Children and adults worked the same hours because of the family's presence.
As long as family members worked side by side, adult workers were not interested in limiting the minimum working age or hours.
When technical changes threatened to place control and discipline in the hands of impersonal managers and overseers, adult workers protested against inhuman conditions in the name of their children.
Employers and social reformers in Parliament felt differently.
They used parliamentary reports to influence public opinion.
Robert Owen, a successful manufacturer in Scotland, testified in 1816 before an investigat ing committee on the basis of his experience.
He argued that employing children under ten years of age as factory workers was not beneficial to the proprietors.
It led to a decline in the factory workday of children between nine and thirteen hours and the employment of adolescents between fourteen and eighteen hours.
The hours that children under nine could work and the hours that children over nine could work were required by factory owners.
The younger children were less likely to be employed in the factory.
The pattern of whole run elementary schools was broken by the Factory Act.
Between 1790 and 1840, ties of blood and kinship were important in Great Britain.
Subcontractors were hired by many manufacturers and builders.
Subcontractors hired and fired their own workers, many of whom were friends and relations.
Newcom ers who traveled a lot to find work were particularly interested in ties of kinship.
Ireland was home to many urban workers in Great Britain.
Forced out of rural Ireland by population growth and bad economic conditions, Irish in search of jobs took what they could get.
The Irish worked together, formed their own neighborhoods, and thrived because of their ethnic and religious ties.
The sexual division of labor changed during the Industrial Revolution.
People worked in family units in preindustrial Europe.
By tradition, certain jobs were defined by gender, but by the 1830s it was collapsing as child labor was restricted and new attitudes emerged.
There was a different sexual division of labor.
The man became the family's primary wage earner by 1850, while the married woman only had limited job opportunities.
Women were expected to concentrate their efforts at home.
Studies show that women from the working class were less likely to work full-time for wages, as mother and homemakers, and they often earned small amounts doing putting-out handicrafts at home and husband as wage earner.
Second, when married women did work for wages outside the house, they usually came from the poor families.
The poor married or widowed women were joined by legions of young unmarried women who worked in textile factory work and domestic service.
Women were limited to low-paying, dead-end jobs.
The new sexual division of labor in Britain was a major development in the history of women and of the family.
There is no agreement on the causes of the reorganization of paid work.
The role of male-dominated craft unions in denying working women access to good jobs is stressed by these scholars.
The emergence of a sex-segregated division of labor can be explained by a combination of economic and biological factors.
There are three ideas that stand out in this interpretation.
The new and unfamiliar discipline of the clock and machine was hard on married women of the boring classes.
Child care in a way that labor on the farm or in the cottage did not conflict with relentless factory discipline.
A female factory worker would like a child of seven or eight working beside her, but she couldn't breast-feed her baby on the job because she was pregnant.
If her family could not afford child care, a working-class woman would focus on it at home.
It was an extremely demanding job to run a household in primitive urban poverty.
There was no public transportation.
It was a constant chal enge to shop and feed the family.
Taking a brutal job outside the house had limited appeal to the average married woman from the working class.
Part of the answer is that the de sire of males is to hold women down.
Sex segregation in employment was seen as a response to the new industrial system.
In the past, young people worked under the supervision of their parents.
Girls and boys were able to mix on the job without being watched.
Older people try to control the sexuality of working-class youths by segregating jobs by gender.
A graphic example of this concern can be found in investigations into the British coal industry before 1842.
The middle-class men leading the inquiry were horrified by the sight of girls and women working without shirts, which was a common practice because of the heat, and they assumed the prevalence of sex with the male.
In a family unit, most girls and married women worked for related males.
Many witnesses from the working class lied about the dangers of the mines.