"The minimum canFor the same reason ordinarily supports herself alone, so that the minimum for female workers is fixed on that basis. not be based on exceptional cases." 1 the partial support of some women workers by their families is not considered in fixing their wages. When both men and women are employed in the same occupation, the wage rate is fixed for the sex usually found therein. 2 (2) Great Britain In England, where, again, no standard is set by the law itself, the general practice is "to level the wage for the whole trade in each district up to the standard of the best employer in that district." In the badly sweated trades for which boards have been formed this means a considerable increase for most of the workers, but not necessarily a living wage. For instance, in chain-making, a large increase in hourly rates for time work provided only 5 cents an hour for women workers or approximately $2.70 for a full week's work of fiftyfour hours.3 (3) The United States a. Definition of the Living Wage. Nearly all the American laws, unlike those of Great Britain and Australia, define in general terms the principle to be followed in fixing wages, which is usually that of a living wage. In a majority of the laws phrases such as "the necessary cost of proper living" and "to maintain the health and welfare" are used.* In working out wage standards on this basis, the English practice of leveling up wages to those paid by the best employer in the trade in a given district is obviously not a sufficient guide. Then, too, since the laws apply only to women and minors, relative standards for the two sexes need not be considered 1 Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, Vol. VI, p. 71. John A. Hobson, "The State and the Minimum Wage in England," The Survey, February 6, 1915, p. 503. See R. H. Tawney, Minimum Rates in the Chain-Making Industry, 1914, p. 39. 4 California, Laws 1913, C. 324. as in Australia. One finds, however, America on the whole using the Australian standard for women workers—namely, the cost of living of the entirely self-supporting woman. American employers have sometimes asked that the help received by many women workers from their families be taken into account in fixing the standard, but this request has been denied. A number of investigations were made to determine the cost of living for a self-supporting woman, and, notably in Massachusetts and Oregon, budgets were carefully worked out to cover all the items considered necessary. Such estimates cover very modest amounts for food, clothes, shelter, and washing, sometimes but not always medical expenses and car fare, and also allow a meager sum for recreation, education, and a short vacation. No provision is made for insurance or savings, yet the other items alone mount up to $8 or $10 weekly. It becomes, then, a matter of grave social concern when careful studies show that a majority of women wageearners in the United States receive less than this amount. Up to November, 1915, the rates set for experienced adult workers in the four states making decrees fell between the two figures named. The highest rate reported was $10, for salesgirls in Washington; the lowest was $8 for Massachusetts laundry workers and women in Minnesota outside of first, second, third and fourth-class cities. "Necessary cost of living," therefore, is interpreted in American minimum wage awards as little more than the cost of physical necessaries to an entirely self-supporting woman. The standard is in no way an extravagant one; it is "not a wage so... women can live well, not enough to make life a rich and welcome experience, but just enough to secure existence amid drudgery in gray boarding-houses and cheap restaurants." 1 b. Wage Losses from Unemployment. In fixing standards for minimum wages, the question of regularity of employment is of great importance. Whether or not a worker can secure steady employment in a given industry is the factor which determines whether the "living wage" prescribed in an award provides a "living income" throughout the year. Until recently the problem has received but little attention in America," many of the awards thus far made being sufficient only for the needs of the current week. As no provision is made for savings, a girl who receives the minimum wage must run into debt or deny herself necessaries if she loses her position. Yet many low-paid industries whose wage rates are affected by minimum wage awards are notably irregular, as for example candy-making and paper-box making. In Massachusetts, in Oregon, and in Washington, however, wage losses from unemployment have been given some attention by wage boards. In Australia the time lost from industrial causes is often definitely computed in fixing wages. For instance, in setting the minimum hourly rate for dock laborers, the necessary cost of a week's living was divided by the average number of hours of work obtained weekly." c. Profits of the Business. An important question likely to arise when wage standards are fixed is whether or not the financial condition of the industry should be taken into account. Most often the problem comes up in connection with the struggling business which claims it cannot survive if its workers are paid a living wage. The issue here is the lowering of the standard of wages in order to secure the continued existence of such an industry. But such a concession enables 1 Walter Lippmann, "The Campaign against Sweating," New Republic, March 27, 1915, Supplement, p. 8. * See Irene Osgood Andrews, "The Relation of Irregular Employment to the Living Wage for Women," in Fourth Report of the New York Factory Investigating Commission, pp. 497-635. New Statesman, June 6, 1914, p. 263. an industry to flourish without paying the whole cost of maintenance of those whose time and services it uses. Its workers must be partly supported by the earnings of others, who are thus practically subsidizing the underpaying industry. Such a trade has well been called "parasitic," since its existence depends on the bounty of others. It may be that other members of the woman's family (and the betterpaying occupations in which they are employed) make up the deficit in her income; it may be that society as a whole pays the bill for the physical and moral deterioration of the workers by its expenditures for hospitals, charities, and reformatories. On the other hand, in Australia, at least, it has been urged that a higher minimum should be set in an unusually prosperous industry. In that country a clear and consistent stand has been taken on both these points. The living wage is 'sacrosanct." "If a man cannot maintain his enterprise without cutting down the wages . . . which are essential for [the employees'] living, it would be better that he should abandon the enterprise." But "the minimum wage must be primarily based on the needs and the qualifications of the class of workers concerned-not usually on the affluence of the employer.' "2 In Australia, then, the financial condition of the business is not considered in fixing the minimum wage. Most American statutes, through the stipulation that the minimum wage shall cover the cost of living, take the same stand. In Colorado, Massachusetts, and Nebraska, however, "the financial condition of the business" is to be considered side by side with the cost of living. In Massachusetts, in the temporary award for the brush industry, this resulted in fixing a minimum less than a living wage. The cost of living for a self-supporting woman was found to be over $8 weekly. But on account of the condition of the business the commission was obliged to make the hourly rate for the first year so low that women could earn only about $7 weekly unless they obtained more than the usual amount of work.3 In retail stores also the wage board believed the necessary cost of living to be 1 Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, Vol. III, p. 31. 2 Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 72. 3 Second Annual Report of the Minimum Wage Commission of Massachusetts, p. II. "as much as and probably somewhat above" the minimum recommended, but held that "the schedule of wages adopted is as high as the retail stores of the state will be able to pay until industrial and business conditions shall have shown a marked improvement." A consideration of the prosperity of the industry may thus retard the process of raising the wage to the necessary minimum or even at times overthrow the whole principle of the living wage. 66 1 d. Substandard Workers. Nearly all minimum wage laws permit the fixing of special rates for young workers, for apprentices, and for inexperienced workers. As a guide in fixing these special rates, most American laws contain only the provision that rates for children and apprentices shall be 'suitable." The usual practice is to name the rates for young workers and for apprentices in the award along with the regular minimum rate. For example, in Oregon the minimum wage for women of over a year's experience was set at $8.25 to $9.25 weekly, according to occupation and locality; but young girls between sixteen and eighteen and inexperienced women workers may be employed for $6 weekly in any occupation anywhere in the state. In some cases where these lower rates have been set, especially in trades requiring little skill, there have been attempts to substitute young girls and inexperienced workers for adults. To overcome this difficulty it has been found necessary to specify the length of the period of apprenticeship and sometimes also the proportion of apprentices allowed. Rates are frequently increased as the period of apprenticeship progresses. Thus in Massachusetts candy factories the minimum rate fixed for beginners is $5 weekly; for those who have worked from a year to a year and a half, $6.75; for those with less than two years' experience, $7.75. The rate for "experienced" workers is $8.75. In November, 1915, this two-year period was the longest apprenticeship established; the period in other states and industries was but one year. In order to avoid any such 1 Massachusetts Minimum Wage Commission, Statement and Decree Concerning the Wages of Women in Retail Stores in Massachusetts, 1915, P. 3. 2 See discussion by Theresa S. McMahon, American Economic Review, March, 1915, pp. 291–295. |