Full text of State Labor Laws for Women with Wartime Modifications : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 202 : State Labor Laws for Women With Wartime Modifications, December 15, 1944: Part V - Explanation and Appraisal : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 202-5

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
L. B. SCHWELLENBACH, Secretary

WOMEN’S BUREAU
FRIEDA S. MILLER, Director

♦

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN
WITH WARTIME MODIFICATIONS
DECEMBER 15, 1944

PART V: EXPLANATION AND APPRAISAL

?*TCS 0*.

Bulletin

of

the

Women’s Bureau, No. 202—V

3 3 C - 4
l ,, 3

4-

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1946

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 15 cents




“
<




CONTENTS

Page
Letter of transmittal_____________
v
Chapter I.—Background of State labor legislation for women____________
1
Economic and social basis_____________________________________
2
Accepted standards
2
Health as a basis for labor legislation
3
The fatigue factor in industry
3
Hours of work and production______________
4
Government wartime policy on hours of work__________________
5
Benefits of leisure~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6
History___________________________________________________
7
Hour laws
9
Maximum-hour laws"
9
Day-of-rest laws_____________
11
Night-work laws ____________________________________
12
Meal-period laws_
14
Other special health legislation
16
Plant-facilities laws _ _ _______________________________
16
Regulatory laws_____
16
Prohibited occupations _____________________________
17
Industrial home work
_________________________________
17
Laws prohibiting employment before and after childbirth- ______
19
Constitutionality_________________________________
20
Chapter II.—Effect of the war on hour laws for women_____ __________
24
General statement
24
State hour laws in wartime
26
Occasion for legislative modification of standards_______________
27
Flexibility of maximum-hour standards—General manufacturing
27
Prior standards in States that enacted wartime modifications__
28
Standards in States that did not enact wartime modification___
30
Conclusion
30
Variation provisions in other hour laws
31
Administrative control or automatic relaxation_________________
31
Type of emergency provisions
33
Summary of emergency provisions in effect during war period--34
Principal characteristics of wartime hour legislation_____________
35
Recommendations of labor law administrators______________
35
Duration of wartime legislation______
36
Permanent changes in standards
36
War duration changes___________________
_ __
3g
Scope----------------------------------------------------------------38
Period covered_________ _______.______________
3g
Conclusion’_____________________________________
39
Analysis of emergency provisions in effect during war period______
39
Provision for automatic relaxation
41
Scope of automatic relaxation.._;____________________
41
Maximum-hour laws
41
Day-of-rest laws__
42
Night-work laws_________________ ____________
42
Meal-period laws______
42
Summary
42
Provision for administrative exceptions______
42
Extent of administrative control
43
Analysis of administrative exceptions in effect in wartime. _
44
Standards for administrative action
44
Industries covered by administrative-exception pro­
46
visions__________________
Extent and duration of modification permitted______
46
Procedural requirements
47
Conclusion
4g
Chapter III.—State labor laws for women in the postwar years____
49
Hour standards at end of war ________________________________
49
Reconversion period______________________
___
__
49



iii

.

Page

Changes in peacetime hour standards through wartime legislation. ._
Basic-hour standards__ ;_______________________________
Overtime ______________________________
Coverage______ _________ '
Hour-law provisions in effect after the war
Maximum-hour laws
Day-of-rest laws__
Meal- and rest-period laws
53
Night-work laws
54
Other special health legislation in effect after the war_____
Plant-facilities laws_________
Seating------------------------------------------------------------------Lunch rooms
56
Dressing rooms; rest rooms________
Toilets'
Regulatory laws
57
Weight lifting..______________________________________
Constant standing
58
Other laws
58
Prohibited occupations_____
General___________________________ ________________
“ Mines__________________________
Establishments handling intoxicating liquors_______________
Other prohibited occupations:________________ __________
Industrial home work laws in effect after the war___________ _______
Employment before and after childbirth_________________
Future standards for labor legislation for women
60
Summary of standards recommended by U. S. Women’s Bureau___
Appendix.—Types of labor laws, by State




IV

50
50

51
51

52
52

53
55
55
55

56
56
57

58
58
58
59
59
59

60

61
63

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
United States Department of Labor,
Women’s Bureau,

Washington, February 7,194-6.
Sir : I have the honor to transmit the fifth and final bulletin in
the series covering State labor laws for women with wartime
modifications, as of December 15, 1944. The laws included in this
series are: Hour laws; laws regulating sanitary and other plant
facilities in establishments employing women; laws prohibiting
and regulating certain occupations, and prohibiting employment
before and after childbirth; and industrial home-work laws.
The four bulletins of this series previously published constitute
summaries, in legal-chart form, of the laws of each State. The
present bulletin is an explanation of the basic purpose of such
legislation, its historical development including leading decisions
handed down by the courts, the character and extent of modifica­
tion during the war period, and basic standards applicable in
peacetime.
The series of bulletins is the work of the staff of the Division
of Labor Legislation and Administration. The present bulletin
was written by Alice Angus of that Division.
Respectfully submitted.
Frieda S. Miller, Director.
Hon. L. B. Schwellenbach,
Secretary of Labor.




STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN WITH WARTIME
MODIFICATIONS
December 15, 1944

Explanation and Appraisal
CHAPTER I.—BACKGROUND OF STATE LABOR
LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN
In a panoramic view of the development in the United States
of labor legislation for women, which now covers a period of al­
most three-quarters of a century, two trends stand out: The
first is the continuous progress not only in the number of laws
regulating women’s hours and working conditions, but also in the
standards they prescribe. Beginning with the year 1879, when
the first enforceable law regulating women’s hours of employment
was enacted in Massachusetts, labor legislation for women has
been constantly added to or increased, so that as of December 15,
1944, each of the 48 States, the District of Columbia, and all the
territories except Hawaii regulate by law some phase of woman’s
employment. The same period of time has seen a gradual but
constant improvement in the standards which these laws estab­
lish. Though much still remains to be accomplished, it is note­
worthy that at the-beginning of World War II 18 States had set
a maximum 8-hour day for women in some or most occupations,
and a substantial number required a day of rest, time for meals,
and good working-conditions standards.
The second, though perhaps less obvious, of the trends dis­
cernible in the long history of labor legislation for women is the
growing appreciation of the sound practical basis on which such
laws rest. Whereas such legislation throughout most of its first
50 years of growth was generally considered to be largely an al­
truistic effort to improve the condition of one group of the popu­
lation, it is now almost universally recognized to result in broad
social and economic advantages for other groups as well.
The war has directed special attention to the practical benefits
to be derived from fair labor standards. At a time when maximum
production is imperative, many firms have found that best results
are obtained over long periods by employing women for moderate
hours and under desirable conditions. The relationship between
long hours and substandard working conditions, on the one hand,
and fatigue and unsatisfactory performance, on the other, has
been newly demonstrated. The experience accumulated during the
present war emergency constitutes new evidence that moderate
hours and desirable standards help, rather than hinder, produc­
tion.
The shift in emphasis from an altruistic or welfare basis to
a practical or economic basis, which has been taking place with
respect to labor legislation for women, may be expected to act as



1

2

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

a stimulus to the establishment of higher and more desirable
standards for women’s employment in the future. This may well
result not only in the adoption of additional legal standards in
States that now regulate only one or a few aspects of the broad
subject of women’s employment but also in the improvement of
standards previously adopted.
The present chapter on “Background of State Labor Legislation
for Women” will consider the following main topics: (1) Eco­
nomic and social basis; (2) history; and (3) constitutionality.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BASIS
Accepted Standards
As a result of long industrial experience, certain minimum
standards have come to be generally recognized as best designed to
preserve the health of wage-earning women. Of outstanding im­
portance among such standards are those governing hours of
employment. Accepted standards include a work schedule of not
more than 8 hours a day, 48 hours and 6 days a week, a lunch
period of at least 30 minutes, and a rest period of 10 or 15 minutes’
duration in each half of the workday. For women who carry the
double job of industrial employment and homemaking, reduction
of the work schedule to less than 48 hours and 6 days is highly
desirable from a health standpoint. It is also desirable that no
woman worker in peacetime should be employed at night except
as absolutely necessary in essential public service occupations.
Certain working-conditions standards are also commonly ac­
cepted as fundamental health requirements for women workers.
Prominent among these are provisions for adequate toilets, dress­
ing rooms, and rest rooms, separate and apart from those provided
for the opposite sex. The desirability of lunch rooms for all em­
ployees is also recognized. The most commonly accepted of all
working-conditions standards for women relates to seating facili­
ties. Provision for seats and opportunity to change from a stand­
ing to a sitting position are known to do much to eliminate strain
and fatigue.
Laws regulating or prohibiting industrial employment at home
are essential to prevent the many injustices incident to the home­
work system, such as low wages, long hours, and labor of small
children. Regulation of home work protects the public against
the manufacture of goods outside the factory under insanitary
conditions. Home-work laws also help to maintain desirable work­
ing-conditions standards inside the factory by eliminating the
unfair competition caused by manufacture of goods where the
employer does not carry the expense of factory upkeep and
overhead.
Some States regulate the manner of women’s employment, such
as the amount of weight that a woman may lift. Others regulate
the type of employment, prohibiting that considered to be in­
jurious such as work in mines, quarries, or saloons. A few States
prohibit the employment of women for specified periods before
and after childbirth.



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

3

Health as a Basis for Labor Legislation
Conservation of the health of wage-earning women is the basic
purpose of laws regulating the hours of employment or working
conditions of women. Laws regulating working conditions and
other phases of women’s employment differ widely both in the
kind and the adequacy of the standards they establish. Unfortu­
nately, many of the laws now in effect set standards lower than
those cited in the foregoing paragraphs. Nevertheless, despite
their great diversity, they have the common purpose of safeguard­
ing the health of women workers.
;
Early labor laws for women placed special emphasis on woman’s
dual function as wage earner and potential mother. The public
interest in preserving the welfare of the race was the chief basis
of early legislation applicable to women only, or jointly to women
and minors, and it is also one of the principal grounds on which
such legislation has been upheld by the courts.
The urgent need to safeguard the health of women workers
and thus protect the welfare of the race, is today just as valid a
consideration for the establishment of desirable legal standards
for women’s employment as it was when the first such law was
enacted almost 70 years ago. The social interest in the welfare of
the race is no longer urged, solely for its own sake, however.
Studies and experiments carried on for the most part during and
since the First World War have demonstrated that a reasonable
hour schedule and desirable working conditions are sound from a
business or financial point of view, i.e., they are “a good business
proposition.” By maintaining the worker’s health and efficiency,
such standards also facilitate production.
The Fatigue Factor in Industry.—Scientific experiments con­
ducted over a period of years show that the labor of a worker re­
sults in fatigue, which in turn results in a diminished capacity for
work and decreased power of concentration. Science has estab­
lished that work not only uses up the energy of the body but also
generates certain poisons which debilitate the worker. These
poisons cannot be removed by medicine or stimulants, but only by
rest. Fatigue which is not removed by change of activity and by
rest gradually accumulates until it impairs the health of the
worker and leads to decreased production.
Long daily or weekly hours of work are perhaps the most ob­
vious employment conditions that lead to excessive fatigue. Even
more serious from a health standpoint is the 7-day week, through
which the worker is deprived of a weekly day of rest. Other com­
mon conditions which cause or contribute to fatigue include in­
adequate time for meals, constant or prolonged standing, and lack
of scheduled rest periods or other suitable breaks in the routine.
These and many other avoidable employment conditions all tend
to intensify the physical strain on the worker. The danger in­
herent in such conditions is that the fatigue may become chronic if
the worker does not have sufficient rest to overcome it and it is
too long accumulated.



4

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Night work brings special liability to fatigue because it deprives
the worker of an opportunity to sleep during the customary hours.
Most workers find it difficult to obtain sufficient sleep during the
daytime because their natural rhythm is thrown out of balance
and also because there is often considerable noise and confusion
around them. Rotation of shifts at proper intervals, by reducing
the amount of night work, helps the worker to ward off fatigue.
Nevertheless, it is generally recognized that even with suitable
shift rotation night work induces an accumulation of fatigue and
is detrimental to health.
Hours of Work and Production.—The fact that long hours cause
latigue and result in decreased output has been demonstrated by
numerous experiments in the factory itself. Studies of the relation
of hours of work to output indicate that the effects of fatigue can
be traced m a number of ways—directly, in diminished daily and
weekly output, and indirectly, in work spoilage, accidents, sick­
ness, and lost time. The direct effect—a lowered daily or weekly
output—is obvious, but the indirect effect—accidents, sickness,
and lost time—also influences productivity over extended periods.
Experiments showing’ the relation between hours of work and
output have been made in various ways. A common type of study
consists in measuring variations in output under work periods of
varying lengths. By giving close attention to the work performed
by the same individuals under controlled conditions over specified
periods, experts have been able to determine the effect of a re­
duction in hours of work on the output of individual workers.
This has been demonstrated in two ways—first, by the difference
in hourly output before and after the change, and second by
the difference in total output for a calendar period. Experiments
show that where excessively long working hours are decreased to
approximately 8-48, or less, the output per unit of work, i. e.
hourly output, is increased in nearly all types of work; and
further, that in many types of work, especially where the human
factor predominates, the rate of hourly increase is so great that
total output for the calendar period is maintained despite the re­
duction in hours.
Another common type of study is the “work curve” which
consists of recording the average output of each consecutive hour
of a series of workdays. Experiments using this method indicate
that the longer the workday the greater the variation in output
m different hours of the day. Production, particularly on work
involving considerable physical effort, normally slumps sharply
toward the end of the shift, largely as a result of increasing
fatigue.
The comparative frequency and ratio of accidents under a 10hour day and an 8-hour day also have been the subject of study.
At the end of an excessively long work period, the fatigue en­
gendered affects muscular coordination and control and tends to
make the worker less alert. Mistakes and work spoilage increase
and the worker becomes more susceptible to accidents as the
workday is extended. It also* has been shown .that long work
schedules lead to excessive absenteeism, and that workers take



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

5

time off not provided for in the schedule. Fatigue also leads to
lowered morale on the job, and results in a higher rate of turn­
over and quits.
The general conclusion to be drawn from industrial experiments
is that for a majority of occupations the longest work period that
is desirable from the standpoint of maximum output is 48 hours
a week. However, the length of the work period that leads to
excessive fatigue depends not only on the type of work but on
many “outside” factors intimately tied up with the life of the
individual worker. Many workers must spend 2 or even 3 hours a
day traveling to and from work. Numbers of women employees
have heavy household duties that must be taken care of outside
of working hours. Activities of this kind, while not part of the
worker’s employment, result in the material shortening or
even elimination of necessary time for rest and recreation, and
therefore must be taken into account in determining the optimum
work period from a health standpoint. Consideration of the many
outside factors that add to the workday point to the desirability
of reducing the workday for women workers in the future.
Government Wartime Policy on Hours of Work
The relationship between hours of work and production is of
special importance in wartime. In any consideration of the work
schedule that is most desirable in the war program the question
of health is necessarily subordinate to the demand for maximum
production. Moderate work schedules can be supported only if
they contribute to the major national interest of winning the war.
In the summer of 1942, the eight United States Government
agencies chiefly responsible for success of the war program1
issued their “Recommendation on Hours of Work for Maximum
Production.” It is significant that the working hours found to be
most productive under peacetime conditions were declared to be
the official Government policy during the war period. As a testa­
ment to the practical value of reasonable work schedules and
adequate time off for rest, the Government wartime policy is of
such far-reaching importance that that part of the statement which
relates to working hours is quoted here in full:
Introduction.
In view of the wide discrepancy in labor policy on hours of work among
establishments—both private and governmental—working on war produc­
tion, and in order to secure observance of those standards which experi­
ence shows are best for sustained maximum output, the following state­
ment of policy is issued as a guide to Government establishments, to field
representatives of procurement agencies, and to contractors working on
war production.
Nothing herein contained in any way diminishes the urgency of secur­
ing round-the-clock, 7-day-week operation of plants and tools. The pri­
mary reason for this statement of policy is to secure increased produc­
tion by calling attention to certain practices that have been found to
increase the efficiency of the human factor in production.1
1 War Department, Navy Department, Maritime Commission, Public Health Service, War
Manpower Commission, War Production Board, Commerce Department, Labor Department.




6

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

1. Weekly day of rest.
One scheduled day of rest for the individual, approximately every 7
days, should be a universal and invariable rule. The 7-day workweek for
individuals is injurious to health, to production, and to morale. It slows
down production because of the cumulative eifects of fatigue, when not
broken by a period of rest and relaxation, and it leads to increased ab­
senteeism. Only in extreme emergencies and for a limited period of time
should workers or supervisors forego the weekly day of rest.
2. Meal periods.
A 30-minute meal period in mid-shift is desirable for men and women
from the standpoint of the worker’s health and from the standpoint of
productivity. In occupations that involve contact with poisonous sub­
stances workers must have time to wash before eating, as an elementary
health precaution.
3. Daily and weekly hours.
Daily and weekly hours of employees in war production plants should
be reexamined to assure those schedules which will maintain maximum
output over a long war period. Hours now worked in some plants are in
excess of those which can be sustained without impairing the health and
efficiency of workers and reducing the flow of production.
When daily and weekly hours are too long, the rate of production
tends after a period to decrease, and the extra hours add little or no
additional output; the quality of work may deteriorate during the whole
period of work, not only during the hours of overtime; absenteeism rises
sharply; the loss of time due to accidents and illnesses tends to increase
iiiiiects upon the health and morale of the worker may be slow in appearmg but are cumulative in nature. Irregular attendance disrupts the flow
of production because certain operations call for a balance of trained
forces. In order to conserve irreplaceable skilled and supervisory man­
power, uneconomical schedules should be revised.
When plants drawing on the same labor market compete for labor
through the device of offering heavy overtime payment, the resulting
unrest and turn-over interfere with war production. In order to stop this
type of labor pirating there should be uniformity in the hours-schedules
of plants m the same industrial area.
While a 40-hour week is generally accepted in peacetime there is a
widespread and increasing agreement as a result of actual experience
both in this country and abroad, that for wartime production the 8-hour
day and 48-hour week approximate the best working schedule for sustamed efficiency in most industrial operations. While hours in excess of
48 per week have proved necessary in some instances due to a limited
supply of supervisory and skilled manpower, there has been some tendency
to continue longer schedules-after sufficient opportunity has been afforded
to train additional key employees.
Plants which are now employing individual workers longer than 48
hours a week should carefully analyze their present situation with respect
to output and time lost because of absenteeism, accident illness and
fatigue. They should reexamine the possibilities of training additional
workers now, in order to lessen the need for excessive overtime during
the long pull ahead. As rapidly as is feasible these plants should intro­
duce the hours-schedules that will maintain the best possible rate of
production for the duration.

Benefits of Leisure
’
The benefits to be derived from leisure are often mentioned as
one of the strongest arguments for the moderate work schedule.
Very great benefits, both to the community and to the individuai
workers themselves, result from women workers’ active efforts
toward community betterment, or participation in adult educa­
tion or in organized recreation. Unfortunately, however, present


BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

7

day legal limitations of working hours do not allow sufficient time
for constructive use of leisure, but merely provide for rest and
recovery from fatigue. No State has a legal workday shorter than
8 hours; only 3 States have legal workweeks of less than 48 hours
for manufacturing plants in peacetime, while 23 have established
workweeks in excess of 48 hours for this industrial group. When
time for transportation is added, the actual time spent by most
women in connection with their employment is considerably longer
than the scheduled legal work period. Not so closely connected
with employment as traveling time but equally incompatible with
the enjoyment of leisure is the multiplicity of inescapable house­
hold and personal duties which devolve upon practically all em­
ployed women. Routine duties like mending and laundering, which
must be taken care of even by women living alone, are multiplied
many times for women with families.
From a health standpoint, present State laws which limit work­
ing hours to 8 and 48, or less, serve the indispensable purpose of
preventing the accumulation of excessive fatigue on the job. It
is safe to say, however, that under even the best legal hour stand­
ards which State legislatures so far have enacted, the majority
of women workers can hope for little free time outside of working
hours beyond the amount actually needed for home responsibili­
ties and rest. Under present legal standards so much of the woman
worker’s day is necessarily spent in connection with her em­
ployment, that the few remaining waking hours scarcely afford
her the time necessary for a constructive program for the hours
outside of work.
Though no State hour law has as yet made adequate allowance
for leisure-time activities, it is nevertheless true that before the
war some workers in organized groups enjoyed certain of the
benefits to be derived from shorter working hours. In a few in­
dustries, the rank and file of workers not only had time for needed
recreation but sufficient leisure to avail themselves of opportuni­
ties for adult education and to participate in programs for com­
munity betterment.
As has often been remarked, law follows experience. In the
future it is not, impossible that legal hour standards sufficiently
short to provide some leisure for the majority of women workers
may eventually be adopted. There is reason to hope that once the
shorter workday has become widespread in practice, work sched­
ules that allow some leisure for women workers will find legislative
recognition and support. Establishment of legal hour standards
which would allow time not merely for recovery from fatigue but
for mental and spiritual growth would be highly beneficial to
workers themselves and to society as a whole.
HISTORY
To be adequate for its purpose, a law establishing a standard
for women’s employment must meet at least three tests: First,
the law must be enforceable. Irrespective of its other virtues, a
law so worded that it allows loopholes for evasion is of little if



8

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

any value to women workers whose health it is designed to safe­
guard. Second, the law must set standards high enough to be
of real benefit. It must constitute a realistic approach to presentday industrial conditions and meet the problem of fatigue in a
practical manner. Finally, the law to be adequate must have wide
coverage. If it is to be of maximum benefit it must apply to women
in all or nearly all occupations.
The history of State labor legislation for women shows con­
tinuing effort to meet these three objectives. The struggle to
obtain laws with “teeth” was won first. The earlier laws were
not enforceable, but in most cases this objection was overcome.
Today many laws still contain vestiges of the exception provisions
and other clauses that weaken their force, but the main provisions
generally are enforceable. The struggle for higher standards,
while not by any means completed, also has made considerable
progress over the years. The length of the workday and work­
week has been gradually decreased, the 6-day week has been
adopted in many States, and various other employment practices
to preserve the health and well-being of women workers have
found increasing recognition in State law. Probably the least
gains have been made in the direction of universal coverage.
Though the scope of many laws has been broadened to include
the more important woman-employing industries, few laws extend
coverage to women workers as such, irrespective of the occupation
in which they may be engaged. Considerable improvement in both
standards and coverage would increase the efficacy of many laws
regulating the hours and working conditions of women.
For many reasons, legal standards for the employment of women
are slow to change. Various factors, such as the cross-currents of
economic interests, employer opposition due to fear of competition
from other States, or the mere lack of sufficient public interest,
militate against revision of existing statutes and impede the prog­
ress of such laws. This is especially true where the statute it­
self sets the only standard provided for, and where legislative
action is necessary to make even a minor change. It is somewhat
less likely to be the case where the power to set standards is
delegated by the legislature to a State administrative agency such
as the State labor department. The record shows that most of the
State labor commissioners authorized to do so have issued a
succession of orders gradually raising standards over a period of
years. However, administrative action, surrounded as it is by
legal safeguards such as the public hearing, is also necessarily a
lengthy process. An appraisal of the background and history of
labor legislation for women demonstrates that improvement in
standards cannot be attained summarily but must be the object
of persevering effort.
One of the most noteworthy facts in the development of labor
legislation for women is the extent to which women, especially
women workers, have participated and been influential in obtain­
ing laws to improve their hours and conditions of work. Long
before the enactment of the earlier laws women workers felt an



BACKGROUND OP LEGISLATION

9

acute need for legal safeguards. Establishment of standards by
law was usually the result of many years of directed effort by
groups of women workers and by labor as a whole.
The present section on the history and constitutionality of
labor laws for women will trace briefly the chronological develop­
ment of each of the principal types of hour laws and of home­
work laws and other special health laws, and will then describe
the leading court decisions which have played an important part
in the progress of such legislation.
Hour Laws
Maximum-Hour Laws.—As early as the 1830’s, groups of
workers began to press for legislation to reduce their excessively
long hours of work. Women’s employment at that time was largely
concentrated in the textile mills, where they were obliged to work
as much as 12 or 13 hours a day and often averaged as high as
78 hours a week. In 1845, a group of women textile workers in
Massachusetts joined together to improve their condition, forming
at Lowell the New England Female Labor Reform Association.
Similar organizations developed in other cities in the New Eng­
land States and in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The chief objec­
tive of these organized women was the establishment of the 10hour day by law. In this they were aided by the various working­
men’s associations, which tried to obtain the same benefits for
labor as a whole.
Efforts to obtain 10-hour laws succeeded in several of the East­
ern industrial States. The first 10-hour law was enacted by New
Hampshire in 1847, followed within a few years by passage of 10hour laws in Pennsylvania (1848), Maine (1848), New Jersey
(1851), and Rhode Island (1853). These laws, which applied to men
as well as women, were of an essentially different character from
present-day maximum-hour legislation for women. Instead of
prohibiting employment beyond a specified number of hours, they
merely established a standard for a day’s work and permitted
workers to contract for additional hours. The employer could be
penalized only if the worker was “compelled” to work excess hours.
Since workers could easily be found who were willing to make
such contracts, these early laws had little or no effect in reducing
working hours.
Though the movement to reduce working hours through legisla­
tion originated in the Eastern industrial States, the first hour
legislation applicable to women as a special group was enacted
by Central and North Central States. The first such law was one
establishing a 10-hour day for women enacted by Ohio in 1852.
The Minnesota law enacted in 1858 was second. A 10-hour law for
women enacted by the Territory of Dakota in 1863 remained in
effect when the Territory was divided and organized as two
separate States. All of these laws were defective because no
penalty was provided except where the employer “willfully”
employed or “compelled” women to work longer than 10 hours.
With amendment in 1879 of the Massachusetts 10-hour law en­



10

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

acted in 1874, maximum-hour legislation for women was estab­
lished on an enforceable basis.
Meanwhile a movement was spreading to reduce the workday
to 8 hours. Eight-hour leagues were formed in numerous States,
resulting in establishment of the organized labor movement as it
is known today. Passage of a Federal law in 1868 setting an 8hour day for laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by or
on behalf of the Government stimulated the 8-hour movement.
The first State 8-hour law for women was enacted by Wisconsin
in 1867. Like the 10-hour laws of that period it was unenforceable
because the penalty was applicable only where women were re­
quired to work excess hours. The first enforceable 8-hour law for
women was enacted by Illinois in 1893, but it was soon rendered
inoperative by court decision. The California and Washington laws,
enacted in 1911, were the first enforceable 8-hour laws for women
to have practical effect. Today over a third of the States have an 8hour law. Though no State has a maximum of less than 8 hours,
3 States—Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—have a weekly hour
standard of less than 48.
At the time of passage of the earlier laws, manufacturing was
practically the only industry in which large numbers of women
were employed outside their homes. Most of the earlier laws
applied to manufacturing and mechanical establishments only.
With the entrance of women into retail trade, coverage was in­
creased to include “mercantile establishments,” as in the Massa­
chusetts law of 1883. Similarly, in other States where regulation
of women’s hours of employment developed gradually through a
series of laws, extension of coverage quite naturally took the form
of an enumeration of the more usual woman-employing occupa­
tions. In 1905 Pennsylvania discarded the original method of list­
ing or enumerating the occupations covered, and passed a law
applicable generally to “any occupation.” At the present time, hour
laws that do not enumerate occupations or industries covered but
instead provide universal coverage with specified exemptions are
found in a small group of States: Arizona, Nevada, North Caro­
lina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah.
Since most of the hour laws which currently apply to any oc­
cupation also carry numerous specific exceptions, they do not in
fact effect universal coverage. Agriculture and domestic employ­
ment are commonly excluded and exceptions are made for various
types of food processing. However, despite the multitude of
weakening exceptions in many of the present laws, the advantages
of the “any occupation” method of coverage are obvious. Laws
which are thus generally applicable to women workers as such
are adjustable to changing conditions. When new industries are
developed or women in increasing numbers enter industries former­
ly virtually closed to them, such laws are automatically applicable.
Furthermore, they give protection to the thousands of women in
relatively small and inconspicuous occupations which are not
important enough to include in a law of enumerated coverage.
After the war, new industries may well develop for women,
as did the beauty culture industry in the 1920’s. Coverage is one



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

11

phase of women’s hour legislation in which existing laws show
urgent need of improvement.
Day-of-Rest Laws.—Day-of-rest laws are not only one of the
most recent developments in labor legislation for women, but also
one of the most important. The first day-of-rest law to be adopted
in any State was enacted by California in 1893. It was not until
1909 that the second such law was enacted, by Massachusetts.
Thereafter, other States passed day-of-rest laws at a fairly steady
• rate. In addition, some States provided for a 6-day week in con­
nection with laws limiting maximum hours of employment. As a
result, legislation of this type was in effect in almost half the
States at the beginning of the present war.
The so-called “Sunday laws,” which all but a few States enacted
during the nineteenth century, are often mentioned as the fore­
runner of day-of-rest legislation. Actually, however, the Sunday
laws were entirely different from day-of-rest laws in purpose and
content. They were intended primarily as religious precepts rather
than as employment regulations. Though they differed in details,
all of them provided that no person should himself perform un­
necessary work bn Sunday. Some of them also specifically prohib­
ited the employment of others but such a requirement was in­
cidental to their main purpose of enforcing observance of the
Sabbath. The North Dakota law as given in the Revised Codes of
1895 sums up in its last paragraph the essential purpose of such
laws: “Every person guilty of Sabbath breaking is punishable by
a fine***.”
The early day-of-rest laws, like the Sunday laws, applied to
workers generally. However, instead of restricting the conduct of
an individual, they were directed against the employer. They
provided not that an individual could not work on a particular
day, but that any person who employed another must give him
at least one day a week as opportunity for rest and relaxation. In
doing so, these laws recognize that Sunday could not be a uni­
versal day off because it is necessary that some workers who
perform essential public services be employed on that day. The
earliest day-of-rest law—the California law of 1893—did not
mention Sunday, but provided merely that “it shall be unlawful
for any employer of labor to cause his employees *** to work more
than six days in seven.” The Massachusetts law of 1909, however,
referred to “the Lord’s Day” as the preferable day of rest but
provided that an alternative day off might be allowed “during the
six days next ensuing.” The Connecticut law of 1911 contained a
requirement essentially like that of Massachusetts, i.e., “one full
regular working day during the six days next ensuing.” Judged
by present standards, the New York law of 1913 was the most
adequate of the earlier laws. It provided for “at least 24 con­
secutive hours of rest in every seven consecutive days,” and re­
quired the employer to post in a conspicuous place on the premises
a schedule containing a list of names of persons required to work
on Sunday and designating the day of rest for each.
The posting provision in the New York law is indicative of the
progress or improvement in day-of-rest laws from the standpoint
685435—46—2




12

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

of enforceability. The first such law, that of California, 1893, was
made almost meaningless by the proviso that “the provisions of
this section shall not apply to any case of emergency.” The Massa­
chusetts law of 1909 was prefaced by the statement “except in
cases of emergency or except at the request of the employee,
it shall not be lawful***.” The Connecticut law of 1911, which is
still in effect, contains the prefatory clause, “Except in cases of
emergency***.” The New York law of 1913 was the first day-ofrest law to be fully adequate from an enforcement standpoint. #
Though this New York law also contains an exception provision,
employment on the 7th day of a series is safeguarded by the
requirement that a copy of any change in schedule also must be
posted and filed with the State commissioner of labor. As will be
seen in a later chapter, a majority of day-of-rest laws make no
provision for 7-day employment under peacetime conditions. Most
of the laws that do make such provision are safeguarded by a
requirement that the employer must first obtain permission from
the administrative agency.
From the standpoint of coverage, also, day-of-rest laws have
made considerable progress. In the earlier laws it was superfluous
to list certain exempted occupations as the broad emergency clause
meant that employers in any or all occupations could exempt
themselves from the law at will. Except for this serious limitation,
the California law of 1893 would have been universally applicable
as it did not list either excluded or included occupations. The
Massachusetts law of 1909 expressly excluded certain types of
work none of which was an important woman-employing occupa­
tion. The Connecticut law of 1911, in addition to exempting specific
occupations, made practically a blanket exemption by excluding
also “such commercial occupations or industrial processes as by
their nature are required to be continuous.” Since the New York
law of 1913 covering factory and mercantile establishments al­
lowed no apparent loopholes, the exemption of specific occupations
was of real significance. It is therefore notable that none of the
few occupations exempted was an important field of activity for
women. Since the New York day-of-rest law like many of the
others covers men as well as women, the effect of the exemptions
seems to have been to make the law more workable with respect
to men employees without substantially decreasing its value to
women workers.
Unfortunately from the standpoint of coverage, most day-ofrest laws now in effect, like most maximum-hour laws, enumerate
the occupations covered instead of applying broadly to women
employed in any occupation. Moreover, the few laws that have
general coverage are weakened by numerous exemptions.
Night-Work Laws.—The first night-work law was enacted by
Massachusetts in 1890 and was applicable to women employed
in manufacturing establishments. The law was the result of con­
tinuing protest by organized textile workers against employment
during the evening hours in excess of the scheduled workday. As
was stated in a preceding section, Massachusetts did not have an
enforceable maximum-hour law until 1879. The agitation for a



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

13

night-work law originated under the earlier maximum-hour law
which provided in effect that an employee might “agree” to work
overtime. However, the first night-work law did not stop the
practice of evening employment beyond the usual 6 o’clock clos­
ing hour, because the period in which work was prohibited did
not begin until 10 p.m. Under the maximum-hour law, employers
operating their plants day and evening could not employ their
own workers overtime, but the first night-work law did not prevent
them from hiring for the evening shift workers who had already
been employed a full workday in another establishment. In 1907,
overtime employment of women in textile mills was eliminated in
Massachusetts by a law prohibiting such employment after 6 p.m.
New Jersey in 1892 fixed the hour periods when women might
be employed in factories, workshops, or manufacturing establish­
ments other than canneries and glass factories at from 7 a.m. to
noon and from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. on every working day but Saturday,
when only the morning hours were allowed. This act, however, was
repealed in 1904 and no further legislation was enacted until 1928.
The first New York night-work law applicable to adult women
was enacted in 1899. It prohibited employment in factories be­
tween 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. This law was declared unconstitutional in
1907, and thereafter New York did not prohibit night work for
adult women until 1913, when laws were enacted covering both
manufacturing and mercantile establishments. Gradually other
laws were passed prohibiting night work in such industries or
occupations as restaurants, street railways, and messengers.
Nebraska and Indiana also passed night-work laws in 1899
prohibiting the employment of women from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The
Nebraska statute had broad coverage applying to manufacturing,
mechanical, and mercantile establishments and hotels and restau­
rants. Indiana’s law applied to manufacturing plants only. Missouri
prohibited night work in its hour law of 1909 but failed to include
any such provision in the reenactment of the law in 1911 and has
no such provision now. Other States which pioneered in laws pro­
hibiting the employment of women at night were South Carolina
in 1911 and Pennsylvania in 1913. The South Carolina law applied
to mercantile establishments and the Pennsylvania law to adult
women in manufacturing; in the former the prohibited hours
were after 10 p.m. and in the latter, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
Meanwhile several States had adopted another type of law which
regulated, but did not prohibit, night work for women. The first
such law, enacted in Connecticut in 1909, provided that no woman
working in mercantile establishments should be employed after
10 p.m. except that an employer with two or more shifts could
employ a woman at night for not over 10 hours in any 24. In
1911 Wisconsin enacted a law which provided that work done be­
tween 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. on more than one night a week must not
exceed 8 hours a night or 48 hours a week. The law applied to
manufacturing and mercantile establishments, laundries, restau­
rants, and a few other enumerated industries. In 1917, the Indus­
trial Commission of Wisconsin through the authority granted to
it by a 1913 statute, issued an order establishing an absolute



14

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

prohibition of women’s employment in manufactories and laundries
between 6 p.m. and 6. a.m. Two other States adopted the regulatory
type of law, namely, Maryland and New Hampshire.
Though approximately one-third of the States at the beginning
of the war regulated night work for women by law, no law had
universal coverage and a few covered only one of the less usual
occupations. Most of the night-work laws applied to manufactur­
ing and mercantile establishments and some covered various other
enumerated occupations. The hours between which employment
most often was prohibited were 10 p. m. to 6 a. m.
Meal-Period, Laws.—The early hour laws did not expressly
provide for a meal period. Due to this lack, employers were able
to squeeze additional man-hours out of a fixed over-all day by
encroaching in various ways on the worker’s meal period. Many
abuses became common, such as having workers eat at their
machines or requiring one group of workers to tend two sets of
machines while another group was at lunch. Requiring a specified
period for meals facilitated enforcement of the maximum-hour
laws because it prevented employers from requiring work in excess
of the legal maximum hours within a longer scheduled over-all
period.
The first meal period requirement was adopted by Michigan in
1885. Applicable to manufacturing establishments, it required at
least one hour a day “in the labor period” for dinner.
Massachusetts, amending its posting law in 1886 required that
the time of starting and stopping work and the time allowed for
dinner should be posted. It did not, however, specify any definite
length of time for a meal period nor was the granting of a meal
period expressly required. The next year, 1887, a meal-period law
more like modern meal-period regulations was enacted. This law
required at least one-half hour for lunch and specified the maxi­
mum period of work that might precede a meal period, with certain
exceptions if the over-all day’s work was within a specified total
number of hours and ended at a specified time in the early after­
noon. The law was also aimed at other abuses of the period, in
that no worker was permitted to operate the machine of another
in addition to her own during the other worker’s lunch period.
That the law was designed primarily to prevent employer abuses
of this kind is indicated by the fact that it was applicable only
to factories and workshops where 5 or more women, young per­
sons, or children were employed.
Louisiana in its hour law of 1886 provided that women em­
ployed in factories, warehouses, workshops, and clothing estab­
lishments should be allowed one hour for dinner. Another law,
enacted by this State in 1900, specified the hours within which
retail-trade businesses employing women must allow a meal period.
This law required that every employee be given at least 30 min­
utes for lunch or recreation each day between 10 a. m. and 3 p. m.
A one-hour meal period was an apparently incidental require­
ment of the first New Jersey maximum-hour law for women,
enacted in 1892. In addition to a provision that 55 hours should
constitute a week’s work in manufacturing establishments, the



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

15

law specified that the periods of employment should run from 7
o’clock in the morning to 12 noon and from 1 to 6 o’clock in the
afternoon of every workday except Saturday, when the working
hours should be from 7 a. m. to 12 noon.
The Indiana factory law of 1899 contained a provision applicable
to employees of both sexes. This law, which is still operative in
peacetime, provides for a noonday meal period of not less than 60
minutes, but authorizes the chief inspector to issue written per­
mits in special cases allowing a shorter mealtime at noon. The
requirements of this law are an interesting commentary on the
customs commonly in effect at the date of its origin—namely a
meal period of an hour or longer which would enable the worker
to go home for lunch and the implied assumption that all workers
would necessarily be employed on a day shift.
_
A meal-period law enacted by Minnesota in 1909 recognized
the possibility of evening employment in factories, stores, or mills
but regarded such employment as overtime rather than as work
within regularly scheduled hours. The law required at least one
hour for the noonday meal, and it provided that employees re­
quired to work more than 1 hour after 6 p. m. should be allowed
at least 20 minutes for lunch “before beginning to work overtime.”
Provision for meals in the event of overtime employment was
found also in a few other laws of this period.
Most present-day meal-period requirements contain provisions
similar to those in the early meal-period laws of Massachusetts
and Indiana. With only a few exceptions, all of them specify a
minimum rather than a fixed neriod of time for meals. The em­
ployer must allow at least the time specified but he may allow
more. The maximum period that may elapse between the begin­
ning of the work shift and the lunch period is usually stated, thus
insuring that from a health standpoint the meal period will not
be too long delayed.
Some of the meal-period laws refer to the meal-period break
as being for the purpose of “meals or rest,” using the two terms
synonymously. Rest periods, as distinct from meal periods, also
are provided for in a few States—California, Colorado, Oregon,
and Utah. Colorado, Oregon, and Utah provide for a rest period
of 10 minutes in addition to a meal period. California requires a
10-minute rest period after 2 or 2i/2 hours if nature of work
requires continuous standing. In each of these States, the rest
period must be given some time during each 4 hours of work.
Unfortunately, State rest-period regulations, besides being few in
number, are usually limited in application to one or a few indus­
tries of which retail trade is the most common. Despite the fact
that a 10- or 15-minute rest period midway in each 4-hour shift
is a common industrial practice, only two States at the beginning
of the war had a midshift rest-period requirement for women
employed in general manufacturing. From a health standpoint,
present labor legislation for women could be greatly strengthened
by the requirement of 15 minutes’ rest in each 4-hour work period.



16

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Other Special Health Legislation
Due to the impracticality of tracing the history of all types of
other special health laws applicable to‘women workers, one type in
each minor group has been singled out for consideration.
Plant Facilities Laws.—Laws in this group relate primarily to
seats, lunch rooms, dressing rooms and rest rooms, and toilet
rooms. The most numerous are the seating laws, which are one of
the earliest types of labor legislation for women. The first law
requiring seats to be provided was enacted by New York in 1881.
It was quickly followed by other States, so that 27 States had
such laws by 1900. Other States adopted similar laws soon after
the turn of the century, and in the interval between that period
and the beginning of World War II every State except Mississippi
had legislation of this type. At the time this bulletin was written,
however, the Illinois seating law was no longer in effect.
From an enforcement standpoint, many of the seating laws are
very unsatisfactory, due to the absence of definitive standards.
Ihey often provide merely for “adequate seats” or “an adequate
number of seats” without specifying what is adequate. Neverthe­
less, such laws by their mere existence have helped call attention
of employers to the practical benefits to be derived from reducing
employee-fatigue through proper seating arrangements. Indus­
trial practice is supplying scientific details that were not known
at the time the laws were enacted.
Regulatory Laws.—The most usual type of regulatory law for
women is that which prohibits the employer from permitting a
woman to lift a weight beyond a specified amount, on the ground
that to do so would endanger her health. Most such restrictions
are imposed by commission order rather than by statute. Five
States adopted such orders prior to the First World War. The
earliest related to work in core rooms. Massachusetts in 1912
issued an order prohibiting women employed in core rooms from
lifting weights over 40 pounds. This was followed by a law in
1913 prohibiting the moving of boxes or receptacles of specified
size by women employed in manufacturing and mechanical estab­
lishments, unless such receptacles are equipped with pulleys or
mechanical devices to assist in moving them with a minimum of
effort. An amendment of the statute in 1914 struck out the dimen­
sions and made the law applicable to boxes or receptacles weighing
75 pounds or more.
A 1915 order in Pennsylvania and a 1916 order in Ohio restricted
to 15 pounds the weights that women were permitted to lift in
core rooms. A similar order issued by New York in 1915 set 25
pounds as the maximum weight for women making or handling
cores. California issued an order in 1916 that prohibited employers
in the fruit-and-vegetable-canning industry to require or permit
women to carry boxes, receptacles, or any heavy burden. In 1919
an order applicable to factories in general prohibited the lifting
or carrying of excessive burdens by women. A law adopted by
Ohio in 1919 prohibits the employment of women in any work
requiring the frequent or repeated lifting of weights over 25



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

17

pounds. Though other States have since regulated weight lifting
by women, no State has a stricter regulation than this Ohio statute
enacted 25 years ago. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor
rescinded its weight-lifting order within the past two years and
in its place adopted a policy of advising employers concerning
proper methods and standards for weight-lifting.
Prohibited Occupations.—The occupation most commonly pro­
hibited for women is that of mining. Employment in taverns and
saloons also frequently is prohibited. The earliest law prohibiting
employment of women in mines was enacted by Illinois in 1872.
In the next few years laws were adopted by half a dozen other
States, including Missouri, 1881; Pennsylvania and Colorado, 1885;
West Virginia, 1887; Wyoming, 1890; Washington, 1891. At the
present time, practically all the mining States, as well as a number
of States in which mining is a less important industry, have laws
of this type.
Industrial Home Work
The New York home-work law of 1884 was both the first State
legislation relating to home work and the strictest regulation of
that field until comparatively recent years. This New York law
prohibited the manufacture of cigars and other tobacco products
in tenement houses in cities of the first class. Due to the fact that
this law was almost immediately declared to be unconstitutional,
succeeding laws attempted to control home work through regula­
tion of the sanitary conditions under which it was performed.
The method adopted in a number of States was to license either
the home workers or the employer.
A provision in the New York factory law of 1886, as amended
through 1893, prohibited the manufacturing of certain articles of
clothing and cigars and cigarettes in a tenement or dwelling house
by persons other than the immediate members of the family living
therein. The law required the employer, before employing persohs
for home work on other articles, to obtain a written permit from
the factory inspector. The permit, which could be issued only
after inspection of the premises, had to be posted in a room in
which the manufacturing was carried on and had to show the
maximum number of persons allowed to be employed on the
premises. The employer was required to keep a written record of
the names and addresses of all home workers. The law directed the
factory inspector to affix a label to any goods he found that had
been manufactured without a permit, and also to label any article
made on premises that were unclean or insanitary in which case
the label could be removed only by the board of health.
The New Jersey law of 1893 and the Pennsylvania law of 1895
contained similar provisions in regard to permits, posting, and
inspection of the premises by the State inspector. The Massachu­
setts law of 1891 (amended in 1894) provided that any dwelling
place in which specified articles of wearing apparel intended for
sale were manufactured or processed by persons other than the
family was a “workshop” and that a person occupying or having
control must notify the inspector within 14 days from the time



18

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

home work was begun there. Members of the family doing such
work in their own home were each required to procure a license.
The law required that workrooms be kept in a sanitary condition,
and it authorized the inspector to examine the premises and
required him to attach a label to garments manufactured in a
tenement used as a workshop.
Several other States in which home work was a growing problem
passed laws making it illegal to manufacture wearing apparel
under conditions detrimental to the public health. The Maryland
law enacted in the last decade of the 19th century is evidence that
home work was recognized as an evil though the Act itself made
no attempt to control it through a licensing system.
The disadvantages of the licensing method of controlling home
work are obvious. Much home work was carried on without a
license. State labor departments could not maintain sufficient
staffs to inspect even all places which were licensed. The social and
economic evils incident to home work flourished, including employ­
ment of small children, long hours, low wages, insanitary work­
rooms, and other depressed conditions. Industrial home work was
formerly called “the sweating system,” a term which suggests the
conditions that home work engendered.
In 1913 New York made a second attempt at the prohibitory
type of regulation. The law prohibited certain types of commercial
manufacturing in homes, including food products, dolls or dolls’
clothing, and children’s and infants’ wearing apparel, on the
grounds that use of goods so manufactured was dangerous to the
public health.
Interest in prohibition of home work was stimulated during the
1930’s, first, by the regulation of home work under some of the
NRA Codes, and later, through the drafting in 1936 of a “model
bill” by a committee of State labor-law administrators in coopera­
tion with the U. S. Department of Labor. Laws containing pro­
visions substantially similar to those in the model bill were
adopted by a number of large industrial States, including Massa­
chusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Laws in
these States completely prohibit home work on certain commodi­
ties and empower the State labor commissioner to prohibit it in
any industry upon finding that certain conditions exist. Chief
among the conditions set forth as justifying outright prohibition
of home work by the commissioner are potential injury to the
home worker’s health and jeopardizing of factory standards.
Though health had long been a basis for regulation of home work,
these States are the first to give formal recognition to the social
importance of maintaining desirable working-conditions standards
in the factory by prevention of undercutting through cheaper
manufacture made possible through exploitation of home workers.
These laws also seek to reduce and gradually eliminate home work
by requiring the employer, as a condition precedent to sending
work into homes, to obtain a permit for which he must pay a
substantial fee. The amount of the fee is fixed by law and is grad­
uated according to the number of home workers employed. The
home worker is required to obtain an annual certificate, which is



BACKGROUND OP LEGISLATION

19

free. Both the employer’s permit and the home worker’s certificate
are subject to revocation for violation of the conditions under
which each is issued, one of which is that the daily hours may not
exceed maximum legal factory hours in the State.
Orders prohibiting home work in specific industries have been
issued under authority of the home-work laws in California, New
York, and Pennsylvania. In addition, two States—Oregon and
Rhode Island—have prohibited home work in connection with
State minimum-wage orders. The principle on which the latter
home-work prohibitions are based is that there is no way to insure
that legal rates will be paid to home workers, hence prohibition of
home work is essential to safeguard established minimum-wage
rates.
Laws Prohibiting Employment Before and After Childbirth
Only 6 States have laws concerning the employment of women
immediately before or after childbirth—Connecticut, Massachu­
setts, Missouri, New York, Vermont, and Washington. These laws
were adopted before, or at about the time of, the First World War.
The first childbirth employment law was adopted by Massa­
chusetts in 1911. It forbids an employer “knowingly” to employ
a woman for 2 weeks before or 4 weeks after childbirth. The New
York law enacted in 1912 prohibited employment for 4 weeks after,
but did not mention employment immediately before, childbirth.
The Vermont law of 1912 specified 2 weeks before and 4 weeks af­
ter ; the Connecticut law of 1913, 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after;
the Missouri law of 1919, 3 weeks before and 3 weeks after. In all
of these laws, and in the Washington order of 1921 which fixed 4
months before and 6 weeks after, the prohibition was directed
against “knowingly” employing women during the prohibited
periods, thus allowing a loophole for evasion. In most of these
laws coverage was limited either to specified industrial establish­
ments or to factories and mercantile establishments only.
In Washington, the first regulation pertaining to the employ­
ment of women immediately before and after childbirth was con­
tained in a war order issued late in 1918. It forbade employment
for 2 months before and 6 weeks after childbirth and covered all
occupations. An order issued in 1921 for one industry provided
that a woman might not be knowingly employed for the 4 months
before and the 6 weeks after birth of a child, but an order issued
in 1922 and applying to manufacturing and mercantile omitted
the word “knowingly” and thus increased enforceability.
However, none of the present maternity laws is entirely satis­
factory from either a health or an economic standpoint. Presentday medical science recommends that women should not be em­
ployed for 6 weeks before and 2 months after childbirth. With
respect to the period preceding the 6 weeks before childbirth, the
present view is that a woman’s health may be safeguarded by
transferring her to lighter work, thus enabling her to earn a
living as long as possible. Moreover, considerable sentiment exists
that the law should not merely prohibit her employment for 2
months after childbirth but should also provide the right of sub­



20

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

sequent reemployment. None of the present State laws contains a
reemployment provision.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
The constitutionality of hour laws for women has been chal­
lenged on the grounds that they violate liberty of contract, are
class legislation, and are not a valid exercise of the police power.
Up to the first decade of the 20th century, decisions as to consti­
tutionality in both State and Federal Courts were conflicting.
Happily, however, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908
adopted a realistic position as to the social importance of employ­
ment regulations to safeguard the health of women workers. The
result is that for over a third of a century the constitutionality
of hour legislation for women has been upheld.
Early State court decisions on the validity of hour laws do not
follow any one line. The constitutionality of the Massachusetts
10-hour law was upheld by the State Supreme Court as early as
1876 (Commonwealth v. Hamilton Manufacturing Company 120
Mass. 383). However, the usual reaction of State courts to women’s
hour legislation is perhaps better typified by the decision of the
Illinois Court in 1895 invalidating the first 8-hour law for women
(.Ritchie v. People, 155 111. 98).
Early decisions of the United States Supreme Court with respect
to the constitutionality of hour laws also are conflicting. Two
important cases involving the application of maximum-hour laws
to specific trades or occupations reached the Supreme Court of
the United States before the constitutionality of hour legislation
for women came before it. In the earlier case, Holden v. Hardy
169 U. S. 366 (1898), the Court upheld the Utah 8-hour law for
workers in underground mines and smelters. The opinion in this
case—the first in which the U. S. Supreme Court adopted a liberal
position concerning legal hours regulation—is notable for several
reasons. Of primary importance is the fact that the Court recog­
nized that protection of the health of workers is as much a valid
exercise of the State police power as the protection of life itself.
Equally important is the fact that the Court not only recognized
that inequality of bargaining positions exists between employers
and workers, but expressly stated that this constituted a legiti­
mate basis for State interference to protect the worker. Also sig­
nificant, from the standpoint of future legislation, is the Court’s
statement that law is a progressive science and that other laws
designed to obtain justice between individuals might be expected
m the future. Following are a few of the more noteworthv state­
ments from the opinion:
But if it be within the power of a legislature to adopt such means for
the protection of the lives of its citizens, it is difficult to see why pre­
cautions may not also be adopted for the protection of their health and
morals. It is as much for the interest of the State that the public health
should be preserved as that life should be made secure.
These employments, when too long pursued, the legislature has judged
to be detrimental to the health of the employees, and, so long as there
are reasonable grounds for believing that this is so, its decision upon this
subject cannot be reviewed by the Federal courts



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

21

... the proprietors of these establishments and their operatives do not
stand upon an equality, and their interests are, to a certain extent, con­
flicting. The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible
from their employees, while the latter are often induced by the fear of
discharge, to conform to regulations which their judgment, fairly exer­
cised, would pronounce to be detrimental to their health or strength. In
other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers are
practically constrained to obey them. In such cases, self-interest is often
an unsafe guide, and the legislature may properly interpose its authority.
... But the fact that both parties are of full age and competent to
contract does not deprive the State of the power to interfere where the
parties do not stand upon an equality, or where the public health demands
that one party to the contract shall be protected against himself.
... in passing upon the validity of State legislation under that amend­
ment [the 14th], this Court has not failed to recognize the fact that the
law is, to a certain extent, a progressive science; that in some of the
States methods of procedure, which at the time the Constitution was
adopted were deemed essential to the protection and safety of the people,
or to the liberty of the citizen, have been found to be no longer neces­
sary; that restrictions which had formerly been laid upon the conduct
of individuals, or of classes of individuals, had proved detrimental to
their interests; while, upon the other hand, certain other classes of
persons, particularly those engaged in dangerous or unhealthful employ­
ments, have been found to be in need of additional protection.
They are mentioned only for the purpose of calling attention to the
probability that other changes of no less importance may be made in
the future, and that while the cardinal principles of justice are immut­
able, the methods by which justice is administered are subject to constant
fluctuation.

Though the Hardy case itself applied only to the occupation of
mining, the language of the Court served as an impetus to the
passage of maximum-hour legislation in other fields. As a result,
the second important case to reach the United States Supreme •
Court was one involving the constitutionality of the New York
law limiting the employment of bakers to 10 hours a day and 60
hours a week, Lochner V. New York, 198 U. S. 4-5 (1905). The
unfavorable decision in this case was a serious set-back to the
progress of maximum-hour legislation. As in the Hardy case, the
law involved was not limited to women nor did it even relate to
an important woman-employing occupation. Nevertheless, since
the constitutionality of hour legislation for women had not yet
been specifically tested, the language of the Court appeared to be
unfavorable to the constitutionality of maximum-hour legislation
as such. The Court held that the New York law in question vio­
lated liberty of contract and was not a proper exercise of the police
power, stating as follows:
We think the limit of the police power has been reached and passed
in this case. There is, in our judgment, no reasonable foundation for
holding this to be necessary or appropriate as a health law to safeguard
the public health or the health of the individuals who are following the
trade of a baker. If this statute is valid... there would be no length to
which legislation of this nature might not go.

In view of the previous conflicting decisions and particularly the
unfavorable outcome in the Lochner case only 3 years earlier, the
fact that the first case involving the constitutionality of an hour
law for women met with a favorable decision from the Court was
regarded as highly significant. In Muller V. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412



22

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

(1908), the Court upheld the Oregon 10-hour law covering women
employed in mechanical establishments, factories, and laundries.
The Court observed that not only were legislative safeguards for
women proper because women were in a weaker bargaining posi­
tion than men, but also that because of women’s child-bearing
function, the health of women is an object of public interest to
preserve the Vigor of the race.
With reference to the social importance of laws safeguarding
women’s health, the Court made the following statement:
That woman’s physical structure ... place her at a disadvantage in
the struggle for subsistence is obvious ... by abundant testimony of the
medical fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work,
repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body,
and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical
wellbeing of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in
order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race... The limitations
which this statute places upon her contractual powers, upon her right
to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labor, are not im­
posed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all.

With the constitutionality of maximum-hour legislation for
women thus established as valid under the police power, the ques­
tion to arise next was whether a limitation of working hours to 8
a day was a reasonable exercise of that power. The constitution­
ality of the California 8-hour law for women was at issue in the
case of Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373 (1915), the Court upholding
the constitutionality of the California law. The Court there held
that liberty of contract as guaranteed by the Constitution was not
violated by the California 8-hour law because the Constitutional
guaranty is applicable only to arbitrary restrictions, not to legis5 lation reasonably designed to safeguard the public interest. The
Court, referring specifically to the limitation of hours to 8 a day,
made the following statement:
It is manifestly impossible to say that the mere fact that the statute
of California provides for an 8-hour day, or a maximum of 48 hours a
week, instead of 10 hours or 54 hours a week, takes the case out of the
domain of legislative discretion. This is not to imply that a limitation of
the hours of labor of women might not be pushed to a wholly indefensible
extreme, but there is no ground for the conclusion here that the limit
of the reasonable exertion of protective authority has been overstepped.

In Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U. S. 671 (1914) the Court upheld
a Massachusetts 10-hour law which contained a provision requiring
employers to post notices stating the number of hours to be worked
and the hours of starting and stopping. The Court stated that
“* * * the purpose of the posting of the hours of labor is to secure
certainty in the observance of the law and to prevent the defeat or
circumvention of its purpose by artful practices.” The Court held
that this was not an unreasonable requirement and that the State
could provide “administrative means against evasion” of the maxi­
mum-hour law.
Later, in Bosley v. McLaughlin. 236 U. S. 385 (1915), the Court
upheld the amended California 8-hour law for women, which cov­
ered lodging houses, apartment houses, hospitals, and places of
amusement, in addition to the more commercial occupations such
as manufacturing, mechanical, and mercantile establishments,



BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

23

laundries, etc. In Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U. S. 426 (1917), the
Court upheld a 10-hour-day law applicable to both men and women.
The law contained a provision allowing 3 hours’ overtime a day
provided that it was paid for at time and a half. The Court also
upheld an Arizona statute which provided not only that the work­
day must not exceed 8 hours but that it must fall within an over-all
period of 12 hours, Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U. S. 265
(1919). In Radice V. New York, 264 U. S. 292 (1924), the Court
upheld the constitutionality of the New York night-work law
which prohibits the employment of women in restaurants between
10 p.m. and 6 a.m.




CHAPTER II.—EFFECT OF THE WAR ON HOUR
LAWS FOR WOMEN
GENERAL STATEMENT
At the time the United States entered the Second World War,
44 States 1 and the District of Columbia had laws regulating the
hours of employment of women. The most common type of regula­
tion was the statutes and orders establishing maximum daily or
weekly hours by prohibiting the employment of women beyond a
certain number of hours per day or per week. In December 1941,
such laws were in effect in the District of Columbia and in all but
one 13 the 44 States that had women's hour legislation.
2 of
Twenty-two States 8 and the District of Columbia had laws
which provided penalties for employing women more than 6 days
a week; 17 States 4 regulated the employment of adult women at
night, all but 2 of them—Maryland and New Hampshire—abso­
lutely prohibiting such employment in one or more occupations; 25
States 5 * * the District of Columbia required that women be
and
given meal or rest periods of specified length during their work­
day.
What was the effect of the war on this great body of beneficial
social legislation built up by great effort over a period of many
years ? At first glance, it may appear that laws regulating women's
hours of employment would necessarily be jeopardized, or even
sacrificed entirely, in the change from a peacetime to a wartime
economy. The paramount national interest during a war period is
to bring the war to an early and successful conclusion. To accomp­
lish this purpose women admittedly are the chief source of avail­
able labor reserve. Notwithstanding the fact that the number of
female workers in this country rose from nearly 13 million at the
outset of the war to the unprecedented total of 17% million in De­
cember 1944, after 3 years of ware, the United States Employment
Service reported a continuing demand in many parts of the coun­
try for yet additional women workers.
The question at the beginning of the war was whether it would
be possible to use available workers at maximum capacity neces­
sary for the war program and at the same time preserve the social
legislation designed to safeguard the health of women workers
through regulation of their hours of employment. That both pur­
poses have been accomplished during 3 years of war is due largely
to a wise and efficient administration of State hour laws made
possible by the laws themselves. Obviously even in wartime, some
regulation of working hours is desirable. All-out production can be
1 All States except Alabama, Florida, Iowa, West Virginia.
2 Indiana.
3
ana, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Carolina, Kansas, Dakota,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Illinois, North Louisi­
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin.
4 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Washington, Wisconsin.
5 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York.
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,’ Utah, Washington, Wisconsin.
The Labor Force, Monthly Report of the Bureau of the Census. Issue of May 14, 1945.

24




EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

25

achieved only if and when the health and efficiency of the indi­
vidual worker are maintained. In wartime As in normal years,
workers, especially women, cannot be employed under detrimental
conditions for long periods without impairing their efficiency and
output. Though occasional crises may arise when it is necessary to
abandon customary standards in order “to get the job done,” con­
tinued employment in excess of health requirements would soon
defeat its own purpose, namely, maximum production.
The problem of reconciling women’s hour laws with the needs of
the war program, therefore, depended for its solution not on the
absolute abandonment or throwing aside of all regulation but in­
stead on providing for sufficient flexibility in the laws to take care
of the unique emergencies of a war economy. It was recognized
from the beginning of the war that during sudden peak periods of
work or in the event of unforeseen contingencies arising out of war
production needs, the interests of the war program are best served
by laws which require observance of a desirable normal work
schedule as a day-by-day routine and permit extension or relax­
ation of that schedule.
To serve the purposes outlined in the preceding paragraph, not
all peacetime hour laws required modification or amendment. Some
were already sufficiently adaptable to wartime conditions because
they contained flexible “emergency provisions” or because the
standards they set in peacetime were so lenient that no change was
required to meet wartime needs. Laws in some States still had
broad emergency provisions of the type noted in the preceding
chapter, (p. 7), which impaired their enforceability by providing
for outright suspension of standards in emergencies. In addition,
a number of States had laws which were entirely enforceable but
at the same time were flexible in that they provided for relaxation
of standards under certain enumerated conditions. It is true that
some of the flexible laws did not give the employer much latitude,
as they provided merely for minor variations in the normal work
schedule and not for relaxation of standards in emergencies. Nev­
ertheless, at the beginning of the war a fairly representative num­
ber of States had peacetime laws which not only set high standards
but were sufficiently flexible to allow the employer to adjust to
emergency war needs.
In other States the peacetime laws, though in some cases en­
tirely inflexible, did not require modification through legislative
action because their basic standards were already so low that any
relaxation would have been superfluous. At the outbreak of the
war, for example, more than half a dozen States had laws setting
60 hours as a legal workweek for women in one, a few, or all indus­
tries. Such a standard, rendered virtually obsolete by modern in­
dustrial practices, obviously could be expected to have little or no
practical bearing on the normal schedule adopted by most employ­
ers. In fact, the unfavorable effect on production of such overlong
hours has been so generally recognized that few employers pre­
sumably would wish to employ women, even under war conditions,
for as many hours as these State laws permit in peacetime. There



26

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

was, therefore, little or no occasion to enact wartime legislation
modifying existing hour standards in States having legal hour
standards so out of touch with industrial practices, or in States
having laws with high standards which already contained ade­
quately flexible provisions.
Wartime modification might be expected, however, in States
where the law set desirable peacetime hour standards but did not
allow for the flexibility called for by wartime requirements. Under
State hour laws which established moderate workweeks but made
no provision for variation in any circumstances, employers in
peacetime could obviate the need for excessively long working
hours by hiring additional employees during rush periods or by
keeping a relatively large work force the year around. In wartime,
however, the scarcity of the labor supply in practically all areas
and the necessity for maximum production and full use of equip­
ment made either policy impracticable. In spite of careful planning,
employers sometimes had now to meet sudden emergency demands
of a wartime character, and the obvious, quickest way to do this is
to extend the working hours of regular employees. In a consider­
able number of States, laws were of the inflexible, high-standard
type, and many, though not all of these States, found it expedient
to enact wartime legislation providing for modifications of exist­
ing standards during the war period.
It is notable, however, that most of the States that adopted war­
time hour legislation did not provide for outright exemptions from
basic standards for all employers but instead delegated power to
the State labor official to grant administrative exceptions, or “per­
mits,” to individual employers or industries in special cases. The
development or expansion of the permit system is the outstanding
characteristic of wartime hour legislation. Though before the war
State labor officials in a number of States were authorized to grant
administrative exceptions from various legal standards, emer­
gency provisions of the administrative type increased greatly in
both number and importance during the war period. Administra­
tive-exception provisions are obviously well suited to wartime
needs as they permit relaxation of standards if and when extraor­
dinary conditions arise, but at the same time make it possible
to restrict such relaxations to temporary periods and to cases of
genuine need.
STATE HOUR LAWS IN WARTIME
The foregoing pages explain in general terms the effect of the
war on State hour laws for women. This present section consti­
tutes a technical discussion of the impact of the war on legal hour
standards. In this discussion, the term “wartime legislation” is
used to denote not merely duration legislation but all legislation
enacted during the three war years 1942 through 1944; the tem­
porary or permanent character of such legislation is discussed in
some detail.
.
To show the effect of the war, State hour laws have been ana­
lyzed to show: (1) The occasion for legislative modification of
standards as indicated by a comparison between the adoption of



EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

27

wartime legislation and the incidence of high standards and rea­
sonably flexible provisions in laws before the war; and (2) the
principal characteristics of emergency provisions in effect under
laws modified in wartime and laws that continued in effect without
change during the war period. Of perhaps major interest is the
discussion of administrative-exception provisons under the second
topic (p. 43) since emergency provisions of this type have assumed
outstanding importance during the war period.
OCCASION FOR LEGISLATIVE MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS

During the three war years, 1942 through 1944, 24 States 7 and
the District of Columbia enacted legislation governing the hours
of employment of women. In only two of these States—Rhode
Island and Nevada—did any of this legislation relate to subjects
for which no previous legal standards existed in the State. Rhode
Island enacted a meal-period law and Nevada enacted legislation
requiring that women workers be granted one day of rest in seven.
Other wartime legislation in these two States and all wartime
legislation in the remaining 22 States provided for modification of
some or all existing legal hour standards for women during the war
emergency. The great number of States that enacted wartime
legislation relating to the modification of existing hour standards
indicates the prevailing temper of the legislatures to adjust previ­
ous legal standards to wartime needs rather than to adopt new
reouirements. The present chapter, theref ore, will relate exclusive­
ly to laws that modified standards, and will not consider the two
laws enacted by Rhode Island and Nevada which set new types of
standards in these States.
Flexibility of Maximum-Hour Standards—General Manufacturing
The close relationship that obtains between the adoption of war­
time hour legislation and the existence in prewar laws of both
high standards and inflexible provisions may be illustrated by sur­
veying legal maximum-hour provisions for the general manufac­
turing industry. Maximum-hour laws are selected for study be­
cause they are the most usual type of hour regulation, being in
effect, as noted previously in this study, in 43 States 8 and the
District of Columbia. All but two such la\vs 9 cover all branches of
the manufacturing industry, and hence their operation has a direct
bearing on the war effort. In fact, as will be seen in a later section
(p. 46), wartime hour legislation is more generally applicable to
general manufacturing than to other industries.
No attempt is made here to show a similar correlation in indus­
tries other than manufacturing or in any specialized branch of the
manufacturing industry. Not only do maximum-hour laws vary in
legal hour standards and in industry coverage as between the
different States, but such laws often set diverse standards for
7 Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana Louisiana, Maine, Massa­
chusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,

s All States except Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia,
,
0 In Georgia and South Carolina, maximum-hour laws apply to textile manufacturing only.




28

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

different industries even within one State. Since a study of the
relationship of wartime legislation to the maximum-hour stand­
ards in effect for all industries would thus involve more detail than
appears desirable here, the present section will be limited to the in­
dustry of greatest wartime importance, i.e., manufacturing.
Of the 41 States 10 11
having legal maximum-hour standards for the
employment of women in “general manufacturing,” 19 11 and the
District of Columbia enacted legislation providing for extension in
certain circumstances of maximum daily or weekly hours during
the war emergency. As would reasonably be expected, the majority
of these States had laws prior to the war which both established
moderate workweeks and made little or no provision for variation
in hour standards either in the normal course of operation or to
take care of special emergencies. It is not true, however, that all
States with 48-hour laws and high standards enacted legislation
providing for modification in wartime or, conversely, that all States
that did not enact such legislation already had liberal overtime
provisions for the general manufacturing industry. Some States,
either because they were not highly industrialized or for other less
apparent reasons, did not find it necessary to provide for modifica­
tion of standards.
Prior Standards in States that Enacted Wartime Modifications
A review of the maximum daily and weekly hour laws in the 19
States 11 and the District of Columbia that adopted legislation in
the three war years 1942-44 providing for emergency extension of
women’s maximum hours of employment in manufacturing, shows
that basic legal hour and overtime provisions at the beginning of
the war were as follows:
Standards of U8 Hours or Less.—Of the 20 jurisdictions enact­
ingwartime legislation for general manufacturing, 14 States 12 and
the District of Columbia had a weekly standard of 48 hours or less
set by statute or administrative order prior to the war. Ten 13 of
these and the District of Columbia previously had made no provi­
sion for weekly overtime in manufacturing in any circumstances.
Five 14 of the 10 States did, however, permit a variation in daily
hours, if the weekly maximum was not exceeded. Though a vari­
ation in daily hours within the legal maximum workweek may
enable the employer to meet certain minor emergencies, it does
not result in additional total man-hours which may be necessary
to meet a major crisis in production.
Connecticut and New Hampshire limited both the total amount
of daily and weekly overtime and the total number of weeks per
year that the employer might avail himself of the longer hours.
10 Idaho’s statute does not specify manufacturing but it includes mechanical establishments,
and accordingly is included in this count.
11 Arkansas', California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp­
shire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Wyoming. Vermont in 1917 enacted a law authorizing the commissioner of
industries to permit relaxation of the women’s hour law “while the United States is at war.”
This legislation has remained on the statute books since that time.
12 California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wyoming.
13 California, Illinois,. Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia.
14 Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island.




29

EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

Pennsylvania and Wyoming set no limitation on the amount of
overtime; Wyoming, however, penalized the employer for work in
excess of the stated maximum by requiring overtime pay.
Comparison of Variation Provisions in Maximum-Hour Laws for Women in
General Manufacturing, in Effect During War Period and Before the War
State and maximum-hour
standard

Wartime
provision

Law before war allowed—
Daily variation only

1
.. i
| Weekly overtime|

„
.
No variation

STATES HAVING WEEK OF 48 HOURS OR LESS

Utah

_ ..(8-48)
......(8-48)
_ -(9-48)
__ (8-48)
......(8-48)
___(8-48)
......(9-48)
......(8-48)
....(10-48)
__ (8-48)
.....(8-48)
... (9-48)
..(8(4-48)
__ (8-45)
.....(8-44)
(8-44)
. .(9-48)
............— __ (8-48)
(9-48)
(8-48)
..(8-48)

(*)
(■fr)
(★)
(★)
(★)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(★)

(*)
(*)
(★)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(★)
(★)

(A)
(A)
(A)

(*)
(£■)

(A)
(*)

(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)
(A)

(A)

STATES HAVING WEEK IN EXCESS OF 48 HOURS

(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)

Vermont ...

----

.(9—50)

(A)
(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
iA)
(A)

Standards in Excess of 48 Hours.—Five of the States enacting
wartime hour legislation had legal maximum workweeks in excess
of 48 hours in peacetime: Vermont had 50 hours; Arkansas,
Maine, and Texas, 54 hours; and Tennessee, 57 hours. Prior to
1948, Arkansas and Tennessee had not provided for any variation
in general manufacturing. The Maine law in peacetime provided
for variation in daily hours but not for weekly overtime
and the wartime legislation made no change in this respect.
The Texas law authorized unlimited employment beyond the stand­
ard maximum in emergencies but required payment of double time
for such employment. Vermont did not allow variations in its hour
law in peacetime until 1943. During the First World War the State



'

30

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

passed a war emergency Act and this legislation has remained on
the statute books since that time.
Standards in States That Did Not Enact Wartime Modification
In the 22 States 15with maximum hour laws for general manu­
16
facturing that did not enact wartime legislation providing for ex­
tension of daily or weekly hours in that industry, the following
maximum-hour and overtime provisions existed prior to the war:
Standards of 48 Hours or Less.—Only 6 10 of the 22 States have
a maximum workweek as low as 48 hours. The laws of 2 of these—
Arizona and Washington—permit no variation in general manu­
facturing ; the 4 others provide for some leeway in emergencies, as
follows: Nevada provides for 8 hours of weekly overtime, and New
Mexico for 2 hours, if overtime is paid; Utah permits overtime if a
permit is obtained. Oregon with a 44-hour week does not limit the
amount and duration of overtime but regulates it by the issuance
of permits and by requiring overtime pay.
Standards in Excess of 48 Hours.—Sixteen 17 of the States that
did not enact wartime legislation providing for modification of
women’s maximum hours of employment in manufacturing, nor­
mally permit women to be employed in excess of 48 hours a week.
Though 12 18 of these States permit no variation of their weekly
maximum, even in emergencies, their legal workweek was already
long, ranging from 54 to 63 hours. In the 4 other States, the peace­
time laws provide for some variation in emergencies: Kansas and
Wisconsin allow only a limited amount of overtime, 4i/2 and 5 hours
a week, respectively, and in Wisconsin this is limited to 4 weeks a
year. Minnesota which has set no daily maximum allows unlimited
weekly overtime 4 weeks a year; and Mississippi, with a 60-hour
legal workweek, provides for unlimited employment in emergen­
cies.
Conclusion.—Of the 19 States 11 and District of Columbia that
enacted wartime legislation providing for modification of maxi­
mum-hour standards in general manufacturing during the war
emergency, such legislation in one State—Maine—permitted daily
overtime only; in the 18 other States and the District of Columbia
provision was made for extension of total weekly hours. Four­
teen 12 of the 19 States and the District of Columbia previously had
a maximum legal workweek of 48 hours or less in general manufac­
turing. Ten 13 of these previously had made no provision for weekly
overtime in general manufacturing in any circumstances. Four
States,19 though they provided for overtime, limited either the
amount or conditions of such overtime.
Of the 19 States that enacted legislation for modification of the
legal maximum workweek in wartime, only 5 20 had legal hour
15 Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi. Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Ore­
gon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin.
16 Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington.
17 Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
18 Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Dakota.
19 Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wyoming.
20 Arkansas, Maine, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont.




EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

31

standards in excess of 48 hours. One of these—Texas—normally
regulates such overtime by requiring double pay for these hours;
the 4 other States, however, have no provision in their laws for
overtime.
Variation Provisions in Other Hour Laws
In day-of-rest laws, night-work laws, and meal-period laws, the
presence of high basic standards and the absence of variation pro­
visions undoubtedly were factors which contributed jointly to the
adoption of wartime legislation. The high standards established by
some of these peacetime laws—such as a one-hour minimum lunch
period, one day of rest in every seven days, no employment be­
tween early evening and sunrise—obviously would be difficult for
all employers to maintain without some deviation, under the de­
mands for production for a world war. A degree of flexibility was
sought to facilitate the necessary adjustment to war conditions.
Though because of their complexity an analysis of the basic stand­
ards of the laws is not practical here, the chart that follows may
be of some interest to indicate the relationship between the exist­
ence of variation provisions in laws before the war and the adop­
tion of wartime legislation.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OR AUTOMATIC RELAXATION

As was seen in the preceding section, hour laws in effect at the
outbreak of the war fell into two general groups—inflexible laws
which set absolute standards permitting of no exception, and flexi­
ble laws that provide for some variation in standards. However, as
was pointed out in connection with maximum-hour standards,
flexible laws differ not only in the extent, but also in the character
of the permissible variation. Some of the flexible laws provide for
minor adjustments in the regular work schedule; others provide
for relaxation or suspension of hour standards to meet unforeseen
emergencies.
. .
At the outbreak of the war, provisions that authorized either
outright suspension or substantial relaxation of basic hour stand­
ards in emergencies were less common than were provisions for
minor adjustments in the normal schedule. The scarcity of the
labor supply and the increased difficulty of operation brought
about by the war, coupled with the necessity of meeting production
schedules promptly, gave rise to a much greater need m wartime
than under normal conditions for temporary emergency relaxation
of standards. In such circumstances, a number of States in which
hour laws already provided for adjustment of the regular sched­
ules found it desirable to enact wartime legislation to provide for
special emergencies.
,
.
,,
It is with variation provisions of the emergency type, i.e., those
that make special provision for exceptional circumstances, that
this discussion of emergency provisions in effect during the war
period deals. For present purposes, it is immaterial whether the
emergency provision was enacted during the war or was contained
in the law before the war; whether it is applicable to the war



Variation Provisions Existing Before the War and Enacts TWi„„
w...
r ........................... ......
—
--------------------------------- ---------------------- g tne njr m Laws for Women in General Manufacturing
Day-of-rest law
State

Wartime
modification
enacted

Law before war
Had varia­
Had no
tion pro­
variation
vision
provision

Wartime
modification
enacted

Law before war
Had varia­
tion pro­
vision

Had no
variation
provision

Wartime
modification
enacted

(★)

(★)
(★)

(★)

(★)

(*)

(★)

(★)

<★)

(★>
<*)

(★)

(*)

Or)

(★)

(★)
(★)

<★)

(★)

<★>

(★)

(★)

(★)

(★)
(★)

(★)

(★)
(★)

(★)
(★)

(★)
(★)

(★)

(★)

(★)
(★)

(★)
(★)

(Hr)
(★)

(*)

(★)
(*)
<*>
(*)

(★)
(★)

(2*)

7*)“'
(★)

Law before war
Had varia­
Had no
tion pro­
variation
vision
provision

(★)

(*>

<★)
(★)

to

Meal-period law

(*)

(★)

(★)

(Hr)

(Hr)

(*)

(★)

(★)
(★)

(2*)

(★)

(*)
(★)

(★)
(★)

(*)
(★)
(*)
(★)

<★)

(*★)
(*f

(Hr)

(★)
(★)

(★>
(2)

(*)

(3)

'(Hr)

(★r

(★)

(3)
(*)

(3)

lish basic hou^of wp:tki'nga-conditionsSstnandirds! enaCt wartlme leSial“-ti°n but permitted wartime variations on auth^Hy of Act empowering commission to estab
laws permits peacetoeTariatY<jnf

had n° meal-Ileriod

to_8 boors.
the war but each adopted a permanent

4 Variation provision in effect before war applicable to textiles only.




P

"* C°mmlSS10n 40 eStab-

law in the first years of the war. Neither of these

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Arizona... ......
Arkansas___
California_
_
Connecticut...
Delaware..
District of Columbia...
Illinois'............... .............
Indiana..
Kans'as l........
Kentucky_
_
Louisiana.... .
Maine...
Maryland___
Massachusetts ....
Nebraska___ ___
NevadaNew HampshireNew Jersey....... .
New Mexico..
New York... ........
North Carolina...
North Dakota___
Ohio____________
Oregon...
Pennsylvania ...
Rhode Island ...
South Carolina
Utah......
Washington l... .
West Virginia .....
Wisconsin l.......

Night-work law

CO

EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

33

emergency only or to other unforeseen and exceptional circum­
stances as well; and whether it effects an outright relaxation of
standards for ail employers or merely authorizes exceptions in in­
dividual cases. All provisions that permit the employer to operate
under relaxed standards in temporary emergencies will be con­
sidered.
Type of Emergency Provisions
Emergency provisions in State hour laws for women may be di­
vided into two principal groups based on the presence or absence of
administrative control over the employment of women by indi­
vidual employers under the relaxed standards. A number of the
hour laws that provide for relaxation of standards in emergencies
authorize the agency charged with the duty of enforcement to de­
termine the existence of the emergency. Under laws of this type,
the employer is required to obtain a permit before he can avail
himself of the exception provision in the statute.
In contrast to emergency provisions that authorize the granting
of administrative exceptions, some hour laws contain provisions
under which the occurrence of certain conditions automatically re­
lieves the employer from the legal obligation of complying with
basic-hour standards. In some laws, automatic provisions operate
to suspend all hour standards so that no regulation of women’s
hours is in effect during the emergency; in other laws, such pro­
visions relax basic standards but substitute other requirements of
a broader nature so that during the emergency some regulation
still exists. Where standards are automatically relaxed in either
of these ways, the employer can legally employ women in accord­
ance with the terms of the emergency provision, without seeking
or obtaining a permit from the administrative agency.
As noted in chapter I, provisions that automatically relax or
suspend standards in an emergency weaken the enforceability of
an hour law and impair its effectiveness. Some States have been
able through the years gradually to eliminate the broad automatic
emergency provisions found in the earlier laws. Nevertheless, at
the beginning of the war in over half the States having emergency
provisions in their hour laws, such provisions were of the auto­
matic type and permitted the employer to take advantage of the
statutory relaxation immediately upon occurrence of the condi­
tions specified in the statute. Several of these provisions continued
in effect without change during the war period. On the other hand,
relatively little of the hour legislation enacted in the war years
provided for automatic relaxation of standards. Consequently, the
combined result of the emergency provisions enacted in wartime
and such provisions of prewar origin as were not modified by war­
time legislation may be said to be an increase in the number and
significance of administrative-exception provisions and a reduction
in the number of automatic-relaxation provisions.
This fact is well illustrated by a survey of the maximum-hour
laws covering women in general manufacturing in the 41 States
having such laws. Of the 13 that permitted weekly overtime before



34

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

the war, 721 provided for automatic relaxation, whereas 6 22
required the employer to obtain a permit.
Of the 18 States and the District of Columbia, which in 1942
through 1944 enacted wartime legislation providing for modifica­
tion of women’s weekly hours, only 3 21provided for automatic re­
25 22 23 24
laxation, while 15 24 and the District of Columbia provided for ad­
ministrative control over relaxation. Of the 3 States that provided
for automatic relaxation through wartime legislation, the laws of
only one—Wyoming—contained a provision of this same type be­
fore the war. Of the 15 States 24 that enacted wartime legislation
establishing administrative control, the laws of 2—Massachusetts
and Texas—previously provided for automatic relaxation: Massa­
chusetts had permitted relaxation of daily hours, Texas, of weekly
hours.
Summary of Emergency Provisions in Effect During War Period
As of December 1944, of the 41 States and the District of Co­
lumbia with maximum-hour laws or orders covering general manu­
facturing, 26 25 and the District of Columbia currently provide for
weekly overtime in wartime or certain other emergency circum­
stances. In 18 of these States and the District of Columbia, pro­
visions now in effect were of wartime origin, whereas in the 8
others 26 no wartime legislation was adopted but previous pro­
visions of law made such relaxation possible.
Of the 20 States and the District of Columbia with day-of-rest
laws applicable to manufacturing, 17 27 currently provide for em­
ployment of women seven days a week in certain circumstances.
Twelve 28 of these States enacted wartime legislation even though
all but 3 of them—Arkansas, Illinois, and Ohio—already had some
provision for emergency employment on seven days in their laws.
The 5 other States 29 permit emergency seventh-day employment
under provisions that existed before the war.
Each of the 11 States 30 with laws that before the war prohibited
the employment of women at night in manufacturing permitted
such employment during the war in certain circumstances. Most of
the relaxation provisions in effect during wartime were enacted
during the war period. Connecticut, which had a provision in its
law many years prior to 1941 authorizing the Governor to suspend
the limitations on night work “in event of war or other serious
emergency,” enacted additional wartime legislation covering night
21 Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
22 Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah.

23 North Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming.
24 Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.
25 Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wis­
consin, Wyoming.
26 Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin.
27 Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hamp­
shire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Washington, Wisconsin.
28 Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina.
29 Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin.
30 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jer­
sey, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.




EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

35

work in 1943. California and Nebraska had prohibited night work
unless a permit was granted by the labor commissioner; California
enacted wartime legislation but Nebraska made no change in its
law during the 3 first years of war.
Two States regulated the employment of women at night by lim­
iting the number of hours they might be employed. One of these—
New Hampshire—modified its night-work law for the war's dura­
tion ; the other—Maryland—made no change in the existing legis­
lation of this type.
Of the 23 States and the District of Columbia with meal-period
laws applicable to women employed in manufacturing, 14 currently
provide for relaxation of the meal-period requirement: In 9 31 of
these, provisions now in effect were adopted during the war period
and in 5 32 relaxation is permitted under provisions previously in
effect.
PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WARTIME HOUR LEGISLATION

As was previously indicated, hour legislation enacted during the
war years 1942 through 1944, commonly referred to here as “war­
time hour legislation”—constitutes only a part, albeit a major part,
of currently existing provisions for relaxation of legal hour stand­
ards in emergencies. Before discussing in detail the tenor and
scope of all emergency provisions in effect during the war period,
it may be of interest to note some of the principal characteristics
of that special group of provisions enacted into law during the
present war emergency.
Wartime hour legislation may be said to have two outstanding
characteristics: (1) Most of the wartime laws providing for modi­
fication of standards are of war duration only; and (2) most of
them provide for the issuance of permits to individual employers
in cases of actual need rather than for a blanket suspension of
standards for all employers or an entire industry. With respect to
the first characteristic, the wartime hour laws are of course un­
like emergency provisions enacted before the war period. Regard­
ing the second characteristic, wartime hour laws follow a trend
which originated long before the war period and which had as­
sumed constantly increased importance in recent peacetime years.
Recommendations of Labor Law Administrators
The fact that wartime relaxation of standards was limited to
the war period and generally was set up under administrative
control may be accounted for in large measure by the position
taken by State and Federal labor law administrators both at the
beginning, and during the course, of the war. At each of a series
of conferences called by the Secretary of Labor in Washington,
these officials agreed on the following policy: First, basic standards
of existing laws should be preserved for the postwar period;
secondly, such standards should be relaxed only to the extent
necessary to expedite the war program; and finally, relaxations
31 Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsyl­
vania, Ohio (for certain branches of manufacturing only).
+„
I
V,
32_ ..
lndiana, - Kansas, T.T
North Dakota, Utah, Wic/mnciTl
Wisconsin.




36

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

should be handled administratively through the issuance of per­
mits rather than through an outright suspension of standards by
the legislature.
At the first such conference after the outbreak of war, called
by the Secretary of Labor in January 1942 and attended by State
labor officials and representatives of principal Federal departments
responsible for defense production, including War, Navy, Labor,
and Office of Production Management, delegates to the Conference
agreed that the optimum hours for war work were the 8-hour
day, 6-day and 48-hour week, and recommended that State depart­
ments permit employment in excess of such hours only for limited
periods of time and after certain administrative requirements
had been satisfied.33 At subsequent conferences, including one in
March 1944, State labor officials gave their continued support to
a program calling for general observance of legal hour standards
with relaxation for individual employers in emergencies only.
Duration of Wartime Legislation
To show the predominantly temporary character of wartime hour
legislation a brief analysis of all such laws enacted during the
first 3 years of the war appears here. This analysis covers all war­
time legislation providing for relaxation of women’s hours of
employment. It is not limited to any one industry nor to any
particular type of hour law. It does not, however, include the two
laws that did not modify existing standards but instead estab­
lished new standards, i.e., the day-of-rest law in Nevada, and the
meal-period law in Rhode Island.
Permanent Changes in Standards

Of the 24 States34 and the District of Columbia that enacted
legislation in the years 1942 through 1944 providing for modifica­
tion of existing hour standards, only 8 33 adopted changes that will
be operative under other than war conditions. Of these, 5 States—
Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont—made
permanent changes in their hour provisions; 2—Arkansas and
Connecticut—enacted permanent provisions relating to permits;
and 5—Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and
New York—adopted permanent changes in coverage. It will be
noted that the wartime legislation in 3 of these States—Arkansas,
Connecticut, and Louisiana—affected standards of more than one
type.
On the whole it may be said that legislative changes of a
permanent nature in State hour laws made during the first 3 years
of the war either were of a minor nature or affected only a small
group of women. Changes that were more far-reaching in char­
acter or had broad application to women in all or a majority of
occupations were adopted for the war period only. A detailed ex­
planation of laws in which wartime changes were permanent
38 Statement of Federal War Policy with Reference to State Labor Laws. Mimeo. Release

dated For list see footnote
Jan. 27, 1942.
34

7 on p. 27.
36 Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont.




r ic

Permanent Hour Legislation Enacted in Wartime Years, 1942 Through 1944
Outright change in
coverage

Outright change in
legal hour standards

State
Maximum
hours

Day of
rest

Night
work

Meal
period

Maximum
hours

Day of
rest

Night
work

<Z*)

Connecticut-------------------------------

Meal
period
(★>

<★)

<★)

Provision for permits
Day of
rest

(*>

Night
work

(*>

Meal
period
(★>

(2*)

U*)

<*)

Maximum
hours

<★)

Delaware—........ .....................
Louisiana

(*)

........................... .........

Maine.........................--------- ----------

__ ____

<*>

(★)

(2*)

New Hampshire______ ___ ______

....... .
(2*)

(2*)

New York----------- --------------------Vermont------ ----------------------------

(★>

(*>

— —

—

—

.......... -......

----- ;—7~
-------------—

EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

Legal hour standards affected and type of modification!

1 All modifications included irrespective of industries to which applicable.
2 Not applicable to general manufacturing.




GO
O

38

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

appears in the discussion in chapter III, of standards that will be
operative upon termination of the war.
The chart that follows shows the States in which changes of a
permanent nature were made by wartime legislation and the type
of standard that was affected.
War Duration Changes

By far the greater number of wartime hour-law provisions were
adopted for the duration only. Of the 24 States 36 37 38 District
and the
of Columbia that passed wartime legislation providing for relaxa­
tion of various peacetime standards regulating women’s hours of
employment, 16 ■■ * and the District of Columbia enacted only provi­
sions applicable during the war emergency. Of the 8 remaining
States !S all but 1 39 enacted some legislation of a war-duration
character in addition to the permanent changes referred to in the
preceding paragraphs and summary. Thus in the first 3 years of
war, 23 States and the District of Columbia enacted war-duration
legislation modifying hour standards.
Scope.—Since the war-duration laws were enacted not only for
the period of war but also in a strict literal sense because of the
war, it is not surprising that most of them permit widespread
changes in basic-hour or working-condition standards. Of the 23
States and the District of Columbia, in which duration legislation
was enacted in these years, the war legislation in 16 States was
so broad that it potentially affected all existing hour standards
in the State concerned. This includes 8 States40 in which war-dura­
tion legislation applies broadly to any regulation of employment;
7 States 41 in which such legislation applies specifically to all exist­
ing hour laws in the State; and 8 States 42 and the District of
Columbia, in which the duration legislation affects only part of
existing hour standards. For example, in the District of Columbia,
the war-duration legislation provides for wartime relaxation of
maximum daily and weekly hours but does not permit employment
on the 7th day nor allow a variation in the meal-period law. New
Jersey provides for wartime relaxation of the meal-period and
the night-work laws but not for extension of daily and weekly
hours. Delaware provides for wartime suspension of the nightwork law but not for extension of daily and weekly hours or
relaxation of the meal-period law. Nevada exempts from the
maximum-hour law, for the duration, women employed in the com­
munications industry or on common carriers for hire.
Period Covered.—Though most of the duration legislation was
specifically limited to the war period, some legislatures apparently
acted on the belief that a period of adjustment ranging from 60
so For list see footnote 7 on p. 27.
37 California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina North
Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas Virginia
Wyoming.
*
6 ia’
38 For list see footnote 35 on_p. 36.
f ® J^mont has retained on its statute books a war emergency provision enacted in 1917
40 California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire. New York North
Carolina, Pennsylvania.
’
41 Arkansas, Maine, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming
CarolinaaWare’ IIIfaoiS' Indiana- Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island. South




EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

39

days to a year after the termination of the war would be advisable
before resuming basic peacetime hour standards. In 4 States
the law provides that wartime provisions will remain in effect
during a specified period after the war, as follows: One year:
Arkansas, hours and meal-period laws; 6 months: Connecticut,
maximum daily and weekly hours and Delaware, night work; ap­
proximately 2 months: Louisiana, maximum daily and weekly
hours.
The chart that follows shows the States that enacted duration
legislation, the legal hour standards affected, and the type of modi­
fication authorized.
Conclusion.—Analysis of hour legislation enacted in the 3-year
period, 1942 through 1944, indicates that while many of the war­
time laws provide for relaxation of practically all existing legal
hour standards in the State concerned, in most such laws the
relaxed standards are applicable only during the war emergency.
The ultimate effect of wartime hour legislation, therefore, is to
make a temporary concession to war needs, but little permanent
change in the flexibility of laws regulating women’s hours of em­
ployment. Barring legislative changes subsequent to the writing
of this bulletin, not only will the basic standards of most laws be
the same after the war as they were before the war, but also there
will be only a negligible increase in the number or scope of
emergency variation provisions in such laws.
It is of course debatable whether increased flexibility in hour
laws under peacetime conditions is desirable. Laws that provide
for temporary departures from basic standards tend to place the
burden of adjusting to unusual or unforeseen conditions, not on
the employer, who in normal times can increase or decrease his
work force at will but on the employee, who often has no freedom
of choice in jobs and hence must put up with undesirable work
schedules. Where the law allows standards to be relaxed m
emergencies, there is an ever-present danger that some employers
will abuse the privilege. While the necessity of operating under
strict hour standards may sometimes inconvenience the employer,
the inconvenience is more than outbalanced by consideration of the
emplovee’s health. In view of the social interest in maintaining
high hour-standards for women workers, it would appear desirable
to maintain hour laws with the minimum provision for relaxation
of, or exception to, basic standards.
ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY PROVISIONS IN EFFECT DURING
WAR PERIOD

Wartime hour legislation is notable chiefly for the fact of its
passage and for the impermanence of its provisions. In th«? type of
relaxation provided and the method by which such relaxation is
accomplished, wartime hour legislation presents no significant
difference from emergency provisions adopted in hour laws before
the war. This fact will be demonstrated in the present section,
which relates not to wartime legislation alone but to all provisions
for emergency relaxation of standards in effect during the war
period. The two main types of emergency provisions will be con


o
War-Duration Legislation Enacted in 1942 Through 1944
Legal hour standards affected and type of modification!
State

Outright change in legal hour standards

Arkansas___________
California—-............. ....
Connecticut___ _____
Delaware________ _
_
District of Columbia..
Illinois______________
Indiana___________ .__
Louisiana........... .
Maine............ ........
Massachusetts_
_
Nevada..................
New Hampshire..
New Jersey......... .
New York_______
North Carolina_
North Dakota___
Ohio..
Pennsylvania______
Rhode Island........_...
South Carolina____
Tennessee._________
Texas__ ___ _______
Virginia*____ _____
Wyoming_________

Day of
rest

Night
work

Meal
period

Maximum
hours

Day of
rest

Night
work

Meal
period

Provision for permits
Maximum
hours

Day of
rest

Night
work

(★)

(★>
(★)

(★)

(★)

<★>

(★)
(★)

(★)

(★)

Meal

period
(★)

(*)

(★)
(★)

(★)

(★)

(★)

(3 ★)

(★)'■

(★)

(*)

(*)
(★)

(*>
(★>
<★)
<★)
<★)

(★)

(★)

(★)

(*)

(3*)
(★)
(★)

<★)

(★)

m

(*★)

(★)

(★)

(*)
<★)
(★)
<★>

(★)
<*)

(★)

(*)

(3*0

(★)

(★)

1 All modifications included irrespective of industries to which applicable.
2 Applicable to daily hours only.

3 Not applicable to general manufacturing,
i Virginia enacted two emergency laws.


http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
4___k_ Bank of 3___ 2___
_
Federal Reservei___ k___St. Louis £___i____ £___ £___£j__________ 4____ ia________________ k___ i**__________a.___<

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Maximum
hours

Outright change in coverage

EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

41

sidered separately: (1) Automatic-relaxation provisions; (2) ad­
ministrative-exception provisions.
Provision for Automatic Relaxation
Though before the war a few hour laws that contained provi­
sions for automatic relaxation of standards in emergencies limited
such provisions to businesses affected with a public interest, most
such laws made the application of the emergency provision as
broad as the coverage of the law itself. Where the law covered
both manufacturing and the principal service industries, provision
for automatic relaxation in emergency before the war usually
applied to employers in both industries. Where the legal hour
standards are established by commission order rather than by
legislation, the emergency provision is necessarily limited to the
industry covered by the commission’s order.
Emergency provisions in wartime legislation which allow re­
laxation without a permit also apply in nearly all cases to all in­
dustries covered by the original laws. The legislature usually made
no attempt to confine the relaxation to war-production industries
or industries essential to the war effort. For this reason there is
a more widespread lowering of standards in wartime laws that
provide for automatic relaxation than in wartime laws which give
the agency control over relaxation.
Scope of Automatic Relaxation

Provisions which authorize employers to relax hour standards
for women’s employment without obtaining permission from the
administrative agency were in effect during the war period as
follows:
Maximum-Hour Laws.—Seven States 43 provide for automatic
relaxation of maximum-hour standards in emergencies. In most
of them the emergency provision is applicable to all of the in­
dustries covered by the hour law. One of these States—Maine—
allowed relaxation of daily hours only.
Three of the States mentioned—Mississippi, Nevada, and New
Mexico—did not enact wartime legislation modifying maximumhour standards, but relied on an emergency provision adopted be­
fore the war. In each of them, the emergency provision, like the
law itself, has broad industry coverage: In Nevada it applies to
“private employment”; in Mississippi and New Mexico it covers
a variety of enumerated occupations including both industrial and
service establishments. The 4 other States—Maine, North Dakota,
Ohio, and Wyoming—modified their previous maximum-hour
standards through wartime legislation in effect for the duration.
The wartime laws, insofar as they effect an outright modification
of standards, cover the same industries and employers as were
covered by the original law, which in North Dakota, Ohio, and
Wyoming include manufacturing and the principal service in­
dustries, but in Maine comprise only those of a manufacturing or
mechanical nature.
43 Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming.




42

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Day-of-Rest Laws.—Two States—North Dakota and Ohio—
provide through wartime legislation for automatic relaxation in
emergencies. In North Dakota, where the original law applied to
enumerated industries including manufacturing and the principal
service occupations, the wartime law had the same application.
Ohio is the one State in which the coverage of this type of relax­
ation is not as broad as the original law: The original law covered
“any employment” and the wartime modification is limited to
“employers engaged in the furnishing of goods or services to the
United States.”
Night-Work Laws.—Three States—Delaware, Indiana, and
Ohio—suspended their night-work laws through wartime legisla­
tion. The Delaware wartime law covers offices, manufacturing and
mechanical establishments, and laundries; the Indiana law covers
only manufacturing; the Ohio law, only ticket sellers. The war
legislation lifted the limitations on night work for industries
covered by the peacetime laws, except that in Delaware the war­
time law did not permit night work in offices and printing and
dressmaking establishments.
Meal-Period Law.—Modification of the meal-period require­
ment in emergency without permission of the State administrative
agency was permitted in only one State—Ohio; there the modi­
fication applied to several enumerated industries, including glass
manufacturing, retail gas stations, financial institutions, and
transportation.
Summary.—The following chart shows the States that provided
for automatic relaxation of hours standards during the war period,
and the type of standard affected.
Provision for Automatic Relaxation in Hour Laws in Effect During the
War Period
State

Day of rest

Maximum hours

Night work

Meal period

(★)
<★)
(1*0
<*)
(★)
(★)
(★>
(★)
(★)

<★)
(★>

(*>

-

l Daily.

Provision for Administrative Exceptions
Of all emergency clauses in effect during the war period, provi­
sions for administrative control over relaxation of hour standards
greatly outnumber provisions for automatic relaxation.
Administrative control over relaxation of hour standards is
provided for by wartime hour legislation in the District of Colum­
bia and 18 States.44 In an additional 7 States 46 administrative con­
trol during the war is exercised by virtue of provisions enacted
previously.
44 Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts', New Hamp­
shire, New Jersey, New York. North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.
45 Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin.




EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

43

Extent of Administrative Control

In 8 46 of the 18 States in which the legislatures enacted wartime
measures delegating authority to relax legal hours-of-work stand­
ards, such authority was vested in the Governor, either alone or
jointly with the State labor official. In practice, however, the
primary responsibility, and in some States the full responsibility,
for determining whether the facts warrant application of the
emergency provision, rests with the State labor official. In Massa­
chusetts, the legislature passed two Acts—an earlier one delegating
power to the Governor and a subsequent one delegating permit
power to the Labor Commissioner. In 5 States—Connecticut, New
Hamoshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Rhode Island—the
legislature granted power of exemption to the Governor. In 1 of
these—North Carolina—the Governor delegated to the State labor
official authority to ascertain the facts and recommend the is­
suance or denial of a permit; in the other 4, permits were
handled as a practical matter by the State labor department. In
the 2 remaining States of this group—California and Tennessee—
the statute itself fixes the agency’s responsibility. For present
purposes, therefore, it appears to be unnecessary to distinguish
between provisions for executive exceptions and provisions for
administrative exceptions, since in any case the administrative
agency has the responsibility in actual practice of applying the
law to the facts. Consequently, the present discussion of adminis­
trative-exception provisions will include all hour laws that au­
thorize issuance of permits to individual employers in emergencies.
In a majority of the 7 States 40 in the group that did not enact
hour legislation in wartime, authority to relax standards exists
by virtue of a broad grant of administrative power to the agency.
In 3 * * these States, the legislature authorized the agency to set
47 of
hour standards in the first instance. The administrative agency
in Oregon wrote broad emergency provisions into its peacetime
orders; in the other two States—Kansas and Wisconsin—the
agencies set up restricted emergency provisions in their orders
but during the war they have granted special administrative ex­
ceptions which relax hour standards to a greater extent than is
provided by the emergency clause incorporated in the order. In
the 4 other States in this group 48 the legislature followed the more
customary practice of itself fixing normal hour standards while
authorizing the agency to permit relaxation in emergencies.
4G California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, Tennessee.
47 Kansas, Oregon, Wisconsin.
48 Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah.
685435°—46—4




44

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN
Analysis of Administrative Exceptions in Effect in Wartime

Provisions authorizing the State agency to issue permits to in­
dividual employers were in effect during the war period under
State laws and orders in the following States:

Maximum-Hour Laws.—Permits

authorized in 20 States and the District of
Columbia.
Authorized by: (1) Wartime legislation: Arkansas, California, Connecti­
cut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hamp­
shire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.
(2) Previously existing provisions: Kansas, Minnesota,
Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin.
Day-ofrReat Laws.—Permits authorized in 13 States.
Authorized by: (1) Wartime legislation: Arkansas, California, Connecti­
cut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hamp­
shire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina.
(2) Previously existing provisions: Kansas, Wisconsin.
Nieht-Work Laws.—Permits authorized in 9 States.
Authorized by: (1) Wartime legislation: California, Connecticut, Massa­
chusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania.
(2) Previously existing provisions: Kansas, Nebraska,
Wisconsin.
Meal-Period Laws.—Permits authorized in 13 States.
Authorized by: (1) Wartime legislation: Arkansas, California, Louisi­
ana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania.
(2) Previously existing provisions: Indiana, Kansas,
North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin.

It may be noted in passing that not all States with authority to
grant administrative exceptions from some or all hour standards
have exercised such authority to any appreciable extent, and on
the other hand, that some States not enumerated in the foregoing
Provision for Administrative Exception in Hour Laws in Effect
During the War Period
State
Arkansas

Maximum hours

Day of
rest

Night
work

<*>

(*>
(★>

(★)
(★>

<★)

(★>
(*>

(★>

<★)

(★>

(*>

(★)
(*>

<*)

<★)
(★>
<★)

Illinois________ __ _______

(*>
(★)
(*>
(★>
<*)

(★>

Meal
period

(*>

(★)
(★>

(★>
(★>

(*)
(+)
(*>
(★>
(*i
<*)

(★>
(★>
<*)

(★>
<★)

(★)

(★)

(★>

(★>
Texas __ _ __________
_
Utah

(*>
<★)
(★)
(★)
(*>
(★>

<*)
(★>

<★)

(★>

summary are in fact issuing wartime permits for relaxation of



effect of war on hour laws

45

standards by individual employers. The present discussion, how­
ever, relates primarily to provisions of law, and agency practices
are not under consideration except as they implement or interpret
the law.
Standards for Administrative Action

Laws that authorize a State labor official to grant exceptions in
emergencies are based on the principle that the legislature may
delegate to an administrative official authority to determine facts
and conditions upon which the operation of a statute depends. It is
very desirable from the standpoint of just and efficient adminis­
tration, in addition to the constitutional ends which are also served
thereby, that such laws express a definite legislative policy and
establish standards or conditions for administrative action.
In the wartime laws, as well as in those of prior origin, the
general policy of the legislature in authorizing administrative
exceptions is clearly indicated. All of the States and the District
of Columbia that enacted temporary wartime legislation provid­
ing for administrative exceptions based such action on the need
to further the war effort. The declared policy of the New York
State War Emergency Dispensation Act is illustrative of the pur­
pose and intention of temporary wartime legislation: “It is the
declared policy of the State of New York to retain all peacetime
labor standards and statutes heretofore achieved for working men,
women, and minors after so many years of legislative and educa­
tional effort; but to permit wartime dispensations from law
wherever required by, and prudently consistent with, the National
and paramount effort to conclude successfully and expeditiously
the war in which we are involved.”
In the 2 States—Arkansas and Vermont—in which administra­
tive exception provisions adopted during the war period were
permanent rather than for the duration, provision for emergency
relaxation was, of course, not related to the war program but to
the needs of individual employers. Similarly, in laws and orders
adopted before the war the policy in providing for administrative
exceptions in emergencies was to prevent unnecessary hardship
to individual employers.
Laws that provide for administrative control of relaxation
should also set standards of criteria to guide the administrator in
carrying out the legislative policy. Some wartime laws establish
express standards for administrative action while others are little
more than a mandate vesting discretionary power in the State
labor official or the Governor.
In some States in which the emergency provision does not con­
tain express standards, an advisory body has been established to
assist the State labor official in the exercise of his discretionary
power. In most States, however, the official acts independently in
the exercise of his function of granting administrative exceptions.
Standards for administrative action established in emergency
clauses of hour laws relate principally to the following subjects:
(1) Industries or employers eligible for permits; (2) extent and
duration of modification permitted; (3) procedure governing



46

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

agency action. Though laws in a few States set express standards
on all of these matters, most of them establish only one or two
criteria to guide the administrator in carrying out the intent of
the legislature. Where the law does not expressly state the degree
of relaxation permitted, the administrator must necessarily be
guided by the purpose of the emergency legislation and by stand­
ards of the original law.
Industries Covered by Administrative-Exception Provisions.—
Of the 18 States and the'District of Columbia that enacted wartime
laws authorizing administrative exceptions from hour standards,
coverage provisions range between two extremes—on the one
hand, a narrow restriction to war-production industries, on the
other, a total absence of express standards for determining which
employers are entitled to exceptions. A substantial group of laws
fall into a middle group, i.e., by authorizing the issuance of per­
mits to essential industries, the laws restrict relaxation of stand­
ards to industries that play a vital part in the wartime economy
but at the same time make it possible for civilian manufacturing
and service industries to employ women under relaxed standards
where such employment is demonstrably necessitated by, and of
benefit to, the war effort.
In 543 of the States that enacted legislation in wartime, authority
to issue permits is expressly restricted to war production or to
work furthering the war effort. In 10 30 such States and the District
of Columbia issuance of permits to essential industries is author­
ized. In 2 of these—New York and Louisiana—the laws originally
applied only to war industries but were later amended to authorize
the issuance of permits to essential civilian industries; in another
State—Massachusetts—the law authorizes issuance of permits
for manpower shortages “due directly or indirectly to the existing
state of war.” Laws in 3 States 61 do not establish any express re­
quirements as to the nature of the industries to which permits
may be issued.
In the 7 States 45 that authorize granting of administrative ex­
ceptions under laws and orders not modified during the war period,
the administrative-exception provisions are as broad as the cover­
age of the law or order and generally do not restrict the issuance
of permits to any particular type of industry or employer.
Extent and Duration of Modification Permitted.—In wartime
legislation, the kind and amount of permissible relaxations are
variously defined. Some laws that provide for modification of
maximum-hour standards fix the maximum hours permissible
where administrative exceptions authorizing relaxation of stand­
ards are granted. Other wartime laws relating to maximum-hour
or day-of-rest standards specify the number of weeks or months
per year that an employer may be authorized to employ women
under relaxed standards. Of the 15 States 49 and51 District of
52 50 the
Columbia that enacted maximum-hour legislation of the permit
49 California, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
50 Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont.
51 Arkansas, Illinois, Maine.
52 See first item in Summary on p. 40.




EFFECT OF WAR ON HOUR LAWS

47

type in the wartime years, only 8 53 and the District of Columbia
specify the maximum hours that may be established by relaxation
in lieu of basic standards. The other wartime laws 5355 not specify
54 do
the maximum hours that may be permitted when relaxations are
granted. The administrator in his discretion presumably may write
such standards into a permit but the laws do not expressly author­
ize or require him to do so.
Laws in 6 States 66 specify the maximum period of time during
which relaxation of various hour standards may continue in effect.
However, a majority do not limit the number of permits which
the employer may obtain in a year’s period. Instead, 4 of them—
Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Texas—make provision for renewal.
In addition, the Arkansas day-of-rest law, while it does not spe­
cifically provide for renewal, does not expressly prohibit it.
Laws which limit the duration of a permit without at the same
time limiting the total number of permits in a year apparently
serve the purpose of flexibility and at the same time enable
the agency to exercise strict control over the conditions of relaxa­
tion. When application for renewal is made, the agency again has
occasion to investigate the need for relaxation. In contrast, the
preponderance of wartime laws which establish no standard at
all concerning the duration of a permit make it possible for the
administrator to grant relaxations effective for the entire period
of the war. However, even though the law does not specify any
period, the commissioner is not required to issue indefinite permits.
Under most wartime laws he has general authority to define the
terms and conditions of a permit and thus may restrict permits
to short periods, subject to extension or reissuance where the
circumstances warrant it.
Procedural Requirements.—The principal procedural require­
ments found in wartime legislation are formal application by the
employer and investigation by the State labor official preliminary
to issuance of a permit. Wartime laws in a few States show the
intent of the legislature to require a formal, written application
from the employer. Thus in 3 States—Arkansas, Louisiana, and
New York—laws authorizing relaxation of maximum-hour stand­
ards specifically provide that the application shall be filed upon
such forms and pursuant to such regulations as the commissioner
shall prescribe. In 3 other States—California, North Carolina, and
Texas—wartime hour laws provide for the filing of a formal
application.
In the District of Columbia and 7 States 65 wartime laws by their
wording do not show legislative intent to require a formal applica­
tion and in a few instances they make no reference to application
by the employer.
Most of the wartime laws expressly direct the commissioner to
investigate the employer’s need before acting on an application.
53 Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia.
54 Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee.
55 Arkansas, day-of-rest law; Illinois and Louisiana, maximum-hour and day-of-rest laws ;
New York, all hour laws; Texas and Vermont, maximum-hour law.
5G Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont.




48

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Only a few of them establish the criteria to be employed in de­
termining that need or set out the detailed procedure which the
State labor official is required to follow. Omission of specific pro­
cedural standards in the law does not of course mean that State
labor officials cannot set up such standards on their own initiative,
as they have ample authority to do so under most wartime laws.
However, where the law expressly sets out detailed procedure
which must be followed, the official is in a much better position to
resist unjustified requests for exceptions.
The wartime laws of Louisiana and New York set forth pro­
cedural standards in much greater detail than most other such
laws. The New York State War Emergency Act makes it the duty
of the industrial commissioner to investigate an application for
an exception before taking final action on it. He may issue a
provisional permit for a period not to exceed one month, subject
to revocation if subsequent investigation demonstrates that the
exception is not justified. The law further provides that no permit
shall be granted to any employer “who can by utilization of avail­
able labor supply or by organizational or other reasonable adjust­
ments, maintain maximum efficiency and production without
sacrifice of existing peacetime labor standards.” Wartime legisla­
tion in Louisiana established criteria similar to those set up in
the New York law. Other laws that specifically require the State
labor commissioner to investigate the employer’s need for a permit
are: Arkansas (maximum hour, meal period), Texas (maxi­
mum hour), North Carolina (all labor laws), New Hampshire (all
labor laws). The New Jersey meal-period law, while not specifical­
ly calling for an investigation, requires the State official to make a
determination or finding that certain conditions are met, i.e., that
a relaxation of standards will not endanger the health or produc­
tivity of employees.
A few wartime laws place an affirmative duty on the employer
to show the need for relaxation of standards. Although such laws
do not expressly require an investigation by the State labor official,
an investigation presumably would be necessary in order to verify
the employer’s statements. Provisions of this kind are found in the
wartime laws of: Illinois (day or rest, maximum hour), District
of Columbia (maximum hour).
Conclusion.—One of the primary objectives of legislation which
instead of modifying standards outright, authorizes a State labor
official to issue permits in individual cases, is that relaxation of
standards may thus be restricted to cases of actual need. Hour
laws that provide for administrative control over relaxation un­
doubtedly afford the employee greater security in his work sched­
ule than laws which provide for automatic relaxation. Notwith­
standing this fact, standards provided by such laws to govern
issuance of permits are often extremely inadequate. The adminis­
trator can better carry out the purpose of the legislature where
the law makes express provisions for such matters as duration
of permit, time and frequency of renewal, and particularly, the
standards in effect during relaxation.



Chapter III.—STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN IN
THE POSTWAR YEARS
Conditions that led to the wartime relaxation of legal hour
standards for women, such as the demand for maximum produc­
tion and the scarcity of labor supply, are expected to be greatly
modified by the termination of the European war and to disappear
entirely at the end of the total war. The sudden closing-down of
war production and the gradual resumption of civilian-goods manu­
facturing inevitably will result in a renewed need for State laws to
safeguard the hours and employment conditions of women workers.
At the time this chapter is written—late 1944—it is impossible to
predict whether these or other factors will lead State legislatures
to take action at their coming sessions. The first part of this
chapter is necessarily based on the premise that legislative changes
will not be made. On this assumption, it is possible here to dis­
cuss: (1) The basic-hour and working-conditions standards for
women which will be in effect under existing laws at the end of
the war; and (2) employment standards which are recommended
for consideration in future legislation to safeguard the welfare
of women workers in the postwar years.
HOUR STANDARDS AT END OF WAR
As noted in the preceding chapter, few States during the war
period made permanent changes in their existing hour legislation
for women. Most of the State legislation enacted in the war years
1942 through 1944 was for the duration only. Most of these dura­
tion laws did not repeal but merely provided for suspension or
temporary relaxation of the laws in effect at the beginning of the
war. This method was used in order to preserve intact peacetime
standards, so that the legal safeguards applicable to women
workers in prewar years would automatically become operative
again in the postwar period.
RECONVERSION PERIOD

None of the duration hour laws is limited to any one phase of
the war; on the contrary, each is written in such terms as to be
applicable throughout the entire course of the war on all fronts.
In fact, as noted in the preceding chapter,1 some duration laws do
not expire at the end of the total war but terminate only after
varying periods of adjustment, ranging from 60 days to a year.
A few make no provision whatsoever for automatic termination
but instead remain operative until issuance of an official proclama­
tion that the emergency has ended.
The first phase of reconversion may come at the end of the war
in Europe. If so, the need for relaxation of hours and workingconditions standards may be greatly reduced during the period
the laws permitting such relaxations remain in effect. This does
not mean that relaxations will necessarily continue as a matter of
practice. The extent to which they will continue depends primarily
on whether the wartime law provides for administrative exceptions




50

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

or establishes outright exemptions. Under many of the laws that
provide for administrative exceptions, the power to issue permits
continues through the early reconversion period but the adminlstrator may be guided in the use of that power by developments
which indicate the continuing need for relaxation. Thus, if the
reconversion period is accompanied by a slackening of production
and a decreased demand for workers, administrators will actually
be carrying out the purpose of the law if they refuse to permit
relaxation of standards, notwithstanding the fact that the wartime
law is still operative.
In contrast, under duration laws that establish automatic ex­
ceptions, the mere continuance of the war enables employers in
the reconversion period to employ women under relaxed standards
irrespective of need. Obviously, continuance of relaxations beyond
the period of actual need deprives women workers of legal safe­
guards to which they are entitled, contributes to temporary un­
employment, and complicates the difficulties of transition from a
wartime to a peacetime economy. But, unless such duration laws
are repealed or modified at coming legislative sessions, the re­
laxations they permit seem destined to remain effective until the
end of the total war and in some cases for even a longer period.
CHANGES IN PEACETIME HOUR STANDARDS THROUGH
WARTIME LEGISLATION

Though at the present writing it appears that most of the basic
hour provisions in effect before the war will automatically become
operative again following the war, a few laws contain certain
major changes as a result of wartime legislation. Of the 24 States
and the District of Columbia that enacted legislation in 1942,
1943, or 1944 providing for the modification of previously existing
hour standards, 8 2 adopted modifications that will remain opera­
tive under returning peacetime conditions. In 3 of the 8 States_
Arkansas, Delaware, and Louisiana—the permanent legislation
related to basic-hour standards; in the other States in this group,
permanent legislative changes related to overtime or to occupations
covered by the law. Following is a brief summary of wartime hour
legislation which establishes different basic standards for the
period after the war than were in effect before the war.
Basic-Hour Standards
The maximum daily and weekly hour limitations, and the dayof-rest requirement, were revised in one State—Arkansas. The
former 9-hour day, 54-hour week maximum work period for
women was changed to provide for a basic 8-hour day, 6-day
week, with overtime at time and one-half the regular rate at which
the worker is employed. The statute requires the employer to
obtain a permit from the commissioner of labor for overtime of a
permanent nature in excess of one hour a day, but it does not set
a limit to the daily or weekly hours a woman may be employed
under permit. For employment on the seventh day, however, the
statute sets a 90-day maximum period. All work on the seventh
2 Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont.




LAWS IN POSTWAR YEARS

51

day as well as employment beyond 8 hours a day must be paid for
at time-and-one-half the worker’s regular rate.
The night-work law was modified in one State—Delaware—by
an amendment which changed from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. the begin­
ning hour of the period during which night work is prohibited.
Louisiana amended its lunch-period law by shortening the re­
quired time from 45 minutes to 30 minutes.
The previous discussion relates only to legislation modifying
existing standards, and does not include laws establishing stand­
ards where none existed before. Two States established new stand­
ards: Nevada adopted a 6-day week law; Rhode Island adopted a
lunch-period law.
Overtime
Provisions authorizing the emergency or seasonal employment
of women in peacetime beyond the daily or weekly limits set in
maximum-hour laws for some occupations were adopted in Con­
necticut, Maine, and Vermont. Since all of these States previously
made some provision for overtime, the effect of the wartime legis­
lation was to liberalize existing provisions.
Prior to the wartime amendment, the Connecticut 8- and 48-hour
law for mercantile establishments permitted: (1) Overtime during
the week before Christmas provided that employer grants at least
7 holidays with pay annually and (2) one 10-hour day in week to
make a shorter workday. The wartime amendment, without chang­
ing the existing overtime provisions, authorizes the commissioner
of labor upon application of an employer to grant emergency per­
mits for seasonal or peak demand, allowing employment for 10
hours a day, 52 hours a week for not more than 4 weeks a year.
Prior to the wartime amendment, the maximum-hour law in
Maine applicable to factories permitted no weekly overtime, but
allowed daily overtime in order to make one shorter workday in
the week. The amendment provides that daily hours shall not ex­
ceed 10, except during the war period. The permanent effect of
the amendment, therefore, was to strengthen the law by the addi­
tion of a new provision setting an absolute maximum length to the
workday.
The Vermont 9-50 hour law applicable to manufacturing and
mechanical establishments prior to the 1943 amendment contained
no emergency or overtime provision except for an employer “en­
gaged in public service.” The amendment provides for employ­
ment up to 10 hours a day, 60 hours a week, for a period not to
exceed 10 consecutive weeks in 1 year, during seasonal or peak
demand, provided the employer obtains permission in advance.
Coverage
In Arkansas, the permanent hour legislation enacted in wartime
increased coverage by making the law applicable to all businesses
“whatsoever” except those specifically exempted. On the other
hand, legislation in Connecticut, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and
New York resulted in excluding groups of workers previously cov­



52

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

ered. In one of these States—Louisiana—such legislation at the
same time brought under coverage of the law two groups not previ­
ously covered: Thus the maximum-hour law was amended not only
to exempt women office workers in certain industries and women
processing sugarcane and sorghum, but also to extend coverage to
women employed in theaters and in the operation of elevators. In
Connecticut, the maximum-hour law establishing an 8-hour day,
6-day and 48-hour week for women in mercantile establishments
was amended to exclude women in executive, managerial, or
supervisory positions earning not less than $175 a month. In
New Hampshire, the lO^-hour day, 54-hour week law was
amended to exempt women engaged in canning of perishable
fruits and vegetables. In New York, the night-work law was
amended to exclude women employed in book or pamphlet bind­
eries; the 8-hour day, 40-hour week law for women bindery
workers was repealed.
HOUR-LAW PROVISIONS IN EFFECT AFTER THE WAR 3

The legislatures of 44 States 4 are scheduled to meet in regular
session during 1945. Legislative action in 1945 may affect either
basic legal standards, duration laws, or both. The following analy­
sis of laws in effect at the end of the war is necessarily subject
to revision on the basis of legislative action or authorized ad­
ministrative action occurring subsequent to the time this bulletin
is written but previous to the end of the total war.
Maximum-Hour Laws 5
Forty-three States and the District of Columbia limit daily or
weekly hours of employment of women in one or more industries.
States that do not limit maximum hours by law are: Alabama,
Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia.
8-Hour Day and/or U&-Hour Week (or Less).—Twenty-four
States and the District of Columbia set 8 hours a day and/or 48
hours a week or less in one or more industries as the maximum
period women may be employed. Employment of women in the
manufacturing industry is covered by all but one of such laws:
In Kansas, the 8-48 hour maximum applies only to public-house­
keeping occupations and telephone exchanges, while the maximum
in manufacturing establishments is 9 and 49i/2 hours. In Con­
necticut the 8-48 hour standard applies to mercantile; maximum
hours for manufacturing are 9 and 48. In South Carolina, the 8and 40-hour law6 applies to only one branch of manufacturing—
textiles.
3 Subject to legislative or administrative changes' after Dec. 15, 1944.
4 All States except Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia.
5 Where the State establishes different legal hour standards for different industries, the
highest standard is included here. Compare with chart on p. 29 showing maximum hour laws
before the war.
.
e This South Carolina law is inoperative since court injunction was issued October 81, 1938.
See 10-55 hour law on next page.




LAWS IN POSTWAR YEARS

....
....
California
Colorado __ __ __ ....
....
Connecticut
District of Columbia........
....
....
Louisiana . ------------- ....

8-48
8-48
8

8-48
9-48
8-48
8-48
8-48
8-48
9-48

.... 8
.... 8-48
New Hampshire--------....10-48

53

New Mexico __ .... 8-48
New York ........ ..... 8-48
North Carolina.. ..... 9-48
'
North Dakota .. 8y2-48
Ohio
—........ . .. 8-45
Oregon ____ ... 8-44
Pennsylvania .... 8-44
Rhode Island .... ....9-48
8-40 (men and women)15
South Carolina..
Utah . ____ ___ ... 8-48
Virginia _____ ... ._ 9-48
Washington __ ...... 8
Wyoming ... —...... 8-48

9-Hour Day and/or 50- or 54-Hour Week.—Ten States set a
maximum 9-hour day and 8 of these set a weekly maximum of 50
or 54 hours in their laws. Idaho sets no weekly maximum. The
Arkansas law, while not expressly establishing a 54-hour week,
achieves this result with the combined 9-hour day, 6-day week
provision.
Nebraska ---------------------- 9-54
Arkansas-9
Oklahoma __---- ------------ 9-54
Idaho 9

Maine --------- ---------------- 9-54
Michigan --------------------9-54
Missouri9-54

Texas 9-54
Vermont_ —---------- -----9-50
Wisconsin
---------9-50

10-Hour Day or Over and/or 54- to 60-Hour Week.—Ten States
set either a workday of 10 hours or more, or a workweek of 54
hours or more, or both as their maximum. In Georgia and South
Carolina, the law applies only to one or two branches of manu­
facturing, principally textiles.
Delaware
Georgia ___
Kentucky ---Maryland -—
Minnesota ..._

MO-55
.10-60
(men and women)
_________ 10-60
10-60
.(no daily) 64

Mississippi

New Jersey —
South Carolina
South Dakota ..
Tennessee -----

___________ 10-60
(men and women)
10-54
..10-55
(men and women)
___________ 10-54
__ ______ 10%-57

Day-of-Rest Laws
Twenty-three States and the District of Columbia prohibit em­
ployment of women for more than 6 days a week in some or all
industries. All day-of-rest laws except Colorado and Utah apply
to manufacturing establishments.
Arizona
Arkansas
California (men and women)
Colorado
Connecticut (men and women)
Delaware
.
District of Columbia
Illinois (men and women)
Kansas
Louisiana
Massachusetts (men and women)
Nevada

New Hampshire (men and women)
New Jersey
New York (men and women)
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania (514-day week)
South Carolina
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin (men and women)

Meal- and Rest-Period Laws
Twenty-seven States and the District of Columbia require a
minimum period of one-third hour to one hour for meals for women



54

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

employed in some or all industries. In all but 4 of these States—
Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington—the mealperiod provision is applicable to manufacturing establishments.
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Indiana (men and women)
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nebraska (men and women)

Nevada
New Jersey (men and women)
New; Mexico
New York (men and women)
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Four States—California, Colorado, Oregon, and Utah—in addi­
tion to the meal period require a rest period of 10 minutes during
a work period of 4 consecutive hours or a half day. In Oregon the
rest-period provision applies to retail-trade employees only; in
Colorado to retail trade and laundries; in California, to occupations
which require continuous standing; in Utah, to any establishment
or industry.
Night-Work Laws
Seventeen States regulate the employment of women at night.
Fifteen of these prohibit such employment in one or more indus­
tries or occupations; 2 do not prohibit night work but regulate
it by fixing maximum hour limits for night work lower than those
set for employment at other hours. Four additional States and the
District of Columbia prohibit night work for persons under 21
years of age only.
Night Work Prohibited for Adult Women.1—Of the 15 States
that prohibit night work for women 21 years of age and over, the
prohibition exists by virtue of commission order only in 5 States—
California, Kansas, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. In
the 10 other States, night work is prohibited by statute. The
statutory prohibition applies to only one occupation or industry
in 5 States: In Indiana and Pennsylvania, to manufacturing; in
South Carolina, to mercantile; in Nebraska, to offices (in large
cities); in Ohio, to ticket sellers. The statutory prohibition in the
remaining 5 States applies to manufacturing together with certain
other specified industries. The 15 States prohibiting night work
are:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas

Massachusetts
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota

Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Washington
Wisconsin

Night Work Prohibited for Persons Under 21 Only.—The States
that prohibit night work for adult women as discussed in the pre­
ceding paragraph also prohibit night work for women under 21
years of age. In some instances the same provision applies to both
age groups; in others, women under 21 are covered by separate



LAWS IN POSTWAR YEARS

55

provisions establishing stricter standards or broader coverage.
In addition, the District of Columbia and 4 States that have no
night-work laws for adult women prohibit night work for persons
under 21 employed as messengers. In Arizona, Kentucky, and
Rhode Island, the prohibition applies to messengers of both sexes;
in Virginia and the District of Columbia to female messengers
only.
Special Muximum.-Hour Regulations for Night Work.—Nightwork hours for women are limited to 8 in Maryland and New
Hampshire, the maximum-hour limitations for other than night
work in these States being 10 and 101,4, respectively. The nightwork provisions in both States are set by statute and apply to
manufacturing and a variety of other occupations. Wisconsin also
limits the maximum number of hours women may be employed at
night in certain industries not covered by commission orders
prohibiting night work.
OTHER SPECIAL HEALTH LEGISLATION IN EFFECT
AFTER THE WAR
Grouped under this heading are the laws relating to plant
facilities; weight lifting and other conditions of work; and prohi­
bited occupations. Wartime changes in the legal requirements of
these laws are usually stated to be of a duration character. Con­
sequently, it is possible, on the basis of provision in effect before
the war, to summarize provisions expected to be in effect after the
war. As in the case of hour laws, it should be noted, however, that
all such requirements are subject to change by legislative enact­
ment and some of them by administrative regulation.
Plant-Facilities Laws
Seating.—'The District of Columbia and all States but two—
Illinois and Mississippi—have seating laws. In Florida alone, the
seating law applies to men as well as women. All of the States
with seating laws cover mercantile establishments. In 4 States—
Alabama, Maryland, North Dakota, and South Carolina—mercan­
tile establishments are the only ones subject to the law. In con­
trast, in 7 States—California, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska,
Pennsylvania, Washington—seating laws are applicable broadly
to “any establishment,” or “every employer,” or other general
category showing the intention to cover all employed women. Com­
plete coverage is also obtained in some of the laws by enumerating
occupations and adding a catch-all phrase. Thirteen States have
laws of this type: Arkansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
Vermont, and Wyoming. The number of occupations covered by
laws in the other States varies.
Seating laws vary widely with respect to such matters as num­
ber and type of seats. Some States specify the number of seats
required, such as one seat for every woman worker or one seat
for every two or three workers. Other States require only that a
sufficient number of seats be provided. A few laws contain some



56

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

description of the type of seat necessary, but most of them merely
provide that seats must be “suitable.” The usual requirement con­
cerning location is that seats be so placed as to be accessible to
workers. Use of seats is specifically limited by most laws to periods
when the worker is not engaged in active duties, but a few laws
require that workers be permitted reasonable use of seats or use
to the extent necessary to safeguard health.
Lunch Rooms.—Laws relating to provisions of lunch-room
facilities are found in 14 States:
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois

Kansas
Minnesota
Mississippi
New York
Ohio

Pennsylvania
Utah
Washington
West Virginia

Most of these laws apply to employees generally, though a few
relate to women only. The specific requirement that the employer
provide a place for employees to eat their meals is found in 7 of
these laws—Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Wash­
ington, and West Virginia. In 4 States—Delaware, Minnesota,
New York, and Pennsylvania—the employer is required to provide
a lunch room only for workers exposed to injurious substances. In
3 States—California, Illinois, and Utah—the lunch-room laws do
not require the employer to provide a lunch room but instead reg­
ulate the location and general conditions of such rooms. Some laws
specifically state that the place provided must be elsewhere than
the workroom, especially where toxic substances are handled. A
few laws require that tables and chairs be provided. No lunch­
room law requires the employer to maintain a food service as
distinguished from a place to eat.
Dressing Rooms; Rest Rooms.—Thirty-one States have laws
relating to dressing rooms or rest rooms, or both. A majority of
such laws apply to women only, but a few require that dressing
rooms be provided for both sexes. Some laws specify the condi­
tions under which dressing or rest rooms must be provided, while
others merely regulate the type or sanitary condition of such
rooms. A common requirement is that a room be provided for
changing clothes.
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma

Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Of the States listed above, only 11 have laws that specifically
require that rest facilities, such as a bed or cot, be furnished:
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Toilets.—Forty-one States and the District of Columbia have
laws requiring toilets to be provided. Of the 7 States—Ari­
zona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyo­



57

LAWS IN POSTWAR YEARS

ming—that do not have employment regulations concerning toilets,
a few provide for maintenance of toilets as a health requirement
in certain industries, particularly food industries. Since laws of
the latter type are designed primarily to protect the public health
rather than to safeguard working conditions of the employee,
they have not been included in this bulletin.
Most employment regulations concerning toilets require that
toilets be provided separate and apart for each sex. Some of them
specify the ratio between number of toilets and number of
workers. Provisions as to sanitary conditions and the degree of
privacy required vary widely, some laws merely stating that
toilets shall be sanitary and private and others specifying detailed
standards which must be met.
States that require toilet facilities to be provided for con­
venience of employees are the following:
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Regulatory Laws
Weight Lifting.—Lifting or carrying heavy weights is regulated
in 9 States. Limitations vary as to the maximum weight that
women may lift, ranging from 25 pounds to 75 pounds. Two
States—Minnesota and New York—regulate weight lifting by
women in core rooms only; Massachusetts regulates lifting of
weights of 25 pounds or over in core rooms and moving of weights
of 75 pounds or over in manufacturing and mechanical establish­
ments. Washington regulates lifting only in canning, packing,
manufacturing or other mercantile establishments, and does not
specify the maximum pounds that may be lifted. Limitations in
the other 5 States apply to any occupation or industry in which
women are employed. In some States, the law refers only to the
lifting of weights; in others specific provision is made for carrying
weights, and, in a few cases, for ascending stairs. Following is a
list of States with weight-lifting requirements.
Lifting

Weight limitation in pounds
Carrying
Ascending stairs

California.-.____________ .__ 25
25
Massachusetts_____ _______ 125 (moving, 75)
—
Michigan135
—
Minnesota1_. 125
—
New York............................... > 25
—
Ohio..__,
25
—
Oregon_______ ____ _____...
25
15
Utah____________________
30
15
Washington Not specified
Not specified
l Applicable only to workers in core rooms.




10
—
20
—•
—
—
—
—
—■

58

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Constant Standing.—Laws in 4 States—Arizona, Iowa, Ken­
tucky, Ohio—provide that women shall not be employed at work
that requires constant standing. In all such States except Arizona
the law applies only to women under 21 years of age.
Other Laws.—A variety of laws directed toward elimination of
unhealthful workplaces or hazardous working conditions are found
in 9 States—Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Such laws
include regulation of the following types of employment: Clean­
ing moving machinery in 3 States—Louisiana, Minnesota, and
Missouri; handling substances containing more than 2 percent
lead in 2 States—New Jersey and Pennsylvania; work on moving
abrasives in 3 States—in Michigan, if below the surface of the
ground, in New York and Ohio, irrespective of location; work in
core rooms in 4 States—Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and
Pennsylvania; work considered hazardous in Michigan; employ­
ment in insanitary, poorly lighted, and unventilated basements of
mercantile establishment or restaurants in New York, and in
various specified operations in Pennsylvania.
Laws containing broad over-all prohibitions against the employ­
ment of women under detrimental working conditions are found
in 9 States—Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Okla­
homa, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Most
inclusive, but nevertheless typical of other such laws, is that of
Wisconsin, which provides that no woman shall be employed in any
place or at any employment dangerous or prejudicial to her life,
health, safety, or welfare.
Prohibited Occupations
General.—Twenty-nine States prohibit the employment of
women in specified occupations:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware1
Florida1
Illinois
Indiana

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts 1
Minnesota1
Missouri
Montana1
New Jersey
New Mexico 1
New York

Ohio

Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina1
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

1 Prohibition applies only to persons under 21 years of age.

Twenty-one such States have only a single prohibition, usually
connected with work considered especially dangerous to health:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California/Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Okla­
homa, South Carolina,, Utah, and Wyoming. In contrast, laws in
Pennsylvania and Ohio enumerate a list of miscellaneous occupa­
tions in which women may not be employed.
_ Mines.—Employment of women in mines is prohibited by law
in 17 States. In 9 of these—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming—no legal prohi


LAWS IN POSTWAR YEARS

59

bition exists against employing women in any other occupation.
Laws of this type vary, some of them prohibiting only under­
ground work, and others prohibiting work “in or about a mine.”
Some laws cover only coal mining while others apply to the oc­
cupation of mining as such. Following are States with laws relat­
ing to the employment of women in mining:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana

Maryland
Missouri
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania

Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Establishments Handling Intoxicating Liquors.—Employment
of women in connection with the manufacture or sale of intoxi­
cating liquors or on premises where such beverages are sold is
prohibited by law in 12 States. Such prohibitions apply only to
persons under 21 in 7 of the 12 States—Delaware, Florida, Mary­
land, Massachusetts, Montana, South Carolina, and Virginia. At
least 1 State—Illinois—empowers municipal authorities to prohibit
such employment by ordinance. Following are States with laws
prohibiting such employment:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts

Montana
Ohio
South Carolina
Virginia

Other Prohibited Occupations.—Employment of women as
messengers is prohibited by law in 4 States—Minnesota, New
Mexico, New York, and Ohio. All such laws apply to women under
21 only. Employment as bellhop is prohibited in Ohio and Washing­
ton.
INDUSTRIAL HOME-WORK LAWS IN EFFECT AFTER
THE WAR
During the war period no new home-work legislation was enacted.
None of the existing laws was repealed or amended, and no dura­
tion changes were made. Barring the possibility of legislative or
administrative changes between December 1944 and the end of
the war, home-work laws will be the same after the war as they
were at the beginning.
Twenty States and the District of Columbia have industrial
home-work statutes, or regulations issued under authority of
minimum-wage laws, or both. Four such laws—Colorado, Oregon,
-Utah, and the District of Columbia:—apply to women and minors
only, the Colorado and Utah laws to retail-trade occupations. All
others apply to “persons.” States with home-work laws and regu­
lations are:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland



Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin

60

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

All home-work laws regulate the terms and conditions under
which home work may be performed and, in addition, some laws
prohibit home work in some industries. A few States have in­
corporated home-work prohibitions in minimum-wage orders for
certain industries. States in which home work in one or more in­
dustries is entirely prohibited, except in some instances for handi­
capped persons, are:
California
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey

New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
West Virginia

EMPLOYMENT BEFORE AND AFTER CHILDBIRTH
Employment for a specified period before and after childbirth
is prohibited by law in 6 States. No such law establishes any re­
employment rights for women or makes any reference to the
possibility of a leave of absence. States in which employment is
prohibited before and after childbirth are as follows:
Connecticut: 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after.
Massachusetts: 2 weeks before and 4 weeks after.
Missouri: 3 weeks before and 3 weeks after.
New York:4 weeks after.
Vermont: 2 weeks before and 4 weeks after.
Washington: 4 months before and 6 weeks after.

FUTURE STANDARDS FOR LABOR LEGISLATION FOR
WOMEN
The preceding pages have been devoted to a summary review
of the principal legislation governing women’s hours and working
conditions which, barring interim changes, will be in effect after
the war. On the basis of that summary two facts are readily
apparent: First, that significant gaps or omissions exist in the
major types of legislation for women in nearly all States; and
second, that some of the laws now in effect fall short of providing
adequate working-conditions standards.
All States have a common interest in developing and improving
labor-law standards both because of the general effect on the
public welfare and because, as was shown in chapter I, good
standards are good business. The extent to which existing stand­
ards need improvement, as well as the rapidity with which the
work can be accomplished, varies of course from State to State.
The Women’s Bureau believes, however, that the period of recon­
version from a wartime to a peacetime economy offers a real op­
portunity and challenge to all States to review the content ofexisting legislation with a view toward early initiation of an active
program for its improvement.
A summary of the standards which the Women’s Bureau recom­
mends for consideration in such a program is presented in the
following paragraphs. The Bureau believes that the standards
recommended for hour laws are the minimum standards that
should be considered. Standards for legislation other than hour
laws are still in an experimental stage. Laws may be necessary in
the future to cover standards not yet a subject of legislation. On



LAWS IN POSTWAR YEARS

61

such standards as have been incorporated in legislation much work
remains to be done before definite minimum standards can be
established with certainty as to their adequacy and effectiveness.
The recommendations that follow are concerned only with subjects
covered by existing laws. They are not intended to be final but
are suggested for use as guides only.
SUMMARY OF STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY U. S WOMEN’S
BUREAU PERTAINING TO SUBJECTS COVERED BY
EXISTING LEGISLATION
Hour Laws
The Women’s Bureau recommends the following minimum
standards in statutory enactments:
Maximum
1. A maximum 48-hour week, with overtime pay for hours
Hours of
worked over 40 up to and including 48, and with no provision
Employment:
permitting variation in the length of the workweek for
Weekly
covered employees.
Daily
2. A maximum 8-hour day.
If provision is made for variation in a specific industry,
the law should require the employer to obtain a permit
from the administrative agency.
Day of
3. One day of rest in every 7 consecutive days.
Rest
Lunch
Period

Rest
Period

Night Work

Seating

Toilet
Facilities

Washroom
Facilities
Dressing
Rooms;
Rest Rooms

4. A lunch period of not less than 30 minutes where food is
available on the premises; a longer period where food is not
thus available.
5. A rest period of at least 10 minutes in each 4-hour or half­
day work period without extension of daily work hours.
Night-Work Laws
Questions are being raised concerning existing legal restric­
tions on night work for women, many of which arise out of
problems relating to reconversion and postwar adjustments. A
review of these questions and of the fundamental issues in­
volved has led the Women’s Bureau to confirm its earlier con­
clusion, i.e., that considerations of health and opportunity for
normal social living make it desirable, insofar as possible, to
eliminate night work.
Plant-Facilities Laws
The Women’s Bureau recommends the enactment of legislation
establishing minimum basic standards, supplemented by the
issuance of codes:
1. Provision for seats in all industries; seats to be accessible,
free for use when sitting would not interfere with the active
dues of employment, and, where possible, so arranged as to
permit alternate standing and sitting.
Specific requirements as to type of seats should be des­
ignated, where feasible, by code.
2. Provision of adequate toilet facilities, separate for men and
women; private, easily accessible, properly maintained, and
with adequate ventilation.
Detailed standards covering the construction and main­
tenance of toilet rooms should be designated by code on
the basis of standards established by the American Stand­
ards Association.
3. Provision of adequate washroom facilities.
Detailed regulations should be established by code on the
basis of standards established by the American Standards
Association.
4. Provision of dressing rooms for the exclusive use of women
workers; rest rooms with cots available for use when neces-




STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

62

Regulatory Laws

Weight
Lifting
Cleaning
Moving
Machinery
Core
Making
and
Work
Similarly
Hazardous

The Women’s Bureau recommends that:
1. Weight lifting be regulated by code to meet the needs of
individual industries and particular situations.
A general statute fixing the maximum number of pounds
that women may be permitted to lift is not recommended.
2. Cleaning moving machinery be prohibited by statute.
The practice of cleaning moving machinery is inherently
unsafe and should be prohibited rather than regulated.
3. Work involving exposure to excessive heat or other special
hazards be regulated by code in order to minimize the
dangers to which workers are exposed.
Regulations to reduce the hazards of such work are de­
sirable rather than statutory prohibition of women’s
employment.
Prohibitory Laws

Occupations
Note

Prohibited
to Women

The Women’s Bureau recommends that existing legislation pro­
hibiting employment in specific occupations be the object of
special study to determine the need for its continuance.
Industrial Home-Work Laws

Industrial
Home W ork

The Women’s Bureau recommends enactment of legislation
leading to the elimination of industrial home work.
Specifically, it recommends:
(1) That States in which home work is not yet entrenched
enact legislation to prohibit home work outright in all
industries, except for handicapped workers entitled to
special certificates;
(2) That other States enact legislation that will (a) prohibit
home work outright in specified industries where its
continuance menaces the public health; and (b) authorize
the State labor commissioner to issue orders prohibiting
home work in additional industries, as the need is shown,
except for handicapped workers entitled to special cer­
tificates.
Maternity Laws

Employment
Before and
After
Childbirth

The Women’s Bureau recommends enactment of legislation re­
quiring that women be granted a leave of absence for a mini­
mum specified period before and after childbirth with reemploy­
ment rights.
Health legislation containing provision for adequate ma­
ternity benefits should also be enacted.




APPENDIX

63

APPENDIX.—TYPES OF LABOR LAWS,1 BY STATE
[For more detailed information, such as coverage, see charts in
Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. 202, parts I through IV]
Alabama:

Seats
Toilets
Prohibited occupations

Alaska:

60-hour week
Toilets
Minimum wage
Arizona:

8-hour day

48-hour week
Day of rest
Night work 1
2
Seats
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Minimum wage
Arkansas:

9-hour day
54-hour week 3
Day of rest
Meal period
Seats
Lunch room
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Minimum wage

California:

8-hour day

48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period; rest period
Night work
Seats
Lunch room 4
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage

Colorado:

8-hour day
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period; rest period
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room 4
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage

Connecticut:

8-hour day

9-hour day

48-hour week
52-hour week
58-hour week
Day of rest
Night work
Seats
Dressing room; rest room 4
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Maternity
Home work
Minimum wage
Delaware:
10-hour day
55-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room
Toilets
Prohibited occupations 2
District of Columbia:
8-hour day
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work 2
Seats
'
Toilets
Home work
Minimum wage
Florida:

Seats
Prohibited occupations 2
Georgia:
10-hour day
60-hour week
Seats
Hawaii:
Minimum wage
Idaho:
9-hour day
Seats
Illinois:

8-hour day

48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Lunch room 4
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage

1 For summary and analysis of minimum-wage laws see Women’s Bureau Bulletin 191 and
Supplement.
2 Applicable only to employees under 21 years of age.
3 Not specified in law. See daily hours and day of rest.
4 Though the law pertains to this subject, it does not require that such a facility be provided.




64

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Indiana:
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room 4
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Iowa:
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations 2
Kansas:
8-hour day
9-hour day
48-hour week
49%-hour week
54-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room
Toilets
Minimum wage
Kentucky:
10-hour day
60-hour week
Meal period
Night work Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations 2
Prohibited occupations
Minimum wage
Louisiana:
8-hour day
9-hour day
48-hour week
54-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Minimum wage
Maine:
•
9-hour day
54-hour week
Meal period
Seats
Toilets
Minimum wage
Maryland:
10-hour day
60-hour week
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
For footnotes see p. 63.




Prohibited occupations
Home work
Massachusetts:
9-hour day
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations 2
Maternity
Home work
Minimum wage
Michigan:
9-hour day
12-hour day
.
54-hour week
70-hour week
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Home work
Minnesota:
54-hour week
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations 2
Minimum wage
Mississippi:
1'0-hour day
60-hour week
Lunch room
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Missouri:
9-hour day
54-hour week
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Maternity
Home work
Montana:
8-hour day
48-hour week
Seats
Prohibited occupations 2
Nebraska:
9-hour day
54-hour week
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room 4
Toilets

APPENDIX
Nevada:
8-hour day
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Seats
Toilets
Minimum wage
New Hampshire:
10-hour day
10 M -hour day
48-hour week
54-hour week
Day of rest
Night work
_
Seats
Toilets
Minimum wage
New Jersey
10-hour day
54-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage
New Mexico:
8-hour day
48-hour week
54-hour week
Meal period
Seats
Prohibited occupations 2
New York:
8-hour day
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
’
Night work
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Maternity
Home work
Minimum wage
North Carolina:
9-hour day
10-hour day
11-hour day
48-hour week
55-hour week
■ Day of rest
Meal period
Seats
Toilets
For footnotes see p. 63.




North Dakota:
8%-hour day
9-hour day
48-hour week
54-hour week
58-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Minimum wage
Ohio:
8-hour day
45-hour week
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage
Oklahoma:
9-hour day
54-hour week
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Minimum wage
Oregon:
8-hour day
10-hour day
44-hour week
60-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period; rest period
Seats
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Home work
Minimum wage
Pennsylvania:
8-hour day
44-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage

66

STATE LABOR LAWS FOR WOMEN

Philippine Islands:
8-hour day
Meal period
Seats
Dressing’ room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Maternity
Puerto Rico:
8-hour day
48-hour week
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Maternity
Home work
Minimum wage
Rhode Island:
9-hour day
48-hour week
Meal period
Night work 2
Seats
Dressing room 4
Toilets
Home work
Minimum wage
South Carolina:
8-hour day
10-hour day
12-hour day
40-hour week
55-hour week
60-hour week
Day of rest
Night work
Seats
Toilets
Prohibited occupations 2
South Dakota:
10-hour day
54-hour week
Seats
Dressing room
Toilets
Minimum wage
Tennessee:
10%-hour day
57-hour week
Seats
Toilets
Home work
Texas:
9-hour day
54-hour week
Seats
Toilets
Home work
Utah:
8-hour day
48-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period; rest period
Seats
Lunch room 4

Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Home workMinimum wage

Vermont:

9-hour day
50-hour week
Seats
Toilets
Maternity

Virginia:

Washington:

/

8-hour day
48-hour week 3
60-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Regulated occupations
Prohibited occupations
Maternity
Minimum wage
West Virginia:

Meal period
Seats
Lunch room
Dressing room
Toilets
Home work
Wisconsin:

8-hour day
9-hour day
9%-hour day
10-hour day
50-hour week
55-hour week
56-hour week
60-hour week
Day of rest
Meal period
Night work
Seats
Dressing room; rest room
Toilets
Prohibited occupations
Home work
Minimum wage
Wyoming:

8-hour day
48-hour week
Seats
Prohibited occupations

For footnotes see p. 63.


☆ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING


*

9-hour day
48-hour week
Night work 2
Seats
Rest room
Toilets
Prohibited occupations

OFFICE: 1946—685435