Letters of objection are one of the more frequently encountered sources in the Trade Board archives. Before new Trade Board minimum rates of pay could be introduced, the proposed rate had to be announced and employers, workers and other interested parties then had a set period of time to send in written objections. The letters of objection can give us a personal insight into the work and economic situation of individuals, as well as their views on state intervention through the government trade boards and the present condition of their industries.

The written objections could be presented to members of the Trade Board either as full copies of the original letters or as a summarised reports containing information about the quantity and themes of the objections, sometimes including illustrative quotes.

---

Objections by industry:

---

Objections by theme:

The objections below are just a small selection from the hundreds that have been digitised. They provide examples of some of the more frequent reasons to object, and give an idea of the types of information and language that can be included.

---

State of trade:

"If British enterprise is to hold its own, there ought to be no internecine strife at home which will permit Indian manufacturers to step in and take over the trade which is the means of livelihood to thousands of British people"

Objection by members of the Sugg family in East LondonLink opens in a new window, February 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. They argue that the proposed rates of wages for women workers are too high ("as the price of labor in India is far cheaper than here") and will threaten the "last hold of British exporters on overseas’ markets". They also suggest that the "demonstrated tendency of this leap in rate of wages is to restrict the work to big factories", which would cause hardship for homeworkers who were "anxious to extend a saving hand to a home which is in jeopardy through the unemployment, short hours, or boy’s wage salary of her husband".

"I know it is very poor money we pay but look, but when you consider the price we are paid for the garment it seems worse, but to live we must do it, or send all the common work to Germany"

Objection by J. J. Bosanquet, Esq. of Bow, LondonLink opens in a new window, 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. He calls for economic protectionism rather than free trade to reduce competition from foreign goods otherwise "by and bye England will be extinct" and suggests that unemployment caused by higher Trade Board wages "will be worse than the Titanic disaster". His factory, inherited from his wife, produced "clothing for the poor not for the rich", ran without electricity and so was unable to compete with or pay the wages of 'higher end' firms.

"I object to a further increase being given to shirtmakers on account of the general unrest there is in the country and because I think you have gone quite far enough"

Objection by E. Cristy of WiganLink opens in a new window, July 1919, to the Shirtmaking Trade Board. Cristy calls for the government body to "stay your hand and have some common sense" by not giving an additional increase to "this class of workers". National unrest due to high prices is given as the main reason for not increasing wages.

---

Increase in unemployment:

"Our hands are working for us in some cases for 5 generations, and it would greatly grieve us to have to cease employing some who have worked for us for many years"

Objection by Herbert Clay Finney of East LondonLink opens in a new window, 1911, to the Tailoring Trade Board. He objects to the proposed minimum wage on the grounds that it would force him to sack the "partially unfit" employees, those who are elderly or through "slowness or lack of capacity" "however hard they work, are not competent to earn the stated sum". He also argues that by obliging his workers to turn down cheap work at slack times "the fixed minimum wage [will] make our own countrywomen the losers, for the Aliens will step in, (as they already largely do) and take on the work".

"Sewing on buttons... in the cheap trade will be done by machine and so in many instances will hand labour be done away with and instead of helping the workers you will number them amongst the unemployed"

Objection by S. Lawrence of Bow, LondonLink opens in a new window, February 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. The author argues that higher wages will lead to slower workers being made unemployed ("numbers of women will be unable to obtain employment because they are too slow, and why they should be stopped for working because of that I quite fail to see") and will accelerate the mechanisation of the trade. The writer concludes by saying that "that if you wish to increase the poverty of the East End of London, then put your proposals into force."

"The elderly class of women usually employed in [workshops] will be thrown out of employment or have to seek a livelyhood at other work or submit to Factory life and make goods in Factory style which many will not do"

Objection by Cecil Smith of BirminghamLink opens in a new window, July 1919, to the Shirtmaking Trade Board. He suggests that the increase of 2 pence an hour will affect "clean well ventilated workrooms" such as his the hardest, whilst "the producer who employs outworkers only in their own dirty home conditions" will evade the rates. He also suggests that the wage increase will cause the "indifferent or slow worker [to be] thrown out of employ", increasing unemployment and reducing the numbers of girls who are interested in learning the trade.

"In our own case, as soon as the Board came into being, we were compelled to dismiss from 40 to 50% of our employees"

Objection by A.A. Posner of The P. & C. Button Co., London EC1Link opens in a new window, June 1921, to the Button Making Trade Board. He refers to the new and precarious nature of his industry in Britain ("it is only during and since the War, that we can be said to have captured a good part of the trade from foreign countries"). He argues that the interference of the Trade Board has resulted in the company only retaining the best workers whilst the remainder are "left to fall back upon the unemployment dole, to eke out a miserable existence and a never ending search for work". Posner also suggests that there had been no complaints about wages at their firm "until the advent of the Button-Makers Union, which was formed by the influence of some probably paid agitator".

---

Cost of living:

I would like for the employer to stand by a worker for an hour and see the amount of work a worker has to do ..., and then judge to see if she does not deserve the higher rate

Objection by Miss J. Kitts of DevonportLink opens in a new window, April 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. She provides information about her experience in the trade from the age of 13 onwards and argues that "all workers in a clothing factory deserve to get good wages, having to sit all day in closely packed work- rooms with all the noisy machinery going, bustle and activity and hardly any fresh air and no recreation and such long hours". She refers to the great increase in the cost of living - "rising the prices of everything that one has to live on and yet not rising the wages to pay for it" - and to ill health caused by work. Another letter from Miss KittsLink opens in a new window was sent in November 1911.

"Pardon me writing a few lines voicing my opinion on the smallness of this "minimum" about to be arranged"

Objection by William Crum, a cutter of GlasgowLink opens in a new window, September 1919, to the Paper Box Trade Board. He objects to the proposed minimum wage for experienced cutters being "lower per hour than money paid to Labourers" on the Clyde and suggests that the offer is an "insult ... when prices of the necessary articles of life is so high and still continue to rise."

"Employers state they do not run their business for pleasure, neither do we care about working for pleasure"

Objection by the President and Secretary of the Women's Section, Button Makers Trade Union, LeicesterLink opens in a new window, June 1922. The trade union officials protest against the proposed reduction in women's wages when the rising cost of living has resulted in their wages having considerably less purchasing power than in 1914, and suggest that the proposed "magnificent wage of 14/9d (per 48 hours) ... is not sufficient for a woman to even partly maintain and clothe herself respectably". They refer to the improving state of the trade and suggest that "now things seem brightening up a bit, do not try to drag us down to the level of sweating conditions, that existed in some departments of the trade before the war."

"Do you see that it is fair why you should reduce our wages so much as you have proposed to do, especially a poor working man like myself with a wife and child to keep on £3 a week"

Objection by H.J. Evans, "Ex-Service man and no pension" of BrentfordLink opens in a new window, 1922, to the Laundry Trade Board. He refers to his family's financial hardships and his military service during the First World War ("you are trying to make the poor man suffer after they have done their bit in the War on a simple 1/- a day, after doing about 4 years and more for their country to shed blood, and when we come home after all that time and look for a job, and when we get it you try to deduct our money in a big lump like").

---

Town v. country:

"We have to take and make the best of what we can get, and the choice being so limited, and our demand for labour so great, we are obliged to retain all but the most hopeless"

Objection by Grainger & Smith Ltd. of DudleyLink opens in a new window, January 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. They argue that they are disadvantaged by being situated in a "community of workers quite foreign to the Clothing Industry" as they have to train all factory workers themselves and that their outworkers "work entirely at their own convenience, when they like and how they like. These people, almost without exception, are of an extremely low standard of efficiency" and were therefore not worth the proposed minimum wage. The author categorises the firm's workers as "the "INTELLIGENT", the "AVERAGE", the "RATHER DULL", and the "DENSE"". A second protestLink opens in a new window from the firm, dated May 1912, is also available and is along similar lines.

"It is a well known fact that country workers are naturally much slower than town workers"

Objection by Clarke, Sons & Co. of AbingdonLink opens in a new window, April 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. The author argues that town and country factories employ different types of women workers - "the country factory has to depend largely upon married women who as a rule only go into the factory or take work at home in order to supplement the husband's earnings, whereas in the big clothing centres girls take up the work seriously and strenuously as their fixed means of livelihood, and very often the woman or girl factory worker is the main bread-winner of the family". The lower cost of living in the country is also referred to, along with the rural workers' tendency to "keep pigs and poultry" and maintain a vegetable garden, and the lack of "the amusement craze (or disease) of the large town ... in such places as Abingdon, where neither theatre nor music hall exists".

"Living in a country district, the labour supply is very limited and we are seriously handicapped as regards obtaining the number of efficient hands"

Objection by Thomas Meredith of Pryce Jones, Ltd., NewtownLink opens in a new window, September 1919, to the Shirtmaking Trade Board. His objection includes references to the seasonal nature of the company's work, the lower expenses for country workers ("all our hands are living within a few minutes' distance from their work and are therefore under no expense as regards travelling or having to provide themselves with meals from home"), the firm's high transport costs and their difficulty in obtaining experienced workers.

"We consider it is to the interest of labour to encourage factories in the country districts, because it is much more healthy for them, and food is generally cheaper, and travelling to and from the factory is not necessary"

Objection by B. Saunders & Sons, BromsgroveLink opens in a new window, September 1919, to the Paper Box Trade Board. They refer to difficulties of foreign (specifically German) competition and suggest different rates for town and country to reflect the higher transport and power costs for country companies, and the advantageous conditions for workers outside the towns.

---

Women's wages:

"Our trade seems to be a sort of a fill up for Girls from School to Marriage and a great proportion of our hands marry fairly early and are only with us for 2 to 3 years"

Objection by Brown & Rose of BarnsleyLink opens in a new window, 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. They object to paying the proposed wages for women workers on the grounds that "we have a great difficulty in getting these girls to work a full week" as they are "mostly the Daughters of Men earning good wages".

"What will become of these girls ... if nobody will employ them? They will gradually drift from one place to another until they will be compelled to resort to immoral means to live"

Objection by H. Lazarus of East LondonLink opens in a new window, April 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. He objects to the proposed minimum rate of 3¼ pence an hour for women workers on the grounds that the low prices that he receives for tailored goods don't allow him to pay more than 2½d. per hour, and argues that it is preferable that they should receive those wages than be sacked and then forced into prostitution.

If a woman requires 8½d to pay her board and clothe herself, how can a man at the new rate of 1/1¾ afford to marry her? It leaves him the princely sum of 5¼d for himself and nothing for his family.

Objection by Robinson & Sons Ltd., ChesterfieldLink opens in a new window, September 1919, to the Paper Box Trade Board. They object to the increase in women's wages, arguing that it takes them too close to men's wages ("does not this suggest that either the 9d rate for men was outrageously too low, or the present 8½d rate for a girl of 18 is outrageously too high"). Reasons given for the objection include a likely increase in the cost of clothing due to more wages being given to "young irresponsible girls" and that "girls in some of the country districts have not been educated and brought up and trained to spend these high wages".

---

Improving the workforce

"For ourselves we are convinced that healthy bodies and healthy minds produce the best results even from a commercial point of view, equally as much amongst the Employees as amongst the employers. These conditions can only be provided by fixing a minimum rate of payment that ensures at least the minimum of decency, comfort and good food to the operative and a rate less than 3½d per hour will not ensure these conditions"

Letter from Taylor & Co. of LeedsLink opens in a new window, February 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. They write in support of the proposed minimum rate for women as "surely the lowest level of income at which it is possible to secure a decent healthy life for female operatives". They also argue that employers should be able to set piece rates so that the 25% of the workforce classed as "Slow workers and extraordinarily Slow workers" could receive less than the recommended rate as "without a Percentage clause employers generally will be forced to dismiss a number of useful hands who through natural inability and other causes are incapable of being speeded up to the ordinary rate of working".

"Notwithstanding the eloquent pleading of some of my old friends on the employers' side who so vigorously opposed the 3 1⁄2d minimum on the ground that its effect would be disastrous to the industry, I am convinced that the exact opposite would be the case"

Objection by Douglas Sholto Douglas of the London Fancy Box Co.Link opens in a new window, June 1915, to the Paper Box Trade Board. He argued for higher wages and countered a range of arguments put forward against wage increases by fellow employers. Douglas suggested that paying higher wages would remove the stigma of the sweated trade from the industry and therefore allow them to recruit better workers - "by paying good wages he will get workers who will turn out good work and he will be relieved of the anxiety which must attach to a business where an appreciable proportion of the labour is devoid of self respect or interest in their occupation" and will no longer be "in the unhappy position of attempting the hopeless task of teaching a skilled trade to feeble minded physical degenerates".

---

State v. employer

"I protest against the Government fixing wages. It is unEnglish ... I think you ought to pause on the threshold of human liberty"

Objection by Joseph Bassett and Ebenezer Bradwell, SheffieldLink opens in a new window, April 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. They object in principle to state involvement in industry ("I think if you fix the wages you ought to manage the business, and find the money. It is unreasonable that a third party should step in between the employer and worker and dictate terms") and suggest that their business provides a social function by employing pensioners and "others who have no friends" in "airy and healthy rooms" who "but for my work would become chargeable to the Union". They suggest that if the wages are insisted upon, "I can put down a machine to sew buttons on and work it with a girl and save these poor people's wages".

"Please send us no more of this useless piffle. ... Our sign has stood above this door for over 50 years and will continue to stay, but Trade Board dictation "how to conduct a business" is not for us"

Objection by Mr. W.S. Milne of AboyneLink opens in a new window, April 1921, to the Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing (Scotland) Trade Board. He objects to "interference with individual rights" and states that "it has been found advisable to close both branches down" and add "our girls" to the unemployment list rather than pay the higher wages.

"I am sorry to give trouble to you; but I have too deep a hatred in my heart for those men who have wrought such havoc in our country during the past 3 years. ... Never will the world be better, while Trade unionists rule, and the Cabinet are passive resisters."

Objection using colourful language from Mrs C.D. Jameson of HammersmithLink opens in a new window, November 1921, to the Laundry Trade Board ("When I was a child my brothers sang with great gusto "Slap bang! Here we are again" and here once more am I"). She objects to the fluctuation in wage rates and the effects on her workers, including her "lad in the washhouse" Albert ("saving his money to make a home worthy the "best girl" ever born") and her two packers ("getting their house-linen &c together in order to marry the very "best lad" that ever breathed").

---

Effects on home workers

"In the busy season we like to employ a girl of about sixteen, we give her a weekly wage of 5s/6d and her tea"

Objection by Miss A.M. Cassie of HackneyLink opens in a new window, April 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. She asks whether her and her sister will still be able to employ an assistant under the Trade Board regulations and includes some information about their work. They "make tunic suits for small boys in silk and washing materials" and "work in our kitchen, it is a nice airy room" ... "seldom used for any other purpose than our machine work".

"You will perhaps think that I am talking too personally but I am only doing so as an example of thousands of cases of which mine is but one"

Objection by Mrs. Annie McGinty of LiverpoolLink opens in a new window, July 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. She describes some of the problems of home workers ("First of all there is the home to be looked after, washing and cleaning, cooking, purchasing provisions in the cheapest places all of which takes time. Also there is the time lost in taking your work to the factory, waiting for it to be passed, then another long wait for more work, also the time next day when you go for the money, so you may count it a big break in two half days and you arrive home too tired after the rush of the week to be fit for any thing until you have rested a little") and the consideration that many home workers were "delicate women" unable to work in factories and in danger of ending up in the workhouse if homeworking ended ("Heaven help me for I am one of the frail ones not strong enough to do more").

---

Wages for 'uneconomic' workers or learners

"This must take at least three months before they understand anything in the trade, so who is going to pay me for my time that I spend in learning them"

Objection by A. Goldman of Brick Lane, LondonLink opens in a new window, January 1912, to the Tailoring Trade Board. He objects to the cost of paying apprentices when they are not able to produce saleable goods and the need to pay the minimum rates to "three very old men working for me" ("if I should pay a minimum wage I should certainly be obliged to discharge these three old men and take young ones in their stead. Now I ask you, What are these three old men to do for a living? Nothing else but commit suicide, for nobody else will take them in").

"A. B. & C. never were equal in their brain's value or work, and no Government laws could ever make them, - or bring content that way."

Objection by Hookham, Cadney & Embling Bros., OxfordLink opens in a new window, August 1919, to the Shirtmaking Trade Board. They object to the hourly rates of pay being the same regardless of the abilities of the workers and suggest that pay increases will result in the slower old and young being "shelved". As an alternative, the company suggest that the Trade Board should publish a suggested, non-legally binding wage to be posted up for the workers to see to provide "the incentive of all to reach it. To make themselves valuable. To be worth it."