Lady telephone operators

Under new organisation at the Post Office, girls no longer have to cover themselves with an overall.

There are health stipulations:

• She mustn't be shorter than 5ft 2in.
• She has to undergo a medical (by a woman doctor, of course) and her eyesight is tested
• Teeth are examined and problems put right (so that having a toothache can't be used an excuse for time off work)

 Girls enjoy a "sumptuous" dinner in their decorated-with-fresh-flowers-brought-from-home dining room.  They themselves decide what kind of meat they will eat tomorrow and the cooks prepare it on the spot (no contract caterers).  Cost to the operator: 5 pence.

Initially, operators had to find what they could from the street during their lunch break; tea and cake at a teashop (the Victorian Kamps or Starbucks).  They would rush back and faint at their switchboards from malnourishment (!)  

Cynically, I wonder at the company's generosity in providing lavish catering facilities on site.  The author talks of the operators that "rush" out in all weathers and "hurry" to finish a cup of tea.  Yet photographs show us the operators, first taking lunch in their dining rooms and then relaxing in their sitting room/rest room, reading or taking tea.  Perhaps (in the early years, at least) it was considered more seemly for the operators to stay on the premises and not rush about the streets looking for somewhere to stop and eat.  Telephone work was certainly a respectable occupation for young ladies: they were not exposed to the public (Occomore, Number Please, 69).

Switchboards were first operated by young boys, with disastrous results.  They fought all day and were rude to callers.  If boys had managed to keep these jobs for themselves, I have a hard time imagining them having lunch in flower-strewn dining rooms.  






Henry Thompson.  “Telephone London.”  In Living London.  Vol. III., ed. George R. Sims.  London, 1903; p.115-119.
David Occomore.  "Number, Please!"  a history of the early London telephone exchanges from 1880 to 1912.  Romford, Ian Henry Publ., 1995.

Living London

“[Voices] … flow over our heads, around us, and under our feet in a ceaseless silent chorus.”

Castells’ “space of flows” – these voices are sealed inside the system and no one hears them when passing by; the only ones to hear are “those for whom they are intended.”

Content of the conversations

• A City trader’s instructions
• Party invitation [were invitations delivered by phone socially acceptable by now, compared to written ones?]
• Household order to a tradesman

Traffic flow lessens during the night; calls are made for emergencies:

• Call for a doctor
• Fire
• Police

Author gives extensive description of telephone use at the Stock Exchange, IMMEDIATELY following an account of the death-defying engineers and linesmen who repair and maintain the wires.  The hidden reading seems to be saying: 'the telephone is primarily for business use.'

National Telephone Company

• Operators are recruited from well-to-do, respectable families (doctors, lawyers, etc.)
• They need to be literate, numerate
• Training given on full pay
•  No night work, this is done by male colleagues
• Women wear gloves while working to protect hands (!) – was it such rough work?  These ladies would not want to have hands that looked as if they belonged to working-class girls or washerwomen.
•  The “kindly” NTC provided overalls for the girls to wear over their own dresses.  Otherwise a poorly dressed girl would be “distracted” by the fineries worn by her neighbour.  Socialist uniformity, or schoolroom discipline?

More space of flows

Telephone traffic has peaks and troughs, according to the business being conducted around London. 

• The City stops its activities at 7.00pm
• West End is busy 10.00pm till midnight
• Holborn wakes up early – residents here have dealings with Smithfield Meat Market

The exchange as a temporal microcosm of all of London life

Operators’ dining facilities

Much is made (here, and elsewhere) of the sumptuous and generous catering facilities available to the operators.  Scant reference is made to the girls’ actual duties, general working conditions, relationships with supervisors/other operators, the public’s perception of their job.  I don’t think we have any first-hand accounts from operators themselves about their job?  Why this imbalance in reporting?

• Need to present the job in favourable light in order to attract new recruits: high turnover (?) – girls left upon marriage and had to be replaced.

• This was a menial job performed by single girls whose job prospects in these years were seriously circumscribed.  But their participation was VITAL for the running of the telephone system – if the girls decided to down tools and strike, the whole telephone network would be useless.  By emphasising the fringe benefits, perhaps we are pampering to the operators to keep them satisfied (and not pack in their jobs)?  And perhaps by emphasising these benefits, the general public is left with the impression that the telephone company holds its operators in high esteem and appreciates the part the girls play in keeping the system up and running every day?

Henry Thompson.  “Telephone London.”  In Living London.  Vol. III., ed. George R. Sims.  London, 1903; p.115-119.