The Barmaid Question.

White Ribbon, Volume 8, Issue 89, 1 October 1902, Page 5

The Barmaid Question.

[By Jessie Mackay

I cannot but take shame on myself for one that we have let nine years of j citizenship go by without open and i special effort to destroy one crying evil of the day, 1 mean the employment of women in hotel bars. Happily* this seeming negligence has not in the main been caused by a callous or superficial view of the question, but by the fact that most good women have been concentrating their minds on driving the liquor trade out of the country altogether. The only possible plea fot the employment of barmaids is that it provides a ready living for a number of unskilled female workers, possibly unfit to bear the undoubted strain of domestic service, and probably helping to keep a home. But would ten times the money make up for the loss of selfrespect, for the Social Ban that is put upon any woman whose occupation brings her daily into familiar contact with the dregs of the population ? The ban is often undeserved. The salary is not really great, it is true. 1 understand that it ranges from about 15s to £i 9 and, of course, the girl is in the way of receiving liberal tips. But a competent waitress only receives from 12s to 15s, while good generals command from 9 s sionally as high as 14s or 15s. A good cook receives from 15 s to£\ * n 1 private house, and more in a hotel. It is evi- ; dent that there is temptation here for a delicate, unskilled girl of good address, who would begin on a level with the best generals and rise with little effort to the level of a highly-trained cook—or a finishing governess ! The opponents of this form of employment object to it tor these reasons. It is an unpleasant and Unhealthy Occupation. Parliament, it is true, has just shortened the barmaids’ evening hours to nine o’clock ; but a working day, from nine to nine, spent, w'ith little intermission, in one atmosphere, tainted with the reek of spirits, tobacco, and the unsavoury presence of the besotted wrecks of the tow n, is a menace to the physical well being of any girl Nor is the lightness of the work any hygienic advantage under these circumstances. Then it is unwomanly. The moderate and medicinal use of alcohol, under

some circumstances, is still open to debate. These circumstances, however, are conspicuously absent from hotel bars under our present system. The whole duty of a barmaid is to sell as much drink as she can, and her value to her employer increases precisely as she becomes a curse to the commonwealth. Also, it is unnecessary. Every year the industrial field is growing wider and safer for women. Moreover, other countries do excellently well without barmaids, and it is a little galling to our British pride to find foreigners regarding us as outer barbarians for permitting such a {Degradation of Womanhood. Sweden and Norway did away with barmaids long ago In Germany the greatest contempt is shown lor the very few drinkshops where women are employed. In America the “ bar tender ” is always a man. Lately, barmaids have been prohibited in Burmah and Calcutta. Glasgow, the model borough, is trying hard to bring in a similar measure. In Buda-Pesth, barmaids must lie over 40 years of age. Lastly, it is dangerous to the sobriety and morality of the girls themselves. It would be fatuous to believe that men carry their drawing-room manners to the bar; or that a large proportion of its frequenters have either manners or morals in any place. This is no fad, no local agitation, but a national question, and we have every right to ask Parliament to consider it as such For ourselves, our line of duty is clear. We must express our opinions in no uncertain terms. We must demand the Abolition of this Employment; with, of course, a fair term of notice to those already engaged We must see that every candidate at the approaching election is made to declare his views on this point. Any candidate who hesitates to pledge himself on so obvious 1 matter of reform, plainly declares himself as unfit to represent us in Parliament.