Michael E. Herde, Seats and Washrooms: Single-Sex Protective Labor Legislation in Pennsylvania (1988)

  In the final decades of the nineteenth century, Pennsylvania passed a succession of single sex protective labor acts that changed the landscape for working-class women. Previously, there had been interest in gender-neutral legislation to protect all workers by enforcing shorter hours and better conditions. Any attempts to regulate the working conditions of adult men were unceremoniously struck down by the courts. Courts responded more favorably to legislation that regulated only women, citing the special nature of women and their place in the world

 In Pennsylvania, the first protective labor legislation for women was enacted in 1879 and prohibited women from waitressing in theatres and showhouses. Over the following decade, protective legislation was extended to bar women and children from working in coal mining. In 1887, the first legislation regulating on the job working conditions was passed. Concern over conditions for working women arose out of research showing that working conditions might be bad for women's reproductive health. Research at the time speculated that women's nature was extremely delicate due to her reproductive cycle.

  This paper explores the various interest groups involved in the passage of and opposition to labor legislation in Pennsylvania, the rise of labor unions and the changing social mores surrounding women in the labor force. Specifically, the paper looks at the ideological differences among women of different classes. Middle class women were a particularly powerful group in the struggle for protective labor legislation. They tended to align with upper and middle class men in supporting legislation. Working class women and manufacturers jointly opposed the passage of single sex labor legislation. Groups that supported the labor laws cited women's reproductive health as a chief factor. But it was important that the laws kept women out of job markets where they would complete with male workers. The author concludes that women were ultimately harmed, rather than aided, by the protective labor legislation and that the failure of working women to organize effectively prevented them from lobbying for change.

 

Revised July 23, 2003 (MD)