« AnteriorContinuar »
the ability to save does not begin before that age. On the other hand, the living expenses of the college woman must increase during later years unless we are to go back on our old idea of college education as training for the service of the State. The demands for contributions of service and of money, subscriptions, conferences, professional organizations, all mean a burden which must be met.
The following statement is given tentatively to show what the income should be if, after the first five years of teaching, systematic savings were possible. Beginning with 25 years of age and an income for five years of $700 to $1000, no savings would be possible. In the next five years, and a salary of $1000-$1500, $1000 might be saved. In the next period on $1500-$2000 salary, $2500 might be saved. Omitting the next five years for sabbatical years on half pay, between forty-five and sixty years of age $7500 might be saved, making a total savings of $11000.1
If this sum had been at 5% compound interest, the principal would have amounted to about $18,000, and the income for the woman at 60 years of age would therefore be about $900 a year. It should be remembered that $4000 to $7000 was brought into the business as capital invested in training; therefore this amount of saving is certainly not out of proportion to the years of service.
When we note that two-thirds of our returns show an income of $1300 or less, and when we remember that but one-twelfth were receiving between $1500 and $1800, and that one-tenth only are receiving between $1800 and $2600, and when we note the actual inability to save and at the same time to meet the essential expenditures, it is apparent that the situation is far from satisfactory. The college woman is not receiving sufficient compensation to meet the requirements of living and saving.
The question of why this condition exists is not so quickly answered, partly because the schedules did not include sufficient queries and partly because the investigation has been too limited in extent. That greater economy is possible is repudiated generally by the reports, and there is universal opposition to the idea that the scholarly class are conspicuous for their waste. The demand for higher salaries is equally universal. It is not extravagance, then. Is it inefficiency-a lack of earning capacity? If so, is it due to weakness of training or to failure to receive compensation sufficient to
See table p. 125.
maintain and develop efficiency? We cannot now concern ourselves with the efficiency of the training, since the reports in no way give a basis for discussion. The financial returns do, however, present material for reflection. One-third of the returns show a very small expenditure for travel, while between one-third and one-half show too little attention to professional demands. One-half are too economical on cost of clothing, an economy which too often enforces more economy of the same kind; while in some instances the cost of "board and room" is too far below the sum for least "suitable board.” May there not here be an explanation of a part, at least, of the complaint of “poor teaching" which is being voiced throughout the length and breadth of the land?
The remedy for the deplorable situation is both easy and difficult. As among women in all other occupations, there should be a greater knowledge of business methods and business ideas. The training of economic sense is most important, and is possible to the college woman because such training can be offered—no, required -in our college courses. In fact, except among the unskilled workers—that is, among the industrial, commercial, and professional women-this great need can be met, if only the teachers of those groups can be led to an appreciation of its importance. Solutions more difficult to be executed may be offered. Our colleges are no longer fulfilling their obligations to our women when they offer a college training but do not provide for training in special fields other than teaching, either through the regular college curriculum or through graduate work. Our own Leland Stanford University has endeavored to accomplish this good for men, as have our technical colleges throughout the country; but, so far, few opportunities are available for women-none perhaps in the same way, except at Simmons College.
This field is being studied carefully, however, by the Committee for Inter-municipal Research, and elsewhere; but the great mistake is that we are attempting to fit the college woman into business without giving her any preparation therefor. It is certainly important that the college should be sure of opportunities, before it offers training in any special field. Experimentation in human life can not be carried on as in vegetable products. The educator must continually feel his way. Such endeavors as are being successfully made by the Teachers College, Columbia University, to fit teachers for special fields is also worthy of comment in this connection.
In addition to widening the opportunity and increasing the efficiency of the college woman, and thus decreasing the competition, the college may aid in the struggle to fit wage to efficiency by insisting on a certain minimum wage for the graduate, but also requiring corresponding efficiency. Our college graduates must expect to serve an apprenticeshipto do a "man's work for a boy's pay"-as has always been the lot of the beginner in industry. Experience must be added to special training.
It is evident that the same principles of action are necessary, whether we are concerned with the woman in a factory, in a shop, in a store, in an office, in a hospital, in a school.
I have outlined the beginning of a careful study of the standards of living among college women, because I feel that an intensive study all along the line of women's occupations must be made before Utopian conditions can be approached. The national investigation now being made will, without doubt, be more helpful and suggestive. That it must cover such a huge field means that much more intensive work will have to be undertaken in all of our great cities, as was done in Birmingham. I should like to see "A complete survey" the motto to be held up by this Association—an organization of women which should surely recognize the value and necessity of thoroughness of research in this subject, as in any other.
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE OREGON TEN
Rarely has a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States attracted so much attention as that handed down last February (Feb. 24, 1908) in the suit brough by Curt Muller against the State of Oregon. Judge Landis' verdict imposing a fine of $29,000,000 upon the Standard Oil Company was not more momentous, although in the Oregon case the fine involved was at most but $100, and the contestant was not a great corporation but an obscure body of working women. In 1903 the state legislature had enacted a law providing that "no female be employed in any manufacturing or mechanical establishment, hotel, restaurant, or laundry” in that state for "more than ten hours during any one day.” This legislation was secured at the instance of the trade-unions, but their intention to make the law cover the case of women employed in shops and stores was defeated by the protests of the large retail firms of Portland. Four years later the Legislative Committee of the State Consumers League interested its constituency in the saleswomen who, notably in candy and ice-cream shops, were in equal need of protection; some of the latter employees being kept on duty sixteen hours a day for seven days in the week. An amendment including mercantile establishments (except for the week immediately preceding Christmas day) was put through in response to the united efforts of all the women's organizations in the state, the trade-unions, and the Consumers League.
Before this consummation was reached, however, the right of the legislature to impose any limitation on the conditions of women's employments was called in question. The ten hour law was protested (1906) and its constitutionality challenged by the proprietor of a Portland laundry, the fourteenth amendment being cited in evidence that a woman's right to contract for employment without let or hindrance was inalienable. In the state courts the decision was in favor of the law, but the protestant carried the question to the Supreme Court of the United States. This was the first time the constitutionality of statutes limiting the hours of labor for women had come before that body, and women wage-earners and their friends throughout the country were deeply concerned as to the outcome. Nineteen other state legislatures had enacted similar laws—all the Atlantic Coast states except Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; all the Pacific Coast states; Illinois, Ohio, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Louisiana. The law of Massachusetts had been in force for thirty-eight years, that of Wisconsin for forty-one. The constitutional question had been brought before six state courts. In Massachusetts and Nebraska, as well as Oregon, the statutes had been sustained. In Illinois, Ohio, and New York they had been annulled. The adverse decision (1895) of the Supreme Court of Illinois had deprived the women laborers of that great industrial state of all protection for more than a dozen years. The New York Court of Appeals (1907) had set aside not only the limitation on working hours but the prohibition of night labor, on the ground that woman were citizens, not wards, of the state "when the question relates to the business, pursuit, or calling.” The decision of the Supreme Court in the Oregon case would finally determine this mooted question, and all state legislation must stand or fall with the issue. The Consumers League of Oregon appealed to the National League for aid, and was not disappointed. Through its highly efficient secretary, Mrs. Florence Kelley, the federated organization sounded the alarm, and set about collecting a fund with which to conduct the defense. The services of Mr. Louis D. Brandeis, of Boston, were secured, and this distinguished attorney undertook to plead the case without remuneration. Miss Pauline Goldmark, acting for the National League, got together a mass of pertinent data concerning the legislation affecting women wage-earners in this country and abroad, as well as the opinions of leading statesmen, physicians, and economists, as to the physical, industrial, and social effects of overwork for women. The brief submitted to the Court by Mr. Brandeis is a valuable document, embodying as it does the latest conclusions on this critical problem.