The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
LS.Zo: 244 m- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CHILDREN’S BUREAU * PUBLICATION No. 244 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES UNDER THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR F rances P erkins , Secretary CHILDREN S BUREAU - - - - Katharine F. Lenroot, Chief + Prohibition o f Industrial Home Work in Selected Industries Under the National Recovery Administration br MARY SKINNER + Bureau Publication N o. 244 United States Government Printing Office Washington : 1938 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Price 10 cents https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONTENTS P age Letter of transmittal___________ *____________________________________ Introduction_______________________________________________________ Plan of the study____________________________ __________________ '_____ The manufacturer and prohibition of industrial home work______________ Action taken by manufacturers in regard to home-work operations__ Number of workers given factory employment_____________________ Factors affecting the transfer of home workers to the factory_______ Effect of the prohibition of home work on production______________ The home worker and prohibition of home work_____ ______________ ;___ Factory employment of home workers_______ ____________________ Reaction of home workers to factory employment_________________ Family problems arising from prohibition of home work_______ : Home workers receiving relief________________________ ;___________ Summary and conclusions___________________________________________ 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 7 9 11 11 11 12 16 18 18 21 23 25 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL U n it e d States D epartm ent C of h i l d r e n ’s B L abor, ureau, Washington, June 7, 19S8. There is transmitted herewith a report on industrial home work under the National Recovery Administration in selected indus tries in which home work was abolished under the codes. This is the second of two reports dealing with the subject of industrial home work under the National Recovery Administration which were made jointly by the Women’s Bureau and the Industrial Division of the Children’s Bureau. The first, concerned with industries in which home work was not prohibited under the codes, has been published as “Industrial Home Work Under The National Recovery Administra tion,” Children’s Bureau Publication No. 234. The study of the prohibition of industrial home work in selected industries under the National Industrial Recovery Act was made immediately following the invalidation of the act. Because the pro hibition of industrial home work set up for the first time regulations which affected entire industries without regard to State lines, it was believed that the experiences of industries in adjusting to the prohi bition would be valuable and should be made available for future use. The field work for this study was carried on under the supervision of Rebecca Smaltz, of the Women’s Bureau, and Mary Skinner, of the Children’s Bureau. The report was written by Mary Sldnner. Respectfully submitted. M adam Hon. : K F rances P a t h a r in e F. L enroot, Chief. e r k in s , Secretary of Labor. 5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Prohibition o f Industrial Home W ork in Selected Indus tries Under the National Recovery Administration INTRODUCTION This study is the second of two surveys dealing with the problem of industrial home work under the National Industrial Recovery Act, which were undertaken jointly by the Women’s Bureau and the Children’s Bureau of the United States Department of Labor. The earlier study,1 which was made at the request of the Administrator of the National Recovery Administration, covered industries in which home work was not prohibited by the codes and was concerned with the effect of code regulations on industrial home-work standards. The present study, on the other hand, deals with conditions in indus tries in which home work was prohibited by the codes. Plans for the study were made while the National Industrial Recovery Act was still in effect, but before the field work could be gotten under way the act was declared unconstitutional. It was believed, however, that the experiences of industries in adjusting to the prohibition of home work would be valuable and should be made available for future use. In gathering information for the study interest was centered on the way m which manufacturers had adjusted to code prohibitions of home work, the extent to which home workers had been absorbed into the factories, and the effect of the prohibition of home work on the home workers and their families. Five industries in which home work had been prohibited by the pro visions of the codes were covered by the study—the men’s clothing industry, the artificial flower and feather industry, the medium- and low-priced jewelry manufacturing industry, the men’s neckwear in dustry, and the tag industry. All are industries in which home work was important prior to the period of the N. R. A.. The men’s clothing industry, in particular, had been outstanding from the point of view of the number of home workers employed. In the western centers of manufacture home work had already been very largely eliminated from this industry prior to the establishment of the codes, but in the eastern centers, especially New York City and Philadelphia, the finishing processes were still being done almost exclusively in the home at the time home work was prohibited.2 When the National Industrial Recovery Act was invalidated May 27, 1935, prohibition of home work had been in effect for varying periods in these five industries. The codes of the men’s clothing in dustry and the medium- and low-priced jewelry manufacturing in' Industrial Home Work Under the National Recovery Administration. U . S. Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau Publication No. 234. Washington, D . C., 1936. 2 Child Labor in N ew Jersey—Pt. 2, Children Engaged in Industrial Home Work, p. 11. U . S. Depart ment of Labor, Children’s Bureau Publication No. 186. Washington, D . C., 1928. 7 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 PRO HIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL H OM E WORK dustry were among the first to be approved, and home work in these two mdustries was abolished in December 1933. Men’s clothing manufacturers and medium- and low-priced jewelry manufacturers, therefore, had had approximately 17 months to adjust to the shift of work from the factory to the home when this study was made. In the artificial-flower industry the home-work provisions of the codes went into effect at practically the same time as did those for the men’s clothing and jewelry industries, but the code provisions for this industry permitted a gradual elimination of home work so that the period of complete prohibition was considerably shorter than in the other two industries. A 50-percent reduction m the number of home workers was required by January l, 1934, but complete prohibi tion did not go into effect until May 1934—approximately 1 year prior to the invalidation of the codes. In the men’s neckwear industry the prohibition of home work be came effective June 15, 1934, but home work was discouraged during the 2 months immediately preceding that date by a code provision prohibiting the employment of home workers at piece rates below those set by the code for the same or similar operations in the factory. Because of difficulties in adjustment and vigorous opposition to prohibition on the part of some manufacturers, home work in the tag industry was prohibited at a much later date than in any of the other industries studied. Tag manufacturers, however, had a longer period in which to prepare for prohibition than did the manufacturers in the other four industries, and their adjustment, therefore, should have been more complete by the time abolition went into effect. The tagindustry code as approved February 1, 1934, provided for the elimina tion of all home workers by May 1, 1934, but two stays and an amend ment to the code obtained by the code authority extended the date to January 1, 1935. During the brief period from November 1, 1934, to January 1, 1935, however, it was provided that home workers should receive rates of pay that would yield at least 80 percent of the code minimum. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PLAN OF THE STUDY Field work for the study was begun in the summer of 1935, im mediately following the invalidation of the National Industrial Recov ery Act, and was completed the ensuing winter. Four States—New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island—were visited in the course of the investigation. In New York and Rhode Island only urban centers were included, but in New Jersey and Pennsylvania it was found necessary to include a number of smaller communities in order to reach the industries selected for study. The findings of the study are based chiefly upon information ob tained in interviews with manufacturers and contractors who had made use of the home-work system and with home workers formerly in the employ of those manufacturers and contractors. The data obtained from these sources are supplemented by information secured from directors of State departments of labor, code authorities, representa tives of manufacturers’ associations, and local union officials. The following list shows the number and industrial distribution of the firms and of the families doing home work that were visited in the course of the study: Industry Number of Number of manufac- families doing turers home work Total....................................................................... 117 Men’s clothing.. Men’s neckwear. Artificial flowers. Jewelry________ Tags___________ 52 23 20 15 7 505 151 100 77 81 96 In selecting the firms to be visited effort was made to include only those that had been confronted with a real problem of adjustment when home work was abolished. In the case of the men’s clothing industry —by far the largest home-work industry of the 5 studied—only 2 firms were visited that had employed less than 10 home workers. For the other industries, in which the number of home workers per firm was considerably less, the minimum was five home workers. As a matter of fact about two-thirds of the firms visited reported at least 20 home workers and more than half reported 30 or more (table 1). With the exception of those in the men’s clothing industry, the firms visited included all those, in the localities covered by the study, that had employed the minimum number of home workers. In the men’s clothing industry, in which the number of firms reporting home work was considerably larger than in the other industries, the establishments were selected at random from among those meeting the requirements of the study. Of the 117 firms represented, 96 were manufacturers or shop con tractors and 21 were home contractors. Shop contractors, as the term is used in this report, are in reality manufacturers. They secure their materials from the manufacturer, who actually is often only the 77455*— 38-----2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 9 10 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOM E WORK owner of the material, and make up the merchandise in their own shops or factories, employing home workers for the finishing processes. Both manufacturers and shop contractors, in distributing materials to home workers, often make use of home contractors. Home con tractors are distributing agents solely; no part of the work is done on their own premises. T able 1.—Industry and number of home workers employed by firm prior to abolition of industrial home work Number of home workers employed Industry Total firms Less than 10 10, less 20, less 30, less 40, less than than than thnn 20 30 40 50 Total_______________________ 117 14 20 19 11 7 M en’s clo th in g ............................... M en’s neckwear.......................... Artificial flowers................................. Jewelry__________ ____ _____ Tags........................................................... 52 23 20 15 7 2 5 3 4 9 3 5 3 12 3 4 4 3 3 5 1 50 or more 36 10 or more (not other wise speci fied) 10 The home workers interviewed were selected at random from lists submitted by the manufacturers and contractors visited in the course of the study. The number chosen to represent any one establishment was roughly in proportion to the total number of home workers employed by that establishment. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE MANUFACTURER AND PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK ACTION TAKEN BY MANUFACTURERS IN REGARD TO HOME-WORK OPERATIONS Of the 117 manufacturers and contractors interviewed in the course of the study, 93 (75 manufacturers and 18 contractors) had brought at least a part of their home workers into the factory during the period in which home work was prohibited under the codes, and 3 had brought the work inside without increasing the number of their factory workers. In these three establishments work identical with that done in the home had been done in the factory also, and a steadily decreasing demand for the product in question did not warrant bringing the home workers inside. Four other manufacturers had given the work formerly done by home workers to contractors who, in turn, had established themselves in shops and brought their home workers inside. The remaining 17 employers (15 percent of those interviewed) had made no attempt to bring the home-work operations into the factory. The following enumeration shows the number and kinds of firms included in this group and their method of adjusting to home-work prohibitions: Adjustment Number of firms Industry 1, Men’s clothing. Discontinued line of goods on which home workers Artificial flowers were employed. .Jewelry________ Artificial flowers. Transferred line of goods to factory abroad, 1 1 1 1 1 5 Went out of business___________________________ 1 2 Obtained special home certificates for all workers 3_i Artificial flowers. Men’s neckwear. Distributed home work in violation of code pro- Artificial flowers, hibitions. 3 NUMBER OF WORKERS GIVEN FACTORY EMPLOYMENT In practically all the establishments included in the study preference in employment had been given to former home workers of the firm when the home-work operations were brought into the factory. Of the 93 firms bringing their home workers inside, 63 reported that they s “ Because the immediate abolition of home work in industries in which it had been a custom for many years might work a hardship to persons handicapped for factory employment, the President issued an Executive order on M ay 15, 1934, exempting certain groups of workers from the home-work provisions of Codes. ” This order was administered by the U . S. Department of Labor in cooperation with the National Recovery Administration, and workers desiring exemption under the order were required to obtain home-work cer tificates from their State department of labor or other designated agency. Certificates were issued only to (1) workers incapacitated for factory employment because of physical disability; (2) workers who had been accustomed in the past to earn their living by home work and who were too old to adjust to factory routine; and (3) workers whose services were absolutely essential at home to care for an invalid. Home workers obtaining certificates under the Executive order were to receive the same rate of pay as factory workers doing the same kind of work, and their hours of work were subject to the same limitations as those of factory employees."—Industrial Home Work Under the National Recovery Administration, p. 7. U . S. Depart ment of Labor, Children’s Bureau Publication No. 234. Washington, D . C., 1936. 11 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL. H OM E WORK had recruited all, and 30 reported that they had recruited half of their employees from among their former home workers. For the most part, other workers had applied in person or had been referred by the union. Manufacturers reported that the large majority were experienced workers, the former home workers of other firms, who because of some preference of their own or because there was no place for them in the establishment from which they had obtained home work, had sought employment elsewhere. The following table shows by specific industry the number of home workers employed in the factory on home-work operations at the time of the study and the number of home workers employed prior to the prohibition of home work as reported by the firms included in the study. T a b l e 2.—Industry and number of home workers employed prior to abolition of home work and number employed in factory after abolition Firms visited Industry Number reporting Total Home workers employed prior to abolition Home workers ememployed in factory after abolition Number Percent of number employed prior to abolition 117 108 5,352 3,094 67.8 52 23 20 15 7 48 21 18 15 6 2,301 834 471 1,228 518 2,153 435 168 90 248 93.6 52.2 35.7 7.3 47.9 FACTORS AFFECTING THE TRANSFER OF HOME WORKERS TO THE FACTORY The proportion of home workers taken into the factory for home work operations in the five industries studied depended to a large degree upon three factors: 1. The extent to which manufacturers complied with code prohibitions of home work. 2. The demand for the home-work product at the time of the transfer of the work to the factory. 3. The changes effected in the home-work processes, when the work was brought into the factory, which resulted in a displacement of workers. Code violations and special certificates. In addition to the firms shown in the fist on page 11 that made no effort to bring their home-work operations into the factory, 13 firms brought a minor part of their work inside but continued to dis tribute work to a large number of home workers. Twelve of these firms (3 artificial-flower and 8 men’s neckwear manufacturers, and 1 tag manufacturer) had obtained special home-work certificates issued under the President’s Executive order and T, an artificial-flower manufacturer, had given out work in complete disregard of code pro- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I N SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N DER T H E N . R. A. 13 hibitions. While these firms were the only ones encountered in the course of the study that were willing to admit that they had continued to distribute home work, it was reported by workers and employers alike that the effectiveness of the code home-work prohibitions were nullified to a considerable extent in both the artificial-flower and the men’s neckwear industry by the issuance of large numbers of special home-work certificates and by continual violation of the codes’ regu lations by many employers. According to a report published by the Department of Labor and Industry in Pennsylvania4 the number of home-work-exemption certificates issued in the men’s neckwear industry in that State had “assumed dangerous proportions” at the time the National Industrial Recovery Act was invalidated. This industry employed more than 30 percent of the workers granted special certificates, although in September 1933, the last date for which a report is available prior to the prohibition of home work, it had employed only 2 percent of the total number of home workers reported. The number of artificial-flower firms giving out home work was negligible in Pennsylvania, but in New York City, where a large number of the firms making up this industry are concentrated, a member of the code authority reported that not only had they received complaints that exemption certificates had been made use of to cir cumvent the code prohibitions—certificated workers having been urged to accept a larger assignment of work than they themselves could do and to distribute it to neighbors and friends—but home work had also been distributed openly without pretense of conforming to code regulations. This had been done not only through contractors, whose names had not been reported to the code authority as required, but directly by manufacturers as well. One manufacturer, who had given out home work regularly during the period it was prohibited, frankly admitted in an interview that he made a practice of distribut ing work to his factory employees to be done by their friends and relatives. The work was delivered to the employees at a designated place several blocks from the factory when they left the plant in the evening. When completed it was deposited in parcel lockers in sub way stations from which it was later collected by the firm. Eleven of the twenty-three neckwear manufacturers interviewed in the course of the study and 8 of the 20 artificial-flower manufac turers had secured home-work exemptions for at least some of their workers. The number of certificated workers reported varied from 2 to 30, but in more than half it did not fall below 10, as the following list shows. In the other three industries combined, only two firms reported the employment of more than one certificated worker. * Industrial Home Work in Pennsylvania Under the N . R. A., p. 10. Department of Labor and Industry, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 1935. (Mimeographed.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 14 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOM E WORK Number of home Number Number of home workers employed workers of home prior to prohibition taken workers ., , , into certifiMen s neckwear: factory cated 8__________ ............... 15_________ _______ 30_________ _______ 60_________ _______ 20_________ _______ 18_________ _______ 125________ 125________ _______ 25_______ ._______ 35_________ _______ 40_________ _______ 5 10 30 35 9 5 54 30 25 6 6 Number of home Number Number of home workers employed workers of home prior to prohibition taken workers into certifiArtificial flowers: factory cated 4 3 2 10 5 10 20 20 21 13 30 30__________ 35__________ 100_________ 60__________ 10__________ 25__________ 50__________ 50__________ ______ ______ ______ --------______ ______ ______ ______ («) 8 11 5 1 « 50 25 25 12 16 12 4 4 5 10 10 1 N ot reported. 6 At time of prohibition of home work this factory was about to increase the number of home workers. Therefore when the work was brought into the factory the number of workers brought inside exceeded the number of home workers employed before prohibition. Decreased demand for home-work product. The situation in the jewelry industry, in which the number of workers given factory employment equaled only 7 percent of the number of home workers employed prior to abolition, cannot be attributed entirely to the prohibition of home work. It was due to a large extent to causes that would have affected employment for home workers even if employers had been permitted to continue the distri bution of the work. Five of the fifteen jewelry manufacturers inter viewed, who employed approximately 500 home workers, specialized in a cheap as well as a better grade of jewelry. Only the cheaper grade was sent into the homes. At the time the prohibition of home work became effective in the industry the demand for this product had decreased to such an extent that there would have been little or no work even for home workers. According to the manufacturers the slump in demand was due to a change in style of women’s dress and to Japanese importations. Even had the demand for cheap jewelry of the type made in the home continued, however, it is probable that the absorption of home workers in this industry would have been less than in the other industries, so far as the firms included in the study are concerned. One jewelry manufacturer, who employed some 500 home workers to restring styles of bead necklaces for which there had been no sale when styles changed, was forced to give up his business when home work was prohibited. This employer frankly stated that only the low wages paid to home workers had made it possible for him to continue in business in the past. Changes in home-work operations. To offset the increased labor and overhead costs attending the transfer of the work to the factory in many establishments, home work operations were replaced by machine operations whenever possi ble and, to speed up individual production, such hand operations as could not be adapted to machines were broken down into simple repetitive processes. In the men’s clothing industry buttonholes had been made by ma chine on the cheaper grade of garments for a number of years, but, up to the time of the codes, hand buttonholing was still being done on https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IK SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N D ER T H E N . R. A. 15 the better garments. With the prohibition of home work, however, manufacturers turned almost exclusively to machine-made button holes. Machine operations also replaced some of the felling operations on men’s clothing. As yet there is no machine that will do the more complicated work on the shoulders, neck, and armholes of men’s coats, but in comparatively recent years machines have been per fected for felling the under-arm seams and the bottom of the garment. Even before the home-work provisions of the codes became effective felling machines were used by some manufacturers and, with the pro hibition of home work, their use became more general. Hand operations that could not be adapted to machines were some times broken down into as many as six processes; the usual break down, however, was into three processes. The more difficult work on the sleeves of the coat, known among the workers as “f- lling whites” because of the color of the lining, was assigned to the most skilled workers; “felling blacks” (the work on the body of the coat) was given to the less-experienced workers; and “cleaning” (pulling bastings) to beginners. In contract shops production was further speeded up by shop specialization. In general, contract shops had always specialized in one type of garment—coats, trousers, or vests—but, when the home work operations were brought inside, specialization was carried even further and each shop confined its manufacture to only one or two styles of garment^ such as sack coats, dress coats, full-lined coats, and so forth. The men’s clothing industry, it was generally recognized, made the greatest effort of any of the industries included in the study to eliminate home work. In spite of the fact that there was some dis placement of workers by machines and by other improved methods of manufacture, the group of workers taken into the factory for home work operations equaled 94 percent of the number of home workers employed prior to abolition. This was a much larger proportion than was brought inside in any of the other industries included in the study. This industry, however, unlike the other industries, had the interest and aid of a strong union in enforcing code regulations, and practically no complaints were received of violations of code prohibitions regard ing home work. Tag manufacturers substituted machine operations for hand opera tions to an even greater extent than men’s clothing manufacturers. According to information furnished by the code authority, in connection with cost and time-study analyses made during the N. R. A. period, more than 150 varieties of tags are manufactured. Almost all these had been strung by home workers prior to the time that home work was abolished in the industry. With the prohibition of home work, manufacturers turned to machines for the stringing of their standard ized products, putting existing machinery into more constant opera tion and installing new machines when necessary. Hand work was continued only on those varieties of tags that were in less demand or on those for which no machine had as yet been perfected. In order to speed up the work of hand workers, motion and time studies were made by the code authority, and on the basis of these studies assistance was given to individual producers in reorganizing their methods of production. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 16 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL. H OM E WORK In the other three industries little change was made in the home work processes when they were brought into the factory. Some neck wear manufacturers divorced the sewing and pressing operations, and a few artificial-flower firms, making a sincere effort to eliminate home work, reduced the amount of hand work on their goods; but in general no serious attempt was made to change existing methods of manu facture in any of these industries. The fact that a large amount of home work was still being distributed in the men’s neckwear and the artificial-flower industry, either in violation of code provisions or by authority of special home-work certificates, undoubtedly accounts to a large extent for the comparatively small number of home workers taken into the factory in these industries. EFFECT OF THE PROHIBITION OF HOME WORK ON PRODUCTION A large majority of the manufacturers interviewed in the course of the study reported that ODce the shift from the home to the factory had been made home workers adjusted to factory employment with far less difficulty than had been anticipated. The 5-day week pre vailing during the period of the N. R. A. in the industries studied made it easier, of course, for housewives to accent employment out side the home, and many firms allowed women with family responsi bilities to report for work a little later and leave somewhat earlier than the regular factory force in order that they might be at home during the hours their children were free from school. Most of the firms reported that these concessions had been neither difficult to arrange nor inconvenient. After 3 or 4 weeks in which to adjust themselves to the factory routine, most of the home workers were able to keep pace with other factory employees. A few manufacturers reported that they had been obliged to dismiss a considerable number of their former home workers because they had not been able to earn the minimum code wage, but the majority felt that there was little difference between former home workers and other workers in this respect. N or did age seem to make a difference, many of the older women interviewed being among the higher-wage earners. In one shop a grandmother, 63 years of age, was the pride of the workers because in the first week of her factory employment she had earned the minimum code wage of $14 and in a few weeks had exceeded it. In fact, in the men’s clothing industry older women were preferred to the younger workers because of their more “all-round” experience. When the work is done in the home the tasks of the younger members of the family are apt to be limited to the less-skilled processes. Although the home workers chosen for factory employment were, so far as possible, among the most capable workers, selection depended also upon whether the worker could leave home, so that the choice of the employer was limited to a considerable extent. With the concentration of home workers in the factory there was, according to a large number of the manufacturers interviewed, an improvement in both the amount and the quality of work produced. It was felt that steadier application on the part of the workers and improved methods of work, which it had been possible to inaugurate when the work was brought dnder closer supervision, had increased https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I N SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N D E R T H E N . R. A. 17 output considerably. Also, the flow of goods from one department to another had been facilitated when the work was concentrated in the plant, and shipments, consequently, had been made more promptly. The loss from waste and spoilage—a large item when the work was done in the home, especially in the jewelry industry—had been reduced appreciably. Furthermore, it had been possible to demand higher standards of work. Only in the artificial-flower industry were there consistent com plaints or any considerable number of complaints regarding home workers as factory workers. Many manufacturers in this industry reported that, in spite of concessions made in the matter of hours of work, the labor turn-over among former home workers was excessive; that they were slow and unable to earn the code wage; that they were constantly complaining and moving from one factory to another. In this industry, however, it was found that many firms had brought their home work inside at the prevailing piece rates for home work and, according to manufacturers and home workers alike, at those rates “ it was impossible for an individual to earn a fair wage in 8 hours.” One manufacturer, arguing for the return of home work, frankly admitted that “the workers cannot make enough inside. At home neighbors and children can help with the work, but in the factory each worker has to do his job alone.” The complaints of workers in regard to their inability to earn the code minimum wage in the factory were intensified by the fact that some artificial-flower manufacturers were continuing to distribute home work in spite of the code prohibition and that, in some instances, neighbors, who were working long hours and utilizing the services of all members of the family, were making more at home work than the factory workers could make in their 8 hours at the factory. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE HOME WORKER AND PROHIBITION OF HOME WORK FACTORY EMPLOYMENT OF HOME WORKERS The home-work group. Although the name of only one member of the family appears on the manufacturer’s pay roll under the home-work system, the family group rather than the individual is usually the working unit and others m the household assist with the work. In the families of the 505 home workers whose names were selected for study from the manufacturers’ pay rolls, there were 1,211 workers. Of the 1,114 for whom age was reported, 578 were between the ages of 20 and 50, a potential labor supply of experienced workers. T a b l e 3.— Age of industrial home workers, in families visited, who were employed in specified industry prior to abolition of home work Industrial home workers Industry in which employed Total M en’s clothing Age M en’s neckwear Per Per N um cent N um cent N um dis dis ber tribu ber tribu ber tion tion T o ta l-.. . ____ 1,211 Age reported___________ 1,114 Under 14 years........... 14 years, under 16___ 16 years, under 18___ 18 years, under 20___ 20 years, under 30___ 30 years, under 40___ 40 years, under 50___ 50 years and over___ 89 98 129 124 179 177 222 96 Age not reported_______ 97 318 Artificial flowers Per cent N um dis tribu ber tion Per cent N um dis tribu ber tion 138 170 Jewelry Tags Per Per cent N um cent dis ber dis tribu tribu tion tion 280 305 100 293 100 146 100 108 100 274 100 293 100' 8 9 12 11 16 16 20 9 28 31 34 31 30 44 73 22 10 11 12 11 10 15 25 8 1 8 15 9 31 42 26 14 1 5 10 6 21 29 18 10 9 6 6 10 23 14 25 15 8 6 6 9 21 13 23 14 35 32 44 35 42 34 39 13 13 12 16 13 15 12 14 5 16 21 30 39 53 43 59 32 5 7 10 13 18 15 20 11 25 24 30 6 12 Number and age distribution of home workers taken into the factory. In almost half of the 505 families visited (241) at least one member of the household had been taken into the factory when home work was prohibited under the N. R. A. As most manufacturers had attempted to compensate as many families as possible for the loss of their work in the home, factory employment was usually offered to only one member of the family; in several households, however, two and in one case three home workers had been given factory employment. Altogether, in the 505 families visited, 277 workers had obtained factory employment—226 of these from the firm or contractor for 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 IN SELECTED IN DUSTRIES UNDER T H E N . R. A. whom they had formerly done home work and 51 from new employers. The large majority were engaged in the factory on operations identical with those they had done in the home, or, where these operations had been broken down into simpler processes, upon some part of the home operations. A ttle over one-tenth were engaged upon new opera tions all or at least a part of the time. Contrary to the argument frequently advanced in defense of the home-work system—that the older and more experienced home workers woula be prevented by family responsibilities from accepting factory employment and that manufacturers, therefore, would be faced with a shortage of skilled labor—it was found that the home workers taken into the factory had by no means been recruited exclu sively from the younger-age groups. In fact there was surprisingly little difference in the proportion of younger and older workers who were given inside employment. Of the 318 home workers 40 years of age and over in the families visited, 26 percent, and of the 480 between the ages of 18 and 40 years, 29 percent had been taken into the factory. Of the total number of home workers who had obtained factory em ployment and for whom age was reported, slightly more than one-third (35 percent) were 40 years of age or over (table 4). T a b l e 4.— Age of worker and industry in which employed; industrial home workers, in families visited, who were employed in factory following abolition of home work Workers employed in factory Industry in which employed Age Total M en’s clothing M en’s neck wear Arti ficial flowers Jewelry Tags T otal______________________ _____ 277 101 53 45 26 52 Under 18 years................................................... 18 years, under 20............................................. 20 years, under 30............... ...........-................. 30 years, under 40 .......................................... 40 years, under 50_______ _______ _______ 18 39 46 54 68 15 37 2 7 9 27 37 8 11 1 1 12 12 9 2 16 1 6 7 6 13 3 9 7 11 6 2 7 14 12 7 9 2 1 N ot reported______ _____ ______________ Older workers were particularly conspicuous in the group taken into the factory in the men’s clothing industry, the artificial-flower indus try, and the men’s neckwear industry. In the first two industries approximately half and in the third industry one-third of the home workers who had obtained inside employment were at least 40 years of age. In the jewelry and tag industries, on the other hand, where nimble fingers rather than skill and experience are a requisite, the group given factory employment was younger. In the jewelry indus try no worker 40 years of age or over, and in the tag industry only about one-fifth of those who had obtained factory employment, had reached 40 years. Factory earnings of former home workers. Home workers, corroborating the statements made by manufacturers, reported that piece rates paid to factory workers following the transfer of home-work operations to the factory were double and in some https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20 PRO HIBITION OP INDUSTRIAL H OM E WORK instances even treble those paid home workers for identical operations. In factories where the home-work operations had been broken down into simple processes the rate paid for a single process often equaled or even exceeded the rate paid for the complete operation done m the home. . . . An estimate of hourly earnings from home work just prior to its abolition was obtained from the chief home workers in 325 of the fam ilies interviewed.7 The median for the group was 14 cents. The median hourly earnings of a group of 1,715 factory workers8 engaged on identical operations following their transfer to the factory were 44 cents—a little more than three times as great as those of the home work ers. Unquestionably the effect of the codes had been to increase to some extent the earnings of factory workers, but even had factory wages not been raised there would have been a substantial increase in the earnings of the home workers taken into the factory. A more accurate conception of the extent to which home-work wages had to be increased to make them commensurate with factory wages under the codes may be obtained from the figures in the following table, which represent the hourly earnings from home work and from identical work done in the factory of 107 home workers from whom information on earnings from both factory and home work could be obtained. T a b l e 5.— Hourly earnings reported from home work and from factory work following abolition of home work; chief home worker in families visited Chief home workers employed in factory Hourly earnings from factory work Hourly earnings from industrial Total borne work report 35 40 25 30 20 45 10 15 50 Less cents, ing cents, cents, cents, cents, cents, cents, cents, earn than less less less less less less less less cents 10 than than than than than than than than ings cents 15 35 40 45 20 25 30 50 Total reporting earnings.. 10 24 5 cents less than 10.................. 10 cents, less than 15............... 15 cents, less than 20.............. 20 cents* less than 25............. . 25 cents, less than 30_______ 30 cents, less than 35_______ 35 cents, less thna 40............... 40 cents, less than 45_______ 45 cents, less than 50........... . . 50 cents or more___________ 7 This estimate was based upon the usual weekly earnings of the workers and the rate of pay received together with the worker’s statement regarding the time required to complete a given unit of work. • Median earnings of factory workers were computed from information obtained from the pay rolls of 48 of the 117 manufacturers interviewed in the course of the study. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IN SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N D ER T H E N . R. A. 21 As the table shows, 76 of these workers earned less than 25 cents an hour at industrial home work, while only 18 earned less than that amount in the factory. Only in the artificial-flower industry—and in that industry only in the case of learners during the first 3 months of their employment—was the minimum wage set by the code for factory workers as low as 25 cents an hour. The figures quoted, however, represent the actual earnings of the workers exclusive of any “make up” paid by the manufacturer to bring their earnings up to the code minimum. In analyzing the weekly earnings of the home workers taken into the factory it was found that in 80 percent of the families in which home work was replaced by factory work the earnings of the one factory worker in the household exceeded the usual earnings of the entire family from home work and equaled the amount in another 8 percent of the families. No comparison of weekly earnings is possible on the basis of the individual worker for the group interviewed as a whole, since home work earnings usually represent family earnings, but for the 67 families in which there was only 1 home worker for whom earnings were re ported, figures show that the weekly earnings from factory work wefe at least half again as high as those from home work in 11 instances; they were at least double in 24 instances; and in 7 instances they were at least 3 times the home-work earnings. REACTION OF HOME WORKERS TO FACTORY EMPLOYMENT Adjustment to factory employment. In spite of the fact that in the 505 families visited 35 percent of the home workers taken into the factory were 40 years of age and over, the great majority (90 percent) reported that on the whole they had experienced little difficulty in fitting into the factory routine and other wise adjusting themselves to factory employment. Most employers had allowed their workers a period of 2 to 6 weeks in which to become accustomed to the work, but the majority of the workers interviewed reported that within a few days, or a week at the most, they had be come used to the work. Many of them had been accustomed to working long hours at home work, and the opportunity to work without the confusion of family life around them was a relief rather than a hardship. Of the 277 home workers who had been taken into the factory when home work was abolished 150 were still employed at the time of the study. Of the 127 whose employment had been terminated only 19 reported that they had left their jobs or had been laid off because they could not adjust to the work or because they had been unable to earn the minimum code wage. These 19 workers were not entirely from the older-age group, as might have been expected; 11 of the workers in this group were under 40 years. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL H OM E WORK The specific reasons given by the workers interviewed for terminat ing their factory employment are shown in the following list: Heatons for terminating factory employment Number of workers Adjustment satisfactory_______________________________________ 108 Work slack______________________________________________ Illness___________________________________________________ Firm closed down temporarily or permanently______________ Factory returned to home work after invalidation of N. R. A_ Needed at home__________________________________________ Machines installed_____________________________________;__ Other members of family obtained employment_____________ Obtained better job_______________________________________ Marriage________________________________________________ Discharged for reasons other than slack work and inability to make code wage_______________•________________________ Factory gave work to contractor___________________________ Under age for factory employment_________________________ Wages reduced after invalidation of N. R. A________________ Factory or family moved__________________________________ Obtained special home-work certificate_____________________ Other reasons____________________________________________ Reason not reported__________________________________ 21 17 14 8 5 4 3 3 3 Adjustment unsatisfactory.I___________________________________ 19 Discharged for failure to make code wage___________________ Unable to do the work____________________________________ Did not like factory work_________________________________ Earnings too small_______________________________________ 11 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 13 A manufacturer interviewed in the course of the study summed up the attitude of most home workers toward factory employment when he remarked to the Children’s Bureau agent, “They have tasted better now; they will never go back to home work.” The majority of the group taken into the factory were mothers with families and, as has been stated, more than one-third were 40 years of age or over; yet 79 percent of these women reported that factory employment was to be preferred to home work. Many who had dreaded making the initial break from the home—among them some who had had con siderable difficulty for the first few days in adjusting to factory routine—were emphatic in their assertion that they would never again do home work. Shorter and more regular hom*s of work, no night work, the oppor tunity of working without the interruptions of household duties, and well-equipped quarters in which to work, were among the advantages of factory employment cited by the workers. The two outstanding reasons given for their preference, however, were increased earnings and the relief of a home freed from the “everlasting clutter” of work— a boon appreciated by the entire family. Even the comparatively few women who would have preferred to do home work, if it had been available, were impressed with the fact that conditions of work—wages in particular—were better in the factory than at home. In almost the same breath in which they asked for home work again they condemned the conditions under which it had to be done. Except for the fact that they had a family to care for and “felt that a mother’s place is in the home” many of these women, too, would have preferred factory work. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IN SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N D E R T H E N . R. A. 23 The women who had been able to adjust to the new conditions had profited by their contact with the factory and with factory workers. As home workers, isolated from other workers and ignorant of the wages paid in the factory, they had accepted, under the pres sure of daily needs, whatever wage was offered. The remark of a woman to a Children’s Bureau agent, in the course of a study pub lished in 1928, that “we don’t get much for all the hard work, but we’re lucky to get any work at all,” typifies the attitude of home workers prior to the period of the N. K. A. However, once they have worked outside the home with more adequate wages and shorter and more regular hours, home workers are m a better position to evaluate their services. The statement of one woman encountered in the course of the present study is the opinion of most home workers now: “I would never take home work again, even at the factory rates, because I know the rates would be cut before long.” FAMILY PROBLEMS ARISING FROM PROHIBITION OF HOME WORK On the assumption that most home workers are mothers with young children or persons otherwise handicapped for factory employment, much has been said regarding the hardships that loss of work would entail for home workers and their families. Home workers, it has been urged, would not be in a position to accept factory employment. If they were not actually tied to the home by family responsibilities or physical handicaps, the difficulties of providing adequate care for the family would be so great that both mother and children would suffer. So far as the findings of this study indicate, neither of these assump tions seems warranted. In fact, as the following enumeration shows, an analysis of the records of the 505 families interviewed indicates that for a much larger proportion of the families than is generally assumed, lack of opportumty rather than family responsibilities or physical handicaps prevented employment outside the home. Number Employment status of 505 families interviewed families Total________________________________________________________ 505 At least 1 home worker taken into factory.___________________________ No home workers taken into factory_______________ __________________ 241 264 Other employment secured by some member of the family______ ___ 35 Former home workers____________________________________ •_ Others in family____________________________________________ 29 6 Employment outside home not secured but'possible_____________ 156 Former home workers_______________________________________ Others in family__________________________________ 100 56 Employment outside home impossible____________________________ 73 Physically handicapped_____________________________________ Family responsibility_______________________________________ Other reasons, and reasons not reported---------------------------------- 19 45 9 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 24 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL H OM E WORK Adjustment necessary for factory employment—home workers taken into factory. In most of the 241 families in which the home workers obtained factory employment the problem of family adjustment was com paratively simple. In 95, almost two-fifths, of the 241 families in which home work was replaced by factory work either some member of the household other than the mother obtained inside employment or there were no children in the family under 16 years of age to require close supervision. For those families factory employment resulted in little or no change in the family routine. , In the remaining 146 families it was the mother of a growmg family who was taken into the factory when home work was no longer available. Even for the majority of these families, however, adjust ment did not prove difficult. In 67, almost half their number, another responsible adult was present in the home to assume the household duties and the care of the children during the mother’s absence, and in 33 the children were all in school and old enough to prepare their own lunches and look after themselves and younger brothers and sisters until the mother returned from work. In another 24 families satis factory arrangements were made for the care of the children outside the home. In some cases relatives in the neighborhood assumed this responsibility; in' others day nurseries, settlements, and so forth, were utilized. In a few cases arrangements were made with schools whereby younger children were allowed to remain in the building until older brothers or sisters were released from the classroom. Less frequently neighbors and friends accepted the care of the children. In only 22 of the 146 families was the adjustment so difficult that the mother reported she would have preferred to work at home had home work been available. In eight of these families the care of the children was left to brothers and sisters who were unable to cope with them or to older people who because of age or other duties were unable to bear the responsibility easily; in the remainder, relatives, friends, and neighbors assumed their care. In only 8 of these 23 families, however, were there any children under school age, and in only 1 was there a child under 1 year of age. Possibility of accepting factory employment—home workers not taken into factory. In almost half (49 percent) of the 264 families in which none of the home workers were taken into the factories, there was at least one home worker in the household who was free to accept outside employment. In fact, a number of the home workers were heads of families, or grown sons and daughters who had been assisting with the work during periods of unemployment. In another 23 percent of the families, although none of the home workers themselves were in a position to accept factory employment, there were other unemployed members of the household who could have done so. Thus in 72 percent of the families it should have been possible to compensate for the loss of home-work earnings with other employment. At the time of the study work had been obtained in only a little more than one-tenth of these families, but again it must be borne in mind that the period during which home work was prohibited was one of general unemploy ment. Undoubtedly under more normal conditions a larger number https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IN SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N D ER T H E N . R. A. 25 of those workers would have been taken into the factory or would have obtained other employment. With the more regular employment furnished those workers who went into the factory it could hardly be expected that the entire group of home workers would be absorbed even under more normal condi tions. Also there would always be some displacement of workers by machines. In any case, technologic changes would have had to be faced by home workers sooner or later, just as they have been faced by factory workers. To a limited extent machines had been in use several years prior to the inauguration of the codes. Prohibition of home work may have hastened their general use, but their advent was inevitable. Leaving out of consideration, then, those families in which under normal industrial conditions it would have been possible to replace home-work earnings by other employment (either of the home worker or of some other adult member of the family) there remain only 73 families, 14 percent of the 505 included in the study, in which, accord ing to the statement of the home worker interviewed, no member of the household was in a position to accept outside employment. (See p. 23.) In a few cases the home worker was incapacitated by illness or was too old to adjust to factory routine; in one or two instances factory work had been attempted and discarded. In most of the families in this group, however, the home worker stated that she was prevented by family responsibilities from accepting employment outside the home, although in some instances it would seem that possibilities of adjustment might have been found that would release her for outside employment. HOME WORKERS RECEIVING RELIEF It can hardly be said in regard to the home workers included in the study, as has been suggested for home workers in general, that the loss of home-work earnings resulted in any large number of families applying for relief. It is true that of the 374 families visited in which home-work earnings were not replaced by factory work or in which factory work had been obtained but had terminated before the codes were invalidated, 162, almost half, had received some relief. How ever, a considerable number of these families had already been re ceiving relief prior to the period that home work was abolished, and their need can hardly be attributed to their loss of home work. Only 49 families had made their first application for assistance after the date on which home work was abolished, and in 31 of these families investigation revealed that it was not the loss of home work but the recent unemployment of other members of the family that had been the immediate cause of need. It is possible that if home work had not been prohibited these families might have managed on their home-work earnings without applying for relief, though it is doubtful, since prior to the prohibition of home work only eight of these families reported a weekly income from home work in excess of $5, and in only one were earnings as high as $10. All in all, it seems safe to conclude that in only 18 families, 4 percent of the 505 interviewed, did the loss of home-work earnings cause the family to apply for relief. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS T h e experiences o f m a n u fa c tu r e r s a n d h o m e w orkers in e s ta b lis h m e n ts th a t m a d e a sin cere e ffo rt to c o m p ly w ith code p r o h ib itio n o f in d u s tr ia l h o m e w ork, p a r tic u la r ly in th e m e n 's c lo th in g in d u s tr y , in w h ic h 94 p e r c e n t o f th e h o m e w orkers w ere ta k e n in to th e fa c to ry , in d ic a te th a t p r o h ib itio n o f h o m e w o rk is n o t im p r a c tic a b le fr o m th e s ta n d p o in t o f e ith e r th e m a n u fa c tu r e r or th e h o m e w orker. I n general, m a n u fa c tu r e r s r e p o rte d t h a t th e d iffic u ltie s o f c o m p ly in g w ith code p r o h ib itio n s h a d n o t b e e n so g re a t as h a d been a n tic ip a te d . C o n tra ry to e x p e c ta tio n s, n o sh o rta g e o f e x p erien c e d labor d evelo p ed a n d , o n c e th e s h if t fr o m h o m e to fa c to r y h a d been a c c o m p lish e d , h o m e w orkers a d ju s te d to fa c to r y r o u tin e w ith c o m p a ra tiv e ly little d iffic u lty . W ith th e c o n c e n tr a tio n o f th e w o rk in sid e , losses fr o m w a ste a n d sp o ilage w ere a p p recia b ly red u ced , s h ip m e n ts w ere b e in g m a d e m o re p r o m p tly , a n d b o th th e q u a n tity a n d th e q u a lity o f th e p r o d u c t im p ro v e d . S te a d ie r a p p lic a tio n o n th e p a r t o f th e w o rkers a n d m o re e ffic ie n t m e th o d s o f w ork, w h ic h i t h a d been p o ssib le to in a u g u r a te w h e n th e w o rkers w ere b r o u g h t u n d e r closer su p e rv isio n , h a d th e ir e ffe ct. O nly in th e artificia l-flo w er i n d u s tr y , in w h ic h a n u m b e r o f firm s h a d b r o u g h t th e w o rk in sid e a t th e o ld p iec e ra te s fo r h o m e w o rk, w ere a n y a p p re ci able n u m b e r o f c o m p la in ts received regarding th e fa ilu r e o f h o m e w orkers to a d ju s t to fa c to r y e m p lo y m e n t. H o m e w orkers, as w ell as m a n u fa c tu r e r s , w ere im p r e ss e d w ith th e a d va n ta g e s o f fa c to r y e m p lo y m e n t. A lth o u g h th e m a jo r ity o f th e w orkers ta k e n in sid e w ere w o m e n w ith f a m i lies —a c o m p a ra tiv e ly large n u m b e r o f th e m 40 y e a rs o f age or over— 79 p e r c e n t re p o rte d th a t th e y p re fe rre d fa c to r y w o rk to h o m e w ork. A s reasons fo r th e ir p re fe re n c e th e y c ite d th e ir in cre a se d ea rn in g s, s h o r te r a n d m o re reg u la r h o u rs, a n d fre e d o m fr o m n ig h t w ork. T h e y a p p re cia ted , also, th e c o n v e n ien c e o f w e ll-e q u ip p e d w o rk in g q u a rte rs, th e o p p o r tu n ity o f w o rk in g w ith o u t th e in te r r u p tio n o f h o u s e h o ld d u tie s , a n d n o t lea st, th e r e lie f o f a h o m e fre e d fr o m th e c lu tte r o f h o m e -w o r k m a te ria ls. E ven w o m e n w h o h a d d re a d ed m a k in g th e in itia l b rea k fr o m th e h o m e w ere o fte n e m p h a tic in th e ir a sse rtio n s th a t th e y w o u ld n ever again do h o m e w o rk u n d e r th e c o n d itio n s th a t e x is te d p rio r to th e code p r o h ib itio n s . Piece ra te s p a id to fa c to r y w orkers fo r h o m e -w o r k o p e ra tio n s, fo llo w in g th e tra n sfe r o f th e w o rk to th e fa c to ry , w ere d o u b le a n d s o m e tim e s even treb le th o se p a id to h o m e w o rkers fo r id e n tic a l o p e ra tio n s. I n fa c to rie s w h ere h o m e -w o r k o pera tio n s h a d been b ro k e n d o w n i n to s im p le p rocesses in order to sp e e d u p p r o d u c tio n , i t was f o u n d th a t p iec e ra te s fo r a sin g le p ro cess o fte n e q u a le d or exceeded th e ra te p a id fo r th e c o m p le te 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IN SELECTED IN DUSTRIES U N D ER T H E N . R. A. 27 o p e ra tio n w h e n i t w as d o n e in th e h o m e . T h e m e d ia n h o u r ly e a rn in g s o f 325 h o m e w orkers r e p o rtin g e a rn in g s p rio r to th e p r o h ib itio n w ere 14 c e n ts. On th e o th e r h a n d , th e m e d ia n h o u r ly ea rn in g s o f a g ro u p o f 1,715 fa c to r y w o rkers eng a g ed o n th e sa m e o p e ra tio n s th e y h a d p e r fo r m e d as h o m e w orkers w ere 44 c e n ts. For m o s t o f th o se fa m ilie s in w h ic h th e h o m e w o rker w as ta k e n in to th e fa c to r y w h e n th e w o rk w as b r o u g h t in sid e i t h a d n o t p ro v e d d iffic u lt to arrange a d e q u a te care fo r th e fa m ily d u r in g th e h o u rs o f e m p lo y m e n t. I n fa c t, a n a n a lysis o f th e records o f th e 505 fa m ilie s in c lu d e d in th e s tu d y reveals t h a t in m o s t fa m ilie s in w h ic h fa c to r y w o rk w as n o t se c u re d to c o m p e n s a te fo r th e loss o f h o m e w o rk la ck o f o p p o r tu n ity r a th e r th a n fa m ily re sp o n sib ilitie s or p h y s ic a l h a n d ic a p s p r e v e n te d e m p lo y m e n t. I n a lm o s t tw o -fifth s o f th e 241 fa m ilie s in w h ic h th e h o m e w orker o b ta in e d fa c to r y e m p lo y m e n t s o m e m e m b e r o f th e h o u s e h o ld o th e r th a n th e m o th e r h a d been ta k e n in s id e or th e re w ere n o c h ild re n in th e fa m ily u n d e r 16 y e a rs o f age to req u ire close su p e rv isio n . I n 67 fa m ilie s th e m o th e r o f a grow ing fa m ily h a d b e e n s e le c te d fo r in sid e e m p lo y m e n t, b u t a n o th e r re sp o n sib le a d u lt h a d been p r e s e n t in th e h o m e to a s s u m e th e h o u s e h o ld d u tie s a n d th e care o f th e c h ild re n . W h ile o th e r a r r a n g e m e n ts h a d to be m a d e fo r th e care o f th e c h ild re n in th e r e m a in in g 79 fa m ilie s , in o n ly 23 h a d th e a d j u s t m e n t been so d iffic u lt t h a t th e m o th e r re p o rte d sh e w o u ld ha ve p re fe rre d h o m e w o rk to fa c to r y w ork. A s fo r th e fa m ilie s in w h ic h th e h o m e w orkers w ere n o t ta k e n in to th e fa c to r y , i t w as fo u n d th a t in 49 p e r c e n t a t le a st o n e h o m e w o rker in th e h o u s e h o ld h a d b e e n free a n d able to a c c e p t fa c to r y e m p lo y m e n t, a n d in a n o th e r 23 p e r c e n t, a lth o u g h n o n e o f th e h o m e w orkers th e m s e lv e s h a d b e e n in a p o s itio n to leave h o m e , th e re w ere o th e r u n e m p lo y e d m e m b e r s o f th e fa m ily w h o c o u ld have d o n e so. E ven th e s m a ll s u m s th a t can be ea rn ed fr o m h o m e w o rk are s ig n ific a n t in fa m ilie s o f s m a ll m e a n s . T h e p r o h ib itio n o f h o m e w o rk, how ever, d id n o t r e s u lt in a n y large n u m b e r o f th e fa m ilie s a p p ly in g fo r relief. A lth o u g h a lm o s t h a lf o f th e 374 fa m ilie s in w h ic h n o e m p lo y m e n t w as fo u n d to o ffs e t th e loss o f h o m e -w o r k ea rn in g s, or in w h ic h fa c to r y w o rk w as te r m in a te d b efore th e codes w ere in v a lid a te d , h a d received a s s ista n c e a t s o m e tim e d u r in g th e p e r io d in w h ic h h o m e w o rk w as a b o lish ed , o n ly 49 h a d m a d e th e ir first a p p lic a tio n fo r a id a fte r th e loss o f th e ir w o rk, a n d in m o r e th a n h a lf o f th e se fa m ilie s in v e s tig a tio n p ro v e d i t w as n o t th e loss o f h o m e w o rk b u t th e r e c e n t u n e m p lo y m e n t o f reg u la rly e m p lo y e d m e m b e r s o f th e fa m ily th a t was th e im m e d ia te cause o f need . T h e i n fo r m a tio n o b ta in e d in d ic a te s t h a t in o n ly 4 p e r c e n t o f th e 505 fa m ilie s in c lu d e d in th e s tu d y d id th e p r o h ib itio n o f h o m e w o rk cause th e fa m ily to a p p ly fo r relief. I n c o n sid e rin g th e fin d in g s o f th is re p o rt, i t m u s t be re m e m b e r e d th a t th e p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h h o m e w o rk w as p r o h ib ite d w as o n e o f g e n e ra l u n e m p lo y m e n t. U nder m o re n o r m a l c o n d itio n s a larger n u m b e r o f h o m e w orkers w o u ld u n d o u b te d ly have been ta k e n i n to th e fa c to r y ; b u t w ith th e https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 28 PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOM E WORK m o r e reg u la r e m p lo y m e n t fu r n is h e d th o se w orkers w h o w e n t in to th e fa c to r y i t c o u ld h a rd ly be e x p e c te d th a t th e e n tir e g ro u p o f h o m e w orkers w o u ld be absorbed. Also, th e re w o u ld alw ays be so m e d is p la c e m e n t o f w o rkers b y m a c h in e s. Tags tr in g in g a n d fe llin g m a c h in e s w ere in s ta lle d q u ite g en era lly in th e tag in d u s tr y a n d th e m e n 's c lo th in g in d u s tr y d u rin g th e p e r io d in w h ic h h o m e w o rk w as p r o h ib ite d . I n a n y case te c h n o lo g ic c h a n g e s w ill have to be fa c e d b y h o m e w orkers sooner or la te r, j u s t as th e y ha ve been fa c e d b y fa q to ry w orkers. To a lim ite d e x te n t th e se m a c h in e s h a d been in use fo r several y e a rs p rio r to th e in a u g u ra tio n o f th e codes. P r o h ib itio n o f h o m e w o rk m a y have h a s te n e d th e ir g e n e ra l use; th e ir a d v e n t was in e v ita b le . o https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis m É https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER