FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81  
82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   >>   >|  
tes) is:-- / 20) 1120 ( L56 PER TON. 100 ---- 120 120 At 2s. 6d. per foot (the best of pot-metal blues, and rubies generally):-- 56 56 28 --- 2-1/2 times 56 = 140 L140 PER TON. At 5s. a foot (gold-pink, and pale pink, venetian, and choice glasses generally):-- 56 x 5 --- L280 PER TON. Therefore these glasses are worth respectively--56 times, 140 times, and 280 times as much upon the bench as they are when thrown below it! And yet I ask you--employer or employed--is it not the case that, often--shall we not say "generally"?--in any given job as much goes below as remains above if the work is in fairly small pieces? Is not the accompanying diagram a fair illustration (fig. 63) of about the average relation of the shape cut to its margin of waste? [Illustration: FIG. 63.] Employers estimate this waste variously. I have heard it placed as high as two-thirds; that is to say, that the glass, when leaded up, only measured one-third of the material used, or, in other words, that the workman had wasted twice as much as he used. This, I admit, was told me in my character as _customer_, and by way of explaining what I considered a high charge for work; but I suppose that no one with experience of stained-glass work would be disposed to place the amount of waste lower than one-half. Now a good cutter will take between two and three hours to cut a square foot of average stained-glass work, fairly simple and large in scale; that is to say, supposing his pay one shilling an hour--which is about the top price--the material he deals with is about the same value as his time if he is using the cheapest glasses only. If this then is the case when the highest-priced labour is dealing only with the lowest-priced material, we may assume it as the general rule for stained-glass cutting, _on the average_, that "_labour is less costly than the material on which it is spent_," and I would even say much less costly. But it is not to be supposed that the little more care in avoiding waste which I am advocating would reduce his speed of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81  
82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
material
 

glasses

 

average

 
generally
 

stained

 

costly

 

labour

 

fairly

 

priced

 

cutter


supposing

 
simple
 

square

 
suppose
 
charge
 

considered

 

explaining

 

amount

 

shilling

 

disposed


experience

 

cutting

 

supposed

 

advocating

 

reduce

 
avoiding
 

general

 

assume

 

cheapest

 

dealing


lowest

 

highest

 
pieces
 

remains

 

Therefore

 

accompanying

 

diagram

 

choice

 

venetian

 

relation


illustration
 
employer
 

employed

 

workman

 

wasted

 
rubies
 

thrown

 
character
 
measured
 

Employers