The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BULLETIN OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU, No. 93
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT
IN PHILADELPHIA
[PUBLIC—No. 259—66TH CONGRESS]
[H. R. 13229]
An Act To establish in the Department of Labor a bureau to be known as the
Women's Bureau
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be
established in the Department of Labor a bureau to be known as the
Women's Bureau.
SEC. 2. That the said bureau shall be in charge of a director, a
woman, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, who shall receive an annual compensation of
$5,000. It shall be the duty of said bureau to formulate standards
and policies which shall promote the welfare of wage-earning women,
improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The said
bureau shall have authority to investigate and report to the said department upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of women in
industry. The director of said bureau may from time to time publisl
the results of these investigations in such a manner and to such
extent as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.
SEC. 3. That there shall be in said bureau an assistant director,
to be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, who shall receive an
annual compensation of $3,500 and shall perform such duties as
shall be prescribed by the director and approved by the Secretary
of Labor.
SEC. 4. That there is hereby authorized to be employed by said
bureau a chief clerk and such special agents, assistants, clerks, and
other employees at such rates of compensation and in such numbers
as Congress may from time to time provide by appropriations.
SEC. 5. That the Secretary of Labor is hereby directed to furnish
sufficient quarters, office furniture, and equipment for the work of
this bureau.
SEC. 6. That this act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage.
Approved, June 5, 1920.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, SECRETARY
WOMEN'S
BUREAU
MARY ANDERSON, Director
BULLETIN
OF
THE
WOMEN'S
BUREAU,
NO.
93
V
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT
IN PHILADELPHIA
BY
AMEY E. WATSON, Ph. D.
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT P R I N T I N G OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1932
For sal© by t h e Superintendent of D o c u m e n t s , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.
-
-
Price 10 c e n t s
CONTENTS
Page
I/otter of transmittal
lntioduction
Summary of facts
Scope
The employer's questionnaire
General facts in regard to worker
Hours
Wages
Training and experience in present job
Employment policies
..
The employee's questionnaire
General facts in regard to the women
Hours of work
Wages
Noncommercial employment agencies
Case studies
Conclusions
P A R T I . The employer's questionnrire
The workers.
Number and sex
Age
Race and nativity
Comments on sex and race
Marital status
Full-time and day workers
Conditions of work
Homes in wThich workers were employed
Size of house or apartment
Size and composition of family
Living conditions of employees
Meals of employees
Occupations
Analysis and classification
Use of labor-saving devices in the home
Laundry work
Hours of work
Over-all hours
_
Actual hours of women in five selected occ'up lions
Time off
Wages
Employees paid by the month
Employees paid by the week
Employees paid by the day
Employees paid by the hour
Medians of the wages
Wages of women in five selected occupations
Relation of length of service to monthly war'v
Increases in pay
Payment for overtime
Training and experience
Training
Length of service
Employers' labor policies
Hiring
Firing
Vacations
v
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
14
16
1G
16
17
20
22
23
23
28
28
20
29
30
33
33
34
36
38
39
39
42
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
46
48
50
in
CONTEXTS
IV
Page
II. The emptoyee's questionnaire
Personal data _ 1
Schooling
' Hours
Wages
Relation of previous domestic jobs to present occupation
Number of domestic-service jobs held
Time in domestic service and number of jobs held
Reason for leaving previous j(,b
Amount of notice given by employer and employee prior to dismissal
or leaving
P A R T I I I . Noncommercial employment agencies
P A R T IV. Case histories
P A R T V. Hazards in household emplo\ mer e
Appendixes
A. General tables
B. Questionnaire forms
PART
TEXT
TABLE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
54
55
58
62
65
66
79 -
TABLES
Age of employees, by sex
Nativity and color of employees, by sex
Marital status of employees, by sex
Distribution of families by number of employees and whether
employees were full-time or day workers
Size of house or apartment
Size of family, by size of house or apartment
Extent of living in and li\ing out, by sex of employees
Living accommodations of women employees who iived in
Mealtime of women employees who lived in
Occupation, by sex of employee
Over-all daily hours, by sex of employee
Actual daily hours of women in five chief occupations, according
to whether living in or living out
Method of wage payment, by sex of employees
Wages of employees paid by the month, by sex and living status
Wages of employees paid by the wreek, by sex and living status. _
Wages of employees paid by the day, by sex and living status. _
Median of the wages of women employees, by occupation and
living status
Median of the wages of men employees, by occupation and living
status
1
Minimum, maximum, and median of monthly wTages of wromen
in five selected occupations, by living status
Time with present employer—women in five selected occupations
Employer's policy with regard to references
Employer's policy with regard to dismissal procedure
Employer's statement with regard to notice given by employeesAPPENDIX
11
12
13
15
16
18
20
20
22
27
30
31
34
35
36
38
40
41
43
46
47
49
49
TABLES
TABLE I. Over-all daily hours and most common spread of hours of
women employees
II. Over-all daily hours and most common spread of hours of men
employees.-.
III. Wage distribution of women employees, by occupation and living status
IV. Wage distribution of men employees, by occupation and living
status
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
66
67
68
74
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
UNITED
STATES
D E P A R T M E N T OF L A B O R ,
WOMEN'S BUREAU,
Washington,
November 11, 1931.
SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith the report of a study of
household employment relations in Philadelphia and vicinity.
The survey was originated by the Women's Problem Group of the
Social Order Committee of the Society of Friends. This group
organized a committee that later was reorganized into the Council on
Household Occupations, now functioning as a bureau for better
adjustments in household-employment relations.
More than 950 employers furnished tabulatable information on the
hours, wages, working conditions, and policies in their homes, and on
the age, marital status, experience, and so forth, of their employees.
The findings should aid in the solution of the domestic-service problem, whose literature is too slight for the importance of the subject.
The report was written by Dr. Amey E. Watson, at that time
research director of the Council on Household Occupations and director of the National Committee on Employer-Employee Relationships
in the Home.
Respectfully submitted.
M A R Y A N D E R S O N , Director.
Hon.
W.
N.
DOAK,
Secretary oj Labor.
v
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN
PHILADELPHIA
INTRODUCTION
In 1926 a group of Quaker women in Philadelphia, conscious of the
maladjustment of household employees to their work, became actively
interested in the problem and determined to secure data by means of
which a better adjustment of paid workers in the home could be
achieved. It is their ultimate hope to help household employer and
employee in a general way as well as locally. Upon recommendation
of Miss Mary Anderson, Director of the Women's Bureau of the
United States Department of Labor, whose advice was sought, they
undertook in 1928 a survey of the needs and existing practices of
household employment in many homes of Philadelphia and its
environs. It is hoped that this survey will result in raising the
standards of domestic work and in bringing about greater cooperation
among employers, thereby improving the condition of employees.
The committee secured cooperation and advice from the Bureau of
Home Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture;
the industrial department of the National Board of the Young
Women's Christian Associations; Dr. Susan M. Kingsbury, of the
Carola Woerishoffer Department of Social Research of Bryn Mawr
College; Dr. Lillian M. Gilbreth, consulting engineer; and many
others. Miss Anna Cope Evans served as chairman of the first
committee (Central Committee on Household Occupations) and Mrs.
Thomas Raeburn White and Mrs. W. Wayne Babcock as successive
chairmen, and Mrs. Jacob Billikopf as chairman of the executive
committee, of the later organization (Council on Household Occupations). An executive was engaged on a part-time basis to direct the
study. (For the personnel of the committee, see page 81.)
A questionnaire for employers 1 was drawn up by the committee,
with the approval of its advisers, and through the cooperation of
women's clubs and organizations it was sent out to several thousand
homes in 2or near Philadelphia. A second questionnaire was for
employees. This was formulated by a special committee and sent
out through the branch offices of the Young Women's Christian
Association, noncommercial employment agencies, groups of employees, and socially minded employers who had replied to the first
questionnaire. A third means of securing information that would
enlighten further those interested in 3the subject of household employment was the intensive case studies made particularly of those who
had answered the first questionnaire adequately and in whose homes a
satisfactory working relationship between employer and employee
apparently existed. The executive secretary and volunteers cooperated in making visits to the homes of these employers to secure the
information desired.
1
See appendix, p. 79.
2
See appendix, p. 82.
3
See appendix, p. 83.
1
2
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
In reading this report it must be kept in mind that neither the
employers nor their statements can be considered wholly representative of Philadelphia and its environs. It is probably true that the
answers received came from a group that was more thoughtful, more
intelligent, and more socially minded than the average, as is shown by
the mere fact that they answered the questionnaire. That the average number of employees to a household is high (2.97) may be e xplained by the fact that a high proportion of employers with seve ral
employees were included in the study, and the fact that in manjr
households several part-time workers, such as laundresses, cleaners,
gardeners, and furnace men, were employed. The selection of families
is justified by the fact that the subjects of study were conditions and
practices in* household employment rather than its extent. The
restrictions placed on immigration by the United States have had
some effect on the number of women entering the country to engage in
household service. A recent article 4 makes the following statement
on this subject:
Data on the occupations of immigrants to the United States show that
in 1925 and 1926 the number of those calling themselves "servants"—almost
wholly women—was more than 75 per cent less than the average for the five
years immediately preceding the war, 1910-1914. This decline was very heavy
in 1915 and 1916, following the outbreak of hostilities in Europe; in 1918 and
1919, following our own declaration of war and the inauguration of the literacy
test (the law at the same time doubling the amount of head tax); in 1922, following the first quota law; and in 1925, following the second quota law. Of the
other 11 years, 10 show an increase—in some cases very large—and 1924 was
practically the same as 1923, the loss being only 1 per cent.
However, only part of the shortage in domestic help may be attributed to these restrictive measures. Among women 10 years of age
and over engaged in nonagricultural pursuits, the proportion employed as servants or in related employment declined with each
decade from 1870 to 1920. To obtain figures comparable for each
census, the group includes servants, waitresses, charwomen, cleaners, porters, housekeepers, and stewardesses, and the proportions
in these lines of work among all employed women 10 years old or
more and not in agriculture declined steadily from 60.7 per cent in
1870 to 18.2 per cent in 1920.® Figures in the same detail for 1930
are not yet available.
In 1930 the number of persons 10 years of age and over in the
State of Pennsylvania, as reported in advance figures (subject to
slight change) by the United States Bureau of the Census, was
7,731,060; in the city of Philadelphia it was 1,633,892. In the
State, 322,245 persons, 4.2 per cent of the population, were reported
as engaged in domestic and personal service; in Philadelphia,
110,514 persons, or 6.8 per cent of the population, were so classed.
Figures showing the number of persons in household service—largely
those reported as "servants"—are not available, but in 1920 the
proportion of workers in the domestic-and-personal-service group
of Philadelphia who were classed as servants
was 53.2 per cent of
the women and 18.1 per cent of the men.6
* Anderson, Mary. Domestic Service in the United States. Journal of Home Economics, January
1928, p. 11.
' U. S. Bureau of the Census. Women in Gainful Occupations, 1870 to 1920, by Joseph A. Hill. Census
Monographs, IX, 1929, p. 36.
• U. S. Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census: 1920, vol. 4, Population, Occupations, p. 220.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
3
For July 1, 1926, the estimated population of Philadelphia, Montgomery, and Delaware counties, the three
in which the families
included in this study lived, was 2,437,000.7 This number was divided
as follows:
Philadelphia.
Montgomery
Delaware.
2, 007, 700
219, 300
210, 000
Based on the ratio figure quoted for the State as a whole—though
very likely this was exceeded in these three counties—the number
of persons employed in domestic and personal service in this area
would have been approximately 92,600 in 1926. However, it must be
noted that many of these persons were engaged in service outside
the group considered in this study.
In a study of working mothers with children, made in Philadelphia
by the United States Children's Bureau the same year as the present
investigation, it was found that of 2,724 mothers employed away
from home in the six months immediately preceding the interview
who reported occupation, approximately one-third (31.7
per cent)
were doing some sort of domestic work in private homes.8
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Scope.
The number of householders in Philadelphia and the surrounding
districts who replied satisfactorily to the questionnaire on household
employment was 954, and they reported on 2,833 employees, 1,781
full-time employees, and 1,052 day workers. Only 76 of the employees' questionnaires were answered, and all but 2 were by women.
Intensive case studies were obtained for 47 families.
THE
EMPLOYER'S
QUESTIONNAIRE
General facts in regard to worker.
Only slightly less than three-fourths of the 2,771 workers reported
as to sex were women. Almost one-third of the women, but only a
little over one-eighth of the men, were under 30 years of age. The
ratio of foreign born was considerably higher for the women than for
the men, but almost equal proportions of the women and men were
negroes. The proportion of the women who were single (51 per
cent) was almost two and one-half times that of the men (21.7 per
cent), and 71.5 per cent of the men, in contrast to 30.5 per cent of
the women, were married. As was to be expected, a much larger
proportion of women than of men were full-time workers, the figures
being 69.8 per cent and 55 per cent, respectively.
Considering the place of residence, three-fifths (60.1 per cent)
of the women, in contrast to about one-fifth (21.4 per cent) of the men,
lived where they worked. About four-fifths (78.8 per cent) of the
women living in had a room alone, and practically all had access to a
bath. Nearly one-half of the women for whom information was
reported as to whether or not they had some room in which to receive
friends had only the kitchen; the remainder had other rooms, or were
allowed to use certain rooms belonging to the family.
i The Pennsylvania Manual, 1929. Bureau of Publications, Harrisburg, 1929, p. 477.
8
U . S. Department of Labor. Children's Bureau. Children of Working Mothers in Philadelphia*
Part I, The Working Mothers. Bui. 204, 1931, p. 24.
4
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Of the employers who replied to the questionnaire, approximately
nine-tenths lived in houses rather than apartments. The size of the
houses varied from 5 rooms and bath to 58 rooms and 11 baths;
nearly one-sixih of the families living in houses had 10 rooms, with
the number of baths ranging from 1 to 4. The size of the apartments
ranged from one room and bath to 15 rooms and 5 baths. About
one-fourth of the families who lived in apartments reported 5 rooms
and 1 bath.
The size of the families included in the study ranged from the
single emplo3Ter to a group of 12 persons in the houses and from the
single employer to a group of 7 persons in the apartments. There
was no apparent relationship between the number in the family and
the number of rooms, the number in the family and the number of
workers employed, or between the number of rooms and the number
of workers. Though the number of household employees is largely
dependent on the financial condition of the family, it is influenced
also by many other factors, including the standards of value of the
home maker and her husband.
While men and women were at some times and in some places
doing the same work, in most cases a distinct line may be drawrn
between the occupations of the two sexes. The occupations reported
most frequently for the women workers were those that had to do
with food, and for the men those that were concerned with shelter.
Modern conveniences, electrical and otherwise, were provided by
many employers to reduce the expenditure of energy and to lessen
the drudgery connected with certain tasks.
Hours.
The over-all hours, from the beginning to the end of the day's
work, were long; nearly three-fifths of the women had an over-all
of at least 12 hours. For one-tenth the day was less than 8 hours;
for less than one-third it was 8 and under 12 hours. Of the men
for whom the time of beginning and of ending work was reported,
less than one-third had an over-all as long as 12 hours; for less than
one-twelfth, however, it was under 8 hours, and for three-fifths it
wTas 8 and under 12.
The actual hours of work were tabulated for the women in five
of the principal occupations only—chambermaids, children's nurses,
cooks, general houseworkers, and waitresses—hour data being reported
for about one-half of the women in these occupations. Of these
630 women, nearly three-fifths worked 10 hours or more, about onetwelfth working 12 hours or longer. The majority of the cooks whose
hours were given on the questionnaire (58.3 per cent) worked a day
of 10 and under 12 hours, and 43.4 per cent of the general houseworkers
had hours as long as this.
Of 758 employers who reported the amount of time off granted
to their employees, 11.2 per cent gave one half-day and 42.7 per
cent gave two half-days each week. Various practices were reported
by the remainder.
Wages,
The period for which the wage was paid varied considerably.
Though the numbers of women and of men paid monthly were about
the same, they constituted a much larger proportion of the men
SUMMARY OP FACTS
5
than of the women—45.1 per cent as compared with 12.7 per cent.
More than three-fifths of the women (61.2 per cent) and only threetenths of the men (30.1 per cent) were paid by the week; likewise
a much larger proportion of the women than of the men were paid
by the day—24.7 and 8 per cent, respectively. An hourly rate was
more common among the men—16.8 per cent of them were thus
paid, as compared with only 1.4 per cent of the women.
A like proportion—about one-tenth—of the women and of the men
who were paid by the month and lived in their place of employment
received less than $60. More than two-fifths of the men living out
were reported as receivirg Ic^s than $60; since all but one of them
were part-time workers, without doubt this was not their total
monthly wage and they were receiving pay from other employers as
well.
For approximately one-third of the employees living in—slightly
less of women and slightly more of men—the monthly wages were $80
and under $110. The largest group of women living in whose monthly
wage was reported (56.6 per cent) were paid $60 and under $80.
Thirty men, seven of whom lived in, were reported as receiving
monthly wages of $140 or more. No woman received as much as
this.
Employees paid by the week for whom a specified amount was
reported included 1,147 women and 154 men. Living conditions of
the women and men in this group are in direct contrast, for while more
than four-fifths of the women lived in, about three-fourths of the men
lived away from their place of employment. Though nearly threefourths of the women living in were paid from $14 to $20 a week,
slightly less than three-eighths of those living out received amounts
within this range. The largest proportion of women living out in any
group is found in the $9-and-under-$14 class, while the largest proportion of men living out received $20 and under $45 a week. More
than two-fifths of the men living out—all but one of whom were parttime workers—received less than $9.
The day wage paid most women—84.2 per cent of those doing day's
work—was $3 and under $4, while the day rate for the largest proportion of men was $5 and under $6.
Training and experience in present job*
No inquiry wras made regarding the special vocational training that
the worker had had for her job, but there was one regarding her
training at home or with a former employer. This information was
tabulated for 1,078 women in the five selected occupations. More
than seven-tenths of these had received their training from a former
employer, nearly one-eighth had been trained by experience in their
own homes, and almost as many had been trained both at home and by
an employer. Only 65 were reported as having had no previous
training for the work they undertook.
Contrary to the generally accepted belief that household employees
change jobs frequently, in the five occupations under discussion the
study shows that over two-fifths of the 1,103 women reported had been
with their present employer for two years or more, about one-third for
six months and under two years, and approximately one-fourth* for
less than six months.
6
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Employment policies.
Of the 798 employers who replied regarding references, about 5 per
cent required none, and nearly the same proportion reported that they
secured recommendations of former employers, neighbors, or friends.
The remainder, more than 90 per cent, investigated references, many
by means of the telephone; some used employment bureaus, and some
made personal visits in addition to inquiring by telephone.
Almost seven-eighths (85.3 per cent) of the householders stated
their policy when they wished to dismiss employees. More than threefifths of this number gave notice only. Of the 413 who reported a
specified time, the great majority gave one week's notice, but a few
used such terms as " a week or more," " a week or two." Less than 4
per cent gave only w^ages in advance, and 25 per cent stated that they
gave both wages and notice in advance, the great majority reporting
one week as the specified time.
A smaller number of householders replied in regard to the question
of whether or not the emplovees gave notice before leaving. A little
more than one-sixth reported that employees gave no notice at all, and
nearly three-fifths of those whose employees did give notice and by
whom a specified time was reported gave this as one week.
More than four-fifths of the employers reported on their policy of
giving a vacation; of this number about 6 per cent gave no vacation.
The length of vacation given and the policy of payment for that time
varied greatly among the employers. The vacations ranged in length
from less than a week to as much as three months. Approximately five-sixths of the employers gave full pay for the period of the
employee's vacation. Less than 7 per cent gave no pay at all.
THE
EMPLOYEE'S
QUESTIONNAIRE
As already noted, the number of employees from whom answers to
the questionnaire were received is small, but in a study such as is presented in the following pages it is important that the viewpoint of the
worker as wrell as that of the employer be given. Furthermore, the
statistical data compiled from these schedules are valuable in that they
are a check-up of the data tabulated from the questionnaires sent in by
employers.
General facts in regard to the women.
Of the 74 women who answered the employee's questionnaire, only
one-fifth were white, and the majority of these were of foreign birtn.
Most of the women reported their age as under 30 years. The proportion in each of the three groups showing marital status is very similar
to the proportions computed from answers on the employer's questionnaire—54.9 per cent were single^ 28.2 per cent married, and the
remainder widowed, separated, or divorced. A larger proportion of
white than of negro women lived at their place of employment and
stated a preference for this mode of living.
More than one-half of the women who answered the inquiry in
regard to children reported that they had children, the number ranging
from one to seven. Nearly one-third of the women had dependents,
thejiegro workers showing a much larger proportion than the white.
l i v e negro women had had more than two years of high school;
no white woman had had more years of schooling than this.
CONCLUSIONS
7
Hours of work.
About two-thirds of the women living in who reported the length
of their usual day worked as much as 12 hours. One negro cook
had a day 14K hours in length. Of the women living out, two-fifths
had a day of 12 hours or more. Two-fifths of all reporting went
on duty between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning. Nearly one-half
of those by whom the time of quitting work was given went off duty
between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening.
Wages.
The median of the week's wage of the 72 women reporting is $14.80;
for those living out the median is lower than for those living in, the
amounts being $12.70 and $15.25, respectively. The white women
had a median somewhat higher than that of the negro women—
$15.35 in contrast to $14.50.
The 57 women reporting on number of jobs had had from 1 to 16
domestic-service positions' More women were in the group having
held 3 jobs than were in any other single group.
Three-fourths of the women reporting had been household workers
for 5 years or more. The women who had had as much as 20 years'
experience in this field were all negro workers—one of them had
spent 34 years in domestic service.
NONCOMMERCIAL
EMPLOYMENT
AGENCIES
In the study of noncommercial employment agencies, made by
personal visits and by interviews with the secretaries, it was seen
that very little had been accomplished by them in standardizing
working conditions for domestic employees. Some had made an
effort to standardize wages, but little or no attempt had been made
to standardize hours or living conditions or to develop an adequate
system of obtaining references.
CASE
STUDIES
The cases intensively investigated as to family conditions and
working and living conditions of the employees yielded much interesting material. Many of the case histories covered are those of
families in the higher-income groups; 7 of the 10 given in this report
(pp. 58 to 61) are the records of comfortably well-to-do families,
and this is true of most of the others investigated.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears from this study that the conditions of work of the household employees reported upon are in need of improvement. I t is
as essential for these workers as for any other group to have their
hours, wages, and working and living conditions established on a
sound social and economic basis. Training is equally important.
As to the employers' interests, domestic workers are tending to drift
away from household employment as other fields are opening up,
and the result will be even greater difficulty than at present in
securing competent household help unless needed reforms are made.
What are the most serious problems involved? In answer to this
it would seem of first importance that the hours of work be shortened.
8
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Frequently the time off is arranged so badly that household employment as an occupation is shunned by those wishing "to live their own
lives." The over-all hours—from beginning work in the morning
until stopping in the evening—generally are exceedingly long, ana
so are the actual working hours in many cases. The maximum hours
of employment allowed by the law of Pennsylvania for women in most
occupations other than domestic service are 54. It is evident from
the answers on the questionnaires that many of the women worked a
7-day week, though for other occupations the Pennsylvania law prescribes one day of rest in seven. In other occupations the employees
finish at the close of the day and, for the most part, their evenings
are free for their own use; but in household employment, plans for
leisure time seldom can be made definitely in advance.
The amount of the wage paid in the present study would seem to
establish the fact that inadequate remuneration is not a cause of
workers leaving domestic service. However, though a large proportion of the workers receive more than do employees in other lines
of work, some adjustment of wages is needed. For those living in,
the wage is supplemented by room, board, and laundry; for those
living out, by board only. Since the employees who five in have
much more of a supplement to their money wage, it would appear
that those who do the same work and live out should be given a larger
cash wage. That this recognition is not general may be justified
partly by two facts: (1) A higher wage compensates somewhat for
the lack of complete freedom and change of scene after usual working
hours, and-(2) a formal way of living that involves evening duties
for employees should pay correspondingly higher wages. Furthermore, it is probable that the freedom from anxiety as regards absenteeism is worth something to the employer.
There should be no distinction between the amounts paid women
and men for the same work. From recent studies it is apparent that
the old idea that men have families to support and women have not
is largely without foundation, for women in as large a proportion of
cases as men are using their earnings to support or to help to support
other persons. The wage paid for any one kind of work should be
the same for men and women.
The question of where the household employee lives is of great
importance. In many cases it is necessary that the employee live
in, and this results in a lack of freedom and of privacy for the worker.
The worker is a paid employee and not part of the family, and she
should not be made part of it, both for her sake and for that of the
family. The increasing tendency of household employees to live
away from their place of work should be encouraged, for this arrangement assures greater freedom and less strain for both employer
and employee. The distance to be traversed to and from work
should be considered by both parties before an employee takes a
position.
In the case of employees who must of necessity live in, a room
of her own should be provided for each. This room may be furnished
simply but should be made attractive and comfortable. Toilet and
bath facilities, as well as a room in which the employee may entertain
guests, are essential in the planning. In crowded homes it is difficult
to harmonize the employees' needs for a place in which to entertain
CONCLUSIONS
9
friends with the needs of the employer's- family, but this is a
problem that must be met and adjusted to the satisfaction of all
concerned.
The separation from friends and relatives and the lack of sociability
are causes
of dissatisfaction among employees who live at their place
of wrork. In addition, the sense of inferiority inescapable where
the employer considers housework a menial service is the reason
for some women leaving such work and for others choosing never
to enter it.
At the time of the study there were no clear-cut lines of demarcation as to the work that should be included in the assignment
given any one type of worker. It is a well known fact that there is
a great overlapping of titles given to exactly the same occupation.
Individual homes vary so greatly that the duties of cook in one
home must inevitably be very different from the duties of cook in
another home, and this is true of other occupations in household work.
All jobs within the home should be regulated according to the
strength and physical fitness of the worker. The needs of the given
job should in every case be harmonized with the abilities of the
individual worker, so that she may give the employer efficient and
satisfactory service. If a written agreement is not made and accepted
by employer and employee, there should be at least a verbal understanding, though with this must be a certain degree of flexibility on
the part of both the employer and the employee.
Systematic training in household tasks for all girls would be of
great benefit. This training should be begun in the child's own
home, and be continued in school later on. If household employment is chosen as the field of work, specialized training by which a
girl may become a skilled worker should be pursued. Skill can be
developed in whatever line the girl's abilities are found in the many
departments of home making. In this way efficient and well-trained
workers, able to establish high standards of work and to command
good wages and living conditions, would be available, instead of the
unskilled laborers that now, for the most part, are all that are to
be had.
One of the most serious problems among the employers is their
marked indifference and their failure to realize that the course
pursued in engaging help has a direct bearing on the service as a
whole. There is far too little efficiency among those employing
household help, and an ever present need of applying principles of
scientific management to home-making duties.
The fundamental requirements of a good job are these: 9 Reasonable and definite hours; freedom from social stigma; systematized
work; adequate wages; personal satisfaction; opportunities for
advancement; favorable working conditions; steady employment;
and variety in work.
The modern home maker can do much to raise housework to the
position of dignity that it should hold. For one thing, it is her
business to see that when women's activities are discussed household work is included, and that public opinion is educated to the
• Adapted from The Road to Trained Service in the Household, by Henrietta Roelofe. Commission
on Household Employment. Bui. 2, National Board of the Young Women's Christian Associations*
New York.
10
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
significance of household employment as one factor in the larger labor
field. This would result in the application to household employment
of legislation in the field of health insurance, workmen's compensation,
and other lines. Proper training for domestic workers should be
included so that they may be prepared to give service adequate to
the demands put upon them. Among other important factors is
the provision for social life in homes where the employees live in and
in clubs or societies formed on the outside for their recreation and
entertainment.
I t is hoped that the present study of household employment
will serve as an impetus to the making of other surveys in which
certain facts brought to light here may be more intensively investigated. There is great need of more detailed information on household work so that one may see better where the difficulties lie.
Through the applied results of this and future investigations it is
hoped to raise domestic service to its proper economic status.
Part I.—THE EMPLOYER'S QUESTIONNAIRE
THE WORKERS
Number and sex.
There were 2,833 employees reported by the 954 householders who
replied to the questionnaire. For all but 62 of these employees the
sex was reported. The data show that 2,062, or 74.4 per cent, were
women. In other words, practically 3 in 4 of the employees for whom
information was reported wTere women.
Age.
In contrast to the age data obtained for women in other lines of
work, figures in the present study emphasize the fact that workers in
domestic service are not a young group. In 17 State studies made by
the Women's Bureau and covering manufacturing and mercantile
establishments, laundries, and, in a number of cases, telephone
exchanges and hotels and restaurants, the percentage of women whose
age was reported as 16 and under 20 years ranged from 19.2 in one
State to 34 in another. In the following table the percentage of
women under 20 years of age is less than 4 (3.7):
TABLE
1 . — A g e of employees, by sex
Women
Total
Age group
Total
Age not reported
Age reported
Under 18 years
18 and under 20 years._
20 and under 30 years
30 and under 40 years
40 and under 50 years
50 and under 60 years
60 years and over..
_
Number
Men
Per
cent
2.833
2,062
383
229
2,450
1,833
100.0
24
56
598
645
603
347
177
20
48
528
465
412
251
109
1.1
2.6
28.8
25.4
22.5
13.7
5.9
Number
Sex not
reported
Per
cent
709
--558
2
7
62
161
176
SO
60
62
3
100.0
59
.4
1.3
11.1
28.9
31.5
16.1
10.8
2
1
8
19
15
6
8
It is interesting to note that even though the proportion of young
women workers in this study was small there was a still smaller proportion of young men in household service. The table shows that
while nearly one-third of the women whose age was reported were
under 430 years, only about one-eighth of the men were in such groups.
In the class 30 and under 40 years the proportions of women and men
employed were more alike—25.4 and 28.9 per cent, respectively—but
in the groups of 40 years and over were 58.4 per cent of the men and
only 42.1 per cent of the women.
Race and nativity.
From the table following it is apparent that the proportions of negro
women and of foreign-born women are about the same. Combined,
these two classes comprise almost seven-eighths of the women for
92116°—-32
2
11
12
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
whom race and nativity were reported. Foreign-born and negro men
comprise about three-fourths of the men for whom information on this
subject was given on the questionnaire.
2.—Nativity and color of employees, by sex
TABLE
i1
Nativity and color
i
1
! Total
!
1
Totil
1 2,833 !!
-
Nativity not reported
,
Nativity reported
|
White
-
Native born
Foreign bora
Negro
Other
1
1
1
1
}
25J
Women
Number
Men
Per
cent
Number
Per
cent
709
2, C62
147
Sex not
reported
62
9
95~
2,582 i
1,915
100.0
614
100.0
53
'lf&2\!
1,079
06.3
328~
53.4
25
432 !i
1,000
277
802
14.5
41.9
144
184
23.5
30.0
11
14
1,133
17
833
3
43.5
.2
272
14
44.3
2.3
2 8
Japanese, Filipino, etc.
Of the 2,529 employees reported as to race and sex, 1,407 were
white. This comprised almost equal proportions of men and women,
for 56.3 per cent of the women and 53.4 per cent of the men were white.
There is quite a difference, however, in the distribution of the sexes
in the native-born and foreign-born groups. Three-fourths (74.3
per cent) of the white women but less than three-fifths (56.1 per cent)
of the white men were foreign born. Information as to the country
of birth was reported for only a small number of these—123 women
and 33 men—and the largest number in any one group were of Irish
birth.
In a study of immigrant women made by the Women's Bureau
in Philadelphia and a section of the Lehigh Valley, in 1925,1 the women
were interviewed regarding their industrial experience. Though the
scope of that survey was limited to women whose jobs were in industrial establishments rather than in the home, it is interesting to note
the number who stated that on arriving in America they first sought
employment in domestic service. More than one-fifth of those
reported in Philadelphia stated that their first jobs had been in some
branch of domestic and personal service. Comments made by some
of them as to the reason for selecting this work for their first jobs
were as follows:
" I always liked housework. I was taught that way, and it was
the only thing I knew." "Housework is best for greenhorns; they
learn how to do everything and get used to the country." ""You
can learn more, and you have a good home." One woman who
had done only housework or office cleaning because she "no like
factory" recommended housework because "you get room, clothes,
everything, and can save."
But others were not so enthusiastic about housework and had gone
into it first because, they said, they took what they could get and
this was "easiest to find." " I didn't know English enough to find
i U. S. Department of Labor. Women's Bureau. The Immigrant Woman and Her Job. Bui. 74,1930,
pp. 74,109, and 126.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
13
other work then." " I was a greenhorn and didn't know I could
do better. I knew nothing about factories then." A woman who
tried domestic service for a little less than a year, hesitating at first
to go to a factory, said " I was a greenhorn, and I thought everyone
would laugh at me in the mill."
Even though work in domestic service served as an entry into
gainful employment for so many immigrant women, the report goes
on to state that—
More women left housework than quit any other job, because it
was—"Too hard." "Too heavy." " I not strong enough." "So
much to do—not go to church." "Work all the time—work so
early, so late." "Clean 10 rooms, wash dishes, wash clothes."
"Too hard, I too skinny, I get sick."
On the whole, "maiding," as many of the immigrant women called
it, was not popular as a job. Comments selected at random from
the schedules give a picture of lonely girls handicapped by new ways
of housekeeping, new customs, and a new language. "Not hear
a Polish word spoken, couldn't stand it." "Everything new, learn
everything new." " I so lonesome I cried all the time." " I wanted
to see some people."
In a section of the same report 2 it may be seen that almost 10
per cent of 712 women attending classes in the Philadelphia public
evening schools and filling out questionnaires for the bureau's study
were engaged in housework at the time.
Comments on sex and race.
Some employers in the present study expressed strong likes and
dislikes in regard to the sex or to the race and color of their employees.
The following remarks copied from the questionnaires are samples:
Find a house boy or man preferable to a woman. Employ extra female help
when necessary.
We find a respectable colored man the most efficient employee for housework,
care of grounds, and care of automobile, even acting as chauffeur when necessary.
Consider couple the ideal solution for small house and family, as man does
furnace, windows, etc., that maids do not do. Think if more trained couples
were available it would be more advantageous.
Marital status.
Information in regard to marital status was given on the employer's
questionnaire for all but one-ninth of the women and men employed.
The following table shows the number in each of the three classes:
TABLE
3.—Marital status of employees, by sex
Women
Marital status
Total
Status not reported
Status reported
Single
Married
Widowed, separated, or divorced
2 Ibid., p. 167.
Total
Number
Men
Per
cent
Number
Per
cent
Sex not
reported
2,062
709
329 j
179
147
2,504 •
1,883
100.0
562
100.0
59
961
575
347
51.0
30.5
18.4
122
402
38
21.7
71.5
6.8
24
23
12
2,833
1,107
1,000
397
62
3
14
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
In analysing the marital status of the employees it is seen that a
far larger proportion of the women than of the men were single—
51 and 21,7 per cent, respectively—while only 30.5 per cent of the
women, in contrast to 71.5 per cent of the men, were married. The
smallest proportions appear in the group widowed, separated, or
divorced, 18.4 per cent of the women and 6.8 per cent of the men.
That women in this last group show a per cent so much higher
than that of the men would seem to indicate that the experience
gained in their own homes is utilized when their home life is broken
by death or separation and they must seek outside employment.
Of the employees whose conjugal condition was reported, approximately seven-tenths (69.5 per cent) of the women but less than
three-tenths (28.5 per cent) of the men were single or from broken
homes.
Full-time und day workers.
In most types of jobs the full-time worker is considered more
satisfactory than the day worker, as all his or her energies are concentrated on the job in hand and are not dissipated by other jobs or
interests. It must be recognized, however, that in almost every
home there are certain jobs that take only a few hours a day or a
week and demand a part-time specialized worker. The part-time
workers are the employees who worked 1 or more days a week but
less than 6 or 7, and those who worked only part of the day, whether
occasionally or for as much as 6 or 7 days. The employment of such
workers is due largely to the recognition of the need in the home
for specialized skill. The possibility of using part-time specialized
workers who have their own homes and personal relations away
from their jobs is being recognized increasingly as one solution of
the problem of a home maker with small means.
The following table shows the number and per cent of families
for which information was secured as to whether their employees
were full-time or day workers.
From this table, which makes clear the various practices in regard
to employing full-time or day workers, it is apparent that more than
half the families (54.3 per cent) employed both types. Of the remainder, two-thirds had only full-time and one-third only day workers.
The number of employees per family ranged from 1 to 13.
One-fourth of the families (24.9 per cent) had only one employee,
and in three-fifths of these cases the employee was full time. Almost
identical proportions (21.5 per cent and 21.9 per cent) had respectively two employees and three employees. After that, the numbers
dropped sharply. However, 170 families, 17.8 per cent of all,
had 5 or more employees.
Based on all 954 families, 15.4 per cent had one full-time employee
and no day worker and 5.8 per cent had two full-time employees
and no day worker. Where there were three or more full-time workers,
the employment of day workers as well was much the commoner
practice.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE
15
4.—Distribution of families by number of employees and whether employees
were full-time or day 1 workers
Families
Number and type of employees
Total
Num1 ber
|
1 employee
Full time
Day....
2 employees
|
2 full time
1 full time and 1 day
2 day
3 employees
i
1
1
j
3 full time
2 full time and 1 day
1 full time and 2 day
3 day.
employees
i
i
!
!
4 full time
3 full time and 1 day
2 full time and 2 day
1 full time and 3 day
4 day
5 employees
Per
cent
954
100.0
238
24.9
147
91
205
21.5
55
105
45
21.9
209
26
88
86
,J
132
13.8
20
34
52
24
2
80
5 full time
4 full time and 1 day
3 full time and 2 day
2 full time and 3 day
1 full time and 4 day
j
I
1
|
8.4
13
25
22
17
3
Families
Number arid t j pe of employees .
; per
I ber
cent
6 employees.
4.8
10 1 :
11
6 full time
5 full time and 1 day..
4 full time and 2 day..
3 full time and 3 day..
2 full time and i day.
J employ ees.
11 I
2.2
7 full time
6 f 11 time aud 1 day
5 full time and 2 day
4 full time and 3 day
8 employees
7
4 ,
6
4
11
1.2
8 full time
7 full time and 1 day..
6 full time and 2 day
9 employees
5.
3,
3;
6'
.6
9 full time
8 full time and 1 day.
4 full time and 5 day
10 employees
32
,
1 1
4'
.4
10 full time...
9 full time and 1 day..
7 full time and 3 day..
.1
12 employees—Full time..
13 employees—Full time..
.1
i Largely part-time workers.
In the summary following, the distribution is by employees
instead of families, showing number of employees in the family and
whether full-time or day workers.
All employees
Number of employees
in family
Total .
Total
2,833 | 1,781
238 s
410 '1
627
.528 J
400
1
Fall
time
All employees
Day 1
1
147 ,
215
340
310
208 .
1,052
Number of employe
in family
-
91
195 9
287 'I 10218 i 12.
132 1 13.
Full
time
Total
276 |
147 ,
88 i
54
40
12
13
1
196
119
79
46
36
Day 1
80
28
9
8
4
12
13
Largely part-time workers.
Due to the nature of their work, it is probable that a larger proportion of the men than of the women had part-time employment.
From unpublished data it is clear that the women who worked part
time were in most cases laundresses. Cleaners and in a few cases
companions or mothers7 helpers, as well as some general house workers
and seamstresses, also worked on a part-time basis. Among the men
the jobs on a part-time basis were very different from those of the
women. The strength needed to put coal into the furnace and to take
out ashes is required for only a short time daily. Hence, the furnace
man hires himself out for part-time service to a number of homes;
and if he can dovetail his hours to the satisfaction of all his employers,
he is more valuable as a part-time worker than he would be as a full
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
16
time worker. In the same way there are comparatively few homes
that need or can afford to employ a full-time gardener, but there are
many that can employ this specialized skill or the physical strength
necessary for successful gardening a few hours weekly or monthly. In
other lines of household work also the part-time employee is as
important as the full-time worker.
CONDITIONS OF WORK
Homes in which workers were employed.
Of the 954 employers who answered the questionnaire, nine-tenths
(90.3 per cent) lived in houses rather than apartments. In the annual
report of the Philadelphia Housing Association for 1926 it is estimated
that about 80 per cent of the residents of Philadelphia live in private
houses.3 This is a far larger proportion than is found in other cities,
for the same report states that the percentage in Chicago is less than
20, in Boston is about 26, and in Manhattan is less than 4. The
larger proportion of families included in the study who lived in houses
probably is due to the fact that some of the questionnaires returned
were from householders whose homes are in outlying districts, where
the proportion of houses is even greater than in the city.
Size of house or apartment.
The size of the homes in which the workers were employed is some
indication of the amount of work to be done, although many factors
enter into this. The number of rooms in the houses reported varied
from 5 rooms and 1 bath to 58 rooms and 11 baths, the latter being by
far the largest of those included in the study, since the next in size had
34 rooms and 9 baths.
The following table shows the distribution of the households
reported by size of house or apartment occupied:
TABLE
5 . — S i z e of house or apartment
Number
Size of house or apartment (exclusive of baths)
Houses—Total
Size not reported
855
Size reported
5 rooms
6 rooms
7 rooms
8 rooms
9 rooms.
10 rooms
11 rooms
12 rooms
13 and under 15 rooms.
15 and under 18 rooms.
18 and under 21 rooms.
21 rooms or more °
49
78
100
140
78
102
116
88
93
Apartments—Total.
3 rooms or less.
4 and under 6 rooms...
6 and under 8 rooms...
8 rooms or more
° Up to one of 34 rooms and one of 58.
• Philadelphia Housing Association. Annual Report,
man. Philadelphia, 1926, p. 35.
b
Up to one of 15 rooms.
Housing in Philadelphia, by Bernard J. New-
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
17
The largest group of households with size of house reported—
nearly one-sixth—had 10 rooms, the number of baths ranging from 1
to 4; more than two-fifths of these had 2 baths and one-third had 3 or
more.
Three-eighths of the households had 9, 10, or 11 rooms, with the
number of baths varying from 1 to 5; three-fifths (59.4 per cent) of
these had 1 or 2 baths. One-fifth of the houses had less than 9 rooms,
and more than half of these had only 1 bath. One-fourth of the families had houses of 12 but less than 15 rooms, the largest group of these
having 3 baths, although 2 families with 12-room houses reported as
many as 8 baths. Houses of more than 15 rooms were reported by
148, or about one-sixth, of the households. With an increase in number of rooms there was generally a corresponding increase in the
number of baths.
On the whole, the apartments were much smaller than the houses,
ranging in size from 1 room with bath to 15 rooms and 5 baths. All
but two had less than 10 rooms. Two-fifths of the apartments reported had 6 or 7 rooms with from 1 to 4 baths—only one having as many
as 4. Almost the same proportion of the apartments—two-fifths—
had 4 or 5 rooms with 1, 2, or 3 baths.
Size and composition of family.
No distinction was made on the questionnaire as to whether the
persons reported as living in the home were members of the immediate
family or included others. For this reason the data obtained are representative of the household living under the same roof rather than of
the specific family, though further inquiry probably would have
shown that the numbers in most cases wTere the same.
The number of persons reported as occupying the homes ranged
from the single employer to a group of 12 persons, but for the most
part the number was small. About two-thirds of the households for
which the composition of the family was reported had 4 members or
less, while only about one-twentieth had 7 or more, two having
respectively 10 and 12 members.
The make-up of the normal family is father, mother, and children.
An analysis of the composition of the families included in the study
shows that as the number in the family increased, the number of children—those under 16 years of age—increased proportionately to a
certain point. For example: In families of 3, more than one-third of
the families reporting had 1 child; in those of 4, more than one-half had
2 children; in those of 5, more than two-fifths reported 3 children; and
in those of 6, more than one-half reported 3 or 4 children. As the
number of children increased to the maximum number reported—
seven—the proportion of children to adult members became slightly
less. This may be accounted for by the fact that in families where
there are five or more children, frequently one or two of the older ones
are classed in the group 16 years and over and counted as adults
rather than children. There were only 8 families reporting as many
as 6 children, and 2 of these had 7. In the two households reporting
10 and 12 members, one-half the number were under 16 years of age.
TABLE
6 . — S i z e of family,
Total
reported
Total Numnum- ber
ber of not
rehouse- ported
Numholds
ber
Pize of house or apartment
861
Houses—Total
Size not reported
5 rooms
6 rooms
7 rooms
8 rooms
9 rooms
10 rooms
11 rooms
12 rooms
13 rooms
14 rooms
15 and under 18 rooms
18 and under 21 rooms
21 rooms and over3
6
38
49
78
100
140
78
102
60
56
88
38
22
93
Apartments—Total
855
24
Per
cent
Number
Per
cent
5 persons
Number
6 persons
Per Numcent I ber
Per
cent
8 per7 per- sons
sons moreor1
Number 2
26
4 j
136
.7
! 4.5
5.8
. 9.2
J 00.0
189 100.0
1.5
1.1
2
5
2.6
13
6.9
18
9.5
30 15.9
34 I 18.0
16
8.5
8.8
8.8
12.5
9.6
16.9
11.8
, 16.5
, 9.2
6.6
9.6
8.1
100 • 11.8
58
54
88
38
Per
cent
4 persons
199
6i
38
49
78
100
140
78
Number
137
1
849 100.0
3 persons
- 6.8
! 6.4
j 10.4
I 4.5
22; 2.6
90 ! 100. 0
22
11.6
2.6
5.9
5.1
4.4
7.4
12.2
2.2
5
14
23
4
3
(*)
27
(')
100.0 !
12 | 0. 1
12 j
6. 1
21 , 10. 6
29 > 14. 6
37 , 18.7
15 7.6
22 11. 1
U ! 5.6
12 | 6.1
15
7.6
4.5
1.5
11
(2)
2. 1
1.6
.6
2.6
5.8
5.1
12.8
13.5
9.6
11.5
10.9
5.8
13.5
4.5
100.0
4.1
1.0
4.1
5.1
17.3
15.3
20.4
9.2
4.1
10.2
6.1
3.1
(2)
7.8
13.3
26.7
20.0
20.0
12.2
Less than 4 rooms
4 rooms
5 rooms
6 rooms
7 rooms
8 rooms and over *
2 persons
Num- Number 2 ber
6
855
Size reported
i Up to one of 12 persons.
Families having1 person
Per
cent
00
by size of house or apartment
2
Per cent not shown; base less than 50.
a
Up to one of 34 rooms and one of 58.
4
Up to one of 15 rooms.
26
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
19
The size of the family and the age and health of its members have a
direct influence upon the amount of work to be done in the home.
While it is true that in large families the children learn to care for
themselves and to help each other, much still falls on the home maker
ot* the employees. When sickness enters the home, nursing care
greatly increases the amount of work to be done. Of the 48 families
reporting illness in the home, 40 had 1 invalid ami 2 had 2; 6 families
did not report as to the number who were ill.
Every home maker knows that the first question asked by a prospective employee is in respect to the size of the family. However,
there is little apparent relationship between that figure and the
number of employees. Illustrating this fact the following examples
are given:
Two families of 2 had 7 and 2 had 8 full-time workers.
Four families of 3 had 7, 9, 12, and 13 full-time worker?, respectively.
One family of 4 had 7 and one had 8 full-time workers.
Of 4 families of 5 members, 1 had 7, 2 had 8, and 1 had 10 full-time workers.
One family of 6 had 9 and 1 had 10 full-time workers.
Two families of 7 had 7 full-time workers and 1 day worker.
Of 6 families of 9 members, 1 had 1 full-time worker, 1 had 1 full-time and 1 day
worker, 1 had 2 fuU-time workers, 1 had 2 full-time workers and 1 day worker,
another had 2 full-time and 3 day workers, and another had 4 full-time workers
and 1 day worker.
One family of 10 had 1 full-time and 3 day workers.
One family of 12 had 1 full-time and 2 day workers.
The size of house occupied by a family is largely an individual matter,
depending upon the number of persons, size of income, standard of
living, early upbringing, type of community, and the community's
expectation of the family. The community has worked out a standard that not more than two persons should share one bedroom, and
preferably there should be one person to a bedroom.
Analysis of the data presented in Table 6 would seem to bear out
the statement that there is no apparent relation between the number
of rooms in the home and the number of persons living in it.
In this study cases were reported of a very small family occupying
a large home; for example, a family of two lived in a house of 31
rooms and 8 baths. A family of three persons had 29 rooms and 9
baths, and another of the same size had 19 rooms and 6 baths.
There were six in the family that lived in the largest house included
in the study—one of 58 rooms and 11 baths. As examples of the
number of persons in the household more nearly approaching the
number of rooms in the home, a family of 12 had 11 rooms and 3
baths, and a family of 10 had 12 rooms and 3 baths. Six families
with 9 members each had homes varying in size from 8 rooms and 2
baths to 18 rooms and 5 baths.
The largest family included in the study—with 12 members and
a house of 11 rooms and 3 baths—employed one full-time and two
day workers. As before suggested, the fewer paid employees in the
homes of large families no doubt means that the members of the family, including the children, have their part in the household duties
carried on. At the other extreme, one of the smallest families—
with three members and a house of 19 rooms and 6 baths—employed
13 full-time workers. Many other examples might be given to show
that there was no relation among the size of family, size of house, and
number of workers.
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
20
Many of the small families lived in apartments. Of the 90 apartment dwellers who reported size of family, four-fifths (80 per cent)
had a membership of 2, 3, and 4 persons, as compared with about
three-fifths (61.9 per cent) of the families of such size who lived
in houses.
Living conditions of employees.
With other changes in domestic service have come changes in
the conditions under which employees work and live. Yet in some
localities it is more or less traditional that women engaged in domestic
service should live at their place of work, while at the same time it
is customary that men in this field should have work place and home
separate. That such conditions prevail at the present time is apparent from the figures in Table 7.
TABLE
7.—Extent of living
Living status
in and
1
living out, by sex of employees
Total
Women
Number
Men
Per
cent
Number
2,833
2,062
709
Status not reported
Status reported
60
2,773
23
2,039
100.0
26
683
Living in
Living out
1.390
1,383
1,225
814
60.1
39.9
146
537
Total
Sex not
reported
Per
cent
62
100.0
11
21.4 1
78.6 |
511
1
19
32
This table shows that three-fifths of the women for whom information on this point was secured lived with the families by whom
they were employed, while only about one-fifth of the men were so
reported. Aside from the nature of the work in which the men were
engaged, the fact that so large a proportion of them were married
probably influenced this condition.
Included among those who lived away from their place of work
were many part-time workers. The women in this class were mainly
cleaners, general houseworkers, cooks, and laundresses, and the men
were furnace men, gardeners, and chauffeurs.
Living in.—The number of workers who lived at the place in which
they were employed indicates the importance of a consideration of
their living conditions. The figures in the following table include
only the women whose occupation was given on the questionnaire.
TABLE
8.—Living accommodations of women employees who lived in
Lh ing accommodations
Total
i
Women
;
J Number ! Per cent
1,2C3 '
Accommodations not rei orted.
Accommodations reported
Room alone
-
Room shared with another
Child
Employee
Husband
Person not reported
1,182 |
100.0
931
78.8
251
62
151
21
17
21.2
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
21
It is encouraging to realize how large a proportion of the women
had private living accommodations, for of the 1,182 women employees
for whom occupation and living conditions were reported, nearly
four-fifths had rooms of their own. About one-eighth shared a
room with another employee and about one-twentieth shared a room
with a child. In most cases it was the child's nurse who shared
a room with the child for whom she was responsible, 42 children's
nurses being thus reported. The question arises as to the desirability of this practice, from both the worker's and the child's point
of view. Twenty-one women employees were provided with rooms
for themselves and their husbands. Nearly all the women employees
were given access to a bath; only 14, or slightly more than 1 per
cent of those reported, were not accorded this privilege.
The privacy assured to such a large proportion of the employees
in the study shows a high standard in this respect.
A room in which the employee living in may receive her friends
is a provision that has been given less attention than most other
conditions affecting the welfare of the domestic worker. No factor
throws more light on the social status of these employee"? than their
privileges in this regard, and every effort should be made by the
employer to provide such accommodations for her workers. Almost
one-half (48.5 per cent) of the 1,100 women employees for whom
were reported both occupation and information as to whether or
not they had a place in which to entertain their guests had no room
other than the kitchen. The use of the kitchen and another room
was reported for 82 women, or 7.5 per cent, the remaining twofifths having some other room, though in few cases was the room
specified. Of the one-tenth whose room was described, some used
the sitting room or dining room, some had their own dining room
or a servants' hall, while others used the family breakfast room,
nursery, or garage.
The large proportion of the women employees in this study who
were unmarried and living at their place of employment points to
the desirability of their having a suitable room in which to receive
friends. Every normal worker, no matter what her age, needs
contacts in the hours off duty with relatives or friends. It is especially true that workers who are young need contacts with persons of the
opposite sex and of marriageable age, under conditions conducive
to sound social relationships.
Living out.—Whenever the conditions of a job permit, it would
seem that both men and women household employees should live
away from the place of work; the relations between employer and
employee are likely to be less strained, and the employee can live a
freer and, if well directed, more wholesome and profitable life. In
some cases, however, the services of household workers are needed at
such hours that the possibility of their living away from the place of
work is slight. On the other hand, considering the scant provision
made by some employers for employees who live in, especially in
regard to providing rooms for their use for recreation, it may be
expected that the practice of living out will continue to increase.
In this study 814 of the women employees for whom living conditions and occupation were reported lived away from the place of wrork.
Nearly nine-tenths of these were living with their own families and the
remainder lived alone. No tabulation was made of the living condi
22
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
tions of the men who lived away from their work, but since so large a
proportion of the men were married it would undoubtedly be found
that they, too, were living with their own families.
Meals of employees.
The time when household workers should be allowed to eat their
meals is a problem that has been given little thought. As the employee's day ordinarily begins at an earlier hour than does that of the
family, it would appear that the most reasonable mealtime is an hour
or more in advance of that of the family. This is not easily managed,
however, in the family having only one household employee, though
the common practice of having the employee eat her meal after the
family has finished results in many cases in the eating of cold and
unappetizing food.
The following table summarizes the answers given by the householders regarding the mealtime of the women employees who lived in.
TABLE
9.—Mealtime of women employees who lived in
Women
Mealtime
Number Per cent
Total
Time not reported
Time reported
Before the family
After the family
With the family
Breakfast before the family, lunch and dinner efter.
Homo before and some after the family
11,203
92
1, 111
100.0
146
769
65
62
70
13.1
69.2
5.9
5.6
6.3
i Excludes 22 women whose occupations were not reported.
The table shows that in the great majority of cases employees'
meals were eaten after the family had had theirs—practically seventenths (69.2 per cent) of those reported ate at this time. Slightly
more than 13 per cent of the employees ate their meals earlier than
did the family. For nearly 6 per cent it was the rule of the house
that employees should eat breakfast before the family and luncheon
and dinner after. In another group of about the same size the employee ate with the family. In this last group were 10 companions
and mother's helpers, 13 governesses, 19 general houseworkers, 12
children's nurses, 3 nurses who had other duties, 4 trained nurses,
2 cooks, and 2 seamstresses. In these cases it is evident that the
family had taken the worker into its inner circle, probably because
these employees were holding positions of responsibility and had a
correspondingly high degree of intelligence and cultural background.
I t is interesting to see from the table, however, that for the most
part the families maintained feelings of privacy by keeping the family
groups intact at mealtimes as well as at other times.
Of 525 women employees who lived away from the place of work
and for whom information in regard to occupation and meals was
secured, there were only 23, or 4.4 per cent of those reported, to whom
no meals were supplied. Two were given 1 or 2 meals a day but the
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
23
number of days was not mentioned. The number of meals provided varied considerably. Approximately three-fourths of the
women for whom definite data on this subject were reported were
given from 1 to 7 meals a week, a very small proportion had from 8
to 15 meals, and a little over one-fifth had from 16 to 21 meals. The
greatest number of women in any one group (33 per cent) had 2 meals
a week provided. There were 33 employees (6.6 per cent of all
living out for whom number of meals provided was reported) who
received 21 meals a week.
More important than the time at which meals are eaten is the
length of time allowed for this purpose. Nothing is less conducive
to keeping up the well-being and strength of the body, and through
this one's whole morale, than the hurried meal. From this standpoint
it is interesting to find that the householders realized this, and the
answers to their questionnaires show that for seven-tenths of 1,000
women employees living in and having occupation reported there
was no time limit set for meals. Slightly more than one-eighth of
the women reported were allowed half an hour for each meal, and,
of the remainder, some had half an hour for breakfast and for luncheon and an hour for dinner, some had half an hour for breakfast and
an hour each for luncheon and for dinner, and some had various
other time combinations.
The facts given here are quite insufficient to show in how many
cases the worker's needs are considered at mealtime. A comfortable
place in which to eat, attractive surroundings, and uninterrupted
time may be afforded household employees if employers are sufficiently
considerate and understanding of human nature.. On the other hand,
employees must learn to be businesslike in confining themselves
to definite hours for meals and to adapt themselves to the situation
in the home of the employer for whom they agree to work.
In order that employers may secure satisfactory and efficient service it is important that they realize the close relationship between
the employee's working hours and her personal life, recreation, and
living conditions. When an employee is found to be inefficient,
unsatisfactory, or antagonistic the cause may lie in unadjusted working or living conditions. It is important that the cause of the difficulty be found and an adjustment brought about whenever possible.
OCCUPATIONS
Analysis and classification.
To make clearer the work involved in an efficiently managed
household and the part taken in accomplishing these tasks by household employees, an analysis and classification of home-making
activities has been prepared. Some of these activities are clearly
the function of a parent and therefore it is in rare cases only that
they are delegated to an employee. Though in some homes many
of these activities have to be omitted for lack of money, time, and
energy, in households where time and money are of no concern every
one of them should be included in the well-managed home.
24
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF HOME-MAKING ACTIVITIES 1
A. Physical care of members of the household (including the home maker
herself)
I. Food:
(a) Planning meals and securing raw materials from garden or stores and
selecting ready-cooked materials—•
(1) Making list of food needed.
(2) Purenase of food—
(а) In stores.
(б) By telepnone.
(c) Bv mail.
(3) Picking food from garden or fruit trees if own supply is used.
(4) Checking of food purchases when they arrive.
(5) Putting food and supplies away.
(6) Keeping preliminary record of expenditures.
(7) Entering expenditures in account books.
(8) Paying of bills for food.
(9) Planning meals, including responsibility for left-overs.
(b) Preparation and cooking of food—
(1) Preparing vegetables, meats, desserts, and all other food.
(2) Cooking food.
(c) Serving food—
(1) Selection of correct linen, glassware, and dishes, and setting
table.
(2) Carrying food from kitchen to table.
(3) Waiting on table.
(d) Clearing up of food—•
(1) Clearing table.
(2) Piling up and stacking dishes preparatory to washing.
(3) Putting away food, including responsibility for adequate
refrigeration.
(4) Washing, wiping, and putting away dishes used at table.
(5) Washing, wiping, and putting away kitchen utensils.
(6) Disposal of garbage.
(e) Other food service—
(1) Trays for children.
(2) Trays for sick members of trie family and invalids.
(3) Social affairs; refreshments; extra meals—
(a) Luncheons; teas; dinners.
(b) Other entertainment.
(c) Picnics, etc.
(/) Canning or preserving of food.
II. Shelter, care of house, garage, and outside surroundings:
(a) Care of sleeping and living rooms of house—
(1) Making beds.
(2) Picking up and tidying rooms, including care of toys, books,
magazines, musical instruments, daily care of flowers,
or pets.
(3) Cleaning and dusting house, including daily care of bathrooms—(a) Daily.
(b) Semiweeklv.
(c) Weekly.
(4) Cleaning silver and brasses.
(5) Sweeping porches and steps.
(6) Answering door.
(7) Answering telephone.
(b) Care of fires—
(1) Furnace.
(2) Laundry stove and hot-water heater.
(3) Coal stove.
(4) Kerosene or other heaters.
(5) Bringing up wood for open fires.
(6) Taking up wood-fire ashes.
(c) Care of cellar, including responsibility for having ashes removed.
iPrepared by the author of this report.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
25
I I . Shelter, care of house, garage, and outside
surroundings—Continued.
(d) Care of water supply (new washers, turning off water, calling plumber
when necessary).
(e) Repairs and replacement of worn-out materials and articles.
(/) Buying new materials and new goods, or installing and making new
equipment.
(g) Financial activities connected with shelter—
(1) Keeping preliminary entry of money spent.
(2) Entering in account books.
• (Z) Faying lulls.
(h) Care of automobile and garage—
(1) Driving car.
(2) Responsibility for having car greased and kept in repair.
(3) Responsibility for having car washed, brushed out, etc.
(4) Responsibility for having garage, tools, etc., kept in order.
(5) Responsibility for securing licenses, tags, etc.
(6) Financial activities connected with auto and garage.
(i) Care of outside of house and surroundings—
(1) Cutting grass and keeping hedges, paths, and drives in order.
(2) Care of vegetable garden.
(3) Care of llower garden.
(4) Other duties.
III. Clothing and textiles:
(а) Laundering at home—
(1) Putting soiled clothes in hamper.
(2) Bringing clothes to laundry from hamper.
(3) Putting clothes to soak.
(4) Regular washing.
(5) Regular ironing.
(6) Extra washing, silk stockings, sweaters, etc.
(7) Extra ironing, pressing, etc.; spots taken out.
(8) Oiling and assuming care of machinery.
(б) Laundry sent out—
(1) Sorting.
(2) Keeping accurate record.
(3) Counting and checking on return.
(4) Following up lost or injured articles.
(5) Paying and entering accounts.
(c) Sorting clothing and household linens and looking them over.
(d) Mending and repairing.
(e) Putting clothing and textiles in right places.
(/) Constant oversight of clothing not laundered for cleaning, mending,
altering, sending to tailor.
(g) Putting awav and taking out winter and summer Nothing and textiles
a t the right season.
(h) Making new goods for family—
(1) New clothing of all kinds.
(2) Curtains, pillows, etc.
(3) Costumes for special occasions, etc.
(4) Dolls' dresses, sails for boats, or other toys.
(i) Replacing clothing and textiles and buying newr goods when needed.
( j ) Disposing of rummage.
(k) Keeping accounts and paying bills.
IV. Other -physical care of members of the household:
(a) Care of persons—
(1) Bathing, dressing, feeding, and other physical care of infants
and small children.
(2) Supervision of bathing, teeth, dressing, and other physical
care of older children.
(3) Nursing and medical care of adults and children when ill.
B. Psychological, educational, and social care of members of the household
(including the home maker herself)
I. Constant oversight of infants and small children with understanding of their
needs from the point of view of mental and emotional growth and development.
26
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
II. Selection of best schools, colleges, camps, and other educational agencies for
older children, and constant cooperation with such agencies.
III. Guidance of leisure time of adults and of children of school age, including
their relationships with relatives, friends, and with the community, including church.
C. Problems of employment and supervision of workers
o. Analyses of jobs to be done, and decision as to number of paid workers to be
employed within the limits of the budget.
b. Selection of workers.
c. Adjustment of the worker to the job, including—
(1) Supervision and training 011 the job.
(2) Human interest and help in solving problems when off the job.
d. Financial activities connected with the employment of workers.
e. Relation with other home makers in working out. standards of household employment for the given community.
A glance at this analysis shows that the home-making activities
listed cover all those that tend toward a harmonious development of
persons in the family group. Along with the physical care, that is
essential to every member of the family, comes the satisfactory relation
of each member of the group to every other member and to the group
as a whole, as well as sound adjustment to the community. The wellmanaged household is one that brings about these internal and
external adjustments with the least expenditure of effort, either with
or without the assistance of paid employees.
It is seen from the table on occupations that the workers in the
present study performed many of the tasks included in the list of
home-making activities. Obviously, there was some confusion in
the titles given the various occupations by those reporting, for the same
type of job would be given different names by different employers.
Yet, on the other hand, it is a fact worth noting that there were few
duplications of women's work reported for men, though it is well
known that in some homes a man does work that usually is performed
by a woman.
Nearly half of the women (49.2 per cent) in the four major occupational groups presented in this table were engaged in occupations
concerned with the preparation or serving of food. Occupations
included in this group are cook, general houseworker, housekeeper,
kitchen maid, waitress, and the combination of waitress and chambermaid. Several hundred of these might be classified under shelter—for
housekeepers, houseworkers, and the waitresses who did chamber
work, a total of 403, had duties other than those connected with food.
When these 403 women employees are added to the 380 concerned
principally with shelter, shelter becomes the next largest group. Of
those whose work specifically came under shelter, 164 were reported as
chambermaids, 22 of these having other work in addition. A smaller
number, 118, worked as cleaners. There were 82 housemaids and 16
parlor maids, the job of 1 of the latter including work as waitress.
Classified under clothing and textiles is a group of 447 women.
Nearly all these were concerned with the laundering of clothes, a very
few being seamstresses. Physical care of the household was found to
employ 181 w omen, nearly two-thirds of whom were nurses, in charge
of children or invalids.
PART
I.—THE
EMPLOYER'S
27
QUESTIONNAIRE
10.—Occupation, by sex of employee
TABLE
Women
Occupation
Total
2,833
Total
Occupation not reported
168
Occupation reported
Food
1.985
977
!
Chambermaid
Chambermaid and other (nurse or seamstress)
Cleaner
Housemaid
Parlor maid
Parlor maid and other (waitress)
Chauffeur
Chauffeur and other (butler, second
man, etc.)
Furnace man
Furnace man and other (gardener)
Gardener
Gardener and other
General utility man
House man
House man and other (second man or
grounds man)
Other2
448
Clothing and textiles
Laundress
Laundress and other
Seamstress
Boots
182
Physical care of household
Companion and other (mother's helper) .
Governess
Lady's maid
Nurse child's
Nurse trained
Nurse and other
- Invalid's attendant
11
1,020 |
1,015
Shelter
Per
cent
2,062
2. 665
Butler
Cook
Cook and other
General houseworker
Housekeeper
Kitchen maid
Waitress
. . .
Waitress and other (chambermaid > _
Number
Men
Per
cent
Sex not
reported
709
62
29
62
680
100.0
401
29
348
3
12
132
52
41.0
3.0
35.6
.3
1.2
13.5
5.3
Sfcft !
100.0
142 j
37. 4
22 i
118
5.8
31.1
82
2l.fi
15
1
3.9
.3
447
Number
100.0
381
46 |
20
85.2
10.3
4.5
181
100.0
31
20
11
106
8
5
17.1
11.0
6.1
58.6
4.4
2.8
43
0)
37
6
1 ..
635
100.0
17
2.7
115
18.1
16
111
40
225
7
38
48
2.5
17.5
6.3
35.4
1.1
6.0
7.6
4
14
.6
2.2
1
0)
1
1
0)
1
i1 Per cent not shown; base less than 50.
Includes 8 ash men, 1 ash man and outside worker, 1 stable boy, 1 coachman, and 3 watchmen.
As was to be expected, only a small number of the men employees
were engaged in the preparing and serving of food. Of the 680 men
for whom a specific occupation was reported, only 43, or about 6 per
cent, are in this group. On the other hand, 635 (93.4 per cent) were
connected with some occupation classed under shelter—chauffeur,
gardener, furnace man, house man, etc. In the two other groups
classified there were only 2 men—1 under clothing and 1 under
physical care of household.
92116°—32
3
28
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Use of labor-saving devices in the home.
In this age of mechanization homes have profited by the introduction of many labor-saving devices. This has meant not only a
reduction in the amount of work to be done but a change in the kind of
work. In some cases, due to the use of these devices, the housewife of
small means can get along without any paid workers, while families
with higher incomes have installed these appliances not as substitutes
for an employee but simply to reduce the amount of drudgery and hard
work that formerly was necessary. In shortening the number of hours
of work required to maintain the same standard of living, the introduction of these devices undoubtedly paves the way for the utilization
of more intelligent workers in the home.
In connection with the use of these labor-saving devices it must be
remembered that if they are not handled carefully serious accidents
may occur. The householder should take every precaution and
assure herself that these appliances are in good working order; and
if they are not, she should secure the help of a skilled person to make
the necessary repairs. Instructions to employees regarding the use of
appliances should be simple and clear, and these should be repeated
often so that the danger attendant on their use will be minimized.
Socially minded householders are desirous that the use of these devices
to their fullest extent should result in shorter hours of work and a
higher standard of living for themselves as well as for their employees.
The electrical device most frequently reported was the vacuum
cleaner, found in the homes of 854, or 92.9 per cent, of the householders
reporting. Proportionately more of the families living in houses than
in apartments had such cleaners, though two householders who lived in
apartments of less than three rooms reported this device. Four
employers reported having a floor waxer and polisher.
Several different kinds of electrical equipment were provided to help
in the preparation of food. Among these wTere the following: Toasters, reported by 585 householders; refrigerators, by 334; percolators,
by 309; and other miscellaneous pieces, such as waffle irons, egg
poachers, dishwashers, by smaller groups. Various other devices—
cake mixers, cream whips, grills, ice-cream freezers, etc.—were
reported, but the answers were not definite as to whether these were
electrical.
Many employers reported electrical devices for laundry work, and
almost as many had electric irons (849) as had vacuum cleaners. As
an additional help in laundry work, 370 employers provided electric
washers and 90 had mangles.
Laundry work.
Considering the electrical helps provided to assist in laundry work,
the question arises as to whether it is the better plan to provide all
these and have the work done at home or to patronize the commercial
laundries that have improved so much of late years. From many
standpoints there is a great saving to the housewife if the laundry
work can be done outside the home. On the other hand, the occasional loss of things of value, the greater wear and tear on the articles
of clothing, the supposedly greater cost of such work, and the lower
quality of the work achieved as compared with that well done at home
must all be considered. It becomes a matter of choice on the part of
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
29
the housewife as to whether she adheres to tradition and has the
laundry done at home or patronizes one of these laundries.
Of the employers included in the study, 872 reported as to where
their laundry work was done. Nearly seven-tenths (69.5 per cent) of
these sent out their laundry. Even with this large proportion of
families who sent the laundry out, much work was done at home, such
as fine lingerie and table linens, woolens, and children's garments.
Though there are hand laundries where this can be done as well as at
home, if expense need not be considered, most families prefer to have
some of their small pieces laundered at home by hand.
HOURS OF WORK
Because so many persons employed in domestic service put in long
hours day after day, it may be said that their work is never done. In
other types of employment w ork is finished at a definite hour and most
workers have free evenings. For those employed in domestic service
this would be difficult, but whether or not it is impossible is a question.
In order to secure worth-while data regarding the hours that household employees work, the questionnaire used in the present study
asked for the time of beginning and of ending work, as well as the number of hours during wrhicli the employee was entirely off duty. In
considering these hours for discussion two groupings have been made:
1. The over-all hours—from the time of beginning wTork in the morning until that of quitting in the evening.
2. The actual hours—the time the employee is actually at work.
(This figure was secured by computation.)
For employees who live in, the actual hours of work assume first
place, while for those who live away from their work, and especially
those whose homes are so far away as to prevent their spending their
short periods off duty there, the over-all hours are of most significance.
For this latter group the periods of free time frequently are so broken
up that they can be of little value to the worker. But for those living
in, the intervals between the actual working periods afford considerable
time to themselves. The hours of beginning and ending work and the
total number of hours constituting a day or a week have never been
standardized for those employees in domestic service who work on a
weekly or monthly basis; for those employed on a part-time basis,
especially day workers, custom has made the hours of work more or
less definite.
Over-all hours.
From answers on the questionnaires it was possible to tabulate the
over-all daily hours of approximately three-fourths (72.8 per cent) of
the women and about two-fifths (41.6 per cent) of the men included in
the study. The accompanying table shows the employees' distribution in specified hour classifications.
Of the 1,501 women reported, 47 had a day of less than 6 hours and
16 a clay of 6 and under 7 hours, and it seems reasonable to suppose
that these groups were made up largely, if not wholly, of part-time
workers. Just twice the number having a day of less than 6 hours had
a day of 7 and under 8, more than half of them being laundresses.
(See Appendix Table I.)
30
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
TABLE
f\
11.—Over-all daily hours, by sex of employee
_1 otal.
11 u
Total
Hours not reported
Hours reported
Under 6
6 and under 7
7 and under 8
8 and under 9
9 and under 10
10 and under 11.
11 and under 12
12 and under 13
13 and under 14
14 and under 15
15 and under 16
16 and under 17
17
24
1
Women
i 2,771
2,062
975
561
1, 796
1,501
68
17
96
328
113
84
128
456
394
86
8
13
1
4
Men
1
Numberj Per cent Number Per cent
47 |j
16 1
94
301
44
28
102
424
354
72
7
7
1
4
709
414
100.0
295
100.0
3.1
1.1
6.3
20.1
2.9
1.9
6.8
28.2
23.6
4.8
.5
.5
.1
.3
21
1
2
27
69
56
26
32
40
14
1
6
7.1
.3
.7
9.2
23.4
19.0
8.8
10.8
13.6
4.7
.3
2.0
* Hours were not tabulated for the 62 persons whose sex was not reported.
One-fifth (20.1 per cent) of the 1,501 women had a daily over-all of 8
and under 9 hours and these were chiefly laundresses and cleaners.
Almost three-fifths of the women (57.9 per cent) had a daily schedule
of at least 12 hours, and though it is probable that these workers had
some time off during the day it can not be denied that their over-all is
extremely long. Almost all these are in the 12-and-under-14-hour
groups, where about 52 per cent of the 1,501 women are found. These
are largely cooks and general houseworkers. For 91 women the job
meant at least 14 hours from time of beginning to time of ending work;
12 of these had an over-all of as much as 16 hours. There were 4
children's nurses, on duty night and day, for whom an over-all period
of 24 hours was reported.
Of the 295 men for whom information regarding over-all hours was
given, 21 (7.1 per cent) had an over-all period of less than six hours in
the household reporting. (See Appendix Table II.) This is more
than twice the proportion of women whose over-all was less than six
hours a day, due to the fact that the great majority of these men were
furnace men or gardeners. Because of the kind of work in which these
men were engaged it is evident that the time spent at each house would
of necessity be short. A complete analysis of their work hours would
not be possible in a study of this kind.
It seems significant to note that while the largest proportion of men
in any hour group (23.4 per cent) had an over-all period of 9 and under
10 hours, the largest proportion of women (28.2 per cent) had an overall of 12 and under 13 hours. However, as the women outnumbered
the men 5 to 1, the 6 men for whom an over-all of 16 hours or more was
reported constituted a larger proportion of the total men than the 12
women with such an over-all constituted of all the women reported.
Actual hours of women in five selected occupations.
The time that the worker is actually on duty might be, and frequently is, quite different from the number of over-all hours, because
actual hours do not include those off duty when the employee is free to
pursue her own interests and activities. In the tabulations of hours
TABLE
1 2 . — A c t u a l daily hours of women in five chief occupations, according to whether living in or living out
Total reported
Total
Actual daily hours
Cook
Living in Living out
Total
General houseworker
Living in
§ ! M
2 s
Ph
2
Total
630 100. 0
Under 8
8
Over 8 and under 9__
9
Over 9 and under 10.
10
Over 10 and under 11_
11
Over 11 and under 12_
12
Over 12 and under 13 _
13
Over 13 and under 14_
14
Over 14 and under 15_
9. 5'
12.
15.
14.
14.
Living in Living out
Total
Total
Living in i
Total
Living in
I
i be a
I•Sa fl3
fl 3
Va
£
Nurse,
child's
Waitress
MH
i S iof fl
£
I
EH
548 100. 0
2 240 100. 0 217 100.0
7.3
4.0
11.1
4.2
3.7
8.9
11.5
16.2
14.6
15.3
5.8
2.4
3.1
2.7
13.9
23.6
9.7
9.7
6.9
4.2
6.9
11.5
16.6
14.7
22.1
7.8
3.2
6.8
16.
'Per cent not shown; base less than 50.
Chambermaid
18
189 100.0
7.9
5.3
11.1
11.1
15.3
13.8
16.4
2.8
6.0
8.
4.
2.3
1.1
1.6
.5
.5
1.8
2.1
2
132 100.0
8 6.1,
6
Hi
15'
18;
21
23
12'
7j
2,
4!
4.51
8.3
11.4
13.6
15.9
17.4
9. 1
5.3
1.5:
3.0
3 2.3
52 100. 0,
75 100. 0
74:100.0
11. 5!
5.8,
19. 21
9.61
17.3
4.0
16. 2
4.1 ;
14.7
5.3
17.3
12.0
10.7
1.3
1.3
4.0
4.0
14.9
5.4
17. 6'
21.
2'
7. 7j
13. 5j
7.71
3.8
8.0
100.0
8.1
12. 2'
10. 8;
1
1.4
1.4
4.1
4.1
Total includes a few employees whose living condition was not reported.
81
12.3 .
;
8. 6 __
6.2
14.8..
13. 6'..
11.1..
12.3
3.7
2.5 __
1.2__
iM
H
H
tH
O
H
4. 9 _.
1.2 .
d
H
U2
H
3
h-l
O
22S
t-H
6
CC
32
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
worked drawn from the answers on the questionnaires^ the time that
the employee takes for meals and any period when she is not expected
to be on the job have been deducted. The accompanying table shows
the daily hours of work of the women in the five occupational groups
considered the most important in this study—cooks, general houseworkers, chambermaids, waitresses, and children's nurses, according
to whether the women lived in or out. It may be said in passing that
this table furnishes an excellent example of the incompleteness of data
from even the best-intentioned employers, since actual hours could be
ascertained for only 630 of the more than 1,100 women classed as in
these five occupational groups.
Of the 240 cooks for whom information was sufficiently detailed to
warrant computation of hours, 217 were reported as living at the place
of work and 18 as living out; for 5 living status was not reported.
For about two-thirds the actual daily working hours were 10 or more,
the greatest number of these (140) being actually on the job from 10
to 12 hours. The hour schedules were shorter for the women who
lived out than for most of those who lived in.
Many more general houseworkers than cooks lived away from the
place of employment, the table having 27.5 per cent of the houseworkers so classed. Of the total 189 reported, 86.2 per cent were
divided almost evenly in the 8-and-under-l 0-hour and the 10-andunder-12-hour groups. Those who lived out had shorter hours than
those who lived in.
Of the 75 chambermaids for whom hour data were tabulated, only
1 lived away from her place of work; about two-fifths (41.3 per cent)
had a workday of 10 and under 12 hours.
Of the 82 waitresses, also, only 1 lived away from her work, and
again just over two-fifths—40.2 per cent—had a day of 10 and under
12 hours.
All the children's nurses for whom hours worked were reported
lived where they worked, and almost three-fifths of the number had a
working period of 10 and under 12 hours. Of the 3 who were reported
as being on actual duty for 14 hours or more, 1 was on the job 21
hours of the 24.
To summarize: Of the 630 women in the five selected occupations,
just over one-third worked 8 and under 10 hours and practically onenaif worked 10 and under 12 hours. About 1 woman in 12 had a
workday 13 or more hours in length. Nearly three-fifths (57.9 per
cent) of the women in these groups worked as much as 10 hours a day.
Thursday and Sunday hours off duty so complicated the subject
of weekly hours that these could not be tabulated. The inquiries in
regard to this subject apparently were not understood by the
employers.
Some idea of the length of the working week and the hours of overtime expected of employees may be had from the remarks on the
questionnaires. A few of these are quoted here.
The work schedule in one household is commented upon as follows:
My maid is on duty approximately 70 hours a week; that is, deducting days
off and one hour per day rest period, but making no deduction for mealtimes.
Moreover, she does her own laundry and her small boy's (doubtless her husband's,
too) in my time and at my expense. The maximum for industrial work is 54
hours per week, I believe, and laundry, meals, etc., consume part of the remaining
time on duty, as also does time lost in transit to and from work, therefore actual
net free time is probably nearly equivalent in domestic and industrial work if
my household is fairly typical.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
33
The hour of going off duty seemed to mean little to the employers
whose questionnaires contained the following statements:
My maids work until the dinner dishes are washed; this may be 8.30 or 10.30
p. m. They are then at liberty to go if we are in, otherwise one stays in to answer
the phone.
After 8.30 p. m., as long as one maid is in the house, either may go off. If I am
home, both may go out.
As to regular hours and payment for overtime another employer
remarked:
I believe where the employer has young children it would be very expensive and
difficult to employ a woman regular hours with extra pay for overtime, as in the
case of a factory or office worker.
Another employer makes this statement:
It has been my rule to treat a "servant" as I would wish to be treated. I often
offer extra time off when it is convenient for me, and if it does not conflict she may
go out when her work is done. The hours are long, but no longer than mine. I
have always received hearty cooperation and a real interest.
Time off.
Any analysis of hour data must include a discussion of the time
off allowed employees, for it is important not only that there should be
a reasonable working day but that provision should be made for
adequate periods of relaxation. In industry, IK days of rest in 7 is
increasingly becoming accepted as the minimum standard. In
industries so organized as to require Sunday work, such as light and
power, transportation, telephone and telegraph, etc., compliance with
this provision is effected by planning shifts so that employees who
must work on Sunday may have another day in the week free.
Of the 758 employers who gave information as to the time off
granted their employees, slightly more than one-tenth (11.2 per cent)
reported that they allowed 1 half-day a week and over two-fifths
(42.7 per cent) gave 2 half-days a week to their workers.
Some gave occasional week-ends, in addition, probably due to the
increasing custom of the family itself being away at times, in the
inevitable car. In comparatively few cases, however, could the
amount of time off be considered as compensating for the long day
and the 7-day week. This matter of some time off each week regularly, a period that the employee may consider her own, is one that
calls for open-minded consideration.
WAGES
Due to the veiy nature of the work involved in domestic service
payment usually is reckoned on a time basis. Though objections to
this method of payment are raised at times, because of the varying
degrees of speed among individuals engaged on identical tasks, such
objections might be made in practically every other line of work in
which wages are on a time basis. There will always be individual
differences among those employed.
In the occupations classified under household employment, wages
are paid by the hour, the day, the week, or the month. The majority
of the employees included in this study were paid by the week.
Payment by the hour usually indicates the most convenient mode of
paying for the job of less duration than a full day. Payment by the
34
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
day naturally is the established method of remunerating workers
doing day's work. Some consider a job paid by the month as of
greater permanency than one paid on a weekly or a daily basis, and it
would appear reasonable that it should affect at least the notice given
on termination of employment, but in household employment this
seems to make little difference.
TABLE
1 3 . — M e t h o d of wage payment, by sex of employees
Women
Method of wage payment
Total
Method not reported
Method reported
By
By
By
By
month
week
day
hour
Total
Number
2,833
2,062
389
184
2,444 1
1,878
469
1,338
521
116
238
1,150
463
27
Men
Per
cent
Namber
.J
Per
cent
709
62
197
100.0
!
12.7 j
61.2
24.7
1.4
Sex not
reported
8
512
100.0
54
231
154
41
86
45.1
30.1
8.0
16.8
34
17
3
Table 13 shows that, of 1,878 women for whom information regarding wages was obtained from the householders, about three-fifths
(61.2 per cent) were paid by the week, nearly one-fourth (24.7 per
cent) by the day, and about one-eighth (12.7 per cent) by the month.
Only 1.4 per cent w-ere paid by the hour.
Naturally of far greater importance to the worker than the method
and time of payment and the wage for a certain specified period, as
day, week, or month, is the total amount of the year's earnings—the
amount on which the worker must budget her expenses and live or
merely exist, as the case may be. Unfortunately, such information is
not included in this study. If it were known that employees had
worked uninterruptedly for the whole year preceding the study or had
been paid for time off, it might be possible to compute monthly
earnings and j^ear's earnings for many of them. But in only a small
number of the households included would the accounts have been kept
so that this information could have been supplied if it had been
requested.
Closely related to the question of the amount of the wage is that
of living status, for if workers are housed, fed, and given their laundry
by employers, their wages are augmented considerably. For this
reason the w-age data of the employees who lived in have been tabulated separately from those of the workers who lived away from their
work and for whom few or no meals were provided. This is true both
of the wage summaries next presented and of the detailed tables in
the appendix.
Employees paid by the month.
The table next presented gives the wages paid to 238 women and
231 men employed on a monthly basis. For 8 of the women and 4 of
the men there is no information as to whether they were living at or
away from their places of employment.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE
35
1 4 . — W a g e s of employees paid by the month, by sex and living status
Women
Amount
Living in
Number
Total.
Under $60
$60 and under $80...
$80 and under $110..
$110 and under $140.
$140 and over
Per
cent
J
100.0
2 23 I
124 i
67 1
5
10.5
56.6
30.6
2.3
2 219
1
Men
Living in
Living
Living condiout,
tion not
num- report- NumPer
ber i ed, num- ber
cent
ber i
3 11
35
4
1
1
8
102
1
5
2
® 11
25
»37
9
22
100.0
10 7
10.8 1
24.5
36.3 j
21.6 1
6.9 '
Living out
Number
Per
cent
Living
condition not
reported, num]
ber1
< 125
100.0
4
6 54
75
22
21
23
43.2
4.0
17.6
1
16.8
18.4
2
1
1
2
Per cent not shown; base less than 50.
Includes 2 part-time workers.
3 Includes 3 part-time workers.
4
Includes 54 part-time workers.
» 1 worker has house only.
6
Includes 53 part-time workers.
' Includes 1 part-time worker.
*6 have houss only; 1, a gardener, is given house, fuel, and light only.
•103 are provided a house and 1, a gardener, an apartment.
1, a chauffeur, is provided with house.
Women.—Of the 219 women who lived in and whose monthly
wages were reported, 2 received less than $25. Both of these did
part-time work; 1 of them, a girl of 14, was a companion and mother's
helper. Included in the number receiving $35 and under $60 (about
one-tenth of those reported) were 10 cooks, 2 housemaids, 2 general
houseworkers, 2 chambermaids and waitresses, a chambermaid, a
waitress, a companion and mother's helper, a laundress, and a kitchen
maid. The majority of the women living in and paid by the month
(56.6 per cent) appear in the $60-and-under-$80 group, and over onefourth of these were receiving $75 and under $80. Five women—•
two cooks, a governess, a housekeeper, and a worker whose occupation
was not reported—received wages the amounts of which ranged from
$110 to $137.50, the latter being the peak of the monthly earnings
reported for the women.
Of the 11 women here reported who lived out, 2 had monthly earnings of $20 and under $25; both were laundresses, part-time workers,
and it is probable that they had other part-time jobs. Another
part-time worker living out, also a laundress, had a wage of $40 and
under $45, and this was the wage reported for 1 woman who worked
full time. One housemaid received $55 and under $60 for the month;
2 cooks, a general houseworker, and a laundress had earnings of $60
and under $80; a governess received $90 and under $95, and a
laundress $110.
It is interesting to note that while 14.6 per cent of the women who
lived in received $100 or more for their monthly wage, only 9.1 per
cent of those living out were paid such amounts.
Men.—Of the 231 men reported as paid on a monthly basis, the
living status of 4 was not reported. The amounts paid the men who
lived at the place of employment ranged from $50 to $175. Those
who received the lowest rate include 2 chauffeurs, 1 of whom was also
a butler, 3 gardeners, 1 of whom had other duties also, 3 house men,
and a stable boy. Of the 2 who were paid the highest amount reported
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
36
($175) the gardener received also his living and the chauffeur had, in
addition to his wage, the use of a house but received no meals.
The most frequent monthly wage reported as paid to the men
living in was $100; 12.7 per cent of the men who lived at their place of
work were paid this amount. In contrast to this is the most frequent
monthly wage paid to women living in, $75 and under $80, wages in
this group being received by 15.5 per cent of the women.
A summary of the wages paid to the men who worked on a monthly
basis and lived at the place of work shows that about one-tenth (10.8
per cent) of the number received $50 and under $60; nearly one-fourth
(24.5 per cent) received $60 and under $80, and not far from threetenths (28.3 per cent) received $110 and over.
Fifty-four of the 125 men paid by the month and living out were
part-time workers; all but one of them received less than $50 a month.
These employees—mainly furnace men and gardeners—undoubtedly
had other part-time jobs. Of the 71 men who worked full time, more
than three-fifths received $110 and over. Four employees, all of them
chauffeurs, were paid $200 a month. The most frequent wage received by the men living out was $100, the same as for the men
living in. There were so few women paid by the month who lived
out that comparison of their wages with those reported for men is
not significant except as regards the range reported for full-time
employees—from $40 to $110 for the women and from $50 to $200 for
the men.
Employees paid by the week.
Women.—As previously stated, a far larger proportion of the women
employees were paid by the week than by the month; in fact, there
were more than one and a half times as many women in the group
paid weekly as in the three other groups combined. (See Table 13.)
Furthermore, a larger percentage lived away from their work than
was the case with those paid by the month—16.7 per cent as compared
with 4.8 per cent. For only three of the women paid by the week
was information as to whether they lived in or out not reported.
The table following shows the number and per cent of employees
living in and living out, grouped in five weekly wage classes.
TABLE
1 5 . — W a g e s of employees paid by the week, by sex and living status
Women
Living in
Men
Living out
Amount
Number
Total
Under $9
$9 and under $14
$14 and under $20
$20 and under $45
$45 and over
——
1
2
Per
cent
2 955
100.0
a 12
159
702
82
1.3
16.6
73.5
8.6
Per cent not shown; base less than 50.
Includes 2 part-time workers.
» Includes 17 part-time workers.
* Includes 50 part-time workers.
»Includes 16 part-time workers.
Number
3
192
8
31
7 87
69
5
6
7
Per
cent
100.0
16.1
45.3
35.9
2.6
Living
condition not Liv'ng
in,
reported, number i
number^
3
2
1
39
4
14
• 19
2
Living out
Number
Per
cent
<115
100.0
• 50
«1
5
59
43.5
.9
4.3
51.3
Includes 49 part-time workers.
Includes 1 part-time worker and 1 woman who
was given car fare in addition to wages.
• Part-time worker.
1
A "general utility man" had house only.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
37
The lowest week's wage reported for a full-time worker living in was
$6 and under $7. Two part-time workers received under $6. At the
other extreme are 22 women who received $25 or more for a week's
work. This number includes cooks, children's nurses, governesses,
a companion and mother's helper, a waitress, a nurse who did other
work also, and four trained nurses, these last and a governess who
lived out being the most highly paid women reported—three of them
receiving $35 a week and two $40. The great bulk of the women—
73.5 per cent—received $14 and under $20, and within this group the
most common wage was $15, the amount paid to 240 women, or onefourth of the 955 living in.
When it is realized that in addition to their money wage the women
living in received room and board, the value of which in most cases
would be equivalent to an additional wage of several dollars, the
amounts paid to these employees seem, on the whole, fairly adequate
as compared with the wages paid in other lines of work. But household employees sometimes are confronted with a period of unemployment during the summer months while the family is away, and this
must be taken into account when the earnings of domestic workers are
compared with those of other women.
The women paid by the week who lived out received wages both
relatively and actually lower than those of the women who lived in.
About one-half (49.1 per cent) of those who were reported as working
full time were paid $9 and under $14, in contrast to only 16.7 per cent
of the full-time workers who lived in. The greatest number in any
dollar group (22.4 per cent) were receiving $12 and under $13, all but
a few of these receiving a wage of $12 exactly.
One employer, in commenting on the wage that she paid her
employee, wrote as follows:
" I pay $13 a week if maid will do cleaning—$3 less if not. She
does no washing except stockings, silk underwear, and table doilies."
Another employer had some perception of what wages should be,
though she herself was doing little to attain the better standard. The
following statement is copied from her questionnaire:
" I ' m ashamed to report the wages I pay—$9—but we live in the
country and this amount is higher than the wages usually paid [in
homes outside the city]."
As in many other lines of employment, it was taken for granted that
a worker employed in the country could be paid a wage lower than
that necessary for a worker in the city.
As an example of the relation of experience and wages the case of
one employer is cited:
"At present I have an inexperienced German maid, four years in the
United States, who came for $15 per week. No washing nor ironing.
She could not cook nor bake. I reduced wages to $13 until such time
as she becomes proficient. That is left to my judgment."
A householder who had been employing help for some years said:
"Day's wages of course have doubled in the time and the period of
years in which I have employed help. Also hours are shorter."
One discouraged householder wrote on her questionnaire:
I find that for household work experienced and inexperienced people, if they
have been some time in this country, all desire the same wages. If possible, I
employ only experienced help with good references, though I find that the girls
coming over lately desire the maximum wage and the minimum work with very
little loyalty to the family. It is merely a business proposition, and I also
Digitized forconsider
FRASERit such these days.
38
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Men.—Only about one-fourth of the 154 men paid on a weekly
basis lived in, as contrasted with five-sixths of the women. The
lowest money wage reported for these men employees was $12 and
under $13; 3 butlers and 1 house man were so paid. The highest
weekly wage reported was $50, also paid to a butler.
Of the 115 men who lived out, more than two-fifths (43.5 per cent)
were part-time workers, an interesting contrast to the corresponding
figure for women, less than one-tenth. Of the men reported as fulltime workers in this group, nine-tenths (90.8 per cent) received $20
and over, while less than 3 per cent of the women so reported had
wages as high as this. The weekly wages of the men who were reported as part-time workers ranged from less than $5 to $13, a great
majority of those at the lower figures being furnace men. Of the fulltime workers the lowest week's wage—$8 and under $9—was reported
for a "general utility man"; the highest—$40 and under $45—was
paid to three chauffeurs.
Employees paid by the day.
Women.—In any discussion of day's wages it should be remembered
that most day workers are given two meals in addition to the payment
in cash, and these usually are eaten within the work period. The
question might be raised whether meals should be eaten in working
hours if such hours are as reasonable as 8 or less, but the whole subject is a hang-over from the system of living in, from which even day
work has not yet been freed. However, not only in household employment are workers given their meals. In certain other lines of work
employers find it more profitable to provide meals or living or both for
their employees. Some banks and insurance companies provide
lunch for their employees at cost or without charge, many cafeterias
and restaurants supply meals, and hotels, hospitals, orphanages,
college dormitories, and other institutions include meals and living for
their employees. Intensive study is needed to learn under what
conditions payment in kind, such as meals and living, are both
economically and socially sound and to be encouraged, and where such
payment is a survival of past customs that are no longer the wisest
procedure.
Table 16 includes the 463 women who were paid by the day. Only
3 of these—1 laundress and 2 seamstresses—were reported as living at
their place of employment and each received $3 a day in addition to
her living.
TABLE
1 6 . — W a g e s of employees paid by the day, by sex and living status
Women
Amount
Total
Under $2
$2 and under $3
$3 and under $4
$4 and under $5
$5 and under $6
$6 and under $7
3
2 460
100.0
1
40
2.4
9.8
84.1
3.7
1
6
3
3 11
*45
«387
17
. _
1
2
Per cent not shown; base less than 50.
Includes 77 women who received car fare also.
includes 2 women who received car fare also,
Men
|
Living out
Living in,
Living in, Living
out, 1
number *! Number j! Per cent number 1 number
4
5
6
Includes 9 women who received car fare also.
Part-time workers.
Includes 66 women who received car fare also.
2
7
7
18
6
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
39
More than four-fifths of the women day workers living out received
$3 and under $4 as their day's wage. More detailed figures than are
found in this table (see Appendix Table III) make it apparent that $3
was the most common daily wage, since 253 of the 463 women reported
were paid that amount. Car fare was added to this in one-fourth of
the cases. Of the 17 women receiving $4 or more, 15 were paid $4 and
2—a seamstress and a woman whose chief job was as laundress—were
paid $4.50 and under $5. The lowest daily wage reported, one dollar,
was paid a general houseworker and a child's nurse.
Men.—There were 41 men paid by the day, 1 of whom, a gardener,
lived at his place of work. This employee received $2 a day, and the
questionnaire states that he attended school. Included in the number
of men paid by the day and living away from their place of employment (40) were 16 who were reported as receiving a wage of $5 and 5
who were receiving $6. The highest wage, $6.50, was paid to a
gardener. The lowest wage of those working a full day and living out
was $3, and this amount was reported for 1 chauffeur, 2 cleaners, and 1
furnace man and gardener.
It is not possible to compare the total wages received by household employees who work by the day with the wages received by those who work
by the week or month without information as to days and weeks worked,
data that can not be secured through an employer's questionnaire.
Employees paid by the hour.
Women.—All the women paid by the hour (27) lived out. The
range of pay reported was from 20 cents to $1. One.woman, a companion and mother's helper, was paid the lowest rate, while another
whose job had the same title was the only woman who received the $1
rate. It would be interesting to know the quality of work performed
by these two women and to see how closely the two jobs were related.
The most frequent hourly rate was 50 cents.
Men.—The 86 men paid by the hour also lived away from their
places of employment. They were paid hourly rates ranging from 25
cents to $1—these extremes being the rates of a cleaner and a gardener,
respectively. The most frequent rate was the same as for the
women—50 cents. It is interesting to note that while 39 of the 86 men
were reported as receiving over 50 cents an hour, only 4 of the 27
women were included in this group—45.3 per cent as contrasted with
14.8 per cent.
Medians of the wages.
For readier comparison with wage data in other reports, the wages
are here discussed as medians—half the employees receiving more
and half receiving less than the median. As before stated, practically
all the women reported on the questionnaires as paid on a monthly
basis lived at the place of work. All but two of these were full-time
workers. The median of the monthly wages of the 217 who worked
full time and lived in is $74.55; the figures for chambermaids, waitresses, cooks, and children's nurses are respectively $69.55, $71.65,
$75, and $92.50. For the 102 men employees paid by the month who
lived in and worked full time the median is $90; for house men, butlers,
gardeners, and chauffeurs the figures are, respectively, $72.50, $90, $100,
and $110. For the 71 men employed full time by the month who
lived away from their work the median is found to be $120; for gardeners it is $110; and for chauffeurs $140.85.
TABLE
1 7 . — M e d i a n of the wages of women employees, by occupation and living status
B.—-Paid b y the week
C.—Paid by
the day,
living out,
all women
A.—Paid b y the month,
women who were living in
W o m e n who were living out
Women who were living in
Occupation
All w o m e n
Full time
All women
All women
Full time
Full time
Part time
Median N u m - Median Num- Median N u m - Median N u m - Median
Median
N u m - Median
of the
of the
of the
of the N u m - of the N u m - of the
of the
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
wages
wages
wages
wages
wages
wages
wage
All occupations
1
Chambermaid . . . _
Chambermaid and waitress.
Cleaner
Cook
Cook and other duties..
General houseworker
Housemaid
Laundress
Laundress and ether duties..
Nurse, child's
Seamstress
Waitress
Occupation not reported
1
219
$74.35
69. 55
(2)
(2)
75.2 00
(2 )
( 2)
(2 )
()
(>)
92. 50
71.65
(2)
217
$15.95
$74. 55
()
75.2 00
()
0)2
(J)
(2)
()
92. 50
71.65
(2)
953
$15. 95
10. 20
15.90
69. 55
(22)
280
73
16. SO
15. 30
14. 60
15.2 50
( 2)
()
17. 05
101
15
16. 65
15. 50
280
2L
210
52
4
1
2
210
52
4
16. 90
15.30
14. 60
15.2 50
()
72
()
17.
15
101
14
16. 65
(2)
21
1
Includes occupations not shown in detail because no group has as many as 15 women.
$12. 85
16. 20
15. 90
2
2
2
()
15.2 40
( )
12.2 70
()
(2)
O2
()
( 2)
()
$5. 50
N u m - Median N u m of the
ber
ber
wages
460
1
2
()
2
2
$13.15
()
()
15.2 40
()
12.2 70
( 2)
(2 )
( 2)
()
(2)
(?)
3
()
$3. 00
(2)
3. 00
(2)
17
3
266
29
1
15
2
(2)
()
D — P a i d by
the hour,
living out,
all women
2
()
N o t computed, owing to the small number involved.
3 3 00
(2)
3 3.00
3. 00
(2)
2.95
3. 00
3
Plus car fare.
>F
t>
H
t<
W
TABLE
1 8 . — M e d i a n of the wages of men employees, by occupation and living status
A.—Paid b y the month
Occupation
Men who
were living in,
all men, full
time
B . — P a i d b y the week
M e n who were living out
All men
Full time
Part time
M e n who
were living in,
all men, full
time
C.—Paid by
the day,
living out,
all men
M e n who were living out
All men
Full time
D.—Paid by
the hour,
living out,
all men
Part time
N u m - I n d i a n N u m - Median
of the
; 01 l h e
ULI
ber
N u m - Median N u m - Median Num- Median N u m - Median N u m - Median N u m - Median N u m - Median N u m - Median ber
; wages
wages
of the
of
the
j
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
wages
wages
wages
wages
wages
wages
wages
wages
1
All occupations
Butler
Chauffeur
Furnace m a n
Gardener.
House m a n
102
$90. 00
125
$85.00
71 $120.00
19
25
90.00
110. 00
100. 00
72. 50
(3)
140. 85
12. 30
100.00
(3)
1
31
19
21
1
31
34
39
2
27
2
54
$13. 00
(3)
140. 85 — - - - 12 "" 12.16"
110.00
(3)
(3)
i
39
$21. 05
11
10
s
((3))
1
8
(3)
<*)
i Includes occupations not shown in detail because no group has as m a n y as 15 men.
Under $5.
3
115
$20. 75
65
$30. 20
3
29
35
19
6
(3)
34. 70
(2)
27.10
(3)
3
29
i3)
34. 70
15
G
28. 75
(3)
3
!
50
!i
35
4
j
(2)
3
( )
40
$5. 00
86
< 21
2
5. 00
i3)
41
5
N o t computed, owing to the small number involved.
* Includes 1 part-time worker.
$0. 50
t3)
(3)
. 55
2
§
H
W
tel
gH
hj
tr<
C
S
cc
H
M
o
%
>
42
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Of the women paid by the week and living in, 953 were full-time
workers. The median of their wages is $15.95, in addition to living.
The occupations with as many as 15 women reported have medians
as follows: General houseworker, $14.60; cook and other duties,
$15.30; housemaid, $15.50; chambermaid and waitress, $15.90;
chambermaid, $16.20; waitress, $16.65; cook, T$16.90; child's nurse,
$17.15. For the 175 full-time workers who w ere reported as living
away from their place of work the median is $13.15—a decrease of
$2.80. The general houseworkers in this group averaged $12.70 and
the cooks $15.40. As compared with these figures, the median wage
of the 39 men full-time workers who were paid by the week and lived
at their place of work was $21.05, and of the 65 who lived away from
their place of work the median rose to $30.20, an increase of $9.15.
In the group last mentioned gardeners averaged $28.75 and chauffeurs $34.70.
A great difference was noted in median wages of women and men
who were paid by the day. Practically all the employees on this
basis of pay lived away from the place of employment. The median
of the day's wages of the 460 women reported, 295 of them laundresses,
was $3; of the occupations with 15 or more women, only seamstresses
averaged less than $3, their median being $2.95. Most of the laundresses were paid $3 and car fare. For the 40 men paid by the day
and living out, practically all working full time, the median was $5.
Twenty-one
of these were gardeners. The median rate of pay per
hour wTas the same for women and men employees—50 cents. More
than three times as many men as women were hour workers; practically half wrere gardeners, their median being 55 cents.
The summary following shows the medians according to sex, living
status, and pay period, but not by occupation.
Men
Women
U
.«1 .
Living in
XT,
,™
\ UDee?r -
Monthly
Weekly
Daily.
Hourly
Median
of the
wages
217 • $74.55
953 1i 15.95
i
Living out
Number
175
460
27
Median
of the
wages
$13.15
3.00
.50
Living in
Number
102
39
Median
of the
wages
$90.00
21.05
Living out
Median
of the
wages
Number
71
65
40
86
I
$120.00
30.20
5.00
.50
Wages of women in five selected occupations.
An analysis of monthly wages in the five occupations having the
greatest numbers of women paid on a monthly or a wTeekly basis—
cook, general houseworker, chambermaid, waitress, and child's n u r s e emphasizes the fact, already noted, that the women who lived in
had a higher wage than had those who lived out. The number of
women reported by the householders in these occupations comprised
well over one-half of the women in the study and wage data were reported for almost all of them. Furthermore, these occupational
groups represented about three-fourths of the number of women employees for whom payment of wages was reported as on a monthly
or a weekly basis. For this section of the report weekly wages have
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
43
been converted to a monthly basis and the discussions following cover
the monthly wage, whether reported or computed, of the women who
worked full time in the five occupations specified.
TABLE
1 9 . — M i n i m u m , maximum,
and median of monthly wages of women in five
selected occupations, by living status
Monthly wages
! Number
j of
women
Occupation and liv ing status
Cook:
Living in
Living out
General houseworker:
Living ip
Living out
Chambermaid:
Living in
Living out
Waitress:
Living in
Living out
Nurse, child's:
Living in
1
—
-
-
j1i
jl
!
i
!!
Ii
11
Minimum
Maximum
Median
346
37
$40
30
$130
105
$70
63
224
89
25
25
95
80
61
54
124
30
40
90
65
(0
2
30
55
130
90
(*)
93
30
130
8
121
67
69
77
Not computed, owing to small number involved.
Of the 401 cooks, living status and wage data on a monthly basis
could be tabulated for all but 18. Of those for whom information was
reported, 346 were living in and 37 were living out. For the former
group, the median of the wage is $70; for the latter, $63. The median
is the midpoint of the wages—half the women receiving more and half
receiving less than the amount stated. The range of pay for those
living in is from $40 to $130; for those living out it is from $30 to $105,*
Wage data and living status were reported for 333 general houseworkers, but as 19 of these women were paid on a daily or an hourly
basis and 1 was a part-time worker, they are not included in this
discussion of monthly wages. Of the 313 for whom information was
available, 224 were living in and 89 were living out, the medians of
their monthly wages being $61 and $54, respectively. The variation
in the wages reported for the two groups is interesting; for those
living in, the amounts extended from $25 to $95; for those living out,
from $25 to $80.
Of the 132 chambermaids having living status and the amount of
wage paid monthly or weekly reported, 8 lived away from their places
of employment. For those living in, the median of the monthly wage
is found to be $67, the amount of pay these women received ranging
from $30 to $90. For those living out the range was from $40 to $65.
There were 132 women employed as waitresses, and living status
and wage data—that is, a monthly wage or a weekly wage that might
be converted to a monthly basis—were available for 123, all but 2 of
whom were living in. For those living in (121), the median of the
wages is $69, the range being from $30 to $130.
Wage records of 12 of the 106 children's nurses included in this
study either were not reported or were too incomplete to include in a
tabulation of monthly wages and living conditions. The median of
the wages of the 93 who lived in was $77. the highest amount in the
92116°—32
4
44
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
five selected occupations. The range of wages of the women in this
group was the same as for waitresses—from $30 to $130.
Relation of length of service to monthly wage.
For women in the five occupations under discussion, when length of
service was correlated with the monthly wage, it was evident that
experience on the job did not always mean a higher wage. The medians computed for women living in who were reported as on the job
under 6 months, 6 months and under 2 years, or 2 years and over
emphasize this fact. (For table on length of service see p. 46.)
As before stated, the median of the wages of the 346 cooks who lived
in was $70 in addition to living; for the 37 who lived out, it was $63.
Unpublished data show that there was little change in the median
wage when the women living in were classified according to length of
service. For all but 4 of these women the time on the job was reported.
For the 79 cooks with their present employer less than 6 months the
median of the monthly wage was $70; for the 112 who were 6 months
but less than 2 years on the job, $71; and for the 151 who had been
with their present employer 2 years or more it was $70. There is a
slight increase in the medians of the wages of the children's nurses, $75
being the amount computed for the women who had been in their
present job 6 months but under 2 years and $79 for those with their
present employer 2 years or over. In the case of the waitresses,
the opposite is true: The median of the monthly wage of the women
who had been with the present employer 2 years or more—$69—was
$2 less than the median of the women who had been on the job less
than 6 months.
The fact that women working less than six months were in some
cases getting slightly higher wages than those who had been with the
present employer as long as two years has little significance. Naturally, the relation of supply and demand in the field of household
employment makes it possible for new and untrained workers to
demand higher wages than those given to some employees on the job
at least two years but not rewarded by an increase.
Increases in pay.
Slightly more than two-thirds of the 954 householders made some
statement in reply to the inquiry regarding increases in pay. Approximately one-fourth of these reported that they gave no increase to their
workers, 16 stating as the reason that they "hired experienced help
only." More than one-half of the 500 employers who reported giving
increases gave no definite^ information regarding the amount or the
time elapsing before such increase was given. Of those who did give
definite information, one-half reported an increase based on efficiency
and one-sixth an increase to meet the current wage scale or because the
employee requested it.
^ Of the 81 employers who reported specifically as to the amount and
time of increase the plans varied greatly. More than one-fourth of
these increased weekly wages by $1 each year, and one-fifth reported a
similar increase, $1 a week, but did not specify for what period of
service the increase was given. The amounts of increase given varied
-considerably—some gave 50 cents a week and one nouseholder
advanced her employees $10 a month. Sufficient information for a
complete interpretation of these varying practices is lacking.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
45
Payment for overtime.
The attitude of some of the householders toward overtime seems
peculiar. Thirty-nine of the 655 employers who answered this inquiry
said that they had no overtime work—6 of these explaining that when
extra work was necessary, additional help was employed. The other
33 no doubt agreed with the employer who stated that she paid for her
employees' time and expected them to work for her whenever she
needed them, regardless of hours. From her standpoint there was no
such thing as overtime.
Nearly three-tenths of the 655 employers reported that they paid
nothing extra for overtime work. About one-seventh made some
payment but did not report how much. More than three-tenths
stated that they paid the same rate as for regular time to workers
employed by the day or hour and less than 1 per cent reported double
pay for overtime to such employees. Other payment plans for overtime work were used by 96 employers; some gave time off in exchange
for overtime, while quite a number gave gifts of money or something
else. The remaining 23 householders had more than one overtime
policy. Fourteen gave no extra pay for overtime to employees living
in, though they paid employees living out a straight rate of pay or an
extra rate; others gave tips or time off to the workers who lived in and
a straight rate of pay or an extra rate to those who lived away from
their work.
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Training.
Some people think that domestic work is easy and requires neither
skill nor training. This is untrue. The domestic worker is a home
maker, and a good general education and special training are as valuable for her as for wife or mother. But what training is required and
how should it be obtained?
A consideration of the importance of some training in the household
arts shows how helpful a course in the minimum essentials of efficient
housekeeping would prove to all women entering domestic service.
Many schools have courses that fit girls for such work. No inquiry
regarding school training was made on the questionnaire. The only
questions asked were whether the employee had had training, and if so,
whether it had been received in her own home or with a former
employer.
Any training that a girl may receive, either in her own home or in
school, is of lasting value to her, whether she remains at home or is an
employee in domestic service. It is essential that the girl form habits
of cleanliness, order, accuracy, and so forth, and develop skill in the
performance of even simple household duties as far as she is able to do
so. In addition to the public schools, that furnish so much free of
charge, there are private schools in which workers may receive training
that will be of benefit to them.
However, the usual method is the hit-or-miss way of learning on the
job. This means in many cases that a young worker having a poor
start with a very low wage never gets a fair chance. Is it any wonder
that workers seem helpless, anxious, and fearful of doing the wrong
thing when they have had no training in the work? But there are
some employers who maintain that training is of little value, that it is
only actual experience which is of any worth.
46
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
An analysis was made of the training of 1,078 women in the five
selected occupations. This tabulation (unpublished) gives data for
386 cooks, 337 general houseworkers, 131 chambermaids, 123 waitresses, and 101 children's nurses. The questionnaires show that all
but 6 per cent of these had had some previous training for their jobs.
Seven-tenths had received their training from a former employer,
practically all of the remainder being fairly evenly divided between
those who had been trained in their own homes and those who had
received training both at home and from a former employer.
Length of service.
Domestic service is considered commonly to be work in which the
personnel is constantly changing, but an analysis of the data reported
for 1,103 women employed in the five selected occupations shows a
trend on the part of these workers to remain in their jobs over a
considerable period of time.
TABLE 20.—Time
with present employer—women in jive selected occupations
Women
Less than 6
months with
employer
Total
Occupation
6 months and
less than 2 years
with employer
2 year3 or more
with employer
Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
TotalCook
General houseworker
ChambermaidWaitress
Nurse, child's
-
1,103
100.0
260
22.7
376
34.1
477
43.2
393
341
138
128
103
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
91
86
28
25
20
23.2
25.2
20.3
19.5
19.4
126
116
49
36
49
32.1
34.0
35.5
28.1
47.6
176
139
61
67
34
44.8
40.8
44.2
52.3
33.0
From Table 20 it appears that the largest group, 43.2 per cent of
the women, had been with their employers two years or more. This
indicates a considerable degree of stability. As a group the children's
nurses seemed less stable and the waitresses more stable than the
average.
EMPLOYERS' LABOR POLICIES
Of equal importance to employer and employee is the policy in
hiring and firing. Many householders who employ domestic workers
approach the question in a very haphazard fashion, not applying any
principles of scientific management to the procuring or holding of
such help. Humaneness in the relation of the employer to the worker,
and in return efficiency in the work performed, would work a transformation.
Hiring.
In an analysis of employment, methods of obtaining workers are
very important, and this is particularly true in a study of domestic
employment. Some of the householders in this study reported that
they secured workers through former employees, others used employment agencies, and still others got help through advertising. The
first method was acceptable to a number of the employers, as is evidenced by such comments as the following:
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
47
My help has been obtained through previous employees. In a convenient,
considerate home no other means is necessary in my opinion.
One maid brings another. At present there are three from one family, and
another maid is bringing her sister.
The "reference" has always been the maid who left. She knows our conditions and who will be likely to suit us. She takes pride in getting us someone who
is capable and honest.
Investigation of references.—As will be seen from Table 21, more
than four-fifths of the employers replied to the query regarding the
investigation of references.
TABLE
21.—Employer's policy with regard to references
Employers
Policy with regard to references
Number ! Per cent
Total
Total not reporting
Total reporting
Investigation of references
719 i
90.1
By telephone
By telephone and employment bureau
By telephone and in person
In person
Employment bureau
Other and not reported
No references required
Recommendation of former employee
Recommendation of friends an<
320 1
158 1j
82
73
28 i
58 j
40.1
19.8
10.3
9.1
3.5
7.3
43
19
17
5.4
2.4
2.1
Of the 798 employers reporting, slightly more than 5 per cent did
not require references and another small proportion (4.5 per cent)
accepted the recommendations of former employers or of neighbors
or friends. As many as 90 per cent (719) of the householders reporting on this subject investigated references. Two-fifths of these (320)
stated that they used only the telephone as the means of securing
information, one-half as many (158) used the telephone and employment bureaus, and one-fourth as many (82) used the telephone and
made inquiries in person as well. Only 28 reported that they depended solely on employment bureaus.
Standardization in the policy of giving and securing references
regarding household employees is much to be desired. A reference
requires time and thought. It should be a clear, impersonal statement, emphasizing the worker's abilities and limitations, and no
personal prejudices should be allowed to affect it. If this condition
could be arrived at on the part of those giving a reference, there would
be a very much more earnest attitude on the part of those seeking
one. In a report of the Women's Bureau, based on the records ot4
the Domestic Efficiency Association af Baltimore, Md., for 1923,
interesting facts regarding references are presented. The conflicting
* U. S. Department of Labor. Women's Bureau. Domestic Workers and Their Employment Relations. Bui. 89, 1924, pp. 42-51 and 54.
48
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
references often given an employee by different householders show
how haphazard is the whole method of getting and giving references
and how complicated is the situation for both applicants and householders.
Since the opinions of individual employers may and do vary, it is
an ultimate hope that there may be worked out by employment
bureaus, especially the noncommercial bureaus, some means of (1)
evaluating the evidence secured in regard to individual employees
and (2) giving to the employer seeking help some definite information
in regard to the skill, aptitude, and personality of the applicants.
Equally important is the inquiry regarding the type of home in which
an employee will be placed and the requirements of the household
living there. Such a record should be kept on file in the agency. It
is only through a mutual understanding of the home and the worker
that adequate placement can be accomplished.
The following are interesting examples of the opinions of employers
in regard to references.
I find that many persons give references in order not to offend the worker. The
workers I have had worked for friends in the neighborhood. I observe their
competency and act accordingly.
I have found that references do not count much.
Have seldom found that former employer was willing to tell the whole or even
a valuable part of truth about a dismissed servant.
Some of the best help I have had had no references.
I do not care for references from employment bureau, as they are not always
truthfully given; prefer to ascertain from last employer.
Firing.
Of interest to both employer and employee is the dismissal procedure of the households included in the study. From the employer's
standpoint the real question is whether or not notice of leaving is
given by the employee. From the employee's standpoint the important factor is the employer's policy; that is, whether the practice is to
give (1) notice without any wages in advance, (2) wages in advance
but no notice, and (3) both notice and wages in advance.
The table following shows that of the 814 householders who replied
to this inquiry, 503 reported that they gave their employees notice,
though 92 of these did not specify how long in advance such notice
was given.
More than three-fifths of the householders reporting on this subject
gave an employee notice in advance. For about one-fifth of these the
extent of such notice was not reported. Of the 411 who did report the
length of time, two-thirds notified employees one week and more than
one-seventh notified them two weeks before the time of leaving.
Less than 4 per cent of the householders stated that they gave wages
in advance, but no notice; the majority of these did not specify the
time that this advance covered. About one-fourth of the number
reporting gave both notice and advance wages. As in the case of
those who gave notice only, approximately two-thirds gave one week's
time and more than one-sixth gave two weeks. Eleven of the 814
employers reported that they gave their employees as much as a
month's notice.
PART
TABLE
I.—THE
EMPLOYER'S
49
QUESTIONNAIRE
22.—Employer's policy with regard to dismissal
procedure
Employers
Dismissal procedure
Numb er Per cent
954
Total
Dismissal procedure not reported-
14(T
Dismissal procedure reported.
814
503
Notice given
Time not specified.
Time specified 1
Less than 1 week...
1 week
1 week plus
2 weeks
"2 weeks and over"
Wages in advance given-
92
411
100.0
7
278
47
63
16
1.7
07.6
11.4
15.3
3.9
29
Time not specified.
Time specified
19
10
Both notice and advance wages given.
202
2
Time not specified.
Time specified i
Less than 1 week
1 week
1 week plus
2 weeks
"2 weeks and over"..
Neither notice nor advance wages given.
28
174
100.0
3
113
21
30
7
1.7
64.9
12.1
17.2
4.0
6
Employees never dismissed
74
i Vague answers, as 1 week or more, 1 week to a month, are indicated by the word plus.
* The number of householders reporting this unusual custom probably is due to a misunderstanding of
the inquiry. It may include cases of giving notice to some employees and advance wages to others.
The table following shows that a smaller number of the householders
replied to the question regarding the employees giving notice than had
furnished information on this subject from the employer's point of
view.
TABLE
23.—Employer's statement with regard to notice given by employees
Employers
Notice given by employees
Total..
Information not reported..
Information reported
No notice given
No change in employeesNotice given—total
Number Per cent
954
235
719
122
11
586
Time not reported_
151
Time reported1
435
100.0
2
37
251
57
37
10
6
4
4
21
6
.5
8.5
57.7
13.1
8.5
2.3
1.4
.9
.9
4.8
1.4
1 day to 2 weeks
Less than 1 week...
1 week
1 week plus
2 weeks
2 weeks plus
1 month
1 month plus
2 months or more...
Until place is filled..
Mutual agreement..
* Vague answers, as 1 week or more, 1 week to a month, are indicated by the word plus.
50
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
About one-sixth of the 719 householders reporting stated that employees gave no notice at all when they decided to leave. Approximately three-fifths of the employers who reported the extent of notice
given by their workers said one week was the practice, and about oneeighth had been informed more than one but less than two weeks
in advance. Of special interest was the fact that 21 householders
reported that their employees continued on the job after giving notice
until someone could be secured to take their places.
Vacations.
The need of a vacation for the wage earner is recognized in theory
but not always in practice. Many employers give vacations to workers who have served in an occupation for a certain specified time—
usually a minimum of one year. The data collected in this study
indicate that in domestic w^ork the policies of employers vary greatly.
Of the 785 employers who replied to this question, 46, or 6 per cent,
gave no vacation. A few described more than one policy, usually
according to occupation, and 32 families reported as being away in the
summer had different methods of compensating their employees for
this time.
There were 739 employers who reported that they gave vacations
to some or all of their workers. Of the 728 householders included,
approximately five-sixths paid wages for the whole of the time the
workers were on vacation. One-twelfth paid wages for part of the
time. Less than 7 per cent (6. 5) of them reported that they gave no
pay at all during vacation time.
For those who gave vacations wTith pay the length of time varied
from less than 1 week to 3 months. The largest number in any one
group—nearly one-half—gave 2 weeks. About one-fourth gave 1
week; others, 1 but less than 2 weeks, or 2 but less than 3; some gave
3 weeks, and others a month. Seven reported giving as much as 2
months. Of the 60 householders who gave employees vacations with
part pay, 1 gave a week and another 3 months with half pay. By far
the largest group, 33, gave 2 weeks—1 with pay and 1 without.
The questionnaires covered 32 families ordinarily out of town in
the summer; a number of these gave their employees full pay during
that time, some half pay, and some one-third of their pay, while other
employers let them have their rent free. Although housework is not
usually considered a seasonal occupation, the departure of families
from their homes for the whole summer or winter, as the case may be,
{mts household work for the employees in these homes on a more or
ess seasonal basis.
Part II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE 1
The form of the employee's questionnaire was decided upon after a
careful consideration of the forms used by organizations in studies of
household employment. This questionnaire was circulated by noncommercial employment agencies and by socially minded employers
who had replied to the employer's schedule.
There were answers from 76 employees.2 All but 2 of these were
women, the exceptions being negro men. All but 14 of the 74 women
were negroes. Eleven of the 14 white workers were of foreign birth.
Personal data.
Of the 67 women who reported as to age, three-fifths were 20 and
under 30; about one-third were 30 or over; only 3 were under 20.
Well over one-half of the women reporting marital status were
single. Approximately three-tenths were married, and one-sixth
were widowed, separated, or divorced. These proportions are very
similar to those found in the section analyzing the data reported by
the employers (see p. 13). A much larger proportion of negro than of
white women were married—33.3 per cent as compared with only 7.1
per cent. In the United States the number of women 15 years of age
and over in domestic and personal service decreased one-eighth from
1910 to 1920, while the proportion of such women who were married
rose from 26.6 per cent to 29.4 per cent in that decade.3
All the women reported their occupation. General houseworker
was the most popular, for this class included three-fifths of the women.
Cook, maid, chambermaid and waitress, chambermaid, and housekeeper were the other occupations reported.
Practically all the women reported place of abode and nearly twothirds of them lived at their place of work. These constituted a
larger proportion of the white women than of the negro. Eleven of
the 13 white women reporting on the subject, in contrast to 21 of the
50 negro women, stated that they preferred to live at their place of
work. Since most of the white women were foreign born, it is likely
that these workers were seeking a home as well as a job.
Of 31 women replying to the question as to whether or not they had
children, 17 stated that they had, the number ranging from 1 to 7.
Only one mother reported as many as 7.
More than two-thirds of the women who answered this inquiry had
children, parents, or other relatives dependent upon them for support.
The numbers ranged from 1 person to as many as 10. A much larger
proportion of the negro than of the white women had dependents—
nearly three-fourths as compared with about two-fifths. The great
majority of the women having dependents supported or helped to
support 1, 2, or 3 persons in a'ddition to themselves, bat there was one
* See p. 82.
* The number of employees who answered this questionnaire is so small that it was not deemed advisable
to print any of the tables in this section of the report. These are available to any interested person who
will apply at the Women's Bureau of the U. S. Department of Labor.
« U. S. Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census: 1920, vol. 4, Population, Occupations, Table 3, p. 693.
51
52
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
negro woman who stated that she had 9 persons dependent on her and
another who claimed she had 10.
A correlation of marital status and home responsibility shows that a
larger proportion of the single women than of those who were or had
been married were caring for dependents.
Schooling.
Information in regard to schooling shows that the largest number of
women employees had completed at least the seventh grade. None of
the white employees had gone beyond the second year of high school.
Sixteen negro girls reported high-school attendance; 6 of these had
completed the first or second year of high school, 5 the third or fourth
year, 2 did not report the year they left high school, 2 had attended a
university, and 1 a normal school. The wages received by the three
last mentioned would indicate that in domestic service as in other
lines of work education is an advantage; these three—a cook, a
general houseworker, and a chambermaid and waitress—reported
their week's earnings as $21.50, $17.50, and $15, respectively.
Hours.
A workday as long as 12 hours was the schedule reported by a little
over two-thirds of the 38 women living in. One negro cook had a day
of 14K hours. Of those whose day was less than 12 hours only 1
worked less than 8 hours.
Only 2 of the 44 women reporting as to time off had 1 full day a
week; 1 reported 1 day off every other week, and 20 had no break in
their regular weekly schedule. Three had a workday of more than 8
hours on Thursday. Of those who reported their Sunday hours, 26
stated that they worked as long on Sunday as on the other days of the
week; 11 worked less than 8 hours on that day, 5 from 8 to 13 hours,
and 2 had every other Sunday off.
Of the 23 women living out who reported definitely as to usual
daily hours, 9 had a day of 12 and under 14 hours. Of 24 reporting on
time off, a free day on Thursday or some other weekday was given to
2 women, but 13 had a Thursday as long as other days. Six women
did not have to work on Sunday, but 10 of the 24 worked the same
hours on Sundays as on weekdays.
The hour of beginning work was reported definitely by 55 women.
Three-fifths of these came on duty between 7 and 8 a. m. and about
one-fifth between 8 and 9. Six stated that their day's work was begun
between 6 and 7. Almost one-half of the 47 who reported the time
they stopped work went off duty between 7 and 8 p. m. and one-third
stopped between 8 and 9 o'clock.
Wages.
As was seen in the data derived from the employers' schedules (see
p. 40), the women who lived away from their work had a median of
earnings slightly smaller than that of women who lived in, besides
losing the value of room rent, laundry, and some meals. For the 72
women who reported as to the wages received the median for the week
is found to be $14.80; for the 47 women who lived in, the median is
$15.25, while for the 25 who lived out it is $12.70. The 14 white
women show a median of the weekly wage slightly higher than that
of the 58 negro women—$15.35 as compared with $14.50.
PART II.—THE EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
53
Relation of previous domestic jobs to present occupation.
A correlation of the present occupation and the domestic jobs that
had been held was possible for 63 women. Among the white women,
who constituted about one-fifth of the number reporting, one cook
had served in previous jobs as cook, as chambermaid, and as waitress; one of the three chambermaids and waitresses stated that
at various times she had been cook, chambermaid, general houseworker, lady's maid, and parlor maid. The negro workers were principally general houseworkers or cooks. Those who were general
houseworkers had been cook, nurse, chambermaid, waitress, cleaner,
laundress, child's nurse, and general houseworker. One negro worker
whose present occupation was reported as housekeeper had served as
cook, chambermaid, and waitress. It would appear that the experience she had gained on these former jobs had been valuable to her in
filling her present position. A woman whose present work was chambermaid and waitress had served as cook, lady's maid, parlor maid,
and general houseworker.
Number of domestic-service jobs held.
The number of jobs held by the 57 women who reported on this
subject ranged from 1 to 16. One-fourth of the women had had three
{'obs and not far from one-sixth had had four. The kinds of jobs
>ear out the conclusion already reached, that many of these workers
shifted from one type of occupation to another.
Time in domestic service and number of jobs held.
The workers who answered the employee's questionnaire were for
the most part women who had had years of experience in domestic
employment. Almost equal proportions of women—24 or 25 per
cent in each case—had worked under 5 years, 5 and under 10 years,
10 and under 15 years, and 15 years and over. Taking into consideration the fact that almost three-fourths of the workers in a group as
small as that answering this questionnaire had spent at least 5 years
in domestic service, and that 11 women had been so employed for 20
years or more, it seems safe to assume that household employment is
a life occupation for many of the women entering it. It is all the
more important, therefore, that workers be given training and opportunities for advancement on the job.
The women with as much as 20 years' experience in this line of
work were all negroes, and one of these had been in domestic service
34 years.
A correlation of occupation, wrage, and length of time in domestic
service as reported by the employees serves to emphasize the facts
appearing in the tabulation of the answers of the employers concerning the women in five chief industries. (See p. 44.) A negro general
houseworker whose experience fell within the 10-and-under-l 5-year
class was receiving $8 and under $9, and this was also the wage of a
woman in this occupation who had worked as long as 20 years, while
two who had been at work less than a year were receiving $12 and
under $13 and $9 and under $10 a week. Length of time in a specified
field is of significance only if the experience gained increases ability.
54
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
Reason for leaving previous job.
The reasons the women gave for leaving their previous jobs were as
follows:
N u m b e r of
women
Did not like employer
Hours unsatisfactory
Work too hard
Work temporary
Illness
Marriage
Wages unsatisfactory
Moved
Home duties
Let off
Discharged
Trouble with other help
Miscellaneous
Total
2
2
4
2
6
2
12
4
1
6
2
1
4
48
The predominance of the wage factor is apparent. It will be remembered that the median of the earnings was $14.80.
It must be kept in mind, further, that these were the reasons given
by employees. It is obvious that the underlying causes that motivated these workers in changing their occupations could be ascertained
only through a very intensive study of both employer and employee.
Amount of notice given by employer and employee prior to dismissal
or leaving.
In the majority of cases (57. 1 per cent) the employees reported one
week as the extent of notice given by themselves or by their employers.
In other words, whether a worker was dismissed or left a place of her
own accord, one week's notice was the most common practice on termination of a job. Only 4 of the questionnaires stated that no notice
had been given; in 2 of these the worker was discharged, in 1 the
employee herself was ill, and in the other the woman's husband was
taken ill.
Part ffl.—NONCOMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT
AGENCIES
As a follow-up of the study of household employment, a subcommittee of the Philadelphia Council on Household Occupations
called a conference of noncommercial employment agencies in Philadelphia in March, 1930. Thirteen agencies responded and gave outlines of their work, and later the subcommittee made visits to the
employment offices. Four of the 13 agencies placed negro help only,
both men and women or only women. Three others were branch
offices of the Young Women's Christian Association and placed women
only—negro and white alike, though one of them dealt only with
certain specified positions, such as working housekeepers, practical
nurses, children's nurses, and companions. Two—the Junior Employment Service, connected with the city school system, and the
State employment bureau—were under public auspices. Of the
remainder, one was connected with a church mission, one with the
Family Society, another placed trained women (managing housekeepers, governesses, practical nurses, and companions) in part-time
jobs, and the last was connected with a manual training and industrial
school for negro youth.
Of the four agencies that placed negro help only, two reported in
detail to the conference. One of these served men and women, the
other women only. The first mentioned placed negro workers in
various types of industrial employment and household work. Its
register showed that 162 of its women applicants in 1928 found jobs,
and that 262 persons were placed in 1930. The secretary secures
references concerning the workers. An effort has been made by this
agency to maintain the following standards of wages for household
workers:
$12 minimum for full-time work with no laundry.
$15 minimum for full-time work with laundry.
$8 minimum for half-time work.
$17 standard for adequate service.
No attempt has been made to standardize hours for full-time work,
though six hours has been set as the maximum for half-time work. A
very high labor turnover was reported by this agency, a little over one
month being the average length of time that workers it placed stayed
on the job. Reasons for the constant changing of jobs were given as—
Desire to have evenings free.
Hope to get better job.
Unreasonable demands made.
The second agency placed negro women. It was not so well
organized for this work as was the one just described, and it placed
fewer girls. No attempt was made at standardization of hours and
wages. A character reference for the worker was given to the
employer, and some investigation was made of the home surroundings
in which the worker was to live. The home of which this agency is a
part had recently organized a class in which domestic workers were
given specialized domestic training on their free half-day. The
classes were directed by volunteer teachers of home economics. It
55
56
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
was hoped that the public-school system eventually would take charge
of this work.
The employment departments of the three branches of the Young
Women's Christian Association that reported to the conference outlined their placement policies. As stated, two of these agencies
placed all types of women workers, wrhile the third restricted its field
to certain occupations. Among those who applied for household
employment at this last-named agency were young, inexperienced
girls seeking their first jobs, as well as older women—many of whom
were educated and refined—who found it impossible to get other work.
The households in which the workers applying to these three agencies were placed were as varied as the employees themselves. Some
were homes of employed couples in which a domestic worker did all
the work; some were those in which an employee was engaged on a
part-time basis; and some were homes in which several workers were
employed.
Though a reference was required of the employee from a former
employer or friend, no attempt was made to secure any such reference
for the employer, usually the only contact with her being that made
by the secretary by telephone.
One of these agencies reported no minimum standards of pay.
Another reported a standard of 40 to 65 cents an hour for hour workers,
$3 and car fare for day workers, and from $8 to $25 or $30 for women
paid by the week, while the third set a daily rate of from $2.50 and car
fare to $3 for house cleaning, and from $8 to $15 a week for those
employed full time in domestic service.
During 1929 the three branches had placed 3,332 women, the numbers being respectively 1,660, 1,418, and 254. An indication of the
number of placements made as compared with the number of applicants for work is revealed in the figures given by the second of these
branches. Its record showed that 2,308 women had been sent out to
apply for work, and that 1,418 (61.4 per cent) had secured jobs.
The records of the Young Women's Christian Association as well as
those of the other agencies showed that the turnover among domestic
workers placed by them was high. No record was kept of the duration
of each worker's job, but replacements were known to be made frequently. If any difficulty arose it was the policy of this organization
to place the worker in a new situation, provided there was ho serious
offense such as dishonesty. If the employer was found to be at fault,
her name usually was dropped from the list.
One of the branches recommended that better training be given to
household employees, so that they could demand better wages. The
agency felt that employers should have a greater sense of obligation
to their employees and to the agencies that serve them. It stressed
most of all the need for clubs of household employees as being vitally
important to building up the morale of the workers.
The chief function of the bureau of part-time work was the placing
of professional and other trained women of experience who sought jobs
that were less than full time. Less than 10 per cent of the 599 placements that this agency made in 1929 were in household employment,
and, as already stated, only managing housekeepers, governesses,
practical nurses, and companions were included. No reference was
required from the employer, and though one had to be presented by
the employee, no formal follow-up work was done in regard to the job.
This
agency had no definite standards for hours or wages.
PART III.—NONCOMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
57
The two public agencies equipped to fill household-service positions
wTere the State employment bureau and the bureau in the Junior
Employment Service responsible for giving out permits to very young
workers. The former, a free employment bureau, placed all types of
workers. References for applicants were obtained by telephone, but,
as in other agencies, none were required of the employers. There was
no definite standard as to wages or hours. No figures regarding the
number of placements made in a year were available, but it w^as stated
that there were more calls than could be filled, especially for semiskilled cooks.
The Junior Employment Service issues working certificates to children 14 to 16 years of age who have completed the sixth grade of
school and, because of financial necessity, must seek employment.
When children of these ages apply for domestic-service permits, this
agency places them in homes that have been investigated by the
social-service department of the bureau.
Only homes that in the judgment of the social worker will safeguard
the needs of the child are supplied with workers. From the facts
shown on the personnel card in the agency file the social worker is able
to place each child in a position suited to his or her needs. Two
references are required of the employer—one must be from the family
physician, since it is felt that he must know the family well—before
any placement is made. Each case is considered individually; no
general standards are set up. One of the workers in this agency
reported that the placing of the children given domestic permits is
more difficult than any other placement work. Notwithstanding the
care taken by the agency, there is exploitation of children; often they
are required to do work that is beyond their strength. It is the hope
of those connected with the bureau to dispense with this kind of
placement.
From the foregoing analysis of the policies of the noncommercial
employment agencies it is evident that no definite standards of working conditions for employees have been evolved. Some have made
an attempt at standardization of wages, but none of hours nor of
working or living conditions. Until some standards in regard to these
can be established little hope of bettering the lot of the household
employee through such agencies can be held out.
As a plan to improve conditions in the employer-employee relationship in the home the following suggestions for agencies are made:
Cards of information, one for the employer and one for the employee, should be filed by every agency doing placement work.
Much of the information concerning the employer could be obtained
in the personal interview, and these facts could be amplified after the
householder was visited in her home.
To have complete data regarding the employer and the home in
which the worker will be employed is as important as to have detailed
information regarding an employee. The placement secretary would
be better enabled to visualize the job and the worker, and the placement would undoubtedly prove more satisfactory to all concerned.
It is hoped that greater stability and reliability on the part of the
worker would result, with a decreased labor turnover and greater
satisfaction to all parties. This is a plan that it should not be difficult for properly functioning employment agencies and cooperative
employers to put into effect.
Part IV.—CASE HISTORIES
To secure examples of various standards of living and the policies
of different families in regard to household employment and management, a number of the households from which the questionnaires
were received were visited. The information reported from these
home visits was obtained through interviews with employers. It
included facts as to the family composition, the number of workers
employed, the wages, hours, and schedules of work, the equipment
of the home, and many other facts that should be of value in forming
a background of knowledge of home making as now carried on in Philadelphia. It is significant to note the differences in these homes,
differences in the care with which plans were made, differences in the
emphasis placed on the care of the family group as well as on the personnel required to facilitate such care. If employees also could have
been personally interviewed, facts from the two surveys would have
proven of the greatest interest.
A few of the households of different types are described here:
Case No. 1.—A family of three members—father 53 years of age, mother 45, and
an 11-year-old son—have a home of 9 rooms and 2 baths, heated by hot-air furnace with gas for cooking. The only labor-saving device is an electric iron.
From an income well above average, the family pays $2,400 for rent, about
$1,500 for food, and $1,330 for service. This service includes a full-time maid at
$18 a week, a laundress at $4.10 a day once a week, and a furnace man and cleaner,
at $15 a month. The mother reported that she had no hard and fast schedule
of work, but that each day the house was put in order, cleaning and dusting being
done as needed. Since the child is away from home from 8.30 in the morning
until 4 in the afternoon, and the father from 7.45 until 6.15, little preparation is
necessary for the midday meal. With the assistance of the laundress once a
week, the maid is able to attend satisfactorily to the household duties. She lives
with the family, and though usually busy all morning has about 3)4 hours free
every afternoon. This is an unusual amount of free time, and if well planned
should prove of great benefit to the employee.
Case No. 2.—Another family in the higher-income group consists of father and
mother, both 28 years of age, and two young children—a boy of a little over 2
years and a girl of 7 months. The income of the father is large. The rental value
of their home was placed at $2,400; they spend $1,800 for food and $2,300 for
service. Their household includes two full-time maids. There are also a laundress and a gardener, each for one day a week.
Their home has 10 rooms and 3 baths. It is heated by oil; water is heated by
an automatic gas burner, and gas is used for cooking. There are many electrical
devices for household purposes, among which are an electric dishwasher, vacuum
cleaner, toaster, waffle iron, washing machine, mangle, iron, and refrigerator.
The father is away from 8 in the morning until 6.30 at night, and the mother
also spends much time outside the home, since she is interested in many philanthropic activities, child study groups, and clubs of various kinds.
This woman stated that she was brought up in a very simple farm home and is
anxious that her family should not be spoiled by luxury. She had helped about
the house in her old home, so is familiar with the duties connected with home
making. She is a college graduate, has a master's degree, and for three years
before her marriage taught school. The husband and father, on the other hand,
is used to luxury and would like to have additional workers employed in their
home.
Notwithstanding a large income, the family has a very simple standard of living. The mother commented that she was so busy with outside activities that
she let her work at home slide.
58
PART IV.—CASE HISTORIES
59
The maids employed at the time of the interview were both foreign born,
having been in this country only a little over a year. The mistress has been very
kind to them and has taught them all the English they know. Sometimes she
thinks she is too good to them, but they are always willing to do whatever she
asks and are very good to the children. They share'a room and private bath, and
are allowed to use the living room if the family is out.
Case No. 8.—Another family visited is made up of father, mother, and four boys
whose ages ranged from 3 to 13 years. There are two full-time employees—a
mother's assistant, with her own home, where she cares for her mother, and a negro
houseworker who lives out. A man cuts the grass and keeps the place in order
during the family's absence in the summer.
The house, of 11 rooms and 2 baths, is heated by hot air; there is a coal stove
or gas burner for heating water and a gas stove for cooking. They have an
electric dishwasher (not satisfactory), an electric washing machine, iron, toaster,
vacuum cleaner, and percolator.
The father is a professor and spends much of his free time with his children,
guiding and supervising them in many of their activities. The mother is doing
some professional work on a part-time basis; she, too, spends much time with the
children. She does nothing in the real manual work of the household; much of this
responsibility is taken by her assistant, although, being a student of household
management, she keeps in her own hands much responsibility for the direction of
her workers as well as for the guidance and care of her children.
The three oldest children are away from home from 8 in the morning until 4 in
the afternoon. The 3-year-old goes to kindergarten in the morning but is home
for luncheon and the rest of the day. The boys are given certain tasks, in which
they are supervised by either parent and which they do without pay, as members
of the family group. After they have put in a specified length of time each week
without pay, they are paid a certain rate per hour for any additional work they
may care to do.
The work of the two women employees seems to be very well planned. Each is
responsible for certain jobs each day, and the mother is free of those details of
housework that fall to the lot of most household managers. The mother's
assistant is paid $16, for a week of six days; she leaves the home on Saturday at
5 p. m. and does not return until 9 o'clock Monday morning. The general
houseworker is paid $12 for a week of 53 hours (exclusive of meal periods). She
has a 7-day schedule, with Thursdays and Sundays of 5 hours each.
This case shows the results of some principles of scientific management being applied to the duties of a household, where both mother
and her assistant are efficient workers.
The beneficial effects of employing a married couple rather than
two maids, who are more likely to become dissatisfied with work in a
country home, are apparent in the case following:
Case No. 4•—The family is composed of five persons—father, mother, and three
grown children, a son of 23 and two daughters who are away at college. The
father is a successful business man, with an excellent income. Their home is in
the country and has 12 rooms and 3 baths; one bathroom is for the exclusive use
of the employees. The house is heated by coal, and there are both gas and coal
stoves for cooking.
The mother is an old-fashioned housekeeper but remarkably alive to modern
problems and aware of the necessity of happy relationship between her workers
and herself.
A young negro couple is employed by this family, and a laundress comes one
day a week. The arrangement seems satisfactory and efficient. This man and
wife have no place other than the kitchen in which to entertain guests, but they
go out about four nights a week, and at these times the family allows them the use
of a car to visit their friends. They usually plan their work so that they have an
hour or two of free time in the afternoon. They are paid $25 a week for their
services. The attitude between the family and the workers seems to be an exceptionally fine one, each working for the best interests of the other.
Case No. 5.—A family composed of father, mother, and 6 children—4 girls
and 2 boys ranging in age from 2 months to 12 years—live in a home of 15
rooms. The father is a successful business man with a large income. Both
92116°—32
5
60
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
father and mother are college graduates, prominent in social, civic, and church
affairs.
There are three full-time women employees living in, besides a laundress employed
one day a week and another woman who washes the baby's clothes. The mother
tries to employ workers of the same nationality, so that they will be more
congenial. It is her desire to maintain a good spirit among the workers, for she
feels that this has its effect on the whole household.
The employees plan the details of the work themselves, being supervised by the
mistress in a general way only. The mother assists in the work when there is a
shortage of help, as well as attending to planning the meals and doing the marketing. The children in the family are made responsible for certain tasks, and as
they grow old.er more will be expected of them.
A different type of household is seen in the one next described. It
illustrates the case of a good executive applying her ability to the
maintaining of a home for paying guests. Since she is dependent on
this means of earning a living she probably is a better planner and
may be more considerate than she would be under other conditions.
Case No. 6.—A single woman of 52 and her aged father have four paying
guests, some of whom are school-teachers. A full-time maid who lives at her own
home, a woman who comes in on the regular maid's day off, and a boy who
attends to the furnace are employed. The home has 11 rooms and 2 baths, is
heated by hot air, and has a combination coal and gas range for cooking. Among
the electrical devices reported are an iron, a vacuum cleaner, and a waffle iron.
The householder, a college graduate, is an experienced social worker and an able
executive. Her income consists of the money paid for board and lodging and a
small pension that her father receives. The full-time maid is paid $15 a week;
the substitute, who comes in on Thursdays for 2% hours, gets 50 cents an hour.
The hours of the regular maid are from 7.30 a. m. to 2.15 p. m. and again from
4.30 or 5 to 7.30 or 7.45 in the evening. Her Sunday and Thursday hours are
shorter, since she does not return in the evening.
The home maker plans all the meals and does the daily marketing. Six
persons are in for breakfast and dinner, only two for luncheon. No laundry is
done at home. The maid's work consists of cooking and serving the meals and
clearing up, cleaning the bathrooms daily and all rooms thoroughly once a week.
Case No. 7.—In this family the father and mother are both under 40, and there
are 3 children—2 boys of 11 and 12 years and a girl of 5. The father is a
physician. The mother is a college graduate also, and a graduate of a school of
social work. .Before marriage she was a case worker and playground director.
Their home has 13 rooms, 3 halls, 3 baths, and 2 lavatories. The house is heated
by coal, the water by gas, and gas is used for cooking. For household helps there
are an electric iron, a vacuum cleaner, and a toaster.
None of the employees lives in, but there is a room in which the general houseworker, a negro woman, can rest and, in an emergency, stay all night. This
worker is paid $17 a week. A negro laundress, who comes in two days a week, is
paid $3 a day. A gardener and a window cleaner work by the day and a rubbish
man by the hour. The doctor's secretary is paid by the week.
The mother has unusual ability in managing people. She is a fine executive,
very understanding, good-natured and easy going—a rare combination. She
has' many outside interests, serves on various boards, is interested in the community center and in church work. Naturally she is a hard worker herself and
she has her own way of bringing people up to the mark. She rarely has any
difficulty, for she is too understanding a person.
Case No. 8.—This family of father, mother, and two little girls, 454 and 1J4
years, is comfortably well off. The house has 10 rooms and 3 baths, and is heated
by coal with an electrically controlled furnace. Water is heated by a gas burner,
gas is used for cooking, and a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner, and an iron are
the electrical appliances.
The cook and second girl, both negroes, live in and work full time; a laundress
comes one day a week, and a seamstress one day every other week. Besides the
furnace man, a man is engaged for window cleaning and outside work. In addition to preparing the meals, the cook helps with the cleaning, does the ironing, and
cleans the silver. The second girl does the cleaning, waits on the table, and
helps in the care of the baby. The cook is paid $16 a week, the second girl $14 a
PART IV.—CASE HISTORIES
61
week, and the furnace man $4 a week. The laundress is paid $3 a day and car
fare and the seamstress $3.75 a day.
The mother cares for the children, plans the meals, and does the marketing.
Other work is done by the employees. The work of each full-time employee is
quite well defined; they have special jobs on special days. The cook had been
with the family for four years, and the mistress spoke very highly in praise of her
work.
Included in the number of families visited were a few that had help
for only a day or so a week, or for a short time each day. The cases
following illustrate this system.
Case No. 9.—This family has five members—father, mother, and three girls,
aged 14,10, and 7 years, respectively. Both father and mother are college graduates, and the mother had taught school before her marriage. A woman comes in
one day a week to do the washing and cleaning, spending a half day at each.
This is the only outside help employed.
The house has 7 rooms and 2 baths. It is heated by coal, water is heated by a
coal stove, and gas is used for cooking. The labor-saving devices used are an
electric washer, an iron, and a sweeper. The mother seems to be a very good
manager; meals are planned several days ahead, but no budget is kept. She
reported that they spent only $15 a week on food, and $3 a week for service.
The mother is able to give much time to outside activities. When her children
were small and she had to be at home she conducted a kindergarten, an experience
that she considers valuable for herself and for her children At the time of the
interview she was doing many things on the outside. She earns a considerable
sum by writing, also teaches music. In addition to this, she is taking college
work on three mornings a week.
The children are being instructed to do their part in the housekeeping; they
help in preparing meals and assist their mother with the ironing.
Both parents spend some time in supervising their children and planning with
them. The mother is intensely interested in children's books, outdoor recreation,
and play life, thus trying to enrich her children's lives.
Case No. 10.—A family composed of father, aged 42, mother 40, and three boys,
aged 8, 7, and 4 years, respectively, live in a house of 10 rooms and bath. It is
heated by oil, and has a gas burner for heating water. Gas is used for cooking.
An electric iron and a vacuum cleaner are the appliances reported. Both parents
are college graduates; the father is a teacher and the mothpr had taught before
marriage.
A negro woman who comes in one day a week to clean the house and help with
the laundry (most of it is sent to the wet wash) is the only household help
employed.
The mother has no general plan for her household work; she has no system in
regard to anything, even the planning of meals or marketing. Often she leaves
soiled dishes from several meals before she attends to them. She does not want to
be limited by routine. She is much better as mother than as home maker. Her
outside activities, in which, no doubt, she is more interested than in her home
making, are for the most part musical. She teaches music, belongs to a childstudy group, and enters into other club activities.
Part V.—HAZARDS IN HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT1
The number of deaths due to accidents in and about the home is
estimated by the National Safety Council as 30,000 a year, closely
approaching the number of fatalities caused by motor vehicles. In
addition to the fatal accidents there are about 4,500,000 serious and
disabling injuries.
Almost two-fifths of the fatal injuries are caused bv falls, and more
than one-fifth by burns, scalds, and explosions. Children are not
commonly injured fatally by falls, but they constitute more than onehalf of the fatal cases of burns and scalds. The members of the
household who are 55 or more suffer more than three-fourths of the
fatal falls.
The home accident death rate is somewhat higher for males than for
females. This is due to their considerably higher rate in the ages 25
to 64 years, since boys and young men (under 25) and elderly men (65
and over) have lower accident death rates than have girls and women
of these ages.
Of interest in relation to this general rule in fatal accidents, arrived
at from large numbers by insurance companies and safety experts, are
the much smaller figures from a survey made by the North Carolina
Federation of Women's Clubs in cooperation with the United States
Bureau of Standards. A year's serious accidents in about 6,300 homes
were reported upon. One home in 13 had experienced such an
accident; 1 accident in 36 was fatal. Of the total of 469 accidents,
258, or 55 per cent, were accidents to females. Another point
of difference from the larger figures already quoted, and which,
moreover, were for fatalities, is that more than 70 per cent of the
accidents to males occurred to boys under 15 years of age and less than
40 per cent of the accidents to females occurred to girls under 15.
Falls were more frequent in the North Carolina study, comprising 51
per cent of all the cases.
All available figures show falls to be frequent and serious. Their
frequency is indicated in the following:
Of the National Safety Council's estimate of fatal accidents in the
home annually, about 39 per cent are falls; of the 4,500,000 nonfatal,
40 to 50 per cent are falls.
Of nearly 15,000 claims in home accident cases over the 9-year
period 1922-1930, one large insurance company reports that about 38
per cent were falls.
Both frequency and seriousness are shown by these figures:
Of a large insurance company's records of fatalities from domestic
injuries in wage earners' families over the 6-year period 1925-1930,
falls comprised 30 per cent, and the death rate for falls increased 40
per cent in the six years.
Home accidents to policyholders (mostly men) of another large
company, over the 5-year period 1926-1930, show that falls constituted
1
Prepared in the Women's Bureau. Accident figures are from the preliminary reports (Nov. 6,1931) of
the President's Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, quoting the authorities indicated.
62
PART V.—HAZARDS IN HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT
63
41.7 per cent of the number but were compensated by 49.5 per cent of
the amount of claims paid.
In a study of about 800 cases of permanent disability among women
injured in various lines of employment,2 the Women's Bureau found
that falls, though constituting less than 10 per cent of the accidents,
were almost 46 per cent of the cases having a healing period (the time
required to recover as fully as possible) of 52 weeks or more. Only
about 37 per cent of the women injured by falls, in contrast to 79 per
cent of all reported, recovered in less than 12 weeks.
More than one-fifth (22 per cent) of the fatal accidents in the home
as estimated by the National Safety Council are burns, scalds, and
explosions. Though more than half of these cases are children under
15, principally very young children, there still are some 3,100 such
fatalities annually among persons of 15 years and over. There is
this comfort, however: That largely due to the modernizing of
heating appliances and equipment this class of accident is becoming
less frequent.
A variety of casualties comprise the remaining classes of home
accidents—cases of poisoning, injuries by tools or machinery, asphyxiation or suffocation, collision with inanimate objects or being struck
by falling objects, cuts or scratches, splinters, stepping on nails or
broken glass, and others less numerous.
The frequency and severity of home accidents shown by the figures
indicates the risk in household employment, with its hazards of wet
or polished floors; loose rugs; stairs and cellar and attic steps;
climbing, reaching, lifting, carrying; fires, gas, electricity, fuel oils,
cleaning chemicals; scalding fluids; hot irons; sharp utensils; fragile
glass and china; and a multitude of others.
Yet the exclusion of domestic servants from the compensation laws
of the various States is almost universal. In a considerable number
of States employers may voluntarily insure under the act, but there
is no compulsion. In Ohio, where the law is compulsory on all
employers having three or more employees and optional with those
having fewer, a decision of the State's attorney general has excluded
household servants and ruled that their employers may not even elect
to come under the law. On the other hand, there are States—New
York, for example—whose compensation laws appear to have intended
the definite exclusion of domestic service but have been interpreted
or amended so as to include it where individual employers so desire.
Among householders with several employees the voluntary acceptance of a law is not uncommon, but the vast majority of domestic
workers remain unprotected.
In New Jersey, where domestic service has the same status under
the law as manufacturing or any other industry, its inclusion seems
to involve no special difficulty. In a study of work accidents to
women in the
12 months July 1,1919, to June 30,1920, which included
New Jersey,3 an examination of the records of the workmen's compensation bureau showed that household employees numbered 71, or 6.5
per cent, of the 1,096 women compensated. Of the 71 cases, 48
were falls.
2 U. S. Department of Labor. Women's Bureau.
and Wisconsin. Bui. 60, 1927, pp. 276-279.
abid.
Industrial Accidents to Women in New Jersey, Ohio,
64
HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
The one fatal case in New Jersey was caused by carbon-monoxide
poisoning from a gas heater. Ten cases of the 12 resulting in permanent disability are described in the bureau's report. Half of them
were caused by falls—stairs, ladder, ice, and floor. In two cases the
woman broke a hip and was permanently lamed. The variety of the
other injuries—which included
a needle m the wrist (from scrubbing),
a splinter (chopping wrood), a bruised thumb (fall of ironing table),
finger caught in wringer, and an automobile accident—illustrate some
of the many ways in which accidents may happen in the home.
The finger caught in the wringer was amputated at the distal (end)
joint by the machine. The bruised thumb became infected and was
amputated at the distal joint. The splinter injury became infected,
the permanent disability being a 50 per cent loss of use of the finger
(right index).
Of the 58 cases of temporary disability that received compensation,
the report describes 10 as typical:
Busty nail in hand; infection.
Slight cut; copper poisoning; infection.
Fall from chair (climbing); arms broken.
Fall in yard; shoulder and back wrenched.
Fall down full flight of stairs; dislocated shoulder, torn ligaments, bruises.
Fall from porch (railing gave way); bruises.
Step into hole in porch flooring; bruises, lacerations.
Hand in wringer; severe bruises.
Scalding fat (pan fell); severe burns.
Scalding milk (pan fell); severe burns.
Certain accidents are largely avoidable by the observing of simple
rules (such as care in using or handling equipment involving hazard,
immediate attention to repairs, keeping floors and stairs clear of
objects that may cause falls, the instruction of children) or by the
provision of safeguards (such as lights in dark places, nonslip rugs,
equipment in perfect repair). Furthermore, the seriousness of
accidents is likely to be less where there is a first-aid cabinet and its
use is understood.
Finally, there seems to be no valid reason for excluding from benefits under the various compensation laws the considerable numbers of
persons injured while working in the capacity of private domestic
employees.
APPENDIXES
A.—GENERAL TABLES
B.—QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS
65
APPENDIX A
TABLE
Over-all daily hours
I.—Over-all daily hours and most common spread of hours of women employees
Number
Earliest
of women beginning
with
hour
reover-all
ported
hours
(a. m.) i
specified
347
Latest
quitting
hour reported
(p. m.) 1
Most common spread of hours
11
7 a. m. to 8. p. m. (178 women)
7
7.30
6.45
10
8
5
8
8
9
Total
Under 6
6 and under 7 . . .
7 and under 8 . . .
8 and under 9 . . .
9 and under 10..
10 and under 11.
o
11 and under 12.
102
6
8. 30
9 a. m. to 1 p. in. (7 women)
8 a. m. to 2 p. m. (3 women)
8.15 a. m. to 4 p. m. (30 women)
8 a. m. to 4. p in. (141 women)
8 a. m. to 5 p. m. (30 women)
7.15 or 7.30 a. m. to 6 p. m. and 8 a. m.
to 6 p. m. (5 women each).
7.15-7.45 a. m. to 7 p. m. (19 w o m e n ) .
12 and under 13.
424
6
8. 30
7.10-7.45a. m. t o 8 p . m. (141 w o m e n ) . .
13 and under 14
354
6. 30
9, 30
7 a. m. to 8 p. m. (178 women)_.
14 and under 15.
15 and under 16.
72
7
7
6
G. 30
6
10
10
10
16—
16
94
2
301
44
28
1
17
24
4
1
Exclusive of the 4 nurses reported as having an over-all of 24 hours.
2
Includes 11 w i t h beginning and ending hours not reported.
11
7
7
6
6
a.
a.
a.
a.
m.
m.
m.
m.
to
to
to
to
3
4
9 p. m. (34
10 p. m. (6
10 p. m . (7
11 p. m. (1
women)...
women)...
women)...
woman)..
Chief occupational groups with over-all
hours specified
General houseworker, 9; cleaner, 7.
General houseworker, 6.
Laundress, 49; cleaner, 20.
Laundress, 172; cleaner, 56.
Laundress, 23.
General houseworker, 11.
General houseworker, 46; child's nurse, 15;
cook, 13.
General houseworker, 131; cook, 119;
chambermaid, 41; child's nurse, 31;
waitress, 28.
Cook, 149; general houseworker, 53; waitress, 38.
Waitress, 19; cook, 17; chambermaid, 13.
Chambermaid and nurse, 2.
Child's nurse, 3.
Nurse and other duties, 1.
Child's nurse, 4.
Includes 5 with beginning and ending hours not reported.
Includes 1 with beginning and ending hours not reported.
M
o
d
zn •
H
W
o
S
H
S
hj1
tr
O
gH
H
•3
SHH
ifeJ
3
TABLE
Over-all daily hours
II.—Over-all daily hours and most common spread of hours of men employees
Number
of men
with
over-all
hours
specified
Earliest
beginning
hour reported
(a. m.)
Latest
quitting
hour reported
(p, m.)
Total
Chief occupational groups w i t h over-all
hours specified
8 a. m. to 5 p. m. (30 men)__
Under 8
6 and under 7 . . .
7 and under 8__.
i 21
2
2
4
8 and under
9 and under 10..
10 and under 11.
11 and under 12.
12 and under 13.
13 and under 14.
14 and under 15.
15-- _
27
(59
56
26
32
40
14
i
6
5.30
6
6. 30
7.30
8. 15
9
11
10
10
16 -
Most common spread of hours
1
3 a. m. to 5.30 p. m. (2 men)
8 a. m. to 2 p. m . (1 man)
6.45 a. m. to 2.30 p. m. and 8.30 to 4 (1
m a n each).
8 a. m. to 4 p. m. (9 men)
8 a. m. to 5 p. m. (30 men)
7 a. m. to 5 p. m. (20 men)
7 a. m. to 6 p. m. (13 men)
7 a. m. to 7.3J or 7.45 p. m. (7 m e n ) - . .
7 a. m. to 8 p. m. (25 men)
7 a. m. to 9 p. m. (5 men)
7 a. m. to 10 p. m. (1 m:an)
6 a. m. to 10 p. m. (6 men)
Furnace man, 11.
Gardener, 1.
Gardener, 2.
Gardener, 13.
Gardener, 38; chauffeur, 13.
Chauffeur, 23; gardener, 21.
Gardener, 10; chauffeur, 8.
House man, 11.
House man, 16; butler, 12.
Butler, 9.
COOK,
1.
Butler, 1; chauffeur, 1; coachman, 1; gardener, 1, geusial utility man, 1; house
man, I.
•
•d
§
25
U
•H
M
K
w
' Includes 2 with beginning and ending hours not reported.
Ci
TABLE
O
00
I I I . — W a g e distribution of women employees, by occupation and living status
A.—WOMEN PAID BY T H E M O N T H
Occupation
Number of
women
paid
by the
month
Number of women employees whose m o n t h l y wages were—
$10
$20 and $35 and $40 and $45 and $50 and $55 and $60 and $65 and $70 audi$75 a i d $80and $85 and $90 and
under under under under under under under under under j under j under under under 1 $100
$90
$95
$75 j $80 j $85
$70
$65
$55
$60
$50
$40
$45
$25
$110 j $125
$137.50
1
W O M E N WHO W E R E LIVING IN
All occupations.-.
Chambermaid
Chambermaid and n u r s e —
Chambermaid and seamstress
Chambermaid and waitress..
Cleaner
Companion and mother's
helper
Cook
Cook and other duties
General houseworker
Governess
Housekeeper
Housemaid
Kitchen maid
Lady's maid
Laundress
Laundress and other duties.
Nurse, trained
Nurse, child's
Nurse and other duties
Parlor maid
Waitress
Occupation not reported
i1
«1
1
1
10
9
1
30
33
2
11
27
-
34
1
1
1
4
9
1
8
5
1
3
1
1
4
1
5
3
1
1
2
1
1
6
2
23
7
10 |
27
1 !
3
l
1
1
3
1
1
1
6
1 1
1
1
1
1
2 1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
8
2
3
2
7
I
1
1
1
4j
1
3
2
3
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
|
1
1 I
i
0hj
!
1
i
1
1
3
I
1
2
H
2
9
5
1
1
1
1
1
1 j
1
1
1
1
i
10
|
1
i
i
M
o
cj
U1
H
W
o
f
G
H
K
r<
oKi
&
l
>
O
H
f
•d
W
W O M E N WHO W E R E LIVING OUT
All occupations
11
Chambermaid and n u r s e . . .
Cook
General houseworker
Governess
Housemaid
Laundress-—
1
2
1
1
1
5
22
32
1
2
1 |
1
1
22
1
1
1
i
1
. .
1 l~
J
I
|
1
21
1
l
1
W O M E N WHOSE L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N WAS N O T R E P O R T E D
All occupations... . . .
Chambermaid
Chambermaid and nurse
Cook
General houseworker
Nurse, child's
Waitress...
8
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
i.
i Part-time worker, 14 years of age.
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 Part-time worker.
1
1
1
1
1
* 1
1
;
1
i
"1
1
I
»Includes 1 part-time worker.
O
O
CD
TABLE
I I I . — W a g e distribution
of women employees, by occupation and living
B . - W O M E N PAID BY T H E
«<r
o
stains—Continued
WEEK
N u m b e r of women whose weekly wages w e r e Occupation
Number
of
women
paid b y
the week
$5
$7
$17
$19
$20
$25
$6
$8 i $9
$10
$15 | $16
$11
$12 ; $13
$14
$18
and and
and and
and
and and
and and and
and
and I and 1 and and 1 and
and
$35 $40
under under under under under under under under under; u nder under'under under under under under under $30
$18
$8
$16 1 $1
$19
$20
$25
$30
$6
$7
$11
$13 j $14 i $15
$9
$10
$12
Under
$5
WOMEN WHO W E R E LIVING IN
i1
All occupations
Chambermaid..
Chambermaid and nurse
Chambermaid and seamstress..
Chambermaid and waitress
Companion and mother's helper.
Cook
Cook and other duties
General houseworker
Governess
Housekeeper
Housemaid.-Kitchen maid
Lady's maid
Laundress.
Laundress and other duties
Nurse, trained
Nurse, child's
Nurse and other duties
Parlor maid
Waitress
Occupation not reported
i 1
1
3
1
13
6 |
3
32
5
79
40
74
244
2
1
4
1
10
2
11
27
3
1
9
1
1
14
4
39
6
2
23
71
9
67
4
1
1
16
1
1
2
48
13
2
1
280
21
210
8
2 '
3 i
1
1
52
3
3
1
3
23
1
1
1
3
2
8
1
1
21
3
6
1
1
4
5
1
44
5
7
1
7
7
2
12
2
60
1
37
1
1
4
16
j
2
2
2
2
2
I
6
3
2
2
2
1
4
73
15
16
17
2
1
4
101
98
31 1
3
1
14
1
51
3
14
163 | 107
U
i1
1
1
1
1 !
]
I
2
3
I
6
14
9
7
11
2
1
3
7
2
20
3
27
2
1
26
2
2
14
2
1
12
1
5
1
1
1
W O M E N WHO W E R E LIVING OUT
All occupations.
Chambermaid
Chambermaid and seamstress..
Cleaner
Companion and mother's helper.
Cook
Cook and other duties
General houseworker
Governess
Housemaid..
Laundress
Laundress and other duties
Nurse, child's
Parlor maid and waitress
Waitress
Occupation not reported
192 j
8!
3 I
3ti
4
89
12
16
26
29
11
•1
13
11
8
14
8
4
1
1 1
5
12
1
9
43
16
11 | 40
1
1
3
1
2
6
1
28
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
6
2
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Part time only.
I
I
* Includes 3 part-time workers.
I
1
3
8
6
....
2
1
3
3
41
(>
17
3
_
r
1
i
|
t
1
I
1
1
2
i
1
2
!
3
I
1
1
1
1
i
REPORTED
1
1
!
• Includes a part-time worker.
!
1
1
l
1
12
1
1
1
W O M E N W H O S E L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N WAS N O T
Chambermaid
Cook
12
1
1
1
1
a 14
n
1
11
2
11
11
37
1
2
1
1
2
9
11
|
J
1
1
'Care fare in addition.
TABLE
III.—Wage distribution of women employees, by occupation and living
C.—WOMEN PAID BY T H E
status—Continued
to
DAY
Number of women employees whose daily wages wereNumber of
women
paid by
the dav
Occupation
$1.50
$1.
$1.50
and
car
faro
$2.50
and
oar
fare
$2.50
and
under
$3
$2
and»
car
fare
$3
Over
$3 and
under
$3.50
$3.50
and
car
fare
$3.50
$4.50
and
under
$5
$4
W O M E N WHO W E R E LIVING IN
1
1
2
Laundress
Seamstress
i
2
!
1
W O M E N WHO W E R E LIVING OUT
460
All occupations
C ha niber m ai d
Cleaner
Companion
-
General houseworker
Housemaid
Lady's maid
Laundress
Laundress and other duties
"Miircn nbil^'c
Seamstress
Occupation not reported
1
Includes 1 whose wage was $0.75 for a half day.
1
93
2
2
]7
3
1
266
29
1
15
30
i7
2
i
1
j
1
1
2
1
6
2
30
12
9
185
65
87
49
2
1
36
1
8
17
11
1
4
1
4
1
3
2
1
61
32
2
.1
2
11
2
2
1
2
1
1
7
5
5
3
1
1
106
22
2
12
41
5
1
15
3
1
9
1
3
6
5
2
2
1
1
D — W O M E N PAID BY THE HOUR i
Number
of women
paid by
the hour
Occupation
All occupations
Cleaner
_
Companion and mother's helper
Cook
Cook and other duties
General houseworker
Housemaid
_ _ _
Laundress
__
_ _
__
Laundress and other duties _ _ . _
Nurse, child's __
Seamstress
Waitress
Occupation not reported
_
_
27
_*
_ _ _
. _
_
_
3
6
1
1
2
1
4
N u m b e r of w o m e n employees whose hourly wages were—
$0.25
$0.20
1
1
4
3
1
2
$0.50
$0.40
$0,375
$0.35
5 |
_
i All living out.
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
$0.75
$0.65
1
1
$1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
_
1
1
2
3
$0.60
1
2
1
i:
1
2 1
1
2
1
2
1
Car fare in addition.
3
TABLE
IV.—
Wage distribution of men employees, by occupation and living status
A.—MEN PAID BY T H E M O N T H
Number of men employees whose monthly wa^es were—-
'O p
05 u
2-8
fl
-O
• o S
§ s 55
8 ' :
8
j $40
&
a
3o
i $30
0 P.S
£
$5 and
der $7
•S'
a*o §a
$12.50
unde
g o •d
p
§g
Occupation
>0
$
cp «c
•7fl3
d J a ul a ^
u
c3 a? I c3 a) I c3aSa><u
~o c-o 'C -f "
^ fiO-
M E N WHO W E R E LIVING I N
All occupations.-Butler
Chauffeur
Chauffeur and butler. ..
Chauffeur and second
man
Chauffeur and other
duties
Cook
Gardener
Gardener and other
duties
General utility man
House man
House man and grounds
Stable boy
Occupation not reported
9
2
9
1
5
....
1
....
3
8
11
3
6
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
2
1
T
1
4
1
3
2 1
1 3
4
13
4
5
4
2
1 1
"2" 1 21
1
3
1
1
....
1
1
1
22
3
i]'
4
3
2
2 « 1 21
...
3
1
1
2
1
2
21
1
1
1 1
...
4
1
1
—
1
1
1
1
1
22
1 13
1
1
1
!
_
WOMEN
All
occupations...
125
Butler
Chauffeur
Chauffeur and other
duties
Furnace man
Furnace man and gardener
Gardener
General utility man
House man
Watchman.. .
Occupation
not
reported
. . . .
63
« 4 4 17 « 5
4
11
4
4
4
3 «1
4
2
4
1
WHO WERE LIVING OUT
1
1
•3
1
1
31
2
34
7
39
2
2
3
3
1
1
5
2 6 2 4 2 312
«1
« 1 «1
S 1 «3
4
4
4
8
8
4
3
5
5
11
3
1
3
5
2
2
4
1
2
2
1
4
4
3
4
7 ... 1
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
«1
«1
52
4
51
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
51
1
3
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
2 H ®1
» 1
4
2
0
1
1
1
1
J
>
M E N WHOSE L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N W A S N O T R E P O R T E D
All occupations...
Butler
Chauffeur
. . . ..
Chauffeur and second
man
1
T w o have house only.
2 One has house only.
3 Has house, fuel, and light only.
4
Has apartment only.
« Part-time worker.
® Includes 1 part-time worker.
M
Oi
TABLE
I V . — W a g e distribution of men employees, by occupation and living
B.—MEN PAID BY THE
status—Continued
WEEK
N u m b e r of men whose weekly wages were—
Number
of m e n
$18
$15
$16
$35
$40
$17
$20
$25 j $30
$5 and $6 and $7 and $8 and $12
paid b y
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and | and
under under under under and
the week Under
$5
under
under
under
under
under
under
under
under
under'
under
$8
$6
$9
$7
$19
$13
$16
$40 , $45
$17
$18
$25
$20 | $;:>5
Occupation
$45
$50
M E N WHO W E R E L I V I N G I N
All occiipatinns
Butler _
Chauffeur. . . .
_
Furnace man and gardener
Gardener
General utility man
_ . _
House man
,„
House man and grounds
Occupation not reported
. . . .
__
_
39
4
11
10
2
1
1
1
8
1
4
3
3
All occupations
_
....
— .
_
__ _
_ „
i House only.
4
5
7
8
9
1
1
3
I Ii
5 !I
1 i
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
J
1
2
1
2
1
115
2 32
1
3
29
1
1
2
1
35
7
19
1
6
6
1
1
1
21
2 11
24
21
32
21
1
1
1
i 1
2
1
1
i
i
.
.
!
S
OUT
2
2
1
10
16
14
16
3
3
2
1
4
9
11
3
1
2
2
21
23
22
23
21
21
18
22
21
22
22
21
21
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Part time only.
3
1
1
_
1
M E N WHO W E R E LIVING
Ash man
- - .
Butler
Chauffeur
_
Chauffeur and butler . .
Chauffeur and second man
»
Chauffeur and other duties
- _
Cleaner
__
Furnace man
_
__
Furnace man and gardener
Gardener
_____
Gardener and other duties . - _ General utility man
House man
House man and second man
«
Invalid's attendant
Occupation not reported
2
Includes 1 part-time worker.
C — M E N PAID BY T H E DAY
Number of men employees whose daily wages were—
.Manner
of (iien
paid by ;
the day •
Occupation
Over i
,
| $3.50
under
*
$3.50
$3 a nd
$3
$2
j $4.50
1 and
under
$5
<u
**
$5.50
and
under
$0
$5
$6
$6.50
M E N WHO W E R E L I V I N G I N
Gardener
-
---!
!
1 j
!
1
M E N WHO W E R E L I V I N G O U T
All occupations
Chauffeur
Cleaner
Furnace man and ^ard a ner
Gardener
Gardener and other duties
General utilitv man
House man
Occupation not reported
40
______
_
..
_
!
Attends school.
1
5
2
21
2
4
2
3
*2
n
n
4
i
2
1
2
1
I
i
::::::::
1
1
1
Part-time worker.
3
4
16
2
5
1
;
3
3
i1
|
1
1
8
1
3
1
1
r
3
1
1
1
I
TABLE
I V . — W a g e distribution of men employees, by occupation and living
<1
status—Continued
00
D.—MEN PAID BY T H E HOUR*
Occupation
Number
of men
paid by
the hour
All occupations
86
Ash man
Cleaner.
.Furnace man
Furnace man and gardener
Gardener
Gardener and other duties
General utility man
House man
Occupation not reported
3
6
3
10
41
2
9
5
7
N u m b e r of men employees whose hourly wages were—
$0.25
1
$0.35
6
$0.45
$0.40
8
1
$0.50
31
$0.53
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
I
2
2
5
15
2
2
3
$0.55
$0.60
$0.65
9
4
20
1
1
1
1
2
12
1
6
2
1
1
3
2
$0.75
$1
4
1
1
-
1
1
1
M
o
dCD
H
w
o
S
s
3o
i All living out.
3
I
€
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRES ON HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYMENT
I.
EMPLOYER'S
QUESTIONNAIRE
1
Return to the Central Committee on Household Occupations, 1417 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, Pa.
The object of this questionnaire, which has been carefully prepared by a group
of representative women of Philadelphia, is to ascertain facts in order that we may
meet more intelligently some of the problems involved in home making. Two
Government bureaus in Washington, the Women's Bureau and the Bureau of
Home Economics, tell us that this is one of the first studies of its kind to be made
in America and is greatly needed.
By means of it we hope to discover what constructive steps can be taken in
Philadelphia to increase satisfaction and efficiency in our homes for the employee,
for the home maker, and for every member of the family.
We hope that we may receive answers from ail types of home makers, ranging
from those who employ a woman only one day or even a few hours a week to those
who employ a number of regular household employees. Even if many of these
questions do not seem to apply to you, will you not answer every one that does
and thus by giving a little of your time and thought to this matter make a real
contribution to a scientific understanding of the problem. You need not sign your
name.
I. H o w many have you in your family?
(1) N u m b e r of adults (including children 16 and over)
(2) N u m b e r of children from 5 to 1 6 - . .
(3) N u m b e r of children under 5
(4) Average number for whom lunch is served daily, excluding employees
(5) Average number of guests for meals per week
(6) Is there a chronic invalid or other member who requires extra care?
II. D o you live in an apartment (
), or a house (
)?
(1) N u m b e r of rooms, excluding baths.
(2) N u m b e r of bathrooms.
III. Check what labor-saving devices you use:
Electric appliances—
Iron (
), mangle (
), washing machine (
), dishwasher (
), vacuum cleaner
(
), toaster (
), percolater (
), egg poacher (
), refrigerator (
), electric
stove (
).
Gas stove (
), oil heater (
), others (
).
IV. D o you send out your laundry?
Rough dry (
), wet wash (
), ironed (
).
1
See p. 11 of text.
79
8 0
HOUSEHOLD
EMPLOYMENT
IN
PHILADELPHIA
V. Please check following questions for workers now employed b y you, including those caring for furnace
and grounds:
Employee
I
First
Second
Third
!
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
1. Give title of each employee new in your
service.
2. D o they:
(a) Live in
!
1
(b) Live out
j
|
|
|
!
3. D o they work:
(a) B y the month
(6) B y the week
j
(c) B y the day
j
,
!
4. Check approximate length of time each has j
been with you:
i
(a) Under 6 months
i
(d) B y the hour
!
1
|
(6) 6 months and under 2 years
!
(c) Over 2 years
j
!
j
I
i
5, Check if:
(a) Native white
(6) Foreign white.
(c) Colored (United States and other)..
i
(d) Other (specify)
1
i
6. Give approximate age of worker
7, Check worker's previous training:
(a) Trained by experience in own h o m e .
(b) Trained by experience with previous employer
(c) N o previous training in domestic
service
8, Check whether worker is:
(a) Single.
(6) Married
-
(c) Widowed, separated, or d i v o r c e d . . .
!
(d) Number of dependents _
!
(1) Total support given
(2) Partial (money sent h o m e ) . . .
9, State approximately:
(a) The hour that worker comes on
duty daily
(b) The hour that worker goes off duty
daily...
..
(c) Hours on call for telephone, or door,
but not otherwise working
(d) Hours entirely free during day
(e) Number of one-half days off per 1
week
j
10. State wages now being p a i d .
11. Check if you have a regular schedule of
housework for each worker
Is this written down?
I
i
i
i
i
i
1
81
APPENDIXES
Employee
First
12. Check:
A. If worker lives in
(1) Access to bath
... J
(2) Has room alone
j
(3) Shares room
_ ....... |
(a) With child
I
(b) WTith other employee..J
(4) Has place to entertain.
I
(a) In kitchen
j
(b) Other room
(5) When does worker eat meais? j
(a) Before the familv
|
(b) After the familv
Second
j
|
j
|
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Seventh
1
I
1
i
!
|
|
1
!
i
(c) With the family
(6) How much time does worker
have for meals?
(a) Breakfast . .
(0) L u n c h . . .
(c) Dinner
B. If worker lives out
(1) Does worker live with own
family or relatives?
(2) Alone?.
(3) State number of meals you
provide for worker per week.
Sixth
!
!
VI. D o you pay for overtime work?
If so, on what basis?
VII. D o you give any vacation?
How much?
With pay?
Without pay?
VIII. Do you give increases in pay to your workers with increase in experience?
If so, on what basis?
IX. If you dismiss workers, do you give them notice (
), or wages in advance (
)?
If notice, how much?.
X. D o your workers generally give notice?
How much?
XI. Do you at present investigate references?
In person (
), by telephone (
), through employment bureau (
), not at all (
XII. Remarks:
)t
If you would like a copy of the report based on these questionnaires, will you sign your name and address
here.
This questionnaire is sent out by T H E C E N T R A L COMMITTEE ON HOUSEHOLD
Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Honorary chairman, Mrs. Lucretia L. Blankenburg; chairman, Miss Anna Cope
Evans;* vice chairmen, Mrs. H. Norman Perkins, Mrs. William E. Shipley,
Mrs. Maurice N. Weyl, Mrs. Thomas Raeburn White.*
Secretary, Mrs. William A. Jaquette; * treasurer, Mrs. Edwin D. Solenberger;
executive secretary, Dr. Amey E. Watson.*
Executive committee: Miss Katharine C. Bryan, Mrs. Henrietta W. Calvin,*
Miss Edith Christenson, Miss Grace Godfrey,* Miss Gertrude Peabody, and
the officers.
Advisors: Miss Mary A. Carson, Miss Anne Christensen, Mr. Morris L.
Cooke, Dr. Susan M. Kingsbury, Miss Mary Anderson, Mr. Edwin D. Solenberger, Dr. Frank D. Watson, Miss Edith West, Dr. Joseph H. Willitts,
Dr. Lillian M. Gilbreth, Mr. Karl de Schweinitz.
OCCUPATIONS, 1 4 1 7
* The names thus marked, with the addition of Mrs. Frank Aydelotte, Mrs. W. Wayne Babcock, and
Mrs. Jacob Biilikopf, constitute the Findings Committee, Dr. Henrietta W. Calvin, chairman.
I I . EMPLOYEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE
3
Return to the Central Committee on Household Occupations, Philadelphia,
Pa.
I. General facts:
(1) Where were you born?
White or colored?
Age?
(2) Where was your mother born?
Where was your father born?
(3) If not bora in this country, how long have you been here?
(4) Single?
Married?
Widowed?
Divorced or separated?
(5) How many children?
Age c of children?
(6) D o you support or help support others?
How many?
(7) Are those whom you support—(a) Parents?
(b) Children?
(c) Relatives?
II. Education:
(1) What grade in school did you complete?
(2) Have you had anv regular domestic training at a school?
Yes
No
III. Experience:
1) Name position you hold at present
2) IIow many years of experience in domestic work ha ve you had?
(3) Give the number of jobs you have had as a domestic worker
(4) Name the different kinds of domestic work you have done
(5) What kind of domestic work did you do on your job before present one?
(6) How long did you stay in the job before this one?
(7) Give reasons for leaving last two jobs: (1)
(2)
(8) If you were discharged, was notice given you?
How much?
(9) If you left job of your own accord did ycui give notice?
How much?
(10) State weekly wages received on job before present one
(11) Have you done any kind of work besides domestic work?
If so, what?
IV. Present working conditions:
(1) How much are you paid per week on your present job?
(2) How many meals do you receive per week?
(3) Where are meals eaten? „ _ _
. With whom?
(4) Do you sleep in the home of your employer?
(5) If living in, where do you entertain your guests?
(6) If living out, how much do you pay for room?
Meals?
(7) Do you live—
(PS with relatives?
(b) with friends?
(c) in boarding home?
(d) alone?
(8) How many hours do you work each day?
Time coming Time on
Hours on
Hours comon duty
duty
call
pletely free
Monday
—
Tuesday
Wednesday
—
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
—
Sunday
(9) D o you prefer to live in or out as a domestic worker?
i See p. 51 of text.
This questionnaire was prepared by a special subcommittee, Miss Katherine G. Bryan, chairman.
82
I I I . S C H E D U L E FOR C A S E S T U D Y
1
Name.
I. Composition of family:
1.
Sex
Date of birth
Occuptaion or
school attended
Health
Home-maker
1
Father
I
Oldest child
3rd child
I
i
4th child
!
2nd child
!
!
5th child
6th child
j
|
Other relatives (state relationship)
|
!
Formal
Guests
per
week
Informal
Remarks:
Number
2.
3.
4.
5.
Are there any boarders?
An: roomers?
E m p l o y e e s living in?
Employees coming in?
(
(
(
(
Sex
)
)
)
)
(
(
(
(
Check whether b y the week, day, or hour, and write in the usual number of days or hours per week:
Employee
Title
Week
Day
Hours
Wage or salary
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
1
See p. 58 of text.
83
84
HOUSEHOLD
EMPLOYMENT
IN
PHILADELPHIA
II. Plant and equipment:
) or apartment (
1. House (
2. Number of rooms (
3. Number of halls (
4. Number of baths (
).
5. Pantry (
Porch (
).
Heated by oil (
), central heating plant (
), coal (
), electrically controlled
furnace (
).
), coal stove (
), gas (
), or supplied by landHot water heated by furnace (
lord (
).
), gas (
), or oil (
Is the stove for cooking electric (
), coal (
10. List electric equipment and labor-saving devices:
III. Schedule of living of family:
1. Time of rising, retiring, coming and going of family to school and business:
A. M .
Time of
rising
Person
Leaves
home
P. M .
Returns
home
Leaves
home
Returns
home
Naps for
children
Time of
retiring
Mother
Father
Oldest child
Second child
Third child
Fourth child
Fifth child
Sixth child
2. What are the home makers' outside interests? Describe and give approximate number of hours
per week spent in each, mentioning if outside work is paid:
Mother
Father
IV. What in a general way is the schedule for having the household work done?
1. In addition to giving the hours of meals, give full details of a typical day's work in the home, and
mention what tasks are done once a week, which are done twice a week, and which daily. Does the
home maker, for instance, believe in daily dusting. ? If she has several workers, please give her schedule
for each. If she has no employees give the home maker's schedule and mention any help she receives
from her husband and children. Is the laundry done in or outside of the house? Explain.
Hour for
children
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Supper
Hour for
adults
Number of
courses
APPENDIXES
85
V . What is the budget for the administration of the home?
Service
Food
Rent or approximate
rental value of house
Total income
VI. General conditions for employees in the home:
I n addition to securing answers to the questionnaire for household employment, give as fully as possible the facts about the home maker's experience with household employees for the past two years.
a. Relations with present employees:
6. Relations with former employees:
VII. Has the home maker thought out other plans for having her household work done if she could carry
out her ideals?
1. On her present budget?
2. If her budget could be increased b y her own earnings or b y other means?
Remarks:
VIII. Background of family:
1. Give background of home maker as fully as possible, including general education, training and
experience in home making, and training and experience in other types of work:
2. Give background of husband, including general education, training, and experience:
PUBLICATIONS OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU
[Any of these bulletins still available will be sent free of charge upon request]
*No.
*No.
No.
No.
*No.
No.
No.
*No.
*No.
*No.
No.
*No.
No.
*No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
*No.
No.
*No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1. Proposed Employment of Women During the War in the Industries of
Niagara Falls, N. Y. 16 pp. 1918.
2. Labor Laws for Women in Industry in Indiana. 29 pp. 1919.
3. Standards for the Employment of Women in Industry. 8 pp. Fourth
ed., 1928.
4. Wages of Candy Makers in Philadelphia in 1929. 46 pp. 1919.
5. The Eight-Hour Day in Federal and State Legislation. 19 pp. 1919.
6. The Employment of Women in Hazardous Industries in the United
States. 8 pp. 1921.
7. Night-Work Laws in the United States. (1919). 4 pp. 1920.
8. Women in the Government Service. 37 pp. 1920.
9. Home Work in Bridgeport, Conn. 35 pp. 1920.
10. Hours and Conditions of Work for Women in Industry in Virginia.
32 pp. 1920.
11. Women Street Car Conductors and Ticket Agents. 90 pp. 1921.
12. The New Position of Women in American Industry. 158 pp. 1920.
13. Industrial Opportunities and Training for Women and Girls. 48 pp.
1921.
14. A Physiological Basis for the Shorter Working Day for Women. 20 pp.
1921.
15. Some Effects of Legislation Limiting Hours of Work for Women. 26 pp.
1921.
16. (See Bulletin 63.)
17. Women's Wages in Kansas. 104 pp. 1921.
18. Health Problems of Women in Industry. 6 pp. Revised, 1931.
19. Iowa Women in Industry. 73 pp. 1922.
20. Negro Women in Industry. 65 pp. 1922.
21. Women in Rhode Island Industries. 73 pp. 1922.
22. Women in Georgia Industries. 89 pp. 1922.
23. The Family Status of Breadwinning Women. 43 pp. 1922.
24. Women in "Maryland Industries. 96 pp. 1922.
25. Women in the Candy Industry in Chicago and St. Louis. 72 pp. 1923.
26. Women in Arkansas Industries. 86 pp. 1923.
27. The Occupational Progress of Women. 37 pp. 1922.
28. Women's Contributions in the Field of Invention. 51 pp. 1923.
29. Women in Kentucky Industries. 114 pp. 1923.
30. The Share of Wage-Earning Women in Family Support. 170 pp.
1923.
31. What Industry Means to Women Workers. 10 pp. 1923.
32. Women in South Carolina Industries. 128 pp. 1923.
33. Proceedings of the Women's Industrial Conference. 190 pp. 1923.
34. Women in Alabama Industries. 86 pp. 1924.
35. Women in Missouri Industries. 127 pp. 1924.
36. Radio Talks on Women in Industry. 34 pp. 1924.
37. Women in New Jersey Industries. 99 pp. 1924.
38. Married Women in Industry. 8 pp. 1924.
39. Domestic Workers and Their Employment Relations. 87 pp. 1924.
40. (See Bulletin 63.)
41. Family Status of Breadwinning Women in Four Selected Cities. 145
pp." 1925.
42. List of References on Minimum Wage for Women in the United States
and Canada. 42 pp. 1925.
43. Standard and Scheduled Hours of Work for Women in Industry. 68 pp.
1925.
44. Women in Ohio Industries. 137 pp. 1925.
• Supply exhausted.
86
PUBLICATIONS OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU
87
No. 45. Home Environment and Employment Opportunities of Women in CoalMine Workers' Families. 61 pp. 1925.
No. 46. Facts about Working Women—A Graphic Presentation Based on
Census Statistics. 64 pp. 1925.
No. 47. Women in the Fruit-Growing and Canning Industries in the State of
Washington. 223 pp. 1926.
*No. 48. Women in Oklahoma Industries. 118 pp. 1926.
No. 49. Women Workers and Family Support. 10 pp. 1925.
No. 50. Effects of Applied Research upon the Employment Opportunities of
American Women. 54 pp. 1926.
No. 51. Women in Illinois Industries. 108 pp. 1926.
No. 52. Lost Time and Labor Turnover in Cotton Mills. 203 pp. 1926,
No. 53. The Status of Women in the Government Service in 1925. 103 pp.
1926.
No. 54. Changing Jobs. 12 pp. 1926.
No. 55. Women in Mississippi Industries. 89 pp. 1926.
No. 56. Women in Tennessee Industries. 120 pp. 1927.
No. 57. Women Workers and Industrial Poisons. 5 pp. 1926.
No. 58. Women in Delaware Industries. 156 pp. 1927.
No. 59. Short Talks About Working Women. 24 pp. 1927.
No. 60. Industrial Accidents to Women in New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
316 pp. 1927.
No. 61. The Development of Minimum-Wage Laws in the United States, 1912 to
1927. 635 pp. 1928.
No. 62. Women's Employment in Vegetable Canneries in Delaware. 47 pp.
1927.
No. 63. State Laws Affecting Working Women. 51 pp. 1927. (Revision of
Bulletins 16 and 40.)
No. 64. The Employment of Women at Night. 86 pp. 1928.
*No. 65. The Effects of Labor Legislation on the Employment Opportunities of
Women. 498 pp. 1928.
No. 66-1. History of Labor Legislation for Women in Three States. 133 pp.
1929. (Separated from No. 66-11 in reprint, 1932.)
No. 66-11. Chronological Development of Labor Legislation for Women in the
United States. 145 pp. 1929. (Revised and separated from No.
66-1 in 1932. (In press.)
No. 67. Women Workers in Flint, Mich. 80 pp. 1929.
No. 68. Summary: The Effects of Labor Legislation on the Employment Opportunities of Women. (Reprint of Chapter 2 of Bulletin 65.) 22 pp.
1928.
No. 69. Causes of Absence for Men and for Women in Four Cotton Mills. 24
pp. 1929.
No. 70. Negro Women in Industry in 15 States. 74 pp. 1929.
No. 71. Selected References on the Health of Women in Industry. 8 pp. 1929.
No. 72. Conditions of Work in Spin Rooms. 41 pp. 1929.
No. 73. Variations in Employment Trends of Women and Men. 143 pp. 1930.
No. 74. The Immigrant Woman and Her Job. 179 pp. 1930.
No. 75. What the Wage-Earning Woman Contributes to Family Support. 21
pp. 1929.
No. 76. Women in 5-and-10-cent Stores and Limited-Price Chain Department
Stores. 58 pp. 1930.
No. 77. A Study of Two Groups of Denver Married Women Applying for Jobs,
11 pp. 1929.
No. 78. A Survey of Laundries and Their Women Workers in 23 Cities. 166 pp.
1930.
No. 79. Industrial Home Work. 20 pp. 1930.
No. 80. Women in Florida Industries. 115 pp. 1930.
No. 81. Industrial Accidents to Men and Women. 48 pp. 1930.
No. 82. The Employment of Women in the Pineapple Canneries of Hawaii. 30
pp. 1930.
No. 83. Fluctuation of Employment in the Radio Industry. 66 pp. 1931.
No. 84. Fact Finding with the Women's Bureau. 37 pp. 1931.
No. 85. Wages of Women in 13 States. 213 pp. 1931.
No. 86. Activities of the Women's Bureau of the United States. 15 pp. 1931.
No. 87. Sanitary Drinking Facilities, with Special Reference to Drinking
Fountains. 28 pp. 1931.
* Supply exhausted.
88
HOUSEHOLD
EMPLOYMENT
IN
PHILADELPHIA
No. 88. The Employment of Women in Slaughtering and Meat Packing.
211 pp. 1932.
No. 89. The Industrial Experience of Women Workers at the Summer Schools,
1928 to 1930. 62 pp. 1931.
No. 90. Oregon Legislation for Wromen in Industry. 40 pp. 1931.
No. 91. Women in Industry. A Series of Papers to Aid Study Groups. 79 pp.
1931.
No. 92. Wage-Earning Women and the Industrial Conditions of 1930. A
Survey of South Bend. 84 pp. 1932.
No. 93. Household Employment in Philadelphia. 88 pp. 1932.
No. 94. The Lighting of W^ork Places. An Analysis of Lighting Codes and
State Regulations for Employers, Employees, and State Departments of Labor. (In press.)
No. 95. Bookkeepers, Stenographers, and Office Clerks in Ohio, 1914 to 1929.
(In press.)
No. 96. Women Office Workers in Philadelphia. (In press.)
No. 97. The Employment of Women in the Sewing Trades of Connecticut—
Preliminary Report. (In press.)
Pamphlet. Women's Place in Industry in 10 Southern States. 14 pp. 1931.
Annual Reports of the Director, 1919*; 1920*, 1921*, 1922, 1923, 1924*, 1925,
1926, 1927*, 1928*, 1929*, 1930*, 1931.
•Supply exhausted.
O
@FedFRASER