You have not been recognized as a subscriber to Labor History online. About 614 words from this article are provided below; about 10101 words remain.
 
If you are a individual subscriber to Labour History, you may:
• login here if you have already registered for online access.
• Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.

If you are not a subscriber to Labour History, you can:
• subscribe here.
• Purchase this article in PDF form for $10.00.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of Labour History (82 - present).

Instititutions can:
• Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.
Peter Sheldon | The Dirtiest of Jobs: Maintaining Sydney's Sewers 1890–1910 | Labour History, 93 | The History Cooperative
93  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
November, 2007
Previous
Next
Labour History

Table of Contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 
 
 

The Dirtiest of Jobs: Maintaining Sydney's Sewers 1890–1910

Peter Sheldon*


Public health crises followed as provision of water supply and sewage disposal failed to keep pace with Sydney's rapid, mid-nineteenth century growth. Construction of necessary infrastructure and the creation of the Water Board, in 1888, to administer it proved to be the solution. This article tells of those who laboured to maintain Sydney's sewers and thereby helped guarantee the public health of that metropolis. It is a story of grindingly heavy, dangerous and nauseatingly foul work but also of the workers who willingly took that work on. This willingness drew from life experiences and working histories in an era marked by a major depression and persistent employment insecurity for the formally unskilled. Under a paternalist Board, they found employment security, generous employment conditions and wide autonomy in carrying out their work. This convinced them to choose the protected backwater of house unionism rather than more militant union tendencies evident among labourers outside the Board.

1
Public debates about the provision of a sufficient water supply for Sydney and more effective forms of sewage removal have periodically erupted since the city's early days. Efforts to meet these challenges to service a fast-growing and spreading population in a difficult environment often only came to fruition once the existing situation appeared irremediably desperate. Political impediments of different types blocked earlier resolution particularly as these solutions involved very large expenditures. Such was the case from the 1850s when severe droughts and then environmentally-generated epidemics highlighted the inadequacies in quality and quantity of Sydney's existing water supplies, poor plumbing practices and the heavy reliance on outdoor cesspits that substituted for the lack of urban sewerage works. After decades of controversy, debate, sanitary reform campaigns and delaying tactics from opponents of systematic change, the New South Wales (NSW) government introduced Premier Henry Parkes' own long-sought, far-reaching public administration and engineering responses.1 2
      In 1879, the government had work start on the Upper Nepean water supply scheme and, in November 1886, Nepean water finally began to provide the long-term answer to the city's growing water needs. In the meantime, legislation – first in 1880 and then, more importantly in 1888 – established what soon became the Metropolitan Board of Water Supply and Sewerage (the Board). The Board was an authority whose membership came jointly from the ranks of Sydney's municipal councils and from appointees of the NSW government. Upon its establishment, the Board took over the ownership, control and operation of completed water supply and sewerage infrastructure.2 3
      The other part of the water supply and sewerage industry, construction of main works, remained with the government through the Public Works Department (PWD). This division between the two public sector agencies split the water and sewerage workforce. PWD manual employees worked on large construction jobs; the Board largely concentrated its manual workforce on maintenance although it also had responsibility for minor construction works. This industry was to become a major force in public sector activity, employment and urban development over successive decades. 4
      From this author's published work, we know something of the people who worked in that industry, both employers and employees. The construction of water supply and sewerage works and their maintenance relied heavily on the work of large numbers of labourers. Labourers, with their lack of formal craft skills, did a wide variety of jobs in different industries. Many had in common experience in building, construction and quarrying. Irrespective of the skills peculiar to the different jobs (and many of these were interchangeable), the work required great strength and endurance and appears to have been an area of entirely male employment.3 . . .

There are about 10101 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.