Diseño y características de la prueba

There is no single explanation as to why, in the early 1930s, the BBC changed its attitude towards the employment of married women. The reasons appear, rather, to be partly economic, partly social, partly personal and partly to do with the BBC’s changing perception of itself. By 1931, the Depression had taken a deep hold in the UK and, with millions out of work, discussions about married

women’s employment were heightened. This was true at the BBC where, as will be shown, economic considerations were coupled with new concerns about

62 The Gazette, July 27^th 1929, “The Employment of Married Women”

63 The Gazette, June 4^th 1927, Chairman’s Review of the Selling Staff at Oxford Street

64 Women’s Library, Women’s Employment Federation: 488 6/WEF/488-4, Advisory Department’s Committee Minutes and Correspondence 1938-40, June 29th 1939

women’s motivation for work. In addition, by 1931, the Corporation was a highly regarded national institution with senior management increasingly confident of their place within the establishment. Marriage bars were seen to be part of the prevailing cultural orthodoxy; a BBC marriage bar would accordingly add to the Corporation’s sense of conformity and respectability.

The first inklings of an alteration in the BBC’s attitude towards married women came in early 1931 when there was a “tentative” discussion on the Employment of Married Women at the weekly Control Board meeting. ⁶⁵ As a result, Miss Banks, then Women’s Staff Supervisor, was asked to furnish a nominal report.⁶⁶ The issue of married women working was discussed twice more at Control Board during 1931. In September, in the light of rising unemployment, the focus was on whether women whose husbands were in work should be refused BBC posts and whether the list of married women on the staff should be scrutinised, with a view to changes. It was reported that “the feeling was against the latter and in favour of the former.”⁶⁷ At a December meeting, the discussion moved on to the treatment of women on the staff who married in the future and to whether they should be allowed to remain, “views on both sides were expressed.” ⁶⁸ It was decided that Valentine Goldsmith, the Assistant Controller with responsibility for

Administration, would investigate practices in other firms and report back.

Douglas Clarke, Goldsmith’s assistant, carried out these investigations. In September 1932, he reported to Goldsmith that he had held long interviews with the relevant officers at the London Life Association, the Ministry of Labour, Imperial Chemical Industries, the Prudential Assurance Co., the National Provincial Bank, the LCC, Marconi Co. and the Underground Railways of London. ⁶⁹ Clarke also sought corroboration on the issue from the Civil Service.

With the exception of the Underground Railways of London, all the companies terminated their women staff on marriage, giving as their reasons “principally the labour market”, but most also expressed the personal view that married women

65 R3/3/7:Control Board Minutes, February 5^th 1931

66 There is no record of the report

67 Control Board Minutes, September 22^nd 1931

68 Control Board Minutes, December 15^th 1931

69 MWP:1, Clarke to Goldsmith, September 23rd 1932

“could not well carry on a business and run a home”. Clarke then analysed the pros and cons of employing married women. On the pro-side:

Women presumably have the right to live as they think fit, and may, therefore, seek employment or remain in employment after marriage.

Women remaining on the staff after marriage will presumably obtain an experience and balance lacking in certain single women. They will also be more stable members of the staff, as they will not have the restless outlook of so many girls who are contemplating marriage.

On the other hand:

With the labour market in its present condition it is unfair for married women who are supported by their husbands to compete against unmarried women, who must earn a living.

It would seem impossible for a married woman to work in business and at the same time maintain a reasonable home for her husband and her family.

It would seem that either her work in business must suffer, or her health, or her husband, or her children. Here again, through being in business, she may not have children, which might be bad for the community and herself.

Clarke’s report clearly showed that the rights and wrongs of employing married women encompassed social, cultural and economic concerns. He ended the report by determining that the arguments against retention outweighed those for

retention though he concurred that it was “a most difficult matter to decide upon.”⁷⁰

Economic concerns had already become pertinent to the BBC as shown by a memo to the BBC’s Regional Directors in May 1932. Clarke informed them that, while there was no definite alteration to the Corporation’s policy with regard to the employment of married women, they were now working to the principle that vacancies would be filled by unmarried women or widows, “rather than married women whose husbands are in employment.”⁷¹ Three months later, in a private memo to Goldsmith, Clarke reiterated the rationale that “in view of the existing state of unemployment and other reasons, women are discouraged as far as

70 Same document

71 MWP:1, Goldsmith to Regional Directors, May 16th 1932

possible from remaining with us after their marriage.⁷² Miss Freeman also

recalled that the employment situation had been a prompt. Looking back, in 1938, on the circumstances leading up to the marriage bar she recalled:

In 1931 the depression was at its worst and in discussing the matter with Mr Goldsmith recently, we agreed that any decisions we reached in regard to the retention or otherwise of married women on the staff was largely governed by the economic and social conditions existing at that time.⁷³

Thus economic considerations informed the Corporation’s initial discussions on married women’s work. However, documents from 1932 show that this was not the prime reason for the BBC marriage bar; rather it was a perceived difference in attitude by the BBC’s married women towards their work that become the

overriding rationale for its introduction.

In August 1932, a series of emotive memos from Clarke and Goldsmith underlined a changed outlook towards married female staff. The spark was a reconsideration of the BBC’s system of Marriage Leave. It was discovered that the system was being abused with the week’s honeymoon leave being taken, not at the point of the wedding itself, but at a time convenient to the individual. The leave was also being assumed as a right, rather than as a reward for good service, its original intent. Clarke, who was the first to raise the issue with Goldsmith, was angered by what he saw as attempts by some women to play the system; to take Marriage Leave even though they knew they would leave the BBC soon

afterwards. As he explained:

In certain cases women who wish to remain after marriage intend to stay on indefinitely…. In other cases, girls wish to remain in the service for a short period only after they are married, in order to add to their means.

They are thus making a convenience of the Corporation and in certain cases causing inconvenience to us. ⁷⁴

Clarke informed Goldsmith that, with Miss Freeman’s agreement, he had come to believe that the extra week’s leave should not be given to women who intended to

72 MWP:1, Clarke to Goldsmith, August 16th 1932

73 MWP:1, undated and unsigned memo. Judging by its content and personal nature, I have no doubt that it was written by Miss Freeman. It is placed with documents from 1938.

74 MWP:1, Clarke to Goldsmith, August 16th 1932

resign from the BBC soon after their marriage. Clarke and Freeman focussed their frustrations upon one woman, Miss R., who was seen to have taken

particular advantage of the system. Her work with the BBC had “not been in any way noteworthy”, and they would be “rather glad to replace her”. Clarke’s memo to Goldsmith thus raised two important issues: women’s intention to stay at the BBC after marriage and their aptitude. It begged the question: should those considered to be inadequate in their work have the right to stay?

Goldsmith’s response is telling. He both supported Clarke and Freeman in their desire to tighten up Marriage Leave and elaborated on Clarke’s distinction between women’s motivation for work:

The first [class of woman are] those who intend to marry and remain in the ranks of women workers permanently … i.e. they regard themselves equally with their husbands, as workers, and not as domestic partners in the marriage….. The second class consists of those who have no intention of being women workers save for their financial needs during a temporary period of getting a home together, whose outlook is different and whose mind is not here but in their homes.⁷⁵

It was hence in the interests of the BBC to differentiate between these two classes of women. As Goldsmith reasoned, Miss Freeman would have refused Miss R’s continuation of work after marriage had she been free to do so but, “Our marriage rules bereft her of this freedom”.⁷⁶

We can see, therefore, that the introduction of the BBC’s marriage bar was ignited by a particular case. This is confirmed by Miss Freeman who in 1938 recalled that, “[it] was, as far as I recollect, the case that made me first query the

Corporation's policy with regard to the automatic retention of women staff after marriage.”⁷⁷ Indeed, when the introduction of the bar was promulgated to women staff it was made clear that “certain cases” had led the BBC to reconsider its position.⁷⁸ Thus abuse of the system appears to have been a major trigger for the

75 MWP:1, Goldsmith to Carpendale? August 26th 1932. It is not completely clear who this was addressed to.

76 Same document

77 MWP:1: Freeman, undated and unsigned memo, op.cit.

78 MWP:1, BBC Marriage Bar Statement, August 15^th 1933

BBC marriage bar, a bar which would enable the retention of desirable women while allowing the Corporation to get rid of certain women it didn’t like. In her 1938 memo Miss Freeman was unambiguous that this was a factor:

…sometimes the girl in question was not particularly efficient and we were glad of the chance to get rid of her. In fact by not allowing automatic retention after marriage we were enabled to dispense with some of the less satisfactory employees whose work was not so poor as to justify

dismissal.⁷⁹

As well as pinpointing the two classes of women he believed were employed by the BBC, Goldsmith’s August 1932 memo also highlighted a further consideration for the Corporation; how its reputation as a progressive organisation might be affected by the introduction of a bar. In the memo he pointed out that:

The D.G. would like to discourage married women workers, but we have hesitated to change our rule in any way because in women’s papers our outlook has been upheld as a good one facing modern facts, and any change would have immediate outside notice and be widely commented upon.

This suggests a dilemma for the BBC. On the one hand management were mindful of the impact a marriage bar might have on the perception of the BBC as progressive. On the other hand, Clarke’s discussions with the likes of ICI, the National Provincial Bank and the Civil Service show that the Corporation were also keen to conform to the practices of other upstanding organisations.

The BBC’s deliberations on married women’s work thus included economic, social and personal considerations. The effects of unemployment caused by the Depression triggered the initial discussions on the introduction of a bar. However, it was the perceived realities of married women’s motivation for work and their intention to stay at the BBC which provided the greatest prompt, enough to override anxieties about any negative impact the bar might have on the Corporation’s standing. This chapter now turns to the practicalities of the introduction of the bar and the impact it had on women staff and the wider BBC community.

79 MWP:1: Freeman, undated and unsigned memo, op.cit.