Chapter XVIII: Dust Women

Many readers are probably not aware that there is such a recognised employment for women as the sifting and sorting of the refuse of our houses. Any one wishing to observe how this work is carried on can see it daily in the dust-yards and wharves of London. In these places there are women who are actually spending their lives handling all the obnoxious waste that a great city produces. Dust-carts bring load after load of refuse to the yards. The drivers tip the contents of the carts before the women, who are drawn up in line and whose duty it is to sieve and sift this refuse, and then to sort into the different baskets that are standing close by, such things as rags, bones, string, cork, boots, paper, coal, broken glass, etc. It is a dirty and dusty occupation, and as a rule the women have their clothing covered and permeated by the dust, and their hair laden with it too, notwithstanding the handkerchief or shawl that covers their head. Wrapped with a piece of old sacking round their skirts and cloth bands round their legs, they lean over their work and inhale the unsavoury dust that has gone forth from the houses and the shops of the city. In one sense it is fortunate that this unpleasant operation is conducted in the open air, for therein to a large extent lies the comparative harmlessness of the employment. From time to time the hands of the women get cut by broken glass, and there is incurred the risk of festering wounds and the danger of blood poisoning.

The story of dust women is told by Miss Emily Hobhouse in the _Economic Journal_, September 1900, p. 411, from whose interesting report I have drawn largely for the information supplied in this article. Miss Hobhouse naturally raises the question as to how far the sifting and sorting of refuse is a fitting and sanitary employment for women. Theoretically it cannot be a pleasant one, considering what the refuse may and does contain, and yet from the organic and inorganic materials, the dead and dying organised heaps that leave our houses as refuse, these women pick out certain things that are sent to manufacturers and reappear for sale in the form of glue, soap, bottles, and paper, while even such a thing as broken glass is rescued, transported to Sweden, and comes back to this country in the form of emery paper for polishing steel.

The employment of dust women is dwindling, and must perforce disappear owing to the multiplication of destructors, the expense of dealing with the ever-increasing refuse by means of sifters and sorters, and the growth of public opinion, which is certainly opposed to regarding this work as a proper employment for women. It is a well-known fact that if a woman takes to refuse picking early in life she becomes almost utterly unfit for any other employment. At the present time the destructors do much of the work that has hitherto been done by men and women, but these furnaces can only destroy certain things in the refuse, and consequently leave a residue that has still to be got rid of. The question of removing the increasing amount of refuse from London and our large towns is a difficult one to solve. It has an economic side which cannot be ignored. In some of the vestries of London the clinker and fine ash that are removed from the destructor are converted into mortar, and the steam that is generated by the destructor is used for driving the machinery for grinding the mortar and clinker. It has been ascertained by sanitary engineers that town refuse has about ⅑ the heating power of coal, and that in a large city like London it can be destroyed for 2s. 5d. per ton, a less sum than it costs to barge it away. Some of the Boards of Works dispose entirely of their refuse by destructors, while others only do so partially; some again have their own yards or wharves, but not in all of them are women employed. Twenty-six of the vestries let out the work to contractors, many of whom, on account of the cheaper labour, employ women. In London alone there are at least 300 women employed as dust sorters. The wages given by the vestries, and the conditions of labour found under them, are much superior to those under contractors. The vestries pay the women 15s. a week, each day’s work, except Saturday, extending from 5 o’clock A.M. to 5 P.M., but 7s. to 8s. a week is all that can be obtained from the contractors. The broken-down appearance of the women who work for contractors, and who are sweated beyond all bounds, causes them to compare most unfavourably with the dust sorters for the vestries.

The evidence obtained from officials, contractors, and the women themselves rather went to show that the general health of the men and women working in the dust-yards was good. Owing to being so much in the open air the women seemed hale and well-coloured, and they contrasted most favourably with those who were working in the factories or at home. Occasionally such troubles occur among them as sore throat, ophthalmia or “blight,” poisoned wounds, and among the elderly women recurrent attacks of cold on the chest, due to exposure to severe weather and the wet. On the whole, however, it would seem as if the open air life agreed with the women. In some of the yards the sifting is done by machinery, and the women only do the sorting. In these yards the women complain of finding it hard to keep pace with the machinery and of having to lift too heavy loads.

Under all circumstances dust-sorting is dirty and disagreeable work. It is generally undertaken by women of the lowest class. The only zest that is given to the occupation is the prospect of finding money. Occasionally a copper, silver, or gold coin is found, and in most of the yards the money belongs to the finder. Such a piece of good luck, however, seldom benefits the individual, for it is made the excuse for a drunken spree that often lasts for days. The work is hard and exposed. It not only unfits women for other employment, but even for the ordinary duties of housewife and motherhood. It destroys the best instincts of maternity. The work takes the mother away from her children, who are consequently ill-tended and often die from neglect. Although several children may be born of these women, in many instances none of them live beyond a few months, not by the employment affecting the children through the mother, but because maternal duties are totally disregarded. For these reasons, therefore, it is scarcely desirable work for women under thirty years of age. It is with dust women as with many of the laundry women in London; they form a class by themselves, and so the work becomes more or less hereditary.

As to the occupation being unsanitary, medical opinion is divided. Dr Thomas of Limehouse does not think it increases the death-rate, and Dr Dudfield reports that he has not observed any bad effects upon the health of the women. On the other hand, Dr Priestley states that while he has not observed any actual injury to health from the sorting of refuse, he thinks there cannot be any doubt that the trade is dangerous to health, and on this ground he recommends its discontinuance. The occupation is one which theoretically might be expected to be prejudicial to health, and yet experience indicates that the women become hardened to the work and immune to its possible evil effects. It is an undesirable employment for women all the same. If it is to continue, it ought to be brought under the supervision of the Factory Department of the Home Office, and as the conditions of labour under a private contract system are in this instance worse than when conducted and controlled by municipal authorities, Vestries or Boards of Health should retain the management of dust-yards in their own hands.

THOMAS OLIVER.