Gender in the Public Workplace

It is well known, in outline, that the employment opportunities of unmarried middle-class women expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, though by no means to equal those of men. But, apart from excellent work on schoolteachers by Alison Oram and Dina Copelman and on the much smaller population of university teachers by Carol Dyhouse, there are few detailed studies of their experiences and their responses to them.¹ These books by Glew and Murphy, both originally PhD theses, valuably expand our knowledge and understanding of areas of work which, although all in the public sector, contrasted in interesting ways.

The British civil service was one of the oldest employment sectors in Britain and the largest, employing people at all levels from cleaners and porters to permanent secretaries. The General Post Office, at the heart of Glew’s study, was the largest civil-service department and the first to employ women, from the 1870s. In 1938 it was the largest single employer in Britain, including of women of whom it employed 43,850. Its antiquity as the oldest civil-service department (founded in 1660) and its position at the centre of government with its employment policies controlled by the Treasury, ensured that it was embedded in a certain traditionalism. The Treasury was aware that its employment practices were closely observed by other employers and it was not anxious to encourage gender equality in the workplace; like most employers it simply took inequality for granted. Women were not admitted to the higher administrative grades of the civil service until 1925, following much female protest. Even in 1950 women held fewer than seven per cent of administrative grade posts.

The London County Council (LCC) was formed only in 1888, and its employment policies were much influenced by civil-service practice. It was closely observed, and so far as possible controlled, by central government as the largest local authority in the country, running the capital city. But it was run by democratically elected councillors, among whom progressive reformers were always strong, and it was controlled by Labour from 1934, eleven years before Britain had a majority Labour government. It was somewhat less embedded in traditionalism than the civil service. The BBC was newer still, founded in 1922, novel in every way, existing to communicate to the whole nation and overseas through wholly new technology, funded by government but independent of it, though too important not to be carefully watched and controlled.

Both books cover a period when women were increasingly organized and assertive, firstly to gain the vote, then to use the vote and to demand other equalities, at work and elsewhere in their lives. An important part of Glew’s story concerns women’s activism in pursuit of equality in the civil service and elsewhere through trade unions and other organizations. In what was, at least in principle, a more gender-equal atmosphere at the BBC there was less need for such activism.

All three workplaces expanded during the period covered by the authors and needed to employ women because there were too few suitably qualified men available or willing to fill the growing number of posts. Most public-sector work was attractive to women, as to men, because it was respectable and secure, with better conditions than many other occupations including shorter hours, paid holidays, sickness pay and pensions. At the LCC and the BBC women were employed from the start. The civil service had to make the dramatic change from all-male employment and decide on what terms to employ women. The Treasury welcomed the fact that women were cheaper to employ than men, though it could never accept the suggestion that, in consequence, there was a strong case for employing women rather than men at all levels. It was always anxious to limit their numbers and keep them in subordinate positions. Unequal pay was...