May 14, 20179 yr 29 minutes ago, gote said: I am as appaled by the fact that he admitted this thinking to a relatively casual visitor. Are you sure the MD was an engineer and not a beancounter. Coming as I do from an airy-fairy Arts and Crafts background, steeped in the philosophies and writings of John Ruskin, William Morris and William Pye...I have always used machines, jigs and jolly to improve the piece...but not to make the life of the craftsman a drudge! Making a life and not just making a living; pride in your work; human dignity and all that. If no skill is required of the maker they are merely used to do the bits the engineer can't mechanise cheaply. The craftsman as Factory Fodder. I was equally amazed he would say that...it has stuck with me for 25 odd years. But then I am equally amazed that such a large industry was still based on such an archaic financial arrangement between the makers and the management! It was such an historic ongoing arrangement between them, they obviously were both quite open about it and accepting of it. But I could not help thinking how more efficient and financially beneficial it would be if they were working together to improve the product and the rate of production! Having said that they must have arrived at a workable system between them...maybe the job was so tough that the makers needed the bonus incentive to keep them focussed, working for the team benefit, and safe. And both management and makers recognised this, even though they bickered about the money. I visited Hill Foot Forge in Sheffield around the same time and they had exactly the same piece work rate system. Alan
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.