3. Toilet Accommodations

There are also scant data as to the observance of acts relative to wash rooms, toilets and dressing rooms for women in factories and mercantile establishments. The difficulties attending the early regulations in regard to this matter were mentioned in the first chapter. The requirements for separate toilets for women was pretty generally met in establishments outside of New York City but widespread violations existed in New York City; the section regarding toilet accommodations being " one of the most difficult parts of the labor laws to enforce in New York City." 1

Dressing rooms with solid partitions and a window opening to the outdoor air were furnished in response to section 88 of the labor law by factories and large tenant factories, according to the report of the commissioner in 1911 (page 76). In many large plants lunch rooms were also provided and sometimes a surgical room with a nurse. The smaller tenant factories offered difficulties because of cramped floor area and lack of outdoor windows. Here it was almost impossible to secure compliance with orders. The rooms provided were farcically inadequate-used only for rubbish, they were found to be more unsanitary than any other parts of the establishment.

In 1914, data on sanitation in factories were published by the Industrial Board 2 showing orders issued throughout the state for water-closets numbered 38,645, and compliances 21,956; for wash rooms 6,047, and compliances 2,594; for dressing rooms 6,351 and compliances 4,138. This was a general statement of all orders given, with no separate tabulation of orders regarding facilities for men and for women. There were eleven prosecutions, three of which were dis

1 Fairchild, F. R., The Factory Legislation of the State of New York, 1905, p. 157.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1914, p. 66.

missed or acquitted; five were convicted but sentences were suspended, and three were convicted and fined a total of $65.

For mercantile establishments in 1914, there were 11,952 orders relative to water-closets, and 11,480 compliances. There were only eleven prosecutions entered after final notices had been given, five were for failure to provide water-closets, three for failure to ventilate them properly, and three for failure to clean them.

As in former inspection statistics, so here, caution must be taken in interpreting the figures not to allow them to carry a disproportionate weight. A revealing suggestion for their interpretation, which more or less applies to all data on enforcement thus far gathered, was offered by James L. Gernon, then chief mercantile inspector, when he explained the above returns: "This is a large increase over the number of orders issued for the previous year, and was due to the increase in the force of inspectors." 1 In other words, one should keep in mind that with probably no exception more orders issued does not mean more violations, but more violations discovered, and therefore a little better instead of less enforcement of the law. Also it should be explained that the law is defective in that it fails to place the responsibility for violation, so the inspector is always at a loss to know whether to issue orders to the owner of the building or the tenant. Thus many violations of the provision remain uncorrected.2

From the foregoing discussion, it is needless to say that the problems of enforcing protective labor laws are tremendous; and that the machinery of enforcement, at least in

1 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1914, p. 91.

2 More recent data regarding the inspection of toilet accomodations might be shown, for they appear each year in the annual reports of the industrial commissioner. However, later figures have not been given for they seem not to differ materially from those for 1914.

New York State, is painfully cramped. New York has, in general, a commission form of administration which means the delegation of discretionary power by the legislature to a body of experts for intelligent application of the meaning of the laws and the establishment of rules for the improvement of working conditions not otherwise specifically provided for. We have seen that recent modifications in the structure of the administrative body in New York are believed not to have proved entirely successful, and it is possible that another reorganization will be developed to reestablish the more typical form of industrial commission which existed before 1921.

There is, perhaps, no other branch of the state government that suffers more from the manoeuvers of politicians than the machinery of administering the laws. The extent to which laws are enforced is almost impossible to trace, so that it is possible for the agency of enforcement to be crippled materially without arousing great public concern. Budgets can be cut and valuable persons discharged on the plea of lightening the taxpayer's burden and saving unnecessary expense, and the consequent effects upon the lives of the workers remain undiscovered.

To form some conception of the difficulties of measuring the extent of law enforcement in New York State, it is necessary to recall that the number of discoveries of violations is limited to the number of inspections that can be made, and that there has never been an approach to a sufficient number of inspectors. The estimate made, by those informed, of the necessary number of inspectors for proper enforcement varies from four to two hundred times as many as New York has ever had. Thus, of the violations of the law which are committed, only a small per cent are discovered. And then, " only a small percentage of violations discovered result in prosecution [from 14 to 56 per cent in

1919] and of these a large number are dismissed by consent on compliance with orders issued by the Commission." 1 Moreover, of this small per cent of a small per cent, there is a large proportion of suspended sentences ranging from 44 to 76 per cent in 1919.2 And finally, of the sentences which are not suspended, inadequate fines or none at all are imposed by the courts and magistrates; and the proportion of fines that are remitted is unknown.

This is a discouraging state of affairs to members of the Department of Labor whose standards are high in respect to the enforcement of acts that have been passed by the legislature, as well as to others who believe in the necessity of these laws for the public welfare. Where conviction of the reasonableness of the law exists among employers and employees, there is, of course, less difficulty in enforcing it, and where the workers are organized into unions they are able to force compliance with the law in many cases. But unorganized employees, afraid of losing their jobs, are timid and unsatisfactory in the rôle of complainants, and, as in the case of some special regulations for women, we are told that the difficulty of enforcement is frequently owing to opposition of the workers themselves.

This brings us to appreciate the growing conviction that labor law enforcement must come about through an educational process rather than through police force procedure, and that the needs of all workers for protection by the state should be scientifically considered to make a reliable basis for the enactment of laws with which employers and employees can be taught to sympathize. "It is only when employers have become so enlightened and progressive as to accept the 1 The Bulletin of the New York State Industrial Commission, January, 1920.

99

'The "departmental summons is said to have made some improvement in the way of reducing the number of suspended sentences since 1919.

standards imposed by the State as the basis for efficiency in industry to be adopted willingly and not through the compulsion of threatened punishment that a satisfactory condition can be said to prevail. When this is achieved the inspectors of the State department of labor become advisors in the application of standards rather than policemen.' This is the view of the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, which, we are told, more nearly describes the method of inspection in English factories. Inspectors in such a system would need to be carefully trained and adequately remunerated for their work, so that the dignity of their positions and the value of their advice would be recognized by all concerned. Scientific improvement in the conduct of industrial plants and scientific improvement in the kinds of laws enacted would seem to be a necessary outgrowth of such a program, and they would increase the possibilities of labor law enforcement to an incalculable degree.

1 Bulletin no. 10 of the Women's Bureau, United States Department of Labor, March, 1920, Hours and Conditions of Work for Women in Industry in Virginia, p. 32.