DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 65, 27 February 1911, Page 11

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

WHY GIRLS DISLIKE IT.

MB. H. W. BISHOP’S BEMABKS

A DOMESTIC HELP’S REPLY.

Mr. H. W. Bishop, S.M., showed a representative of the “Lyttelton Times” yesterday an interesting letter he unexpectedly received from Wellington, containing a re ply to some remarks he made from the Bench in regard to domestic service. In a civil case he was

hearing in this city, a young lady witness said that she worked in a laundry and earned 16s a week, out of which she paid her board. “And yet these girls,” he commented, will not enter domestice service, where they would get practically the same money, and board as well. It’s very strange.” His remarks were re-published in a Wellington journal, and the letter, which is anonymous, came as a* rejoinder. The writer deals somewhat severely with Mr. Bishop, but he says that that does not give him any concern. He thinks that the writer has stated her arguments clearly and forcibly, and has made out a Very good one-sided case from her point of view, but has made a mistake, in giving her statements a general application. In his own

household, for instance, he has been paying a domestic help lately 23s a week. She has had exactly the same kind of food as Mr. Bishop and his family have had, she has had no washing to do except for herself, and she had been addressed wieh as much deference as any other woman. She has certainly h.i<i the smallest room, buri I it is a vei-j. good one, and can give | no cause for complaint. Mr. Bishop I suggests that if the writer’s talents] in regard to domestic duties are; equal to her literary talents and; smartness, she should be welcomed ■ as a valuable addition to any house-* hold, and should be able to com-| mand a rate of wages much above the average. The letter is as fol lo ws:— “To Mr. Bishop. S.M. —Sir,—Regarding the enclosed paragraph) from Tuesday night’s paper I may| perhaps be able to enlighten you a little on the subject. Have you, for instance, ever noticed the overbearing wav’ most people have of speaking to and of domestics 1 4nd have you ever been in a position to know, or tried to calculate l.uw 1 jlong the hours of duty are for] them ? And have you ever thought how arduous, and even disgusting, are some of the duties demanded of a domestic ? There are s.'.me things one cannot write about. ‘ more shame to the women who J deem it right to ask another to I perform them, and have you been lin many, or any, of the so-called bedrooms relegated to domestics? And you surely forget that the-

wages are not a surplus fund. How much do you suppose has to be paid out in clothes, shoes, etc., worn, and worn out, performing a domestic’s work? A domestic is mostly asked or told to wear a uniform, which, of course, is not bought, or made, for nothing, and special house shoes, neither of which is everlasing, are, in fact, a very considerable item of expenditure. “Girls who have homes or a trade are wise not to go to domestic service. From start to finish there is so much to be said against it that I can only advise you to send your own daughters, if you have any, to domestic service. Send them, incognito, as general servants, and compel them to stay one month at each of six different situations. You will then no longer have cause to say. “It is strange,” when you hear of girls preferring factory work. Also can you tell me I why the worst possible room, bed, bedding, light, utensils, chairs, I food —in fact, everything—is alI ways necessary for a domestic I j say necessary’ because the em- ; ployers always deem it to be, even when newly furnishing. And why should a domestic, like Lazarus, always be a receptacle for the fragments. There is much to be said on ihe subject, but time is very

would solve the problem, you must first get legislation for the domestic workers, for until a sound business basis is formed, as with all other classes of workers, there will be constant friction on both sides. Domestic workers are no more entitled to be door mats than either yourself or Lord Islington. They are, like both of you, working for a salary, and not only giving equivalent for such, but, in most cases, | six times the amount of service in ■ exchange.. Yet deference is shown ■to the one, and difference to the other worker. The dual nature of these mannikins, who toady to wealth and position whenever and wherever possible, savours of the serio-comic to those whose intellect (and, when it comes to the point, birth, too) is far superior to their own, but who through stress of circumstances, have often to seek to earn an honest existence under the roofs of these same creatures and find degredation only thereby, inasmuch as it always goes- against the grain to perform any service, whether in exchange, or charitable for an ingrate. But instead of merely passing comments on the strangeness of results, do your utmost to improve the cause. Use the opportunity to secure for domestic workers that which you, in your position, profess to mete out to all regardless of all else—Justice. Are you principled* l enough to bear the sneers and jeers that would be your lot did you try to gain this end ? I wonder ! Let this signature suffice.—A Domestic. Worker.”