The Washington herald., 1913-02-12
Regulation of Woman's Employment.

The La Toilette Peters bill, intended
70 limit in a number of kinds of en-
plovncnt the working hours of women
employees in the District OF Columbia
70 six cight-hour days a week, IS now
under consideration by both the House
and the Senate. In so far as the bill
is intended to protect women wage
carners from the danger of being
forced 10 work overtime. through fear
of losing their positions if they should
refuse. it is a step in the right direc-
lion, for it seems 10 be a theory gen.
orally accepted as correct, that woman S
hours Of labor must be regulated, both
for the present and future welfare of
the race. With hardly an exception.
however. the leading business men OF
Washington. who have appeared before
the committees of the House and Sen
ate having the bill in charge. unite in
condemning it as it now stands.
This universal criticism is not sur
prising. The bill provides the same
time limit Of eight hours for women
who work in mills. bakeries. laundries
factories. millinery and dressmaking
establishments. stores. hotels, restau-
rants. offices. &c. Under its provisions
the time OF the female office clerk or
stcnographer is regulated in precise
j. the same manner as is the time OF
the scrub woman in the laundry. the
seamstress and the saleswoman. Man.
ifestly this is wrong. Each different
employment has different conditions,
and to that extent calls for different
regulation For this reason it would
seem wiser to provide for some way
in which the hours OF labor may be
adjusted for each Particular employ
mcnt than to artemp, 10 impose the
same conditions on such widely differ
cnt cmploynents as have been above
enumerated.
Another objection to the bill is that,
according to its provisions. a woman
who has worked eight hours for one
employer cannot, after hours. under
take extra work ior another Legisla-
ton OF tn, general class is largely
intended - prevent employers from
CNacting too much from their employees.
who cannot as a rule refuse to work
overtime without the fear OF losing
their positions. But a woman who de-
SircS TO do extra work for another
employer occupies an entirely different
position. She is in no danger OF be-
ing coerced into working overtime.
through the fear of mourning her en-
ployer's diSpleasure if she refuses. In
her case this kind of legislation has
fulfilled the purpose above pointed out
in protecting her from enforced over
work in her regular employment. yet
apart from the question OF the consti-
tutionaity of this provision It is OBJ
Iectlonablc. in that II will prevent many
women from earning extra money after
regular hour>, as many OF them arc
we'll able to do. 1t is only a small pro-
portion OF the great mass OF women
workers who undertake extra work
for other employers. after hours. and
ii would seem much more equitable not
10 attempt to restrict them on so doing. |
Without discussing the unfortunate
consequence that will probably follow
from the enactment of this bill into
law. namely. that many women will be |
replaced by men in the positions they
now hold, it would seem that the OBJ |
icctions to the bill already pointed out
warrant the conclusion that its details |
have not been carefully enough con-
Sidercd TO warrant ii being enacted into
law.
1t has been openly charged, in fact,
that the bill is an experiment" to be
tried out on the District of Colum-
bis. While the National Capital may
be expected to be model for other
municipalities, it must not be subjected
10 a sort of viviscction every time an
experiment is to be made upon a living
specimen.
In this case Congress will lose hoth-
ing and gain much for itself and for
the people it would help if it enacts
a law limiting women's hours of em-
ployment in a way that will protect
and not hamper them. The spirit of
the bill is good; its letter is unfortu-
nate, practically impossible