3 ms·

Medieval craftsmen often ran what we would consider to be sweatshops, with many young (i.e. child) apprentices banging out work and not receiving much instructi

by beloch 1y ago

Medieval craftsmen often ran what we would consider to be sweatshops, with many young (i.e. child) apprentices banging out work and not receiving much instruction in exchange. We're romanticizing and idealizing a past that was, in realty, often quite exploitative. There are reasons why we started sending children to schools rather than businesses for basic education. There is also little need to reach back to medieval times when comparatively less exploitative (but still imperfect) apprenticeship systems are alive and well in the trades today. One-on-one practical instruction related specifically to what you want to do is awesome, but there are a lot of difficulties in incentivizing people to supply such instruction.

IAmBroom 1y ago
I've deeply studied the apprentice programs in medieval Europe; your claims don't align with guild law, nor the motivations of the guilds themselves (to create protective but longterm market-satisfying services and goods; i.e. to stay in business and prevent cheap knockoffs, at the cost of inhibiting innovation). Apprenticeships certainly weren't more abusive than the typical alternatives: serf labor, or servant jobs. (One of the key differences between servants and apprentices in medieval England, for instance, was that you weren't allowed to beat your apprentices.) Often exploitative? Sure. Most power structures are. But it absolutely was a system that guaranteed rights to the worker, which made it rise far above most employment situations of that time.
1718627440 1y ago
Even manufacturing without instructions gives you practice. Also you need only so much instructions per practice, getting instructions won't actually help you get better you also need to do it. The master very much cares about your quality, because if it doesn't look like his quality nobody will buy it. If the quality goes down to much, there will be complaints to the guilt and he looses its ability to do business. If you have problems with your master you can look for another one. The good always needed to reject prentices, the bad had nobody showing up. In-fact you were required to stay with multiple masters. If you complain about them not having an 8-hour day, nobody had that in the middle ages. But tradesman were more of the richer people in a city, maybe behind tradesman.
- watwut 1y ago
  In medieval setup, no you could not just look for another master. That is not how the society functioned. There was hierarchy and you had your place in it - bottom. Also, apprentices duties involved also general housework and pretty much any random thing they told you to do. They would beat you if they thought you do not do what they want and you would be serving literally whole day and that was it. And no it was not whole day of learning. Based on book I read, that frequently involved things wife of the master ordered - they had nothing to do with the trade and that was normal. With eating, you would wait behind the master while their lunch and tend eat whatever remained.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    > They would beat you if they thought you do not do what they want Again, illegal in England. > Based on book I read, Well, if you've read a whole book, I guess that makes you an expert.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > general housework, wife of the master ordered Yes you were part of the family for better and for worse. I don't see how that is problematic, you weren't working for a different household, you were just part of this household. > They would beat you Sure life sucked back than. There is a reason we are not in the middle ages anymore. I would say that was more a problem with the general attitude in society, not specific to masters. > no you could not just look for another master But you were required to look for a different master every few years? That claim doesn't make sense to me. Of course not everything was all roses, it was just different. You didn't had a social net from the state, there wasn't an independent police you could report beatings from the master. On the other hand you had a social security net by the family/household currently living in (meaning your master's in this case) and if you have rows with everyone you can just walk for a day to the next city, where nobody knows you, and start afresh. The latter isn't possible now anymore.
    - watwut 1y ago
      > Yes you were part of the family for better and for worse. I don't see how that is problematic, you weren't working for a different household, you were just part of this household. No you was not part of the family. And this was not part of the family thing either. It was more of the sweetshop with workers who have no choice thing. > But you were required to look for a different master every few years? That claim doesn't make sense to me. You was not given choice to shop around or change up however you wanted. That was not a thing. Occasionally you could be asked to move to different master at predetermined set points. But not always. I do not even see what is nonsensical or hard to understand about such setup. > you had a social security net by the family/household currently living in (meaning your master's in this case) Your master was not your security net. You would be kicked off and expected go back to your actual family. > if you have rows with everyone you can just walk for a day to the next city, where nobody knows you, and start afresh That was definitely not a thing either. They would vet you and your character with where you came from. There was a lot of suspicion about new people. You would have quite a difficult time to establish yourself or even find a living. Being banished was a punishment for a reason - and other village you go to will be very aware newcomer might be a troublemaker they did not wanted elsewhere. > The latter isn't possible now anymore. That is significantly easier now.
RataNova 1y ago
The romanticism around apprenticeships misses how tricky it is to scale personalized, practical instruction without either underpaying the instructor or pricing out the learner
- towledev 1y ago
  Very true, but the benefit to one-on-one instruction is so enormous that we should find ways to apply it fractionally if we can’t apply it fully. One thinks eg of the one-room schoolhouses of the 1800s, with younger students learning from older students.
jojomodding 1y ago
It's still that way. Germany has an apprenticeship system that is supposed to work just like the medieval system: You work in a company for 2-3 years at low pay, but you get trained in return. (Nowadays you spend some of that time in a trade school). The promise often is that if you do good, the company will hire you as a regular employee afterwards. Unfortunately, experiences vary. The promise works out for some, but others have a shitty boss that does not teach them anything and makes them do menial jobs that do not require or teach any special skills (e.g. cleaning up the workshop or cooking coffee).

by beloch 1y ago

IAmBroom 1y ago

I've deeply studied the apprentice programs in medieval Europe; your claims don't align with guild law, nor the motivations of the guilds themselves (to create protective but longterm market-satisfying services and goods; i.e. to stay in business and prevent cheap knockoffs, at the cost of inhibiting innovation). Apprenticeships certainly weren't more abusive than the typical alternatives: serf labor, or servant jobs. (One of the key differences between servants and apprentices in medieval England, for instance, was that you weren't allowed to beat your apprentices.) Often exploitative? Sure. Most power structures are. But it absolutely was a system that guaranteed rights to the worker, which made it rise far above most employment situations of that time.

1718627440 1y ago

Even manufacturing without instructions gives you practice. Also you need only so much instructions per practice, getting instructions won't actually help you get better you also need to do it. The master very much cares about your quality, because if it doesn't look like his quality nobody will buy it. If the quality goes down to much, there will be complaints to the guilt and he looses its ability to do business. If you have problems with your master you can look for another one. The good always needed to reject prentices, the bad had nobody showing up. In-fact you were required to stay with multiple masters. If you complain about them not having an 8-hour day, nobody had that in the middle ages. But tradesman were more of the richer people in a city, maybe behind tradesman.

watwut 1y ago
In medieval setup, no you could not just look for another master. That is not how the society functioned. There was hierarchy and you had your place in it - bottom. Also, apprentices duties involved also general housework and pretty much any random thing they told you to do. They would beat you if they thought you do not do what they want and you would be serving literally whole day and that was it. And no it was not whole day of learning. Based on book I read, that frequently involved things wife of the master ordered - they had nothing to do with the trade and that was normal. With eating, you would wait behind the master while their lunch and tend eat whatever remained.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  > They would beat you if they thought you do not do what they want Again, illegal in England. > Based on book I read, Well, if you've read a whole book, I guess that makes you an expert.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > general housework, wife of the master ordered Yes you were part of the family for better and for worse. I don't see how that is problematic, you weren't working for a different household, you were just part of this household. > They would beat you Sure life sucked back than. There is a reason we are not in the middle ages anymore. I would say that was more a problem with the general attitude in society, not specific to masters. > no you could not just look for another master But you were required to look for a different master every few years? That claim doesn't make sense to me. Of course not everything was all roses, it was just different. You didn't had a social net from the state, there wasn't an independent police you could report beatings from the master. On the other hand you had a social security net by the family/household currently living in (meaning your master's in this case) and if you have rows with everyone you can just walk for a day to the next city, where nobody knows you, and start afresh. The latter isn't possible now anymore.
  - watwut 1y ago
    > Yes you were part of the family for better and for worse. I don't see how that is problematic, you weren't working for a different household, you were just part of this household. No you was not part of the family. And this was not part of the family thing either. It was more of the sweetshop with workers who have no choice thing. > But you were required to look for a different master every few years? That claim doesn't make sense to me. You was not given choice to shop around or change up however you wanted. That was not a thing. Occasionally you could be asked to move to different master at predetermined set points. But not always. I do not even see what is nonsensical or hard to understand about such setup. > you had a social security net by the family/household currently living in (meaning your master's in this case) Your master was not your security net. You would be kicked off and expected go back to your actual family. > if you have rows with everyone you can just walk for a day to the next city, where nobody knows you, and start afresh That was definitely not a thing either. They would vet you and your character with where you came from. There was a lot of suspicion about new people. You would have quite a difficult time to establish yourself or even find a living. Being banished was a punishment for a reason - and other village you go to will be very aware newcomer might be a troublemaker they did not wanted elsewhere. > The latter isn't possible now anymore. That is significantly easier now.

RataNova 1y ago

The romanticism around apprenticeships misses how tricky it is to scale personalized, practical instruction without either underpaying the instructor or pricing out the learner

towledev 1y ago
Very true, but the benefit to one-on-one instruction is so enormous that we should find ways to apply it fractionally if we can’t apply it fully. One thinks eg of the one-room schoolhouses of the 1800s, with younger students learning from older students.

jojomodding 1y ago

It's still that way. Germany has an apprenticeship system that is supposed to work just like the medieval system: You work in a company for 2-3 years at low pay, but you get trained in return. (Nowadays you spend some of that time in a trade school). The promise often is that if you do good, the company will hire you as a regular employee afterwards. Unfortunately, experiences vary. The promise works out for some, but others have a shitty boss that does not teach them anything and makes them do menial jobs that do not require or teach any special skills (e.g. cleaning up the workshop or cooking coffee).