No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“The Art of Good Management”
Managerial Control of Work in the Britlsh Pottery Industry, 1990–25*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
This paper is derived from a study of work and trade unionism in the British pottery industry in the first three decades of the twentieth century. It is an attempt to open up the history of pottery management's labour strategies for debate, given the relatively slight attention the subject has received in general or with regard to this important period. Ceramic historians, in common with labour and social history, have neglected the detailed study of management, while contemporary writers on the Potteries often lapsed into a “demonology” when dealing with pottery manufacturers. In contrast to the more famous volumes on social conditions in the Potteries by Shaw or Owen and Warburton's examination of trade unions, the early-twentieth-century pottery-owners have not been the subject of sustained analysis. Yet an orthodoxy of sorts has developed, which sees the industry's management as typically crude and unchanging in technique. Economists such as B. R. Williams or geographers like Yeaman have been unchallenged in their assertions that owners could almost dispense with labour-control strategies in the light of the workforce's passivity and the tranquility of industrial relations in the industry.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1984
Footnotes
*
The quotation is from a speech by Sydney Malkin to the newly-formed Pottery Managers and Officials Association in 1919, see below, p. 371. I would like to thank Dr Tony Mason and Professors Royden Harrison and Sidney Pollard for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References
1 Whipp, R., “Potbank and Union: A Study of Work and Trade Unionism in the British Pottery Industry 1900–1924” (Ph.D. thesis, Centre for the Study of Social History, Warwick University, 1983). A potbank is the local term for a pottery factory.Google Scholar
2 See for example Burchill, F. and Ross, R., A History of the Potters' Union (Hanley, 1977);Google Scholar Wilson, B., “Victims of England's Industrial System”, in: Young Oxford, II (1900);Google Scholar Williams, L.J., “The Coalowners”, in: A People and a Proletariat, ed. by Smith, D. (1980), p. 95. Place of publication is London unless otherwise stated.Google Scholar
3 Shaw, C., When I was a Child (1903);Google Scholar Owen, H., The Staffordshire Potter (1901).Google Scholar
4 Warburton, W.H., The History of Trade Union Organisation in the North Staffordshire Potteries (1931).Google Scholar
5 For an example of the attention given to the early pottery entrepreneurs of the eighteenth century, and their control of work, see McKendrick, N., “Josiah Wedgwood and Factory Discipline,” in: Historical Journal, IV (1961).Google Scholar
6 Williams, B.R., “The Pottery Industry,” in: The Structure of British Industry, ed. by Burn, D. (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 298–300.Google Scholar
7 Yeaman, W.J., “Geographical Factors Influencing the Major Changes in the Pottery Industry” (M.A. thesis, University of London, 1968), p. 150.Google Scholar
8 The notion of managerial strategy used here derives from Chandler's definition, viz., “the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses for action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals”, Chandler, A., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), p. 13.Google Scholar
9 See alsoIngham, G.R., Size of Industrial Organization and Worker Behaviour (Cambridge, 1970), for a detailed study of the relationship between firm size and industrial relations.Google Scholar
10 Ceramic will be used here to denote any article made of pottery. The pottery industry at this time had six main product types: earthenware, china, sanitary ware, jet and rockingham, electrical and chemical ware, and tiles.
11 Burton, W., evidence to Departmental Committee on the Truck Acts (1906), Report [Cd 442], q. 17077; Staffordshire Advertizer, 28 04 1900Google Scholar; The Pottery Gazette (hereafter PG), 1 November 1906, P. 1298; 1 December 1923, p. 1670 1 January 1926, p. 507; The Times Engineering Supplement, 21 April 1913, p. 8; The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., XXV, p. 951; J. Lovatt to Twyfords, 7 April 1913, for the differences between the larger and smaller firms, and 1924 Wage Inquiry, p. 48, both in the Ceramic and Allied Trade Union's Archive Collection (hereafter CATUAC), housed at the Union's head office, Hanley, , Stoke-on-Trent; Regional Development in Britain, ed. by Manners, G. et al. , 2nd ed. (Chichester, 1980), p. 234 History of the County of Stafford, II, ed. by M.W. Greenslade and J.G. Jenkins (Oxford, 1978), p. 44; United States Report on the Pottery Industry (Washington, 1915), p. 389.Google Scholar
12 Clapham, J.H., An Economic History of Modern Britain (3 vols; Cambridge, 1926–1938), II, p. 212;Google Scholar Pollard, S., Development of the British Economy (1962), pp. 10, 62, for the sectors where unit-size increase was important; E. Hobsbawm, Labour's Turning Point (1948), p. xv; M. Reich, D.M. Gordon and R.C. Edwards, “A Theory of Labor Market Segmentation”, in: American Economic Review, LXIII (1973), No 2.Google Scholar
13 Kelly' Directory of 1891 lists 499 firms, Staffordshire Census, 1901, p. 69, 445 (excluding bricks and tiles), Staffordshire Census, 1911, p. 49, 548, and Staffordshire Census, 1921, pp. 54–55, 491.
14 PG, 1 02 1909, p. 321;Google Scholar British, Labour Statistics (1971), p. 408, shows that in 1930, nationally, 87.98% of firms employed under 200 workers.Google Scholar
15 PG, 1 10 1924, p. 1390.Google Scholar
16 Gay, P. and Smyth, R., The British Pottery Industry (1974), P. 42;Google Scholar Moisley, H., “The Potteries Coalfield” (M.Sc. thesis, Leeds, 1950), p. 131; PG, 1 06 1899, P. 683; 1 04 1920, p. 541; HMI Factories Report, 1909, p. 50; 1911 Pottery Regulations Inquiry, p. 18, CATUAC; National Society of Pottery Workers (hereafter NSPW), Reconstruction (Manchester 1945), p. 4;Google Scholar Fogarty, M., Survey of Britain (Oxford, 1945), p. 328; Regional Development in Britain, op. cit., p. 234.Google Scholar
17 Bailey, C. in PG, 1 01 1921, p. 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moisley, ibid.; PG, 1 July 1908, p. 826; 1 October 1910, p. 1125; 1 January 1911, p. 88; United States Report on the Pottery Industry, op. cit., p. 389; The Times Engineering Supplement, 23 April 1913, p. 29; The Times Imperial and Foreign Trade Supplement, Pottery Section, 1917; Williams, “The Pottery Industry”, bc. cit., p. 292. See also A.E. Musson, The Growth of British Industry (1978), p. 292.
18 Staffordshire Advertizer, 3 11 1906, p. 8; PG, 1 07 1907, p. 811 (Forrester, T.); 1 10 1908, p. 1181 (F. Winkle)Google Scholar; 1 June 1913, p. 668 (W. Bailey); I November 1914, p. 1313 (F. Heath). 24 out of a sample of 100 employers taken from the Pottery Gazette's “profile” articles in the period 1900–25 were recorded as self-made men, i.e. they had successfully founded and sustained their own firms. See also Gutman, H.G., Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1976), p. 211.Google Scholar
19 Cadbury, E., Matheson, M. and Shann, E., Women's Work and Wages (1906), pp.205–06; although he notes how the smaller factories contained felings ranging between class conflict and camaraderie, p. 191; Burgess, K., The Origins of British Industrial Relations (1975), pp. 235–36, 245.Google Scholar
20 PG, 1 12 1992, p. 1838.Google Scholar
21 Author's interview with ex union collector, 10 December 1980; Shadwell, A., Industrial Efficiency (2 vols; 1906), II, p. 308; PG, 1 11 1910, P. 1165; Schloss, H., Methods of Industrial Remuneration (1907), p. 128.Google Scholar
22 Ingham, , Size of Industrial Organization and Worker Behaviour, op. cit., esp. pp. 141–43; Staffordshire Advertizer, 28 04 1900; Workmen's Times, 27 02 1892; Report of the Departmental Committee on the Use of Lead in the Manufacture of Earthenware and China(1910), q. 11905.Google Scholar
23 See Whipp, R., “Aspects of Work, Home and Trade Unionism in the British Pottery Industry”, paper presented to the Third Anglo-Dutch Labour History Conference, Maastricht 1982;Google Scholar Allen, G. C., British Industries and Their Organisation (1933), p. 12;Google Scholar Payne, P.L., British Entrepreneurship in the Nineteenth Century (1974), p. 21. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Pollard, , The Genesis of Modern Management (1965), p. 266.Google Scholar
24 The 100 manufacturers' obituaries and portraits were taken from the PG. 1900–24; Gay and Smyth, The Pottery Industry, op. cit., p. 36, confine the family enterprise to only the medium-size firm; Priestley, J.B., An English 01 (1934), p. 221; Wedgwood: PG, 1 11 1908, p.920.Google Scholar and Kelly, A., The Story of Wedgwood (n.d.), pp. 48–63; Johnsons: Sam Clowes's Scrapbook, 15 04 1907, CATUAC; PG, 1 03 1910, p. 399; 1 02 1923, p. 304; 1 03 1906, p. 291.Google Scholar
25 HMI Factories Report, 1908, p. 143; PG, 1 05 1908, p. 564; 1 07, p. 828; 1 04 1916, p. 400; 1 04 1918, p. 324; 1 01 1926, p. 509; Gay and Smyth, The Pottery Industry, p. 36; Regional Development in Britain, p. 234.Google Scholar
26 PG, 1 November 1913, p. 1289.
27 PG, 1 July 1908, p. 810; 1 October p. 1107; 1 November, 1915, p. 1240; 1917, p. 163.
28 Pottery, Gazette and Glass, Trades Review Diary, 1921, pp. 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Ashworth, W., An Economic History of England (1960), p. 93; Payne, British Entrepreneurship, op. cit., pp. 17–20;Google Scholar Clapham, , An Economic History of Modern Britain, op. cit., III, p. 204;Google Scholar Marshall, A., Industry and Trade (1919), p. 315.Google Scholar
30 PG, 1 April 1906, p. 469.
31 PG, 1 April 1910, p. 434.
32 Staffordshire, Advertizer, 4 05 1907, p.7; 10 07 1910, p. 5; PG, 1 04 1909, p. 445; 1 06 1915, p. 668; 1 02 1921, p. 251; Mr Entwistle in House of Commons Debates, 30 06 1927, c. 657.Google Scholar
33 Staffordshire Advertizer, , 29 09 1906, p. 5.Google Scholar
34 Pollard, , The Genesis of Modern Management, op. cit., p. 250;Google Scholar Marshall, , Industry and Trade, op. cit., pp. 321–28;Google Scholar Landes, D., The Unbound Prometheus (1969), p. 322;Google Scholar Phelps-Brown, E.H., The Growth of British Industrial Relations (1959), ch. 2, section 8;Google Scholar Bendix, R., Work and Authority in Industry (New York, 1956), p. 435;Google Scholar Merkle, J.A., Management and Ideology (1980), p. 209.Google Scholar
35 See Williams, , “The Pottery Industry”, p. 308.Google Scholar
36 Reconstruction, op. cit., p. 4; Fishley-Holland, W., Fifty Years a Potter (Pendley Manor, 1958), p. 53; PG, 1 03 1906, p. 350; 1 06 1910, p. 78; 1 01 1922, p. 116.Google Scholar
37 Bendix, , Work and Authority in Industry, op. cit., p. ix;Google Scholar Braverman, H., Labour and Monopoly Capital (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Jones, G. Stedman, “Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution”, in: New Left Review, No 90 (1975), p. 54;Google Scholar Edwards, R., Contested Terrain. The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century (1979), pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
39 See Warburton, , The History of Trade Union Organisation, op. cit., pp. 197–98;Google Scholar Gay, and Smyth, , The Pottery Industry, pp. 37ff.; Lawton Hall Conference Report, 1917, Manufacturers' Point III, CATUAC; PG, 1 02 1909, p. 321; 1 04 1922, p. 585;Google Scholar Celoria, F., “Reports of the US Consuls on the Staffordshire Potteries 1883–1892,” in: Journal of Ceramic History, No 7 (1974), p. 58;Google Scholar Staffordshir, eAdvertizer, 18 04 1908, p. 5;Google Scholar Stringer, G.E., New Hall Porcelain (1949), p. 62; Board of Trade, Working Party Report: Pottery (1946), p. 3. The rate (percentage) of profit before tax, but allowing for depreciation and management expenses, was as follows: 1913 – 6.23; 19143–4.12; 1915–4.76; 1916–5.68; 1917–6.13; 19 87ndash;11.23; 1919–12.22; 1920–22–notknown; 1923 – 11.50; 1924–9.64; 1925 – 8.29; 1926–5.94. Based on the firm samples in the records of the manufacturers' associations in National Council of the Pottery Industry, Minutes, 20 07 1922, p. 17; 1924 Wage Inquiry. Accountant's Report. pp. 3–5: 1931 Wage Inquiry, p. 21, CATUAC.Google Scholar
40 Stringer, , New Hall Porcelain, pp. 62–63; National Council of the Pottery Industry, Minutes, 7 10 1925; United States Report on the Pottery Industry, pp. 405–07; Board of Trade Report, 1946, p. 17; PG, 1 12 1924, p. 2000. “Good-from-oven” was the custom whereby workers were only paid for producing ware which emerged good (unblemished) from the oven firing.Google Scholar
41 PG, 1 April 1921, P. 643; 1 December 1923, p. 2002; Hilliamson, H. and Son to Clowes, S., 8 11 1913, CATUAC; Census of England and Wales, 1921 (1925), Industry Tables, p. 215.Google Scholar
42 Greene, H.B., TUC Meeting and Potteries History (Longton, 1905), p. 22; Committee of Inquiry into the Workmen's Compensation Act, Vol. II [Cmd 909] (1920), q. 18706; Grimwades to J. Lovatt, 30 10 1913, CATUAC; PG, 1 07 1910, p. 803; Lawton Hall Conference Report, 1917, Operatives' Point IV.Google Scholar
43 PG, 1 September 1908, p. 1074; 1 June 1909, p. 701; 1 July 1914, p. 710; HMI Factories Report, 1908, p. 143.
44 PG, 1 March 1916, p. 283; 1 November 1915, p. 1218; 1924 Wage Inquiry, p. 75; Board of Trade Report, 1946, pp. 17–21; Noke, C.J. and Plant, H.J., Pottery. Common Commodities and Industries(1924), p. 131.Google Scholar
45 Wilkinson, A. to Lovatt, J., 24 04 94, CATUAC: PG. 1 01 1909, p. 58 1 05, p. 579. See Whipp, “Potbank and Union”, op. cit., pp. 74ff.Google Scholar See also Schloss, , Methods of Industrial Remuneration, op. cit., p. 197.Google Scholar
46 1924 Wage Inquiry, p. D.
47 PG, 1 11 1914, p. 1311; 110 1915, p. 1107; 1 11 1919, p. 1240; 1 01 1921, p. 272;Google Scholar Clowes, S. to Mycott & Co., 23 12 1914; National Executive Committee Minutes, NSPW, 24 12 1915, CATUAC;Google Scholar Wilcox, G., Notes on White Alkaline Casting Slips (n.d.), p. 27.Google Scholar
48 Hollins, A., Improperly Pugged Clay (1924), passim; Wilcox. Notes on White Alkaline Casting Slips, p. 29.Google Scholar
49 PG, 1 August 1908, p. 940.
50 PG, 1 March 1906, p. 334; Jackson, F. to Clowes, S., 30 05 1913;Google Scholar Stiff, J. & Sons, to Lovatt, J., 3 01 1912; Copelands and NSPW Negotiations, 18 05 1920, CATUAC; HMI Factory Report, 1909, p. 55. An allowance was a deduction from a wage rate.Google Scholar
51 PG, 1 06 1908, p. 706; 1 12 1910, p. 1043;Google Scholar Ridgway, J. to National Amalgamated Society of Pottery Workers, 14 10 1912,Google Scholar CATUAC. The NAS changed its ame to NSPW in 1917. Cf. TUC General Council Manifesto, 1923, in Trade Union Documents, ed. by Mime-Bailey, W. (1929), p. 415;Google Scholar Cole, G. D. H., The Payment of Wages (1918), p. 28;Google Scholar Freeman, A., Boy Life and Labour (1914), p. 166; Merkle, Management and Ideology, op. cit., p. 225.Google Scholar
52 Cf., T. Bruland, “Industrial Conflict as a Source of Technical Innovation: Three Cases”, in: Economy and Society, II (1982);Google Scholar Twyfords to Lovatt, J., 11 02 1908;Google Scholar Lovatt, J. to Outram and Co., 8 12 1911, CATUAC.Google Scholar
53 PG, 1 December 1911, p. 1016.
54 Reich, et al., “A Theory of Labor Market Segmentation”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
55 PG, 1 04 1906, p. 469; 1 02 1922, p. 279; John Sadler and Co. to Mr Llewellyn, 1 08 1913, CATUAC; 1911 Pottery Regulations Inquiry, Occupiers, p. 36; National Executive Committee Minutes, NSPW, 14 10 1916.Google Scholar See also Ch., More, Skill and the English Working Class, 1870–1914 (1980), p. 149.Google Scholar
56 Booth, J. to the Grindley Company, 15 01 1912;Google Scholar Maling, C.T. and Sons to their solicitor, 16 12 1912, CATUAC.Google Scholar See also Maling, C.T. and Sons to Cbowes, S., 25 11 1912; Staffordshire Advertizer, 11 01 1908; PG, 1 08 1918, p. 641; 1 03 1926, p. 595.Google Scholar
57 HMI Factories Report, 1906, p. 244; 1912, p. 157; 1919, p. 10; Hanley Distnct Committee to Central Office, 16 12 1915, CATUAC; Evidence of Staffordshire pottery manufacturers in Committee on Women in Industry [Cmd 167] (1919), pp. 120–25; PG, 1 02 1908, p. 211; Minutes of a Meeting of Manufacturers and Operatives, National Executive Committee Minutes, NSPW, 20 10 1916;Google Scholar Amsden, A., The Economics of Women and Work (1980), pp. 11, 29.Google Scholar
58 See Figlio, K., “Chlorosis and Chronic Disease in Nineteenth-Century Britain”, in: Social History, III (1978), pp. 196–97.Google Scholar
59 Binns, C.F., Ceramic Technology (1898), p. 48; 1911 Pottery Regulation Inquiry, qq. 636, 938, 966, 1063.Google Scholar
60 HMI Factories Report, 1920, p. 57; Werner, E. H., Leadless Glazes (1924), p. 16.Google Scholar
61 HMI Factories Report, 1906, p. 218; 1912, p. 44;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Werner, , Leadless Glazes, p. 12;Google Scholar Ch., Wedgwood in House of Commons Debates, 26 06 1911, c. 291;Google Scholar Burton, W. to Home Office, 8 06 1900, Home Office Papers 45/1018/B12393P, Public Record Office, London; Meakins to employee, 15 05 1913, CATUAC; Report of the Samuel Commission [Cd 2826](1907),Google Scholar q. 6929 (Burton, W.); Copelands and NSPW Negotiations, 18 05 1920, p. 3; Staffordshire Advertizer, 30 03 1907, p. 7; PG, 1 02 1906, p. 188; 1 01 1910, pp. 55, 88;Google Scholar Meikeljohn, A., Silicosis (Handley, 1933), p. 5.Google Scholar
62 Staffordshire, Advertizer, 23 06 1906, p. 7; Burton to Home Office, 8 06 1900.Google Scholar
63 See for example Fox, A., A History of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives 1874–1957 (Oxford, 1958), p. 315;Google Scholar Spaven, P., “Main Gates of Protest”, in: Independent Collier, ed. by Harrison, R. (Hassocks, 1978), p. 225;Google Scholar Reynolds, J. and Laybourn, K., “The Emergence of the Independent Labour Party in Bradford”, in: International Review of Social History, XX (1975), p. 316.Google Scholar For detailed examinations of paternalism see Roberts, D., Paternalism in Early Victorian England (1979), pp. 2ff.;Google Scholar Thompson, E.P., “ighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle Without Class?”, in: Social History, III.Google Scholar
64 Priestley, , An English Journey, op. cit., p. 202;Google Scholar Brittain, V., Testament of Youth. An Autobiographical Study of the Years 1900–1925 (1978), p. 19; PG, 1 12 1908, p. 1065; 1 02 1920, p. 191.Google Scholar
65 Entry by William, Owen, 22 11 1879, Lord Hatherton Papers, Staffordshire Record Office, Stafford; Staffordshire Advertizer, 7 08 1909, p. 5.Google Scholar
66 Parkin, F., “Autobiography of a Trade Unionist”, p. xii, Hanley Reference Library, Stoke-on-Trent;Google Scholar Bowden, J. to NSPW, 15 01 1920, CATUAC; Roberts, Paternalism in Early Victorian England, op. cit., pp. 2–4, 173.Google Scholar
67 PG, 1 June 1921, p. 940.
68 Bendix, , Work and Authority in Industry, p. 13.Google Scholar
69 PG, 1 October 1911, p. 1155; 1 July 1919, p. 743; I April 1922, p. 607; 1 March 1908, p. 349.
70 PG, 1 January 1911, p. 89; 1 August 1916, p. 849; 1 July 1918, p. 562; 1 October 1919, 1109; 1 January 1920, p. 94.
71 Marriages: PG. 1 03 1906, p. 353; 1 07 1909 (local correspondent). Outings: PG,1 10 1906, p. 1179; 1 10 1908, p. 1181. Anniversaries: PG, 1 07 1910, p. 804. Whist drives and concerts: PG, 1 01, p. 520; 1 03 1926, p. 595.Google Scholar See Whipp, , “Potbank and Union”, table 16, “Social Activities of Pottery Firms 1900–1924”, p. 235.Google Scholar
72 PG, 1 January 1919, p. 64.
73 Staffordshire, Advertizer, 13 01 1906, p. 4; PG, 1 08 1920, p. 1075. Booth's “Staff Dinner” of 1908 was at the Sneyd Arms Hotel for “management and officials only”, PG, 1 01 1909, p. 93.Google Scholar
74 Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics, op. cit., pp. 186, 338–39.Google Scholar
75 Shadwell, , Industrial Efficiency, op. cit., II, p. 173;Google Scholar Merkle, , Management and Ideology, cit., pp. 229–30;Google Scholar Melling, J., “Employers, Industrial Welfare and the Struggle for Workplace Control in British Industry, 1880–1920”, mimeographed (1981);Google Scholar Coates, K. Topham, T., Workers' Control (1968), p. xxxvii.Google Scholar
76 Hyde, R.G., speech to National Council of the Pottery Industry, PG, 1 05 1920, pp. 650, 664; 1 08, p. 1052; 1 07 1919, p. 741 (Grimwades); 1 03 1922, p. 406; HMI Factories Report, 1917; National Council of the Pottery Industry, Minutes, 2, 10 1922;Google Scholar Plant, H.J., contribution to discussion reported in Werner, Leadless Glazes, p. 12; “Rules of Sick Club”, Copeland Archives, Stoke-on-Trent, Wallett No 788.Google Scholar
77 Report of the Departmental Committee on the Use of Lead, q. 14995; Report of the Samuel Commission, qq. 2034, 6929; Commitee of Inquiry into the Workmen's Compensation Act, Vol. II, q. 18641; PG, 1 07 1911, p. 812; 1 02 1923, p. 308. See also Hay, R., “Employers and Social Policy in Britain: The Evolution of Welfare Legislation, 1905–14”, in: Social History, I-II (1976–1977).Google Scholar
78 Meacham, , A Life Apart, op. cit., p. 21.Google Scholar
79 PG, 1 04 1906, p. 566; 1 06, p. 706; 1 10, p. 1164; 1 11, p. 1278; 1 05 1909, p. 569; 1 09 1910, p. 1044; 1 06 1915, p. 783; 1 09, p. 1011; 1 04 1917, p. 409; 108 1923, p. 1339.Google Scholar
80 PG, 1 10 1919, p. 1109; 1 01 1920, p. 94. Cf., R. Gray, The Labour Aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh (Oxford, 1976), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar See Whipp, , “Potbank and Union”, ch. 5.1, for worker-employer relations in the wider Potteries culture and the attempts at social control.Google Scholar
81 Walker Juteopolis, W. M.. Dundee and its Textile.Workers 1885–1923 (Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 292, 313.Google Scholar Cf., Phelps-Brown, The Growth of British Industrial Relations, op. cit., p. 279;Google Scholar Masters, R. Price, Unions and Men (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 193–94.Google Scholar
82 Lovatt, J. to Llewellyn, A., 16 01 1911, CATUAC.Google Scholar
83 Jackson, F. to Clowes, S., 30 05 1913;Google Scholar Plant, H. J. to Clowes, S., 7 01 1916, CATUAC.Google Scholar
84 Bakewell, Bros to NSPW, 10 12 1926.Google Scholar A “tower” smoothed the surface and edges of a clay article by using a wad of tow. F. Wileman and Co. to Clowes, S., 26 10 1915, CATUAC; Royal Commission on Trade Disputes (1904), q. 4979 (F. R. Benham).Google Scholar
85 Johnson, A. to NSPW, 20 02 1923, CATUAC. This letter collection shows that 116 (29%) firms recognised the union in this period out of 400 pottery firms (excluding brick companies) or 41% of the 1921 Pottery Gazette and Glass Trades Reivew list of 278 officially recorded companies.Google Scholar
86 Minton Company to NSPW, 26 April 1923, stated: “we enclose herewith a copy of the settlement arrived at in respect of various departments in our factory”, CATUAC.
87 Midland Pottery Company to J. Lovatt, 19 June 1913; Melling Pottery Company to J. Lovatt, 12 June, CATUAC.
88 PG, 1 July 1906, p. 920.
89 National Council of the Pottery Industry, Minutes, 17 09 1917;Google Scholar Williamson, H. and Son, to Clowes, S., 8 11 1913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
90 PG, 1 September 1910, p. 1165; 1 September 1923, p. 1501; negotiating notes Clowes, S., 2 11 1921, CATUAC.Google Scholar
91 On the difficulties of “extraction”, see Lazonick, W., “Class Relations and the Capitalist Enterpnse. A Critical Assessment of the Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory”, mimeographed, Harvard, 04 1983.Google Scholar
92 See Chandler, A., “Management Decentralization: An Historical Analysis”, in: Business History Review. XXX (1956).Google Scholar
93 For a similar attempt to relate managerial control to market, production and social imperatives see Lewchuck, W., “The British Motor Vehicle Industry, 1896–1982. The Roots of Decline”, mimeographed, Harvard, 09 1983.Google Scholar
94 Edwards, , Contested Terrain, op. cit., pp. 18–21 and passim.Google Scholar
95 Dutton, H. and King, J., “The Limits of Paternalism: The Cotton Tyrants of North Lancashire, 1836–54”, in: Social History, VII (1982).Google Scholar
96 Cf., B. Elbaum, Lazonick, W., Williamson, F. and Zeitlin, J., “The Labour Process, Market Structure and Marxist Theory”, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, III (1979).Google Scholar
You have
Access