```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Wednesday July 29, 1914
Chicago, Illinois - Testimony of Elizabeth Maloney before the Walsh Commission
Miss Elizabeth Maloney appeared before the Commission on Industrial relations (also called the Walsh Commission) on July 22nd and testified regarding the conditions under which waitresses labor in this city. Miss Maloney is the financial secretary of the Waitresses Union which is now conducting strikes of waitresses at Henrici's and Knab's.
During her testimony, she defended the right of waitresses, who now labor 10 hours per day six days week, to earn enough to live on:
We will present the testimony of Miss Maloney in two parts. Today we offer Part I:
TESTIMONY OF MISS ELIZABETH MALONEY.
Mr. Thompson. Give us your name.
Miss Maloney. Elizabeth Maloney.
Mr. Thompson. Speak up strong, so we can all hear you. This is a noisy room.
Miss Maloney. Elizabeth Maloney.
Mr. Thompson. What is your business address?
Miss Maloney. 35 South Dearborn.
Mr. Thompson. What position do you occupy?
Miss Maloney. I am the financial secretary and business agent of the waitresses' union.
Mr. Thompson. In Chicago?
Miss Maloney. In Chicago.
Mr. Thompson. How long have you been that agent?
Miss Maloney. About 10 years.
Mr. Thompson. About 10 years?
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Are you familiar with the conditions which exist between your
organization and Knab's restaurants?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Taylor?
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Will you briefly state anything that you have to say in that regard?
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Make it as brief as you can.
Miss Maloney. Mr. Knab has been conducting a restaurant— general restaurant—in the
city of Chicago for about 11 years, running an open shop until the 5th day of January
of this year, when he signed a closed-shop agreement with our organization, which
terminated on May 1. So the union conditions spoken of in Mr. Taylor's testimony have
only been in operation in Knab's restaurant about four months. Prior to that time they
worked seven days a week, and have worked 12 to 14 hours a day, until the 10-hour
law went into operation. The law is what gave the girls protection, but not until the
law was amended four years ago to include hotels and restaurants. They worked more
than 10 hours a day up to that time.
They have never had union conditions until the
1st day of January, and they concluded there on the 1st day of May, when our girls
went on strike. He had a closed-shop agreement for about four months. The court
records will show in the Henrici case that in the month of February of this year he
applied for admission into the restaurant keepers' association, and his application was
not accepted because he had a closed-shop contract with our organization. So on
May 1 he decided he would not have a closed-shop contract with our organization. So
the contract and the union conditions that prevailed there have only been in
operation that short time. The restaurant keepers' association do not allow their
members to make contracts, closed-shop or otherwise, as individuals, with
organizations. Hence, I suppose that that is one of the causes for Mr. Knab's refusal
to renew our agreement. He is a member of the Food Exchange. I have here the by-
laws, and would be very glad to read them. Do you want them read on the subject?
Mr. Thompson. If you can, hand them in to the commission.
Chairman Walsh. How long are they?
Miss Maloney. These paragraphs are very short. If there is no objection, I will read
them [reading]:
Sec. 4. No person, firm, or corporation now having signed agreements with any labor organization shall be admitted to membership in this association, except on condition that such agreements shall be fully carried out in letter and in spirit, and such person, firm, or corporation so admitted shall not be entitled to any benefits accruing to the members of this association under agreements of said association and others which are inconsistent with the faithful performance of such individual agreements; and this limitation shall apply not only to agreements now in force between this association and the several labor organizations, but to any which shall be hereafter made during the life of the individual agreement now in force.
Then it goes on to say [reading]:
It shall be the duty of the members of this association, when any demand is made upon him, her, or it, by any labor organization, to notify the secretary of this association. The secretary shall at once lay the same before the president, and if compliance with their demands, in their judgment, would be inconsistent with the principles and laws of this association or of good business, such members must refuse to negotiate any settlement and refer the party or parties making the same to this association.
Any member who shall settle a strike or demand of any labor organization whatever affecting the general welfare of the members of this association shall be suspended and not reinstated until he shall have complied with the conditions which this association may impose.
Mr. Thompson. Does Mr. Taylor have any connection with the association, do you
know?
Miss Maloney. He is attorney for Mr. Knab in this controversy, and I suppose by reason
of his being counsel for the employers' association. The girls went on a strike on the
1st of May for their closed-shop agreement. You will readily see that they only had
their one day off in four months, and being anxious to hang on to that one day off in
four months, and feeling that they could only maintain it by their closed-shop
agreement, they went on strike when he refused to sign it. Before going on strike the
members employed in the Knab houses held meetings, took a secret strike vote on it
—no coercion by the officers whatever—and they voted to strike. Conferences were
held prior to their coming out both by our organization and the other organizations
there who had agreements, and with the Chicago Federation of Labor. But he refused
to sign any agreement at all with us, and so we went on strike; and we have been on
strike ever since.
Mr. Thompson. Are the girls now working in these restaurants members of your
organization?
Miss Maloney. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Then the girls that did work there and worked under this contract
which lasted for four months left the restaurant?
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. And you have a strike on there now, is that correct?
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. And do you know now whether or not the restaurant is paying the
union scale of wages and giving union hours?
Miss Maloney. I do not know, but I imagine it would be a good policy for them to pay
it, when they are having a fight it would not be a good policy to reduce wages now
while it is going on.
Mr. Thompson. They are having the strike?
Miss Maloney. The cooks and waitresses in those establishments. And the real
connection that the Efting-Powers have with this strike is this: That those three
concerns operate a bakeshop, and that bakeshop is owned by those three persons
and I think two other stockholders. They supply all the bread and cakes for the entire
system of 20 restaurants. Knab owns 8, Powers 6, and Efting 6. Union conditions did
not prevail in either Powers or Efting houses, and if they are operating on this six-
day-a-week plan, they have done it since May 1, but prior to that time they did not
do it; although Mr. Powers promised to sign our agreement, yet he did not, and
entered into the combination to fight us. Therefore we are picketing his houses and
the bakeshop because we feel that every dollar that is taken in in those places will be
used to fight us and to prevent us from getting our agreement. They made the broad
statement that they would wipe the waitresses' union off the boards, and they have
been attempting to do that now since February 1, first in the Henrici strike and now in
the Knab strike.
Mr. Thompson. Have you been acquainted with the litigation pending in reference to
the Powers restaurant and the other ones?
Miss Maloney. What do you mean?
Mr. Thompson. Bills for injunction that have been filed.
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Did you hear what Mr. Taylor said in regard to them?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Have you anything to say or add to what he said?
Miss Maloney. Well, I might say when they got the Knab injunction it was gotten
without notice. They got just the injunction they sought for. But it did not prohibit
peaceful picketing. So we continued to picket. They then went to Judge Baldwin with
an amendment to try and have peaceful and silent picketing restrained. That motion
was denied. We have been picketing there right along. Then Powers and Efting jointly
got an injunction which prohibited picketing, which prohibited talking to any of the
employees or the patrons, or from distributing any literature; it prohibiting us placing
them on the unfair list, and it was a very sweeping injunction. It was not issued until
they gave us notice. The notice in that instance was a very ridiculous thing. At half
past 11 we were notified that they were going before Judge Baldwin and have an
injunction. At 2 o'clock we went in there, and they were in there and had the
injunction.
However, the judge did say that he would listen to a motion to dissolve—
24 hours' notice. So we immediately got ready to give notice for that. When the case
came up before Judge Windes that portion of the injunction was dissolved. We are still
picketing. I might add that there has not been any violence in this strike. The pickets
do not talk to the patrons. They first wore a sign saying, "Help us win our strike."
They now wear a sign which says, "With your assistance we will win our strike at
Knab's." And the picketing has been so peaceful and so silent that it has not been
enjoined. In a few instances, I want to relate, they have resorted to picketing
themselves, and they place pickets on the street. I wish to say that at 52
Washington Street they placed colored pickets on the street, colored women, who
wore signs like this: "Gee, I ain't mad at nobody and nobody ain't mad at Knab."
Another one saying that they would travel up and down just as long as the pickets
do.
They have now withdrawn the colored pickets, and they have other nonunion girls
picketing, who wear signs, "I am one of Knab's waitresses and I am satisfied." The
signs were changed yesterday to read something about a nannie goat, and they
carried nannie goats in their hands, and they would make them squeak under the
noses of the girls. Of course we understand that was done to incite violence or
coercion, and that an argument of any kind with our girls would be what was desired;
but, being girls who have been in the courts and understand the position since
February 5, they know what the intention was, and so far they have not been
successful. We have no objection to them displaying by cabaret performances at all.
In fact we think it is a good thing to do, so we haven't any objection.
Mr. Thompson. Has there been any interference of any kind with your pickets?
Miss Maloney. Yes; I wish to say that this new performance, signs in the Knab
windows, they are more or less of a ridiculous nature and attract crowds, and our girls
are being arrested three or four times during each meal. I wish to say that we have
been discriminated against. That when the policeman calls a wagon the nonunion
pickets are tipped off, and they go inside the restaurant, and when the wagon comes
they simply take the union pickets, who have not been responsible for the crowd, and
who have done nothing but walk up and down. Yesterday there were 21 arrests, and
the day before 16.
Mr. Thompson. Have any of these come to trial?
Miss Maloney. There have only been two cases come to trial. Those were girls who
were arrested on last Thursday evening, and they were found not guilty.
Commissioner O'Connell. Were any scab pickets arrested at all?
Commissioner Lennon. Were the negresses taken, arrested?
Miss Maloney. No; negresses were not taken. They have been warned time and again
to take out those ridiculous signs, because they were attracting the public, and they
only put the signs up when the pickets are out. There was this same thing during the
Henrici fight; we were treated very brutally by the police, and the same system is
starting in again. In taking the girls into the wagon they always take them away in
such a way as to have them treated very badly, and they have always gone with the
officers. They are compelled to put up large bonds. We have got $400 in each
instance that we are charged with loitering. In the Henrici case we have over 139
cases in court which never came to trial. Over $200,000 in bonds up. So they are
undertaking to play the same game.
Mr. Thompson. Did the giving of these bonds cause any inconvenience to your
organization or membership?
Miss Maloney. It compelled us to get people on short notice—take people from their
work—people who were willing to go our bonds, or else the girls have to stay in jail;
and I wish to take the case of one girl who was arrested for walking up and down, she
was taken over there at 25 minutes of 8, and the desk sergeant had her to stay there
until after 10 o'clock, and she would have had to stay there all night if
representatives of the cooks' organization had not come to her aid. They simply want
to break the spirit of the girls, and even the police say that they will drive us off of
the street. These arrests are all unlawful, because the judges have decided on the
character of the picketing and the character of the signs, and the girls are doing
nothing more than they are legalized to do by the judges.
Mr. Thompson. What is your opinion as to the reason for the police acting the way
they are acting?
Miss Maloney. Mr. Knab has always been very good to the policemen. Last Christmas
he gave every policeman a turkey free; almost every uniformed officer went there and
got one. They eat there free, and have always eaten free there, and naturally they
have a very kindly feeling for anyone who gives them free meals.
Mr. Thompson. Is there anything more, Miss Maloney, in regard to the strike Mr. Taylor
has spoken of?
Miss Maloney. I believe that we are justified in our strike. The closed shop is the only
guaranty we have of maintaining the conditions we fought for and every improvement
that has ever been made in our trade has been made through the closed-shop
agreement. Before then the members of our organization were paid as low as $3 a
week, seven days in the week and 10 hours a day; they furnished their own linen
then, and now the employers do.
Mr. Thompson. I would like you to tell us the difference between the union and the
nonunion shops in Chicago.
Commissioner O'Connell. Say in the Knab shop and the nonunion shop.
Miss Maloney. Henrici pays $7 for seven days of 10 hours, but 10 years ago he paid
three and one-half and four and five dollars a week, and when the union came into
existence and put up a battle something similar to what they are doing now he then
raised their wages to $7. Since that time he has made no change at all except the
one which the law compelled him, and that was the limitation to a 10-hour day. The
conditions have remained about the same. The girls in that house pay for their own
linen; that is, they rent it for so much a day. They do all sorts of porter work, or did
at the time of the controversy, and I do not know that the conditions have changed.
They worked seven days and furnished their own laundry and paid for the laundering
of it and paid a system of fines for every breakage. The system of fines is like this:
That if a man orders a steak and is in a hurry and for some reason the orders get
mixed and are delayed and the man leaves before eating the steak the girl has to pay
for the steak, but she can not eat it.
Commissioner O'Connell. Is it resold?
Miss Maloney. I believe it is; she does not get it. And that sort of fines they call
discipline and it is enforced in those houses. Yet they stated when we were in court
that they had a profitable business and that every month's receipts in the year
showed at least 20 or 30 and in some cases 50 per cent more than for the year
previous, showing that they were running a paying business, yet they did not feel
justified to give us this one day a week and pay $7 a week to the girls. They justified
themselves by saying that they were very good to their employees and that they had
given their girls a present at Christmas of $5, and I tried to demonstrate that they
had given a girl $5 on account of salary and they still owed her $95 by reason of
contributions that she had paid out of her weekly wages. They were running a
profitable business, but they did not seem to think they should give a day off or give
the girls a dollar more. They made the excuse that the only way they would favor us
was if a legislative act was enforced by which they were compelled to give one day
off in seven. We answered that by saying that the employers' association and
restaurant keepers' association, when that legislation was introduced at the
legislature through Mr. Taylor, bitterly opposed the one day off; they opposed it in
legislative form and in the organization form.
Mr. Thompson. Referring to the employers' association, or whatever you call it—the
restaurant or food exchange—has the employer the liberty to belong or not belong?
Miss Maloney. I don't understand.
Mr. Thompson. Has Mr. Knab or any other employer the right to belong to the
employers' exchange or not as he pleases?
Miss Maloney. Certainly.
Mr. Thompson. The only issue now is the closed shop, is it not?
Miss Maloney. At the present time; yes.
Mr. Thompson. That arises out of the agreement you had?
Miss Maloney. Yes; that arises out of the agreement. That agreement was in force for
four months, and you understand it is not in force now, but the reason we wanted the
closed shop was to maintain the agreement we had.
Mr. Thompson. Do you think you have the right to destroy a patronage solely to
enforce the closed-shop agreement?
Miss Maloney. I think the courts have clearly defined our right in that respect; they
stated it all depended upon the intent; if you are doing it to better the condition of
your fellow workmen you have a right to do it.
Mr. Thompson. Is there anything further that you want to say in the matter?
Miss Maloney. I don't know of anything further.
Mr. Thompson. Your answer to this question is what,Miss Maloney? I will ask you to
look at this paper [showing witness paper]; I will read the question:
Chicago, May 19, 1914
Pursuant to your request of my position with respect to the waitresses' union, permit me to say that I will continue in the future as I have heretofore, namely, to give union waitresses the preference when in need of help and to pay the following wage scale:
Steady girls, six days, 60 hours or less, $8 per week.
Night girls, six days, 60 hours or less, $8 per week.
Dogwatch girls, six days, 60 hours or less, $9 a week.
Dinner girls, six days, 60 hours or less, $4 per week.
Furnish linen and pay for laundry of same.
I will instruct the managers of my restaurants, in the presence of a committee of three, to call on the waitresses' union when in need of help.
The business agent of the waitresses' union shall have the privilege of organizing the waitresses in my establishments, the business to be timed when the help are not overly busy.
The help that have gone out on strike shall be taken back as soon as possible.
Was that submitted by you to anybody with the request that he sign it?
Miss Maloney. It was submitted to Mr. Becker, of the bakery drivers, and was
submitted to the bakers.
Mr. Thompson. Was it with your approval?
Miss Maloney. No; it was more as a solution; I could not approve it; I have no
authority as business agent of our organization to approve anything, except the
closed-shop agreement, without a vote of my organization. It was just submitted as a
proposition to be submitted to them. Allow me to make a full explanation. When we
went out on strike the bakery drivers and bakers working for the Powers, Knab, and
Efting companies went out on a sympathetic strike. They were only out about 20
days. Their organization took the matter out of the hands of the business agent and
put it in the hands of a committee, because they were not satisfied with the action of
their business agent, because, while the controversy was on, he renewed the
agreement with the Powers, Efting, and Knab people, and for that reason the
organization took the matter out of his hands and put it in the hands of a committee.
This committee felt they would like to return their men to work, because the
employers were trying to get all the master bakers to repudiate that agreement, and
that was the story they put up to them, and the bakers were anxious to return to
work, and the bakers went to see Mr. Knab in conjunction with the bakery drivers.
The bakery drivers had been out only two days. The bakers went to see Mr. Knab,
and I am sorry that Mr. Thompson has not submitted his proposition that he would call
on us when in need of help.
The second proposition to preferential— a preferential shop— but as our organization
had an agreement with Mr. Knab we felt that we could not be sure of our position
without a closed-shop agreement, because we had a closed-shop agreement for four
months and we did not see why we should accept a preferential shop. They did get
that agreement, and an hour after it was signed, when the business agent went over,
he said, "I will not sign the cooks' agreement," and that agreement I signed was not a
statement from my association, but simply for the bakers to allow them to go back to
work. So the next day the bakers who had already gone back to work and the bakery
drivers went to Mr. Knab to see what he was going to do about it, and he offered
them preferential arrangement, which they declined to accept. We had a meeting that
afternoon and by unanimous vote repudiated the preferential shop, having no faith in
it and felt that we would have no protection under that agreement.
I and Miss Alexander went to Mr. Knab and explained the situation and that we felt we
would not have any protection and the strike is still on, and for that reason we turned
it down.
Mr. Thompson. Didn't you tell Mr. Knab that this preferential agreement was
satisfactory to you and later tell him that your girls had considered it and would not
accept it and wanted the closed shop or nothing?
Miss Maloney. I never told Mr. Knab that that agreement was satisfactory to me. It
was submitted to me first, but was submitted to Mr. Becker and the organization of
bakers. I did not interview Mr. Knab until our organization had turned the proposition
down.
Mr. Thompson. You have not had a closed-shop agreement with Efting or Powers. Are
you willing to enter into a preferential agreement with Efting and Powers?
Miss Maloney. As an official of an organization, I am not empowered to speak for the
union, but it would have to be submitted to the union as to whether they would
accept a preferential shop or not.
Mr. Thompson. Then, your whole picketing and boycotting now is to force a closed-
shop agreement and you will not accept a preferential agreement?
Miss Maloney. I think that question has been answered by the former answer, that it is
up to a vote of my organization as to what they would do to a preferential shop at
the two houses in question.
Mr. Thompson. Is there anything more you want to say on that subject?
Miss Maloney. No.
Mr. Thompson. In your position as official of the union for 10 years you have had an
opportunity and have studied the industrial problem, have you not?
Miss Maloney. Somewhat; yes.
Mr. Thompson. And the unrest which is evidenced?
Miss Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. What opinion have you with reference thereto as to the causes and
the remedy that might be suggested within the scope of a commission like this?
Miss Maloney. I think the causes of so much industrial unrest are the unsettled
grievances—unlistened-to grievances and the utter ignorance of any grievances that
exist. The reply is, "If you do not like this position, get an other job." I think that has
prevailed so much that when people get beyond the point of endurance that there is
certainly a question of unrest that must be remedied. I think it is the unsettled
grievances that cause it.
Mr. Thompson. How would you remedy that condition, or what remedy would you
suggest?
Miss Maloney. I think it can be best solved—I do not know what sort of legislation
should be brought to bear on that, but I think if a commission were appointed of an
equal number of employees and employers and they could choose a party to represent
the public and go into the trade and see both sides of the question, they could then
settle it. I think it can be best settled that way.
Mr. Thompson. Do you think that such a commission, if it were a Federal commission
and had broad powers over the country, would be better?
Miss Maloney. I should think so.
Mr. Thompson. In other words, you are in favor of such commission, either State or
national, as may be best?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir; I am in favor of such commission, either State or national, as
may be best, but the people to be chosen on one hand by the workers and on the
other hand by the employers, and not to be appointed by either the State or Nation.
Mr. Thompson. You heard Mr. Walker's testimony?
Miss Maloney. Yes; and I am heartily in accord with that.
Mr. Thompson. He expressed your views?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You spoke something about representing a democratic organization and
that you expressed its views. What have you to suggest, if anything, in the way of
rules and regulations, or laws that would safeguard the democratic expression of the
views and attitude of the members of trade-unions?
Miss Maloney. Well, we have in our organization a certain routine to go through before
a strike can be called, and a certain routine to be gone through before a settlement
can be had other than that authorized by the organization to be put through. In that
way I think it is democratic, because it at all times expresses the wishes of the rank
and file.
Mr. Thompson. You think the individual members of the union ought to be protected in
the expression of their views the same as in the State in voting?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. And if there is any interference with that the interference ought to be
removed?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. And regulations of institutions like the primary law we have in the State
should be inaugurated in order to protect the purity and free expression of the will of
the members?
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. A certain portion of the people, I take it, can be safely said, feel there
is not that free expression in all labor organizations. Have you given it any
consideration, and, if so, what remedy would you suggest there?
Miss Maloney. Well, for the most part my main study has been with the organizations
of women, and I think my experience has been that they have tried to get out of the
individual girl her expression on every subject possible. They have urged her to get up
and state her views, feeling that everybody should give expression to the question
before them.
Mr. Thompson. As far as you know, is anything like the Australian ballot used in the
unions to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot?
Miss Maloney. It is used in our organization, and that is the way we elect our officers,
and that is the way the strike vote is taken, and that is the way all questions are
decided.
Mr. Thompson. You believe the use of that method is a safeguard in organizations?
Miss Maloney. I think you get the true expression of the members in that way.
Mr. Thompson. Do you think that is generally true of labor unions in this city?
Miss Maloney. With those I have come in close contact with I do.
Mr. Thompson. Do you think that sort of expression exists in the building trades?
Miss Maloney. I only know just in the women's organizations. Not being a member of
the building trade I could not very well express myself on it.
Mr. Thompson. Have you any views with reference to the establishment of a minimum
wage, such a law as has been offered to the legislature at Springfield?
Miss Maloney. The Women's Trade Union League, with which our organization is
affiliated, did submit a bill which we thought was a good bill at the last session of the
legislature. We thought it was a very good one. It was drawn for the creation of a
commission of three to investigate with power to appoint a minimum wage board
consisting of an equal number of employers and employees in each industry and
someone to represent the public, chosen by those, and to go into the details of the
industry from both standpoints and arrive at what they thought would be a fair wage
for the worker and at the same time fair from the business standpoint, and we
thought we had a very good bill.
Mr. Thompson. Did you hear Mr. Taylor's testimony?
Miss Maloney. Yes; and I heard it at Springfield, too.
Mr. Thompson. What have you got to say with reference to what he said?
Miss Maloney. I will repeat what he said at Springfield, I think that would be the best
way to explain it. He was asked by Senator Juul—I believe his particular clients at
that time were the candy manufacturers, at least they seemed to be very much in
evidence. He was asked by Senator Juul, when he had taken the side to oppose all
legislation—by the way, there were about seven bills pending before the legislature—
Senator Juul asked him if he didn't think any girl who had given her services all week
was entitled to enough compensation to get three meals a day and a decent place to
sleep. He answered no. He was asked where he thought the responsibility lay if it was
not a responsibility on the part of the employer, and he said no, that he thought the
responsibility should lie with the parents and that the employer should be
complimented for giving them anything at all while fitting them for commercial life. And
he was then asked if he had a daughter of his own, and I believe he answered yes. I
wish to say that I believe that was a very in human answer. I think that expresses my
view on it.
Commissioner O'Connell. Are there printed records of those hearings?
Miss Maloney. I think they can be had of the secretary of state.
Chairman Walsh. Were shorthand notes taken of the hearing before the committee at
Springfield?
Miss Maloney. I don't know.
Mr. Thompson, he has substantially said the same thing at this meeting.
Miss Maloney. He admitted the testimony.
Mr. Thompson. That a girl 16 years of age wasn't able to earn her living.
Miss Maloney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What have you to say with reference to that subject? Where should
the responsibility rest to support that girl?
Miss Maloney. I think when the employer—you know as soon as they come out of
school you read the ads in the papers how they want the girls just fresh from school
so as to learn their methods. She is very quick to pick them up, and she ought to be
worth at least her living, and I don't consider her living just three meals a day and a
decent place to sleep. When you look at the profit side of any concern and look at
the wage column, and see the wages as low as two or three or four dollars a week,
and you know that industry is piling up millions of dollars at the expense of the girls,
that side of the table should be equalized a little more, and I think a girl should be
entitled to live decently and properly and enjoy some of the things in life that her
employer wants his children to have.
Mr. Thompson. Would it affect your answer you have given even if it was true for a
period of time like two or three or even six months a girl was unable to actually earn
the wages she receives?
Miss Maloney. We made a sort of provision for that; we tried to make a provision for
that in the minimum-wage legislation. We asked the minimum-wage board to go into
the question of apprentices, and state a stipulated salary below which they should
not go. This was to be determined by this wage board, and also for people who were
deficient; that is, if they were in any way deficient, by which their earning capacity
would not be as great as some of those who were stronger.
Mr. Thompson. Have you considered whether it would be fair or unfair to charge
against the industry the education of the worker in the industry, to do that specific
work?
Miss Maloney. To charge it against them?
Mr. Thompson. Yes; whether the industry should pay for it, or the parents, in preparing
the girl for industrial life?
Miss Maloney. I think after a girl has received what we call a common-school
education, and that is what is compulsory now—I think that after she has been in the
service anywhere six months she ought to be—the company won't keep her if she
can't turn out a certain output in their line of work. If she is worth anything at all to
that house or that manufacturing establishment or that mercantile place she ought to
be worth a decent living or salary enough for a decent living.
Mr. Thompson. Someone has got to keep her until she does learn a trade or industry.
Miss Maloney. And they especially want a girl fresh from school so as to adapt her to
that line of work. If she is necessary to industry and they choose to take her, they
should not be allowed to hide under cover that because she just came from school
and is proficient in every way she should be held to very low wages.
Mr. Thompson. That is all.
[some paragraph breaks added]
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
That information has now been added.