52 



I had a little difficulty when reading the paper to understand just 

 what Dr. Phillips' real position is in regard to the question of women's 

 wages. In one part of the paper one is led to believe that the matter 

 of . s. d. is much about the same as it was before the war ; in another 

 part one comes to the conclusion that there has been a remarkable 

 improvement. * After what she has said to-night, I have definitely 

 come to the conclusion that she thinks there is not, on the whole, 

 very much improvement, especially when she says that after all, what 

 you have to consider is not how many shillings a woman gets, but what 

 she can get for the shillings. If we consider it from that point of view 

 we can very safely say there has not been any big upward movement 

 in women's wages, such as we have been led to think, as a result of 

 war experience. But even if there has been an increase in " real " 

 wages and I think there has we have some important considerations 

 to bear in mind. First, that woman speaking of industry gener- 

 ally is at the moment occupying more or less of a monopoly position, 

 the competitive factor having been completely removed. If in these 

 circumstances wages did not go up, we should wonder what had 

 happened. The second point is and I suggest it is an extremely 

 important one that wages of women for war work are ruling com- 

 paratively high as compared with women's wages before the war, 

 for the very important reason that the employer of labour, as we gener- 

 ally understand him, is not paying that wage, but the State is paying 

 it ; and therefore we have to ask ourselves the very pertinent question : 

 What prospects will there be of wages remaining at the war level after 

 the war, when the State is no longer paying the wages but the 

 private employer is called upon to pay them ? 



The war is being used by the extreme feminists as a lever for the 

 demand that women shall be employed throughout industry irrespective 

 of any conditions whatever. But perhaps it is not quite fair for me 

 to assume that Dr. Phillips takes up that position. I want to oppose 

 the view that women shall be employed in industry because they are 

 women, and to make the suggestion that women shall be employed 

 in any industry according to their suitability. I quite agree with 

 Dr. Phillips that in order to get the problem properly tackled it is of 

 the utmost importance that the women shall be consulted and shall 

 have an equal say in the selection both of the industry and of the type 

 of woman, but I strongly hold that to use the war as an argument for 

 the employment of women here, there, and everywhere, irrespective 

 of other conditions, is extremely dangerous from the men's, the women's, 

 and the community's point of view. If I read aright the report of the 

 Standing Joint Committee to which she refers and all interested in 

 after-the-war reconstruction should get a copy they are at some 

 pains to call attention to the extreme social dangers of the employment 

 of women irrespective of the conditions governing the industry from 

 the physiological point of view. I think we shall all agree that the 

 higher women's wages can be brought, the better it is for the women 

 -and the better for the men, if the problem is approached from the 



