Reserved occupations

[MagpieDave]

My ancestor was a machine fitter in a munitions factory during the Great War. Would this have been a 'reserved occupation?' as I can find no record of him enlisting in the forces.

What exactly did reserved occupation mean? Did it just mean he was more valuable working in the munitions factory than he would have been in the trenches?

Did the people with reserved occupations take any 'verbal flak' from the guys who did risk their lives in the war?

Any other information gratefully received.

Thanks

 

[rolt968]

There are members of the Forum with much more detailed expertise than I have. However I will start and they will add details (and corrections).

There were no Reserved Occupations in the way that there were in World War 2. You might like to look at this section of the Long Long Trail particularly the section on exemptioms (from conscription). https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/the-1916-military-service-act/

Working as a machine fitter in a munitions factory he would probably have come under "if it is expedient in the national interests that he should be engaged in other work, or, if he is being educated or trained for any other work, that he should continue".

Do you know where he worked before war broke out?

RM

Edited 8 December , 2022 by rolt968

[Moonraker]

Over the years we've discussed reserved occupations several times, including here.

Googling "reserved occupations Great War Forum" will lead to other threads.

[rolt968]

2 hours ago, Moonraker said:

Over the years we've discussed reserved occupations several times, including here.

Googling "reserved occupations Great War Forum" will lead to other threads.

Thank you, Moonraker. For some reason I was struggling to find the previous threads.

[kenf48]

8 hours ago, MagpieDave said:

 

Did the people with reserved occupations take any 'verbal flak' from the guys who did risk their lives in the war?

It was a complex situation. There is no evidence that either side thought about the other. There is however, little doubt that those on the Home Front recognised the sacrifice of the infantry.

The first 100.000 of Kitchener's New Army were drawn in the main, from the usual recruiting pool which we would describe as the lower working classes, e.g. labourers. The next tranche, and the conscripts in 1916 were drawn from the lower middle classes, the clerks and office workers.  Meanwhile skilled working class men were essential to the war effort, they enjoyed increased wages and status.

The assertion of 'verbal flak' was not a consideration in what was a hierarchial and class defined social structure in 1914 -18.  in fact the skilled working class profited from the war, industrial relations and strikes for more pay were a feature of the Home Front. soldiers may have grumbled but there was no mechanism for these grumbles to be circulated. The same soldiers felt alienated from the civilian population and brief periods of leave did little to assuage that isolation.

As noted in previous posts there were two periods of enlistment in the Great War, the 'voluntary period' in 1914 -15 and then conscription under the terms of the Military Service Act. If a man did not volunteer, he could claim exemption from military service under the Act as previously described.

The main issue as described in the press was 'war profiteering' this tended to be directed towards merchants and retailers not skilled munitions workers although the latter did profit from the war as reflected in increased wages.

Inan Appendix to the list of certified occupations issued in 1916 it was noted there was a shortage and high demand for skilled tradesmen, including engineering fitters, in the munitions industry and an acknowledgement that Local Tribunals should consider exemption from Military Service as it was "considered expedient they should continue in their present occupation."

 

[MagpieDave]

rolt968, Moonraker and kenf48 - thank you gentlemen - you have done me proud.

Thanks for sharing your expertise with me. The picture is a lot clearer now.

Thanks again

MagpieDave

[kenf48]

5 hours ago, MagpieDave said:

The picture is a lot clearer now.

You're welcome.

I've previously posted this table from 'A Nation in Arms' (Becket and Simpson) to turn it on its head it indicates your ancestor was in fact in the majority of men of military age, i.e. those who did not enlist in the Army. 

 

N.B. The table does not include naval enlistments or other associated organisations who served in support of the military effort.

[Terry_Reeves]

In fact,  the term “reserved occupation “ was used often by the Ministry of Munitions in their voluminous collection of files at TNA which are very interesting if anyone who has the time to check them out.

TR