31

The arbitrary distinction made between the wages paid to men and women on the same work is illustrated by the wage scale prevailing in a government plant. The scale was set before the women undertook the work and in no sense represents their production or general efficiency.

32

THE PERMANENCE OF WOMEN REPLACING MEN.

The replacement of men by women has from the first been a mystery, not only to those who thought they never could do it, but also to those who thought if they could, they never would stay with it. The surprise of foremen and managers at women's dexterity and adaptability only equaled their certainty that after the emergency was over, the problem of women in men's places would solve itself by their automatic reabsorption into the home. In this simple faith they were joined by Trade Union organizations most affected by the entrance of women into new occupations, who not only said women would return to their homes, but that they would have to return to their homes. During the war not an employer in New York State was to be found who openly, at least, contemplated retaining the women he had taken the pains to select and train into his shops. The day after the armistice was signed, however, there were unmistakable signs that not only were women to be kept in the places they were filling but they were to be trained to fill others requiring greater skill and initiative. Certain large plants in this and adjacent states had plans already laid for a system of vestibule schools where first class women machinists could be produced.

It is far more difficult to secure a statement from an employer of his reason for retaining women in men's places than of his reason for dropping them. It may be that this is true because in the first case he has pursued a negative course, taking no action, while in the second he has had to make a decision and fire the women. When asked why women are being retained in his plant, the most usual reply is "Why not? They are entirely satisfactory." The underlying reason may or may not come out later in the interview. When it does emerge, it requires very little analysis to see that women are staying at their new posts primarily because they permit manufacture at less cost per unit of production, and with less

friction between management and workers. Some women produce more than men at an equal wage; some as much as men at a smaller wage; and some less than men at a wage so much smaller that their employment is still profitable. Women are by habit industrially acquiescent, pliable and submissive to routine. They are to a large degree unorganized. In any case the employer's advantage is secure.

The power of the economic factor in replacement cannot be overlooked. Such statements as these are often heard:

"Greater production at lower wages."

"No man would take it." (Referring to women's pay envelope.)

"Fifty cent (an hour) men can be replaced by twentyfive cent women."

"Better work at lower wages."

"They produce more and demand less."

Other less obvious factors enter into the plans of industrial management and not infrequently the reason for keeping women is couched in the laconic phrase "To fight the Union" or in a more complex situation, one employment manager said "We are keeping women in B Department, although their production is most unsatisfactory" (the work was too heavy for them) "in order to keep the men from getting too cocky."

There is no doubt, judging from these statements, that, wages and general satisfactoriness remaining equal, women will continue in work formerly done by men.

This prophecy is borne out by two facts, first, that of all plants employing women in men's places over onehalf are going to retain every woman so employed; second, that 82% are going to retain all or part of the women so employed. Furthermore, out of 13,000 or more women in 117 plants, only 2,000 have lost their new jobs through possible shortcomings of their own.

A detailed study of the reasons given for discharg

32

THE PERMANENCE OF WOMEN REPLACING MEN.

The replacement of men by women has from the first been a mystery, not only to those who thought they never could do it, but also to those who thought if they could, they never would stay with it. The surprise of foremen and managers at women's dexterity and adaptability only equaled their certainty that after the emergency was over, the problem of women in men's places would solve itself by their automatic reabsorption into the home. In this simple faith they were joined by Trade Union organizations most affected by the entrance of women into new occupations, who not only said women would return to their homes, but that they would have to return to their homes. During the war not an employer in New York State was to be found who openly, at least, contemplated retaining the women he had taken the pains to select and train into his shops. The day after the armistice was signed, however, there were unmistakable signs that not only were women to be kept in the places they were filling but they were to be trained to fill others requiring greater skill and initiative. Certain large plants in this and adjacent states had plans already laid for a system of vestibule schools where first class women machinists could be produced.

It is far more difficult to secure a statement from an employer of his reason for retaining women in men's places than of his reason for dropping them. It may be that this is true because in the first case he has pursued a negative course, taking no action, while in the second he has had to make a decision and fire the women. When asked why women are being retained in his plant, the most usual reply is "Why not? They are entirely satisfactory." The underlying reason may or may not come out later in the interview. When it does emerge, it requires very little analysis to see that women are staying at their new posts primarily because they permit manufacture at less cost per unit of production, and with less

friction between management and workers. Some women produce more than men at an equal wage; some as much as men at a smaller wage; and some less than men at a wage so much smaller that their employment is still profitable. Women are by habit industrially acquiescent, pliable and submissive to routine. They are to a large degree unorganized. In any case the employer's advantage is secure.

The power of the economic factor in replacement cannot be overlooked. Such statements as these are often heard:

"Greater production at lower wages.

"No man would take it." (Referring to women's pay envelope.)

"Fifty cent (an hour) men can be replaced by twentyfive cent women."

"Better work at lower wages."

"They produce more and demand less.'

Other less obvious factors enter into the plans of industrial management and not infrequently the reason for keeping women is couched in the laconic phrase "To fight the Union" or in a more complex situation, one employment manager said "We are keeping women in B Department, although their production is most unsatisfactory" (the work was too heavy for them) "in order to keep the men from getting too cocky."

There is no doubt, judging from these statements, that, wages and general satisfactoriness remaining equal, women will continue in work formerly done by men.

This prophecy is borne out by two facts, first, that of all plants employing women in men's places over onehalf are going to retain every woman so employed; second, that 82% are going to retain all or part of the women so employed. Furthermore, out of 13,000 or more women in 117 plants, only 2,000 have lost their new jobs through possible shortcomings of their own.

A detailed study of the reasons given for discharg