4. OCCUPATIONAL DAMAGE TO CLOTHING

During the course of the interview workers in each occupation were asked whether any particular damage was caused to their clothing by their work; if damage was caused, what kind of clothing (i.e., whether protective clothing, outer clothing, underwear or footwear) was affected, and what was the cause of the damage. These questions are Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the Questionnaire.

The proportions of workers in each group stating that particular damage was caused to clothing are as follows:-

It may be taken from this that practically all workers in these occupations have their clothes damaged by their work.

Tabulations for each occupation showing the proportion of workers complaining of the different types of damage to each kind of, clothing are given on pages 56 to 63, with notes on the causes of the damage.

In order to arrive at an estimate of the severity of damage for each occupation, an index has been prepared on page 34. This index enables comparisons to be made between each occupation, and it is the result of adding together the number of workers who complain of each kind of damage and dividing by four, thus an average of the four kinds of clothing. This is done separately for each occupation. The kinds of damages have then been summed, the resulting figure being the index of severity. This does not form a completely satisfactory index, since the kinds of damage are added together as if they had equally damaging effects on clothing. The more severe kinds of damage should be given a weight. There are, however, reasons why the index can be accepted as an approximate indication of severity. Apart from the difficulty of arriving at a fair weighting system, there is a possibility that the most severe kinds of damage have far less incidence than the less severe kinds of damage, and that their total destructive effects could be similar. As an example,. although severe burning of clothes probably results in total destruction of garment, the precautions taken against such an occurrence make it infrequent, and render this hazard of about the same destructive effect as the comparatively slow, less immediately destructive, but continuous effect of excessive perspiration or weather. Furthermore, weights are generally of less importance than values, and it could be that a weighted treatment of the figures would give a not very different picture. Moreover, the indices carry their own justification. Men and women in the same occupation, have indices of practically the same value, e.g. , distributive workers, men 1.16, women = 1.15; agriculturists, men = 1.73, women = 1.75; iron & steel manufacture, men = 2.06, women = 2.01. There is no reason to suppose that one sex has more or less damage than the other in these occupations. On the other, hand, it is known from other evidence that men in heavy-engineering & ‘shipbuilding have heavier tasks than women, and the indices are, men = 2.65, women = 2.10.

It is suggested therefore that the index can be taken as an approximation to the severity of damage to clothing, as a guide for comparing one occupation with another.