Claudia Conroy, The 1919 I.L.O. Convention Concerning the Employment of Women Before and After Childbirth: U.S. Involvement and Ultimate Failure to Ratify (1986)

The paper tracks the forces working both for and against U.S. ratification of the Convention Concerning the Employment of Women Before and After Childbirth, which included a proposal to establish maternity insurance programs for working women. Despite the acute need for protection of working mothers and their babies, a lengthy list of factors combined to defeat ratification: rifts within the women's movement; the belief that family legislation fell outside Congress' domain; American isolationism; domestic conservatism; and social attitudes as to individualism, the proper place for women, and the proper sphere of government action. The paper focuses specifically on the need for maternity benefits, the events of the International Labor Organization (ILO) conference which approved the Convention, the contemporary debate over how best to protect female workers, and the ultimate failure of ratification.

American delegates to the ILO represented a nation with high rates of maternal and infant mortality, a clear double standard whereby working women typically toiled longer hours for less pay than men, and a patchwork of ineffective, state-run attempts to protect pregnant workers--often by requiring that they leave their jobs. Where unionized male workers realized some advances through collective bargaining, most attempts to assist working women were made through protective legislation. Furthermore, working men were not saddled with societal expectations that they cook, clean, and raise children, roles which served both to further debilitate already exhausted working women and to remove them from the workforce for long stretches of time. As noted by the Children's Bureau, high infant mortality had its roots in the ill health of mothers, especially poor, working mothers--a concern the Convention was specifically designed to address.

The U.S. of 1919 also had little in the way of labor legislation, a matter thought to lie within the jurisdiction of the states. In fact, much state labor legislation had been struck down by the courts, which permitted only legislation protective of women; a decision based on contemporary notions of protecting the weaker sex. Despite the acute needs of working women, however, by 1919 only five states had passed any sort of protective maternity legislation. All such legislation was aimed at keeping pregnant workers off the job before and after childbirth, but none ensured a return to the same position, or any sort of maternity allowance.

In setting the scene for the ILO's First International Labor Conference, Conroy first considers women's representatives at the Peace Treaty of Versailles, the previous year. Maternity benefits had been included in the Treaty's labor section, and plans had been made for the First International Congress of Working Women (ICWW), to be held the following year in Washington, D.C., concurrently with the ILO's conference. Despite these achievements, hopes that the ILO would influence American labor policy were dashed. State-control of labor issues hamstrung federal action, a conservative backlash against labor robbed the organization of popular support, and American isolationism prevented ratification of the Peace Treaty itself. The outcome precluded U.S. membership in the ILO. Where the European nations looked for government to do whatever it could, America's guiding principles appeared to be individualism and strictly limited government.

The ICWW met in Washington at the same time as the ILO conference. The women's congress was attended by delegates from twenty countries, and considered five main issues: the eight-hour day, unemployment, child labor, maternity benefits, and women's employment. Most issues fostered little debate, but consensus proved difficult to achieve on maternity benefits. Points of contention included whether all mothers should earn benefits, who should pay the benefits, and the level of benefits. All resolutions passed by the Congress were tendered to the ILO conference for additional consideration and amendment, and were included in the final Convention.

The fourth section of Conroy's paper approaches maternity benefits as part of a larger issue--whether protective legislation was the best strategy available to women activists. She criticizes the push for legislation protective of female workers alone, rather than of all workers. Protective legislation aimed at women was pragmatic but shortsighted. Any measures passed may have brought relief to some workers, but the "protections" also handicapped many women workers. For example, numerous workers lost their jobs because of statutes forbidding night work by women. Conroy suggests that the movement, as represented by the National Women's Trade Union League (NWTUL), would have better used its efforts by working to unionize women workers. NWTUL's focus on protective legislation served to alienate the movement from its natural allies in the AFL, and cut off a major source of aid. In fact, to the extent which male trade unionists supported protective legislation, it was often out of a selfish desire to limit the competition posed by female workers.

This awkward result contrasted starkly with the European situation, where male and female workers worked more closely together. These differing conditions led to the dissolution of the ICWW following the 1920 meeting. In addition, American isolationism limited the rewards to be gained by participation in any international organization, and dampened enthusiasm for continuing the ICWW--another case of women's leaders focusing on immediate goals, perhaps to their ultimate detriment.

Debates on the proper course of action came to a head after the grant of female suffrage. Battle was declared between advocates of protective legislation for women, and those fighting for equal rights. Some working women denounced protective legislation as paternal and shortsighted, supporting instead the Equal Rights Amendment and an attack on sexist social norms. Conroy notes, however, that both sides might have agreed on protective legislation covering maternity benefits, but the rancorous debate prevented cooperation.

In concluding, Conroy notes that the U.S. did eventually enter the ILO in 1934. The 1919 Convention, however, was not ratified, being a priority for neither the federal government nor the general public.

 

Revised July 23, 2003 (MD)