WHITE SLAVERY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2562, 24 July 1909, Page 3 (Supplement)

WHITE SLAVERY.

THE TRAFFIC AMONG ENGLISH SHOP GIRLS.

Herded Together in Great Barracks and Fed Like 1 Animals in a Pen.

(By \v. B. Northrop ,iti the “New Orleans Times-Democrat.”)

"White slavery in some of its worst form exists in England among the clerks of the great dry goods establishments. The ltev. R. J. Campbell has denounced the “living-in’* system to which these women are subjected to as a species of moral leprosy; and the recent issue made by a Government report dealing with the subject has more than justified his scathing indictment. Herded together in great barrackrooms, and fed like prisoners in compounds, these shop assistants—as they are called—are not only deprived of almost every form of personal liberty, but their meagre wages are further reduced by a system of fines and penalties which make existence almost intolerable and impossible. From the purely moral standpoint, the lives led by thousands of these young women is open to the greatest temptation. Those unwilling to avail themselves of the so-called advantages of their position are condemned to an existence of wretchedness almost inconceivable under modern civilisation. Shop assistants in England occupy entirely different positions from the corresponding class of dry goods clerks in America. In the first place, 450,000 of the 750,00 shop assistants in England are subject to the living-in system, which means that the clerks, whether men or women, must literally belong to their respective shops, in the fullest sense of the term. They must sleep :iu great dormitories; eat in refectories provided for them; and be charged board and lodging at rates which in America would not bo tolerated for a moment.

i,ng room was on the ground floor, with the window facing on the street, &o that one could step into the street from the window and back into the room from the street without going through the door at all. I was put into a room with a woman of mature age, who led a life of the most undesirable kind. That was my. first experience in a living house. There was another girl in the same room suffering from consumption. I was in that house for three years without the firm knowing anything about it.’ ’ Speaking of certain London dormitories, Miss Bondficld said:—“If the girls are not in nobody knows, provided her room-mates do not tell tales. For instance, if one says to the other, ‘I want to go up to the theatre to-night, do not split on me and strip my bed in the morning,’ the other girl will say, ‘All right.’ There is no possibility of finding out that that girl has not been in for the night.” The accommodation provided for tho women in these great barrack establishments is sometimes quite unfit for human beings. In the first place, a number of so-called apartments of the girls are in the most disreputable streets, so placed more or less from convenience to the firms in order that their working prisoners may be near the treadmill. There is one young ladies’ dormitory in Greek Street, Soho, which, according to the Scotland Yard report, is one of the worst streets in the whole of London. Young girls necessarily have to pass back and forth through this street. They are often followed, watched, and insulted by men who devote their lives to tho pursuit of this sort of game. Representations have been made to firms which have their sleeping rooms in such localities; but, so far, no attention lias been paid to >iich “trivial complaints.” As to tlie actual accommodation itself, much evidence has been submitted proving that the housing of the shop assistants receives little attention from shopkeepers. The following letter, written to Miss Bondficld bv a shopgirl, throws a lurid light on this subject:— “The bedroom allocated to the young ladies was formerly a factory with those beautiful iron windows with a small opening. There are three beds in one small room, one single and two double. The beds must be maae before we go down in the morning, and the bedroom door must be kept closed all day, so you can imagine what the atmosphere is like with five girls sleeping in the room. In the first -week in August, one clean sheet was put on each bed, the others which have been in use six weeks at least, were not changed until October, when Miss came as a new assistant. The next change was in December, when another new girl arrived, and in January two sheets were changer! on one bed in honor of the arrival of Miss —. Sheets are in use without washing for three, four, and even six weeks. After handling them, I generally wash my hands, as my fingers are what we call gritty.” Despite the sorry nature of the socalled accommodation, many of the shops charge excessively for lodging. One firm has built an enormous sleeping apartment house just off Tottenham Court Hoad, out of tlie profits saved from" wages of their assistants. This huge structure accommodates 500 girls, and is operated at a good annual profit to the firm which runs it. Girls could “live out” in rooms in respectable houses, obtaining better accommodation at about one-third less than they are charged in the sleep barracks.

The salaries paid to many of those •clerks are below what the commonest day laborer would command in the "United States. Some women, clerks start at 6s Cd a week, which, including their board and lodging, is supposed to be equivalent to about 30s. As a matter of fact, their food and housing are so wretched that they get nothing like value out of their services. Out of the pittance which most of these young women receive they are expected to dress well and keep up an appearance in accordance with the tone of the elite establishment to which they happen to belong. In the making of this appearance is one of the crying sliamcs of the system. Many women starting in life as shop assistants find it necessary to make sacrifices which include pretty nearly everything which a woman holds dear; that is if they wish to rise to positions of importance with fair wages. It is owing to this last phase of the subject that various religious authorities have taken up the question, and have begun an active crusade against the immoralities and tyrannies of the* entire living-in system.

THESE ABUSES EXIST.

Tliat these abuses exist, there is no shadow of doubt, despite the sweeping denials made by many important shopkeepers who have felt it necessary to defend their reputations. The Drapers’ Chamber of Trade recently started to institute legal proceedings against the Rev. R. J. Campbell and others who exposed some of the worst phases of the living-in system, hut after going into tile matter they were advised by their legal counsel, Lloyd-Georgc, Roberts, and Co., that they had no case. Finding that the Rev. R. J. Campbell stood his ground - the Drapers’ 'Chamber of Trade adopted a novel course of procedure. They invited him to appear before their assembly and discuss the situation. Daniel did not walk into the lions’ den with less fear than the Rev. Mr. Campbell. Liko Daniel. he also came off victorious. In a hold and fearless indictment, he produced facts and figures which were uncontrovertible. Many managers who had refused to consider the question before, had their eyes opened, and, at The end of the meeting the drapers not , only concurred in his scathing censure, but even offered to co-operate with him in his campaign against the system. This wa« certainly a moral and intellectual victory on the minister’s part, and lias amounted to a complete reversal of opinion among the heads of firms, who, up to this time, have shut their eyes to the wrongs of their employees. Living-in as carried on to-day in England is an outgrowth of the early - apprentice system, .when workers were bound over without pay for. a term of years to certain firms. In those days, r . young girls and boys came up from the •’ country to London and other large cities where they were to learn their trades, and the parents wore pleased to think that their children would be, as it were, under one roof, and free from temptation. It is behind this paternal bulwark that shopkeepers today take refuge, maintaining that they are the guardians of those under their care, and making a plea on the ground of morality for the penning up of their assistants in veritable prisons. But the living-in system to-day has lost all its early advantages. The alleged paternal care docs ifot extend any further than barring the doors at a certain hour eachi night—in some 'places at ten o’clock, in others at eleven—and shutting out all who may be a moment late. Even sickness on the part of an employee has no influence, and girls frequently find themselves shut out, though only three minutes late. No member of the firm takes the trouble of ascertaining whether or not the girls are in their dormitories, and it is'a general practice for excluded assistants to remain out' all night in case they should be late. In some cases the locking out of these girls has led to serious consequences. For instance, not long ago, a girl from the country who had been employed only a few weeks in a big drapery establishment, found herself locked out in the streets of London. She had no money and did not know where to go. She was compelled to walk the streets all 'night. In the morning she made a row', demanded her fare back to her 1 native village and forced the firm to v. compensate her for the outrage. In. many cases, however, .girls do not worry themselves greatly about being locked out ; and tlieyfthutting-’out rule thrusts upon -them a compulsory freedom of which they often take advantage. To show how easily the system may be worked to the moral detriment of victims, Miss Bemdfiekl, an active member of the Shop Assistants’ Union, gave, before the Government Commission, evidence of her own experience. MISS BONDFIELD’S TESTIMONY. “When I was a young apprentice myself ” she said, “I was employed in a 'bouse in Brighton. For the purpose of ■ slbeping their assistants, they took var;ious houses in back streets. My slecp-

ACCOMMODATION FOR MEN. With the shop assistants the same rule applies as to "women. Their accommodation is poor, overcharged, and practically permits of no home life whateA T er. Men assistants in England are not permitted to marry Avithout the consent of their firm, and those who marry are frequently compelled to lead double lives. They must pretend to be bachelors and live-in; and it is not unusual for men to be discharged immediately on/ the discovery of. their marriage. One instance is cited of a man who lived-in four years, only seeing his wife and children on Sunday, and then clandestinely. He was discharged Avhen his firm learned of his -conduct. The men aro herded in barracks, and not having any family life, drift into all sorts of undesirable associations. In addition to this unspeakable situation, they are deprived of the rights of citizenship, as persons living in lodging-houses under such circumstances are not entitled to tho franchise. Thus they, lose the opportunity of obtaining, through their rotes, legislation Avhich. might better tlieir condition.

If the sleeping accommodation is bad, the boarding arrangements are even Avorso. Most of the big chops feed their OAvn assistants—for a consideration. The Government report on the subject says:—“ln; many cases the food supplied is scanty, and assistants often find it necessary ,to supplement food gh-en them by private purchase.” In fact, in many establishments this custom of purchasing extras is encouraged and a commission is paid to waiters who succeed in selling foodstuffs outside the regular meals provided by tlie house. There is not only profit on the meals themselves, but on the extras. The evidence of a Mr. Hoffmann, one of the Avitnesses before tlie Truck Commissioon, deals with this subject in convincing language. Speaking of his OAvn experience, he says:— “I remember well one Sunday at 'the pressed beef placed before us glittered with all the colors of the rainboAv, and smelt very Breakfast as a general rule everyAvhere consists of bread and butter, or margarine, with tea or coffee, or chickory and coffee, draAvn through liugq urns. Though some firms do allow little extras, °or, as they are sometimes called, ‘luxuries,’ for breakfast (such as two eggs for men and one egg for tho women), the sameness of tho menu becomes positively wearying. One always knoAvs what there is for dinner by the day of the week, or gets to know the day of the week by what there is for dinner. In a large number of oases the food provided is insufficient for the physical needs of the employee, so insufficient that varying amounts from tAVo shillings (50c) to six shillings (1.50 dol.) per week are snent in adding to the food supplied. The surprising thing is that different firms admit this by supplying extras to the assistants at a price. The waiters at the tables receive 50 dol per ’annum as salary, and are told that they will be able to make extra by selling things to the

assistants. Thus, rashers of bacon aro 6old for 2-jd, eggs 1-Ul each, small pots of jam Id, two sardines IJ, and so on.” . The Government Committee further states in its report: *‘A case was brought to our notice in which a shopkeeper had oil the premises where his assistants were lodged, presumably for their consumption, a carcase of a sheep which was unfit for human food.” This particular shopkeeper was fined £5 in an action, but the High Court, on appeal, reversed the decision on the ground that, as the meat was not publically offered for sale, there was no infringement of the Pure Food Act. As if the food and lodging were not sufficient cause for complaint ou the part of their unhappy shop slaves, many firms, even of the better class, resort to tyrannous and arbitrary system of fines, by which the workers aro further penalised. For instance, on.e firm recently fined a woman clerk 12 cents because her coiiar became unfastened. On tho question of. fines, James Seddon, M.P.—who has taken up the cudgels in favor of the shop girls.— recently said, in the course of an interview :

“There is one firm in London which has a list of 120 fines. An angel could not avoid some of them. Disciplinary fines are a cunning device to get back from the assistant a portion of her scanty wages. In some shops the employees are mulct of Is for leaving food which they are unable to eat. I know of one case where girls arc fined a shilling for omitting to extinguish their light at night. This is a common practice in the dormitories, and it is also common to fine a clerk anything from sixpence to a shilling for allowing a customer to walk out of a shop without making a purchase. Shop-girls, as well as men, aro onen held responsible for losses on goods; and even in some cases for pilfering, if anything is taken away without the clerks being aware of it. In many places shop-girls are fined for smiling. Girls are frequently fined for sneezing, wearing curlers in tlie hair, or'any slight untidiness. One London millinery shop fines its young ladies sixpence of they are caught coming down the stairs in twos instead of singly. In fact, the list of fines depends entirely upon the whim of the manager of each establishment; and the Avretchcd wage's of the assistants are often reduced to a scant sum. There is one ease on record where a shop-girl was fined so heavily that she actually owed tlie firm at the end of the business week.

In considering the entire matter, the use of the term “white slavery” may be accepted as an expression only mildly descriptive of tlio condition of English shop assistants; both men and women. Of course there are a few good houses which treat their employees with some degree of consideration, but they are tlie exceptions which prove the rule. Pent up in their immense barrack dormitories, with no home life, or else driven on to the streets, it is really quite remarkable that the shopwomen of England retain a vestige of virtue. Only their native honor as a class saves them from becoming the most degraded creatures in the social structure.