CHAP. 10.—PROTECTION OF HOME WORKERS 83

of production, the employer of home workers, on the other hand,
Saves rent, expenses for heating, social insurance, etc. Home work
continues to stand the test of competition.
The French law, limited in its beneficial results, had no detrimental
effects. The experience of these 12 years shows, however, that the
French type of law will never have any very extensive results comparable
 to those obtained by minimum wage legislation in the British
Empire, It is true that home-work conditions have been infinitely
worse than factory conditions, and that equalization (if realized)
would in itself be an important step forward, and especially so when
stabilization of currency and of nominal wages of factory workers
renders that stabilization effective and lasting for a reasonable time.
. The French type of law does not seem to present those characteristic
 qualities which in England and Australia have led to the
Spontaneous and gradual extension of the sphere of these laws to
new groups of workers. At the best the French law, if not
thoroughly modified, will become a useful regulation to eliminate
some anomalies of the industrial system in the restricted sphere of
home workers, but it will not become the starting point for a new
conception of industrial relations, for the substitution of “needs of
the worker ” for “ offer and demand ” as a basis for the fixation of
wages,

NORWAY

THE Central Statistical Office of Norway investigated in 1904-5
the conditions of home workers *® and found average weekly
wages of 7.21 kroner * for married women and 8.67 kroner for wid.
ows, and 8.83 kroner for unmarried women. The working-day of
housewives was very long—for most of them 14 to 16 hours a day—
the insufficiency of the earnings and the absence of any control inducing
 some of these women to work 18 hours a day.
War conditions raised the pay to a certain extent, but as prices of
the necessaries of life doubled and later even tripled ** the misery
of the home workers remained practically unchanged. Popular compassion
 for their fate led in 1918 to the passing of a law establishing
wage boards for home workers.!®
These boards set up in 1918 a minimum wage, ratified by the
Central Home Work Council in Oslo and in Fredrikstad, of 1 krone
per hour. In 1922, when trade became depressed and prices also
declined, the hourly wages were reduced to 0.80 krone. Piece rates
(alone of practical value for home workers) were fixed in accordance,
 although detailed practical adjustments proved to be dificult.
In some instances the length of seams sewed was chosen as a measurement
 for the amount of work accomplished and the basis for the
wage to be paid.1®

15 International Labor Office. International Labor Review, Geneva, December, 1925,
p. 804: “ Minimum wage legislation in Norway,” by Fredrik Voss.
6 At par krone=26.8 cents.
17 International Labor Office. Studies and reports, series D (wages and hours of work),
No. 16: Wage changes in various countries, 1914 to 1925. Comparison of nominal and
real wages in Norway, 1914 and 1920. Geneva, 1926, p. 110.
18 International Labor Office. Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 1-10, London, 1918: Act respect-Ing
 industrial home work, dated Feb. 15, 1918.
‘glDternational Labor Office. International Labor Review, Geneva, December, 1925,
0. 3