fabian tract 436 
an end to homeworking? 

chapter 
.1 introduction 1 
2 historical background 3 
3 the contemporary scene 12 
4 the need for change 18 

this pamphlet, like all publ·ications of the Fabian Society 
represents not the collective view of the Society but only the 
views of the individual who prepared it. The responsibil·ity oi 
the Society is limited to approving publications it issues 
as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement. 
Fabian Soc'iety, 11 Dartmouth Street, London SW1 H 9BN 
September 1975 ISBN 7163 0436 E 


1. introduction 
The idea behind this pamphlet is, firstly, 
to set out the history of homework and 
the attempts to put stop to it, and to 
illustrate the way in which today's de-
1 mands differ very little from those of the 
past. The historical summary is not just 
an interesting story but a demonstration 
of the context in which the different 
aspects of the homework problem origin-
ated. Without this understanding the 
" cures " are 'likely to be less than effect-
ive. 
This is followed by a portrait of the con-
temporary situation with the pamphletconcluding with suggested changes in the 
law and practice to prevent continuation 
o'f the worst a!buses. 
Running through the whole pamphlet is 
the theme of women in society. The over-
whelming majority of homeworkers are 
women, and despite many legislative 
attempts at change, women are still second 
class citizens in the labour market as well 
as in the rest of society. Those who have 
paid 'lip service to International Women's 
Year should give consideration to these 
points. 
Neither the trade unions nor the political 
parties of the left can afford to ignore 
any longer the plight of these people who 
are doubly exploited by industry under 
one df the" unacceptable faces of capital-
·sm ". 
How many people would 1be prepared to 
work for 4t pence per hour ? The answer 
·s, one suspects, not many. Nevertheless 
20 per cent of the sample of homeworkers 
covered by the recent report of the Low 
Pay Unit were earning this-if not less. 
(Sweated Labour, L'ow Pay Unit, 1975).
It is hardly conceivaJble that in 1975 we 
y, should find weekly incomes that would 
1e be considered insufficient well before the 
of first world war. But if the availa:ble evi-
dence is representative of the country as 
S a whole, then this is just the case. There 
is no reason to doubt that the accumu-
l~ted facts are not a guide to the natior~al18 Situation especially given the industna 
and geographic spread of the enquiries. 
What is homework, why do people do it 
( 
and what can lbe done about the mis-
uses ? It is hoped that this pamphlet will 
contribute to the discussion. In the course 
df this discussion, a case requiring an 
answer is made: that homework does 
have a social value that cannot ibe meas-
ured in purely monetary terms. Other 
ap·ologists frequently refer to its thera-
putic value. What is found, by and large, 
is an inequitable form o'f exploitationthat bears most hard on tliat section of 
the community which has little articulate 
strength: women in their own home. 
Given that the majority are also obliged 
to do housework (also inadequately re-
numerated) one has a sorry picture of 
the house-locked homeworker. 
Homework is defined by the Commission 
on Industrial Relations as: " receiving 
work and payment directly from a man-
ufacturing establishment for work done 
in the home". (CIR, Report 77, HMSO, 
1974). However the practice goes deeper 
than this. " Work in .the Comfort of Your 
own Home " the adverts in newspapers 
and periodicals read. Frequently this is 
for envelope addressing or the like but 
often it is merely a cover for a particular-
ly vicious form of pyramid selling, now 
supposedly illegal. 
For thousands of people doing boring 
jobs in overcrowded, badly lit and ill-
ventilated ·offices and factories, the pros-
pect of working in the " front room " 
must appear attractive. It is, after all, the 
response most often hurled at women 
who suggest that the labour expended in 
housework should be accorded some ex-
changaJble use value. However the pro1b-
lem merely 'begins there. For instance 
many houses are less than adequate for 
living let alone as industrial undertakings, 
yet the poor who are most vulnerable to 
the homework idea are also often those 
living in lbad housing. 
Social contact in factories can be a com-
pensating factor and in terms of organ-
isation it is essential. Isolated in their 
homes, surrounded iby familiars, the 
level of alienation mere1y increases. The 
mere domestic adjuncts to a woman's 
daily lot assume very different propor-
tions when they are impeded as a form 
1. introduction 
The idea behind this pamphlet is, firstly, 
to set out the history of homework and 
the attempts to put stop to it, and to 
illustrate the way in which today's de-
1 mands differ very little from those of the 
past. The historical summary is not just 
an interesting story but a demonstration 
of the context in which the different 
aspects of the homework problem origin-
ated. Without this understanding the 
" cures " are 'likely to be less than effect-
ive. 
This is followed by a portrait of the con-
temporary situation with the pamphletconcluding with suggested changes in the 
law and practice to prevent continuation 
o'f the worst a!buses. 
Running through the whole pamphlet is 
the theme of women in society. The over-
whelming majority of homeworkers are 
women, and despite many legislative 
attempts at change, women are still second 
class citizens in the labour market as well 
as in the rest of society. Those who have 
paid 'lip service to International Women's 
Year should give consideration to these 
points. 
Neither the trade unions nor the political 
parties of the left can afford to ignore 
any longer the plight of these people who 
are doubly exploited by industry under 
one df the" unacceptable faces of capital-
·sm ". 
How many people would 1be prepared to 
work for 4t pence per hour ? The answer 
·s, one suspects, not many. Nevertheless 
20 per cent of the sample of homeworkers 
covered by the recent report of the Low 
Pay Unit were earning this-if not less. 
(Sweated Labour, L'ow Pay Unit, 1975).
It is hardly conceivaJble that in 1975 we 
y, should find weekly incomes that would 
1e be considered insufficient well before the 
of first world war. But if the availa:ble evi-
dence is representative of the country as 
S a whole, then this is just the case. There 
is no reason to doubt that the accumu-
l~ted facts are not a guide to the natior~al18 Situation especially given the industna 
and geographic spread of the enquiries. 
What is homework, why do people do it 
( 
and what can lbe done about the mis-
uses ? It is hoped that this pamphlet will 
contribute to the discussion. In the course 
df this discussion, a case requiring an 
answer is made: that homework does 
have a social value that cannot ibe meas-
ured in purely monetary terms. Other 
ap·ologists frequently refer to its thera-
putic value. What is found, by and large, 
is an inequitable form o'f exploitationthat bears most hard on tliat section of 
the community which has little articulate 
strength: women in their own home. 
Given that the majority are also obliged 
to do housework (also inadequately re-
numerated) one has a sorry picture of 
the house-locked homeworker. 
Homework is defined by the Commission 
on Industrial Relations as: " receiving 
work and payment directly from a man-
ufacturing establishment for work done 
in the home". (CIR, Report 77, HMSO, 
1974). However the practice goes deeper 
than this. " Work in .the Comfort of Your 
own Home " the adverts in newspapers 
and periodicals read. Frequently this is 
for envelope addressing or the like but 
often it is merely a cover for a particular-
ly vicious form of pyramid selling, now 
supposedly illegal. 
For thousands of people doing boring 
jobs in overcrowded, badly lit and ill-
ventilated ·offices and factories, the pros-
pect of working in the " front room " 
must appear attractive. It is, after all, the 
response most often hurled at women 
who suggest that the labour expended in 
housework should be accorded some ex-
changaJble use value. However the pro1b-
lem merely 'begins there. For instance 
many houses are less than adequate for 
living let alone as industrial undertakings, 
yet the poor who are most vulnerable to 
the homework idea are also often those 
living in lbad housing. 
Social contact in factories can be a com-
pensating factor and in terms of organ-
isation it is essential. Isolated in their 
homes, surrounded iby familiars, the 
level of alienation mere1y increases. The 
mere domestic adjuncts to a woman's 
daily lot assume very different propor-
tions when they are impeded as a form 

of s·ocial interaction. The comment o:f 
many homeworkers in this respect is 
interesting in that they say that theywould far rather work in a factory. 

Other questions are raised given that a 
consider~ble proportion of homeworkers 
a!re immigrant !Women who have cultural 
barriers preventing them from real contact 
with the outside world. All these 
points have to be considered and the 
future course of actions and policies related 
to them. 


historical background 
he history of homework is a long, com-
plex and not always " dishonourable , 
one. In the pre-capitalist era, the over-
whelming majority of people worked in 
the village and in their ·own homes. The 
volume of production created in this way 
gradually decreased, initially under the 
-influence of the mercantile factories. It 
eclined further with the intensive cap-
r italisation of the cotton and wool .indus-
tries. In those days homeworking was 
..,ailed " cottage industry " or " outwork.'' 
::>ften it was integrated into a factory\)rocess: some cloth, for example, would 
only go H inside " to be dyed or fulled. 
There was little incentive to work in a 
actory then and the misery suffered by 
:hose who did is well documented. Grad-
Jally however the less efficient methods 
egan to feel the draught from the intro-· 
.fuction df the newer, factory based, 
nachinery and at some point in time 
-:mtworking !became the exception rather 
han the rule in ·One sector ·df the economy 
after another. The "cottagers" (who1ad been all but wiped out by enclosures) 
were literally starved out of existence. 
·fhe early 1830s saw the hand loom 
weavers sink into a plight, the degraded 
. ature of which was hardly to 'be relished. 
' By 1835 the hand loom cotton weavers 
were mostly employed by large manu-
:acturers, who in many cases had power 
oom factories as well. Thus the hand 
oom weaver feU into two classes-those 
who could compete . . . and those who 
~ould not. The former were the worst off. 
fhey 'formed a fringe around the factory, 
L reserve of labour to ·be utilised when 
he factory was overworked. Thus they 
were employed only casually, 1but helped,
with the aid of doles out of poor rates,
o keep down the general level of wages 
:or weaving in and out of the factory"
Mark Hovell, The Chartist Movement, 
\.-IIUP, 1925). 
:t would be less than honest to sugges~ 
hat the condition of these weavers as 
lescr.iibed by E. P. Thompson (The Mak-
ng of the English Working Class, Peu-
~in, 1972) pertain in the houses of 
Lomeworkers today ·but 1:hen the relative 
rtandards df support have also changed ! 
~orne researchers are now suggesting that 
the " standard of life " of low income 
households does fall below acceptableminimum and again the Low Pay Unit 
has done some valiant work here. Home-
workers are lby and large more vulnerable 
because it is frequently the case that they 
are engaged in homework because of the 
deficiency df income they already suffer. 
The situation in other aspects is however 
all too similar today. The homeworkers 
are stili adjuncts to the factory process 
doing work that could just as easiiy be 
performed inside but doing it for lower 
rates. It has 1been impossible to fix proper 
rates for homeworkers 'because those 
established by Wages Councils apply to 
specific grades with certain skltls doing 
a certain volume of work in a set time. 
There is no measurement, and many trade 
unions are hostile to homework because 
they see it as a continuing threat to fac-
tory wages. The linking of homeworkers' 
wages to those of the lowest factory grade 
takes little or no account of the effort ex-
pended, the time involved or the skill 
content of the job. One of the facet'i of 
" industrial revolution " outwork was that 
the workers by and large managed to 
control the pricing even as it sank ever 
lower. Today's homeworkers have no 
such control. They are invariably told 
in advance what the rate is, but this rate 
is seldom publicised and frequently one 
hears of homeworkers doing similar jobs 
being paid vastly different rates. There 
appears 1:0 be little ·opportunity for nego-
tiation.Thus a vicious circle is created 
with organised and unorganised workers 
cutting each others' throats. One of the 
worst areas is clothing where earningsfor the whole industry are well below 
the national average. The presence of 
a vast H reserve" ·df homeworkers helps 
to perpertua:te this. It is still in the tex-
tile and clothing industries that the 
greatest num1ber of homeworkers are 
found and it is there that the misuse is 
at its greatest. 
As the 19th Century wore on, the gradual 
separation of the homeworker and the 
outworker became more obvious. The 
scale of factory production increased 
across a:H. industries and the rapaciousdemands !for increased output eliminated 
historical background 
he history of homework is a long, com-
plex and not always " dishonourable , 
one. In the pre-capitalist era, the over-
whelming majority of people worked in 
the village and in their ·own homes. The 
volume of production created in this way 
gradually decreased, initially under the 
-influence of the mercantile factories. It 
eclined further with the intensive cap-
r italisation of the cotton and wool .indus-
tries. In those days homeworking was 
..,ailed " cottage industry " or " outwork.'' 
::>ften it was integrated into a factory\)rocess: some cloth, for example, would 
only go H inside " to be dyed or fulled. 
There was little incentive to work in a 
actory then and the misery suffered by 
:hose who did is well documented. Grad-
Jally however the less efficient methods 
egan to feel the draught from the intro-· 
.fuction df the newer, factory based, 
nachinery and at some point in time 
-:mtworking !became the exception rather 
han the rule in ·One sector ·df the economy 
after another. The "cottagers" (who1ad been all but wiped out by enclosures) 
were literally starved out of existence. 
·fhe early 1830s saw the hand loom 
weavers sink into a plight, the degraded 
. ature of which was hardly to 'be relished. 
' By 1835 the hand loom cotton weavers 
were mostly employed by large manu-
:acturers, who in many cases had power 
oom factories as well. Thus the hand 
oom weaver feU into two classes-those 
who could compete . . . and those who 
~ould not. The former were the worst off. 
fhey 'formed a fringe around the factory, 
L reserve of labour to ·be utilised when 
he factory was overworked. Thus they 
were employed only casually, 1but helped,
with the aid of doles out of poor rates,
o keep down the general level of wages 
:or weaving in and out of the factory"
Mark Hovell, The Chartist Movement, 
\.-IIUP, 1925). 
:t would be less than honest to sugges~ 
hat the condition of these weavers as 
lescr.iibed by E. P. Thompson (The Mak-
ng of the English Working Class, Peu-
~in, 1972) pertain in the houses of 
Lomeworkers today ·but 1:hen the relative 
rtandards df support have also changed ! 
~orne researchers are now suggesting that 
the " standard of life " of low income 
households does fall below acceptableminimum and again the Low Pay Unit 
has done some valiant work here. Home-
workers are lby and large more vulnerable 
because it is frequently the case that they 
are engaged in homework because of the 
deficiency df income they already suffer. 
The situation in other aspects is however 
all too similar today. The homeworkers 
are stili adjuncts to the factory process 
doing work that could just as easiiy be 
performed inside but doing it for lower 
rates. It has 1been impossible to fix proper 
rates for homeworkers 'because those 
established by Wages Councils apply to 
specific grades with certain skltls doing 
a certain volume of work in a set time. 
There is no measurement, and many trade 
unions are hostile to homework because 
they see it as a continuing threat to fac-
tory wages. The linking of homeworkers' 
wages to those of the lowest factory grade 
takes little or no account of the effort ex-
pended, the time involved or the skill 
content of the job. One of the facet'i of 
" industrial revolution " outwork was that 
the workers by and large managed to 
control the pricing even as it sank ever 
lower. Today's homeworkers have no 
such control. They are invariably told 
in advance what the rate is, but this rate 
is seldom publicised and frequently one 
hears of homeworkers doing similar jobs 
being paid vastly different rates. There 
appears 1:0 be little ·opportunity for nego-
tiation.Thus a vicious circle is created 
with organised and unorganised workers 
cutting each others' throats. One of the 
worst areas is clothing where earningsfor the whole industry are well below 
the national average. The presence of 
a vast H reserve" ·df homeworkers helps 
to perpertua:te this. It is still in the tex-
tile and clothing industries that the 
greatest num1ber of homeworkers are 
found and it is there that the misuse is 
at its greatest. 
As the 19th Century wore on, the gradual 
separation of the homeworker and the 
outworker became more obvious. The 
scale of factory production increased 
across a:H. industries and the rapaciousdemands !for increased output eliminated 

most of the remainder of the cottageindustries. However in areas such as lace-
making, large parts of the clothing industry, 
and even iron puddling and chain 
making, work continued to be performed 
in small shops in villages and communities, 
and increasingly by individuals in 
the home. Alongside this grew up the less 
formal, but important phenomena of 
people doing parts of a process in a back 
room. This was the reverse of the previous 
situation where the process was controlled 
from .the village whereas now ·it is run 
from the factory. Thlis perhaps provides 
a clue towards the resolution of the problem. 
Many of these mid-century changes 
are reflected today with sectors like Harris 
tweed and Y·orkshire broadloom beingessentially outwork while homeworkers 
continue to operate, as did their Immtserated 
weaver forebears, on the basis of 
receiving their materials from a merchant 
or commissioner and returning them to 
him after processing. 

In 1867 the conditions of domestic workers, 
servants and maids were regulatedby statute but the lot of the homeworker 
remained undisturbed. Some areas of 
work were " controlled " under the aegis 
df the Wages Boards, but 'for homeworkers 
the greatest protection was often lost 
when trades were "exempted" as, for 
example, was straw plaiting in 1878. The 
elimination of protection 'by the verysame legislation that was designed to protect 
is as much a feature of today as it 
was 100 years ago. 

Hand in hand with industrial development, 
came changes in factory stru~ture. 
Not only was it ceasing to be a productive 
unit and becoming one geared to consumption 
but the extended family networks 
were breaking down as the patterns 
of migration became more intense. The 
established practice of members of the 
family supporting each other began to 
fail. Thus in order to survive it became 
necessary to seek alternate forms of Jncome. 
During the "great depression" 
many homes (and not just ~hose in rural 
areas) turned to " outwork" or ·• homtwork 
" as a way of keeping the wolf or 
the debt collector from the door. It 
was in fact the only way, short of the 

workhouse. The patterns of homeworkers 
that hold true today were also established 
in this period. Older women separatedfrom their kin, younger mothers trying 
to support a family, the under employed 1 
and the disabled-all were likely contenders. 
The only really big sectwn that 
has 1been added in the latter part of the 
20th Century is the immigrant famiUes. 

proposals for reform 

Despite the perpetuation of the practice 
with its attendant depressing effect on 
wages, the trade union movement in general 
·was pre-occupied with other issues. 
This .factor has constantly dogged attempts 
at change, as by the time sufficient 
momentum has 1been gathered, another 
issue loomed on the horizon and the · 
homeworker again plunged into obscurity. 
At ea·ch stage, ad hoc groups one stage 
remote from the official trade union 
movement are left with the tasks both of 
demanding reforn1 and of educatingthose with the industrial and political 
power to enact that reform. In this context 
it is interestling to note the strength 
of the campaign mounted 'by the Women's 
Trade Union League (WTUL) at the turn 
of the century to get homework and outwork 
strictly controlled. The WTUL was 
active in publicising the abuses and used 
both organisation in the sweated industries 
and the promotion of parliamentaryaction to push for change. This Was also 
the period o'f considerable growth in the · 
strength of women in trade unions generally, 
such growth reaching its peak in 
the formation of the NFWW (NationalFederation of Women Workers). 

In April 1897 the WTUL said of the · 
Clothing Wages Board : " ... the Victorian 
experiment at crushing out sweating ; 
is in full swing, though it is early yet perhaps 
to criticise results, yet its effective-: 
ness ought not to fail 'from lack of proper . 
representation of the employed " (wTUL,
Women's Trade Union Review, 1897). 
The working class representatives on the 
Board at the time were the Pressers, the 
Tailors, the Cutters and Trimmers, and 
two women who had taken part in the 
1882 tailoresses strike. The annual report . 


of HM Women's Factory Inspectorate for 
1896 said : " It is not possible under the 
present law to check to any appreciable 
extent the practice of giving out work to 
persons who have been already employed 
during a legal working day. It is most 
,important not only for the sake of the 
workers but also for the protection of 
the public whose garments are taken 
home to •be finished in insanitary con-
. ditions, that ~further steps should be taken 
' in this matter". "Giving out" was made 
illegal for s1ilk workers by an Act of 1845 
but was commonplace half a centurylater. Adelaide Anderson writing in 1901 
said that '' the custom was common but 
illegal of giving work to take home ". 
We are still faced with the problem in the 
1970s. However it would appear that 
official displeasure was excited less )by the 
B.outing of the letter and spirit of the 
·law than from a 'desire to protect the 
, middle classes from whom the garments 
were being made in "insanitary con-
. ditions ". NaturaNy Clothing produced in 
houses where disease was endemic did 1cause a health hazard but one would have 
·thought that justice demanded attention 
to the " sickness " rather than the 
" symptoms ". 
[n 1899 a Bill was introduced in the 
House of Commons by Tennant and 
Dilke under which factory inspectorswould be brought into the home. In a 
eport in July of that year on the Dublin 
1 :ailors' " crusade against the evils of 
1omework" the WTUL said: "No govem-
nent biil can fail to deal with the question 
•~ven if they go no further than making 
.he abortive sections of the (Factory & 
Workshops) 1895 Act workable". The 
fennant-Dilke Bill fell in favour of the 
Factory and Workshops Bill introduced 
y the Government in 1900. Amongts proposals were the estalblisbment of 
ists of outworkers who would be given 
'1>articulars df the jobs in han'd so that 
~ :hey could calculate their wages. The Act 
ecame law in 1901 but it was 1 January 
:he following year before the Home Sec-
'·etary issued the orders that made sec-
:ion 107 (which established the lists),
:ection 108 (which prescribed "unwhole-
;lome processes") and section 110 (which 
,rohibited the use df infected premises) 
5 
effective. The orders covered "the mak-
ing, cleaning, working, altering, orna-
menting, finishing and repairing of wear-
ing apparell and any other work incidenta1 
thereto ; the making, ornamenting, mend-
ing and finishing of lace and of lace 
curtains and net ; cabinet and furniture 
making and upholstery work ; the makingof electro-plate ; the making of :ill.·es and 
fur pulling." 
In spite of various subsequent amend-
ments and some radical alterations to the 
law of employment in other respects, the 
lot of the homeworker in many trades 
is still. in effect covered by an Act which 
is 74 years old. In practice the extension 
oif the inspectorate was less than was 
hoped for, and there was an even less 
beneficial effect of the 1901 law that of 
the dissolution of the Wages Boards. 
The check that they had made on the 
excesses of " sweating " were not com-
pensated by the " safeguards " of the 
new law. 
The WTUL reported in October 1902 the 
case of Luton straw plaiters who were 
getting 2td per hat. An instance had 
apparently come to light when one of the 
women had gone to the IJ.ocal Guardians 
for relief 'because "she couiJ.d not keep 
body and soul together". ~he Guardians 
were quoted as saying this was nothing 
new. Felt hat workers around this time 
were asking for details upon which they 
could compute their wages. Commenting 
on this demand the WTUL pointed out 
that " the need for such powers is often 
greater for the homeworker than for the 
factory worker". Both this suggestionan'd the extension of the inspectorate had 
been implicit in amendments laid down 
during the debate on the 1901 Act but 
they had been rejected by the Govern-
ment df the day. Again one is forced 
to consider comparisons with the situa-
tion today, with a lack of adequate in-
formation about rates, surpluses and so 
forth, the information available beingeven less than the amount of data which 
is usually available to trade unionists 
in the course of normal collective bar-
ga1ining. 
Despite the concerns shown by women 
of HM Women's Factory Inspectorate for 
1896 said : " It is not possible under the 
present law to check to any appreciable 
extent the practice of giving out work to 
persons who have been already employed 
during a legal working day. It is most 
,important not only for the sake of the 
workers but also for the protection of 
the public whose garments are taken 
home to •be finished in insanitary con-
. ditions, that ~further steps should be taken 
' in this matter". "Giving out" was made 
illegal for s1ilk workers by an Act of 1845 
but was commonplace half a centurylater. Adelaide Anderson writing in 1901 
said that '' the custom was common but 
illegal of giving work to take home ". 
We are still faced with the problem in the 
1970s. However it would appear that 
official displeasure was excited less )by the 
B.outing of the letter and spirit of the 
·law than from a 'desire to protect the 
, middle classes from whom the garments 
were being made in "insanitary con-
. ditions ". NaturaNy Clothing produced in 
houses where disease was endemic did 1cause a health hazard but one would have 
·thought that justice demanded attention 
to the " sickness " rather than the 
" symptoms ". 
[n 1899 a Bill was introduced in the 
House of Commons by Tennant and 
Dilke under which factory inspectorswould be brought into the home. In a 
eport in July of that year on the Dublin 
1 :ailors' " crusade against the evils of 
1omework" the WTUL said: "No govem-
nent biil can fail to deal with the question 
•~ven if they go no further than making 
.he abortive sections of the (Factory & 
Workshops) 1895 Act workable". The 
fennant-Dilke Bill fell in favour of the 
Factory and Workshops Bill introduced 
y the Government in 1900. Amongts proposals were the estalblisbment of 
ists of outworkers who would be given 
'1>articulars df the jobs in han'd so that 
~ :hey could calculate their wages. The Act 
ecame law in 1901 but it was 1 January 
:he following year before the Home Sec-
'·etary issued the orders that made sec-
:ion 107 (which established the lists),
:ection 108 (which prescribed "unwhole-
;lome processes") and section 110 (which 
,rohibited the use df infected premises) 
5 
effective. The orders covered "the mak-
ing, cleaning, working, altering, orna-
menting, finishing and repairing of wear-
ing apparell and any other work incidenta1 
thereto ; the making, ornamenting, mend-
ing and finishing of lace and of lace 
curtains and net ; cabinet and furniture 
making and upholstery work ; the makingof electro-plate ; the making of :ill.·es and 
fur pulling." 
In spite of various subsequent amend-
ments and some radical alterations to the 
law of employment in other respects, the 
lot of the homeworker in many trades 
is still. in effect covered by an Act which 
is 74 years old. In practice the extension 
oif the inspectorate was less than was 
hoped for, and there was an even less 
beneficial effect of the 1901 law that of 
the dissolution of the Wages Boards. 
The check that they had made on the 
excesses of " sweating " were not com-
pensated by the " safeguards " of the 
new law. 
The WTUL reported in October 1902 the 
case of Luton straw plaiters who were 
getting 2td per hat. An instance had 
apparently come to light when one of the 
women had gone to the IJ.ocal Guardians 
for relief 'because "she couiJ.d not keep 
body and soul together". ~he Guardians 
were quoted as saying this was nothing 
new. Felt hat workers around this time 
were asking for details upon which they 
could compute their wages. Commenting 
on this demand the WTUL pointed out 
that " the need for such powers is often 
greater for the homeworker than for the 
factory worker". Both this suggestionan'd the extension of the inspectorate had 
been implicit in amendments laid down 
during the debate on the 1901 Act but 
they had been rejected by the Govern-
ment df the day. Again one is forced 
to consider comparisons with the situa-
tion today, with a lack of adequate in-
formation about rates, surpluses and so 
forth, the information available beingeven less than the amount of data which 
is usually available to trade unionists 
in the course of normal collective bar-
ga1ining. 
Despite the concerns shown by women 

6 
trade unionists of the day the TUC itself 
was less than responsive, though the 
textile and clothing unions were, as ever, 
badly affected by homeworking. A 
motion appeared at the 1902 Congress 
but with the pre-occupation over Taff 
Vale, its remission in reality spelt death. 
On 29 February 1904, Nanette asked the 
Secretary uf State for War about" sweat-
ing " in Government workshops making 
uniforms, but the War Office repliedthat it was none of their concern. In 
Apr.N 1905 a Home Industries Bill was 
read for the first (and last) time; and in 
February 1906 Ramsay MacDonald 
quoted the case of a Mrs Thorogoodwho was getting one penny per hour for 
making trousers for volunteers. It was 
abundantly clear to a:ll who bothered to 
investigate, that tremendous suffering was 
resulting from homework. Their plighthad also been noted by Seebohn Rowntree 
in his study of York. Yet the Govern-
ment continually resisted calls from the 
unions, from women's organisations,
from individua~s such as MacDonald, 
and from a shocked middle class, to 
establish a Royal Commission. 
Then in July 1906, the Daily News 
backed the famous "Sweated Exhibi-
tion " 'in London, similar to that held 
in Berlin the previous year. At the time 
Constance Smith wrote: " It has un-
doubtedly awakened a very widespread 
sense or horror and dismay. Here indeed 
at our door, we found, were facts to 
' stagger humanity ' indeed. 0 Civilisa-
tion ! 0 Commerce ! and convenience, 
what crimes are committed daily in your 
names ! " (WTUL, Women's Trade Union 
Review, 1897). There were 45 trade 
represented, including gllass barelling,
cigarette making, hoe beading, gloveticking, hosiery manufacture, jewel 
ca e , tenni 'ba],ls belts and ties, furniture, 
brushe and saddlery a well as the usual 
clothing industries. Among them were 
repre entative of the e timated 90,000 
people in the East End of London alone. 
Matchbox maker were getting 2-!-d a 
gro " and find your own glue " An 
Pntire woman' kirt would yie1d but 5d. 
Evidence was pre ented of people work-
ing twelve, fourteen, even ixteen hour 
a day for wages of between five and 
seven shillings a week. Again the WTUL 
pointed out the advantages of the em-
ployer having no rent to pay, no upkeep • 
in the slack season, and no warming and 
lighting. 
In the era of free trade versus protection 
and of the first Labour members of par-
liament, progress on this issue of home-
work was painfully slow. Chiozza Money 
tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade the 
Government to give him time for his 
"Wages Board Bill" (the WTUL con-
sidered that this plus the licensing of 
premises was the only answer), whilst 
others were calling in vain for a Royal 
Commission. Lobbying on the other side 
was however more effective and as late 
as July 1906 the most they would offer 
was a Comission of Enquiry. What 
finally appeared was a Select Committee 
on Homework (1907-8) which aroused 
so much comment that the "Anti-
Sweating League " was able to pub'licise 
the pro'blem widely and demand its ! 
a!brogation. Eventually in 1909 Trade 
Boa·rds Act was pas ed which concen-1 
trated on the worst areas of operation. ( 
the inter-war ,period 
However this sudden burst of activitydid not really solve the problems and 
the great industrial struggles CYf 1910-13 
again took precedence. Then came the 
war and its aftermath which was quickly 
followed 1by the General Strike and the 
Tory attack on the organised movement. 
So it was the early thirties before the 
issue next came on the agenda. There 
had been an investigation in 1923 but ~ 
this had lbeen predominantly concerned 
with the implications of the Unemploy-
ment Insurance Law. In any event the 
vast number of war disabled and war 
widows added a new dimension to the 
problem with organisation such as the 
British Legion and the Women's In titute e 
(both of which were et up by the state) 
actively promoting the idea of working 
at home. This presented new problemfor those opposed to homework for not 
only wa the member hip of unions 
decJining, along with their indu trial 
6 
trade unionists of the day the TUC itself 
was less than responsive, though the 
textile and clothing unions were, as ever, 
badly affected by homeworking. A 
motion appeared at the 1902 Congress 
but with the pre-occupation over Taff 
Vale, its remission in reality spelt death. 
On 29 February 1904, Nanette asked the 
Secretary uf State for War about" sweat-
ing " in Government workshops making 
uniforms, but the War Office repliedthat it was none of their concern. In 
Apr.N 1905 a Home Industries Bill was 
read for the first (and last) time; and in 
February 1906 Ramsay MacDonald 
quoted the case of a Mrs Thorogoodwho was getting one penny per hour for 
making trousers for volunteers. It was 
abundantly clear to a:ll who bothered to 
investigate, that tremendous suffering was 
resulting from homework. Their plighthad also been noted by Seebohn Rowntree 
in his study of York. Yet the Govern-
ment continually resisted calls from the 
unions, from women's organisations,
from individua~s such as MacDonald, 
and from a shocked middle class, to 
establish a Royal Commission. 
Then in July 1906, the Daily News 
backed the famous "Sweated Exhibi-
tion " 'in London, similar to that held 
in Berlin the previous year. At the time 
Constance Smith wrote: " It has un-
doubtedly awakened a very widespread 
sense or horror and dismay. Here indeed 
at our door, we found, were facts to 
' stagger humanity ' indeed. 0 Civilisa-
tion ! 0 Commerce ! and convenience, 
what crimes are committed daily in your 
names ! " (WTUL, Women's Trade Union 
Review, 1897). There were 45 trade 
represented, including gllass barelling,
cigarette making, hoe beading, gloveticking, hosiery manufacture, jewel 
ca e , tenni 'ba],ls belts and ties, furniture, 
brushe and saddlery a well as the usual 
clothing industries. Among them were 
repre entative of the e timated 90,000 
people in the East End of London alone. 
Matchbox maker were getting 2-!-d a 
gro " and find your own glue " An 
Pntire woman' kirt would yie1d but 5d. 
Evidence was pre ented of people work-
ing twelve, fourteen, even ixteen hour 
a day for wages of between five and 
seven shillings a week. Again the WTUL 
pointed out the advantages of the em-
ployer having no rent to pay, no upkeep • 
in the slack season, and no warming and 
lighting. 
In the era of free trade versus protection 
and of the first Labour members of par-
liament, progress on this issue of home-
work was painfully slow. Chiozza Money 
tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade the 
Government to give him time for his 
"Wages Board Bill" (the WTUL con-
sidered that this plus the licensing of 
premises was the only answer), whilst 
others were calling in vain for a Royal 
Commission. Lobbying on the other side 
was however more effective and as late 
as July 1906 the most they would offer 
was a Comission of Enquiry. What 
finally appeared was a Select Committee 
on Homework (1907-8) which aroused 
so much comment that the "Anti-
Sweating League " was able to pub'licise 
the pro'blem widely and demand its ! 
a!brogation. Eventually in 1909 Trade 
Boa·rds Act was pas ed which concen-1 
trated on the worst areas of operation. ( 
the inter-war ,period 
However this sudden burst of activitydid not really solve the problems and 
the great industrial struggles CYf 1910-13 
again took precedence. Then came the 
war and its aftermath which was quickly 
followed 1by the General Strike and the 
Tory attack on the organised movement. 
So it was the early thirties before the 
issue next came on the agenda. There 
had been an investigation in 1923 but ~ 
this had lbeen predominantly concerned 
with the implications of the Unemploy-
ment Insurance Law. In any event the 
vast number of war disabled and war 
widows added a new dimension to the 
problem with organisation such as the 
British Legion and the Women's In titute e 
(both of which were et up by the state) 
actively promoting the idea of working 
at home. This presented new problemfor those opposed to homework for not 
only wa the member hip of unions 
decJining, along with their indu trial 

power, but the actual numlber oif home-
workers was increasing, albeit under some 
supervision of a sort when it was done by 
recognised bodies. The Bri~ish Legion 
· was such an example with ex-servicemen 
making articles that couid be sold j n 
Legion shops and bazaars. The well-
marked deck of cards now had a jokerdealt into them-that of organisationwidening the scope and depth of home-
working without any guarantees for tho e 
already in it. Thus the scales and rates 
were pushed downwards yet again at a 
time ·when prices were beginning to falL 
By the beginning of the 1930s the prac-
. tice of homeworking had become so in-
stitutional1ised that for the employers it 
formed an essential part of the process 
not only to keep down wages (thoughno doulbt that was high on their priorities) 
but also to perform processes that were 
either unsuited to machines, not mechan-
isa!ble or cheaper when done ·by hand. 
In these circumstances it makes little 
sense to provide factory space when there 
are a vast reservoir df women, many of 
whose husbands and fathers had been 
dumped on the scrap-heap of cap1italism. 
rt would be untrue to say that the trade 
unions neglected the issue totally. It was 
just that the times brought greaterclamour from other sources. In the years00: very high unemployment the fatalism 
·on economic policy did not blow a wind 
hat yeilded some good for the home-
worker. At the 1931 TUC Conference, 
E. Machin of the Tailors and Tailoresses 
those worst affected) moved "That in 
view of the increase in th1is system of 
working in the big industrial centres, thus 
mddUng the workers with the cost of 
. workshop accommodation, heat and light, 
ttnd ·by such action depriving them of 
ttll benefits under Unemployment Acts, 
this Congress instructs the General 
2oundil to place before the Home Sec-
~etary the necessity of providing ·by legal 
enactment complete workshop accom-
modation or alternatively by the employ-
!r for the ·cost of the same over and 
ttlbove the legal minimum rates of wages 
·n operations under the determination 
'f the Trades Boards" (Tuc CongressReport, 1931). Speaking on his reso'lution, 
7 
Machin said that in the West End of 
London, journeymen tailors were com-
pelled to provide their own workshopaccommodation. 
It is something of a reflection on every-
one in the Labour movement that the 
substance of that motion constitutes a 
et of demands that halVe still have to be 
realised. Homeworkers still have to bear 
the cost of heating and l1ighting, no 
account of which is made in the appro-
priate Wages Council, and 1because they 
ar·e invariably self -employed, they lose 
aH rights to benefit for sickness or un-
employment. Most employers today insist 
that homeworkers are self -employed 
and one homeworker said at a recent 
Low Pay Unit seminar that the loca:I 
Employment Office told her that " this 
would ibe rbetter ". What he meant was 
that it would be easlier for him. While 
shrinking from a total conspiracy theory, 
we appear to see here an implicit col-
lusion of an avaricious employer and a 
beaurocrat to deprive a homeworker of 
her legitimate rights. 
It is interesting to note that the object 
of the 1931 rue res·dlut'ion is still a:live, 
for the rue recommendation to the 
Department of the Employment on the 
Employment Protection Bill only went 
part of the way to meeting this. Home-
workers are still penalised for workingat home by being forced to pay !for many 
of their own services, despite the W TUL 
demand .for action on this point 75 years 
ago. Following the discussion at the 1931 
Congress, representa'f!ives of aH unions 
involved met the General Council where 
the force of the resolution was emascu-
lated. The result of their solicitations to 
the Home Secretary was a statement that 
the 4 
' legislative programme was so con-
gested that it could not be accomplished 
in tlhe foreseeable future " (rue Congress 
Report, 1932). 
the post-war period 
The matter lay dormant after this rebuff 
though never far below the surface. 
During the second war, the esta!blishment 
of the Joint Industrial Councils (ncs) 
power, but the actual numlber oif home-
workers was increasing, albeit under some 
supervision of a sort when it was done by 
recognised bodies. The Bri~ish Legion 
· was such an example with ex-servicemen 
making articles that couid be sold j n 
Legion shops and bazaars. The well-
marked deck of cards now had a jokerdealt into them-that of organisationwidening the scope and depth of home-
working without any guarantees for tho e 
already in it. Thus the scales and rates 
were pushed downwards yet again at a 
time ·when prices were beginning to falL 
By the beginning of the 1930s the prac-
. tice of homeworking had become so in-
stitutional1ised that for the employers it 
formed an essential part of the process 
not only to keep down wages (thoughno doulbt that was high on their priorities) 
but also to perform processes that were 
either unsuited to machines, not mechan-
isa!ble or cheaper when done ·by hand. 
In these circumstances it makes little 
sense to provide factory space when there 
are a vast reservoir df women, many of 
whose husbands and fathers had been 
dumped on the scrap-heap of cap1italism. 
rt would be untrue to say that the trade 
unions neglected the issue totally. It was 
just that the times brought greaterclamour from other sources. In the years00: very high unemployment the fatalism 
·on economic policy did not blow a wind 
hat yeilded some good for the home-
worker. At the 1931 TUC Conference, 
E. Machin of the Tailors and Tailoresses 
those worst affected) moved "That in 
view of the increase in th1is system of 
working in the big industrial centres, thus 
mddUng the workers with the cost of 
. workshop accommodation, heat and light, 
ttnd ·by such action depriving them of 
ttll benefits under Unemployment Acts, 
this Congress instructs the General 
2oundil to place before the Home Sec-
~etary the necessity of providing ·by legal 
enactment complete workshop accom-
modation or alternatively by the employ-
!r for the ·cost of the same over and 
ttlbove the legal minimum rates of wages 
·n operations under the determination 
'f the Trades Boards" (Tuc CongressReport, 1931). Speaking on his reso'lution, 
7 
Machin said that in the West End of 
London, journeymen tailors were com-
pelled to provide their own workshopaccommodation. 
It is something of a reflection on every-
one in the Labour movement that the 
substance of that motion constitutes a 
et of demands that halVe still have to be 
realised. Homeworkers still have to bear 
the cost of heating and l1ighting, no 
account of which is made in the appro-
priate Wages Council, and 1because they 
ar·e invariably self -employed, they lose 
aH rights to benefit for sickness or un-
employment. Most employers today insist 
that homeworkers are self -employed 
and one homeworker said at a recent 
Low Pay Unit seminar that the loca:I 
Employment Office told her that " this 
would ibe rbetter ". What he meant was 
that it would be easlier for him. While 
shrinking from a total conspiracy theory, 
we appear to see here an implicit col-
lusion of an avaricious employer and a 
beaurocrat to deprive a homeworker of 
her legitimate rights. 
It is interesting to note that the object 
of the 1931 rue res·dlut'ion is still a:live, 
for the rue recommendation to the 
Department of the Employment on the 
Employment Protection Bill only went 
part of the way to meeting this. Home-
workers are still penalised for workingat home by being forced to pay !for many 
of their own services, despite the W TUL 
demand .for action on this point 75 years 
ago. Following the discussion at the 1931 
Congress, representa'f!ives of aH unions 
involved met the General Council where 
the force of the resolution was emascu-
lated. The result of their solicitations to 
the Home Secretary was a statement that 
the 4 
' legislative programme was so con-
gested that it could not be accomplished 
in tlhe foreseeable future " (rue Congress 
Report, 1932). 
the post-war period 
The matter lay dormant after this rebuff 
though never far below the surface. 
During the second war, the esta!blishment 
of the Joint Industrial Councils (ncs) 

8 
brought linto the negotiating arena many 
more of the trades in which homework-
ing was prevalent. So it was at the 1947 
rue Congress that the National Union of 
Hosiery Workers talbled a resolution 
which drew attention to the growth of 
outworking and calied upon the General 
Council to conduct an enquiry into the 
whole question. 
In June 1948, A. Conley of the Garment 
Workers (and one o'f the founder mem-
bers of the General Council back in 1921) 
presided over a Conference to consider 
the Hosiery Workers' resoiution. Repre-
sentatives from the Hosiery Workers, 
the Cutlery Union, Silk Workers, Boot 
and Shoe Operatives and Repairers, the 
Glovers, Leather Workers, the General 
and Municipal Workers and the Tailor 
and Garment Workers attended. This 
spread of unions reflected the way in 
which the problem had grown. The re-
sult was that a questionna,ire was sent to 
all unions to gauge the full extent of 
homeworking. The Conference sugges-
ted that the results should be sent to the 
National Joint ~dvisory Com.mittee to 
see whether the Ministry of Labour 
should be asked to introduce compulsory 
legislation on homeworkers. 
38 unions replied to the survey and 23 
said that for them the problem did not 
exist. From the replies it was clear that 
of the estimated 25,000 homeworkers 
in total, 20,000 were in areas ·covered 
by the Hosiery and Tailor and Garment 
Workers Union. A'cting on this, the Gen-
eral Council met the Minister to pressfor better control. They stressed the bad 
conditions and said that more reliable 
figures were required than were availabie 
under the existing Factories Acts. These 
Acts required employers in certain trades 
to provide particulars to the local author-
ities. The deputa~ion urged the setting up 
of a central register. For the second time, 
however, rue championing of the home-
worker plight received little sympathyfrom a LaJbour government. It is pos-
si,ble that this has to a degree coloured 
union response. 
Two years later another speaker was at 
the Congress rostrum, this time C. G. 
Croucock of the Hosiery Workers. He 
drew attention to the distirrct'ion between 
homeworkers and outworkers. This was 
important then {even today many still 
confuse the two). The stiU ~extant cottageand crdft industries and the small engin-
eering shops are examples of outwork. 
In 19th century terms, this is an" honour-· 
a!ble " trade, being paid proper rates per 
piece and usually working under reason-
a;ble conditions with a cost structure 
whlch reflects overheads and ancilliaries 
such as transportation. The woman 
treading away at a sewing machine in 
her own house, paying for the light and 
heat, having ·concern for her children or 
for aged people in the home and often 
having to pay her own porterage costs 
is a very different matter. There is a 
grey area hut it is fairly sma!ll and not a 
sufficient reason for not a'cVing. In 1950 
Mr. Croucock said: " ... we know of 
peop[e who have given up their work 
inside the factory. They would never 
have thought of working after recog-
nised hours hut once the work is sent to 
them they work all hours of the day and ' 
night. I have a feeling that if the manu-
facturers in my industry took concerted 
action and said that from a given date 
there should be no more outworkers 
many of the present homeworkers wouldr 
come into the factories. How can we 
legislate against the employment of 
children when the work is delivered to 
the home. Visitors found that they were 
engaged on the Sal1bath Day in home-
working. The net result is that the whole 
family joined forces" (rue CongressReport, 1950). This empass'ioned appeal 
again highlights one aspect-·that of the 
whole famlily doing the work assignedto one person. One does not have to use 
much imagination to think what that does 
to the rate or how it hides the true value 
of the work and degrades the effort 
being expended by the factory based 
workers. 
For the General Council, A. Roberts 
po'inted out that there were many dis-
abled people who can do work at home 
but who could not work in a factory. It 
might, he said, caus·e a great deal of 
hardship if homework were abol1shed 
by legisiation. It can thus be seen tha1 
8 
brought linto the negotiating arena many 
more of the trades in which homework-
ing was prevalent. So it was at the 1947 
rue Congress that the National Union of 
Hosiery Workers talbled a resolution 
which drew attention to the growth of 
outworking and calied upon the General 
Council to conduct an enquiry into the 
whole question. 
In June 1948, A. Conley of the Garment 
Workers (and one o'f the founder mem-
bers of the General Council back in 1921) 
presided over a Conference to consider 
the Hosiery Workers' resoiution. Repre-
sentatives from the Hosiery Workers, 
the Cutlery Union, Silk Workers, Boot 
and Shoe Operatives and Repairers, the 
Glovers, Leather Workers, the General 
and Municipal Workers and the Tailor 
and Garment Workers attended. This 
spread of unions reflected the way in 
which the problem had grown. The re-
sult was that a questionna,ire was sent to 
all unions to gauge the full extent of 
homeworking. The Conference sugges-
ted that the results should be sent to the 
National Joint ~dvisory Com.mittee to 
see whether the Ministry of Labour 
should be asked to introduce compulsory 
legislation on homeworkers. 
38 unions replied to the survey and 23 
said that for them the problem did not 
exist. From the replies it was clear that 
of the estimated 25,000 homeworkers 
in total, 20,000 were in areas ·covered 
by the Hosiery and Tailor and Garment 
Workers Union. A'cting on this, the Gen-
eral Council met the Minister to pressfor better control. They stressed the bad 
conditions and said that more reliable 
figures were required than were availabie 
under the existing Factories Acts. These 
Acts required employers in certain trades 
to provide particulars to the local author-
ities. The deputa~ion urged the setting up 
of a central register. For the second time, 
however, rue championing of the home-
worker plight received little sympathyfrom a LaJbour government. It is pos-
si,ble that this has to a degree coloured 
union response. 
Two years later another speaker was at 
the Congress rostrum, this time C. G. 
Croucock of the Hosiery Workers. He 
drew attention to the distirrct'ion between 
homeworkers and outworkers. This was 
important then {even today many still 
confuse the two). The stiU ~extant cottageand crdft industries and the small engin-
eering shops are examples of outwork. 
In 19th century terms, this is an" honour-· 
a!ble " trade, being paid proper rates per 
piece and usually working under reason-
a;ble conditions with a cost structure 
whlch reflects overheads and ancilliaries 
such as transportation. The woman 
treading away at a sewing machine in 
her own house, paying for the light and 
heat, having ·concern for her children or 
for aged people in the home and often 
having to pay her own porterage costs 
is a very different matter. There is a 
grey area hut it is fairly sma!ll and not a 
sufficient reason for not a'cVing. In 1950 
Mr. Croucock said: " ... we know of 
peop[e who have given up their work 
inside the factory. They would never 
have thought of working after recog-
nised hours hut once the work is sent to 
them they work all hours of the day and ' 
night. I have a feeling that if the manu-
facturers in my industry took concerted 
action and said that from a given date 
there should be no more outworkers 
many of the present homeworkers wouldr 
come into the factories. How can we 
legislate against the employment of 
children when the work is delivered to 
the home. Visitors found that they were 
engaged on the Sal1bath Day in home-
working. The net result is that the whole 
family joined forces" (rue CongressReport, 1950). This empass'ioned appeal 
again highlights one aspect-·that of the 
whole famlily doing the work assignedto one person. One does not have to use 
much imagination to think what that does 
to the rate or how it hides the true value 
of the work and degrades the effort 
being expended by the factory based 
workers. 
For the General Council, A. Roberts 
po'inted out that there were many dis-
abled people who can do work at home 
but who could not work in a factory. It 
might, he said, caus·e a great deal of 
hardship if homework were abol1shed 
by legisiation. It can thus be seen tha1 

even as late as 1950 the rue was far from 
:ully aware of what was really happen-
ng. The disa'bled issue is, it is true, a 
·eal one, this is discussed further below ; 
out it is impossible to use that as a 
·eason for ignoring the real content 
. IJ'f Croucock's plea. 
gain the issue lay on the table duringhe period of prosperity that was built 
m the austerity programme guided by 
l ~tafford Cripps. The " never had it so 
1 ~ood " society could ignore the hidden 
mmbers that sl'ipped through the net. 
~y the end of the six~ies, however, the 
r ~reat British dream began to evaporate 
n md once again the homeworkers' cause 
mrst through the screen of silence. 
'I~he 1959 Wages Council Act had laid 
lown that the existence of homeworkers 
;ould not be ignored and that local 
mthority lists should he kept up to date. 
:r rhe 1961 Factories Act spelt it out more 
>'lainly and stipulated that employers 
tad to submit these lists to the appro-
>iiate local authority every six months. 
However the maximum fine laid down 
'or not doing so was £20 and as the 
tmount of surplus value accrued by a 
tomeworker in a day would probably 
~ay this, there was little real inducement 
m employers to pay very much heed to 
t. There have, moreover, been few 
>rosecutions under ·the Act. Local author-
ties meanwhile are not universally adriot 
n mainta!in'ing the lists. Some do it veryrVell, some as best as they can, and some 
iew it as an inconvenience. Employers 
,y and large give the preparation of the 
lists a very minor priority. 
·n August 1968 the TUC sent yet another 
drcular out to the un'ions and to the 
1e ~ecretary of State for Employment and 
,rt ,roductivity about the condi~ions under 
~ vhich homeworking was being carried 
m, and asked for an enquiry and stricter 
:ontrol. In Novem'ber the unions were 
~ ent a copy of a letter from Barbara 
s· :astle stating that consideration was be-
1e ng given to omitting the ex1is6ng sections 
Jt ,,f the Factories Acts dealing with home-
J[ vorkers' health, safety and welfare and 
:~ rans'ferring them to public hea'lth legis-
a! ation. The General Coun·cil's view was 
9 
that this should not be done. While this 
proposal might have met objections from 
some unions it would have opened the 
way for an examination of homework 
not as an adjunct to industry but as a 
device for ·circumventing the penal 
restrictions on earnings that disadvan-
taged families have to suffer. Its true 
social " merit " much lauded by its sup-
porters, could have been stud1ed properly.
Whether be1ing examined in isolation 
from its industrial context would have 
been profitable is another thing, but the 
rue opposition reflected the views of 
many unions that homework as such is 
a bad thing and should, as far as possible, 
be ell'iminated. 
That same year, the TUCS' W omen's Con-
ference passed a resolution not to pro-
hibit homework but to ensure that the 
workers were not 1be'ing exploited in bad 
conditions and working with a lack of 
sa!fety. A letter was sent to all unions 
concerned and the replies aga:in indicated 
the lack of information in the area. Only 
one union had an agreement with an 
employer covering homeworkers and then 
merely that they should be union mem-
bers. The main points of the repl'ies were: 
(1) the likely safety hazards df industrial 
materials kept in the home ; (2) insuffi-
ciently guarded sewing machines supplied 
by employers; (3) savings by the em-
ployers because he pays no national in-
surance, SET, redundancy pay, industrial 
trairiing levy or holiday pay, and, 
(4) homeworkers are self emp'loyed but 
do not pay any National Insurance con-
tdbutions on this !basis. 
The reply also drew attention to non-
compliance with sections 133 and 134 of 
the 1961 Factories Act, the sending of 
six monthly lists to local authorities. 
They suggested that the then Departmentdf Employment and Productivity under-
take a sample survey into the current 
position. 
The accent was now being placed on the 
safety and welfare hazards of homework 
and there is no doubt that these are im-
portant by-products of the cost cuttingexercise which homework is per se. 
Even if it is sUb'tlely detracted from the 
even as late as 1950 the rue was far from 
:ully aware of what was really happen-
ng. The disa'bled issue is, it is true, a 
·eal one, this is discussed further below ; 
out it is impossible to use that as a 
·eason for ignoring the real content 
. IJ'f Croucock's plea. 
gain the issue lay on the table duringhe period of prosperity that was built 
m the austerity programme guided by 
l ~tafford Cripps. The " never had it so 
1 ~ood " society could ignore the hidden 
mmbers that sl'ipped through the net. 
~y the end of the six~ies, however, the 
r ~reat British dream began to evaporate 
n md once again the homeworkers' cause 
mrst through the screen of silence. 
'I~he 1959 Wages Council Act had laid 
lown that the existence of homeworkers 
;ould not be ignored and that local 
mthority lists should he kept up to date. 
:r rhe 1961 Factories Act spelt it out more 
>'lainly and stipulated that employers 
tad to submit these lists to the appro-
>iiate local authority every six months. 
However the maximum fine laid down 
'or not doing so was £20 and as the 
tmount of surplus value accrued by a 
tomeworker in a day would probably 
~ay this, there was little real inducement 
m employers to pay very much heed to 
t. There have, moreover, been few 
>rosecutions under ·the Act. Local author-
ties meanwhile are not universally adriot 
n mainta!in'ing the lists. Some do it veryrVell, some as best as they can, and some 
iew it as an inconvenience. Employers 
,y and large give the preparation of the 
lists a very minor priority. 
·n August 1968 the TUC sent yet another 
drcular out to the un'ions and to the 
1e ~ecretary of State for Employment and 
,rt ,roductivity about the condi~ions under 
~ vhich homeworking was being carried 
m, and asked for an enquiry and stricter 
:ontrol. In Novem'ber the unions were 
~ ent a copy of a letter from Barbara 
s· :astle stating that consideration was be-
1e ng given to omitting the ex1is6ng sections 
Jt ,,f the Factories Acts dealing with home-
J[ vorkers' health, safety and welfare and 
:~ rans'ferring them to public hea'lth legis-
a! ation. The General Coun·cil's view was 
9 
that this should not be done. While this 
proposal might have met objections from 
some unions it would have opened the 
way for an examination of homework 
not as an adjunct to industry but as a 
device for ·circumventing the penal 
restrictions on earnings that disadvan-
taged families have to suffer. Its true 
social " merit " much lauded by its sup-
porters, could have been stud1ed properly.
Whether be1ing examined in isolation 
from its industrial context would have 
been profitable is another thing, but the 
rue opposition reflected the views of 
many unions that homework as such is 
a bad thing and should, as far as possible, 
be ell'iminated. 
That same year, the TUCS' W omen's Con-
ference passed a resolution not to pro-
hibit homework but to ensure that the 
workers were not 1be'ing exploited in bad 
conditions and working with a lack of 
sa!fety. A letter was sent to all unions 
concerned and the replies aga:in indicated 
the lack of information in the area. Only 
one union had an agreement with an 
employer covering homeworkers and then 
merely that they should be union mem-
bers. The main points of the repl'ies were: 
(1) the likely safety hazards df industrial 
materials kept in the home ; (2) insuffi-
ciently guarded sewing machines supplied 
by employers; (3) savings by the em-
ployers because he pays no national in-
surance, SET, redundancy pay, industrial 
trairiing levy or holiday pay, and, 
(4) homeworkers are self emp'loyed but 
do not pay any National Insurance con-
tdbutions on this !basis. 
The reply also drew attention to non-
compliance with sections 133 and 134 of 
the 1961 Factories Act, the sending of 
six monthly lists to local authorities. 
They suggested that the then Departmentdf Employment and Productivity under-
take a sample survey into the current 
position. 
The accent was now being placed on the 
safety and welfare hazards of homework 
and there is no doubt that these are im-
portant by-products of the cost cuttingexercise which homework is per se. 
Even if it is sUb'tlely detracted from the 

exploitative nature of the practice it did 
add a !fresh complex'ion to the arguments 
against it. 

recent history 

In 1969 the Prices and Incomes Board 
issued their report number 110 on the 
clothing industry Wllich included just 
two pages on the subJect; the 1971 rue 
Conference saw the Hosiery and Knitwear 
Workers return'ing to the stand 
with H. L. Gibson moving that new 
legislation be ·brought in to cover out-
workers '(hom·eworkers) saying u It is impossible 
at present to obtain any reliable 
information. Companies are giving out 
large quanti'tlies of work to be undertaken 
in the homes of various people who then 
work on piece rates. Some local authorities 
keep the records, some try to, and 
some just laugh at it. We and the National 
Union of Tailor and Garment Workers 
have tried to get the information." Harold 
Gibson, one of the more sympatheticunion leaders on tllis issue, was makingyet another point that still requires satisfaction-
the abysmal lack of information 
being supplied ·to those who have a statutory 
duty to do so. 

In January 1972 these two unions met the 
General Council about the extent of 
homeworking, with particular emphasis 
on the health and safety aspects. They 
also pointed out that the 1961 Act was 
being ignored. Later that month the 
unions elicited the response from the then 
Employment Secretary, Robert Carr, that 
there was no need for an enquiry as one 
undertaken by the Factory Inspectorate 
in 1966 had revealed " no evidence of 
substantia!! hazards or grounds for serious 
concern a!bout the problems of homework1ng 
". Such a finding was natural1Iyalmost inevitaJble when no-one actuallyknows the true extent of homeworkingand the hard-pressed inspectorate finds 
it impossible to visit every dang·erous 
factory let alone a reasonable sample of 
homeworkers. One also suspects that the 
TUC knew that they would get little sympathy 
from the administration of which 
Robert Carr was a member. Hopesbrightened however late in 1974 when the 

Employment Protection Hill consultative 
document was published and the NUHKW 
and NUTGW brought the subject of home-
working through the textile committee 
of the rue and submitted a series of recommendations 
on the Bill to Michael 
Foot. 

When the Bill itself was pubiished, only 
one or two clauses had been amended, 
including a re-wording of some clauses 
in the Wages Council Act. The effect of 
these will be to embrace more workers · 
but it will not remove any of the basic · 
inequafities, many of which have ironicaNy 
been created 'by legislation. 

Tlris historical summary, though long, has 
hopefully shown both the way in which 
the different aspects of homework have 
originated and how progressives at different 
points in time have tr'ied to improve ' 
their lot, albeit without very much success. 

Homeworking grew up as such in the 
middle part of the last century by operating 
as a profit~ble supplement to various 
sectors of manufacturing industry, particularly 
in the garment sector. Chang·es in 
prices atlways hit most hard those doing 
homework and by the Great War many 
were obviously in a very bad plight.
After the war the numbers swelled and 
within a decade it had become so much 
a part of the processes that considerable 
vested interest had become esta:blished. 
Again as prices fell, many tried to do even 
more in order to maintain their income, 
a classic under-development syndrome. 
As more evidence came to light, and especially 
after the second war, the major 
misuses became suppiemented by a host 
of minor ones 'including one which has 
been present through the years-that of 
the considera!ble health and safetyhazards. 


.3. the contemporary scene 
Given the background desc.ribed above, 
!Perhaps the first question we should ask 
·s how many homeworkers there are ? 
Unfortunately ndbody really knows 
though some work being done at War-
wick University may throw more light on 
this. Questions asked in Parliament in 
1973 and 1974 failed to elicit any further 
information, the answer be'ing given that 
centra!! figures are not kept. As local 
authority lists are not open to inspectionby anyone other than a public health 
inspector, it is difficult to find out from 
them, even assuming they were up to 
date. A survey conducted by Peter 
Townsend in 1968-69 suggests that there 
may be anything up to 250,000 peopleso employed. We ought first to be clear 
on exactly what we are examining. There 
are a number of workers (usually women) 
who particuJady in clothing, take work 
home from the factory for finishing.
Despite being illegal this often qualifies 
for a ·bonus and one can imagine the 
difficulties in policing this, let alone con-
trolling or stopping it, without a change 
in the law. Nevertheless it does involve 
the same order of domestic cost and 
disruption that occurs elsewhere. 
Homeworkers can be divided into those 
who do it as the sole means of income 
and those who do it to supplement a 
normal wage (excluding a pension or 
other transfer payment). It is difficult 
again to see how one could control what 
is in effect a fom1 of moonlighting. The 
job may be similar to that done at work 
' but not necessarily so. Then we come to 
the main group-those who performwork at home as a ma:in means of in-
come or to supplement some fixed pay-
ment such as a pension or a!llowance. 
Again we do not reaHy know how manythere are or whether the number is in-
creasing or decreasing. In clothing, the 
the 1948 roc figure of 20.000 had become 
15,000 in the PIB Report 110 in 1968, and 
18,500 in the 1974 CIR Report 77, whose 
research was conducted in 1972. But this 
only covers one industry and we must 
also consider the typ:ing, enveloping, ad-
dressing, packaging, •boxing and so forth 
that occurs in trades that are ne'ither ade-
quately organised or under the protection 
of a wages councit Work may be given 
to people either by a manufacturer as 
part of a process the majority of which 
is factory based or it may be handed out 
by a commissioner working on behalf of 
himself, a single employer or a number 
of employers. The PIB, in Report 110, de-
fined the three groups differently: those 
emplloyed directly by a firm and appear-
ing on the payroll ; those employed by 
agents or intermediaries of a firm; and 
those of self-employed status. As sub-
sequent work has shown, there is littie 
difference in effect between these three 
classifications though those who are " sel'f-
employed " are effectively outside the 
scope of both the wages council system 
and its inspectorate. Thus it is in the in-
terests of the employer to ensure as far 
as poss'ilble that he does not actuaUy" employ " homeworkers. CIR Report 49 
on the Pin, Hook and Eye Wages Council 
added yet another category of home-
worker-those doing mainly theraputic 
work in hospitals and other institutions. 
In this context it is worth noting an 
esta!blishment near Bristol where men-
tally handicapped people undertake work 
at union rates. But th'is is ·by definition 
more appropriate to the " outwork " 
classification. This confusion as to defi-
nition does make the problem of a real-
istic analysis of the situation more diffi-
cu[t. 
This has been discovered by all the re-
searchers up to and including the Low 
Pay Unit. For instance, having accepted 
the CIR definition (in turn drawn from the 
Wages Council) the Low Pay Unit in-
cluded a large number who were in fact 
commissioned and some more who were 
self -employed. In any event very few 
homeworkers in any of the samples en-
joyed what small benefits there are in 
being an a·ccredited employee of a com-
pany. 
All the official reports and those of other 
bodies have drawn attention to the in-
adequacies of the systems of protectionto prevent exploitation or illness an'd in-
jury. The complications brought about 
by the overlapping prerogatives merely 
add to the prdblem. For instance, it is 
the responsibility of the local authority 
.3. the contemporary scene 
Given the background desc.ribed above, 
!Perhaps the first question we should ask 
·s how many homeworkers there are ? 
Unfortunately ndbody really knows 
though some work being done at War-
wick University may throw more light on 
this. Questions asked in Parliament in 
1973 and 1974 failed to elicit any further 
information, the answer be'ing given that 
centra!! figures are not kept. As local 
authority lists are not open to inspectionby anyone other than a public health 
inspector, it is difficult to find out from 
them, even assuming they were up to 
date. A survey conducted by Peter 
Townsend in 1968-69 suggests that there 
may be anything up to 250,000 peopleso employed. We ought first to be clear 
on exactly what we are examining. There 
are a number of workers (usually women) 
who particuJady in clothing, take work 
home from the factory for finishing.
Despite being illegal this often qualifies 
for a ·bonus and one can imagine the 
difficulties in policing this, let alone con-
trolling or stopping it, without a change 
in the law. Nevertheless it does involve 
the same order of domestic cost and 
disruption that occurs elsewhere. 
Homeworkers can be divided into those 
who do it as the sole means of income 
and those who do it to supplement a 
normal wage (excluding a pension or 
other transfer payment). It is difficult 
again to see how one could control what 
is in effect a fom1 of moonlighting. The 
job may be similar to that done at work 
' but not necessarily so. Then we come to 
the main group-those who performwork at home as a ma:in means of in-
come or to supplement some fixed pay-
ment such as a pension or a!llowance. 
Again we do not reaHy know how manythere are or whether the number is in-
creasing or decreasing. In clothing, the 
the 1948 roc figure of 20.000 had become 
15,000 in the PIB Report 110 in 1968, and 
18,500 in the 1974 CIR Report 77, whose 
research was conducted in 1972. But this 
only covers one industry and we must 
also consider the typ:ing, enveloping, ad-
dressing, packaging, •boxing and so forth 
that occurs in trades that are ne'ither ade-
quately organised or under the protection 
of a wages councit Work may be given 
to people either by a manufacturer as 
part of a process the majority of which 
is factory based or it may be handed out 
by a commissioner working on behalf of 
himself, a single employer or a number 
of employers. The PIB, in Report 110, de-
fined the three groups differently: those 
emplloyed directly by a firm and appear-
ing on the payroll ; those employed by 
agents or intermediaries of a firm; and 
those of self-employed status. As sub-
sequent work has shown, there is littie 
difference in effect between these three 
classifications though those who are " sel'f-
employed " are effectively outside the 
scope of both the wages council system 
and its inspectorate. Thus it is in the in-
terests of the employer to ensure as far 
as poss'ilble that he does not actuaUy" employ " homeworkers. CIR Report 49 
on the Pin, Hook and Eye Wages Council 
added yet another category of home-
worker-those doing mainly theraputic 
work in hospitals and other institutions. 
In this context it is worth noting an 
esta!blishment near Bristol where men-
tally handicapped people undertake work 
at union rates. But th'is is ·by definition 
more appropriate to the " outwork " 
classification. This confusion as to defi-
nition does make the problem of a real-
istic analysis of the situation more diffi-
cu[t. 
This has been discovered by all the re-
searchers up to and including the Low 
Pay Unit. For instance, having accepted 
the CIR definition (in turn drawn from the 
Wages Council) the Low Pay Unit in-
cluded a large number who were in fact 
commissioned and some more who were 
self -employed. In any event very few 
homeworkers in any of the samples en-
joyed what small benefits there are in 
being an a·ccredited employee of a com-
pany. 
All the official reports and those of other 
bodies have drawn attention to the in-
adequacies of the systems of protectionto prevent exploitation or illness an'd in-
jury. The complications brought about 
by the overlapping prerogatives merely 
add to the prdblem. For instance, it is 
the responsibility of the local authority 

public health department to maintain the 
lists, supposedly sent in by employers in 
February and August each year. This is 
for the purpose of preventing the spread 
of contagious diseases and to control 
working conditions in certain occupations 
such as electroplating or tinn'ing. It is 
the jdb of the wages counci[ inspectorate 
to check on pay levels. In 1972, 3,000 
visits were made to homeworkers bypublic health inspectors but only five 
homeworkers were found by the wages 
coundl inspecto'rate to have been underpaid 
(CIR, Report 77, HMSO, 1974). Yet 
from the surveys undertaken subsequently 
it is quite clear, given the random 
sampling, that the majority of homeworkers 
are being paid less than the statutory 
minimum rate in wages councils 
areas, and that bad working conditions 
are not the same as inadequate working 
conditions. In effect the current method 
df supervision and control is meaninglessand poss.ilbly harmfu[ as it constantlytends to support the l'ie that by and largeeverything is all right. It enables such devoted 
supporters of the trade union 
movement as Robert Carr to say that 
there is no need to look any deeper. 

rates of pay 

What are the rates of pay for work in 
this grey and obscure area of the UK 
employment market ? Evidently, not very 
good. In l968, the PIB conducted a survey 
among clothing homeworkers in 
London, Basildon and Luton and theyfound that on average the weekly renumeration 
was £5 9s 6d just under half the 
average weekly earnings for women in 
clothing at that time. In Basildon and 
Central London they found few rates on 
or near the minima ; 6s Od to 1Os Od 
being the norm with 8s Od in Central 
London. They found one person getting 
3s 9d per hour and another 3s 2d. In 
Luton, where miUinery is the main trade, 
the homeworkers were employed for the 
princely sum of between 2s Od and 2s 6d 
an hour. Even Aubrey Jones was moved 
to conclude that " there is some evidence 
of exploitation" (PIB, R eport 110, 1968). 

The two em reports came across the same 
sort of evidence but though they con


ducted a survey as part of their report 
(number 77) on clothing they did not 
choose to publ'ish the details of its results. 
It did say that 20 of the 26 hom·eworkers 
it interviewed who were working from 
establishments where similar operations 
were carried on under factory conditions, 
were getting a:bove the statutory minimum 
rate. The Pin, Hook and EyeReport on the other hand noted that the 
rate for homeworkers enarlJled them to 
earn fractionally over half the factory 
rate for a 40 hour week. This they attiiJbuted 
to the TGwus desire to see homework 
abolished. 

Despite the anti-union bias of the CIR , 
or at least the umbrella legislation which 
set it up, its report number 49 did come 
up with some startling conclusions. It 
noted for instance that while hourly rates 
can be established, homeworkers are in 
fact paid by the job load and therefore 
it was up to the worker to fix their 
own rate by how long or hard they were 
prepared to work. The report echoed the 
sentiments of the PIB and, in a very revealing 
paragraph, said of the role of the 
wages councH inspectorate: " Even when 
the inspector times jobs being done, he 
has to exercise considera:ble judgement 
as a result of the definition imposed by the 
piecework bas'is time rates. Where timing 
olf a job is not done, homeworkers may 
exaggerate their earnings capacity and 
say that they are satisfied with the rates 
since they are anxious not to lose work 
for which there is always considerable 
demand. In one case a hom·eworker told 
us that she could earn only 12.5p per hour 
on a particular job. She had told an inspector 
that she could earn more, because 
she was afraid df 1osing the work. Inspections 
of homeworkers over the last five 
years have not recorded any infringement 
of the wages regulation order, although 
no fi.gures are availaJble as to how many 
individuals were visited" (PIB, R eport 110, 
HMSO). 

In other words a combination of fear 
and misunderstanding on the part of the 
homeworker, blatant sweating and lawbreaking 
by the employer, and ineptHude 
by the inspectorate, come together to 
deprive these women of a living wage. 


[n the Low Pay Unit report, only 16 of 
che 50 women interviewed were covered 
by wages councils and all but two of them 
were getting less than the relevant statu-
·ory minimum rate. Of the total sample, 
0 per cent were getting 30p an hour or 
less and there were three women who got 
3p or less. If they had worked for the 
whole 116 hours in a week the most they 
::;ould earn would be £3.48. 
Wb'ile this might not be totally represen-
tative of homeworkers generally, it does 
give some guid~ to the way things do 
happen. Furthermore, all the work so far 
has only looked at the tip o'f the ice-
berg. While the Low Pay Unit did dis-
cover people working for agents/com-
missioners, the PIB did not. The CIR did 
not consider the point worth investigating. 
It was accepted by the groups that byand large direct employers paid better 
than agents. 
The position of the agent (the " middle-
man "), is similar to that of the mer-
chanter in the 19th century. They have a 
" team " of homeworkers whom they em-
ploy on such contract work as they derive 
from employers. Often the worker does 
not know whom he is really working for. 
In some cases in London, the PIB found 
that the homeworkers even had to collect 
the stuff from the factory or shop them-
selves, Which involved them in trans porta-
tion costs over and above the other costs 
they are asked to bear. 
It is not just small firms that are engaged 
in th:is sort of thing. One is frequently 
given the impression on reading at least 
the official data, that the practice of 
homeworking exists where there are 
minor companies operating on the fringeof an industry. This may well be true in 
some cases and especially e11pplies in the 
case of the agents who are merely push-
ing up the final price for the article. 
However a company that markets model 
football teams for 50p pays one of the 
· homeworkers £3.50 per thousand provid-
ing a profit ratio .of 130 per cent. Another 
woman makes lampshades for 1;}p each 
which retail at 56p. These are examples 
discovered by the Low Pay Unit. A more 
recent survey conducted \by Long Eaton 
13 
Trades Council located two homeworkers 
employed by Steada-Raywarp, a subsidi-
ary of the giant textile multinational 
Courtaulds (profits for 1975 of £125 
million) who were getting 12p an hour 
in September 1974 and had earned about 
£3.60 a week on average over the previous 
six months. Long Eaton Trades Council 
made two attempts to contact Steada-
Raywarp" but no company representative 
was available for comment". It is also 
interesting in this context that when the 
Trades Council asked the local newspaper 
to co-operate in the publication of their 
findings they were initially less than help-
ful and ultimately declined the opportun-
ity. 
Because the majority of homeworkers 
are women, the work of the Women's 
Liberation Group in North London is 
Worth examining. Their findings (pub-
lished by the British Sociological Society) 
are broadly in line with this pamphlet, 
the WTUL and others. They were con-
cerned that the practice reinforces the 
role of women in a capitalist soCiety and 
the results confirmed this. Why theyasked, do women do this work ? 
The simple answer must be to earn 
money. But there are, of course, more 
deep rooted reasons for their perpetuation 
of this exploitative use of la·bour. Al-
though the Women's liberation Groupfound no single parent families, they did 
discover a high proportion of im.migrants 
amongst the homeworkers. The PIB re-
port asserted that : "the majority of 
homeworkers were married ~women 
whose aim is to supplement the family 
·income. Many are for•mer factory wor-
kers who. for domestic reasons preferto work at home." The Low Pay Unit 
.found 13 single parent families and 
another 14 who were either disGt~bled 
themselves or caring for disabled, sick 
or aged •relatives. The CIR found in that 
the Pin Hook and Eye industry the 
homeworkers were : " either mothers 
with young children or old age pen-
sioners doing homework to supplementtheir income." 
The disparit:ies in these reasons no doubt 
relate as much to ·occupational differ-
[n the Low Pay Unit report, only 16 of 
che 50 women interviewed were covered 
by wages councils and all but two of them 
were getting less than the relevant statu-
·ory minimum rate. Of the total sample, 
0 per cent were getting 30p an hour or 
less and there were three women who got 
3p or less. If they had worked for the 
whole 116 hours in a week the most they 
::;ould earn would be £3.48. 
Wb'ile this might not be totally represen-
tative of homeworkers generally, it does 
give some guid~ to the way things do 
happen. Furthermore, all the work so far 
has only looked at the tip o'f the ice-
berg. While the Low Pay Unit did dis-
cover people working for agents/com-
missioners, the PIB did not. The CIR did 
not consider the point worth investigating. 
It was accepted by the groups that byand large direct employers paid better 
than agents. 
The position of the agent (the " middle-
man "), is similar to that of the mer-
chanter in the 19th century. They have a 
" team " of homeworkers whom they em-
ploy on such contract work as they derive 
from employers. Often the worker does 
not know whom he is really working for. 
In some cases in London, the PIB found 
that the homeworkers even had to collect 
the stuff from the factory or shop them-
selves, Which involved them in trans porta-
tion costs over and above the other costs 
they are asked to bear. 
It is not just small firms that are engaged 
in th:is sort of thing. One is frequently 
given the impression on reading at least 
the official data, that the practice of 
homeworking exists where there are 
minor companies operating on the fringeof an industry. This may well be true in 
some cases and especially e11pplies in the 
case of the agents who are merely push-
ing up the final price for the article. 
However a company that markets model 
football teams for 50p pays one of the 
· homeworkers £3.50 per thousand provid-
ing a profit ratio .of 130 per cent. Another 
woman makes lampshades for 1;}p each 
which retail at 56p. These are examples 
discovered by the Low Pay Unit. A more 
recent survey conducted \by Long Eaton 
13 
Trades Council located two homeworkers 
employed by Steada-Raywarp, a subsidi-
ary of the giant textile multinational 
Courtaulds (profits for 1975 of £125 
million) who were getting 12p an hour 
in September 1974 and had earned about 
£3.60 a week on average over the previous 
six months. Long Eaton Trades Council 
made two attempts to contact Steada-
Raywarp" but no company representative 
was available for comment". It is also 
interesting in this context that when the 
Trades Council asked the local newspaper 
to co-operate in the publication of their 
findings they were initially less than help-
ful and ultimately declined the opportun-
ity. 
Because the majority of homeworkers 
are women, the work of the Women's 
Liberation Group in North London is 
Worth examining. Their findings (pub-
lished by the British Sociological Society) 
are broadly in line with this pamphlet, 
the WTUL and others. They were con-
cerned that the practice reinforces the 
role of women in a capitalist soCiety and 
the results confirmed this. Why theyasked, do women do this work ? 
The simple answer must be to earn 
money. But there are, of course, more 
deep rooted reasons for their perpetuation 
of this exploitative use of la·bour. Al-
though the Women's liberation Groupfound no single parent families, they did 
discover a high proportion of im.migrants 
amongst the homeworkers. The PIB re-
port asserted that : "the majority of 
homeworkers were married ~women 
whose aim is to supplement the family 
·income. Many are for•mer factory wor-
kers who. for domestic reasons preferto work at home." The Low Pay Unit 
.found 13 single parent families and 
another 14 who were either disGt~bled 
themselves or caring for disabled, sick 
or aged •relatives. The CIR found in that 
the Pin Hook and Eye industry the 
homeworkers were : " either mothers 
with young children or old age pen-
sioners doing homework to supplementtheir income." 
The disparit:ies in these reasons no doubt 
relate as much to ·occupational differ-

14 
ences as to geographic. More important 
is that the majority do not want to talk 
a!bout what they are doing-this reluc-
tance being evident from the reports. The 
Low Pay Unit circumvented the bureau-
cratic silence by using a weN-known disc-
jockey to contact the homeworkers. The 
Women's Liberation Group found that 
many people were reluctant to talk be-
cause they were a'fraid of repercussionsfrom the local social se·curity office. A 
similar view was found in the Liberal 
Party survey of lace homeworkers. The 
author's own investiga:tion in an area of 
Wa~ford in which some women apparent-
ly worked for wel[-known chlldrens cloth-
ing chain produced almost identical re-
actions. The point seems to be that people 
isolated in this way view outsiders in an 
identical light whether they are trying to 
increase their income or reduce it. 
The employer's view of homework is 
much the same today as it was in the 
last century. The PIB report and CIR 49 
and 77 were ominously similar in their 
findings : " homeworkers are a buffer 
against fluctuations in demand ", " home-
workers have litt!le control over the 
amount or type of work " and " they 
may receive little or no work in slack 
periods", CIR Report 77 said that "the 
reason for using homeworkers most 
frequently given by employers was the 
diffiourty o'f obtaining a sufficient number 
of skilled, indoor workers". They were 
also told that in some cases they had 
started using homeworkers because the 
establishment prem'ises were too small. A 
few, however, did actuaily say: because 
it was cheaper than using indoor work-
ers ". And it is. 
The actual cost of doing the homework 
has as yet not been adequately assessed. 
Aside from the heating and lighting which 
has to be paid for by the homeworker, 
some even have to pay for transporteither by their own means or they have 
to reimburse the employer for bringingand taking away ! There is not only the 
cost of the transport itselif but also the 
fact that this time is not paid. There is 
no allowance for wear and tear of the 
domestic scene. The Low Pay Unit found 
carpets ruined by glue ; fluff and dust 
penetrating the ~urniture ; and ·metal 
filings scattered about the place. Then 
there is the social cost in terms of dis-
ruption to famiiy life and the deprivation 
caused to the rest of the family. One 
woman whose .function it was to pad~ 
Christmas crackers (made for 12p and 
retailing at £1.45) not on1y had her whole 
living space filled with them but had to 
find extra storage space because the col-
lection day was unco-ordinated. Of course 
she was not recompensed for this. 
We have the as yet unsubstantiated report 
of a factory in Southall employing all 
Asian women who at the same time as 
1laying them off enclosed in their pa)llpackets a note saying that they could do 
the work at home if they cared to apply 
to a given address. Again, this might be 
exceptional, ·but it clearly shows the mis-
uses that are available in abundance by 
the unscrupulous in a society whose eco-
nomic philosophy does not have much 
time for scruples, only profit. 
trade union activity 
The majority of homeworkers are not 
members oi any trade union. The Tailor 
and Garment Workers attempts at organ-
ising have lbeen constantly 'frustrated by a 
variety 'Of pro1blems. One of their London 
officials did come up with the idea of 
adopting the American practice of havinga label inserted in every garment-" made 
by Trade Union Labour" but this didn't 
come to anything. The Hosiery and Knit-
wear union is also very conscious of the 
problems, as are the TGWU and GMWU 
who collectively account for 90 per cent 
o'f the employment areas in which home-
working is practiced. They are also the 
unions who fill the workers seats on the 
relevant wages councils but given that 
much of the homework is dissimilar to 
that done 'in the factories the assessment 
of a proper rate is difficuiJ.t. The GMWU 
did recently persuade one wages council 
to est~blish a working party to examine 
homeworking and the results of this may 
well 'be useful. There is then the problem 
of recruiting homeworkers. Most unions 
have little enough time to cope with the 
prdblems involved in organising the1r fac-
14 
ences as to geographic. More important 
is that the majority do not want to talk 
a!bout what they are doing-this reluc-
tance being evident from the reports. The 
Low Pay Unit circumvented the bureau-
cratic silence by using a weN-known disc-
jockey to contact the homeworkers. The 
Women's Liberation Group found that 
many people were reluctant to talk be-
cause they were a'fraid of repercussionsfrom the local social se·curity office. A 
similar view was found in the Liberal 
Party survey of lace homeworkers. The 
author's own investiga:tion in an area of 
Wa~ford in which some women apparent-
ly worked for wel[-known chlldrens cloth-
ing chain produced almost identical re-
actions. The point seems to be that people 
isolated in this way view outsiders in an 
identical light whether they are trying to 
increase their income or reduce it. 
The employer's view of homework is 
much the same today as it was in the 
last century. The PIB report and CIR 49 
and 77 were ominously similar in their 
findings : " homeworkers are a buffer 
against fluctuations in demand ", " home-
workers have litt!le control over the 
amount or type of work " and " they 
may receive little or no work in slack 
periods", CIR Report 77 said that "the 
reason for using homeworkers most 
frequently given by employers was the 
diffiourty o'f obtaining a sufficient number 
of skilled, indoor workers". They were 
also told that in some cases they had 
started using homeworkers because the 
establishment prem'ises were too small. A 
few, however, did actuaily say: because 
it was cheaper than using indoor work-
ers ". And it is. 
The actual cost of doing the homework 
has as yet not been adequately assessed. 
Aside from the heating and lighting which 
has to be paid for by the homeworker, 
some even have to pay for transporteither by their own means or they have 
to reimburse the employer for bringingand taking away ! There is not only the 
cost of the transport itselif but also the 
fact that this time is not paid. There is 
no allowance for wear and tear of the 
domestic scene. The Low Pay Unit found 
carpets ruined by glue ; fluff and dust 
penetrating the ~urniture ; and ·metal 
filings scattered about the place. Then 
there is the social cost in terms of dis-
ruption to famiiy life and the deprivation 
caused to the rest of the family. One 
woman whose .function it was to pad~ 
Christmas crackers (made for 12p and 
retailing at £1.45) not on1y had her whole 
living space filled with them but had to 
find extra storage space because the col-
lection day was unco-ordinated. Of course 
she was not recompensed for this. 
We have the as yet unsubstantiated report 
of a factory in Southall employing all 
Asian women who at the same time as 
1laying them off enclosed in their pa)llpackets a note saying that they could do 
the work at home if they cared to apply 
to a given address. Again, this might be 
exceptional, ·but it clearly shows the mis-
uses that are available in abundance by 
the unscrupulous in a society whose eco-
nomic philosophy does not have much 
time for scruples, only profit. 
trade union activity 
The majority of homeworkers are not 
members oi any trade union. The Tailor 
and Garment Workers attempts at organ-
ising have lbeen constantly 'frustrated by a 
variety 'Of pro1blems. One of their London 
officials did come up with the idea of 
adopting the American practice of havinga label inserted in every garment-" made 
by Trade Union Labour" but this didn't 
come to anything. The Hosiery and Knit-
wear union is also very conscious of the 
problems, as are the TGWU and GMWU 
who collectively account for 90 per cent 
o'f the employment areas in which home-
working is practiced. They are also the 
unions who fill the workers seats on the 
relevant wages councils but given that 
much of the homework is dissimilar to 
that done 'in the factories the assessment 
of a proper rate is difficuiJ.t. The GMWU 
did recently persuade one wages council 
to est~blish a working party to examine 
homeworking and the results of this may 
well 'be useful. There is then the problem 
of recruiting homeworkers. Most unions 
have little enough time to cope with the 
prdblems involved in organising the1r fac-

ory members let atlone tramping around 
treets looking for homeworkers. When 
t comes to servicing, the first responsbility 
of the union is to its members and 
tlthough the low rates of pay being gain~
d by homeworkers is very relevant in 
!his context, ·the unions can do little more 
\han press Ifor higher overall pay and hope 

o carry the homeworkers in the van of 
>rogress. On top oif this is the basic union 
>hilosophy that as far as possible homeorking 
should be eliminated. 

ut this only applies in " organised " 
treas. As mentioned above, there are a 
arge number of people doing typing, adessing 
enve1opes and similar work, on a 
very ad hoc !basis. There is also the ubiqui:
ous " directory " racket. This is where 
)ne is invited to send, say, 60p for "a 

ay to earn up to £20 a week " in one's 
;pare time. What is actually received is 
t list otf addresses to which one again has 
:o write, again sending money f or more 
·sts. The person concerned then writes 
:o dther people suggesting that they place 
adverts asking for 60p for a list ... and 
w on. This is supposed to be Hlega!l, but 
't continues. 

Another batckground influence which is 
very strong, especially among older 
people, and one which leads to desperation, 
is the desire to "avoid going on the 
parish." The Samuel Smil-es influence was 
strengthened !by the Poor Law and the 
~ver present dangers of the workhouse. 
lf1he hostil-e parsimony o'f the Board of 
Guardians has subsequently been given 
respecta!bil.ity by legislation in the Means 
Test, the National Assistance Board and 
the Supplementary Benefits Commission. 
From the standpoint of the homeworker, 
cut off from the outside world there is at 
present little of substance in the way of 
protection. If they know of the existence 
of the wages council they are unlike'ly to 
know what the SMR (Statutory Minimum 
Rate) is. They may be on a pension or 
allowance which could be reduced if it is 
discovered that they are earning extra 
money. For women trying to eke out an 
existence on supplementary bene:fi't, any 

leakage of information is 'likely to result 
in a visit from a so'Cial security official. 
They are not to[d in advance of the earnings 
yield of the work they are doing nor 
are they advised of their rights (such as 
they are) under the law. l:hey have no 
comparative rates 'by which to judge their 
pay. 

There are specific categories of people 
for whom homework represents the sole 
or major source o'f income. Those such 
as the disabled or those looking after 
them, single parent families-especially 
where young children are involved-and 
df course the blind, al[ have considerable 
difficulties. Those who argue that homework 
is the means by which these people 
live may well be correct but there are 
two ways of looking at this. 

Considerable effort could be expended by 
the unions. The NUHKW (National Union 
of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers) and 
the NUTGW (National Union of Tailor and 
Garment Workers) are not unalive to the 
probllem even if they have been less than 
successtful in forcing companies to pay 
a proper wage. A wage level commensurate 
to the full va[ue of the work plus 
an atlowance for the overheads at present 
borne by the homeworker would be a 
start. Stiffer penalties could be imposed 
for regulation infringements. 

the responsibil'ity of the state 

But al'l this totally evades an important 
consideration. The responsibility of the 
state is to act not just in a legisiative capacity 
to compel companies to 'be sociallyaccountable 'but also in an administrative 
capacity to support the people involved 
so that they do not have to 'be·come embroiled 
in the unhappy business. In addition, 
those who speak for the socially disadvantaged 
wou[d do well to remember 
that time and time again the point has 
been made that poor homework rates of 
pay help to keep down already low rates 
of wages for the half million men and 
women in the industries worst affected, 
and to which rhe homeworkers rate will 
be linked. This interaction of low wages 
plus the reserve army in the home, helps 


no-one in the long run and only the veryfew at present. What socia[ value is 
achieved after aH by forcing women to 
continue to be is·olated from the remainder 
of the community? And for immigrant 
women already hampered by cultural 
!barriers, it merely prolongs the agony. 

Those on supplementary benefit, trying 
to bring .the total income up to adequate 
levels are often trapped between the cohabitation 
ru1e and near starvation for 
their family. Employers are aware that 
they are scared of the ·Social securitypeople and so can virtuaUy blackmail 
them. The implicit recommendation 
a~bove about proper scales involves 
people working a fuil ~week. For mothers 
with young children or ,with other responsi'bilities 
this cou1d be as disadvantageous 
as 1it is supposed to be beneficial. Were 
they allowed to earn a small amount 
without losing benefit they would st111 
be vulnerable. They are in a " Catch 22 " 
situation which only the state can resolve 
by ensuring that their income is sufficient 
for their needs. 

Finally it is worth touching .on institutional 
homework such as that done for 
theraputic rea:sons by the mentally or 
physically handicapped in the day centres 
up and down the country. This broadly 
comes within our amlbit except to note 
that one or two places do adopt a f.actory-
ty;pe discipline and one 1in Bristol 
at least pays union rates. But the isolation 
which characterises homework is not 
there nor, one would hope, is the level 
of exploitation. Much the same applies 
to work done in prisons. It is neither 
homework pure and simple nor ~is it outwork 
and again there is doubt a;bout the 
adequacy of the rates being paid but 
perhaps this is not the forum for proposals 
on penal reform. 

This then is the rather dismal picture 
that emerges given the very superficial 
nature of the exploratory work that has 
so far been done. Quite what a fu11 surveywowd reveal one shudders to think. 
There is. however, sufficient knowledge 
at present to articulate a programmewhich could consign most of the a buses 
to the dustbins of history. 


·4. the need for change 


To put things right will require a compendium 
of remedies rather than one 
simple " cure." The extension of law has 
its limits, collective !bargaining and the 
trade unions both suffer f,rom institutional 
constraints, and simple moral 
appeal is likely to go unheard by the 
unscrupulous. 

Disablements aJ,Iowances, single parent 
support and more adequate pensionswould remove the need for people to resort 
to homework in order that they can 
survive. Relaxation of some of the iniquities 
of the present rules of the supplementary 
benefits commission would also 
assist. Recognition that 'benefits are a 
right and not a charity lby the Commission 
itself would be a start, although 
the law will haJVe to 1be changed in order 
to confirm this right. 

Bearing in mind the effort that was required 
to get the first Select Committee 
off the ground, that its terms of -reference 
presupposed its limited findings, and that 
the subsequent Act of Parliament was 
full of holes, such a Commission in 1975 
or 1976 should be considered, but very

· closely exa•mined and monitored. 

The sort of parcel of reforms, and they 
are no more than reforms, .that would 
assist the homeworkers without anydetrimental side-effects, naturally fall 
short of a blanket prohibition. Such a 
total ban has often !been called for bythe unions, but whilst the sympathy of 
aH progressives may well be with them 
in this demand, it is perhaps as unrealistic 
as are the claims of those who suggestthat homework has some social benefit. 
Such a total ban would of course be 
possible if it were coupled with complete 
alternative support for those who need 
the money. 


wages councils 

All wages councils should have written 
into their constitution that all homeworkers 
be registered and that the functions 
·being done ·by them are 'timed and 
valued on the same basis as in-work but 
with allowance being made for the factors 

in the domestic situat,ion that preventthe full. per.formance rates being reached 
that are possible under factory conditions. 
This would enable homeworkers to 
achieve the same yield on earnings as 
the factory worker 1with the same effort 
input even though the final value of work 
output may be less. 

The planned amendments to WagesCouncil constitution which eliminate the 
independent members could welJ. ,be carried 
much further ·by such changes as 
introducing the voice of the homeworker 
directly. This would at ~the very least 
suffice until the unions have managed 
to locate the different operations that at 
present are not considered when standard 
rates are being established. 

The wage councils inspectorate should 
be extended to police the rates with the 
finance for this coming from a levy on 
the employers such ·as the Clothing Manufacturers 
Federation and the employers' 
side of the hosiery and knitwear NJIC, 
meeting say 60 per cent of the cost with 
the other 40 per cent being met by the 
state. The levy could be on the same 
basis, with a simi.lar administration, as 
the Industrial Training Levy. That is,
those employers that can show adequate 
evidence of having complied with certain 
criteria in their .treatment of homeworkers 
could be partly absol·ved from 
the levy. 

The new Health and Safety inspectorate 
should also extend its regime into the 
home. Despite the various advances, 
there is continuing evidence of quiteserious risks, out of aU proportion to 
the renumeration involved, being borne 
by more than ·a .few homeworkers. At a 
meeting held lby the Low Pay Unit, homeworkers 
themselves spoke of solder pots 
on the gas stove, and of chemicals that 
could easily poison children having to 
be at hand during operations. It is however 
.true today that most of the proscribed 
processes themselves are no longer 
being done. Even so a full investigation 
would undoUJbtedly reveal one or two 
instances of total abuses of this nature. 

The Local Authority lists should be ex



18 
tended to all homeworkers and not justthose prescri,bed under .the 1961 Act and 
they should be kept up to date by em-
ployers and by a single responsirble offi-
cial at local level. More effective sanctions 
should be enacted to penalise those who 
continually flout the law (such as an 
increase in the fines to £200). Employers 
should also be bound to mainta:in a copy 
of the list where it would be open to 
inspection, as a right, not only to the 
inspectorate but also .by unions and their 
a:ccredited representatives. 
Unions should take steps to monitor 
locally the outfloiW of ~work but obviously 
this is imposs1ble where a shop is not 
effectively organised or where the "em-
ployer" is in fact an agent or com-
missioner. Nevertheless union officials 
would he ·aJble to inspect the lists of 
these people and could eventually judge 
the extent of operations on the part of 
the employer involved. 
A typical case is that o.f a factory sub-
contracting its outwork through an 
rugent, who in so.me cases is an employee 
of the company. In such cases, the ulti-
mate responsibility ~is .that of the com-
pany involved and it is there that any 
sanctions should be brought to bear. 
However ·in the first instance it may well 
be .practica'l to force both the " real ,. 
employer and the agent to keep the lists. 
One suggestion that has been made is 
that government finance should be made 
available to the unions to enable them 
to organise the homeworkers. Whilst this 
might seem attractive on the surface to 
some people, others may well see it as 
an unwelcome influence on the move-
ment. In any event, the pro:blem for the 
unions is not just one of finance, though 
that is important. A crucial issue is raised 
when the idea is mooted of extending the 
fadlities 'O'f the union to people who are 
not mem'bers. Most officials will say that 
they 'have more than enough work in 
serVicing those who are paid up, let alone 
those who have not even joined. On the 
other hand, surveys have shown that a 
substantial number of homeworkers 
would willingly join the appropdate union 
given the chance. One possible way out 
would be for a government financed but 
otherwise independent body to collect the 
signatures of those homeworkers who 
wished to join the trade union and then 
pass these on. In this way subsequentprdblems would be the responsi'bil'ty of 
the union in a proper fashion. 
Even then the problem rema:ins orf un-
familiarity with some of the operations 
1nvolved. Here again the bodies already 
in existence could help by al11owing local 
union officials to become aware of the 
differences lbetween the homework opera-
tions and thos·e in the factory with which 
they are well acquainted. 
other specific proposals 
" Giving out " should be banned alto-
gether with penalties imposed on both 
those who give it and those who receive 
it. In this way there would be no tempta-
tion on either party. One has to recognisethat otherwise some people wiN succumb 
to the variety of pressures !brought to 
bear by the bosses. It is iess a device to 
penalise recalcitrants as protection for 
~hose who may wish to decline such gen-
erous offers as " Here, take this home 
and finish it off-we'll add it to yourbonus". To those who consider this a 
" perk ", one must point out that it repre-
sents an important weakness :in the pro-
tection of al'l workers and as such is in-
to1era:1Yle. It would be nothing short of 
selfish to jeopardise the many for the sake 
of the few. 
Agents, comrmsswners and other 
" middle men " should themselves be 
registered together wi'th the peopie they 
employ. In this way a proper check 
could lbe kept ·on the rates of pay which 
would of course be those fixed by the 
Wages Council, the Joint Industrial Coun-
dl or Jby direct negotiation with a bona-
fide ·empioyer , for their homeworkers. 
In this context unions may well find it 
pra!ctical to reduce the extent to which, 
when they do negotiate for homeworkers,
they fix the rate at that of the lowest paid 
faCtory employee. As the foregoing evi-
dence has shown, this leads not to a re-
18 
tended to all homeworkers and not justthose prescri,bed under .the 1961 Act and 
they should be kept up to date by em-
ployers and by a single responsirble offi-
cial at local level. More effective sanctions 
should be enacted to penalise those who 
continually flout the law (such as an 
increase in the fines to £200). Employers 
should also be bound to mainta:in a copy 
of the list where it would be open to 
inspection, as a right, not only to the 
inspectorate but also .by unions and their 
a:ccredited representatives. 
Unions should take steps to monitor 
locally the outfloiW of ~work but obviously 
this is imposs1ble where a shop is not 
effectively organised or where the "em-
ployer" is in fact an agent or com-
missioner. Nevertheless union officials 
would he ·aJble to inspect the lists of 
these people and could eventually judge 
the extent of operations on the part of 
the employer involved. 
A typical case is that o.f a factory sub-
contracting its outwork through an 
rugent, who in so.me cases is an employee 
of the company. In such cases, the ulti-
mate responsibility ~is .that of the com-
pany involved and it is there that any 
sanctions should be brought to bear. 
However ·in the first instance it may well 
be .practica'l to force both the " real ,. 
employer and the agent to keep the lists. 
One suggestion that has been made is 
that government finance should be made 
available to the unions to enable them 
to organise the homeworkers. Whilst this 
might seem attractive on the surface to 
some people, others may well see it as 
an unwelcome influence on the move-
ment. In any event, the pro:blem for the 
unions is not just one of finance, though 
that is important. A crucial issue is raised 
when the idea is mooted of extending the 
fadlities 'O'f the union to people who are 
not mem'bers. Most officials will say that 
they 'have more than enough work in 
serVicing those who are paid up, let alone 
those who have not even joined. On the 
other hand, surveys have shown that a 
substantial number of homeworkers 
would willingly join the appropdate union 
given the chance. One possible way out 
would be for a government financed but 
otherwise independent body to collect the 
signatures of those homeworkers who 
wished to join the trade union and then 
pass these on. In this way subsequentprdblems would be the responsi'bil'ty of 
the union in a proper fashion. 
Even then the problem rema:ins orf un-
familiarity with some of the operations 
1nvolved. Here again the bodies already 
in existence could help by al11owing local 
union officials to become aware of the 
differences lbetween the homework opera-
tions and thos·e in the factory with which 
they are well acquainted. 
other specific proposals 
" Giving out " should be banned alto-
gether with penalties imposed on both 
those who give it and those who receive 
it. In this way there would be no tempta-
tion on either party. One has to recognisethat otherwise some people wiN succumb 
to the variety of pressures !brought to 
bear by the bosses. It is iess a device to 
penalise recalcitrants as protection for 
~hose who may wish to decline such gen-
erous offers as " Here, take this home 
and finish it off-we'll add it to yourbonus". To those who consider this a 
" perk ", one must point out that it repre-
sents an important weakness :in the pro-
tection of al'l workers and as such is in-
to1era:1Yle. It would be nothing short of 
selfish to jeopardise the many for the sake 
of the few. 
Agents, comrmsswners and other 
" middle men " should themselves be 
registered together wi'th the peopie they 
employ. In this way a proper check 
could lbe kept ·on the rates of pay which 
would of course be those fixed by the 
Wages Council, the Joint Industrial Coun-
dl or Jby direct negotiation with a bona-
fide ·empioyer , for their homeworkers. 
In this context unions may well find it 
pra!ctical to reduce the extent to which, 
when they do negotiate for homeworkers,
they fix the rate at that of the lowest paid 
faCtory employee. As the foregoing evi-
dence has shown, this leads not to a re-

duction in the amount of homework but 
.an increase, as it becomes relatively more 
l attractive to the empioyer. It is to be 
1 !hoped that the other measures suggested 
t wouid lead to the gradual decline in the 
f practice that most unions desire. Other 
part tilne work '(such as typing and en-
velope addressing) should be paid at the 
rate a:pplicable to full time clerical work-
ers in the locality, p!lus of course the 
homework premium. 'I'he prevailing rates 
should lbe included in advertisements for 
e this sort of work. 
All homeworkers shouJd have "em-
ployed " status. This would mean that 
they would have a class-one stamp on 
their " insurance card," giving them full 
entitlement to benefits. They should be 
-also eHgJble for t;he full range of facili-
h ties such as holiday, redundancy and sick 
. pay, as is normal practice in their employ-
e ing company. 
l· 
e 
b On thes·e points one has to consider the 
benefit entitlements of married women,
0 especially as they constitute the bulk 
0 of homeworkers. Although a married 
If woman may pay a full stamp she cannot 
I· for instance draw supplementary benefit 
e or unemploy;ment benefit on her own 
[ account. It would not be possible to 
a modify the murky rules of the supple-
entary benefits commission just for 
I· 1.omeworkers but most would agree that 
I· .his sort of thing should disappear with 
1f ~he Sexual Discrimination BiH currently 
:e oefore Parliament. 
\ continuation of sel1f-employed status 
~r 1ot only perpetuates the iniquities of the 
1e 1omework system ,but will in fact make 
:y nost of the homeworkers worse off under 
:k .he new tax legislation for the self-
h ~mployed. 
I· 
1· 
it 
premium 
ea~ring in m:ind the points that have 
een made about " heating and Iight-
ng " over the last century and a half,
here would appear to be some justifica-
ion for an additional payment to the 
~asic rate of the homeworker to take 
Lecount of the different costs involved. 
19 
These payments should cover rent, heat-
ing and lighting, running costs of any 
machinery involved plus an amount for 
the social cost to the domestic environ-
ment. 
If the work .were being done in the fac-
tory, then a propo1rtion of the labour 
costs will be calculated for each employee 
for the "rates, rent and upkeep of the 
plant." In the same way a householder 
couJd assess the avenuge daily cost of 
their home. The homework pay should 
have an addition made to 1t on the basis 
either of the tiJVerage unit cost on the 
same basis a~ the pay (hourly or weekly)
of these factors in relation to the home 
or on the basis of a similar unit cost as 
borne by the employer for his in-
workers. In the case of agents, the for-
mer would app1y but otherwise the mat-
ter might be negotiable or sett:led byWages Council. 
Heating and lighting should be assessed 
on the 'basis of for example a three kilo-
watt fire and two 100 watt [ights running 
for the time needed to complete all the 
operations involved and which would be 
re-imbursed in tfull. Transport and other 
direct costs should 'be !horne in total by the 
employer or agent. In calculating the var-
ious costs another criteria should ·be borne 
in mind. Much of the homework cur-
rently being done, is undertaken by less 
well advantaged people who, by the 
nature of things, tend .to be .Jiving in 
less than perfect conditions. This would 
require some allowance over and above 
the varia:ble costs set out a~bove. 
Final,ly the social cost item should in-
elude the disruption to the domestic life 
and any other incidental costs that arise 
because work is being done in the home 
-for example the use of a launderette 
rather than a washing machine. 
It wowd be impossible at this stage to 
fix any percenta:ge value to the premium. 
though it is unHkely ,to be less than 15 
per cent on basic rates. In rubsolute terms, 
of course, it would 1be possible to evalu-
ate particular cases. Sewing machines for 
'instance have a 'Certain rating so the total 
additional payment to someone ~in that 
duction in the amount of homework but 
.an increase, as it becomes relatively more 
l attractive to the empioyer. It is to be 
1 !hoped that the other measures suggested 
t wouid lead to the gradual decline in the 
f practice that most unions desire. Other 
part tilne work '(such as typing and en-
velope addressing) should be paid at the 
rate a:pplicable to full time clerical work-
ers in the locality, p!lus of course the 
homework premium. 'I'he prevailing rates 
should lbe included in advertisements for 
e this sort of work. 
All homeworkers shouJd have "em-
ployed " status. This would mean that 
they would have a class-one stamp on 
their " insurance card," giving them full 
entitlement to benefits. They should be 
-also eHgJble for t;he full range of facili-
h ties such as holiday, redundancy and sick 
. pay, as is normal practice in their employ-
e ing company. 
l· 
e 
b On thes·e points one has to consider the 
benefit entitlements of married women,
0 especially as they constitute the bulk 
0 of homeworkers. Although a married 
If woman may pay a full stamp she cannot 
I· for instance draw supplementary benefit 
e or unemploy;ment benefit on her own 
[ account. It would not be possible to 
a modify the murky rules of the supple-
entary benefits commission just for 
I· 1.omeworkers but most would agree that 
I· .his sort of thing should disappear with 
1f ~he Sexual Discrimination BiH currently 
:e oefore Parliament. 
\ continuation of sel1f-employed status 
~r 1ot only perpetuates the iniquities of the 
1e 1omework system ,but will in fact make 
:y nost of the homeworkers worse off under 
:k .he new tax legislation for the self-
h ~mployed. 
I· 
1· 
it 
premium 
ea~ring in m:ind the points that have 
een made about " heating and Iight-
ng " over the last century and a half,
here would appear to be some justifica-
ion for an additional payment to the 
~asic rate of the homeworker to take 
Lecount of the different costs involved. 
19 
These payments should cover rent, heat-
ing and lighting, running costs of any 
machinery involved plus an amount for 
the social cost to the domestic environ-
ment. 
If the work .were being done in the fac-
tory, then a propo1rtion of the labour 
costs will be calculated for each employee 
for the "rates, rent and upkeep of the 
plant." In the same way a householder 
couJd assess the avenuge daily cost of 
their home. The homework pay should 
have an addition made to 1t on the basis 
either of the tiJVerage unit cost on the 
same basis a~ the pay (hourly or weekly)
of these factors in relation to the home 
or on the basis of a similar unit cost as 
borne by the employer for his in-
workers. In the case of agents, the for-
mer would app1y but otherwise the mat-
ter might be negotiable or sett:led byWages Council. 
Heating and lighting should be assessed 
on the 'basis of for example a three kilo-
watt fire and two 100 watt [ights running 
for the time needed to complete all the 
operations involved and which would be 
re-imbursed in tfull. Transport and other 
direct costs should 'be !horne in total by the 
employer or agent. In calculating the var-
ious costs another criteria should ·be borne 
in mind. Much of the homework cur-
rently being done, is undertaken by less 
well advantaged people who, by the 
nature of things, tend .to be .Jiving in 
less than perfect conditions. This would 
require some allowance over and above 
the varia:ble costs set out a~bove. 
Final,ly the social cost item should in-
elude the disruption to the domestic life 
and any other incidental costs that arise 
because work is being done in the home 
-for example the use of a launderette 
rather than a washing machine. 
It wowd be impossible at this stage to 
fix any percenta:ge value to the premium. 
though it is unHkely ,to be less than 15 
per cent on basic rates. In rubsolute terms, 
of course, it would 1be possible to evalu-
ate particular cases. Sewing machines for 
'instance have a 'Certain rating so the total 
additional payment to someone ~in that 

line would be around £2.50 to £3.00 perweek (at January 1975 prices). 

The recommendations that have been set 
out are many and are as applicable to 
the trade unions as to the Government. 
In this situation the areas of overlap are 
such .that the different parties find it increasingly 
difficult to operate in a totally 
independent fashion. 

For the groups outside the mainstream of 
the laJbour movement, however, there is a 
vital role. This is not only the one of 
constantly pressurising the political parties, 
the unions, the ·employers and the 
various institutions like the wages councils. 
It is also to work among the homeworkers 
themselves. Their confidence 
must •be won, just as it was among German 
rwomen over 70 years ago. They 
must ·be helped to realise that by bringing 
the problem out into the open they have 
·more to gain than to lose. 

By acting as a co-ordinating link betrween 
the homerworkers and the unions, groups 
such as Trades Councils and the women's 
collectives can both stimulate discussion 
and .tackle the real problems as theyarise. 

For the movement as a whole the lesson 
is one not only of historic cost in .terms 
of human misery but of a very much 
alive situation which cannot be allowed 
to continue. When the arguments are 
being weighed, one cannot really afford 
.to foliget the woman, who happens to be 
a slcil.Jed artist, desperately trying to make 
ends meet hy painting little footba:llers in 
two colours for what is by all standards 
a paltry sum. 


fabian society I the auth~or 


The Fabian Society exists to further 
socialist education and research. It is 
affiliated to the Labour Party, both 
nationally and 'locally, and embraces all 
shades of Socialist opinion within its 
ranks-left, right and centre. 

Since 1884 the FaJbian Society has enrolled 
thoughtful socialists who are prepared 
to discuss the essential questions 
of democratic socialism and relate them 
to ·practical plans for building socialism 
in a changing world. 

Beyond this the Society has no collective 

policy. It puts forward no resolutions of 

a political character, but it is not an 
. organisation , of armchair socialists·. Its 

members are active in their Labour Par


ties, Trade Unions and Co-operatives. 

They are representative of the labour 

movement, practical people concerned to 

tudy and discuss problems that matter. 

The Society is organi ed nationally and 
locally. The national Society, directed by 
an elected Executive Committee, publishes 
pamphlets, and holds schools and 
conferences of many kinds. Local Societies-
there are one hundred of them-
are self governing and are· lively centres 
of discussion and also undertake research. 


Enquiries about membership should be 
sent to the General Secretary, Fabian 
,Society, 1-1 .. Dflrtmputh Street, London, 
SW1H 9BN ; telephone 01-930 3077. 


,.

•, .: ~. \ 
I , , , 

:• I 'of ~-,I 

·' I 

• 'l :.·.·
~' 4' : :.,i..i '' 

l,' ,('·'. '.' .'·'·· , .. ,... "'\ •••• : 1 :

\' .. :.

' 0:<, I ' ' ~ 


'} ,.1 ': •I 
l', . • 

...,.\ ..... . 

( )i ·, .l ') r_ , ! ~ :-:.; ~-.. ( ; ~\'l i 

! J,S_ ~ t_ ~:: ···:: {·.t.:f 

'o .4' I -••••• I 

Brian Bolton, after secondary school, 
spent 15 years in the Post Office before 
gaining a POEU scholarship to Ruskin 
College. During these years he held a 
variety of offices in branches of the 
union, finishing up as assistant branch 
secretary of the Post Office Tower branch 
and secretary of the London Political 
Committee of the union. 

It was after the course at Ruskin that 
the investigation of homeworking began 
as a by-product of a research project on 
the textile industry hence the heavytextile bias in the pamphlet. 

Brian Bolton wishes to thank Marie 
Brown of the Low Pay Unit as well as 
those who in one way or another gave 
information that was vital to the preparation 
of the pamphlet. 

Cover design by Dick Leadbetter. Printed 
by Civic Press Limited (Tu), Civic 
Street, Glasgow, G4 9RH. 

ISBN 7163. 0436 8 

' ' ' 

, ' 

' ·.' ..; :,\ } .·. 


recent fabian pamphlets 


research series 


297 Della Adam Nevitt Fair deal for householders 25p300 Christopher Foster Public enterprise 30p305 0. Kahn-Freund, Bob Hepple Laws against strikes 85p312 Bruce Douglas-Mann The end of the private landlord 20p313 Elizabeth Young, Brian Johnson The law of the sea. ·SOp314 H. Glennerster, S. Hatch Positive discrimination and inequality 40p316 John Ellis, R. W. Johnson Members from the unions 30p317 Lawrence Whitehead The lesson of Chile 40p318 David Bleakley Crisis in Ireland 40p319 Rupert Greer Building societies? 30p320 Nicholas Falk, Haris Martinos Inner city 45p321 David Eversley Planning without growth 45p 

tracts 

399 R. H. S. Crossman Paying for the social services 20p410 Anthony Crosland Towards a Labour housing policy 20p411 Dennis Marsden Politicians, equality and comprehensives 30p422 David Lipsey Labour and land 20p425 Peter Shore Europe : the way back 30p426 John Garrett, Robert Sheldon Administrative reform : the next step 20p427 Julian Fulbrook and others Tribunals : a social court ? 20p428 E. A. Webb Industrial injuries : a new approach 30p429 Chris Cossey Building better com,munities 30p430 Jeremy Bray, Nicholas Falk Towards a worker managed economy 30p431 Giles Radice ( ed) Working power 25p432 Stewart Lansley, Guy Fiegehen One nation? housing & conservative policy 45p 
433 Rodney Fielding The making of Labour's foreign policy 30p434 Colin Braham, J1im Burton The referendum reconsidered 40p435 Nicholas Bosanquet New deal for the elderly 40p 

young fabian pamphlets 

17 Colin Crouch ( ed) Students today 30p31 James Goudie Councils and the Housing Finance Act 30p34 Graham Child, John Evans Britain, Europe and the law 60p35 A study group A policy for public ownership 30p36 Stewart Lansley, Guy Fiegehen Housing allowances and inequality 25p37 David R. Allan Socialising the company 50p38 Young FaJbian steel gr:oup Crisis in steel 30p40 D.onald Roy State holding companies 30p41 A study group Improving the dental health service 20p42 Martin Smith Gypsies : where now ? 40p 

books 

R. H. S. Crossman and others New Fa1bian Essays cased £1.75 
Br-ian Abel-Smith and others Socialism .and affluence paper £0.60 
Peter "townsend and others Social services for all ? paper £1.00 
Peter Townsend and others The fifth sooial service cased £1.50 
George Cunningham ( ed) Britain and the world .in the 1970s cased ·£3.00 
P. Townsend and N. Bosanquet (eds) LaJbour and inequality paper £2.20