I Wish I Was a Gorilla I Wish I Was a

Gorilla Jennifer Bove

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/i-wish-i-was-a-gorilla-i-wish-i-was-a-gorilla-jennifer-bo
ve/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Ranger Rick I Wish I Was a Bison Jennifer Bove Jennifer

Bové

https://ebookmeta.com/product/ranger-rick-i-wish-i-was-a-bison-
jennifer-bove-jennifer-bove/

Ranger Rick I Wish I Was a Llama Jennifer Bove Jennifer

Bové

https://ebookmeta.com/product/ranger-rick-i-wish-i-was-a-llama-
jennifer-bove-jennifer-bove/

Ranger Rick I Wish I Was a Monarch Butterfly Jennifer

Bové

https://ebookmeta.com/product/ranger-rick-i-wish-i-was-a-monarch-
butterfly-jennifer-bove/

When I Was Your Age Kenan Thompson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/when-i-was-your-age-kenan-thompson/
Metal Detecting for Beginners 101 Things I Wish I d
Known When I Started QuickStart Guides 1 1st Edition
Shafer

https://ebookmeta.com/product/metal-detecting-for-
beginners-101-things-i-wish-i-d-known-when-i-started-quickstart-
guides-1-1st-edition-shafer/

I Was Born for This 1st Edition Alice Oseman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/i-was-born-for-this-1st-edition-
alice-oseman/

I Was On That Train 2nd Edition Jeffrey Brett

https://ebookmeta.com/product/i-was-on-that-train-2nd-edition-
jeffrey-brett/

I Survived Capitalism and All I Got Was This Lousy

T-Shirt 1st Edition Madeline Pendleton

https://ebookmeta.com/product/i-survived-capitalism-and-all-i-
got-was-this-lousy-t-shirt-1st-edition-madeline-pendleton/

For the King I was Her King She was my Weakness 1st
Edition Jenika Snow

https://ebookmeta.com/product/for-the-king-i-was-her-king-she-
was-my-weakness-1st-edition-jenika-snow/
 What if you wished you were a gorilla?

4 Then you became a young gorilla.

Could you eat like a gorilla?

Sleep like a gorilla?

Live in a gorilla family?

And would you want to? Find out!

Where would you live?

Gorillas live in African rainforests.

Many trees and plants grow there.

Rainforests stay green all year.

The weather is often cloudy

with lots of rainy days.

Do you play outside

on rainy days?
What would your family be like?

A gorilla family is called a troop.

The troop has one father gorilla.

He is called a silverback because

of the light-colored fur that grows

on his back.
He leads the troop as they move

around the forest.

He finds good things to eat

and cozy places to sleep at night.

There are many mother gorillas

that live in a troop.

A mother gorilla feeds milk

to her baby.

She cuddles and kisses her baby.

A baby gorilla rides on its mom’s back

wherever she goes.

Gorillas watch their babies closely

to keep them safe.

When a dangerous animal comes near,

a mother gorilla picks up

her baby and runs.

A father gorilla chases

the animal away.

How would you learn to be a gorilla?

As baby gorillas grow bigger,

they begin to play a lot.

Playing helps young gorillas learn

to move like grown-up gorillas.

They run around and climb trees.

What games do you

play with friends?

Gorillas play with friends, too.

They wrestle and chase one another.

Playing games teaches them

how to get along with other gorillas.

How would you talk?

Gorillas grunt to say “I’m happy.”

They chuckle to say “That’s funny.”

A hoot says, “I’m excited!”

A bark or scream says, “I’m scared!”

A silverback smacks his chest loudly

to say, “Stay away from my troop!”

What would you

say in gorilla?
What would you eat?

Gorillas eat plants.

They like leaves and stems.

They also eat roots and fruits.

Sometimes they eat insects, too.

Older gorillas show young ones

which plants are good to eat.

If you ate like a

gorilla, what food

would you miss?

How would you wash up?

Gorillas help one another stay clean.

This is called grooming.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
21, three days prior to discontinuance, there were only 34,271
female applicants for out-of-work donations.[271] Yet on the whole,
even though there was for a few months an alarming amount of
unemployment among women workers, officials held that British
industry adjusted itself to peace more quickly than it had to war. A
long list of factories which had changed from war to peace products,
for instance from airplanes to furniture and from fuses to electric
equipment, was given as early as February. Government control of
raw materials was used to aid the transition, and priority was given to
certain essentials in using the productive capacity set free from war
work.
The independence among women workers which had developed
during the war was reflected in their attitude during the period of
great unemployment. In the similar crisis at the beginning of the war
they had been inarticulate. But on February 15, 1919, their
organizations arranged a meeting in Albert Hall, London, attended by
women representing nearly every trade, at which women speakers
dwelt on the folly of unemployment while the country was in need of
all kinds of manufactured articles. Resolutions were passed giving
the three points of the “Women’s Charter”—“the right to work, the
right to live and the right to leisure.” It was held that all workers by
hand or brain should unite, and that work should be provided for the
unemployed. An adequate living wage, an eight hour day and a forty
hour week were advocated as standards for working conditions. A
deputation was organized to take the resolutions to the Prime
Minister, but apparently he did not reply to them.[272]
The measures actually adopted by the government show many
traces of the Civil War Workers Committee recommendations,
though, hastily put in force as they were, they were much less
complete, and in some cases widely different. The arrangements
made but little distinction between men and women workers. The
whole process of “demobilizing” war workers was put in charge of a
“controller general” responsible to the Ministry of Labor, who
controlled the employment exchanges, a new “Appointments
Branch” for “men of office rank” and the labor departments of the
Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty and the War Office. The
employment exchanges were made the center for the transfer of war
workers. By the day after the armistice the recall of employment
exchange officials from the army had been arranged. Staff and
premises were enlarged and additional local advisory committees
formed. Various efforts were made to provide raw materials and to
hasten the change to peace time work by munition manufacturers.
Instructions to manufacturers asked them to avoid an immediate
general discharge of workers, to abolish all overtime and piece work
at once, and to retain as many workers as possible on short time. If
wages under this plan fell below certain levels, which were for
women 25s. ($6.00) a week, the government agreed to make up the
difference. In case of actual discharge, a week’s notice or a week’s
pay was to be given, and free railway passes home or to new work
places were provided. “The loyal and cordial cooperation of all
employers” in carrying out the directions was invited, but nothing is
at hand to show to what extent they were observed or how far they
lessened unemployment. It will be noted that men and women
workers were treated practically alike under this scheme. The
“Waacs” and other women auxiliaries of the army and navy were
demobilized under the same conditions as all members of the
military forces, receiving, besides certain gratuities, a civilian outfit,
four weeks’ pay and a railway pass.
Special provision for unemployed women through training
courses was outlined in a pamphlet issued by the government in the
spring of 1919.[273] It was stated that a large number of typical
women’s trades, such as clothing, textiles, food manufacture and
laundry work, would be covered by short training courses of from
one to six months’ duration, usually three months. In addition a
special course in housekeeping would be offered. The courses might
be given in any suitable place, such as a factory, as well as in trade
schools and the government instructional factories formerly used for
training munition workers. Approved students were to receive 15s. to
25s. ($3.50-$6.00) a week while taking the course, with traveling
fares if necessary, and an additional 10s. ($2.40) weekly if obliged to
live away from home.
 When the government adopted for immediate action the plans for
relieving unemployment previously outlined it also put forward
certain other schemes for decreasing unemployment during the later
reconstruction period, which included the stimulation of orders and
contracts, public and private, an increase in public works and
improvements and the extension of contributory unemployment
insurance to practically all workers.
The chief reliance of the government in dealing with
unemployment after the armistice was not a contributory insurance
plan, but a system of unemployment “donations.” Before the war
contributory unemployment insurance, paying 7s. ($1.68) a week to
unemployed workers for fifteen weeks a year from a fund created
through small weekly contributions for employers, employes and the
government, covered 2,200,000 workers in six trades, almost all of
whom were males. In 1916 the law was extended for a period of
from three to five years after the end of the war to include most of
the chief war industries with an additional 1,500,000 employes,
including many women. But by an emergency order made within a
few weeks after the armistice, the contributory insurance law was
temporarily superseded by a scheme of “donations” applying also to
all war workers not previously covered and all ex-soldiers and
sailors. Free policies were issued, at first good in the case of civilians
for six months beginning November 25, 1918, and in the case of
soldiers, for twelve months from the date of demobilization. The
policies provided their holders with donations while unemployed for
thirteen weeks if civilians and twenty-six weeks if soldiers. The
original scale was 20s. ($4.80) weekly for women workers, which
was raised after a few weeks to 25s. ($6.00). Additional payments
were made for dependent children, amounting to 6s. ($1.44) weekly
for the first and 3s. (72 cents) for each succeeding child. A later
amendment permitted payments to civilians for an additional thirteen
weeks at a reduced rate, which was, for women, 15s. ($3.60) weekly.
Later, in May, 1919, when according to the terms of the original order
all donation policies held by civilians would have expired, they were
renewed for an additional six months. Except for ex-service men and
women, the system was finally discontinued on November 25, 1919.
At this date 137,000 civilians were receiving donations, of whom
29,000 were females. All donations were paid through the
employment exchanges and could be stopped if the recipients
refused “to accept suitable employment.”
Undoubtedly the system of unemployment donations prevented
much suffering among thousands of wage earners to whom the
country was indebted for their war work. But as a whole its operation
can not be said to have been satisfactory, particularly among women
employes. An entire session of the House of Commons was devoted
mainly to criticisms of the system and its defence by the Minister of
Labor. Complaints of “slackers” who were taking a vacation at the
taxpayers’ expense were met by charges that women were being
forced to take places at sweated wages by refusals to pay the
unemployment donations. In the five months ending April 25, 1919,
claims for donations numbering 141,770 were disallowed, in 100,442
of which cases appeals to the referees were made. Only 27,536 of
the appealed claims were finally allowed, 81 per cent of the women’s
claims being denied, about half of them on the ground of “refusal to
accept suitable employment.”[274]
The Ministry of Labor, which administered the unemployment
donations, admitted that an unsatisfied demand for women workers
existed in domestic service, laundries, the needle work trades and in
some districts in the textile industry at the same time that half a
million women were out of work. But the places open were either
very highly skilled or grossly underpaid and unattractive. For one firm
which needed 5,000 workers, the employment exchanges could find
only fifty women who seemed qualified, of whom the firm hired only
fifteen.
The association of laundrymen even appealed to the government
to bring pressure to bear on the women to accept work, but
apparently no action was taken in answer to the demand. The
women workers themselves said that when the government had
raised the rate of unemployment donations from 20s. to 25s. weekly
on the ground that a single woman could not live on less, they could
not be expected to enter laundries at 18s. ($4.32) a week.
 Other less prominent difficulties of adjustment were the
reluctance of soldiers’ wives to enter new kinds of work when they
would retire from industry in a few months, and the unwillingness of
women in general to go from the comparatively high wages of
munitions to the low wages of learners and to factories lacking the
conveniences of the new munitions plants.
Criticism of the system was so widespread that an official
investigating committee was formed which issued two reports.[275]
The committee concluded that there had been no widespread fraud,
though under the plan as first put in operation it was possible legally
for persons who were not genuinely seeking work to abuse the
scheme. The committee felt, however, that the emergency had been
great and that if the later safeguards had been introduced in the
beginning the whole system might have broken down. They
recommended, among other points, swifter prosecution of fraud, a
contributory rather than a noncontributory plan, and discontinuance
of allowances based on the number of dependents. They felt that
applicants must not expect exactly the same sort of work or wage
rates that they had had during the war, and that donations should be
stopped if similar work was refused.

The Domestic Service Problem

Some of the main difficulties and the keenest discussion centered
on the question of domestic service. That the Ministry of
Reconstruction found it advisable to appoint a “Women’s Advisory
Committee on the Domestic Service Problem,” which made a formal
report, indicates the extent of agitation on the subject. It will be
recalled that during the war the number of household servants
decreased by 400,000. Householders seemingly expected that as
soon as the war was over this shortage would be made up from the
ranks of ex-munition workers. But this failed to occur. Some
dissatisfaction with the wages offered, most frequently 10s. to 13s.
($2.40 to $3.12 a week, with board) was expressed, but the chief
complaint was that of long hours and unsatisfactory personal
treatment.
 Various schemes for attracting workers by improving conditions
were put forward, some of which involved radical changes from the
usual customs. The majority of the official Women’s Advisory
Committee, however, placed its chief emphasis in solving the
problem merely on the provision of improved methods of training,
notably a two year course to be entered by girls of fourteen. Other
groups, such as the Fabian Women’s Group and the Women’s
Industrial Council, advocated plans which in essence abolished all
“living in,” and provided for hostels giving training which would send
qualified workers into the homes for a fixed number of hours. By May
the Young Women’s Christian Association was ready to open a
hostel in London from which workers were to be sent out on an eight
hour basis. Employers were to pay 10d. (20 cents) an hour to the
hostel, and the workers were to receive 30s. ($7.20) for a forty-eight
hour week, and to pay the hostel £1 ($4.80) weekly for board, for a
guarantee against unemployment, for use of uniform and club
privileges. If the hostel was successful, others were to be started.
[276]

Meanwhile an active movement for union organization among

domestic servants was begun, and forty branches having 4,000
members were formed in the four or five months after the armistice.
The chief aim of the union was said to be the raising of the status of
domestic service so that the workers would be proud of it. Its
standards seemed to be comparatively modest—a minimum weekly
wage of 12s. 6d. ($2.40) for general servants and 15s. ($3.60) for
cooks, a ten hour work day during a fourteen hour period, part of
Sunday and another half day off weekly and abolition of uniforms.
This last demand perhaps represented the sharpest departure from
prevailing customs. In Glasgow a “Mistresses’ League” was formed
to cooperate with the union, and it was the general opinion of
persons interested that both sides needed organizing.
Still “a house is not a factory,” and there were not wanting friends
of the women worker to point out that domestic service must
necessarily remain to some extent individual and unstandardized.
I am profoundly sceptical as to the various
“industrialised” suggestions put forward—the
 introduction of shifts, etc. How could a household
worker strictly on a shift system deal with the
irregular incursion of visitors, children home for the
holidays, measles, influenza, spring cleaning and
other ills to which mortal flesh is heir?...
From the maid’s point of view, I take it the main
disadvantages of domestic service are twofold; the
question of free evenings and the uncertainty as to
the type of household. Time off in the afternoon is
naturally of less value than time off at night.
Similarly a maid may find herself on taking a new
situation in a comfortable home or very much the
reverse.
In a house organized on proper lines, domestic
service has compensations as well as drawbacks. A
just mistress will arrange for adequate time off, even
if the home can not be laid down each week with
mathematical exactness. She will see that her
maids are properly housed, that their food is
adequate and properly cooked, that their work is
organized on sensible lines and gives as much
scope as possible for individual responsibility. In a
household which lives literally as a family and is
inspired with mutual consideration and good will
“that servant problem” simply does not exist. When
mutual consideration and good will are lacking
neither corps, caps, correspondence nor
conferences will create the cement by which a
contented household is held together.[277]
It is difficult to tell how far these new schemes will change the
conditions of housekeeping and lessen unemployment by attracting
women to domestic service. But the fact that they were put forward is
an interesting sign of the extent of the movement for reconstructing
the national life on better lines.
 Dilution and Equal Pay
The other two chief problems of the women workers in the
reconstruction period, that of the “dilutees,” who had taken up men’s
work during the war, and that of “equal pay for equal work” and an
adequate standard of wages for women workers generally, were
closely related to each other. Much of the opposition of the men
workers to the entrance of women into new occupations was based
on the fact that women’s wage standards were lower than those of
men. In most cases, it will be remembered, dilution had taken place
under promises that it would last only during the war. Parliament, by
the Munitions Act, had given the government’s pledge that
departures from prewar practices should be merely temporary in the
establishments covered.[278] Similar clauses, often even more
explicit, were found in practically all the substitution agreements
made by private employers with labor organizations.[279] Meanwhile
the fixing of women’s wages by law had been widely extended, and,
in the opinion of close students of labor problems, “a removal of the
statutory regulations might well be followed by a serious and
immediate fall in wages.”[280]
The government in several instances took action on matters
connected with women’s wages and occupations after the war, but it
is not too harsh to say that a disposition to tide over difficulties
temporarily rather than to define any very clear line of policy was
evident. Two laws were passed affecting the after war wages of
women. The Trade Boards (minimum wage) Act was extended in
1918, before the close of the war, as a measure of preparedness for
peace. “There is reason to fear that the after war dislocation of
industry will make the problem of adequate wages for unskilled and
unorganized workers, especially women, very acute,” said an official
explanation of the changes in the act.[281] “Eight years’ satisfactory
results of Trade Boards pointed to these as the best way of meeting
the situation.” The new law provided that boards might be formed
wherever wages were unduly low, instead of exceptionally low as in
the original law. The general wage level for women workers was so
low before the war that it had often been difficult to prove an
“exceptional” condition. Provisions were also made to have minimum
wage awards come into force more quickly. By the spring of 1919
new Trade Boards had been formed in eight industries.[282] They
apparently fixed wages for women on the basis of the necessary
cost of living for a single woman—28s. ($6.72) for a forty-eight hour
week in laundries, for example.
But the Trade Boards covered only a fraction of the industries of
the country, and further measures were considered necessary to
prevent a dislocation of wages. Following the advice of a committee
appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Wages (Temporary
Regulation) Bill was passed November 21, 1918. This act required
employers to pay the “prescribed” or “substituted” rate which
prevailed at the time of the armistice for a period of six months. In
May, 1919, the provisions of the act were extended for another six
months. Under this law an Interim Court of arbitration was set up
which handled the arbitration of disputed wage cases. During the
year of its existence it made 932 awards and advised on several
others. On November 20, 1919, this Interim Court was displaced by
the Industrial Courts Act, which in addition to its function of voluntary
arbitration, extended certain parts of the Wages Temporary
Regulation Act until September 30, 1920.[283] At the close of the war
the greatest number of women were substituting for men on semi-
skilled and repetition processes, and it was therefore semi-skilled
men who were menaced most immediately by the danger of
undercutting by the women. But in the rapid extension of specialized
work during the war lay an evident threat to the position of the skilled
worker. A right solution of the two questions, in which the interests of
all the groups concerned would be safeguarded, would apparently
involve a modification of prewar conditions, rather than a return to
them.
Three points of view were evident in English opinion about
women’s work and wages after the armistice. The first point of view
was, briefly, that women workers would and should return to their
prewar occupations. But little attention was given to the question of
their wage level. Whether such a return was possible or just to the
women themselves, or whether they might not be excluded for a time
but remain potential competitors with low wage standards, thus
bringing about the very danger they were trying to avoid—all this
was seemingly not considered. Though relatively seldom expressed
in print it was a viewpoint held widely and tenaciously. Government
officials, visiting America in November, 1917, for instance, said that
marriage, the return of married women to their homes and the revival
of the luxury trades and domestic service, would relieve the situation.
Many old line trade unionists also believed that women should not be
allowed to remain in most of their new lines of work, and demanded
the literal fulfilment of all pledges to that effect. The general
secretary of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, at a
conference of “Working Class Associations” said as to the basis of
suitable occupations:
My own view, for what it is worth, is that this
problem could be solved with very little trouble. I
think a careful study of the census returns for the
last thirty years would help to solve the problem of
the basis of suitability. We could safely conclude
that the occupations which, according to the census,
show a steady and persistent increase in the
number of women employed are suitable
occupations for the extension of women’s labour. I
think we must face it ... that, as far as we can see at
present, the prewar standard for fixing wages as
between men and women is likely to remain.
A second point of view, which might be termed the “moderate”
one, compromising between prewar and war conditions, advocated
the retention of women in all “suitable” occupations, together with an
extension of protective labor legislation, protection of the wage level
by minimum wage fixing, and “equal pay for equal work” where men
and women remained in the same occupations. This opinion was
evident in the two chief official reports on women’s work which have
been issued since the armistice, that of the Home Office on
“Substitution of Women in Nonmunition Factories during the War”
and that of the “War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.” The
former described a fairly large range of new employments as
“suitable” for women, including positions in scientific laboratory work,
supervision and management, as well as factory processes. Even
with all unsuitable occupations set aside, there remained “a body of
industries and operations offering a hopeful field of fresh
employment to women, where their war experience can be turned to
account, and should prove a national asset of great value.” Among
the approved trades were light leather tanning, fancy leather
manufacture, box and packing case making, furniture, scientific
instrument making, flint glass cutting and engraving, and cutlery,
except scissors manufacture. The factors causing an occupation to
be disapproved were the heaviness of the work, the use of
dangerous machinery or poisonous substances, the presence of
exceptional heat, wet or dirt and the necessity for night work or
solitary employment.[284] Basing its conclusions on considerations of
“efficiency” and relative output, the War Cabinet Committee decided
that women would probably not remain in heavy manual labor and
out door work. There had not been time during the war to judge of
their effectiveness in skilled work, but in routine and repetition
processes, into which the war had hastened their “normal”
movement, they had been successful and were likely to stay
permanently. Repetition work in the metal trades, light work in
chemical plants, certain processes in printing, woodworking and
manufacture, agriculture, commerce and government positions, and
many of the new administrative and professional openings for
educated women, were mentioned by the War Cabinet Committee as
providing possibilities for the continued work of women.[285] But both
reports recognized that many other factors besides suitability,
notably the attitude of the trade unions, would play an important part
in determining the position of the woman worker.
The chief purpose of the investigations of the War Cabinet
Committee was to decide on the proper relation between the wages
of men and of women. The majority of the committee concluded that
when men and women did radically different work, it was “not
possible to lay down a relation between their wages.” However, for
the protection of women workers they urged a universal minimum
wage for adult women, sufficient to cover the necessary cost of living
for a single woman. The extension and strengthening of protective
labor laws was also endorsed, and the possibility of such regulation
through international action was welcomed. But when the two sexes
had entered the same occupations, the committee subscribed to the
principle of equal pay for equal work, “in the sense that pay should
be in proportion to efficient output.” The committee believed that
piece rates should be equal and time rates should be fixed by trade
union negotiation. In the frequent case in which a woman was doing
part of a man’s job, the total rate should be unchanged, and the
different workers should be paid in proportion to the value of their
contribution. Where processes were simplified on the introduction of
women, the women should be paid the unskilled men’s rate, unless it
could be proved that their work was of less value.
The third position regarding women’s wages and women on
men’s jobs was clear cut and uncompromising and was perhaps
typified in a minority report to the War Cabinet Committee by Mrs.
Sidney Webb. In this report Mrs. Webb expressed the belief that
existing relations between men’s and women’s employment were
harmful to individuals and to the nation. All occupations should be
opened to qualified persons regardless of sex, at the same standard
rates and under the same working conditions. “Equal pay for equal
work” was an ambiguous and easily evaded phrase. A national legal
minimum wage should also be fixed, in which “there should be no
sex inequality.” As a corollary to the proposals Mrs. Webb believed
that some form of public provision for the needs of maternity and
childhood should be established. “There seems no alternative—
assuming that the nation wants children—to some form of state
provision, entirely apart from wages.”[286]
Eighteen months after the signing of the armistice it was still
hardly possible to know definitely what the after war wages and
occupations of the woman worker would be. After war industrial
conditions in themselves naturally stimulated some return of women
to their former occupations. Many of the women substitutes were
found in munition making which was immediately curtailed, while the
luxury, the needle and other “women’s” trades, depressed during the
war may be expected to revive in time. The reluctance of women to
enter these trades under the prevailing wage standards was very
pronounced, however. Another important factor in forcing women
back to prewar lines of work was the carrying out of certain war time
substitution agreements. For example, the newly formed industrial
council of the wool textile industry, representing employers and
employes, adopted on February 3, 1919, the substitution agreement
made between employers and work people of the West Riding of
Yorkshire three years before. By the terms of this agreement, the
returning soldiers were to get their places back when fit for
employment. Women were not to be employed on men’s work if men
were available and were to be the first discharged if there was a
shortage of work. As long as women substitutes remained in the
industry they were to be paid on a basis equivalent to that of men
workers.
But in other cases, even though similar agreements exist, it
appears probable that they will be modified to allow women to keep
at least some of their new jobs. Although the Amalgamated Society
of Engineers had the legal sanction of the Munitions Acts for
excluding women from engineering at the end of the war, at a
conference between employers and the union for drafting an after
war trade agreement their president expressed his willingness to
allow women to remain in semi-skilled repetition work. According to
this official much of this kind of work would be carried on in munition
plants converted into factories for the manufacture of articles
formerly imported. Officials expect the so-called “Whitley” industrial
councils of employers and employes to make many similar
adjustments, but it has been noted that the council in the woolen
industry merely reverted to prewar conditions and arranged to shut
out the women. Moreover, in many new occupations, notably clerical
and commercial work, which women entered without conditions, and
where their efficiency has been demonstrated, it seems almost
certain that they will remain. The awakened spirit among women
workers and the growth of labor organizations among them, which
will give voice to their demands, must also not be forgotten in judging
whether women will not continue to occupy at least a part of their
new field of work. The radical point of view, that there should be no
barriers against their continuing all their new occupations has
attracted much attention from its logical presentation and the new
note that it strikes.
The position of the government on “dilution” is not wholly clear.
During the Parliamentary campaign of December, 1918, Lloyd
George, in answer to questions from Lady Rhondda of the Women’s
Industrial League, stated that he intended to carry out the terms of
the Treasury Agreement of 1915, which promised to restore prewar
practices. But “the government had never agreed that new industries
come under the Treasury Agreement.” Women could find
employment in these, which were already extensive, and in their
prewar occupations. The Prime Minister also stated that he was “a
supporter of the principle of equal pay for equal output. To permit
women to be the catspaw for reducing the level of wages is
unthinkable.” In his stand at this time, Lloyd George appeared to
approach the middle-of-the-road compromising position of the
majority of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry.
A somewhat similar stand was taken in the “Restoration of
Prewar Practices Act” of August 15, 1919, which arranged for the
fulfilment of pledges made in the Treasury Agreement. It required the
owners of the establishments covered—mainly those engaged in
munitions work—to restore or permit the restoration of prewar trade
rules and customs, and to allow such prewar practices to be
continued for a year.
Rules laid down by the Ministry of Labour are quoted, however,
which would turn out all the “dilutees,” both male and female, and
give back to the skilled men their former monopoly. The rules state
that wherever a part of the force must be discharged, the “dilutees”
must go first and that if a skilled man applies for work, a “dilutee”
must be discharged if necessary.[287] It is probable that these rules
apply only to establishments covered by the Munition Acts, but, as
far as they go, they leave the women nothing of their war time gains.
On the other hand, in assenting to the recommendations of the
national Industrial Conference, the government agreed with those
who argued for the same protective legislation for both sexes along
with state maternity provisions. This national industrial conference,
representing employers and employes was called in the spring of
1919 during great labor unrest. It urged legislation for a forty-eight
hour week and a universal minimum wage for both sexes, and such
bills were pending in Parliament in September, 1919.
The conference also proposed that public provision for maternity
care be extended and centralized under the Ministry of Health to
whose creation the government was pledged. Maternity protection
will undoubtedly hold a prominent place in legislation during the next
few years. The successful strike of the women bus workers for equal
pay, supported as they were by their male coworkers and by the
public, gave hope for the coming of industrial equality between men
and women. Such equality immediately raises the question of pay for
the services which married women render to the state. The rearing of
healthy children is of vital national importance and the endowment of
motherhood, provision of milk and proper food for pregnant and
nursing mothers and the extension of maternity centers and
hospitals with medical and nursing care, are already under
consideration by the newly created Ministry of Health.

Child Workers After the War

On the needs of children there was much more general
agreement. The most pressing problem was prevention of
unemployment during the readjustment from war to peace time
production. The larger issue lay in greater public control over the first
years of working life, to the end that the young workers might grow
into better citizens. Both problems were undoubtedly made more
difficult by the harm done to boys and girls in body and character by
the war. But at the same time the war had roused a greater
appreciation of the value of these future citizens and a greater
determination to improve their chances.
Alarming forecasts were made as to the probable extent of
unemployment among boys and girls at the end of the war by a
committee of enquiry appointed by the Ministry of Labour at the
suggestion of the Ministry of Reconstruction.[288] A number of
munition firms which were canvassed said that they intended to
discharge nearly half their boys and three quarters of their girls when
peace was declared. It was estimated that 60,000 out of the 200,000
working boys and girls in London would be thrown out of a job. Acute
unemployment was predicted in occupations that had engaged more
than three-tenths of all working girls—the metal, woodworking and
chemical trades, government establishments, transport and perhaps
commerce.
It was likewise anticipated that it would be particularly difficult for
boys and girls dismissed at the end of the war to find new places.
Not only would openings be few and the numbers of adults seeking
work be large, but the high wages children had received for
repetition work on munitions would make them unwilling to learn
trades or to accept lower pay. When a number of boys were
discharged from munition plants in 1916-1917, although labor at that
time was very scarce, great difficulty was found in getting them new
places because of their unwillingness to accept ordinary wages. To
meet the crisis the Ministry of Reconstruction committee suggested a
comprehensive program for unemployment prevention. The
discharge of war workers should be regulated and placement
centered in the employment exchanges, whose juvenile employment
committees were to be strengthened. Government establishments
should hold back dismissals until notified that places were open. A
canvass for possible openings and for probable dismissals should be
made in advance of the end of the war.
The second point in the committee’s plan was keeping
newcomers out of industry. The exemptions allowing children under
fourteen to leave school should be abolished, scholarships provided
for many capable children at secondary schools, and the working
weeks for all under eighteen reduced to forty-eight hours. For those
still uncared for, training during unemployment should be provided.
Training centers should be opened in all towns of over 20,000
population and allowances made to parents whose children
attended. For the boys most demoralized by war work it might even
be necessary to open residential training camps where they could
remain at least six or eight weeks.
The third main point in the program was the improvement of
working conditions, including for all occupations a week of forty-eight
hours for work and continuation school together, the abolition of night
work, and a searching physical examination before entering industry.
A novel recommendation was that it should be made a legal offence
to employ young persons under conditions “impeding their training.”
But as was the case with the women workers, the comprehensive
plans worked out under the Ministry of Reconstruction had not been
adopted when the armistice was signed, and juvenile workers were
helped through the unemployment crisis only by the incomplete
makeshifts hastily adopted in the first few days after November 11.
Chief among these was the provision of unemployment donations,
the payment of which was conditional on attendance at a training
center wherever one was available. The donations were payable for
the same period as those for adults, that is, for thirteen weeks during
the first six months of peace, later extended for a second six months,
but were less in amount, being 14s. 6d. ($5.48) weekly for boys and
12s. 6d. ($3.00) for girls. During the first few months of 1919, about
50,000 young persons received the donations.
The number receiving donations steadily declined until on
November 21, 1919, when civilian donations ceased, there were
8,000 boys and 2,287 girls on the Labor Exchange donation lists.
[289] By February of that year 116 training centers had been opened,
providing nearly sufficient in London, and a smaller number
elsewhere. More were opening daily, but it was hard to find teachers
and rooms. The centers were managed by the Board of Education,
in close cooperation with the employment exchanges. About 13,500
boys and girls were in attendance daily.[290]
The Fisher Education Law is, to date, the chief constructive
measure looking toward a permanent improvement in the condition
of juvenile workers. This measure was the result of proposals made
by 1917 by an official committee on “Juvenile Education in Relation
to Employment after the War,” which were strikingly like those put
forward by a number of workers’ organizations. All exceptions
allowing children to leave school before the age of fourteen were
abolished. Any gainful employment by children under twelve was
forbidden, and children between twelve and fourteen might work only
on Saturdays and for a few hours after school. Attendance at
continuation schools by all young workers was required, and the age
limit will be eighteen years when the law goes into full effect. Eight
hours a week and two hundred and eighty hours a year must be
given to continuation school, the time for attendance being taken out
of working hours. Unfortunately, those who in some ways most need
the protection of the law, namely, the boys and girls who left school
for work prematurely during the war, do not come under its
provisions. Two special sections exempted those who had already
left school from returning, and those fourteen years old or more
when the law was passed, from attendance at continuation classes.
Nevertheless by the enactment of this law the final effect of the war
on English child labor standards should be to lift them to a higher
level than ever before.
Even at this time of writing it is difficult to measure the final
effects of the war upon the economic conditions of the women and
children. Too many unfinished plans and unfulfilled pledges still
remain for action by the government. Far reaching changes are,
however, in prospect and some of them actually under way.
Foremost among these is the aroused spirit among the workers, who
are demanding and peacefully securing a real share in the
management of industry. In this awakening the woman worker has
fully participated. The disadvantages of war work, in long hours,
overstrain, the disruption of home life, may pass as industrial
conditions return to normal. The gains in the way of better working
conditions, higher wages and a wider range of occupations seem
likely to be more permanent. Most important of all is the fact that
because of her broader and more confident outlook on life, the
woman worker is able consciously to hold to the improved economic
position to which the fortunes of war have brought her.
 APPENDICES
Appendix A
The following table, from a “Report to the Board of Trade on the State of Employment in the United
Kingdom,” of February, 1915, compares the number of males and females on full time, on overtime, on
short time, and unemployed, between September, 1914, and February, 1915.

STATE OF EMPLOYMENT IN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER

AND DECEMBER, 1914, AND FEBRUARY, 1915
(Numbers Employed in July = 100 per cent.)
September, 1914 October, 1914 December, 1914 February, 1915
M F M F M F M F
60.2 53.5 66.8 61.9 65.8 66.6 68.4 75.0
Full time
3,913,000 1,337,500 4,342,000 1,547,500 4,277,000 1,665,000 4,446,000 1,875,000
3.6 2.1 5.2 5.9 12.8 10.8 13.8 10.9
Overtime
234,000 52,500 338,000 147,500 832,000 270,000 897,000 272,500
26.0 36.0 17.3 26.0 10.5 19.4 6.6 12.6
Short time
1,690,000 900,000 1,124,500 650,000 682,500 485,000 390,000 15,000
Contraction in 10.2 8.4 10.7 6.2 10.9 3.2 11.8 1.5
Nos. employed 663,000 210,000 695,000 155,000 708,500 80,000 767,000 37,500
8.8 ... 10.6 ... 13.3 ... 15.4 ...
Enlisted
572,000 ... 689,000 ... 864,500 ... 1,010,000 ...
Net displacement (-) -1.4 -8.4 -0.1 -6.2 +2.4 -3.2 +3.6 -1.5
or replacement (+) -91,000 -210,000 -6,500 -155,000 +156,000 -80,000 +243,000 37,500

Appendix B
The following table indicates some of the processes formerly reserved for men on which the factory
inspectors found women employed by the end of 1915:
INDUSTRY PROCESSES
Linoleum Attending cork grinding and embossing machines,
machine printing, attending stove, trimming
and packing.
Woodworking—
Brush making Fibre dressers, brush makers and on boring
machinery.
Furniture Light upholstery, cramping, dowelling,
glueing, fret-work, carving by hand or
machine, staining and polishing.
Saw mills On planing, moulding, sand-papering, boring,
mortising, dovetailing, tenoning, turning and
nailing machines. Taking off from circular
saws; box making, printing and painting.
Cooperage Barrel making machines.
Paper mills In rag grinding and attending to beating and
breaking machines, and to coating machines,
calenders and in certain preparations and
finishing and warehouse processes.
Printing Machine feeding (on platen machines and
 INDUSTRY PROCESSES
on guillotines) and as linotype operators.
Wire rope On stranding and spinning machines.
Chemical works Attending at crystallising tanks and for
yard work.
Soap As soap millers and in general work.
Paint At roller mills, filling tins and kegs,
labeling and packing.
Oil and cake mills Trucking, feeding and drawing off from chutes,
attending to presses.
Flour mills Trucking.
Bread and biscuits Attending to dough-breaks, biscuit machines,
and at the ovens assisting bakers.
Tobacco Leaf cutting, cigarette making, soldering,
trucking and warehouse work.
Rubber At washing machines, grinding mills, dough
rolls, solutioning, motor tube making.
Malting Spreading and general work.
Breweries Cask washing, tun-room work, beer bottling
and bottle washing.
Distilleries In the mill and yeast houses.
Cement Attending weighing machines, trucking.
Foundries Core making, moulding.
Tanning and currying At the pits, in finishing and drying, and in
oiling, setting up, buffing and staining.
Woolen mills Beaming and overlooking, attending drying
machines, carding, pattern weaving.
Jute mills On softening machines, dressing yarn,
calendering.
Cotton mills In blowing room on spinning mules, beaming,
twisting and drawing, and in warehouse.
Hosiery Folding and warehouse work.
Lace Threading.
Print, bleach and Beetling, assisting printers at machines,
dye works warehouse processes.

Appendix C
The following tables from the second report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science bring out in detail, first, the gradual disappearance of
unemployment and short time and the increase of women’s numbers in
industry from September, 1914, to April, 1916; second, the changes in
numbers of women in the various occupations, both industrial and nonindustrial
in December, 1915, and April, 1916, compared with July, 1914, and, third,
similar details as to the number of women who were undertaking “men’s work.”

STATE OF EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AT VARIOUS DATES

SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF WAR, COMPARED WITH STATE
OF EMPLOYMENT IN JULY, 1914
(“Industrial” employment only.
Numbers employed July, 1914 = 100 per cent.)