River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1895-05-16
WOMEN AS EMPLOYERS.

cred Undesirable by Their Poorer Sisters.
Il wouldn't work for a woman" said
girl who was employed in a down
town Office.
Wouldn't work for woman, Why
not?"
oh, they're so mean"
"But we are women" said the elder
woman. Are we mean? Would we
be mean to other women if they should
work for us? Are women who employ
servants usually hard and inconsider-
ate to them? A friend of mine had
servant who was so devoted to her
mistress and the children she had
nursed that she remained single till
the mistress went abroad. She would
not part from them. even for the man
to whom she was afterward a faithful
wife. ! know another servant who
married from the home of her mistress.
Her husband prospered and became
comparatively wealthy. while her old
employers lost their property. Then,
in many ways. 6elicately and gener-
ously, she assisted them, regarding
such assistance as but small return
for their many years of kindness to
her. In a town where there was no
hospital a mother and daughters
watched by the bedside of a sick serv-
ant for many weeks tending her as
carefully as if she had been daughter
of the house. l have seen many, many
/ instances of consideration and good
feeling between mistresses and serv-
ants"
"Oh, said the girl. Struggling her
shoulders, Il think it isn't good policy
servants. If you do, they walk over
YOU"
"You admit. then, that you would
not be a considerate employer of wom-
4 en-: vet you would resent lack of con-
sideration toward yourself. The
woman spoke with some irritation, aud
the girl abruptly changed the subject.
/ The cry, Il won't work for women,
they are so exacting," is often heard;
! but il usually comes from the young
and undisciplined. Lately, however,
a middle-aged woman stated that she
| had given up her position because she
| could not endure the exaerions of a
/ board of managers. She went over the
names of the offenders. She admitted
that one was roOie specimen of her
sex, and demanded too muci< work
| because she had an unusually
| strong constitution and was appar-
emily incapable of fatigue. The other
members of the board, women OF
| the leisure class, demanded impossi-
/ bilties, asking that information which
required strict investigation and many
/ Journeys in the tenement district
/ should be furnished in a few hours,
when DAYS were necessary for such
thorough work. They sinned through
ignorance. In the Jealous pursuit OF
their object they had no idea they
were overworking another woman. II
is question whether women who dc
not know the difficulty of obtaining
such detailed information are compe
tent to serve on such boards and direct
others who are better informed.
Are women as a rule less consideratC
to their subordinates than men are.
Are not men who are unaccustomed tC
attend to details as often impa
tient and unreaso4a liable regard
| ing the time required for accurate
! work? Are not managers and fore
men in shops and factories as apt to be
dictatorial and exacting as some WON
en- in similar positions? But the subor
dinate often bears meekly the rebuke
of the man. while she filings her anger
| in the face of the woman. i have seer
girls come home faint and i'll because
they had worked from morning til
night, without time even for {
hasty lunch, when the employer
had thought it necessary to has
ten the completion of certain
work They didn't think" the girl:
said, in excuse for their drivers But
the woman employer would have
thought, would have understood that
the girls were working beyond theil
strength.
1T is overwork and ] doubt II she
has strength to rally" said the doctor
And if that girl dies am to blame,
said the employer in deep contrition
But that employer was not woman.
Consideration for subordinates is not
determined by the sex of the employer
For man and for woman the best sOlu
ton of the question is the Gospel rule
Love your neighbors as yourself and
do unto all men as you would they
should do unto you. Chicago Times.
= srseEsra volt 1Farr &