The wages the women received were highly variable within
companies, between companies and even amongst individuals doing the same jobs.
Out of the sixty women, Ann Berry, an office cleaner at Atherton on the London and
North Western Railway (L&NWR), had the sad distinction of being the lowest
paid, earning only 1 shilling a week (£2 12s per year)[1]. Interestingly,
another office cleaner, Ann Cavanagh who
was based at the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway’s Manchester
offices, was the highest paid, receiving £1 1s a week (£52 12s per year).[2] However,
despite Ann being the highest paid woman, in comparison with her male
colleagues it was still a low amount.
Thus, women’s starting wages on the early railways were meagre.
The poorest wages were given to the gatekeepers, and from a sample size of 22
the average wage was 3 shillings 3 pence per week (£6 10s per year). However,
this figure is forced up by the fact that there were a number of gatekeepers
earning much higher amounts than the rest. Eliza Prince, based at the Saltney
gate on the Great Western Railway (GWR) was earning 7 shillings per week (£18
4s per year).[3] However, this average is also skewed by the fact that seventeen
of the gatekeepers worked for the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway
(LB&SCR) and fifteen of these were receiving what was clearly a standard
rate of 2s 6d per week (£6 10s per year). Gatekeepers’ low wages reflected the
fact that many of them were given a house as part of their work and had
husbands who were also employed by the railway as platelayers or signalmen. Thus,
the company did not feel the need to pay these women a higher wage.
The highest wage earners were the waiting room attendants,
who on average earned 10 shillings 9 pence per week (£27 17s 2d per year).
However, seven of the eight, working for the L&NWR and LB&SCR, all
earned 10 shillings a week (£26 per year). Whereas, Francis Fuller, who worked
as a ‘servant’ for the LB&SCR, was earning 15 shillings per week (£39 per
year).[4] Possibly, the higher wages reflected the fact that attendants usually
had had husbands killed on the railways, but also that these men had been in important
positions, such as clerks or engine drivers.
While there are only four clerks in the sample, their wage
average was 7 shillings 11 pence per week (£20 9s 6d per year). There are
seemingly no patterns in their wages, possibly indicating that as the
employment of women in such positions was rare, the companies decided what they
were paid on a case by case basis. Lastly, cleaners earned on average 5
shillings 2 pence per week (£13 9s 3d per year). Yet, while most of these women
were at the lower end of the wage spectrum, amongst the twenty-one individuals
doing this job eleven different rates were paid and the only pattern that can
be discerned is that the higher paid office cleaners were usually working in
stations of note. For example, Ann Trant, who worked at London Bridge Station
(LB&SCR), was earning 7 shillings a week (£18 4s per year)[5]. This said,
some low paid cleaners at large stations have also been found, suggesting that
those who were paid more were possibly in supervisory roles.
Once assigned to their posts forty-one of the women did
not receive any wage increases, and for the nineteen women that did the extra
income was minimal. Indeed, it was more likely that they would leave the
service before they would receive a raise. The details of how twenty of the women
left the service have been found. One, Jane Beattie who was an office cleaner
at Sheffield on the (MS&LR), died. This was in 1877 after twenty-seven
years in the service.[6] Ten resigned and given that four were in their late
teens and two were in their mid-20s when they left, it suggests they did so to get
married. (The ages when three left are unknown)
Nine of the women were dismissed and the reasons stated
for this clearly show that the companies saw women’s labour as being far more dispensable
than men’s. Indeed, the phrase ‘services dispensed with,’ or words to that effect,
appear in eight of the nine cases, suggesting they were simply fired when no
longer required. The case of Esther Pearce,
a gatekeeper at Berwick on the LB&SCR, is particularly interesting as the
staff record clearly shows why she lost her job. After thirteen years of
service she was discharged on the basis that the company appointed a man.[7] Additionally,
long service did not seem to grant the women any immunity from being dispensed
with when their post was no longer required. Only Elizabeth Boyd, who was a
Charwoman on the MS&LR at Hull, was dismissed for any form of malpractice
as she had been inattentive to her duties.[8]
Overall, a number of themes can be drawn from this
information. Firstly, the wages women received were, overall, very low compared
with those of their male colleagues, even in the cases of the female clerks who
were the only women doing a job that men also held. Secondly, there were a
considerable number of women who went into railway work before marriage. Lastly,
the railway companies saw women were a source of cheap and dispensable labour.
-------------------
[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 410/1858, Staff
register including station agents, guards, porters, ticket collectors, gangers,
ladies attendants, night watchmen, police constables, bellmen, lamplighters,
engine drivers, firemen, labourers, stokers, signalmen, warehousemen etc.,
p.258
[2] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register 1, p.441
[3] TNA, RAIL 264/349, Register of uniformed staff No.1 O
& P, p.252
[4] TNA, RAIL 414/569, Returns of staff employed in all
departments of the company, p.438
[5] TNA, RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments
Indexed, p.4
[6] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register 1, p.189
[7] TNA, RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments
Indexed, p.119
[8] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register
1, p.392
No comments:
Post a Comment