The Control Room work was more operational than technical. The operators were expected to strictly adhere to a time schedule, but once the programmes were in progress there were only monitoring tasks to perform. As a result, the job was routine in nature, and quickly became mundane. Garratt indicated that lucky TAs, such as herself, could be promoted from the Control Room to Programme Engineering. The PEs and their assistants, the JPEs, enjoyed greater responsibility for programmes. The PE controlled the microphone, added needed sound effects, and played back any recorded material needed for a broadcast.88 The JPEs assisted with cuing up records, sound effects and other related tasks, and were eventually expected to assume the PE roles.89
86 Memo, 22-Jul-42, EiC London to EEO, "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators,
File 2."
87 Hayward, "Roy Hayward Remembers Control Room Life in 1942/43". 88 Garratt, interview.
144 | P a g e
As discussed in Chapter Four, the PEs and the JPEs positions within Engineering were ambiguous (see page 114). Most of them did not possess technical qualifications or degrees in engineering, but they did have a sophisticated understanding of the equipment and sound requirements.90 For perhaps a variety of reasons, PE roles were seen as a job category that would be suited to women, especially those with a background in either music or drama. This musical knowledge was useful in reading musical scores, in order to know when variations in the music would require sound level adjustments.91 Garratt related that the only qualification that she had obtained before applying to work at the BBC in 1941 was a gold medal in dramatics from the London Academy of Dramatic Art. This medal, along with her experience in a Kingston-upon-Thames department store acting as a sort-of in-house disc jockey, most likely put her on a trajectory to becoming a Programme Engineer.92
From the outset, TA(F)s were expected to take over the JPE and PE roles in the studios.93 There was even considerable debate about whether they should assume the roles directly from the training school, or serve an initial one-month term in the London Control Room.94 Florence was anxious to promote some of the TA(F)s to PE positions, but was concerned that a flood of applicants would follow if the positions were openly posted. Wynn agreed, and suggested candidates should be solicited from the EiCs at studio centres.95 Promotion to PE roles was attractive not just due to the more interesting nature of the role, but due to the significant increase in pay the TA(F) received. PEs received £5.0.0 per week plus a 5/0 cost-of-living bonus, which was a significant jump from the TA(F) wage of £3.10.0 that Control Room staff earned.96 Conversely, Junior Programme Engineers received a slightly lower wage than the TAs at £3.0.0.97 However, this
90 Memo, 16-May-40, FD to SSE; 19-Jun-40, EEO to SE(S); 24-Jul-40, SSE to SE(S); 28-Dec-40, SSE
to EEO, "Staff Policy, Exemption of Engineers, File 1a."; Memo, 4-Jan-41, EEO to SSE; 6-Jan-41, SSE to EEO, "Staff Policy, Exemption of Engineers, File 1b."
91 Memo, 24-Jul-40, SSE to SE(S), "Staff Policy, Exemption of Engineers, File 1a."; Memo, 21-Nov-
41, Whiting to EEO, "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators."; Michael Marshall, "Meet the B.B.C.'S New B. And C. Boss," Radio Pictorial, 28 July 1939, 7; Pawley, BBC Engineering
116-117. There seemed to be a desire for Engineering to take control of these somewhat technical roles, but their lack of engineering qualifications put them on an unequal footing in Engineering. Florence may also have feared that if the BBC tried to classify these non-engineers as engineers then the relationship with the MOLNS could be jeopardised by a potential inspection. Florence might have also considered that it would be worth sacrificing a small number of JPEs in order to retain transmitter staff.
92 Garratt, interview.
93 Memo, 3-Apr-41, EEO to C(E), "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators." 94 Memo, 4-Sep-41, EEO to SSE; 26-Oct-41, SSE to SE(S) through AC(E); 3-Nov-41, SSE to SE(S);
10-Nov-41, SE(S) to AC(E), SSE & EEO, ibid.
95 Memo, 2-Mar-42, EEO to SSE, "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators, File 2." 96 Memo, 3-Sep-41, SE(S) to SSE, "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators." 97 Memo, 3-Sep-41, SE(S) to SSE, ibid.
145 | P a g e
discrepancy between the wages of control room operatives and studio PEs was an argument that undoubtedly predated the introduction of female technical staff in Engineering.
T
RANSMITTERSFlorence’s ability to fulfil his role as recruiter for Engineering was not an easy one. He met with continued resistance from within his own division over his plans to maintain wartime staffing levels. While women were accepted in recording studios, control rooms, and broadcast studios, moving women into transmitters was an incremental process. Florence seemed determined to overcome these restrictions and limitations that he labelled unnecessary, especially in wartime.98 Although there are only hints indicating Florence’s intentions, the techniques he employed to push the boundaries to allow women to fill a wider variety of roles appeared to be deliberate. After agreeing that women could be employed in operational jobs in control rooms and recording, Ashbridge further conceded that women could also work in the control rooms of the larger transmitters. This concession was gained before the first group of female trainees had completed their training, and was not therefore based on operational experience.99 Florence immediately contacted Elise Sprott, the Public Relations Assistant for women’s affairs, who was preparing an article on the new TA(F)s, to make her aware of this concession, and perhaps to get it immediately in print.100 He also contacted Pym and noted: “. . . that after we have had experience of the work which the women operators undertake it will be possible to recommend their doing other duties at transmitting stations.”101
At the start, women working on transmitters of any size were supposed to work in pairs, which prompted questions about what should happen if one was off sick or on leave. Should her partner be sent home as well, or should she carry on alone?102 Were women required to work all shifts, and should they receive pay differentials?103 In each case, the EiCs were instructed to treat women staff the same as equivalent male staff members. They were to work all shifts, be paid on an equivalent basis, and were expected to carry on working even if they were the only woman on shift. Both Florence and Wynn worried that women would not be treated fairly, and reminded staff members to treat their female
98 Memo, 16-Sep-41, EEO to C(E); 2-Oct-41, EEO to SE(T), ibid.; Memo, 2-Apr-42, EEO to SSE,
"Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators, File 2."
99 Memo, 26-Jun-41, EEO to C(E), "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators."
100 Memo, 26-Jun-41, EEO to Sprott, ibid. There was no indication in the file if the article was for a
specific magazine or for a BBC publication. Efforts to locate articles published in the time frame have not been able to identify a specific article on the subject.
101 Memo, 26-Jun-41, EEO to DSA, ibid.
102 Memo, 15-Dec-41, EiC Bartley to EEO; 18-Dec-41, EEO to EiC Bartley, ibid.; Memo, 27-Jan-42,
EiC Blackburn to EEO; 29-Jan-42, EiC Moorside Edge to EEO,"Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators, File 2."
103 Memo, 18-Aug-41, EiC Edinburgh to EEO & HO; 26-Aug-41, EiC Glasgow to EEO; 6-Sep-41,
EiC Birmingham to EE; 16-Sep-41, EEO to EiC Birmingham,"Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators."
146 | P a g e
colleagues with respect and to remember that these women were fulfilling a vital war service.104 Whether or not this sentiment was wholeheartedly accepted, Florence wrote that, in his opinion, that most of the EiCs understood the need to use the female technicians, and appreciated the TA(F)s’ efforts and professionalism.105 Florence’s assessment can be demonstrated by the positive assessments voiced by Cecil Bottle and James Godfrey noted above.
Despite these positive expressions, the women’s presence at the transmitters did generate some hostility. The EiC at Droitwich, R.H. Humphreys, caused a minor furore when he boasted to his equivalents at other transmitters that he was only required to take on six TA(F)s. This boast was quickly quashed by the head of the Transmitter Section, Leslie Hotine, when it was pointed out that Droitwich would only be getting six women initially as that was all that were available. More women would certainly follow when enough had finished training. Humphreys further inflamed the wrath of Wynn when he indicated that he did not allow women to clean inside the equipment as their skirts kept getting stuck. It transpired that Humphreys had ruled that women were not allowed to wear trousers during day-time shifts. Wynn was furious that a local rule had been established without consultation, as he held that women should be allowed to wear trousers, of a quiet colour, on all shifts.106
This story regarding restricting women’s attire at the Droitwich Transmitter, especially the note regarding trouser colour, is a well-travelled story. Edward Pawley, a long-serving member of the BBC Engineering Division, mentioned the incident in his 1972 book BBC Engineering.107 Doreen Tagholm referred to Pawley’s description of the dispute in her oral history.108 Pawley was impersonal about his role in the Recording Section in his book, but his discussion of the topic tried to emphasise that some in the Engineering Division used petty means to keep women from full participation. The BBC file and Pawley’s account both indicate that the colour of the trousers was an aside, much like any employer would make about appropriate dress. Tagholm admitted that there were some “old diehards”, but that overall the women were accepted and allowed to progress.109
Despite these areas of friction, the male and female staff at the transmitters appeared to work in harmony. John Phillips reported that when he joined in 1943 as a TA,
104 Memo, 26-Jul-41, SSE to All EiCs, ibid.
105 Memo, 21-Oct-41, EEO to DSA; 3-Nov-41, EEO to C(A), "Staff Policy, Exemption of Engineers,
File 2a."
106 Memo, 23-Feb-42, SSE to SE(T), "Departmental, Engineering Division, Women Operators, File
2."
107 Pawley, BBC Engineering 302.
108 Nicholson, What Did You Do in the War, Mummy?, 190-191. 109 Ibid.
147 | P a g e
the TA(M)s and TA(F)s worked the positions in rotation without any differentiation, and that there was feeling of camaraderie among all staff. A typical shift would consist of about ten staff members, with approximately forty on the transmitter as a whole. Phillips estimated that women were a quarter of the staff – ten versus twenty-five to thirty men. There were four duty positions that were handled by the junior staff that were worked in turn.110