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