[CR]Division of labor

(Example: History:Ted Ernst)

From: "Dennis Young" <mail@woodworkingboy.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <20021107031801.31481.1964.Mailman@phred.org>
Subject: [CR]Division of labor
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 06:30:12 -0800

I am curious if people draw the conclusion that frames made in part by 'employees' are predictably inferior in quality than those done by the 'master'? Aside from the 'romance' of the total job done by the name on the tube, is it a quality concern? If that is a yes, then I suggest that it can be rather difficult to draw inferences purely on the face of the matter. A total'one man' operation in some ways may seem ideal from the outsider's perspective, but bear in mind that the one guy may be a master at his trade, but that trade also consists of fetching the parts, meeting with customers, maintaining the tools, answering the phone (nowadays), cleaning the toilet, going to the bank, clearing up the mess, reading the mail, sweeping up the joint, dealing with people who think your shop is a clubhouse, etc, etc, etc. There are a lot of distractions from the actual act of making the item that he is recognized for, which for experienced tradesmen, can be one of the easiest parts of the whole equation. Some days are spent working just so you can 'get back to work'. Distractions and time away from the actual making part are not conducive to produceing the best work. Frame making being a manual trade like mine (furniture making), probably the skill level on any given day depends on your physical orientation and concentration. Too much time away from the bench and the quality and speed starts to slip a notch until you can bring it back up to snuff. (Not a long time for old pros!) The point is, compare this schedule with a employee who is only thinking about his assigned task, (and maybe the pint he is having after work with his mates!). Day after day of only doing that, and someone with talent and initiative, after some years it sometimes can be difficult to judge who is really better at it. Obviously it depends on the degree of difficulty and experience, but given the right attitude and level of skill, a combined effort can certainly yield masterful results. If this is the case, does it really matter if the name on the tube did the whole deal? The bottom line is whether the total work meets the master`s standards. In some instances, what most differentiates the master from the worker is his level of total experience as applied to unusual jobs requireing unusual techniques or concepts.

In my trade I have built handmade furniture for presidents and movie moguls, and people living in tract houses. Mostly I have worked alone, but I have had a few apprentices while working in the US. A skilled craftsman who runs a business knows to what extent the hired worker`s level of skill can meet his demands. Those who can`t meet the mark can be given the mundane tasks, or other initial jobs that the master can then carry through to completion. It is a old old practice, even amongst some of the finest and most reputed artisans. It speeds up the work! There is nothing quality lowering about it, nor 'mojo' compromising I believe. On the contrary, it further allows the master to concentrate on those tasks that only he can attend to. The person who signs his name to the work is proud to represent the combined effort of a diligent crew.....and shhhhhhhh, a little known secret, some apprentices get to be better at doing some things than their masters. I had one like that once.

I'm not a frame maker. Hope I got it right!

Dennis, still have to pay US taxes, Young Hotaka, Japan


> i agree with you. but 1979 was my first trip to italy,
> not the first time the light went on. even when i was
> in london at witcomb lightweight cycles (71-72), the
> notion of the 'one-man' shop was an anomaly. there
> were few if any such examples of this enterprise. for
> instance, prior to arriving there, i wanted to work for
> mr. hurlow, but couldn't, because he already had younger
> members of his thanet road club doing some of the work
> i hoped to learn about. when i was actually in london,
> i 'heard' similar tales about ron cooper, another archtypical
> one-man shop. i.e. i cannot recall-i do not know of-any
> one-man shops from that era. this all ties in with this a.m.'s
> thread about the word 'built' when describing how 'he actually
> built' the frame. my intuiton is that there was always 'someone
> else' doing at least some of the work at the so called
> one-man shops, regardless of how menial the task was. thus,
> though i am as curious about all this as are others, i still think
> that being a framebuilder in those past eras did not always
> mean that you built the frame.
> fwiw, i still would like to know what folks think about
> this 'division of labor' topic because feel it's central to
> the thread regarding the letter of authenticity.