It is widely accepted that the growth and character of Liverpool derived mainly from the development of the docks and waterfront. Many books have been written about all aspects of the work of the port, its achievements, its world-wide ramifications and fame. The demanding work done by the dockers, their hardships and troubles have also been well documented and analysed. What is not so well known is the fact that a smaller but nevertheless, useful and important contribution was made by women.
A Liverpool-based Women’s History Group, Second Chance, decided to research these women’s jobs and put on record a worth while account, before all the experiences become lost or blurred in the mists of the past. Many astonishing and drastic changes have already taken place in the management and activity of the Port, and soon less and less people will remember the details of those previous times of thriving industry.
We wondered if there would be much to write about, or enough to keep us busy with our project, as our first casual enquiries produced rather negative responses. The generally prevailing impression seemed to be that there never were any women working at the docks. It was only when pressed or given reminders e.g. a mention of canteen workers or ship’s cleaners etc. that people would give a hesitant reply, something like - "Oh - yes - them - but they don’t really count do they - not as real dock workers?" In doing our research, we were able to show that the women’s efforts were by no means as insignificant, simple or unimportant as often implied.
Members of the group had made enquiries in numerous directions, personal and otherwise, and followed all clues and hunches however slight. This resulted in a large amount of material being gathered to be sorted, sifted and evaluated. We consider the best parts of the collection were the many interviews with women who actually worked on the waterfront and we refer to twenty four of these in our report. Acquiring some background knowledge about the working of the docks in general, was necessary and useful. Incidentally, we also learned something of the physically demand ing nature of the men’s work. The interviews with the women, together with relevant contemporary newspaper articles and other data gathered, have helped us to give a continuous picture from 1916 to 1987.
We will start with the women who were actually allowed to do "Men’s Jobs because of a shortage of male labour due to the first world war.
Kitty Bennett, now 97, the oldest of our interviewees, was probably one of the first women to break into this dockland world of men’s jobs. In 1916, with a group of her friends, she was taken on as a ‘trucker’, bringing bales of cotton from the ware house with the aid of a ‘docker’s hook’, and loading them on to trolleys.
The women managed these tasks very well and the employers were quite satisfied with their work. The men however objected, seeing the women as a threat to their own jobs. There were many news paper articles (March 1916) in the Daily Post and the Liverpool Courier. Some were patronising and rather offensive:
"Type of woman attracted to the job is one accustomed to drudgery - better for slum dwellers to be provided with an occupation - idleness causes mischief of intemperance - Liverpool's big lower class has plenty of women - suitable for dock labour - quite unfit for jobs of any more superior description...".
Other articles were more tolerant:
"Employment of female labour at the docks is a very satisfactory experiment. Women are able to do the work alloted to them...".
A further reaction was to trot out the standard excuses:
",..the work is entirely unsuited for women - their employment endangers the life and limbs of ordinary dockers - lack of sanitary conveniences...”
The unions saw it as their duty to take a firm line with employers who engaged women. Some of the men refused to work for these companies and the women encouraged this action. The result was that the women were stopped after three months. Kitty and her friends went back to the bag warehouse, to be paid half the wages they had received at the docks. We must note that they were in no way carrying a banner for Women’s Liberation. All they thought about was the extra money earned, so vital to the welfare of their families. When they went back to their coh at the ‘Baggie’ Kitty said they "really felt the pinch". Although their potions. short-lived, we have to admire their achievement and the way that they took the matter in their stride, without fuss. They certainly had some spirit, whatever their motivation.
During the second world war there was no attempt made in Liverpool to employ women in the traditional dockers’ jobs such as trucking, but in 1942, about six years after Kitty’s venture, Olive Reynolds was engaged as a ‘sweeper’, a job which up until then had usually been done by men. She was employed with other women at Alexandra Dock. They would sweep the dusty, littered floors of sheds after they had been emptied of ships’ cargoes. It was heavy and dirty work. In bad weather it could be dangerous as they also swept the quays, which were expected to be spotless at all times. Wind, snow, frost, ice, slippery surfaces and so on, added extra hazards, especially if they went too near the edge: "We made sure we kept away from the edge," Olive said.
Why did the women go for these hard physical jobs? "They told us at the dole that it would be hard work: good wages as it was then. I took it as a kind of challenge". Olive left of her own accord after two and a half years, to work on the rail ways where the pay was better.
A telling remark about the women sweepers was made by Kitty Tipping (canteen manager for nearly forty years) who had a soft spot for them - "Sweeping those sheds was like sweeping half of Park Road."
Quite apart from wartime experiences, there was also the traditional "Women’s Jobs" done by women at the docks both in the war and in peacetime. We were extremely impressed by the demand ing element of all the jobs investigated, but were particularly staggered at the range and extent of the cleaning work done by "ships’ cleaners". This simple-sounding title belies the sheer physical effort, the skill and the thoroughness required. They "washed the deckheads, bulwarks, tables, stools, scrubbed the decks. We climbed ladders - up in the air on six foot trestles. We worked from planks, three on a plank. I was terrified. I was a bit chubby and didn’t want to go in the middle of the plank", Mary told us.
Sometimes they would be standing precariously on the rails. "Safety standards? Oh no. We just didn’t look down". "Pretty risky at times, stand on a rail to clean the top of the ship and look down into the water... and I couldn’t swim!"." Everything was so filthy we would use lots of water. Would carry our buckets up and down gangways, stairs and ladders. We used a very strong powder, terrible stuff. It would lift everything off - you know - grease - you can imagine what a ship was like with salt water and everything else. Your hands would be bleeding and cracked. We didn’t wear gloves or anything". Many ships had lots of brass rails and so on, which had to be cleaned over and over again until shining. They usually had a final polish immediately prior to sailing, even if it meant working through the night. After all, the ship had to be a showpiece as it sailed in gleaming pride down the Mersey.
The cleaning work went on in all weathers - rain, fog, snow and howling gales. "Many a time it’s been that foggy that we’ve stood in one another’s buckets’. "In the cold weather we still had to work but it didn’t matter even if it was summer - on the docks it was always cold. Snow and ice on the ground, it still had to be done." The women organised the work in a very co-operative way, leaving the slightly easier jobs (i.e. under cover and less climbing) for the older women. Their employment was casual, depending upon the arrival of ships and the duration of their stay in dock. The fact that the money was good made it a worth while proposition. Also they enjoyed the company, companionship and the change from household worries.
Only one of the cleaners we spoke to could definitely remember being in a union; the Transport and General Workers’ Union and paying 5d per week (carly 1930's). Another cleaner was not sure but thinks she joined something for which money was collected each week (1940's).
Next we dealt with that eternal job for women, tea making; in other words, the ‘canteen workers’, whose jobs were neither simple nor easy. The women had to be ready for various tasks, as needed. In the smaller canteens the managers would be responsible for ordering and costing food, check supplies and deliveries, take stock pay wages, be accountable for cash and most amazingly, would have to take the money home at night, often a large amount if she had been too busy to go to the bank during the day. Belle’s mother worried about this but Belle said she was never scared walking alone at night under the ’dockers’ umbrella’ (The Elevated Rail way - Editor) (1920s).
From early morning and through the day, sometimes till late evening if require they would serve the dockers as they came in droves off different shifts or in between the preparation, cooking, serving and washing up, they would scrub floors and tables, and scour all utensils. "We had to busy ourselves non-stop."
The pay was not so good as for the ships’ cleaners. Some of the larger firms of caterers would engage women on an occasional basis for outside work such as banquets, functions etc. Although the pay for this was minimal, they liked the excitement and glamour of it, but it could be tiring after a full day’s work. All in all, the canteen workers required physical stamina, lots of common sense and an ability to cope calmly and efficiently with the sudden spurts and rushes of hungry men.
None of the canteen workers interviewed were in unions. As Elizabeth said "We had no union to look after us and no sick pay" (1920’s and 1930’s). Anne Noard tells us that the dockers got overtime pay when working late but the canteen workers got no overtime when working late to attend to the dockers (circa 1928). Norah said that they were never approached or asked to join a union (1950's).
The work of the port and harbour cannot be separated from shipping and seafarers; so in this area too we have looked at the contribution from five seafaring women’ were interviewed, all doing different jobs. Each spoke of their interest in travel, challenge, adventure and meeting all kinds of people. For this willingly accepted long hours and a very full workload.
"At sea you work all day and every day without a thought of days off," Myra, a ‘ship’s governess’ with Elder Dempster line and later a ‘children’s hostess’ employed by Shaw, Saville and Albion Ltd., London. She was responsible for instruction and entertainment of all children on board, looked after all books and equipment, supervised or assisted deck and water sports, concerts and Sunday School. She loved the life, was never ill and would be up on deck however rough the weather.
Lifeboat drill was a regular occurrence and was a very strict and formal affair, with specially trained officers (male). Myra applied and was given a place on the training course - the only woman. She startled the instructing officer by being the only one to give the correct answer to his question, "What is the most important thing to remember when organising groups of people for the lifeboats?" (Answer; discipline). He then snapped out; "The worst part of course is all the hysterical women to be dealt with - be sure to tell them to break the heels off their shoes." She was one of the four, out of a group of ten, to pass the test.
Myra joined the N.U.S., being asked when she was first appointed as Ship’s Governess. She told us that there was more union activity in Liverpool than in other ports. When she sailed from Southampton she was discouraged from N.U.S. membership and urged to declare her officer status by joining an officers’ union. She gave up union membership then.
Janet was a ‘laundry assistant’ and later a ‘stewardess’, on the Empress of Canada, from 1961 to 1971, and felt she was "Out of this world" when she visited different countries. As well as the routine work of making beds, cleaning passengers’ quarters, serving meals in cabins if required, the stewardesses were always available for passengers’ comfort and looking after them when sick (Janet was never sick). They would calm them when scared e.g. during a hurricane. When the ship was rolling dreadfully, passengers would rush out of their cabins in panic. Janet would say soothingly "Not to worry. Go back to your cabins," although she herself was absolutely terrified.
The stewardesses and laundresses had to belong to a union. Although the work was hard, and the hours long, Janet found it rewarding and enjoyed the contact with passengers and the company of other workers on the ship.
Mary worked as a ‘functions waitress’ at formal dinners, wedding receptions etc. She also did some temporary work as ‘canteen assistant’ in Cammell Laird’s, the Birkenhead ship-building firm. It was there that she had the opportunity to join the catering staff as a ‘sea-going dining room assistant’.
When a ship is completed, before it is commissioned, it goes on trials to test its performance at sea. Mary described the occasion in April, 1985, when she joined the ship with its compliment of about four hundred carpenters, electricians, engineers and boilermakers, i.e. all trades involved in ship building, plus catering staff, cleaners, ship’s officers and crew. The ship sailed out of the Mersey, to the north of Scotland and hit bad weather, making everybody seasick including the ship’s doctor. It was soon clear to Mary that it was not going to be the jolly holiday cruise that she had imagined. It proved to be three weeks of continuous preparing, serving and clearing meals, snacks, tea-breaks etc. The women were so tired that they just wanted to rest in any free time they had. In spite of the weariness, it was a unique experience.
Margaret was employed by ‘Concession’ and worked on various ships, in their casinos as a ‘croupier’ (1970’s to 1980’s). She usually served ships with wealthy passengers on holiday who were out to enjoy themselves. The hours were varied according to other activities and passengers’ needs. The casino was much more informal than those on land and the job was pleasant.
When Jenny heard that the Belfast Steamship Company had decided to allow women under twenty five to serve, she applied immediately and was rewarded with a job as a ‘ship’s cashier’, on the Ulster Prince. The company were introducing a new car ferry service (1966), between Liverpool and Belfast, the journey taking approximately twelve hours.
She had to be at her post at 4.30 am at the cash-desk in the first class eating section of the ship. When breakfast finished at 9.00 am, the two cashiers would hoover, dust, clean, polish brass railings, clean their own cabins and shower rooms. Every thing was inspected daily.
Hours were long but everything was well organised, with rotas, timesheets, overtime pay for additional hours, strict rules about accommodation and conditions. The National Union of Seamen had negotiated with the company to ensure that the young people were suitably protected. Jenny had joined the union when starting the job.
A photograph of Jane Wear in the Daily Telegraph, connected with a Merseyside drugs haul of cocaine worth £500,000, alerted us to perhaps the most dramatic job on the docks; that of ‘dog handler’. The interview which followed brought our record well into the 1980’s and reminded us of the Equal Opportunities Bill of 1975.
Jane was quick to take her chance and become one of the first women to hold this position (1983 -). Based at Gladstone Dock, she worked for H.M. Customs and Excise. The job was arduous and often strenuous, such as when carrying a dog down a fifty foot vertical ladder into the hold; or moving and lifting heavy objects while grubbing about in filthy places to facilitate the search. She was responsible for the dog at all times, even having to take it home with her at nights (permanent use of plain van). She also had to be knowledgeable about its health care, food, vitamin pills, possible diseases, grooming and exercise.
In spite of the physical demands and the long hours, Jane loved the work. She showed that as a woman she had the necessary stamina for the job but always felt she needed to prove herself (see comments in our conclusions).
It seems appropriate to present the following interview last. It recalls vivid pictures of the dockland scene, 1927 to 1932, the background to some of the history we have been researching.
Freda worked as a ‘shipping office typist’ in the Maritime Department of Messrs. Elder Lines Ltd., in a room overlooking Toxteth Dock and Herculaneum Dock. Each morning she would type five copies of information about all ships in the Toxteth, Herculaneum, Hampton and Brunswick Docks, giving their positions and length of time they had been there.
She really loved watching and learning everything she could about that environment: the ships, the workers, the cargoes loading and unloading, the coal tips at Herculaneum Dock for the coal-burning ships, the barrels of palm oil and cocoa from West Africa, the trucks and grabs, the horse-drawn wagons and much more.
Freda remembers the sadness and poverty of the 1930’s. When a ship was docking, she saw the men assembling in large numbers to wait for the stevedore to pick out the ones he required. She will never forget the look of hopelessness on the faces of the ones who had to walk away.
Additional information was gathered from many informal contacts, shorter interviews (including retired dockers), not so short telephone conversations with port officials and others with experience, involvement or interest in Liverpool Dockland. Many women’s jobs were reported and described to us, including the following:‘Checkers’ only worked inside offices, never outside on the quays. No women were allowed into hatch. ‘Sail Makers’ made canvas goods such as slings, as well as sails. (‘Dunnage’ i.e. mats, broken twigs, gratings etc. for stowing among cargo to prevent damage). Collecting scrap from dunnage, packing etc., cleaning and sorting it for Charlie Hart, the scrap collector. Fruit-sorting; discarding the ‘fades’ and repacking the rest. They worked for FitzPatrick, wholesale fruit merchants. Repair jobs; repairing crates which had burst open, such as tea crates and repacking them. ‘Nurses’ working at First Aid posts. ‘Biologists’ who went down into the holds of ships to inspect food imports for quality or infestation. ‘Women searchers’, especially in the hey-day of Liverpool’s passenger traffic. ‘Mates on barges’, at the time when barges were commonly used to carry cargoes to and from the docks; the skippers’ wives often served as mates.
We may not have exhausted the list of jobs but we hope that we have dispelled any lurking doubts about women’s useful contribution to past achievements of the Port.
Many comments and conclusions could be drawn from our study, but at this time when Trade Unions are being attacked and under mined from all sides, and usually being given savage and destructive press treatment, it might be useful to look at this angle.
Attitudes and references to the unions encountered in the interviews were very low-key or non-existent. Most of the women were blank or indifferent about union matters and only one or two voluntarily alluded to them. When we specifically asked about them they appeared to know nothing about the unions and said they had never been approached about joining. It seems that for years (centuries!) women have been conditioned into being in subordinate positions with less pay than men. So much so, that they have come to undervalue themselves and their work; to accept, almost without question, whatever they are offered in the way of pay and conditions. Their many extra commitments to home and family care meant they had no time, energy or incentive to organise, nor the confidence and will to press their case. If only the men’s unions had sought the women’s interest and support, together they could have achieved much more for both sexes; and it would not have been so easy for unscrupulous employers to use women as cheap labour to undercut men’s pay and jobs. The unions’ aims should include provision of more nursery care and help schemes and a real acceptance of the principle of jobs being given to the best applicants, regardless of sex.
Unfortunately, a time of low employment is not very propitious for promoting these ideas, but disarray and division can only help the powers that be, to administer the crunch as, when and where they feel it. As Goethe said: "Divide and rule a sound motto. (For the present Government?)
Unite and lead, a better one." (For the Unions?)
Reading about Jane Wear and the Equal Opportunities Bill, one might think that the battle is won, but it is not so. Prejudice lingers on and undermines the best intentions, however legally enshrined. Jane expressed it well: "You can get big tank tops in the ship’s engine room and I can just about lift them on my own. Some men need help lifting them. Even so, I think that in this job women have to work three times as hard as a man to be accepted or considered half as good as a man".
When we presented our report to the Seamen’s conference (September, 1987), we appreciated the responsive and attentive interest of the audience which consisted predominantly of men, and the stimulating discussion that followed. It was an encouraging experience which helped to make our venture worthwhile.
The booklet "Women’s Work on the Waterfront" is available at 2 from W.H. Smith, Albert Dock, Catheral shops, Museums, Libraries or Post-free at 2.40 from; Eileen Kelly, Second Chance, City College, Clarence Street, Liverpool, L3 5TP. Edith Dewar on behalf of Second Chance Women’s History Group.
Project 1985 - 1986.