All this work has con­tributed to the estab­lish­ment of a “dilu­tion” sys­tem. It was an agree­ment between man­age­ment and trade unions that helped replace skilled work­ers with unskilled or skilled work­ers, includ­ing old­er men, women and the dis­abled. The trade unions accept­ed this pro­pos­al under three main con­di­tions; First, that laws be intro­duced to pre­vent peo­ple from prof­it­ing from war; That the mea­sures would have last­ed only for the dura­tion of the war; And third­ly, that women receive the same salary as men. This mea­sure was put in place to main­tain the rate of pay for male work­ers and not out of sol­i­dar­i­ty with the suf­fragette move­ment or the recog­ni­tion of equal pay, as shown by the evi­dence pre­sent­ed by the Nation­al Union of Clerks in 1916: despite the ini­tial reluc­tance of employ­ers and unions to employ women once these agree­ments were in force, The gov­ern­ment began to adver­tise and encour­age both employ­ers and women to join the work­place. How­ev­er, with the growth of fem­i­nist his­to­ry since the late 1960s, a con­vinc­ing cri­tique of this the­sis has devel­oped. Gail Bray­bon point­ed to a process of “dilu­tion” in which women were used as sub­sti­tutes for men to argue that any changes in women‘s labor prac­tices caused by the war‘s demands for labor were strict­ly lim­it­ed and lim­it­ed, “only for the dura­tion.” [5] The 1915 Min­istry of Finance agree­ment between the gov­ern­ment and thir­ty-five trade unions allowed women and boys to enter fields of employ­ment such as engi­neer­ing, pro­vid­ed that they were trained for only part of the work of a skilled man to ensure that they remained unskilled or skilled work­ers, at pro­por­tion­ate­ly low­er rates of pay. The Amal­ga­mat­ed Engi­neer­ing Union, the main engi­neer­ing union, also nego­ti­at­ed a sep­a­rate cat­e­go­ry of mem­ber­ships for women, which ensured that their employ­ment end­ed at the end of the war.…