A History of the Ministry of Information, 1939-46
WOMEN’S APRONS
Interviewing April 28th - May 8th
668 women were interviewed, including 153 subject to hazards of heat and burning, 299 to oil, grease and fats, and 208 to acids and corrosive substances.
I. TYPE OP APRON WORN AND TYPE CONSIDERED BEST FOR WORK
(Percentages under “Type worn” add to more than 100 because in some cases women mentioned two types of apron, either of which they usually wore)
Type Best
Women workers were asked which type of apron they considered best for their work. Comparing the three hazard groups, it may be seen that a significantly higher proportion of women in the Heat and Burning group and in the Oil, Grease and Fats group than in the Acids and Corrosives group do not wear an apron of any sort for their work.
The proportion of women preferring a leather apron was significantly higher in the Heat and Burning hazard group than in either of the other groups.
The proportion of women who considered an apron with rubber on both sides best for their work was significantly higher in the Acid and Corrosive substances group than in the other two hazard groups. It was reported by investigators that a leather apron is adequate for work with “still” acids, but not for the bubbly, splashing sort. Canvas and leather aprons have a disadvantage for workers with oil, grease and fats in that they are absorbent.
Numbers of workers in the three individual hazard groups who had been in their job up to and over 2 years are too small to justify separate analysis.
Comparing the total preferences for those who had been in their jobs up to and over 2 years there are no significant differences between the two groups.
II. REASONS FOR PREFERENCE
Numbers of women who gave preferences for the various types of aprons are only large enough to justify giving reasons for their preferences in the case of canvas aprons and those with rubber on both sides.
Type Preferred by Type Worn
Owing to the small numbers of women who preferred any one type of apron in each hazard group, it is not practicable to give individual group, comparisons of type preferred and type worn. The comparison of total numbers is given below, in the case of cotton, leather and canvas aprons, and those made with rubber on both sides.
TYPE WORN
| Best Type | Cotton | Leather | Canvas | Rubber both sides | Oilskin | N.A. | SAMPLE |
| Cotton | 39 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 40 |
| Leather | 7 | 40 | 6 | - | - | - | 53 |
| Canvas | 6 | 1 | 60 | 1 | - | 6 | 74 |
| Rubber both sides | 2 | - | 1 | 79 | 3 | 5 | 90 |
From these figures it can be seen that a large majority of women were wearing the type of apron they considered best for their work.
Alternatives
For the same reason as above, only total numbers can be given for a comparison between types preferred and types which were considered as adequate alternatives.
Alternative
(Brackets round a number indicate that the type preferred was considered to be the only adequate type)
Analysis of Hazard Groups by Area
The only significant differences between the distribution of workers in the three hazard groups in the five areas is that there was a smaller proportion of workers in oil, grease and fats interviewed in the London area than in the South, South-West, South-East and E. Anglia area, and a smaller proportion of acid and corrosive workers interviewed in this latter area than in London.
It should be borne in mind in considering regional results that the numbers interviewed in each area are small, and also that the actual proportion of workers subject to the different kinds of hazards in different areas is not known.
Type Best for Work in Five Areas
This table show’s that proportions of women preferring leather aprons for their work are significantly higher in the London and S.,S.W.,S.E.& E. Anglia areas than in the other three areas. Proportions who preferred canvas aprons are significantly higher in London than in the Midlands and S. Wales area.
These results should be considered in relation to the previous table - Analysis of Hazard Group by area.
III. WHERE APRONS WERE OBTAINED
An analysis by area of sources from which aprons were obtained is given below. Again it should be remembered that numbers wearing aprons in the different areas are small, and that the results may be dependent to some extent on the type preferred, and on the composition of the regional sample in respect of different hazard groups.
Only in the case of women preferring canvas aprons and those with rubber on both sides are the numbers sufficient to give an analysis by types of apron.
| Canvas | Rubber both sides | |
| % | % | |
| Dept. store or large local shop | 7 | - |
| Small local shop | 9 | 3 |
| Employer | 61 | 93 |
| Second-hand | 4 | - |
| No information | 19 | 3 |
| SAMPLE | 74 | 91 |
IV. ATTEMPTS TO BUY SINCE CHRISTMAS
Analysis by area of Q.6 “Have you tried to buy one since Christmas?”
Of those who preferred canvas aprons, 26% had tried to buy one since Christmas, and of those who considered aprons with rubber on both sides the best type for their work, 20% had tried to buy.
Numbers are not large enough to give results for other types of apron.
Those women who had tried to buy aprons were asked if they had had any difficulty in doing so.
Numbers of women who had tried to buy aprons were so small that it is not justifiable to give percentages even for the total results: out of the total 55 woman who had tried to buy., 20 had had difficulty, and three-quarters of these difficulties were due to there being no supplies available in the shops.
Comparison of (1) Type by type worn and (2) Type preferred and suggested alternative in three hazard groups
TYPES PREFERRED