babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » "Guide to Hiring Women"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "Guide to Hiring Women"
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 04 September 2001 07:05 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The following is an excerpt from the July 1943 issue of Transportation magazine. This was serious and written for male supervisors of women in the workforce during the Second World War.

Eleven Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employees:

There's no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient women available and how to use them to the best advantage. Here are eleven
helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties:

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.

2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined
to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally
or physically unfit for the job.

5. Stress at the outset the importance of time; the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.

6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative
in finding work themselves.

7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.

8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.

10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.

11. Get enough size variety in operator's uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can't be stressed too much in keeping women happy.

(Thanks to rabble.ca editor Catherine Macleod for sending this bit of history my way.)


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 September 2001 01:03 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*chuckle*. Some of it is oddly patronizing, but other parts have some serious common sense - see for example the "adequate number of breaks" thing.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 05 September 2001 01:24 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's interesting that you posted this today. I was having a conversation with one of my co-workers today who is applying for a different position at another location of the company. He was told by a manager that he had a better than normal chance of getting the job because most likely they weren't going to hire a woman. Why? Because some guy who already works there swears a lot and they're afraid a woman might get all offended and not stay.

So for anyone who thought that this stuff just happened in 1943, consider yourself better informed.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2001 09:45 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was thinking Dr C's thoughts all the way through -- although the tone is patronizing, transparently so now to us, the gist of some of the advice seems to be that women are still -- gosh! -- unused to behaving as alienated economic units, and may have to be brought along slowly ...

I started working for a living in 1968, and had a number of part-time jobs from 1960 on, so I remember pretty frank and open expressions of some of these attitudes. As Doug says, they haven't necessarily gone away, just underground, if that. Gee, we're still a problem, ain't we, girls.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2001 11:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

Yes! Vindicated! (Hire me, hire me!)

quote:
*chuckle*. Some of it is oddly patronizing, but other parts have some serious common sense - see for example the "adequate number of breaks" thing.

Yeah, DrC., I always find that unless I get enough opportunities to change my lipstick, I just can't get ANYTHING done. But I'm sure you were referring just to the break time part, and not their reasons for women needing a break.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 05 September 2001 12:10 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology," don't you?
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 05 September 2001 12:42 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geez, I'd hate to be a guy at this particular place of business. Apparently, people swear at you and riducule you all day, you never have any breaks, you're stuck doing the same task all day, nobody gives you clear guidelines on how to do your job, and you have to squeeze into uniforms that don't fit properly.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 September 2001 01:23 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Geez, I'd hate to be a guy at this particular place of business. Apparently, people swear at you and riducule you all day, you never have any breaks, you're stuck doing the same task all day, nobody gives you clear guidelines on how to do your job, and you have to squeeze into uniforms that don't fit properly.

Well done -- reading it as you would a photographic negative.

Come to think of it, I've had one or two jobs like that.

Come to think of it II, haven't we all?

quote:
...the gist of some of the advice seems to be that women are still -- gosh! -- unused to behaving as alienated economic units, and may have to be brought along slowly ...

This could describe most peoples' response to industrial work since about 1800. It's certainly the basis of Taylorism, and its contemporary mutations.

Most men have internalized industrial discipline, but its basic unnaturalness (to use a word I just made up, incorporating a very loaded and dubious one) comes out in various ways. Boozing and brawling spring to mind.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 05 September 2001 01:30 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More on Taylorism and its creator, Frederick Winslow Taylor:

Here is a very *positive* spin.


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 September 2001 01:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Positive spin, she says.

I can't read that now, I just had breakfast!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 September 2001 02:30 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It does point out there were grounds for criticism of Taylorism, but I agree that the underlying thrust is along the lines of "We shouldn't throw this out juuuuuuust yet."


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 September 2001 09:17 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aaaarrgh! I lived by time-sheets for a brief time some years ago. In my kind of work, they produce an impossible double-bind: if you're honest about the time you spent on a project, you're over the budget the managers fantasized to get their projects approved by the accountants in the first place; but if you try to protect the project by protecting the budget -- which you can only do by leaving lots of blank spots on your time-sheets -- you're vulnerable for not accounting closely enough for your hours.

Now I account only to myself. The budgets are still someone's fantasy-underestimate; I am thus often working for nothing; but at least I don't fill out time-sheets.

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 06 September 2001 11:00 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I seriously fudge my timesheets. I'm supposed to account for every hour, and specify when I'm in a meeting or at a staff party and things like that. I don't bother. I just put down '7 hours, internal communications'. Nobody's ever complained, so what the heck do I care?!
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 06 September 2001 02:42 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aaaarrgh! I lived by time-sheets for a brief time some years ago. In my kind of work, they produce an impossible double-bind: if you're honest about the time you spent on a project, you're over the budget the managers fantasized to get their projects approved by the accountants in the first place; but if you try to protect the project by protecting the budget -- which you can only do by leaving lots of blank spots on your time-sheets -- you're vulnerable for not accounting closely enough for your hours.

Seriously. See my comments over on the "do you work for free? thread.

In my kind of work you'd have to substitute "clients" for "accountants," but it's otherwise the same.

I resent the system a bit less, though, when the budgets are my own fantasy-underestimate. Internalized pseudo-industrial discipline, again (not that I myself take it out in boozing/brawling, of course).


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
R. J. Dunnill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1148

posted 18 September 2001 02:14 PM      Profile for R. J. Dunnill   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And to think I once got into a fierce argument with three women over whether things had improved for the fairer sex since the 1950s (they claimed things hadn't). Naturally, they came of age in the 1970s, and were blissfully unaware of the conditions women had faced regarding social status and employment only a few years earlier.

RD


From: Surrey, B.C. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 09:05 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was just plain dumb of those women, RJ, I agree. They're probably the same women who say, "I'm not a feminist" (as if insisting they aren't diseased), not realizing that they should get down on their knees and thank every dreaded feminist who existed before they did for all the rights that have been recognized and now benefit them.

Not only that, but I think 50 years from now, women will look back on the feminists of today, who are concerned with race and class and orientation discrimination (not to mention leftovers of the sexism we've been fighting since the first wave at the turn of the last century) and be grateful to us for continuing the effort despite some privileged women who benefit from the fruit of feminism but then stab feminists in the back verbally by saying, "Oh, I don't like feminists, they're too RADICAL."

And people wonder what the point of Women's Studies is. Heaven forbid we should study the history and writings of one of the largest movements ever to directly affect half of the population...


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 September 2001 12:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gosh, if those women came of age in the 70s, then they were also "blissfully unaware" of conditions of blatant discrimination that most of their contemporaries were still facing. Michelle is right, RJD -- feminists know women's history a lot further back than the 1950s, and you'd have much better discussions with them than the backlashers you quite rightly argued with.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
R. J. Dunnill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1148

posted 23 September 2001 04:28 AM      Profile for R. J. Dunnill   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a pleasant surprise - someone agrees with me on something.

FYI I remember finding a copy of a 1951 Vancouver Province, and leafing through the want ads. Employment ads were divided into "Help Wanted - Men" and "Help Wanted - Women". Naturally, only menial positions were listed in the latter.

And, for those with strong stomachs only, there's this site that details a horror story that could give anything that Hollywood produces a run for its money...and it's real, not fiction. A story on what often happened to women who refused to accept their lot in those times - confinement to a mental institution, and subjection to barbaric "treatments" that attempted to force them back into line.

RD

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: R. J. Dunnill ]


From: Surrey, B.C. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 September 2001 08:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
R.J., I used to work with employment counsellors who facilitated small group sessions of EI clients, and as a little sidebar of entertainment while waiting for everyone to come in from lunch, they would show people an advertisement for a sales position. They wanted tall, married men. Maybe tall guys get better sales or something.

In Women's Studies last year, they showed us some overheads of want ads from the 40's and 50's, when the ads were segregated. It was unbelievable, completely alien to anything I've seen, having come of age in the very early 90's. However, I remember when I was a teenager even in the mid 1980's, I would look in the want ads for part time jobs, and they would occasionally specify sex for certain positions (particularly waitresses and cashiers - I guess the employers figured women would be more docile about getting paid crap and treated like crap too).


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca