A DAY'S TALE OF BRICKS SIR,— Surely " Janus's " explanation
that he " spoke of restrictive prac- tices" not "of the rules of the building trade unions" hardly lifts the imputation he has laid upon a hard-working and responsible section of the building trade. And " Janus " is not alone in making this accusation. I have heard it again and again, even from architects who, of all men, ought to know better. I have been in close touch with bricklaying during a long professional practice of well over so years, and I have never heard of, through the men or the Unions, or come across any restrictive practices except by a few slackers whom you will find in every walk of life. On the other hand, I have found men—including especially a
Trade Union official—who spoke with pride of the number of bricks they could lay. per day.
But the numbers vary, because of a faCtor that every workman knows and the unthinking public (including unhappily in this case " Janus," for I. have a high regard for him and I know he has been misinformed) omits to notice, viz., that the number of bricks laid depends upon' the class of work being done.- I have known men count their work at the end of the day with pride at the number of bricks laid. In heaiy work it is possible to lay over i,000 per day, such as in bridges and retaining walls. But in house-work, requiring much cutting or openings for windows, &c., quoins and so on, the number that can be laid is enormously cut down. Possibly 30o may even be a fair figure for a responsible. worker. This is the chief restrictive practice, and a very proper one, too. Another is that the bricklayer must be well served by the ethers in the team. He must be allowed to stick to his bricklaying like the M.P. did the other day. I have learned a healthy respect for the bricklayer and his trade increased, perhaps, by .having tried it myself. And perhaps Mr. Winston Churchill can say the same.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
