The weekly intelligencer., 1895-03-02
WOMEN AS EMPLOYERS.

Are Generally, Though Uniustiy. Consid.
cred Undesirable by Their Poorer Sister.
Il wouldn't work for n 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 a
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 faithful
wife. | know another servant who
married from the home of her mistress.
Her husband prospered ard became
comparatively wealthy, while her old
employers lost their property. Then,
in many ways. delicately and gener-
ously, she assisted them, regarding
such assistance as but small return
for their many years of Kindness to
her. In town where there was no
hospital mother and daughters
watched by the bedside of sick scrv-
ant for many weeks. tending her as
carefully as il she had been daughter
of the house. have seen many, many
instances of consideration and good
feeling between mistresses and serv-
ants"
''Oh, said the girl, Struggling her
shoulders, 81 think it isn't good policy
to show too much consideration for
servants. If you do, they walk over
you"
You admit, then, that Won would
not be a cOnsiderate employer of wom-
en-; yet you would resent a lack of con-
sideration toward yourself" The
woman spoke with some irritation. and
the girl abruptly changed the subject.
The cry. II won't work for women,
they 4. a - cxs eting," is often heard;
but it L. u-!'y 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 exactions of a
board of managers. She went over the
names of the offenders. She admitted
that one was q noble specimen of her
sex, and demanded too muck 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-
hot sv,f IL. Z.
required strict investigation and many
journeys in the tenement district
should be furnished in 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. 1t
is question whether women who do
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 to
attend to details as often impa-
tient and unreasonable regard
ing the time required for accurate
work? Are not managers and fore
men in shops and factories as apt to be
dictatorial and exaeting as some wom-
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. have seen
girls come home faint and i'll because
they had worked from morning till
night, without time even for a
hasty lunch, when the employer
had thought it necessary to has
ten the completion of certain
work. They didn't think" the girls
said, in excuse for their drivers. But
the woman employer would have
thought, would have understood that
the girls were working beyond their
strength.
1T is overwork and doubt if she
has strength to rally" said the doctor.
And il that girl dies am to blame, "
said the employer in deep contrition.
But that employer was not a woman.
Consideration for subordinates is not
determined by the sex of the employer.
For man and for woman the best solu.
tion 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.