Another issue is that many of the owners (not Mr. Thornton) cut costs by not installing safety features which would protect their employees from lung disease caused by inhaling cotton fluff. Unscrupulous owners cause further resentment when, in an attempt to delay the strike and get their orders filled, they pretend to be considering the union's wage demands until payday actually arrives. In addition, while the owners complain- legitimately- that the workers don't understand business and markets, they make no effort to educate them on the situation, engage in mediation, or even adequately explain why their wages have been cut.
Gaskell does a good job of presenting the strike from both points of view- that of the strikers and of the owners- in North and South. This gives the novel points over her previous book Mary Barton which is very pro-worker and anti-owner. Through the two opposing sides in the strike, Gaskell portrays some of the pros and cons of the Industrial Revolution itself. On the side of the owners, business is bad. America is flooding the market with cheap cotton, making it necessary for the English mills to lower their prices to remain competitive. One of the ways they save money is by lowering the wages of their employees, which is really hard on the hands. The owners reason, however, that if they lose their businesses, the hands will have no jobs at all. Also, the wages paid at the mills are higher than those paid by other jobs available in the town. For example, the Hales find it impossible to hire a maid at a price they can afford. This is because women can earn higher wages working in the mills which means that people looking for domestic staff must offer higher, more competitive wages as workers have other, more lucrative, options. On the side of the strikers, the arbitrary reduction in their wages hits them much harder than it does the owners, who show little interest in sharing the pain by economizing their own lives to any degree. Though it could be argued that the mill owners have invested their own money in the mills and run the risk of being personally bankrupted should their businesses fail; the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Another issue is that many of the owners (not Mr. Thornton) cut costs by not installing safety features which would protect their employees from lung disease caused by inhaling cotton fluff. Unscrupulous owners cause further resentment when, in an attempt to delay the strike and get their orders filled, they pretend to be considering the union's wage demands until payday actually arrives. In addition, while the owners complain- legitimately- that the workers don't understand business and markets, they make no effort to educate them on the situation, engage in mediation, or even adequately explain why their wages have been cut. This situation is a microcosm of the pros and cons of the Industrial Revolution as a whole. On the negative side, as much of the rural population empties into factory towns, they often end up working- and living- in very unhealthy conditions. Also, while wages are higher, so is the cost of living, and people no longer have the option of growing their own food. On the other hand, under the landowner/tenant system, there was little opportunity for the lower classes to better themselves. Industrialization provides them with the opportunity to raise themselves to a higher social and economic level. This leads to an expanded middle class and the creation of the "nouveau riche" (new rich). Ultimately, the Industrial Revolution gives people the opportunity to raise themselves higher than they had ever dreamed, but also the possibility of falling further than they had ever imagined.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |