wunder · Library

CHAPTER V. Economic Phases of Domestic Service[185]

Domestic Service · Lucy Maynard Salmon — chapter 21 of 36 · ~8,569 words · public domain

ECONOMIC PHASES OF DOMESTIC SERVICE

The attempt has been made in the foregoing chapters to indicate the extent to which domestic employments and domestic service have been influenced by industrial and political events arising outside of the household, and apparently having little or no connection with it. That domestic service is amenable to some of the general economic laws and conditions which affect other occupations and that it is also governed by economic laws developed within itself will perhaps be evident from an examination of a few of these economic conditions and principles. These may be stated for the sake of brevity in the form of propositions.

The first group of propositions to be suggested concerns the number and distribution of persons of foreign birth engaged in domestic service.

(1) A large proportion of the domestic employees in the United States are of foreign birth. This is evident from the following table prepared from the schedules sent out:

TABLE I

PLACE OF BIRTH OF EMPLOYEES

=================+========================+======================== | NUMBER | PER CENT PERSON REPORTING +-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+------- | Native| Foreign| Not | Native| Foreign| Not | born | born | given | born | born | given -----------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------- Employer | 922 | 1,212 | 411 | 36.23| 47.62 | 16.15 Employee | 324 | 395 | | 45.06| 54.94 | =================+=======+========+=======+=======+========+========

The statement may be more fully illustrated from the Eleventh Census, which shows that the number of foreign born in domestic service is 30.86 per cent of the entire number. The geographical distribution of the different classes of domestic employees is seen from Table II on the following page.

Another illustration of the same point is found by an examination of the relative number of native born and foreign born domestic employees in the individual states and territories. In nine states and territories the number of foreign born domestic employees exceeds the number of native born white employees, in sixteen about one half of the white domestic employees are of foreign birth, in twenty-four states and territories the number of native born white employees largely exceeds the foreign born, while in fifteen states colored employees are in excess. It will be seen that the states in which the number of native born white domestic employees exceeds the number of the foreign born are those states having relatively a small number of foreign born residents. A still more specific illustration is found in the experience of one state. In Massachusetts in 1885, the foreign born domestic servants formed 60.24 per cent of the entire number.

TABLE II

DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1890

================+=================================+====================== | NUMBER | PER CENT GEOGRAPHICAL +---------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+------- SECTION | Total |Native |Foreign|Colored|Native|Foreign|Colored | | white | white | |white | white | ----------------+---------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+------- Pacific | | | | | | | Coast | 78,700| 29,576| 28,198| 20,926|37.58 | 35.83 | 26.59 Eastern | 134,016| 52,419| 74,004| 7,593|39.11 | 55.22 | 5.67 Middle | 394,062|176,194|175,819| 42,049|44.71 | 44.62 | 10.67 Western | 388,920|233,274|128,761| 26,885|59.98 | 33.11 | 6.91 Border | 251,544| 79,611| 16,649|155,284|31.65 | 6.62 | 61.73 Southern | 207,549| 34,812| 6,432|166,305|16.77 | 3.10 | 80.13 +---------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+------- United States |1,454,791|605,886|429,863|419,042|41.65 | 29.55 | 28.80 ================+=========+=======+=======+=======+======+=======+=======

These different illustrations seem to show the truth of the proposition stated.

(2) The converse of the preceding proposition is also true—the concentration of women of foreign birth engaged in remunerative occupations is on domestic service.

The Eleventh Census shows that, in 1890, 59.37 per cent of all foreign white women at work were engaged in domestic and personal service. This leaves only 40.63 per cent to be distributed among all other gainful occupations. A specific illustration in the case of an individual state is seen in Massachusetts. Here the percentage of the foreign born in the entire population is 27.13, while, as stated above, the number of foreign born women in domestic service is 60.24 per cent.

(3) The foreign born population as a class seek the large cities.

In 1890 the persons of foreign birth in the United States formed 14.77 per cent of the entire population. But of the total foreign population, 44.13 per cent was found in the one hundred and twenty-four cities having a population of twenty-five thousand or more.

(4) The foreign countries having the largest absolute representation in the largest cities are Ireland, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada and Newfoundland. The following table shows the relative number of persons born in these countries who are found in the United States as a whole, and in the large cities:

TABLE III

PROPORTION OF PERSONS OF FOREIGN BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

========================+=============+===========+=========== | | Number in |Per cent in COUNTRY OF BIRTH |United States| principal | principal | | cities | cities ------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------- Ireland | 1,871,509 | 1,047,432 | 55.97 Germany | 2,784,894 | 1,328,675 | 47.71 Great Britain | 909,092 | 369,979 | 40.70 Canada and Newfoundland | 980,938 | 307,660 | 31.36 Sweden and Norway | 800,706 | 219,112 | 27.36 ========================+=============+===========+===========

(5) The foreign countries having the largest absolute and relative representation in domestic service are, in order, Ireland, Germany, Sweden and Norway, Great Britain, and Canada and Newfoundland. This will be evident from the following table, which indicates the place of birth of all persons of foreign birth engaged in domestic service and the per cent of each nationality so engaged:

TABLE IV

PLACE OF BIRTH OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES

Similar results were reached through individual schedules sent out. The returns as made by employers and employees show that the place of birth of foreign born employees and the relative percentages are as follows:

TABLE V

NUMBER OF FOREIGN BORN IN DOMESTIC SERVICE

==================+======================================= | PERSON REPORTING +-------------------+------------------- PLACE OF BIRTH | EMPLOYER | EMPLOYEE +--------+----------+--------+---------- | Number | Per cent | Number | Per cent ------------------+--------+----------+--------+---------- Ireland | 653 | 53.88 | 217 | 54.94 Sweden and Norway | 147 | 12.13 | 50 | 12.66 Germany | 128 | 10.56 | 37 | 9.37 Great Britain | 122 | 10.07 | 32 | 8.10 British America | 104 | 8.58 | 42 | 10.63 Other countries | 58 | 4.78 | 17 | 4.30 ------------------+--------+----------+--------+----------- Total | 1,212 | 100.00 | 395 | 100.00 ==================+========+==========+========+===========

This group of five propositions in regard to the number and distribution of the foreign born engaged in domestic service seems to indicate that in this country, with the exception of the sections employing colored servants, domestic service is as a rule performed by persons of foreign birth belonging to a few well-defined classes as regards nationality, who prefer city to country life. The facts given are an understatement of the influence exerted on domestic service by persons of foreign extraction, since they do not take into consideration the factor of foreign parentage.

A second group of propositions may be suggested in regard to the general distribution of domestic employees.

(1) The number of domestic servants is absolutely and relatively small in agricultural and sparsely settled states.

This will be evident by the reference to the accompanying chart, which shows the number of persons to each domestic servant in each of the states. The states last in the list, where the smallest relative number of servants is employed, are all large in area, and as a rule have the smallest population in proportion to the area of settlement. This condition is probably due to the two facts that all housework is as a rule performed without remuneration by housewives, since they are more free from social and other interruptions than are women in cities, and also to the aversion of domestics as a class to country life.

(2) The number of domestic servants is absolutely and relatively large in those states containing a large urban population.

Dist. of Col. 13 Maryland 25 New York 28 Massachusetts 29 Virginia 29 California 30 Nevada 30 Delaware 31 New Jersey 32 Connecticut 34 Montana 34 Rhode Island 35 Minnesota 36 Pennsylvania 38 Vermont 38 Colorado 38 Wyoming 38 North Dakota 40 Washington 42 Illinois 43 Louisiana 44 Kentucky 46 Wisconsin 46 Georgia 47 Michigan 49 North Carolina 50 Ohio 50 Arizona 51 Nebraska 51 Florida 52 N. Hampshire 53 Missouri 53 Oregon 54 Tennessee 55 Maine 56 Utah 57 South Dakota 60 Alabama 61 South Carolina 61 Idaho 62 Iowa 62 Indiana 63 Mississippi 66 West Virginia 69 New Mexico 75 Texas 76 Kansas 88 Arkansas 93 Oklahoma 156]

This is also made evident by the diagram. Forty-nine of the fifty largest cities in the United States are found in the first thirty-four states in the list; only one of the fifty is found in the last fifteen states. The fact is apparently most clearly shown in the case of the District of Columbia, which has an almost exclusively urban population and ranks first with reference to the number of servants employed. The condition here, however, is due not so much to its urban character as to the employment of colored help and the fact that the city contains an abnormally large number of temporary residents requiring a disproportionate amount of service. The truth of the proposition is better indicated by the examples of New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, which stand nearly at the head of the list and contain seventeen of the fifty largest cities.

(3) The aggregate wealth of a state has little appreciable effect on the relative number of domestic servants employed.

This is evident from a study of the relative true and assessed valuation of real and personal property in the different states. In more than one half the states it has no apparent connection whatever with the relative number of servants.

(4) The per capita wealth of a state has, with the exception of the Southern states as a class, a somewhat important bearing on the relative number of servants employed.

This will be seen from an examination of the per capita assessed valuations of real and personal property in the various states. The rank of each state in the class of per capita wealth and in the relative number of domestic servants employed, with the exception named, does not vary materially. The variation in the Southern states is due to the presence of negro employees. The extremely low wages paid by employers enables them to command the services of a larger number of persons for the same expenditure of money than is possible at the North.

These facts may be considered as indicative in a general way of the truth of the current opinion that an increase in income generally shows itself first in the employment of additional service. They prove nothing absolutely on this point, however, as they are too general in character.

(5) Domestic employees are found in the largest numbers, relatively and absolutely, in the large cities. The fifty largest cities in the United States contain 18.04 per cent of the total population of the country. They have, however, 32.32 per cent of the total number of domestic servants. To put the same fact in another way, domestic servants constitute 2.32 per cent of the total population, but 4.07 per cent of the population of the fifty largest cities. The force of gravity exerted, therefore, by the large cities seems to act with nearly twice the power on the class of domestic employees that it does on the population as a whole.

The conclusion seems to follow that in general employers in large cities have less difficulty in securing servants than have persons living elsewhere, but that they are practically restricted in their choice to those of foreign birth. The conclusion does not follow that these employers have less difficulty than have others in dealing with the question of domestic service, since the facts given concern only the number of servants, not the quality of service.

(6) The proportion of persons engaged in domestic service varies with geographical location and prevailing industry.

This fact is indicated by the chart, which shows that in Southern cities, where the colored population is large, and in New York and Boston, which are ports of entry and therefore able to secure a large number of foreign born servants, the proportion of servants to the total population is large. In cities where the leading occupation is manufacturing, as Lowell, Paterson, and Fall River, the proportion of servants is small. In cities where the industrial conditions are similar the proportions are similar.

Washington, D.C. 13 Richmond, Va. 13 Atlanta, Ga. 14 Memphis, Tenn. 15 Nashville, Tenn. 16 New York, N.Y. 18 Boston, Mass. 18 St. Paul, Minn. 19 Minneapolis, Minn. 19 Omaha, Neb. 19 San Francisco, Cal. 20 Baltimore, Md. 21 Louisville, Ky. 21 Worcester, Mass. 21 Reading, Pa. 22 New Orleans, La. 23 Denver, Col. 23 Philadelphia, Pa. 24 Cambridge, Mass. 24 St. Louis, Mo. 25 Cincinnati, Ohio 26 Albany, N.Y. 26 Indianapolis, Ind. 26 Chicago, Ill. 27 New Haven, Conn. 27 Providence, R.I. 27 Syracuse, N.Y. 27 Wilmington, Del. 27 Columbus, Ohio 28 Pittsburg, Pa. 28 Brooklyn, N.Y. 29 Detroit, Mich. 29 Grand Rapids, Mich. 29 Kansas City, Mo. 29 Toledo, Ohio 29 Allegheny, Pa. 30 Buffalo, N.Y. 31 Troy, N.Y. 31 Cleveland, Ohio 33 Milwaukee, Wis. 33 Rochester, N.Y. 33 Dayton, Ohio 35 Jersey City, N.J. 35 Scranton, Pa. 36 Newark, N.J. 38 Camden, N.J. 39 Trenton, N.J. 40 Lowell, Mass. 43 Paterson, N.J. 68 Fall River, Mass. 73]

The same fact may be illustrated in two other ways. In Washington, Richmond, Atlanta, Memphis, and Nashville,—the five cities having the largest number of domestic employees in proportion to the population,—the domestic employees constitute in each city more than fourteen per cent of the entire number of persons engaged in all gainful occupations. In these five cities more than one third of all women engaged in remunerative occupations are in domestic service. On the other hand, in Camden, Trenton, Lowell, Paterson, and Fall River,—the five cities having the smallest number of domestic employees in proportion to the population,—the per cent of domestic employees with reference to the total number of persons engaged in all gainful occupations is less than seven, while in Lowell and Paterson only ten per cent and in Fall River only seven per cent of all women engaged in remunerative occupations are in domestic service. The following table will show these contrasts:

TABLE VI

DOMESTIC SERVANTS AND WOMEN COMPARED WITH THOSE IN GAINFUL OCCUPATIONS

(7) Neither per capita wealth nor aggregate wealth has an appreciable influence in determining the number of servants in cities.

Three illustrations of this are seen: (1) Washington, Richmond, Atlanta, Memphis, and Nashville rank respectively as regards per capita wealth, 13, 27, 19, 24, and 41, although they are the five cities that head the list in the proportion of servants to the total population; (2) Lowell and Fall River are at the foot of the list as regards the proportion of servants, but rank 10 and 12 in per capita wealth; (3) Nashville ranks fifth in the number of servants and Paterson forty-ninth, while both rank nearly the same in point of wealth. There are indeed many instances where there is apparent connection between these two conditions, but they seem rather to be illustrations of the following point:

(8) The prevailing industry of a city, rather than its population or wealth, determines the number of domestic employees.

This conclusion seems to follow naturally as a result of the two previous propositions, but a few other facts in support of it may be mentioned. In eleven of the fifty principal cities the proportion of domestic servants to the total population is smaller than is the proportion in the states in which they are severally located. The leading occupation in each of these cities is some form of manufacturing, and in each of them the proportion of persons engaged in manufacturing processes is larger than, with few exceptions, in the other cities. This fact explains the apparent contradiction between this statement and the one that domestic servants are found in the largest proportions in the largest cities.

That manufacturing industries tend to decrease the number of domestic employees in a city is both a cause and a result. The competition in industry draws women from domestic service, and at the same time a large part of the population in a manufacturing city is unable or does not care to employ large numbers of servants. It has been seen, however, that several of the manufacturing cities rank comparatively high in per capita wealth.

It seems possible in view of the facts stated in this second group of propositions to draw these conclusions. In states containing a relatively high urban population it is possible for wealth to command the services of a large proportion of persons for work in domestic service. But in cities where wealth comes into competition with manufacturing industries the proportion of domestic servants is small. Where such competition does not exist the proportion is large. In other words, persons are willing to enter domestic service for a consideration in cities where no other avenues of work are open to them with the qualifications they possess. They are unwilling to do so where such openings do exist.

A third group of propositions remains to be considered concerning the subject of wages. They may be thus stated:

(1) Wages in domestic service vary in different sections according to the economic conditions of the several localities.

TABLE VII

AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES BY GEOGRAPHICAL SECTION

======================+======================== | AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES GEOGRAPHICAL SECTION +-----------+------------ | Men | Women ----------------------+-----------+------------ Pacific coast | $7.57 | $4.57 Eastern section | 8.68 | 3.60 Middle section | 7.62 | 3.21 Western section | 6.69 | 3.00 Border section | 4.86 | 2.55 Southern section | 3.95 | 2.22 ----------------------+-----------+------------ United States | $7.18 | $3.23 ======================+===========+============

This principle is illustrated by Table VII on the preceding page based on a classification of the returns received through individual schedules relating to 2,545 employees.

The difference indicated apparently conforms to the general variation in wages in different sections indicated by the Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, and by examination of a considerable number of reports of various state bureaus of labor. The slight exception in the case of the wages of men on the Pacific coast is accidental, owing to the small number of returns.

(2) Skilled labor commands higher wages than unskilled labor.

This will be evident from Table VIII on the following page based on the schedules received from employers and employees and the returns from a Boston employment bureau.

In every instance it is seen that it is the skilled laborer—the cook—who commands the highest wages. The general servant who is expected to unite in herself all the functions of all the other employees named in the list becomes, on account of this fact, an unskilled worker, and, therefore, receives the lowest wages. The same principle holds true in the case of the seamstress and the laundress, the gardener and the choreman. It is difficult to make a deduction in the case of men employed in household service, since no universal custom prevails, as with women employees, in regard to adding to the wages paid in money, board, lodging, and other personal expenses.

TABLE VIII

AVERAGE WEEKLY AND DAILY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS

===============================+================================= | WEEKLY WAGES +---------------------+----------- OCCUPATION | General schedule of | Boston +----------+----------+ employment | Employer | Employee | bureau -------------------------------+----------+----------+----------- WOMEN | | | Cooks | $3.80 | $3.64 | $4.45 Parlor maids | | | 3.94 Cooks and laundresses | 3.50 | 3.27 | Chambermaids | 3.31 | 3.47 | 3.86 Waitresses | 3.23 | 3.15 | 3.76 Second girls | 3.04 | 3.27 | 3.34 Chambermaids and waitresses | 2.99 | 3.21 | General servants | 2.94 | 2.88 | 3.16 MEN | | | Coachmen | 7.84 | | Coachmen and gardeners | 6.54 | | Butlers | 6.11 | | Cooks | 6.08 | | -------------------------------+----------+----------+----------- | DAILY WAGES -------------------------------+----------+----------+----------- WOMEN | | | Seamstresses | $1.01 | | Laundresses | .82 | | MEN | | | Gardeners | 1.33 | | Choremen | .87 | | ===============================+==========+==========+===========

A corollary to the proposition may be added. The skilled laborer is a better workman than the unskilled laborer. The question was asked of employers, “What is the nature of the service rendered? Is it ‘excellent,’ ‘good,’ ‘fair,’ or ‘poor’?” The replies show that in proportion to the number of answers the largest percentage of service characterized as “excellent” is rendered by cooks, while the largest percentage characterized as “poor” is given by the general servants. These are, it is true, matters of opinion; and without a fixed standard, which it is impossible to secure, such judgments can have no absolute value. But the fact is of interest as showing the opinion of a large number of housekeepers. The following table will show the results in regard to these two classes of employees:

TABLE IX

NATURE OF SERVICE RENDERED

==========+=======+=====+================================================ | | | KIND OF SERVICE RENDERED |Total | +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------ OCCUPATION|number |Not | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | of |answ-+------+----+------+----+------+----+------+----- |replies|ered |Number| Per|Number| Per|Number| Per|Number| Per | | | |cent| |cent| |cent| |cent ----------+-------+-----+------+----+------+----+------+----+------+----- Cooks | 262 | 30 | 83 | 32 | 113 | 43 | 58 | 22 | 8 | 3 General | | | | | | | | | | servants| 585 | 53 | 151 | 26 | 221 | 38 | 177 | 30 | 36 | 6 ==========+=======+=====+======+====+======+====+======+====+======+=====

(3) The foreign born in domestic service receive higher wages than the native born.

This was found to be true in every class of occupations, in every section, in the case of both men and women, and in the returns made by both employers and employees. But two trifling exceptions were found, both accidental. The principle cannot of course be stated absolutely as the facts at command are far from exhaustive, but so striking a uniformity cannot be considered purely accidental. An explanation is found in three facts: (1) the preference of the foreign born for the large cities, where wages in domestic service are higher than in the country; (2) the large proportion of negroes among the native born; (3) the relatively better class of foreign born than of native born women who enter domestic service. This statement must be made somewhat dogmatically here, since its proof demands a discussion of the entire subject of the unwillingness of native born women to enter domestic service.

(4) The wages of men engaged in domestic service are higher than the wages of women.

This will be evident by reference to Table VII and to Table VIII. Two things, however, must be borne in mind: first, that nearly all the men classified as cooks are employed on the Pacific coast, where wages are relatively high; second, that forty per cent of the men in domestic service do not receive board and lodging in addition to wages in money, while only two per cent of women so employed, principally laundresses, do not receive board and lodging. But although these facts modify the discrepancy between the wages of men and women, they do not wholly remove it. Whether the difference is as great as in other occupations cannot be stated.

(5) A tendency is found towards an increase in wages paid by employers, as is seen in Table X on the following page.

An interesting historical illustration of the same fact is given in a summary of wages and prices in Massachusetts from 1752 to 1860. In 1815, the first time the work of women is mentioned specifically, domestic servants received with board $.50 per week, while at the same time women were able to earn as papermakers $6.50 a week.

TABLE X

COMPARISON OF WAGES PAID

====================+======================+======================== | NUMBER | PER CENT WAGES PAID +------+-------+-------+-------+--------+------- | Men | Women | Total | Men | Women | Total --------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+------- Same as last year | 414 | 1638 | 2052 | 87.72 | 79.02 | 80.63 More than last year | 54 | 368 | 422 | 11.44 | 17.75 | 16.58 Less than last year | 4 | 67 | 71 | .84 | 3.23 | 2.79 ====================+======+=======+=======+=======+========+=======

(6) The wages received in domestic service are relatively and sometimes absolutely higher than the average wages received in other wage-earning occupations open to women.

A comparison may be made between the wages received by domestic employees and by two other classes—teachers in representative city schools and the wage-earning women included in the investigations made by the Commissioner of Labor. As illustrating the wages received in domestic service, the following tables are given, showing (1) the classified weekly and daily wages received and (2) the average weekly and daily wages with the percentages receiving more or less than the average. These facts are taken from the general schedules. Similar tables are given showing a somewhat higher rate of wages in all domestic occupations in the special city of Boston.

TABLE XI

CLASSIFIED DAILY AND WEEKLY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS

=============+=========================================================== |Under $1 | |$1, but under $2 | | |$2, but under $3 | | | |$3, but under $4 | | | | |$4, but under $5 | | | | | |$5, but under $6 | | | | | | |$6, but under $7 | | | | | | | |$7, but under $8 | | | | | | | | |$8, but under $9 | | | | | | | | | |$9, but under $10 | | | | | | | | | | |$10, but under $11 | | | | | | | | | | | |$11, but | | | | | | | | | | | | under $12 | | | | | | | | | | | | |$12, but | | | | | | | | | | | | | under $13 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |$13, but | | | | | | | | | | | | | | under $14 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Over $14 OCCUPATION | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Total -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- SCHEDULE OF | EARNING WEEKLY EMPLOYERS | -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- WOMEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | General | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | servants | 1| 33|251|276| 39| 5| | 1| | | | | | | | 606 Second girls| | 17| 50| 76| 18| 4| 1| 4| | | | | | | | 170 Cooks and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | laundresses| | 4| 21| 70| 41| 5| | | | | | | | | | 141 Cooks | 4| 6| 38|104| 86| 31| 7| | | 3| 1| | | | | 280 Chambermaids| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | waitresses | 2| 9| 44| 69| 7| 2| | | | | | | | | | 133 Chambermaids| 1| 6| 18| 45| 18| 4| | | | | | | | | | 92 Waitresses | | 3| 43| 32| 23| 2| | | | | | | | | | 103 Nurses | 1| 11| 30| 46| 18| 9| | 6| | | 4| | | | | 125 Housekeepers| | | | 1| 2| | | | 1| | | | | | | 4 -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- Total | 9| 89|495|619|252| 62| 8| 11| 1| 3| 5| | | | |1,654 -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- MEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Butlers | | 3| 2| 5| 3| 8| 6| 4| 3| 6| 2| 1| | 1| | 44 Coachmen and| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | gardeners | | 2| 7| 11| 18| 22| 21| 3| 12|10|11| 4| 1| 1| | 123 Coachmen | | 1| 5| 8| 10| 14| 17| 3| 9|12| 7|11| 3| 6| 3| 109 Cooks | | 1| | 1| 3| 2| 3| 3| 1| 3| | | | | | 17 -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- Total | | 7| 14| 25| 34| 46| 47| 13| 25|31|20|16| 4| 8| 3| 293 =============+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+==+==+==+==+==+===== SCHEDULE OF | EARNING DAILY EMPLOYERS | -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- WOMEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Laundresses |123|121| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 244 Seamstresses| 48| 51| 6| | | | | | | | | | | | | 105 -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- Total |171|172| 6| | | | | | | | | | | | | 349 -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- MEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Gardeners | 26| 87| 8| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | Choremen | 24| 14| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- Total | 50|101| 9| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | 161 =============+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+==+==+==+==+==+===== SCHEDULE OF | EARNING WEEKLY EMPLOYEES | -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- General | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | servants | 1| 16|152|187| 24| 3| | | | | | | | | | 383 Second girls| | | 11| 18| 10| | | | | | | | | | | 39 Cooks and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | laundresses| | 4| 6| 22| 13| | | | | | | | | | | 45 Cooks | 1| 3| 20| 39| 23| 11| 3| 1| | | | | | | | 101 Chambermaids| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | waitresses | | | 6| 15| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | 23 Chambermaids| | 1| 7| 9| 6| 1| | | 1| | | | | | | 25 Waitresses | | 2| 14| 16| 1| 2| 1| | | | | | | | | 36 Nurses | | 1| 5| 10| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | 18 Housekeepers| | | | 2| 1| | | | | 1| | | | | | 4 -------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+----- Total | 2| 27|221|318| 80| 19| 4| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | 674 =============+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+==+==+==+==+==+=====

TABLE XII

AVERAGE WEEKLY AND DAILY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS

=================+======================================================= | PERSON REPLYING +---------------------------+--------------------------- | EMPLOYER | EMPLOYEE +-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- OCCUPATION | | | Per cent| | |Per cent | |Per cent |receiving| |Per cent |receiving |Average|receiving| the |Average|receiving| the | weekly| more | same or | weekly| more | same or | wages|than the | less | wages| than |the less | | average |than the | | average |than the | | | average | | | average -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- WOMEN | | | | | | General servants| $2.94 | 52.97 | 47.03 | $2.88 | 55.87 | 43.13 Second girls | 3.04 | 40.00 | 60.00 | 3.27 | 53.85 | 46.15 Cooks and | | | | | | laundresses | 3.50 | 43.97 | 56.03 | 3.27 | 53.33 | 46.67 Cooks | 3.80 | 45.71 | 54.29 | 3.64 | 43.56 | 56.44 Chambermaids and| | | | | | waitresses | 2.99 | 58.65 | 41.35 | 3.21 | 52.17 | 47.83 Chambermaids | 3.31 | 47.83 | 52.17 | 3.47 | 32.00 | 68.00 Waitresses | 3.23 | 43.69 | 56.31 | 3.15 | 44.44 | 55.56 Nurses | 3.53 | 36.00 | 64.00 | 3.03 | 33.33 | 66.67 Housekeepers | 5.15 | 25.00 | 75.00 | 5.15 | 25.00 | 75.00 -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- Total | $3.23 | 47.88 | 52.12 | $3.11 | 50.95 | 49.05 -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- MEN | | | | | | Butlers | $6.11 | 50.00 | 50.00 | | | Coachmen and | | | | | | gardeners | 6.54 | 44.72 | 55.28 | | | Coachmen | 7.84 | 46.79 | 53.21 | | | Cooks | 6.09 | 47.06 | 52.94 | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- Total | $6.93 | 46.42 | 53.58 | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- |Average| | | | | | daily | | | | | | wages | | | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- WOMEN | | | | | | Laundresses | $0.82 | 53.28 | 46.72 | | | Seamstresses | 1.01 | 39.05 | 60.95 | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- Total | $0.90 | 49.00 | 51.00 | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- MEN | | | | | | Gardeners | $1.33 | 56.56 | 43.44 | | | Choremen | .87 | 43.59 | 56.41 | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+--------- Total | $1.29 | 53.42 | 46.58 | | | =================+=======+=========+=========+=======+=========+=========

The following tables show the classified and average wages paid in the principal occupations as reported by a Boston employment bureau:

TABLE XIII

CLASSIFIED WEEKLY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS

=================+=================================================== | EARNING WEEKLY +--------------------------------------------------- |$1, but under $2 | |$2, but under $3 | | |$3, but under $4 | | | |$4, but under $5 | | | | |$5, but under $6 | | | | | |$6, but under $7 | | | | | | |$7, but under $8 | | | | | | | |$8, but under $9 | | | | | | | | |$9, but | | | | | | | | | under $10 | | | | | | | | | |$10, but | | | | | | | | | | under $11 OCCUPATION | | | | | | | | | | |Total -----------------+---+----+------+----+----+---+---+---+--+--+------- General servants | 8| 183| 577| 143| 3| | | | | | 914 Second girls | 2| 41| 363| 69| | | | | | | 475 Cooks | 1| 3| 39| 347| 145| 28| 4| 3| | 4| 574 Chambermaids | | 3| 40| 37| 2| | | | | | 82 Waitresses | | 4| 29| 16| 1| | | | | | 50 Parlor maids | | | 11| 45| 1| | | | | | 57 Nursery maids | 7| 45| 119| 57| 3| 1| 1| | | | 233 Laundresses | | 1| 9| 27| 15| 1| | | | | 53 -----------------+---+----+------+----+----+---+---+---+--+--+------- Total | 18| 280| 1,187| 741| 170| 30| 5| 3| | 4| 2,438 =================+===+====+======+====+====+===+===+===+==+==+=======

TABLE XIV

AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS

=================+=======+=========+=========+========+========+======= | |Per cent |Per cent | | | |Average|receiving|receiving| | | OCCUPATION | weekly|more than|the same |Highest |Lowest |Total | wages| the |or less | wages | wages |number | |average |than the |received|received| | | |average | | | -----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------+--------+------- General servants | $3.16 | 40.5 | 59.5 | $5.00 | $1.50 | 914 Second girls | 3.34 | 62.2 | 37.8 | 4.50 | 1.50 | 475 Cooks | 4.45 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 10.50 | 1.00 | 574 Chambermaids | 3.86 | 57.4 | 42.6 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 82 Waitresses | 3.76 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 50 Parlor maids | 3.94 | 80.4 | 19.6 | 5.00 | 3.50 | 57 Nursery maids | 3.26 | 51.3 | 48.7 | 7.00 | 1.00 | 233 Laundresses | 4.44 | 44.4 | 55.6 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 53 -----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------+--------+------- Total | | | | | | 2,438 =================+=======+=========+=========+========+========+=======

It is seen from Table XII that the average weekly wages in domestic service are $3.23—a fair average in this case, since forty-eight per cent receive more than the average and fifty-two per cent the same or less than the average. The average domestic employee, therefore, is able to earn in money during the year $167.96—a fair estimate, since in seventy-five cases out of every hundred the vacation granted women employees during the year is given without loss of wages. This forms, however, but a part of the annual earnings. To this sum must be added board and lodging, fuel and light. For the equivalent in quality and quantity to that furnished by the employer the employee would in general be obliged to pay for board, lodging, and other incidental expenses at a reasonable estimate five dollars per week, or $250 annually, deducting board for two weeks’ vacation. The total annual earnings of a domestic employee, therefore, amount to nearly $420. To this the negative facts must be added that there is no expense for laundry work, and that the work involves few personal expenses in the way of clothing, and that these necessary expenses are often partially met through gifts from the employer. Again, the position entails no expenditures for car fares in going to and from work, or other demands such as are made in a business way by other occupations, and it involves no outlay for appliances for work, as a sewing-machine, type-writer, text-books, etc. Moreover, no investment of capital is necessary in learning the principles of the work, since employers have thus far been willing to make of their own homes training-schools for employees. The domestic employee is therefore never obliged to pay back either the capital invested in preparing for her work or the interest on that amount. It thus seems possible for the average household employee to save annually nearly $150 in an occupation involving no outlay or investment of capital in any way, and few personal expenses.

TABLE XV

CLASSIFIED ANNUAL SALARIES OF WOMEN TEACHERS

=================+======================================================= CITY | EARNING ANNUALLY +------------------------------------------------------- |Under $300 | |$300, but under $400 | | |$400, but under $500 | | | |$500, but under $600 | | | | |$600, but under $700 | | | | | |$700, but under $800 | | | | | | |$800, but under $900 | | | | | | | |$900, but | | | | | | | |under $1,000 | | | | | | | | |$1,000, but | | | | | | | | |under $1,200 | | | | | | | | | |$1,200, but | | | | | | | | | |under $1,500 | | | | | | | | | | |More than | | | | | | | | | | |$1,500 | | | | | | | | | | | |Total -----------------+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----- Albany, N.Y. | 1| 26| 34| 153| 22| 11| 6| | | 1| | 254 Atlanta, Ga. | 7| 1| 32| 31| 3| 4| 1| | | 2| | 81 Baltimore, Md. | | | 628| 246| 101| 1| 1| 40| 3| | |1,020 Cambridge, Mass. | | 1| 22| 19| 146| 10| 3| 11| 2| | | 214 Cincinnati, Ohio | | | 26| 50| 59|359| 98| 1| 5| 19| 2| 619 Cleveland, Ohio | | | 119| 124| 269| 89| 16| 8| 14| 10| 4| 653 Detroit, Mich. | | 54| 63| 111| 20|121| 35| 5| 3| 14| 1| 427 Lawrence, Mass. | | 43| 49| 6| | 2| 1| 1| 1| | | 103 Lowell, Mass. | | | 8| 5| 155| 9| 1| | | 1| 1| 180 Milwaukee, Wis. | | 2| 76| 72| 197| 19| 7| 15| 9| 2| | 399 New Haven, Conn. | | 54| 73| 38| 107| 14| 11| | 1| 2| 1| 301 New Orleans, La. | 2|172| 174| 3| 18| 7| | 5| 1| | | 382 Paterson, N. J. | | 55| 97| 26| 8| 9| 2| | | | | 197 Rochester, N. Y. | 45| 57| 287| 3| 7| 14| 6| | 1| 2| | 422 St. Louis, Mo. | 61| 36| 182| 362| 122|133| 42| 20| 12| 13| 13| 996 Syracuse, N. Y. | | 35| 52| 139| 21| 3| 13| 1| | | | 264 -----------------+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----- Total |116|493|1,916|1,431|1,261|803|244|107| 52| 67| 22|6,512 =================+===+===+=====+=====+=====+===+===+===+===+===+===+=====

A comparison may be made between these wages and the annual salaries received in sixteen representative cities by the women teachers in the public schools. Tables XV and XVI show the annual classified and average salaries received.

TABLE XVI

AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARIES OF WOMEN TEACHERS

=================+=============+====================+==================== | Average | Per cent receiving | Per cent receiving City | salary | more than the | the same or less | | average | than the average -----------------+-------------+--------------------+-------------------- Albany, N.Y. | $505.73 | 27.70 | 72.30 Atlanta, Ga. | 459.05 | 48.12 | 51.88 Baltimore, Md. | 500.92 | 37.12 | 62.88 Cambridge, Mass. | 628.35 | 22.32 | 77.68 Cincinnati, Ohio | 702.87 | 20.60 | 79.40 Cleveland, Ohio | 625.60 | 43.20 | 56.80 Detroit, Mich. | 607.96 | 96.02 | 3.98 Lawrence, Mass. | 511.16 | 26.22 | 73.78 Lowell, Mass. | 608.66 | 6.71 | 93.29 Milwaukee, Wis. | 588.00 | 63.59 | 34.41 New Haven, Conn. | 536.41 | 52.96 | 47.04 New Orleans, La. | 429.78 | 28.08 | 71.92 Paterson, N.J. | 455.20 | 22.84 | 77.16 Rochester, N.Y. | 431.63 | 57.34 | 42.66 St. Louis, Mo. | 574.68 | 34.89 | 65.11 Syracuse, N.Y. | 494.98 | 67.04 | 32.96 =================+=============+====================+====================

The concentration of salaries is seen to be on those between $400 and $500, the average salary being $545. This sum represents the full amount of wages received. To ascertain the amount it is possible to save annually there must be deducted at least $260 for board and lodging, and $25 for laundry expenses, leaving a cash balance of $260. Out of this sum, however, must come other necessary expenses, as the outfit for work,—books, stationery, etc.,—travelling expenses, car fares, society fees, etc., and a large item for clothing. There should also be deducted the interest on the capital invested in securing the education demanded in preparation for the work. If all of these items are considered, and the greater social demands entailed by the position, it seems possible for the average domestic employee to save at least as much money as the average teacher in the city schools. This comparison is probably relatively higher in favor of the teacher than it should be, since in the average wages for domestic employees are included the wages received in agricultural districts, where wages are lower than in cities. It is also a comparison between skilled workers on the one hand, and on the other hand an occupation in some of the subdivisions of which the laborers are unskilled.

It has, unfortunately, not been possible to compare the wages received in the same city by teachers and domestic employees. A comparison, however, can be made between the wages received in Boston for domestic service and by the teachers in the public schools in the neighboring city of Cambridge.

The average wages received by a cook in a private family in Boston are, as has been seen by Table XIV, $4.45. This judgment is based on five hundred and seventy-four returns, and is an exact average, since fifty per cent receive more than that amount, and fifty per cent the same or less than that. She therefore earns annually $231.40 plus $275 for board, lodging, fuel, light, and laundry expenses, or $506.40.

Fifty-six per cent of the teachers in the city schools in Cambridge earn annually $620, or, deducting $285 for board, etc., for fifty-two weeks, $335 in money. This is $103 more than is received by the Boston cook, but out of this must come numerous expenses entailed by the position, from which the domestic employee is exempt. The cash annual savings in the two cases cannot vary materially.

It will also be seen by reference to Tables XV and XVI that the Boston cook earns absolutely more than does the average city teacher in Albany, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Paterson, Rochester, and Syracuse.

A second comparison is suggested by the investigations conducted by the Department of Labor. Through these it was found that the annual cash earnings of the working-women in twenty-two typical cities are $272.45. This average takes into consideration time lost—a factor which does not enter into domestic employments except in a casual way. The annual earnings, therefore, of the class of women represented by the Report are much less than those of the domestic employee. The same point is also illustrated by a comparison of the amounts saved in the two occupations. In eleven cities investigated by the Department of Labor the average amount saved was less than $50; in nine cities it was $50, but under $100, while in only two cities was it more than $100, the highest average amount being $111. As has been suggested, the highest of these averages is small in comparison with the amount it is possible to save in domestic service.

No question in regard to earnings saved was asked on the schedule sent to employees, but many statements on this point were voluntarily made by employees. The question as to comparative amounts saved has also been asked the cashiers of banks in small cities and towns where factories are found and the personnel of depositors is known by the officials of the banks. No records are of course kept, but the opinion has been several times expressed that the factory employees do not save as much, as a class, as do domestic employees. In one place, where about two thousand factory employees are found, it was stated that no woman employee had a sum to her credit as large as had been deposited by a domestic.

A corollary follows from this proposition. High wages alone are not sufficient to counterbalance the inducements offered in other occupations where wages are relatively or absolutely lower but whose special advantages are deemed more desirable.

(7) The wages paid in domestic service are on the average high, but the occupation offers few opportunities for advancement in this direction.

An examination of Table XI shows but one instance, with the exception of nurses, where the weekly cash wages reach $10.00 per week, and only nine others where they rise above $7.00. In the two occupations the wages in which have been compared with those in domestic service, while the general average wages are low, it is possible to reach through promotion a comparatively high point. The fact that the wage plane is a high one is one inducement for women of average ability to enter the occupation. On the other hand, the fact that the wage limit, high as it is, is soon reached must act as a barrier in the case of others.

(8) The amount of time unemployed is less in domestic service than in nearly every other occupation.

The element of time unemployed is an important factor in determining annual earnings. While in nearly every occupation there is a limit to the demand, in domestic service there is no limit and hence few persons are necessarily without employment. The most important illustration of this point is derived from the report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor on the unemployed in that state in 1885. Of the total number of women in the state engaged in remunerative occupations at the time, thirty per cent were unemployed. These were distributed as regards occupations as follows:

Manufacturing industries 78.22 Government and professional services 9.08 Domestic service 6.33 Personal service 3.99 Trade 1.98 Minor occupations .40

But if the number of unemployed is compared with the total number employed in each industry, a still lower percentage of unemployed is found in domestic service. A comparison with other wage earners will make clear this point. The percentage of the unemployed in the leading industries in which women are engaged was as follows:

Straw-workers 93.74 Boot and shoe makers 71.08 Teachers 49.58 Woollen mill operatives 45.02 Cotton mill operatives 43.59 Hosiery mill operatives 40.56 Tailoresses 32.98 Milliners 27.46 Seamstresses 27.08 Dressmakers 23.99 Paper mill operatives 21.26 Saleswomen 11.73 Book-keepers and clerks 9.19 Servants in families 6.78 Housekeepers 3.65

The demand for domestic servants varies in the different states, but the condition of the unemployed in this occupation in Massachusetts may perhaps be considered fairly typical of that in other localities.

(9) High wages are maintained without the aid of strikes or combinations on the part of the employees.

In but five states are strikes reported among domestic employees; they number but twenty-two and involve less than seven hundred persons, all of them being connected with hotels or restaurants, and nine tenths of them men. Only two instances of permanent organization among this class have come to notice, and neither of these has had as its object the increase of wages. The strike in domestic service assumes the form of a “notice,” is individual in character, and is able to accomplish its object without the organized effort considered necessary in other occupations where the supply of laborers is greater than the demand.

This group of nine propositions concerning wages it is believed will suggest three conclusions: the conformity of wages in domestic service to certain general economic laws, the fact that the wage factor alone does not determine the number of persons in the occupation, and the existence of a few conditions which affect, perhaps unconsciously, the willingness of the women to engage in this work.

The three groups of propositions stated it is believed will suggest the conclusions that the general economic condition of the country has an appreciable influence on the condition of domestic service, both as regards the character and number of persons engaged and the compensation given for service required. It must follow therefore that many questions must arise connected with the employment, which the individual employer cannot settle from an exclusively personal point of view.

← Previous chapterAll chaptersNext chapter →

Domestic Service · The Wunder Library — complete classics, free to read, with narration.