|
Welcome to a brand of
Mathematical
Services.
It was not the conditions of work, or of their housing out of work butby
a wage cut at Manningham Mills, Bradford, UK, in 1891, by the inventor
of the machine that sealed the doom of the wool comber
Samuel Cunliffe Lister (himeself derived from a business partnership of
a glazier and wool stapler). Blue on blue. The bitter strike (which
failed) led to the rise of the Labour party and socialism
in the UK (to improve the lot of the oppressed side of the working
man). The 3 aims from the
outset were: (1) reduction in the wage to 8 hours a day or 48 hours per
week (2) a program of public works
and (3) land colonies. These seem reasonable if not beset with
significant practical problems (as was realized from the outset).
Equalizing reward means sharing in the doing with it's reward. But what
if someone wants to work more?
or if you are at a vital stage of a task (a plumbing task e.g.) and
your time is up!
No comment on conditions of work or fair pay for work (the actual
instigator of the strike).
Obviously if more people are working get them doing useful work that
benefits more, the disenfranchised.
But who pays for it (the seed of the strike in the first place again).
Land colonoies? This was
an attempt to get back to the land, the means of living, by making it
available - where everthing atarts - so it makes sense.
But where is the land in the UK to dish out? Look at the map of
Bradford in 1906 around when all this got going!
And somebody already owns it - where do you get the money from to buy
it?
There were plans to set up colonies in Canada (land for the workers),
where relations were still friendly
after the taxation(!) in the 13 colonies of the States. Not everybody's
cup of tea.
Paul D. Foy:
This is a walk up to Manningham Mills. 'https://youtu.be/QeC8fbJAvO8'.
Think about being a small cog (or child) scurrying around the machines
in this monolithic prison of a workplace, turning out velvets for the
well-heeled.
Post a comment:
|