From Lucy Delap in History & Policy:parvus wrote:I suspect this makes the question of references rather a moot point.
From The History Press:Even when formally employed before 1945, servants had fewer rights than other workers. Crucially, servants were unable to freely change jobs, since employers could legally refuse to provide a reference, making it extremely hard to find further work.
<snip>
While the high demand for servants at various points in the twentieth century gave them some resistance to exploitation, the legal framework governing their employment remained punitive. Insubordination and 'defiance to proper orders' were legitimate legal grounds for instant dismissal. One female servant sued her mistress for her wages at Shoreditch County Court in 1913, after she was fired for 'answering saucily' and 'slapping things all over the place'. She lost her case; unable to prove her word against that of her mistress. The ability of mistresses to withhold references or give a bad 'character' was key to keeping the balance of power on the side of employers, making servants reluctant to give any cause for complaint. Even during times of relatively high-demand, servants were well aware that any lack of compliance could lead to the sack. Mistresses had to provide one month's notice, or wages in lieu of the notice period, but crucially, they were not legally compelled to provide a reference. Few servants could gain another job without this. Jean Rennie, a cook in service in the 1930s, told of being sacked in London without a reference, after having had the nerve to admit to her mistress that she was a writer. Her subsequent destitution, despite her skilled status and high demand for cooks, makes clear the obstacles to those who left an employer on bad terms. Servants and reformers continually demanded changes to the character system, to compel mistresses to give a written reference that was subject to the usual libel laws.
The alternative to a life of domestic drudgery for many women, ranging in age from those in early pubescence to those well past middle-age, was prostitution, especially for those females raised in institutions and without family support. Some were unable to find husbands to support them, whilst others may have been unwilling to become a chattel for life. Domestic service was a precarious living, as girls could be sacked immediately for breaking house rules or committing some other misdemeanour. Once employed, young women would arrive with their boxes, containing their work clothes and undergarments, possibly a Bible and perhaps a few personal mementos of their lives before entering service. If a maid displeased her mistress, her box might well be retained after dismissal – possibly to make up a deficit from real or imagined thieving. However, without a box and a ‘character’, a written recommendation or reference, it was extremely difficult to find another position.
Working life was grim until about a century ago, whether in the city or in the country. Conditions were unimaginable to most of us. Job mobility was practically non-existent, in part because people were uneducated and unsophisticated, and didn't know enough to take advantage of opportunities.
When some people bemoan how things are so much more difficult for Generation this or Generation that, their reference point is usually within the last half century. If they extended their time horizon back to a century or so, they would be amazed.
The "New Normal" will be a huge improvement on our grandparents' or great-gramdparents' lives.
George