FEMALE LABOUR. And Male Exclusiveness.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 49, 8 June 1901, Page 8

FEMALE LABOUR. And Male Exclusiveness.

SOME weeks ago we had occasion to remark upon the arrogant demand that is occasionally made by trades unionists of one sort or another that their particular trade or calling should be ring-fenced or State-protected against the intrusion of female labour. A case m point is afforded by a recent dispute in the book-binding trade. Just such a demand was made by the male operatives. And, the Board of Conciliation, m giving its decision, has recommended, amongst other things (according to the newspaper report), "That no female labour be employed upon the schedule of work drawn up." # # * This is bald enough, in all conscience, and sweeping enough, too, to satisfy the most inveterate womanhater. On its face, it seems so extraordinary that one naturally expects to find some reason assigned. But there is none in the recommendation. There is no allegation that "the schedule of work drawn up" contains aught that is hurtful to woman, prejudicial to her health, or above her capacity. Presumably, female labour has been employed at these particular branches of work. * * * And, evidently, its competition is feared. Why? Is it procurable at a lower wage than male labour? If so, we could understand and sympathise with a claim to pay male and female operatives an equal remuneration for the same class of work. But, surely, all attempts to debar woman from being employed at any honest and reputable occupation which is congenial to her tastes, and which imposes no hardship or degradation upon her, must be regarded as intolerant and tyrannical. And, book-binding seems to be an occupation for which woman's deftness of hand and mceness of taste should eminently fit her. * ♦ • There is a large principle involved in this matter. Census statistics show us that in all large, and even moderate sized, cities there is a tendency for the female population to out-number the males. As a consequence, women will need larger opportunities for earning their own livelihood. At present they stand on an equal plane with men m the exercise of the franchise, and, of course, have equal rights m the eye of the law. * • * But, m the world of labour the custom has been to fix a lower tariff of remuneration for them, even when employed at the same occupation as men. The school-

teaching profession affords an apt illustration. That is unjust enough. And the position will become infinitely worse and far more lop-sided still, if, through the agency of our industrial tribunals, woman is to be shut out of various occupations into which she has found an entrance, and for which she has proved her capacity. * ■+ • Let there be a fair field, and no favour. If the male worker cannot compete on even terms with the female operative at any particular calling, where his superior strength is not called into l'equisition, then it is time for him to look out for something more suitable To squeal out for State-help m fencing out the woman, and establishing a close monopoly for himself, is rather ludicrous, to say the least of it.