly educated
to accept laundry service during the entire week; consequently many,
especially small laundries, still operate with a heavy load of wash
during the middle of each week and no work at the beginning and
end of the week, when washing is being collected and delivered.
Where this condition exists, the hours vary so much on some days
of the week in each occupational group that it is not possible to show
prevailing daily hours in the laundry, even by occupation. However,
larger laundries operating on a 5}~-day schedule with regular daily
hours of work for the mass of employees illustrate that a sizable
section of the public can be induced to have its laundry collected on
Thursday and Friday while delivery is being made so that there wil]
be work in the laundry to be done on Monday morning.
Weekly hours.- Even the weekly hours vary from one occupation
to another in the same laundry. For example, in Boston 19 laundries
stated that hours of employees engaged in marking and sorting
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SERVICE LOAD AS REFLECTED IN HOURS AND EMPLOYMENT
43
laundry were less than 40 hours a week, wherea.s only 9 laundries
reported these hours for hand ironers and for washermen.
Table XIII would indicate that many laundries had paid little
attention to code weekly hours. Because of the variation in hours
in different occupations in the same laundry it is difficult to set up
prevailing hours for all laundries as complete units. It is, however,
possible to make comparisons of hours reported by all laundries for
any one occupation. Taking flat-work ironing as a representative
occupation, in 173, or three-fifths of 288 laundries for which the
information was tabulated on table XIII, operators worked over 40
hours per week; in 44 of these they worked 48 hours and over per
week. The proportion of laundries reporting longer hours varied
from city to city, but if the cities are grouped by sections the proportion with longer hours is greater for southern than for northern
cities.
TABLE
XIII. - Number of laundries operating specified schedule of weekly hours for
various occupations in November 1934, by city 1
Productive labor
Hours
FlatIdenti- W ash- work
ing
fying
ironing
Hand
ironing
MeaniMa- Collar chc;i]
chine ironlabor
ironing
ing
Indi•
rect
labor
RouteOffice Branch
office
men
CHICAGO , ILL . (50 laundries)
Under 40 ________ ____
4
1
40 ____ _______________
3
4
Over 40, under 48 ___
28
24
48 and over_ ________
11
13
Inapplicable 2____________________ _
No r eport 3__ ___ ____
4
8
9
3
23
5
6
4
9
5
22
6
3
5
5
8
22
8
3
4
2 -- ----- -- -- --5 -- ----- -- ----2
21
3
21
39
7
11
15
6
4
3
11
1
-- ----- -
1 ------ -36
3
9
4
1
43
2
----------- ·-1
39
1
9
BOSTON, MASS . • (71 laund ries)
Under 40 ____________
40------------------Over 40, under 48 ___
48 and over. ___ _____
Inapplicable 2_______
No report a_____ ___ _
19
8
20
19
3
2
9
7
30
17
5
3
14
8
21
10
13
5
9
5
15
8
29
5
11
5
13
8
29
5
6
4
9
4
43
5
4
5
11
27
18
6
------------5
9
52
5
2 -------5 -------22
1
5
2
31
68
6 --------
4
------15
4
48
WASHINGTON, D . C. • (33 laundries)
Under 40___ ________
·. 2
2 _____________ __ ______ - -··- --40 _________________ __
6
4
5
5
5
3
Over 40, under 48 ___
17
16
18
19
19
13
8
48 and over _________
5
10
3
3
3
2
15
Inapplicable 2_______ __ ___ __ _______ _______
1
13
3
No report a_________
3
3
5
5
6
2
7
NEW ORLEANS, LA. (15 laundries)
See foctnotes at end of tahle.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 ------- - ------- -- - ---1
1 -------- ------2
17
4
12
4
11
4
8
1
24
19
9
3
1
10
44
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
TABLE
XIII. - Number of laundries operating specified schedule of weekly hours for
various occupations in Novemb er 1934, by city- Continued
Productive litbor
MeH ours
Fla tIdenti- Wash- work
fy ing
ironing
in g
H a nd
ironing
M achine
ironing
chaniCollar
oo.l
iron- labor
ing
Indirect
labor
Office
Branch Routem en
office
N E W A RK, N . J . ' (21 la undries)
Under 40 ______ _____ _
40 ____ __ _____ ____ ____ - · ·· ---- --- ---Over 40, under 48 __ _
13
10
48 and over_ ______ __
2
2
Inapplicable 2 ______ _
1
1
No report 3 ____ __ __ _
2
1
1 --- - --- - ------6 ------- - - -- -- 9
9
10
1 - ------ - -- - --- -------- ------1 - ------ --- - - - - ------16 ---- -- -- ---- -- 2
4
9
9
8
3
5 - ------ ---- -- -10
1
1
1
l
21
1
11
4
6
1
1
17
3 --- --- -3
2
2
1
1
ME MPHIS, TENN. (16 laundries)
1
6
Under 40___ _____ ___ _
4 -- - - - - - - -- - --- -- -- --- - ---- --- _____ _.,
7
7
6
3
40 _________________ __ ----- -1 -- -- - - -- --- - --2 ------- -- ----- - - - ---2
9
9
1
Ov er 40, under 48 ___
10
6
3
6
5
4
9
2 - -- - --- - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - - - -- 1
48 and over. _______ _
1 - - -- --2
1
8
1
Ina pplicable 2__ _____ __ ____ _
16
14
3
8
5
5
2
No r ep ort 3 _ _ _________________ ___ _
1 -- - --- - - ------- - - ----1 -- ----1
PROVIDENCE, R. I. (15 la undries)
2
5 __ _____ __ _____
4
5
5
1
3
U nder 40___ _________
4
3
3
3
5
3
5
5
5
40 _________________ __
7
3
2
6
6
6
5
5
5
Over 40, unde r 48 ___
l
2
7
2 _______ __ _____ _______ _____ __
2
48 and over_ _____ ___
1
7
3
1
1 _______
Ina pplicable 2__ ____ _ _______ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ ____
2 _________ ___ __ _____ ____ __ ___ ____ ___________ ___ ___
N o report 3_________ ______ _
__ ______ ______ _
- --- ---- ------__________ ____ _
14
_______ _
WORCE STER, MASS . (9 laundries)
2 __ _____
2
2
3
2
Under 40_____ __ _____
3 - - - -- -3
3
2
2
2
40 _______________ ____
__ _____
3
4
4
2
3
5
Over 40, unde r 48 ___
3
1 _______ _______ ___ ____
4
48 a nd over_ ____ __ _________
4
1
Ina pplica ble 2__ _____ ___ ___ _ _______ _______ ___ ____ __ _____
2
1 __ ____ _ ___ ____ _______
No report 3 _ _ _ _ _____ ___ _ ___ _ __ ____
_______ __ __________ _________ _
1 ----- --- -------- -- - - 3
3 ________
__ __ ___
____ ____ ______ _____ _________ _
2
8
3
7
4
1
2
2
JA C K S ONVILLE, FLA. (11 la undries)
1
Under 40__ _________ _ _______
40 __ _________ ___ ____ _ ------- ---- -- ·
5
6
Over 40, under 48 . __
2
2
48andover ______ __ _
1
1
Inapplicable 2______ _
2
2
No report 3_ _ _ ____ __
4
5
1 - - . - -- 2
1
4
4
1 -- - --- -
1
2
2
1
2
5
1
1 -------- -- - --- 1
1
5
2
6
6
2
4
1
CAMDEN, N. J. (12 laundries)
5
5
5
9
8
Under 40____ __ __ ____
1 -- --- -- --- --- - - --- - -40 ___ ___ __ ____ _____ __ --- - --3 _______ _____ __ _______ __ __ ___
Over 40, under 48___
48 a nd over. ____ ___ __ _______ _______ __ __ __ __ __ ______ ____
7
7 _______
7 __ _____
11 ____ ___
- - __ ___ 1__
Inapplicable~----report 3_________
No
See footnotes at end of t a ble.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
6
------- ---- - - _______ _______
4
_____ __
61
6
_______
2
1
___ ____
1
2
- - - ---2
4
__ _____
_______ __ ________ __ _______ ___
111 _____ 5__ __ ___ 12
___ ______ 7_
SERVICE LOAD AS RJ!;FLECTED IN HOURS AND EMPLOYMENT
TABLE
45
XIII.-Number of laundries operating specified schedule of weekly hours for
various occupations in November 1934, by city- Continued
Productive labor
Hours
FlatIdenti- Wash- work
fying
ing
ironing
Hand
ironing
MecbaniMacal
chine Collar
la bor
iron- ironing
ing
Indirect
labor
ch R ou teOffice Bran
office
men
MIAMI, FLA. (22 laundries)
Under 40 ___ ________ _
3
2
7
6
40 _______________ ____ -- - ---1
1
2
Over 40, under 48 ___
5
5
5
3
3
48 and over__ _______
12
13
9
9
10
Inapplicab le 2_______
2
1
1
2
1
No r eport 3 ______________________ _____________ ____ _ __ __
5 --- - --- --- ---1 -------- --- ---1
1 ------- -------- -- ----4
2
2
9
10
2
9
4
4
3
9
18
JO
10
19
__ __ _ _ _
1
6
2 -- - ----
PEORIA, ILL. (12 laundries)
Under 40_______ ____ _
3
2
5
3
3
2
1
40___________________
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
Over 40, under 48___
6
3
5
6
5
6
2
48andover_ ________
1
3
1
1
1
5
Inapplicable 2_______ _____ __
2 _________ ____ _
1
3
3
No report 3 _______ __ _ __ ______ ____ ___ _________________ _ ______________ _
1 --- ---- -
1
2
6
2
1
7
3
11
2 ---- -- - -- -- ----
SAVANNAH, GA. (9 laundries)
Under 40____________
1
3
Over 40, under 48 ___
5
4
4
48andover ___ ______
2
3
1
Inapplicable 2_______
l __ _____
1
No report 3________ _ _______
2 __ ____ _
4
3
3
4
2
1 -- ----- - -- - ---4
2
2
7
2
CHARLOTTE, N. C. (8 laundries)
Under 40 _______ _____
1
1
1
Over 40, under 48___
6
6
6
4
48 and over_ ________
1
2
1
1
1
Inapplicable'----- --_____ __________ ____ ______ __ _
1
2
No report 3 ___ _ _____ __ _____ __ ____________________ ___ ____ _ __ __ _
3
1
3 -------_____ __ _ -------l
3 ----- - 8 -- ----2 - --- --- 7
BROCKTON, MASS. (4 laundries)
Under 40______ ___ ___ __ _____ __ _____
1 __ _______ ______ ___ ___ ____ _____ ______ ____ ___ ---- - - Over 40, under 48 ___
2
2
1
1
2
2 _____ __ _______
3 ______________ _
1
1 _______ _______ _____ __ __ _____
2 ________ ___ _________ __ ___ ___ _
Inapplicable 2_______ _______ ____ ___
1
1
1
1
1
_____ __
4 ___ ___ _
No report 3_______ __
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1 ________
4
48 and over_ __ ______
CHARLESTON, S. C. (4 laundries)
Under 40___________ _
2
2
2
3
______________ ______ ___ ____ __
Over 40, under 4S ___
2
2
2
2
1 _______ _____ __ _______
--- --- -- -- - - --48 and over ______ ___ ______________ _______ ______ _ _____ __ _______
______ __ ______ _
Inapplicable 2______ _ __ _____ ___ __ __ _______ ___ ___ _ _______
1
4
No report 3 ____ ________ _ _____________________________________ _
DECATUR, ILL. (4 laundries)
Under 40 _____ __ _____
3 _____ __
3
2
3 ___ ______ ___ __ ------1 ------Over 40, under 48 ___ _______
2
l
2
1
2
1
2
1
l
48 and over_____ ____
1
2 _________ _____ __ ____ _
1 _____ __
1
2 ________
3
Inapplicable 2______ _ _______ _______ __ _______ __ _____ _____ ____ ___
2
2 _______
2 ______ _
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
TABLE
XIII.-Number of laundries operati ng specifi ed sched ule of weekly hours for
varfous occupations i n Novem ber 19 4, by city-Continued
Productive labor
Hours
FlatIdenti- Wash- work
fying
ing
ironing
H a nd
ironing
MechaniMa- C ollar
cal
chine iron- labor
ironing
ing
Indirect
la bor
Rout eOffice Branch
office
men
RALEIGH , N. C. (5 laundries)
40 ____________ ____ ___ -- ----- -- --- -1 -- - --- 1 -- - --- - -- ----- -- -- --- . _.. -Over 40, under 48 ___ _______
2
1 _______
2
1 _____ ____ ___ __ ---····48 and over_ ________
5
3
3
4
2
1
3
1
Inapplicable 2____ _ __ ___ ___ _ _______ _______
1 ______
3
1
5
3
Noreport3 _________ ___ ____ ______ _ ____ ___ _____ __ __ _____ __ _____
1
1
-------- -- - -- - __ ______ ______ _
______ ____ ___ __
5
_______ _
GREENVILLE , S. C. (6 laundries)
U nder 40_ ______ _____ ____ ___ _______
2
1
Over 40, under 48 ___
5
5
4
5
48 and over __ _______
1
1 ____ ___ _______
Inapplicable 2_ ______ __ _____ _____ __ ___ ____ __ _____
No r~port a_____ _____________ _______ _______ _____
__________ _______ ___ _________________________ _____ _
6
5
3
3
5
1 __ ____ _
_______ _______
3 ________________ __ __ ____ __ ___
__ _____
1 _______
3
1
5
__ _____ __ _______ _______ ___ ____ ___ _________ _
ORLANDO, FLA. (7 laundries)
Under 40_____ __ _____ _____ __ _____ __
2
1
1 ______________ __ _____ ________ _____ __
Over40, under48 __ _
3
2
3
2
3
2 __ __ ___________________ _____ _
48 and over_ _____ ___
2
4
2
3
1
3 __ ._____
5
2
1
Inapplicable 2_______
1
1 _______
1
2
2
5
2
5
5
No report 3_________
1 __ ____ _ _____ __ _______ ____ __ _ ___ ____ _______
2 _______ __ ______
1
ASB URY P ARK, N . J . (5 laundries)
Under 40________ ___ _
3
2
2
2
2
2
4Q _______________ ____ -- ----- ------- - - - -- - - -- ----- -- - ---- - ------
_______ _______ __ ______
I
2 _______ } -- - - ---
Over 40, under 48 ___ _______
1 ___ ____ __ _____ _______ _______
2
2
1 __ ____ _
48andover_ ________ __ _________ ____ _____________ ------ ··
1 ____ ______ ______ ___ __ _
Inapplicable 2_______ __ _____ __ ___ __ __ _____ __ __ ___
1 __ ___ __ __ ___ __
2
1
4 ___ ___ _
No report 3__ ____ ___
2
2
3
3
2
3
1 _______ __ _____ ________
4
1 Hours in all Atlantic City laundries are irregular.
1 Laundries in wh ich no su ch workers are employed.
a Includes irregular workers and those setting own hours.
' Metropolitan area.
REGULARITY OF EMPLOYMENT DURING 1934
The frontispiece and charts on pages 47 and 48 map the courses of
employment among pi:-oductive laundry workers in 21 cities during
1934. These charts, the indexes of which have been computed
upon the average number of productive workers employed weekly
and upon the average weekly pay roll for the year in laundries reporting, indicate clearly not only the stability of the labor force in power
laundries but the regularity in amount of work from week to week in
laundries in ·an but resort cities.
The charts were made up for the productive labor force rather than
for all employees because productive labor is employed only in such
numbers and for such periods as there is laundry to be handled. They
are paid usually on an hourly basis so that their earnings curves are
direct,l y indicative of the time employed each week. Mechanical
staff, office workers, and routemen, on the other hand, usually are
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
SERVICE LOAD AS REFLECTED IN HOURS A,ND EMPLOYMENT
employed by the week or on a commission basis. Their numbers do
not shift readily with each change in volume of work to be laundered.
The numbers employed and amounts paid vary less, therefore, for all
power laundry employees than they do for productive workers.
CHART 11 . -FLUCTUATIONS IN EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN POWER
LAUNDRY PRODUCTIVE OCCUPATIONS IN CITIES OF LESS THAN 100,000
POPULATION IN 1934.
Weekly average=lOO
ltaX
--------
I IO! ..
EMPLOYMENT-SAVANNAH
PAYROLL·····-
~ ..;:.___ ~•,....····•......-..
100 ~~
90
~
\
•
~
,
•·••-.•.,..-.
I \
.............,_;
\
80
\
IIOl
CHARLOTTE .........., ·····-..........
/\
:::··::::::=====~-;;;:~~::::~~:=::;~••-4ir
r.::.
,
t
....
100 =::::::::;:::;::;;;:;;=;::a:;;='P·_..-~,.:lll!~f.
.,
;p
90 ~ · · ·
130
120
~
\.•'
.............._..., /
\
• BROCKTON
80
I IOI
rfHARLESTON
,·-'~~·~...,t:.a.."-2
~·•-••• _---:;?
100
-
90 /
120
110
100~............,.a,:,,~~~:;:::;;:==:::.-+-1-~£..---~~>r;;:-----:----=-f+-
110[
GREENVILLE
loo
____, .> ..~ - · 2.n
o
90 •• - -
'
;-...
....... ~ .... c:::::::,,,
es •••C>
-"..,,
'
s:::.::::s:.;
--.,·--~
<»¾..
,. !
...._ •••••► \I
s6\
r ..
130
;•
··•'-.-,••ORLANDO
,../
\
~~-,
I00l-::-"""~----~"'7~;==::::::::-------::-:::~L-...;;:;.._;;:f-I
!~ I, •
I
I
•
•
JAN FEB
1
•
•
•
MAR
I
1
1
1
I
1
•
1
I
~~~-~~•~•.-"7-<>f~
APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
OCT NOV
I
I
I
I
•
I
DEC
That regularity of employment week after week contributes to the
comparatively high level of yearly earnings in Boston is clearly seen
on the frontispiece. With the exception of weekly dips due to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48
FACTORS AF F~CTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
holiday closing, which means a loss of a day's or a part-day's earnin~s
to productive laundry workers, there were only minor variations m
average weekly earnings after the rise from the January low. The
gains made in earnings were also made in numbers employed so that
111.- COMPARISONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS FLUCTUATIONS
IN POWER LAU NDRY PRODUCTIVE OCCUPAT IONS IN A RESORT CITY AND
A COMMERCI AL CITY IN NEW JERSEY AND IN FLORIDA IN 1934.
CHART
Weekl y average=lOO
INDE.X
200 ...------ - - - -- - -- - - - ~ -- -- - - - -- - - ATL ANTIC cny { EMPLOYMENT----
/---, .
- '-
180 ....--- - ~ ~ - - _ f AYROc..L=~L·_-_._- _·-- - -- - · ~
-CAMDEN { ~~: k8r~.~-~:--.. ..-
/ .
- - - -- -- -
\
160 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,,--1-.- - -----L., - - - -- - --
/
\
I
\
140 ~ - - - -- - - - - -- - -,.....
. - -,- - ------... ~\- - - - - -- ;
1201 - - - - -- -- - - - -- -
-...
80r-'r--'_- ....~, _---_-_..~
-- - - -- - - ~\
jl' ' •, . _ __,.,•
. ...,,.,....., . __,·'·,
·
___,
\
\
,,,
'~
-,---- - - - -- _;
- -- -- --
- - - - - - -- - -- - -"d-;--I
.
- •""",
·, ....... ..,-'
60'----'--- -- - - - -- -- - -- -- -- - - - - - - ' - - -- 220...--- -- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -
,·,
/
\
EMPLOYMENT----
;
\
MIAM PAYROLL,,__
·- ·2001----_,_--+--- - -----"-''--'----'--'---~
_·-_ __ _ __ _ __
·
/
1801--- -;1---/
;
{ EMPLOYMENT-JACKSONVILLE PAYROLL···········
i
i
\
.....i- - - -\
- -- - - - - - - - - -- - --
-
f
\
1601 - -,+-.- _-.,,.--=,-, - ,- - - -- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - ; ,-\ \
! ,'
\ \
1401----'--i-----~----- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - -_; I
.,./ ,'
80 ~---------'l:--..::e..-.--.c- - - - - - - - - - , , L - - 1 - - - -- \
·,·-·-.,.
--,~,--------~,----- .,.;
60r--- - - - - - - - - ~-.....-- -__-'-'-·'-·' _ _ _ _ __
.., _________
• - .--,,=
... . .
✓ -
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR MAY
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT
NOV
D°EC
the close of the year shows more employment for more people than at
the beginning of 1934.
The same regularity in size of staff and in pay roll is reflected in
Providence curves. This condition, plus the higher prevailing wa~e
rates paid productive workers, accounts for its holding third place m
size of average amounts paid per year to all productive workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SERVICE LOAD AS REFLECTED IN HOURS AND EMPLOYMENT
49
Brockton, which follows Boston, accounts in part for its higher
annual earnings position by a seasonal increase in earnings greatly
exceeding the increase in numbers employed. This is due to the
custom of Brockton laundries of securing laundry from summer vacationists along the South Shore and Cape Cod regions. The fact that
the general level of employment and earnings fell after October to the
levels in the earlier winter months of the year reflects the failure of
the city's predominant industry, shoe manufacture, to increase its
volume of business.
Charts for Chicago, Washington, New Orleans, and other cities
show clearly the increase in business during the summer months and
that this is met by an increase in numbers employed and by increased
hours of employment. In none of the cities surveyed is there any
warrant for the type of exception to a regular hour schedule provided
for in the Code of Fair Competition, exceptions which implied a busy
season in each 13-week period.
The fluctuation in employment and in pay-roll charts shows little
difference in business demands during the year between cities of
various populations and between cities in different sections of the
country.
Resort cities.
In the resort cities of Florida and New Jersey the busy season is
concentrated in a few weeks during one part of the year. Miami laundries begin to increase staff and hours of work materially in December;
the peak of employment is reached at the beginning of March and by
the middle of April the excess load is over. Orlando, a smaller city,
does not show quite the same increase in numbers of productive
work~rs but its pay-roll curve follows the Miami curve, although in
lesser degree. Increase in numbers employed and in pay roll occurs
in Atlantic City laundries about the end of June and lasts well into
September, the height of demand being reached in August.
Cities much of whose population is dependent on a few months of
the year for its employment have a more difficult problem than cities
with a fairly regular flow of business. It is obvious that the practice
in each of the resort cities was to permit employees to work as long
hours as possible when laundry work was available. For while the
greatest number employed in any week by Miami laundries was 59 percent over the average for the year, the pay-roll increase was 116 percent. In Orlando the numbers increased by 14 7~ percent, the pay
roll by 35 percent, and in Atlantie City the average productive force
went up 37 percent and the pay roll 92 7~· percent. These extremely
long hours for a few months bring up the average weekly earnings of
the average number employed so that Miami makes a better showing
than all other southern cities for Negro women operatives' earnings,
and than all but 3 southern cities as far as white women operatives
are concerned, even though the amount the industry pays out to each
worker given any employment during the year is less.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INDIVIDUAL OPERATIVES' EARNINGS DIFFERENCES DURING ONE WEEK
The slight variations week by week in total numbers employed
and in pay rolls during the year in 18 of the 21 cities surveyed indicate that power laundries are accustomed to employ a force of workers of about the same number and to meet increased business volume
with longer hours of this regula.r staff. But even in a normal week
(such as that ending Nov. 10, 1934) individual differences in working
time, and consequently in earnings, occur. How much this is can be
seen on tables XIV and XV which show the distribution of earnings
of individual power-laundry workers for that week. The figures do
not reveal, however, whether less than a scheduled week's earnings
was occasioned by lack of enough work for all employed in laundries
or by personal exigencies of individual employees.
No comparison should be _made between median earnings of 1 week · •
appearing on these tables and average weekly earnings · based on
52 weeks of employment shown on table IX. The median is inserted
on tables XIV and XV only to permit of consideration of the numbers
in laundries reporting whose earnings may fall decidedly below a
midpoint in any one week.
A separate table for a week in different periods of the year was
made for Miami in order that the effect of the resort character of its
laundry trade may be studied.
TABLE
XIV.-Individual operatives' differences in 1 week's earnings nccording
to race and sex, by city 1
Week's earnings
Women
Men
All pro•
ductive
labor
Total
I White I
egro
Total
I White I Negro
CHICAGO, ILL. (27 laundries)
TotaL ___ _______ _____ ____
Median earnings __ ______
Less than $2 __ _____ ____ __ ______
$2, less than $4 _____ _________ __
$4, less than $6 ______ __ ____ ___ __
$6, less than $8 ___ _____________ _
$8, less than $IQ ______ __________
$10, less than $12 _________ ______
$12, less than $14 _________ ____ __
$14, less than $16 ___ __ __ ____ ___ _
$16, less than $18 ____ ________ ___
$18, less than $2Q _____ _______ ___
$20 and more ____ _______ ___ ____
2,048
$10. 50
---9
43
52
233
502
561
268
142
75
55
108
398
$14. 65
217
$14. 40
181
$14. 95
1,650
$10.10
2
5
20
17
31
25
21
22
36
9
41
47
222
473
504
195
78
37
24
20
--------- - - -------- ----------2
2
5
11
29
57
73
64
38
31
88
---------3
6
9
40
42
39
17
9
52
876
$10. 40
774
$9.80
6
17
28
117
217
233
117
65
34
23
19
3
24
19
105
256
271
78
13
3
1
1
475
$11.40
846
$10.10
- - - - --
WASHINGTON, D. 0.2 (22 laundries)
TotaL ____ ______ _________
Median earnings ________
1,590
$10. 95
Less than $2 ____ ___________ ____
$2, less than $4 _______ ____ _____ _
$4, less than $6 _______ ______ ____
$6, less than $8 ___ ___ ____ _______
$8, less than $IQ _____ ___________
$10, less than $12.. _______ ______
,12, less than $14____ ____ ______ _
$14, less than $16.. _____ ____ ____
$16, less than $18 ______ _________
$18, less than $2Q ________ _______
$20 and more ______ ____________
13
12
38
151
321
490
257
126
49
37
96
Bee footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
269
$16. 20
121
$18. 05
148
$14. 95
-------- -- -- - ---- --- --- - ------
------------------- ---------2
7
5
IO
21
46
44
30
29
79
3
6
14
18
14
10
51
7
15
32
26
16
19
28
1,321
$10. 55
10
12
38
144
311
469
211
82
19
8
17
--- - -3
11
15
83
177
106
43
12
8
17
51
10
9
27
129
228
292
105
39
7
52/
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
TABLE
XIV.-Individual operatives' differences in 1 week's earnings according
to race and sex, by city-Continued
Week's earnings
All pro•
ductive
labor
Men
Women
I White
Total
I
Negro
Total
I
White
I Negro
NEW ORLEANS, LA. (7 laundries)
Total. ..•.........•.•..•.
Median earnings .••.....
•
483
$5. 55
(1)
43
(3)
16
(3)
27
440
$5.45
131
$6. 55
309
$5.15
13 .......... .......... ..........
13
13
Less than $2. ..................
$2, less than $4.................
49 . ..... .... .... ...... . .........
49
5
44
$4, less than $6.................
262
3
3
259
37
222
$6, less than $8.................
95
2
2
93
65
28
$8, less than $10............... .
33
15
4
11
18
16
2
$10, less than $12.. ..... .. .. .. ..
5
2
1
l
3
3
$12, less than $14.... ...........
11
8
1
7
3
3
$14, less than $16...............
8
6
2
4
2
2 ......... .
$16, less than $18................... . ... . ..........................• .............................••...
$18, less than $20...............
2
2
1
1 ...•.•...................... ..
$20 and more.......... ... .....
5
5
5 .•.•...•...•.................... . .......
MEMPHIS, TENN . (11 laundries)
Total. ..•.•.... ..........
Median earnings ....... .
718
$5. 75
Less than $2....•...•........ ..
$2, less than $4 . •........ . ......
$4, less than $6 ... ·. ..•..........
$6, less than $8.... ....•.....•..
$8, less than $10............... .
$10, less than $12...•.•.........
$12, less than $14 . ... .......... .
$14, less than $16......•...•.•..
$16, less than $18 ...... ........ .
$18, less than $20 ............. .
$20 and more ...•.. ............
19
76
324
203
42
27
13
4
1
46
648
$5. 65
3
2
3
2
2
16
73
322
196
23
10
7
70
$10. 05
24
(3)
2
7
19
17
6
8
580
$5. 55
2
14
70
315
176
3
7
20
18
10
7
5
1
2
6
6
4
7
19
9
68
$8.15
3
3
1
3 ·•·•·•···· .......... ·······•··
1 .•••••.•...•......... .. ....... ··········
6
2
(8)
2
1 ·····•·•··
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. (5 laundries)
Total. .................. .
Median earnings ....... .
Less than $2...• ~ ••••••........
$2, less than $4................ .
$4, less than $6................ .
$6, less than $8................ .
$8, less than $10. ........... ... .
$10, less than $12 .............. .
$12, less than $14 ........... . .. .
$14, less than $16 .............. .
$16, less than $18........... ... .
$18, less than $20..•............
$20 and more ................. .
206
$4. 95
(3)
23
(3)
13
183
$4. 80
(3)
48
135
$4. 50
------
3
3
3 ·••••••••• •••••••••• ··-·······
34 -------- -- ---------- ---------34
1
33
93
2
1
91
2
89
23
23
13
10
21
4
17
17
15
6
9
9
5
5
10
5
1
1
1
1
1
1 .............................. ·········•
2
2 ••••••.••..•.••••••• • ••••••••.••..••••••
2
3
3
3 ·••••••·•· ••••••••.....•••.••• ••·····••·
PEORIA, ILL. (3 laundries)
Total. ........• ......... .
Median earnings ....... .
64
$9. 20
11
(3)
(3)
11 ......... .
53
$9. 05
53 ......... .
$9. 05 ·· ········
Less than $2..... . .............
1 .•........ .. ....... . .... . . ....
1
1
3 ....•..... ...•.... .. ..... . ....
3
3
$2, less than $4.......... ...... .
$4, less than $6.............. ...
7
4
4 . ....... ..
3
3
$6, less than $8. ................
15 .•...•••.. .......... ..... ... ..
15
15
$8, Jess than $10........ . .......
15 .......... .......... ..........
15
15
$10, less than $12........... ....
15 .......... ...... .... ..........
15
15
$12, less than $14............. ..
3
2
2 .. ........
1
1
$14, less than $16...............
l
1
1 .... .. ........... . ....... ~ ............. .
$16, less than $18....•............ '......................... . ........................................ . .
$18, less than $20...............
1
1
1 ····a····· .•.••••• ••• ••••• ••.••. .. •.••••
$20 and more ...•••.•. , ........
3
3
3 .................•.....................•
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
EARNINGS DIFFERENCES DURING O E WEEK
TABLE
XlV.-Individual operatives' differences in 1 week's earnings according
to race and sex, by city-Continued
Week's earnings
Women
Men
All productlve
labor
Total
I
White
I
l\egro
Total
I
White
I Negro
SAVANNAH, GA. (7 laundries)
TotaL ___________________
Median earnings ________
Less than $2,_ ___ _____ _______ __
$2, less than $4_ _______________
$4, less than $6- _ ___ ___ ______ __
$6, less than $8 ________________
$ , 1e..,sthan$10_ ________ _____ _
$10, less than $12 __ _____ _____ __
$12, less than $14_ ________ _____
$14, less than $16_ ______ ____ __ _
$16, less than $18--- ------- -- --
321
$5. 00
I
26
(3)
(3)
19
7
(3)
295
$4. 90
230
$4. 60
65
$7. 30
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
10
9
9
57 _____ ____ _ ________ __ ____ ____ __
57
3
54
120
2
2
118
fl
112
89
1 ______ ____
l
8S
33
55
20
9 ______ ____
9
11
11
12
5
1
4
7
7 _____ ___ __
8
3
1
2
5
5 ___ ______ _
1
1
1 ___________ __ _______ ___ ___ _______ _____ ·1
1
1 ___ _______ __________ ___ _______ ------ --· _
~§g'~~~ ~o~~-$-~---~~=========== --- -----~- --------~- ---- ----~- ========== === === ==== ========== ==========
2
1
ATLANTIC CITY,
TotaL________ _________ _
Median earnings______ __
4 1881
$6. 50
4
(3)
30
. J. (4laundries)
(3)
8
(3)
9
4 158
$6. 25
61 1~ 7
$6. 75
$4. 95
---- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - Less than $2_ ____ _____ _________
2 __________ __________ __________
2 ____ ______
2
$2, less than $4_______ ___ _______
15
1 __________ ____ ____ __
14
11
$4, less than $6_________ _______ _
51
1
1
50
13
34
$6, less than $8______________ __
75
5
2
70
37
9
$8, less th an $10___ ________ ____
18
7
2
2
11
6
1
$10, less than $12_ _______ __ ____
10
3
1 __________
7
3
$12, less than $14_____ _____ ___ _
6
3
1 ______ ____
3
l
$14, less than $16_ ___ ________ __
6
6
3 ________________ _____________ _
$16, less than $18_ ____ _______ __
3
3
1
1 ______ _______ _____ __ _____ ____ _
$18, le3s than $20 ___ _____ ___________ ___ __________ ___ _______ ____ __________________________ _______ ___ __
$20 and more______ ___ __ ____ ___
2
1 ________ __ __________
1
1 _____ ____ _
RALEIGH, N. 0. (4 laundries)
TotaL ____ _______ ___ ____
Median e'..lruings __ ____ __
97 1
$5 !iO
-- ·· - - ----3
60
16
Less than $2 __ ___ _____ _____ ____
$2, less than $4___ ___ ______ _____
$4, less than $6___ ____ _______ __
$6, less than $3____ __ _____ ______
$8, less than $10______ _________
6
$10, less than $12 __ ___ _____ ____
4
$12, le~s than $14__________ ____
4
$14, less than $16______________
2
$16, less than $18___ ________ ___
1
$18, less than $20_____ ______ ___
1
$20 and more ___ ___ ____ __ _______ _________
7
5 1
2
- ~ _ _(3_
)_
90
14
~ _ - ~ _ _(3_)_
____ _____ _ ___________ _____ _______ ____ ________ ___ ___ ________ _
__________ __ ____ ____ __________
3
1
2
__________ ______ ____ __ ________
60
60
1 __________
1
15
1
14
2 _________ _
2
4
4
_______ ___ ____ ______ ___ _______
4
4
3
3
1 ___ _______
1
1 _________ _
1 __________
1 __ ___________________________ _
1
1 ___ ___________________________ ______ ___ _
___ _____ ___ ______ __ ________ ______ _____ _____ ____________ ____ _
ORLANDO, FLA. (6 laundries)
TotaL ____ ______ _______ _
Median e'..lrnings _______ _
Less than $2_____ _________ __ __ _
$2, less than $4 _________ ____ ___
$4, less than $6____ ________ ____
$6, less than $8____________ ____
$8, less than $10___ ___ _________
$10. less than $12_ _ _____ ____ ___
$12, less than $14___ __ _________
$14, less than $16_ ______ ______ _
143
$G. 05
(3)
15
128
$5. 85
11
21
36
__________
47
__________
10
1
3
2
__ ____________ ______
11 ____ ____ __ _____ ___ __ _________ _
21 _________ _ _____ ___ __
37
1 ______ __ __
47 __________ __________
10 __________ __________
4
3
2
9
7
4
2
2
2
__________
93
$5. 50
5
21
3
33
18
29
5
5
1
2 ________ __
----------1----------
m:lii l~o;tl_~-=-~========== == ========;= ========;= ========i= ========i= ========== ==========::::::::::
1 Pay rolls were copied for the week ending Nov. 9 or 10, 1934, in all except a very few laundries where a
week in the early part of 1935, which was considered more representative, was used.
2 Metropolitan area.
3 Median not computed for less than 50.
4 Includes race not reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
54
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
XV.-Individual operatives' differences in earnings in Miami according to
race and sex in 1 week in November 1934 and 1 week in the period February to
April 1935
TABLE
Men
Total productive
workers
Total
Women
White
Negro
Total
White
Negro
--
Week's earnings
-,;<
~'Vi
M -~
._.'O
<ll A
.O:::l
S..::l
<ll-,j<
I>.-<
o~
z
~§
~~
';;!;
~
...
0
...., <N
>a8,
~
(I)
00
:::l""<ll
s..i~ · .....
pc,,1-<
a;,.-<"O
f"<
--
.0
s
I>
z
(I)
0
- -
·&
-<
.s""
l>,c,:,
._.c:,,
.,,,...,
""'§
~
0.
-<
0. ~
-<0
....,.,.,
... :,..cr.i ~...a;
0.
-<
';;!;
.s.,.,
~~
~
(I)
I .s""
:,..cr.i
""'
~
...
(I)
0.
-<
.s""
:,..cr.i
er.,
""';::
0.
-<
0
....,.,.,
(I)
:,..cr.i
...
~~
~~
~~
~~
e s e s .02 s ~::, s .0e
.Ei
.0
f"<
z f"< z f"< z f"< z f"<
z f"<
- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - .0
s
:::l
(I)
(I)
I>
0
.0
.0
(I)
I>
0
(I)
(I)
I>
0
I>
0
(I)
.0
(I)
(I)
(I)
,i::,
.0
I>
0
(I)
(I)
TotaL ___ - ___
82
65 31 31 425
493 213
507
96
51
210
283 212
589
Median earnings ______ __ $6. 65 $12. 30 $12. 75 $16. 60 $14. 50 $16. 75 (1) (!) $6. 20 $12. 05 $6.80 $12. 15 $5. 65 $11. 65
Less th a n $2 _____ __
$2, Jess th a n $4 ___ __
$4, Jess tha n $6 ___ __
$6, less tha n $8 _____
$8, Jess than $10 ____
$10, Jess than $12 ___
$12, less tha n $14__ _
$14, less tha n $16 __ _
$16, less than $18 ___
$18, less than $20 __ _
$20 and more ______
1
---
10
18
169
134
70
· 33
32
17
5
3
16
---- -- -1
1
18
3
18 --- --24
2
35
5
85
6
91
15
126
20
67
13
48
4
2
26
51
14
Median no t computed for less th an 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 -- - - - 7
2
5
3
5
3
6
9
6
6
11
9
11
3
10
2
13
30
- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - 3
1
3
3
4
4
5
8
8
8
18
- --- ---l
- - -4
- - -2
2
l
3
2
6
1
14
4
3
1
3
2
- --1 12
9
18
167
129
64
18
12
4
1
1
2
15
16
17
30
80
85
120
56
37
16
21
4
8
53
75
37
16
12
4
1
1
2
7
9
12
17
36
53
74
30
14
10
21
&
10
114
54
27
2
---- -- - -- - -- - --- -- ---
8
7
5
13
44
32
46
26
23
6
------
PRICES OF LAUNDRY SERVICE IN CITIES WITH
DIFFERENT WAGE SCALES
The principal reason advanced at code hearings before the National
Recovery Administration by advocates of a more-than-50-percent variation from high to low in minimum wage rates of laundry operatives in
different geographic sections of the country was that in sections
demanding the lower rates the consuming public would only use laundry service when prices were correspondingly low. Consequently the
Women's Bureau collected data on retail prices charged for different
types of service in every laundry visited. Wholesale prices to hotels
and restaurants and linen-supply service rates were not obtained from
laundries because no uniformity in price existed, and individual bids
were regarded as matters of private concern between contractor and
contractee.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF SERVICE
Price lists for work that was charged by the piece were secured from
laundries where this type of work was done. List-price work has been
supplanted almost. entirely in many cities by family-bundle or pound
work insofar as patronage of the household is concerned. Nonfamily persons and a transient population are the principal customers
for list-price laundry service, the relative amount of laundry business
priced in this manner being dependent upon proportion of the population that is of this character. Washington laundries, for example, do
much list-price work, whereas Boston power laundries do relatively
little.
Most laundries that cater to families offer several different kinds
of service. Prices charged for all kinds of services were secured.
According to the statement of a representative of the Laundryowners
National Association at the code hearings, probably the minimum
number of family services offered by the average laundry is five.
These include a damp-wash service, a damp-wash flat-work-ironed
service, a rough-dry service, and at least two family-finish services.
In the damp-wash service both wearing apparel and flat work are
returned to the customer damp, ready for ironing. There still is a
considerable amount of business of this type done, particularly in
certain cities and sections of the country. Much is done as a family
service, but some is the work hand laundries send to the power
laundries to have washed and which is charged for at a wholesale rate.
Another service popular in certain sections is the damp-wash flatwork-ironed service for which a commonly used trade name is
"Thrifty" or "Thrift Service." The flat work is returned ironed and
the wearing apparel damp, ready for ironing.
In the rough-dry service (the trade name often used is "Fluff Dry")
bundles are washed and returned dry, the flat work being ironed.
Sometimes the clothes that need it are starched and sometimes sta.r ching is not included. Each of the three above-mentioned services
frequently is advertised as finishing men's shirts for an amount additional to the pound rate charged and for less than the laundry's list
p1ice.
55
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
56
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
Laundry designated as family finish is returne<l to the customer
with both flat work and wearing apparel ironed. The cheaper grades
of service finish both wearing apparel and flat work entirely by machine, whereas the higher-priced services do some of the finishing by
hand. Most laundries offer several grades of this service, each of
which is advertised under a particular trade name and at a price
that is different from the prices charged for the other finished services.
Where the industry is well organized all laundries adopt the same trade
name for the same type of service, but where the industry is not
organized frequently there are many trade names in use for the same
type of service. Sometimes, too, one laundry gives more service or a
better quality of service than another laundry advertising under the
same trade name. In New Jersey, where the industry had been
empowered by law to establish minimum prices for laundry services
in 1934, there had been so many different trade names that there had
to be some classification of services before agreement could be reached
on prices. .As a result, the number of different family-finish services
offered in the laundries throughout the State fell into four price groups
from the cheapest machine-finished service to the de luxe hand-finished
service.
Valid price comparisons.
While data on the prices being charged for numerous named services
were secured in the several cities, the differences in trade names make
it impossible to compare intermediary family services from one city
to another. Principal types of services, however, are uniform enough
to he compared as to prices, though it is recognized that, as in everything offered for sale, there may be a difference between laundries in
the quality of work done.
Of the family services, damp wash is very much the same in whatever city it is done. Several of the cities visited, all but one of
them in the South, were reported as having practically no business of
this type, due partially, at least, to climatic conditions. Laundries
that do family-bundle work today advertise an all-laundry-pressed
service in which work is finished entirely by machine. This, the
cheapest finished service each l.a undry offers, has been selected for a
comparison of prices. It is fully recognized that even in this service
there may be a difference in the quality of service one laundry offers
as its cheapest in comparison with the cheapest service offered by
another firm, but the variations are less than when hand retouching
determines prices.
On the following pages are listed by city the prices charged for
several types of laundry retail service, including the list-price service
represented by sheets and men's shirts, and the family-bundle service
represented by the damp-wash and the family-finish services. The
table on page 58 shows the range in prices reported by laundries
operating in the same city and for each city the price most commonly
charged for each of these services. In most of the cities some one
price prevailed, though in a few instances prices were too varied to
report any one as prevailing.
The tabulation showing the range in prices reveals information that
is important to an understanding of the problems of competition with
which laundries in most cities have to contend. It should not, however, be considered separately from the tabulation of prevailing prices·.
In a number of cases the· very low prices were reported by the smaller
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PRICES OF SERVICE-DIFFERENT WAGE SCALES
57
laundries, and in many of the cities only one laundry reported the
lowest price and only one reported the highest price, in-between prices
being charged by the majority. Then, too, the significance of lower
prices charged can be fully known only when the amount of business
done at this level is ascertained, which is impossible as few laundries
keep records of this character.
LIST PRICES ON SHIRTS AND SHEETS
The facts presented on table XVI indicate that there was not much
difference between the North and the South in the prices charged the
public, contrary to statements at hearings on the laundry code.
Shirts.-The similarity in prices that prevailed for men's shirts from
one city to another indicates that in this particular branch of the
laundry business a large proportion of southern customers were paying
as much as men in the North. As may be seen from the table more
laundries were charging 15 cents than any other price. In 13 of the
22 cities (half of them southern cities) the list price that prevailed for
men's shirts was 15 cents. In 3 other cities with no prevailing price
15 cents occurred as frequently as any other price.
The greatest variation in prices charged for shirts occurred in Chicago and Boston, where 10 cents was the lowest price charged and 20
cents the highest, as will be seen in table XVI. However, the 10-cent
price was reported by only one laundry in Chicago and by five in
Boston and the 20-cent price by one and three laundries, respectively.
In New Orleans, Miami, and Charleston there was a difference of 5
cents between the lowest price and the highest price, 10 cents being
the lowest and 15 cents the highest. In Miami and Charleston,
however, only one small laundry in each case had a price of 10 cents,
whereas in New Orleans this was the price that prevailed. Only one
laundry in New Orleans charged 15 cents, whereas this price prevailed
in Miami.
Sheets.- The list price reported for sheets varied by as much as 5
cents in Chicago and in Miami, the lowest price charged being 10 cents
and the highest price 15 cents. However, in Miami very little listprice work of this sort was reported, sheets being charged for by the
pound in the majority of laundries. In Washington the difference
in prices charged amounted to as much as 3 cents, several laundries
charging 7 cents, others 8 or 9 cents, and several 10 cents. In the
other cities, the difference was 1 or 2 cents. On the whole the list
price charged for sheets was less in the southern than in the northern
cities visited. Six, seven, and eight cents were the prices that prevailed in eight of the nine southern cities 4 where the laundries reported
the price per sheet, whereas in five of the nine northern cities reporting
prices were considerably higher, 12 or 15 cents.
PRICES ON DAMP-WASH FAMILY BUNDLE
Relatively little damp wash was done in any of the cities surveyed
in the South, so that the two sections cannot be compared as to the
prices charged for this type of service. The prices charged in several
of the northern cities where damp wash was done quite extensively
bear some scrutinizing, especially in view of the wage rates set by the
code. Often the rate per pound of damp wash is lowered for weight
in excess of a set minimum; in order to compute the average cost per
' The majority of Miami laundries reported a pound rate of 9 cents for sheets.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
Shirts (list price)
I
---- ---
Chicago, Ill _______________
Boston, Mass.2 ____________
Washington, D. c.2 ______ _
New Orleans, La __________
Newark, N. J.2 _____ _______
Memphis, Tenn ___________
Providence, R. r_ _________
Worcesteri Mass __________
Jacksonvi le, Fla __________
Camden, N. J_ ____________
Miami, Fla ________________
Peoria,
m _________________
Savannah, Ga _____________
Charlotte, N. c ___________
.Atlantic City, N. J_ ______ _
Brockton, Mass ___________
Charleston, S. c __________
Decatur, IlL ______________
Raleigh, N. C _____________
Greenville, S. c ___________
Orlando, Fla ______________
.Asbury Park, N. J_ _______
38
14
10 to 20
10 to 20
28
15 to 18
10 to 15
15
14 to 15
20
18 to 20
10 to 12
12 to 15
10 to 15
14
13
12
7
7
9
6
20
{
8
15 to 16½ {
8
6
3
2
11 to 15
15
15 to 18
18
10 to 15
15
3
4
4
5
:1
15
15
15 to 18
15
{
1/i
12
10
15
10
15
15
20
20
12
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
18
15
15
15
15
15
18
15
- - - - --
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Prevailing
price
per
pound
(cents)
}
{
8
9
7
12
7
8
9
10
9
11
}
Number of Numlaun- ber of
dries
launchargdries
ing
reportpreing
vailing
price
Range 1 of
prices per
pound
(cents)
Prevai'ing
price
per
pound
(cents)
---
- -- - - - - - - -
18
12
t
14
10 to 15
16
5 -------- ---------- -- ·- ---- --------
39
40
4. 6 to 5. O
2. 5 to 5. 0
4. 6
4.0
23
4. 0 to 5. 2
4. 0
Number of
laundries
charging
prevailing
price
---
34
14
39
25
10. 0 to 19. 2
10. 0 to 16. o
13
12. Oto 18. 0
10. 8 to 11. O
10. 0 to 14. O
9. 5 to 18. 0
10. Oto 20. o
8.8tol7.5
8. 6 to 10. 0
11. 3
14. 6 to 16. 2
{
11. 8
10.0
10.0
(3)
10
8
11
--------
3. 3
4. 0
3. 1
3. 0
4. 6
4. 3
11
10
29
14
17
14
13
8
9
7
20
4. 6
6
10
10. 2 to 14. 0
14. 0
6
5. 0
4
6
8
8
5 4. 0 to 5. 0
6
5.0
5. 0
7
6
8
8
7
6
4. 0
2
4. 0
5
2
9
9
2
5
3.8
2
2 --- --- -- ------- --- -------- -------4 3. 0 to 3. 8
7
2
3
5 to 7
2 -------- ------------ -------- -------5.
0
4
15
5.
0
4
4
15
4
4
4. 0
2
4
4 4. 0 to 5. 0
4
7 to 8
8
3
5. 0
2
4. 0
4.0
3
3
2
5
2
5
6
3
(4)
4. 1
4.1
6
6
---------- -------- -------2
4. 0
12
2
4
4. 0
4
12
2
2
8
9. 2 to 11. 4
11. 0
13. 2 to 13. 5
11. 2 to 14. 0
8. 4
12. 4 to 13. 9
11. 8
10. 8 to 12. 2
9. 0 to 13. 5
12. 3 to 14. o
11. 4
11.0
13. 5
4
15
12
13
2
11
9
12
11
7
6
6
5
17
4
3
(l)
4
5
8
4
(l)
20
13
13
8
10
------- --- -------- -------15
6 to 8
8
10 to 15
3
8
}
i to 10
6 to 7
12
6 to 7
{
15
6
8
10
15
8
3
6
4
2
2
5
17
3. 0 to 4. 9
3. 0 to 3. 6
3. 8 to 4. 3
3. 1
3. 0 to 3. 3
4. 6
3. 2 to 5. 0
11
4. o to 5. o
11
}
------------
------- -------4. 0
14
9
8
8
11
6
7
6
{
}
Where the same price is reported for each laundry, this price is shown.
'Metropolitan area.
1
Range 1 of
prices per
pound
(cents)
00
Family finish (family bundle)
Damp wash (family bundle)
Sheets Oist price)
NumNumber of Number of NumNumlaun- ber of
launPrevailPrevailber
of
ber of Range 1 of
dries
of ing
dries
launlaun- Range'
ing
launprices
chargchargprices
price
dries
price
dries
dries
ing
ing
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
report(cents)
r
eportreportprepreing
ing
ing
vailing
vailing
price
price
City
c;-,
XVI.-Prevailing retail prices and range of retail prices charged for laundry services, by city
6
}
3
2
4
4
5
6
4
a Prices vary too much to report any as prevailing.
'. Only 1 laundry reported.
{
10. 8
14. 0
12. 0
12. 9
(3)
(3)
10.0
11. 3
16. 2
(3)
8.4
13. 9
11. 8
10.8
13. 5
13. 0
9
15
7
5
---------------
8
7
18
6
7
-------2
3
4
4
3
2
PRICES OF SERVICE-
DIFFERENT WAGE SCALES
59
pound the Laundryowners National Association's estimate of 19.2
pounds has been used as the average weight for this type of service.
Perhaps the largest amount of wet-wash business was done in Chicago
and Boston. In Chicago prices per pound were much the same in all
39 laundries reporting, the difference from high to low being only fourtenths of a cent. In Boston, however, where 40 laundries reported,
some charged twice as much per pound as others. It is interesting to
note that there is a difference of 1 cent per pound in the prices charged
in Providence and Worcester, though the same wage rates were set by
the code for both cities. Charlotte, which reported some damp-wash
business, charged more per pound than did either of these cities, although the code rate for this city was only half that of the northern
cities.
PRICES ON FAMILY-FINISHED SERVICE
Method of computation.-To facilitate comparison, prices on machine-pressed family-finished service have been reduced to the rate per
. pound. Some laundries charge a straight price per pound; others
charge by the pound but quote different prices per pound for flat
work and wearing apparel; others quote a minimum price and the
number of pounds that will be laundered for that amount, usually
specifying the proportion of flat work and wearing apparel and in
some cases set different prices per pound for flat and apparel exceeding
the minimum bundle weight. In some laundries men's shirts are
included with the wearing apparel and in others an additional amount
is charged for each shirt. A few charge extra for collars, blouses, and
handkerchiefs. The average-sized bundle, according to the Laundryowners National Association, weighs 16.4 pounds, 60 percent of which
is flat work and the rest wearing apparel, and the average number of
shirts in the bundle amounts to five. These figures have been used
in computing the price per pound on the basis of the price quoted by
each laundry.
The lowest price per pound for family finish reported by any laundry
was 8.4 cents charged by the two laundries in Charleston that rendered
this type of service. But 10 cents per pound prevailed both in Boston
and Jacksonville. Laundries in Chicago and Raleigh reported 11.8
cents per pound as the prevailing rate charged families for this service.
Asbury Park and Orlando, both resort cities, one in New Jersey and
one in Florida, reported prevailing rates varying by one-half cent,
although the code rates differed by 8}~ cents per hour.
Rates for this machine-pressed bundle reached their height in
Miami, where 16.2 cents per pound prevailed during the season. The
next highest price was in Newark and in Peoria, where the majority of
laundries charged 14 cents.
Just as geographic location has little to do with the prevailing
rates charged, so within large cities rates varied widely. There was
considerable range of prices charged by laundries in Chicago, Boston,
Memphis, Providence, and Worcester, but in these cities the extremes
of prices were the exceptions to the prices that prevailed. There is
always the possibility, too, that some of the unusually high prices
reported on table XVI may include better quality of work than is
provided by laundries charging lower rates.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
60
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
The laundry prices disclosed on table XVI on the four types of
laundry service that are comparable show clearly that the amounts
charged the public are not determined by -sectional demands nor are
they dependent upon size of city. While only an examination of all
types of services and the amount of each priced service carried on
could prove conclusively that northern, middlewestern, and southern
laundry patrons were subject to the same variations in prices from
laundry to laundry, the facts do show that prices were not consistently low or high in any one city or all over the southern area or all
over the northern area, as the statements made at code hearings
would have led one to believe.
In comparing prevailing wage rates paid and prevailing prices
charged, therefore, city boundaries have been eliminated and the
comparison made for all laundries reporting on both subjects.
COMPARISON OF WAGE RATES AND RETAIL PRICES
In table XVII are compared the prices that laundries reported for
certain of their services and the wage rates that prevailed for the
largest occupational group of women employees who worked in connection with these services. Accordingly, flat-workers' wage rates
have been selected for comparison with the prices charged for sheets.
Hand-finishers' wage rates are compared with the J?rices charged for
men's shirts as much of hand ironing in laundries mvolves touching
up press-ironed shirts. Since the ironing of the cheapest familyfinish service is done almost entirely on presses, the prices for this
type of service are compared with the hourly rates reported as prevailing for press operators. The comparison of prices has been with
hourly wage rates entirely. Data for all cities have been combined
for presentation on the following table.
The table shows quite clearly that so far as these three items are
concerned there is no consistent relationship between the price
charged and the wage rates paid to the productive workers employed
on them .
Shirt prices and hand-ironers' wage rates.
The comparison of wage rates paid to hand ironers and the prices
charged for shirts shows that of the 143 laundries reporting 82 listed
15 cents as the price for laundering a man's shirt but the wage rates
paid varied considerably. Thirty-eight of the 82 paid hand ironers
less than 20 cents, 26 of them 14 cents or less. The other 44 paid 20
cents or more, 36 of these paying 25 to more than 30 cents. In
laundries that charged more than 15 cents a shirt, as well as those
that charged less than this amount, some hand ironers were paid more
than 30 cents, the lowest rate for the former group being 14 cents
while less than 14 cents was paid some in the latter group.
Sheet prices and fl.at-work ironers' wage rates.
At first glance it might appear on table XVII that where the higher
prices are charged the higher wage rates are paid, for the 8 laundries
that reported charging a price of 6 cents per sheet, as well as most of
those that were chargmg 7 cents, all were paying their flat workers at
the rate of 14 cents or less an hour, while 15 of the 17 where the price
charged per sheet was 12 cents had wage rates of at least 25 cents an
hour. However, of the 28 laundries where the list price was 8 cents.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
PRICES OF SE:fl.VICE-DIFFERENT WAGE SCALES
TABLE
XVII.-Reta.il prices charged for services related to wage rates that prevailed
for three occupations
A . RATES OF HAND IRONERS IN RELATION TO PRICES CHARGED FOR SHIRTS
Hourly
wage rate (cents)
Number
of laun•
dries re•
porting
Number of laundries in which the list price for shirts was1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IO
cents
12
cents
13½
cents
14
cents
15
cents
16
cents
16¼
cents
18
cents
20
ants
- - - - - - - ---1---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TotaL .•... ---- ·- · -
143
Less than 14------------· ·
]4
32
13
IO
37
14 _. - -·· .. .. --------·- -- ..
15, less than 20 ___ ··--·····
20, less than 25 ... _. __ .....
25 .. -- •··· ·····--------- ··
26, less than 30 ____ . _____ __
82
17
7 ·----·· ·--- --- ·------
5 -··---· ··-----
6
1 - -----1 ----··· --- ---9 -----·· -- -----
10 ·-·---· -----·· · ·----· --- ·--·
15
12
30 __ ----·· .. - . ---- ·------ .
More than 30_... _.... _...
3 ·----· · · ·-·· · · ·--·-- 1 ·-- · -- · ·-···-- ··- ---·
11
8
7 --- ·--· ·-----· --··-- - -------
19
12
8
20
7
1 -- - ·--· - ---·-·
7
1 -- ---- · ·--·--·
2
6 ·· --- -· -· -- --·
2
4
3 ··· ·-·· · ·-- - -·
3
5
B. RATE S OF FLAT•WORK IRONERS IN RELA'l' ION TO PRICE S FOR SHEETS
umber of laundries in which the list price for sheets was-,,
Number
of laun- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dries re6
7
8
9
IO
12
15
5
porting cents
cents cents cents cents cents cents cents
Hourly
wage rate (cents)
- - - - - - - - - - - -· 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total.. ____ __ __ __ ___ _____ --
25
102
10 to 12.-·--·--------·-----------·
15 ·----- - ------·
20 to 22¼ ... ••· ----- ----··-·-···--25 ..... --·-·------·--· -·. -- . · -·- ·27 to 30·--- ·---·-··---····-· -· ···-
30
3
11
31
12
14 ........... .... _._. ·-·-·-·---·-·
15, less than 20 .- ---- -·-···-··- ·-·
-------- ----·-----·------
8
-------- ---- --------- --- -
28
17
7
7 ·--·-··
1 · ·----- · -----14
7 -- --- -- ·- -·--- ------· -----------·- ·--- -- · ·- ---- 2
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
12
4
5
7
2
1 ------· --- --- - .. .....
8
3
C. RATES OF PRESS OPERATORS IN RELATION TO PRICES FOR FAMILY·FINISH
SERVICE
Hourly
wage rate (cents)
Number of laundries in which the price per pound for family.finish
service wasNumber _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1
of laun·
dries re• 8, less 9, less 10, less 11, less 12, less 13, less 14, less 15, less 16, less
porting than than than than than than than than than
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
cents cents cents cents cents cents cents cents cents
----------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total .. _. - . -- . -.....
149
11 ...... .
10, less than 14·-······--··
14 ............. · -··-···-··
15, less than 20 . .•• •--···· ·
20, less than 25 . .•••. - .•.. •
25 .. ····· ·········-··-··· ·
26, less than 30 •......•.•.•
13
II
41
17
30 ....... .... ... ••·•···• •.
More than 30 •. ...•...•••.
14
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26
28
1
2 · ·-··· ·
· 27
21
17
23
-23
7 ·· · •• ·· ·· · ·•· · · ···-· · · ···-· · · ···-··
6
1
1
6
1 ..... .. · ···-··
1
1 . ..... .
3
7
IO
5
1
9 ...... .
2
1
2
3 ·· ·--· ·
2
9
4
4
2
1
1
62
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
as many were paying their flat-work operatives 25 cents as were paying them 14 cents and less. And wage rates to workers on a 15-cent
laundered sheet ranged from 20 cents to 30 cents.
Family-bundle prices and machine-pressers' wage rates.
The data relating prices per pound for family finish and the rates
paid to press operators give even less indication of any correlation
between the amount charged for laundry services and the wage rates
that can be paid the workers. Laundries charging the same retail
prices reported rates of 14 cents and less and of more than 30 cents.
That is, the fact that a laundry charges the family 16 cents or more
per pound for family-finish service in no way indicates that the ironers
of this laundry are receiving higher rates of pay than in the laundry
that charges but 10 cents per pound. This is true within the same
city as well as from city to city. While it is possible that Boston firms
paying press operators 30 cents and over per hour and charging 10
cents per bundle pound may not show as good a profit as New Orleans
firms which charge 10.8 cents per bundle pound and pay press operators less tha,n 14 cents an hour, no laundry owner in any of the sections of the country included in the survey presented factual proof
that tha ptce paid by the customer is the determining factor in the
wage rate paid the worker.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
COMPARISON OF VOLUME OF BUSINESS PER PRODUCTIVE WORKER AND PER PRODUCTIVE PAYROLL DOLLAR
If retail prices are not the determinants of wage-rate differentials
in laundries in the three sections of the country under consideration,
are differences in output per worker in these sections such that
identical prices to customers may mean widely varying gross incomes
to laundries in each section?
Unfortunately power laundries keep no record of quantity of
laundry done either in total poundage or poundage of each type of
service, so that the only measurement of volume is a dollar and
cents one, which, of course, again brings prices into the problem. The
comparison of dollar volume of business per productive worker during
1934 shown on table XVIII must be viewed, therefore, in the light
of prevailing prices and ranges of prices appearing for each city on
table XVI.
In preparing table XVIII it was necessary to eliminate all linensupply laundries or other laundries whose receipts were in part from
some other service than laundry work, and to eliminate the family
laundry that did not charge all productive services rendered by
members of the family on the pay roll. Consequently, the average
weekly earnings for the year 1934 were refigured for laundries whose
pay rolls and receipts permitted of comparison. These earnings vary
only a few cents from those on earlier tables based on average weekly
earnings of all laundries reporting, so the more limited data compared
on table XVIII may be considered representative.
Volume per productive worker in cities of 100,000 and over.
Comparing first the three cities in which laundries included m
table XVIII did a total business of approximately $2,000,000 or
more- that is, Chicago, Boston, and Washington-Chicago laundries
report $47.21 as the weekly volume of business per productive worker
employed in 1934. This was 11 percent more per worker than was
done in Boston laundries and 20 percent more than was accomplished
by Washington laundries. Chicago prices were somewhat higher
than Boston retail laundry prices, which would account for part of
this greater volume of output per productive worker; but even so,
there is sufficient margin to leave no doubt but that Chicago productive
laundry workers produce as much or more than do Boston workers.
Wage rates 20 percent higher in Boston than in Chicago, as provided
in the Code of Fair Competition, are, therefore, without basis on the
ground either of price or of quantity produced by productive workers.
While .Washington laundry prices also are higher, on the whole, than
those in Boston, so that the real difference in volume produced per
worker is probably greater than that shown on table XVIII, there
is still insufficient warrant for productive workers' earnings being
24 percent higher in Boston than in Washington.
When a comparison is made between other cities having populations of more than 100,000, such as Newark, Worcester, Providence,
63
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
64
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
and Peoria, whose retail prices on bundle work were similar, the
receipts per productive worker in Newark laundries are found to be
about a fourth above those in Worcester, while Worcester productive
workers earn on the average only a few cents more per week. And in
New Orleans, Memphis, and Jacksonville laundries, where retail
prices were approximately the same as those in the larger metropolitan centers, although they were lower than those charged in the other
intermediate centers, there was a difference of over an eighth in dollar
volume of production between · the lowest and the highest amount
per productive worker.
Volume per productive worker in cities of less than 100,000 population.
In the record of cities of less than 100,000 population, the weekly
volume of business per productive worker of Brockton-over $55 per
worker- reveals that the well-organized laundry in the smaller city
sending its service out into other communjties can excel the metropolitan laundry not only in amount paid annm>lly to workers but in
returns per worker. Just as Brockton exceeds Boston both in average
weekly earnings of productive workers and in weekly volume of
business per productive employee, so Raleigh exceeds Memphis.
For the most part, however, the smaller cities in the South show a
decidedly smaller volume of business per productive .worker than do
the larger cities of the South, M iddle West, and North, even when
possible price differences are considered.
TABLE
XVIII.-Comparison of dollar volume of laundry business per productive
worker and per productive pay-roll dollar in 1934
City
Number of
laundries
reporting
annual pay
roll and
receipts for
Volume of
1934 bnsi-
ness i
193-11
Average
weekly
earnings
per pro•
du ctive
man and
woman
operative
Weekly dollar volume of
business per productive
man and woman operative
Average
Chicago, Ill _________ _____ _
Boston, Mass.3 _______ ___ __
19 $3, 258, 816. 87
15 1, 886, 901. 39
$12. 08
14. 09
$47. 21
42.58
Washineton, D . 0.3 _______
New Orleans, La __________
Newark, N. J.3 ___ ___ ______
Memphis, Tenn ___________
Providence, R. !_ _____ ____
Worcester, Ma~s - __ _______
Jacksonville, Fla ________ __
Camden, N. J_ __ __________
Miami, Fla _______________
Peoria, Ill ______ _______ ____
11
7
5
6
4
3
8
2
11
6
2, 171, 856. ,58
875,573.56
636,362.86
890,489.34
347,178.59
129, fi84. 11
657,796.83
334,689.69
738, 161.23
343,926.57
11.41
6. 81
12. 67
6. 67
12. 32
12. 78
6. 75
8.52
8. 70
9. 89
39.48
27. 77
45.14
25. 69
38.49
36. 24
29. 23
32. 38
35. O\J
32. 61
Savannah, Ga ______ _______
Obarlotte;N. (' ____ __ _____
Atlantic City, N. J_ _______
Brockton, Mass ___________
Decatur, Ill_ _____________ _
Raleigh, N. O _____________
Greenville, S. o ___________
Orlando, Fla _____________ _
3
7
6
2
4
3
3
4
225,751.86
539, 105. 07
362,733.30
234,096.19
155,520. 68
118, 043.58
152,792.34
130,734.59
6.17
6. 63
8.88
14. 18
20.11
24. 24
27.18
55.88
35. 65
27. 20
20. 08
21. 03
10. 04
6. 70
6. 62
6. 85
Range
$33. 75 to $57. 87
• 27. 14 to 56. 58
Dollar
volume of
business
per productive
pay-roll
dollar
$3. 91
3. 02
46 to
21. 97 to
34. 88 to
19. 42 to
28. 13 to
32. 90 to
10. 13 to
28. 65 to
6 18. 75 to
21. R4 to
8. 19
36. 03
54. 06
29. 53
46. 52
39. 39
35. 99
37. 50
46. 76
55. 52
3. 46
4. 08
3. 56
3. 85
3.12
2. 84
4. 33
15. 81 to
20. 49 to
15. 98 to
53.84 to
31. 90 to
21. 43 to
14. 84 to
13. 87 to
23. 91
31. 55
34. 49
59. 23
38.22
28.41
24. 72
23. 25
3. 26
3. 65
3. 06
3. 94
3. 55
4. Ofi
3. 17
3. 21
5 27.
3. llG
4. 03
3. 30
1 Excludes linen-supply houses because receipts chargeable to linen supplies cannot be separated from
laundry charges.
2 Excludes any dry cleaning done in laundries, except in Jacksonville.
3 Metropolitan area.
'Lowest volume was in individually owned and operated family bundle laundry and highest volume was
attained in wet wash individually owned and operated laundry.
1 Lowest volume was in individually owned and operated fine laundry service.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BUSINESS PER WORKER AND PER PAY-ROLL DOLLAR
65
Variations in volume per productive worker in laundries in one city.
In considering volume of business per productive worker in the
larger southern cities, note should be taken of the range of volume per
worker occurring in each city. For at least one laundry in each New
Orleans and Jacksonville employed workers turned out $36 worth of
business a week, and at least one laundry in Miami employed workers
whose output exceeded $46 . A range of $9 or more in weekly volume
of laundry per productive worker is shown in every southern city
except Savannah and Raleigh . This would lead to the belief that
volume produced was as much or more a matter of management than
of worker's ability to produce.
This conclusion is also reached in a study of individual laundry
output in cities in the North and Middle West. While specialization
in one or more kinds of laundry service affected the range of outputwet-wash laundries having the greatest dollar output per worker and
very fine personal-wear specialists the lowest dollar output-among
laundries carrying on the same type of business, the volume per
worker varied widely.
Vomme of business per productive pay-roll dollar.
Wage-rate policies and the varying output of productive workers
in different cities are reflected in the volume of business per dollar
paid to productive workers. The largest dollar volume of laundry
per productive pay-roll dollar was secured by laundries in Jacksonville, followed by New Orleans and Raleigh. The lowest yield was
in Worcester, Boston, Atlantic City, and Providence, the difference
between the low of Worcester and the high of Jacksonville being over
50 percent. That is, even though men and women productive
laundry operatives in Jacksonville, New Orleans, and Raleigh as a
group · turned out less dollar volume of work than did productive
laundry operatives in Boston, Providence, and Worcester, at rates
of pay which netted average weekly earnings of less than $7 for men
and women operatives, these southern city laundry owners gained
relatively more income for this service than did the New England
laundry owners whose productive workers earned from $12.32 to
over $14 per week.
The midpoint in dollar volume of business per productive pay-roll
dollar in the 20 cities was $3 .55 to $3.56, the figures for D ecatur and
ewark. Among the 9 cities whose laundries gained more income
per flollar p{lid productive workers than did these 2 cities were 5
whose laundries paid prevailing rates of pay of 14 cents or less an
hour. Among the 9 cities whose laundries gained less than $3.55
per productive pay-roll dollar were only 3 of the smaller cities paying
14 cents or less to productive operators.
If the productive laundry operatives, who are very largely women,
were paid in accordance with their value to firms in the cities under
consideration, table XVIII would leave no doubt but that increased
rates of pay would be in order in ,Jacksonville, New Orleans, R aleigh,
Miami, and Memphis. And since Boston laundries securing a yield
of $3.02 per productive pay-roll dollar were operating on a sound
financial basis, raises would be in order for all laundry operatives in
cities whose laundries were paying less than 30 cents per hour.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
OPERATING EXPENSES OF POWER LAUNDRIES
IN 1934
The yield of dollar value of business per productive pay-roll dollar
measures the relative value of the productive operatives' work
and wage in different cities as a factor apart from other laundry costs.
In actual laundry practice, of course, business receipts cover the ·
wages and salaries of all workers and all other legitimate items of
expense connected with operating a power laundry as well as profit
to investors. To determine whether costs of laundry operation
differed materially in different sections of the country and whether
such differences as existed should be taken into account in the determination of possible rates of pay, the Women's Bureau secured from
power laundries statements of costs of operation.
The accounting system advocated by the Laundryowners National
Association was adopted by the Women's Bureau in requesting data
on costs of operation from power laundries, save only that all payments for services other than laundry superintendence and management were sought apart from the costs of the department in which
they were incurred. The items included under each major cost
heading are shown on pages 75 to 77.
As a consequence no complicating factors were encountered in
labor costs of the majority of laundries. Only when members of the
family worked at laundering processes or at mechanical and office
pursuits within the laundry and such services were not charged
upon the books of the r;ompany was it necessary to eliminate costs
records of such companies from the totals. In a small number of
laundries independent agents gathered laundry in their own trucks
and paid their own trucking expenses from commissions received
for the laundry work collected. When all collection and delivery
was made on this basis, the laundries have been eliminated from
tabular presentation; when most of the work was done by routemen
paid a salary and commission for services only, with a minimum of
extra services from independent truck owners, the cost records were
included and the latter service charged against collection, delivery,
and sales costs rather than labor routemen costs. Such instances of
inclusion have been footnoted on the following cost tables.
Nor was difficulty encountered in securing expenditures for productive supplies, that is, supplies used in the washroom, the ironing and
finishing departments, and in packaging of bundles. Fortunately
linen-supply houses kept the cost of linen purchases separate, so that
these have not been included as a part of the cost of laundering the
linen supplied.
When power costs and building and machinery overhead costs
secured from the books of laundries were reviewed, it was obvious
that there was no uniform policy of charging off depreciation. Some
firms entered no depreciation of any kind on their books in 1934,
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
OPERATING EXPENSES IN 1934
67
others had adopted a system of making a regular charge each year,
and still others made heavy charges in 1934 to make up for depression
years in which no charge had been made. Consultation with the
Valuation Division of the Internal Revenue Bureau disclosed the
fact that 2½ percent is the usual annual allowance for a fireproof
building and 7 percent for machinery and equipment; 6 but as the
Women's Bureau's sole puJ:1>ose in securing costs was to determine real
differences in major items, the agents accepted the depreciation charges
as given by each laundry. Then, too, depreciation was often lumped
so that power-plant depreciation appeared with building and machinery depreciation. These factors account in large measure for the
variations which appear in the proportion charged against powerplant overhead and building and machinery overhead.
Not all laundries kept insurance and taxes on property separated
from other insurance carried or from corporate and franchise taxes.
Whenever all taxes or all insurance payments, save liability and compensation insurance, were bulked, these expenditures have been
mcluded under building and machinery overhead. However, less
differences in distribution of costs are due to these charges than to
variations in figuring depreciation.
Collection, delivery, and sales promotion costs vary chiefly with
the· extent to which salaried routemen or laundry owners themselves
promote sales or to which special sales persons are employed for such
purposes. These costs must be considered along with routemen's
cost item under labor, for a lessened expenditure in one is often made
up by a greater expenditure in the other.
As the superintendent and manager of a smaller laundry may have
been the same person, and as some laundries included compensation
insurance under administrative costs, and general supplies and services were lumped, it was decided to include any listings of "Indirect
overhead" not belonging under building and machinery overhead
with administrative and office costs.
In administrative costs were found the largest differences. In
some laundries interest payments on debts were considerable, in
others interest on capital investment was charged. Sometimes
claims and allowances and sales discounts were grouped as general
overhead. But the chief cause of differences was due to charges for
ownership management. So much a factor was this in some cities
that after grouping the operating costs percentages by volume of
business and again by prevailing type of laundry handled without
disclosing any consistent variable, the cost figures were rearranged
according to method of charging for executive services.
Methods of management cost distribution.
The main divisions were as appear in tables XIX and XX. Some
corporations entrusted the management of laundries to one employed
person, a general manager. This man's salary was the only executive
salary appearing on the books, the corporation taking its income from
profits or from interest on invested capital. Other corporations
employed a manager but one or more of the owners were charged up as
executives drawing salaries. To what extent these owners actually
a Statements made by Valuation Division of Internal Revenue: Percentage allowed for depreciation
dependent upon type of structure. Better class buildings, 2 percent; fireproof brick buildings about 2½
percent; frame buildings o! less substantial construction, 3 to 4 percent. The average life o! machinery
and equipment or a laundry is figured at from 13 to 15 years, and when these items are in one account a
depreciation rate of about 7 percent is considered correct.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
68
FACTORS AFFECT! G WAGES I . POWER LAU DR!ES
contributed to management, to what extent their services were purely
policy making as in the case of the corporation whose members did not
appear on the company's books, the Bureau was in no position to
ascertain. When, however, the president of the laundry corporation
was charged off with a $20,000 or $30,000 salary, and the employee
manager r eceived $5,000, the president's salary may be considered to
correspond in part at least to the "profit" of other laundries in which
officers do not receive salaries.
In other power laundries the owners were the managers and were
charged up as managers. In still others the owners were managers
and superintendents, power-plant operators, mechanics, washermen,
office workers, or delivery men. When operating own ership was
exercised by several persons, each undertaking r esponsibility for a
specific department of laundry activity, a charge for owner's services
was made against the specific labor cost and not always against
supervisory cost.
When owners engaged extensively in productive occupations and
did not ch arge their services, their cost reports have been eliminated
from tables XIX and XX because such records do not represent the
real cost of laundry operation.
In compiling the operating cost percentages by cities it was necessary to exclude a number of excellent cost records of individual
laundries because either their operation conditions were peculiar due
to handling some business other than laundry, or they failed to
differentiate major costs, or there were other causes which threw cost
percentages out of alignment. But even so, the variations of cost
operating percentages in laundries whose totals have entered into
the averages on tables XIX and XX were surprisingly wide.
Labor cost percentages.
An examination of the following operating cost percentage tables
shows that there is a marked tendency in many cities to have labor
costs approximate 50 percent of total costs when owners' services
are not partially charged to labor costs. This is true in Chicago,
Boston, New Orleans, Newark, Providence, Savannah, Atlantic City,
Asbury P ark, and Decatur. In only two of the other cities are labor
costs as much as 3 points above 50 percent and in only two cities
are they as much as 9 points below 50 percent of total costs.
Productive labor costs vary more from city to city; wide variations
seem closely related to differences in proportionate amounts paid
routemen. Considering the larger cities, in Chicago and New Orleans
productive labor cost percentages were 24 and 25 percent in manageror owner-operated laundries; the routemen costs were from 16.5
percent to 20.4 percent. In Boston and Providence the productive
labor cost was 30 percent or over, while the routemen's cost ranged
from approximately 10 percent to 12 percent. In Worcester both
productive labor and routemen's costs percentages are high with the
resulting total labor cost of 56 percent, in owner- or manager-operated
laundries. In view of the excellent showing of Chicago and New
Orl eans in volume of business per dollar of productive pay roll, one
wonders whether more routemen have not been employed than is
necessary in th ese cities at the expense of the productive workers,
most of whom are women.
The high proportionate cost of routemen carries with it high
percentage cost of other items entering into collection, delivery, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
OPERATING EXPE SES IN 1934
69
sales promotion; that is, the operation and maintenance of delivery
eq uipment, advertising, and sales promotion. I n Chicago managerand owner-executive-operated laundries, the cost percen tages of these
items total 14.1 and 12.4 percent, respectively; in metropolitan Boston
they form 10.7 and 9.9 percent, respectively. Or t.he en tire cost of
collection, delivery, and sales promotion, including rou tem en 's wages
and commissions, reaches over 32 percent in Chicago m anageroperated laundries, while it is approximately 23 percen t in the m anager-operated Bost,o n and Providence laundries and to t als about 30
percent in New Orleans and Newark owner-operated laundries. In
these expenses cost percentages are materially lessened when laundry
owners are active workers in plants. For such laundries th e percentages, exclusive of routemen's wages and commissions, fall in Chicago
to 8.7, in Boston to 7.6, and in Miami to 6 percen t .
In the cost percentage table for cities of less th an 100,000 population
productive labor cost percentages ranged from 21 percen t in manageroperated laundries in Raleigh to almost 32 percent in own er-operated
laundries in Savannah. Some laundries had to be omitted because
there was but one under a given type of managemen t . Rou temen's
wage and commission cost percentages ran from 10 percen t in D ecatur
• to almost 17 percent in Greenville. Other collection, delivery , and
sales promotion cost percentages ranged from 5 percen t in D ecatur to
14 percent in Raleigh. Or total collection, delivery, and sales promotion cost percentages including routemen's wages were from 15
percen t to almost 28 percent-a wider range than in laundries with
owner or manager operation in larger cities.
Administrative, office, and indirect oveihead.
Administrative, office, and indirect overhead cost percentages
exclusive of salaries are illustrated well by tbe laundries of two cities ·
(B oston and Chicago) whose owners' services are ch arged to labor
costs-each at about 5 percent. When employee m an agers' salaries
are added, the cost percentage reaches 8.6 percen t in Chicago, 9.3
percent in Washington, 9.9 percent in Miami, and about 13 .5 percent
in B oston and Providence. In Chicago laundries wh ose owner-executives' salaries appear under administrative expense the cost percentage
in creases to 13 percent; in Boston, vVashington, and New Orleans, to
approximately 15 percent; and Miami reports 17.2 percent as the cost
percentage in such situations.
.
In some smaller cities with smaller laundries th e administrative
cost percentages are even greater than in large cities, althou gh the
actual expenditures are, of course, much less.
Sometimes laundries whose officers have withdrawn from $10,000
to $35,000 in salaries in 1934 report the laundry as oper ating at a
loss during th e year. While there is no way of measuring the services
of corporation officials where there is a salaried manager and other
corporation officials' salaries total 7 percen t and over of receipts,
th ese earnings are often in excess of those of laundry corporations
th at report a profit over and above their single employed manager's
salary. Profit and loss statements have no meaning, therefore, until
thn withdrawals of officers are given consideration .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
XIX.-Percent which each cost item is of total operati ng expenses in power laundries f unctioning under different types of management
in cities of 100,000 population and over, 1934
P ercent wbicb each cost item is of total operating expenses when-
Cost item
Manager
is sale
salaried
executive
Owner is
salaried
executive
with or
without
employee
m anager
Owner is
active producer as
well as
executive
Manager
is sole
salaried
executive
Owner is
salaried
executive
with or
without
employee
m anager
Owner is
active producer as
well as
executive
Owner is
salaried
executive
with or
without
employee
manager
Washington, D.
Boston, Mass.t
C hicago, Ill.
Manager
is sole
salar ied
execu tive
c.i
Owner is salar ied executive with or
without employee manager
New Orleans, La.
Newark,
N . J.3
Peoria, Ill.
17 laundries 26 laundries 2 laundries 24 laundries 9 laund r ies 13 laundries 4 laundries 14 laundries 11 laundr ies 14 laundries 4 laundries
Total oper ati ng expenses __ _______ _ $2,936,717
Percent_ __________________________
100.0
All labor costs ____ ______________________
49. 9
Productive ______ ______ ----- _______ _
Power plant, mechanical and labor._
Office and branch office __ ________ ___
Routemen. _____________ ______ ____ __
Productive supplies __________ _____ ____ __
or purchased
operation
Power-plant
_______ _
___________
power _____________
Building and laundry machinery overbead ____ _________ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Collection, delivery, and sales promotion _____ ________ ______________________
Administrative and office costs, including plant superintendent, management, and executive salaries ___________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. 2
4. 5
3. 1
18. 0
10. 8
$4,637,116
100.0
$309,817
100.0
49. 1
65. 3
25.1
3. 6
3. 9
16. 5
11. 3
38.3
3. 9
5. 1
18. 1
7.1
$3,893,016
100.0
$502,938
100. 0
51.1
51.4
30. 3
64. 6
~ 4. 0
~ 12. 2
10. 2
34. 4
3.8
3. 7
9. 6
10. 6
~
$403,311
100. 0
$1,692,087
100.0
$2,321,327
100. 0
$1,670,400
100. 0
$1,857,445
100. 0
$344,204
100.0
61. 1
50. 7
46. 6
• 51. 3
49. 0
44. 3
35. 4
64. 7
6 2. 2
6 18. 5
10. 8
31.1
5. 2
7 .7
5. 7
11. 5
26. 6
3. 3
4. 4
12. 3
!O. 5
24. 7
2. 3
3. 9
20. 4
12. 0
26. 7
3. 3
2. 5
16. 5
9. 4
26.9
4.3
4.0
9. 1
10 8
6
8.1
6. 7
5. 8
5. 4
6. 4
8.8
4. 0
4. 4
6. 5
5. 9
L1
8. 4
7. 6
8. 3
8.8
6. i
6. 3
11. 3
11.0
5. 9
9. 5
12. 8
14. 1
12. 4
8. 7
10. 7
9. 9
7. 6
13. 3
11. 7
9. 7
12. 4
11.6
8.6
13. 0
4. 7
13. 8
15. 2
5. 3
9. 3
15. 8
14. 7
13. 8
16.1
I
Miami, Fla.
P rovidence, R. I.
Worcester, Mass._
Cost item
2 laundries 7 laundries 2 laundr ies 2 laundries 8 laundries 4 laundries
Total operatin g expenses ____ ______
Percent ___________________________
$205,506
100. 0
$615,328
100. 0
$25,252
100. 0
$521. 419
100.0
$1,252,162
100. 0
All labor costs __________________________
45. 2
43. 4
49. 4
48. 3
49.4
Prod u ctive ________ __ ____ __________ -Power plan t, mechanical and labor _
Office an d branch office _________ __ __
Routem en __________________________
Product ive supplies ____ __ ____ _______ ___
Power-plant operat ion or purchased
Power ___ ______________________ ______ _
Building and laundry machinery overbead ________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Collection,
delivery, and
promotion __________________
____sales
_____________
Administrative and office costs, including plant superintendent, management, and executive salaries _________ __
27. 2
2. 8
4. 2
11. 1
13. 6
23. 6
2. 8
6. 4
10. 6
10. 8
(0. 9
1. 7
6. 8
17. 3
30. 0
5.0
2.4
11.0
8.2
31. 2
3. 6
2. 9
11. 8
8.8
}
{
$210, 718
100. 0
Momphi•
Tenn.
I
Cam den,
N. J.
4 laund r ies
(3 of these
laundr ies'
executives 3 lau nd ries 6 laundr ies 11 lau n dries 2 laundries
are produ cing
owners)
$1,399,688
100. 0
$203,332
100. 0
$389, 035
100. 0
$76,072
100. 0
$61 , 576
100. 0
50. 2
56. 4
46. 2
41.0
44. 5
53.0
33. 3
3.8
2. 9
10. 3
16. 9
34. 0 -----------1.8 ---- -- -----3.0 -- ---------17. 6 ------- ·•-- -12.1
.6
21. 5
3. 2
4. 1
12. 2
L2. 2
23. 3
84. 0
I 3. 9
8 13. 4
32. 8
3.8
2. 2
14. 2
27. 6
25. 0
13. 6
8. 3
14. 3
13. 7
9.0
6.8
5.8
3. 2
4. 2
7. 6
7. 4
6. 3
5. 6
11. 7
11. 1
12. 9
13. 8
11.1
6. 7
8.0
9. 9
15. 8
10. 6
10. 7
6. 0
12. 9
12. 0
10. 9
9. 1
17. 4
11. 8
9.9
17. 2
8. 6
13. 5
14. 5
7. 5
7.0
11. 7
13. 6
Family-operated laundries in which the services of members of t he family were not charged against cost have not been in cluded.
1 Owner-producer group omitted in order not to d isclose iden tity. Met roPolitan area included in survey .
• Met roPolitan area.
• Dry cleaning as well as laundry expenses of 10 plants are included.
• Break-down of labor costs available for 21 laundries only, with to tal operat~ng costs of $3,426,274.
• Break-down of labor costs available for 12 laundries only, w ith total operatmg costs of $294,165. ·
7 Branch offices numerous.
• Break-down of labor costs available for 8 laundries only, with total operating costs of $792,442.
1
Jacksonville, Fla.
8
l
MetroPolitan area in cluded in '.'.tlr vey.
---.:r
.....
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLE
XX.-Percent which each cost item is of total operating expenses in power laundries functioning under different types of management in
cities with population of under 100,000, 1934
Percent which each cost item is of total operating expenses when-
Man(\ger, ·Manager
. is sole
is sole
salaried . salaried
executive executive
Cost item
R aleigh, ·
N.C .
3 !aun-
dries
Total operating expenses _______ ___ $183,479
Percent_ _____________ _______ ______
100. 0
All labor costs __________________________ _
Productive __________ ________________
Power plant, mechanical and labor_ Office and branch office _____________
Routemen _______ _________ ___________
Productive supplies __ ______ ___ ___ _______
Power plant operation or purchased
power __ ---- --------- -- ---------------Building and laundry machinery overhead ____ __ ____________________________
Collection, delivery, and sales promotion_
Administrative and office costs, including plant superintendent, management, and executive salaries ________ ____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Owner is Owner is
Owner is
salaried
salaried salaried Owner is
executive Manager
executive executiv11 active
is
sole
with or salaried with or with or producer Owner is salaried executive with or without employee manager
without
without without as well as
employee executive employee employee executive
manager manager
manager
C harlotte, N . C.
4 laun4 laundries
dries
---- ----
Green- Charles- Orlando,
Atlantic Decatur, Asbury
City,
P ark,
ville,
ton, S. C.
Fla.
Ill.
N. J.
S. C.
N.J .
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 2 laun2 laun3 laun3 laun
3 laun3 laun2 laun2 laun4 laundries
dries
dries
dries
dries
dries
dries
dries
dries
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Savannah, Ga.
2 laun-
dries
----
Brockton, M ass.
$187, 730
100. 0
~62, 611
100. 0
$360,811
100. 0
$232,082
100. 0
$46,906
100. 0
$224,635
100. 0
$254,214
100. 0
$151. 672
100. 0
48. 5
49. 5
45.4
49: 8
49. 8
48. 4
49. 1
24. 7
2. 9
2. 4
12. 6
11.1
29. 0
1. 3
4. 8
13. 5
10. 7
31. 8
2. 0
3. 8
11. 9
11. 3
25. 6
3. 3
3. 6
12. 8
7.8
29. 2
4. 0
1. 9
14. 7
8. 1
28. 4 --- ------ 4. 9 ---------5. 3 ----- ----9. 9 ---------10. 8
9. 9
7. 2
7. 6
11. 7
6. 9
4. 6
7. 6
6. 0
5. 5
8.9
5. 4
7.3
6. 5
14. 6
14. 0
14. 6
10. 1
17. 0
7. 7
7. 0
9. 6
10. 6
10. 6
9. 7
10. 2
18. 2
5.3
11. 7
7. 9
13. 4
5. 0
8.3
11. 3
4. 6
7. 0
11. 6
8. 9
8.3
11. 5
12. 5
11. 4
14. 0
12. 5
11.1
22. 2
6.8
16. 5
16. 9
12. 5
18. 8
16. 4
20. 7
$319,878
100. 0
$372,577
100. 0
46.8
42. 5
22. 9
4. 1
4. 9
14. 9
9. 9
7.6
38. 7
- - -20.8
2.3
2. 0
13. 6
12. 6
- - - - - --
$179, 547
100. 0
$153, 255
100 0
53. 3
45. 6
42. 7
28.1
4. 0
4. 4
16. 9
10. 7
26. 4
1.8
4. 2
13. 1
10. 2
26. 0
3. 2
2. 9
10. 6
10. 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------- ------------- -12. 3
--
---- ---- ----
'1
~
73
OPERATING EXPENSES IN 1934
Major cost percentage differences.
To brief major cost percentage differences, there are used as a basis
of comparison laundries in which a rate of 30 cents or more per hour
prevailed and that charge general management only to executive
salaries, that is, Boston employed-manager-operated laundries. In
the 24 laundries of this type reporting and doing a business of approximately $4,000,000, major cost percentages 6 were as follows:
Percent
Productivelabor __ ______________________________ ________
Entire cost of collection, delivery , and sales___ ___ __________
Building, machinery , and power-plant overhead __________ ___
Administrative and office overhead a nd management a nd
sup.erintendents' salaries____ _______________ ____ ____ ____
Productive supplies______________________________________
30
23
14
14
10
Proprietor-worker laundry.- When the service of owners of laundries
are charged up as those of productive workers or of mechanics or
routemen, the proportionate cost of this type of service increases over
that of Boston manager-operated laundries while the administrative
and office expense is correspondingly low. As this is tru e in all cities
where laundries are operated by worker proprietors, further mention
will not be made of this type of laundry.
Cost percentages of productive supplies differed but slightly from
city to city from the Boston 10 percent figure. Only in three southern
cities where some dry cleaning was also done by laundries and such
costs were inseparable from laundry costs proper is there as much as a
2-point-plus difference. Brockton, Providence, and Atlantic City
only report as much as a 2-point-minus difference.
Building, machinery, and power-plant overhead va.ried to a larger
extent from the 14 percent of Boston m ana.ger-operated laundries. In
the manager- or owner-executive-operated laundries in Peoria and
Decatur, Ill., in Atlantic City and Asbury P ark, . J., in Miami and
Jacksonville, Fla, and in Charleston, Ch arlotte, Raleigh, and Savannah, it formed from 17 .2 to 24.6 percent of total cost of operation.
New Orleans and Greenville alone had somewhat lower building and
equipment overhead expenses than Boston.
Differences in administrative and indirect overhead cost percentages were not so marked, although the extremes were as great as
in building and equipment overhead. Washington and Chicago
manager-operated laundries required but 9.3 and 8.6 percent, respectively, for overhead, while Orlando and Brockton cost percentages on
administrative and indirect overhead in owner-executive laundries
exceeded one-fifth of all expenses.
The entire costs of collection, delivery, and sales promotion were
similar to Boston manager-operated laundries in 13 of the 19 cities
reported. They exceeded Boston's 23 percent by 6 points or more in
the manager- or owner-executive-operated laundries of Chicago,
Newark, and New Orleans; only Decatur reported a decidedly lower
proportion, or 15 percent, for these costs.
It may be concluded, therefore, that such differences as exist in
costs other than productive labor are not peculiar to any section
of the country or to towns of various population. Differences in
collection and delivery and sales promotion costs are obviously
intercity, and differences in overhead whether administrative or of
building and equipment would appear to be intracity.
1
Items not included form too small a percentage of the total to be vital in comparisons.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A.- CLASSIFICATION USED IN POWER
LAUNDRY COSTS DATA
1. Labor.
Productive labor.
P roductive labor (laundering).
Identifying. .
Marking.
Net identifying.
Washing and extracting.
Tumbling and drying.
Ironing.
Flat work.
Shirts.
Handkerchiefs.
Socks.
Collar starching, ironing, finishing.
Soft collar ironing.
Pressing (wearing apparel) .
Hand ironing (wearing apparel).
Assembling and packaging.
Productive supervision.
Other productive labor.
Curtains.
Blankets.
Mending.
Starching.
(b) Productive labor, outside (including power plant).
Engineer.
Firemen.
R epair and maintenance.
(c) Indirect labor.
Janitors and porters.
Watchmen.
(d) Office.
Office salaries.
Clerical.
Accounting.
Addressograph.
Supervision.
Service department salaries.
(e) Branches.
Labor- wages.
(f) Routemen's wages and commissions.
2. Productive supplies.
Nets and marking supplies.
Washroom supplies.
Soap and builder.
Bleach, sours, and blue.
Starch.
Other washroom supplies.
Water and softener supplies.
Ironing and finishing supplies.
Aprons, coverings, and pads.
Other ironing and finishing supplies.
Packaging supplies.
Paper, twine, and tape.
Boxes and bags.
Boards, bands, envelopes, and cases.
Other packaging supplies.
(a)
75
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
76
FACTORS AFFECTING WAGES IN POWER LAUNDRIES
3. Power plant expenses (other than labor).
Fuel.
Coal.
Oil.
Gas.
Wood.
Repairs and maintenance.
Depreciation (equipment).
Insurance (other than property).
Purchased power and light.
Electricity.
Other power.
4. Building and machinery overhead (other than labor) .
R ent (laundry building).
Repairs and maintenance (supplies) .
Depreciation.
Insurance.
Taxes (building).
Taxes (on machinery).
5. Indirect overhead (other than labor).
Superintendent-general.
Supplies and expense.
Compensation and other insurance.
Compensation and liability insurance.
Bundle insurance.
Other insurance.
6. Collection, delivery, and sales promotion expenses (other _than salaries)
Route supervision.
D elivery equipment operating expense.
Repairs, labor, parts, and supplies.
Gas, oil, and grease.
Tires and tubes.
Electric truck expense.
Horse and stable expense.
Other delivery equipment operating expense.
Garage-rent and other expense.
Vehicle taxes and licenses.
Painting, letters, etc.
Depreciation-equipment.
Delivery equipmeut.
Other equipment.
Hampers, bins, etc.
Garage equipment.
Liability and other insurance.
Liability and property insurance.
Compensation insurance.
Agency, branch, and call-office expense.
Agency expense.
Agency commissions.
Agency express and parcel post.
Branch and call-office expense.
Discounts.
Rent.
Other expenses.
Advertising and publicity.
Advertising.
Newspaper.
Direct mail.
Bundle inserts.
Posters and bill boards.
Radio.
Direct publicity.
Other advertising and publicity.
Sales promotion expense (other than salaries paid routemen)
Sales contests and prizes.
Sales meeting expense.
Stationery and printing-sales.
Claim adjustments (laundry).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APP'.E b
77
A
7. Office (other than salaries) and administrative expenses.
Stationery, printing, and postage.
Other office expense.
T elephone expense.
Office rent.
Cash over and hort.
Depreciation-office equipment.
Executive alaries.
Employee free work.
Bad debts.
Bad debts-C. 0. D., routemen, etc.
Bad debts-Ledger customers.
Dues and subscriptions.
Other administrative expenses.
Contributions.
Audit and legal.
Travel and entertainment.
Employee-social and welfare.
Group insurance.
P ensions.
Executive automobile expense.
Experimental and research work.
Corporate and franchi se taxes.
Executive life insurance.
I nterest on loans.
•
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-...J
Appendix B.-SCHEDULE FORMS
SCHEDULE
00
!.- This schedule was used for information secured from the laundry
Agent __ __ ____________ - - - Date ____ ____ ___ __ _______ _
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WOMEN'S BUREAU
1. City _____ ___ __ 2. Name of laundry ___ ______ _ 3. Address ___ _______ 4. Person ______ __ __ 5. T ype organization ___ ______ __ _ _
interested.
6. Kind and amount of business, 1934 (note material changes since 1929) :
(b) Other wear- 1 (c) Flat work- 1 (d) Flat work(a) Shirt , collars, and
e~a~~;h b~~~l_e~-1- ? l _ ~t-~e~______ _
- __ ___ ___ :. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _
ing apparel
business
family
Rough dry
__ ___ _
----- - ---------- ------- - -------- - ------- -------Finish
__ ___ _
7. Prices (majoritem s).
Shirts
$ ______ Hdk.
$ ____ __ ____ __
$ ___ ___ Sheets $ _____ _ Min . bundle
Socks
_ ___ __ _ __ _ __
P. cases
Shirts a n d collars
Pajamas ___ ___ _ ___ _ _
B. towel
H . towel
Collar or cuffs
Napkin
cuffsj
8. Numbers employed
Total-
(i
Total
Productive labor,
lau ndering
Other prod.
Indirect labor
Office
Branch office
Routemen
Men _____ _____________________ __ __ ___ _____ ________ _________________________________ ____________ _____ ___ _
Women ____ __ _____ ______________ ______ _______________ __ __ __________________ ____________________ ____ ____ _
MenWhite _ ___ __________________________ _________________ ______ _______________________________ __ _________ ___
N egro _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _________ - _ _ _- - - _ ___ __ _ - - - - - - -- - - - - Women- White __ __________ ___ ________________ __________ _______ ___ __ ________ __ _____________________________ __ ___ _
N egro _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ___ __ __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9. Prevailing rates of pay
Women
Men
Occupationai groups
E xperienced
Inexp.
10. D epartmental hours
Exp.
beg.
E xp.
beg.
Period
~~!fYMon. Tues. Wed.
Th.
Fri.
Sat.
- -- - - -- - -- - - - ------1---- ---- ---- - - -- - - - - - - -- ---- ---- --- --- - - - - - - - Productive laundering labor:
Identifying, a ssembly , and packing _____________ ___ ______________________________________ __ _______ ___ _ _______ ____ _
Washing, extracting, tum bling ____ _____________ ______ _____ ___ ___ _ ___________________ :.. ____ _____________ ___ ______ _ _
Ironing:
Flat work ____ ___ _____________ _____ __________ ____________ ___ __ ___ ______ ______ ________ ______ ____________ ___ _
Hand ironing (wearing appar el) ______________ ________________ ____ ____________ _________________ ___ ____ ____ ___ _
Machine ironing (shirts) _____ _______ ______ _______ _____________________ ___ ___ ___ __ _________ _______ _______ ___ _
Collar starching, ironing, fi nish ___________________ _____ ___ __________ _______ _________ ______ _____ ____ _______ ___ _
Other productive la bor (engineer , firemen, repair maint ena n ce men) ___ _____ ________________________ ______________________ ___ __________ __ ______ _____________ ___ _
Indirect labor (cleaners, watchmen, et c.) _______ ___ ________ __ ____ _ _____ _ ______ ____ ______ _______ ___ _____ ____________ ____ _
Office _________ ___ ___ __________ ____ - ___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bran ch office __ ___ ______ ___ _________ ________________ ________ ____ _______________________________________ ____ __ _ _
Routeman (other than salesma n) __________________________________ _____________________________ ______ ____ ___ ___ _ _
Year 1934
Year 1929
11. Total operating c9sts:
(a) Labor: Product ive laundry __________ _____________ ______ ___ __ __ _____ _____ ______________ _________ _____ _________ _
Other productive outside* ____ _______ ___________________________ __ ____________________ ______ _______________ _
P ower plant* _______ ____________________ _________________________ _ ______________ ____ __ ______ _____________ _
Indirect labor* _____ _______________ _____________.___ ___________ ________ ___ ___ ___ ___________________ _______ _
Office*-- ----------- -------------- ----------------------------- -- __________________________ _________ _____
Branches* ---- - -------------------------------- ------------- ----- ______________ ___ _____________ ____ __ ___ _
Routemen * ___ ___ ______________ _________ __________ ______________ ______·_______________ __ ____ ____________ __ _
(b) Productive supplies _______ ________ ______________________________ _____ __ _______ _________ _______ _______ _____ __ _ _
(c) Power plant ___ _____ ___ ____ ____________ ___ ______________ _____________ __ ________ !.. _____ _________ ___ _ ______ ___ __ _ _
(Fuel, r epairs a nd maintenance, depreciation (purchased power a n d
light)
• If wages paid in any of these divisions is totaled with entire expense of (c), ( e), (f), or (g), specify.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
'1
c.o
S CHED U L E
00
0
!.- Contin ued
Year 1934
Year 1929
11. Total op er ating cost s-Continued .
(d) Building a nd m ach inery overhead ____________ _____________________ _____ ___ ____________ ___ ____ _____ _____________ _
(R ent, r epairs and maintenance, depreciation , in urance, taxes)
(e) l n direct overhead _____ __ ____ ______ __ _____ ____ ____ ______________________ _________________ ____ __ _____________ __ _
(Superintendence, supp lies and expense , compensn.tion and other
insurance)
(f) Collection, delivery, sales-promotion expenses ____ _________ :. ________________ ___ ______ _ ____ _ .. ________ _____ ________ _
(D elivery equipment operation, repairs, depreciation, in urance,
branch-office expenses, advertising and publicity, ales, claim adjustments) .
(g) Office and a d m inistrative expenses __________ ______________________ ______ . _____ __________ ______ _________________ _
(Stationer y, printing, postage, telephone, cash over and short, employees' free work, bad debts, contributions, research, corporate and
franchise taxes, executive life insurance)
Year 1934
12. Totai receipts __ _____ ________ -______ _________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13. Comments on competition:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Year 1933
Year 1929
14.
Pay roll-Year ending December 31, 1934.
Other productive or
indirect labor
Productive laundry labor
Week
ending
Total on
pay roll
Men
ci
z
c
z
0
Routemen
Men
~
ci
z
White
Negro
White
§
"i:l::!
§
0
~
0
z
Branch office
Women
Total
"i:l::!
Office
0
~
c
z
0
E:
~
"?.·om en
Men
Women
Men
Women
Negro
....,
"i:lp
0
::!
0
z
0
6
<
0
z
0
s
<
"i:lp
0
z
0
s
<
"i:l::!
ci
z
0
s
"i:l::!
0
0
0
"i:l::!
"i:lp
§
s z ~ z
z
<
· -- - -- - - - - - - - - <
0
ci
0
s
<!
0
z
0
~
--- -- ---
00
i-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
00
Schedule IL-This schedule was used in making the census of laundries operating in each city.
tv
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WOMEN'S BUREAU
City___________ _
Population group____________
Agent ___ ________ _
Date ____________ _
1-.;l
List secured from------------------------------------ ------------- -- -- ---
0
,-3
>
0
l;O
Number employed, week of- -
List of laundries
Power,
hand, Chi•
nese, etc.
Cash and
carry;
delivery
Principal
types or
laundry
work
Dry cleaning
Total
Productive
labor
Outsidebranch and
delivery
Office
U1
>
1-.;l
Other
1-.;l
t_zj
0
,-3
1-4
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men ·women Men Women
- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - --1---- -1--- - -1----1----11-- - - - - -
- - - - - --
-- --- -- ---
TotaL _________ ___________ __________________ _________________________ _ _____________ __ ____ _____ - ----- ------ -- ------ -------- --- --- --- - ---- ---- -- -------- ------ ------ -l = = = =,1=====1=====-1=====1°== - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
z
0
~
>
0
t_zj
U1
1-4
z
1-d
0
~
t_zj
l;O
~
>
c=1
ztl
l;O
1-4
t_zj
U1
-----------
-·.------------------- ------------ ------------ --------
- -
0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER