And a huge number of other report on Inspections here:
And how about this one? Women in the Factory, 1922.
I will attach the entire Pdf if my wordpress memory space fits it here
￼WORKERS￼WILD￼WEST ￼￼￼￼ISSUE #3 –
FREE NEWSPAPER FOR GREENFORD, PARK ROYAL, SOUTHALL, HEATHROW WORKERS OF THE WORLD, STOP MOANING, START THE RUCKUS!
For .PDF click here: WWW ed3
1) EDITORIAL: PARIS, ALEPPO, BAGHDAD – THEIR WARS, OUR DEAD!
2) DAYS OF DAY LABOUR – WORK EXPERIENCES FROM AGENCIES ‘CLEANEVENT’ AND ‘OLYMPIA STAFF’
3) MESSING WITH THE DRIVERS! WINCANTON/SAINSBURY’S TRANSPORT OFFICE, GREENFORD
4) WHAT ARE WE SCARED OF? WAREHOUSE WORKERS STRUGGLES IN ITALY
5) WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE: WORKING AND STRUGGLING AT – POLAND & GERMANY
6) REBEL CITY! – NEWS AND VIEWS FROM LONDON TOWN
7) AT THE DEAD-END OF THE RUNWAY – REPORT ABOUT WORKING AT AIRLINE CATERER
8) WHAT IS THIS PAPER ABOUT?
1) PARIS, ALEPPO, BAGHDAD – THEIR WARS, OUR DEAD!
Things were pretty grim in 2015. The attacks in Paris, thousands of people drowning in the Mediterranean trying to reach safety from war and poverty, tension between NATO-states and Russia, police state measures in France and Belgium, more austerity announcements by the UK government… what to make of it all?
It’s not just about religion, and not only about oil
Ever since Britain and France were colonial powers, read More here
The Blue Books:
Marx’s Capital as guide for engagement at work.
Abstract: The figure of the factory inspector is set out by Marx, primarily in ‘The Working Day’ chapter of Capital, volume one, not as an uncritically approved person of unassailable credentials, but as an advocate of investigation that does a service for the working class ‘that should never be forgotten’. The Factory Inspector most often named is Leonard Horner, and his work in the Blue Books, parliamentary reports appearing at least annually, was read by Marx as raw material for his examination of conditions in the industrial factories of 19th Century capitalism. For this chapter Marx also read Dickens and Engels, and many other sources for his commentaries on the struggles over wages, hours, child labour and education. The introduction of the Factory Acts ensured a modicum of education for children, with limits on the number of consecutive hours they may be forced to work. Marx’s critique of these concessions develops within an argument that exhorts collective struggle, and investigation of the workers themselves involve in this struggle. That his argument was also against slavery, bonded labour, and exploitation worldwide is a contextual lesson that can suggest practical ways to engage ethnography and workplace inquiry today.
Key words: Factory, workplace, inquiry, ethnography, Marx, Dickens, Engels, Spivak
Read the whole draft here.
A draft abstract for a talk:
What would be a genuine radical example of the university evaluating itself? I propose that this would not be the blunt branding exercise of metrics, quality assurance, REF and league tables. This is a bureaucratic beauty contest of merely cosmetic interest, no intellectual merit and ethically corrupt. Instead, assume three things: 1) the university is its entire population, students, academic teaching and research staff, administrative, support, and infrastructure staff, and users, stakeholders, vested interests. 2) all these constituent groups are capable, and can be supported, probably for less cost than the current evaluations, to look at their own work and be researchers tasked, from day one, with participation in workplace inquiry and 3) a variety and proliferation of research styles, report modes, and transparencies are compatible despite their possible non-commensurability – that a thousand flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend need not add up to a single algorithm but can exceed present evaluations many fold. Drama Therapy, ethnographic film, counter-mapping, workplace inquiry – all these trading on resources already inside and outside the university and foregrounding the self-critical DNA of what the university mission should be all about. Not mere rhetorical support for the humanities or increased public understanding of science through promotion of a few media friendly dons, but a genuine radical effervescence of ideas, creativity and questioning of what the abundant potentiality of the social production if knowledge might be.
So I want to make three points.
1) That the university crisis is a consequence of a monetization of the university in the interests of industry and this is disguised in a pervasive, but wholly inadequate, discourse of accountability that does not have the resources to really account for the situation. REF, Hefce visit, SWOT analysis and audit surveys are ill suited to the extent of the crisis.
2) the departments and sections of the university have, each of them, been remodeled for pecuniary gain. A typology of the ways the commercial imperative can be presented, but is no pretty sight. A deep critical re-evaluation of the university is demanded, but any criticism or questioning of the path of managerialism is rapidly undermined.
3) solutions to this predicament already lie within the university and its communities, but it requires a radical transformation of all roles in the university to include self-auditing as robust research component of all jobs. Time for this must be allocated, funded from gains available once senior executive positions and moneys spent on consultancy and pointless audits are redistributed. Training of the workers in the sections for the new deeper critical auditing can be provided from budget lines freed up by departing executives.
Everyone agrees the crisis in higher education is never far off, but a strange kind of complacency looms. All manner of statistical and anecdotal evidence can be deployed to underline this proximity to crisis. Yet, the number of times the crisis has been forecast exceeds plausibility and is topped only by the excessive statistical data and ‘analysis’ that purports to explain it away. Discuss.
Provoked by Parliament’s steadfast commitment to a Plan A of Austerity, the rusty machinery of the Trades Union Congress has provided the customary opposition in the form of its Plan B: marching for the alternative, marching for jobs, growth and justice, and now marching for a pay rise. We think it’s important that we join our fellow workers on 18 October, but we do so critical of the TUC, its politics and its innocuous demand. In short, we need a Plan C.The march on 18 October will be the biggest national mobilisation of the working class in two years. This is something the TUC is relatively good at – which is reasonable to expect given its immense budget. However, this is also an organisation which has joined forces with the Confederation of Business and Industry (CBI) in backing workfare programmes, and which increasingly appears interested in only engaging with – let alone fighting for – only a narrow subset of workers. Within the formal work economy, employment is increasingly casualised, while ‘informal’ work such as care – which is equally crucial to the generation of profit – remains as marginalised as ever within the TUC’s chauvinistic and rigid workerism.
The demand for a pay rise seems to be more closely tied to legitimising Labour’s new policy for an £8 minimum wage than creating a movement to challenge and transform the present reality of working class existence in Britain. Labour’s plan for a pay rise – 26p per hour on top of the existing minimum wage by 2020 – is an insult. It’s a grand plan to remunerate the increasingly impoverished and growing working poor with less than the price of a bag of crisps. The TUC’s support for such a policy is an embarrassment.
Throughout the week of the 13 October, we will be joining the national strikes and picket lines in the run up to the demonstration. One-day stop work actions obviously have their limitations, but any hope we have of strike action becoming more general and widespread means we must engage, participate and make connections. We have launched #strikeup to collect reflections, dreams and counter-narratives of what work and striking could look like in the future, and we encourage others to strike up similar conversations on their local picket lines. We will then join the march on 18 October, standing with our fellow workers while strongly critical of the TUC’s complicity.
A pay rise is not enough. We demand the ability to live without overwhelming insecurity. We demand to work with flexibility and on our own terms. We demand an end to the double burden of unremunerated care work. We demand an end to sexism and racism in the workplace. We demand a movement that does not limit itself to pay rises but one which dreams of a world beyond work. We demand a Plan C.