Craft management

Handicraft government is an organ of the craft class , created by the city ​​regulation of 1785 , with the aim of protecting the interests of the craft class and "the growth of craft art."

In provincial cities, towns, or places where, due to the insufficient distribution of crafts , those engaged in them were not divided into workshops, but formed a craft class organized on a corporate basis, the craft councils, according to the law of 1852 on simplified craft arrangements, included the foreman and his comrades elected by the whole craft class.

In the XIX century, in the capitals and Odessa , where the management of the craft class was established on the basis of special rules ^[1] , the councils consisted of elected elders of the craft class, members and assessors from nonresident artisans in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and in Odessa from nonresident bourgeoisie . Foreign craft workshops in St. Petersburg had a special craft council, consisting of a chairman and members from these workshops (paragraphs 8, 13 and 27 of the appendix to article 661). The structure of general craft administrations, established in other cities where there was a workshop device , included the craft head and foremen of the workshops.

The handicraft head, elected by the foremen, together with two elected vowels, selected for this from each workshop, the law provided:

1. inspect every artisan of his work and subject him to foreclosure,
2. at all times to audit the general craft and shop treasuries,
3. to take from their masters their students for poor teaching and give them to other, more skilled,
4. force elders to resolve cases as soon as possible, supervise the proper performance of their duties, and in case of negligence - remove them from their posts and even detain them in custody (arts. 316 and 314).

When discussing matters related to crafts in the city public administration, a craftsman’s head was invited to make proposals on the needs and disadvantages of workshops (312, etc.).

The law attributed to the competence of the general craft council:

1. entry to the workshop
2. an exception to it,
3. meetings about the needs of each craft and
4. monitoring the procedure for collecting money and performing duties on the part of artisans (art. 327).

She was charged with the duty of caring for the improvement and dissemination of arts and crafts. She was supposed to separate the crafts and work on the "distinction of ranks", according to the "special rites of each craft", and present the rules she compiled to the provincial government, introducing them at the discretion of the highest government (arts. 289, 293 and 299).

It was also said that, with the permission of the council, “every workshop, by multiplying crafts and work in it, can be divided into as many parts as it can be divided into crafts”, and the formed parts can be reconnected when “a fragmented craft will not have enough to do with acquiring food for oneself. ”

The general craft government had to take care that the children of artisans learn any craft, and was entitled to give to the “teaching of skill” anyone who is 13 years old who “has not been given away by his parents in these years” (Article 324). For the crippled artisans, their widows and orphans, the general craft government was the trustee, obliged to intercede for them in matters relating to their food, refuge and accommodation in the place (Article 322). She also took protective measures in relation to the estate left after the deceased artisan (Article 321). She belonged to the right to impose pecuniary punishments for the misconduct of artisans against the craft charter, listed in Art. 479-486 of the Charter on Industry. She resolved disputes between artisans from different workshops and between artisans and outsiders. Decisions on the complaints of the latter for poor work, damage to things, failure to deliver on time, deceit, and the like were mandatory only for artisans (paragraph 5 of the comment to article 332).

Data at the beginning of the 20th century, referring to the commission on the organization and maintenance of industrial establishments and on the supervision of the performance of work in them, it was found that the craft councils, with very insignificant exceptions, did not fulfill their tasks, and the craft heads and workshop foremen They were extremely indifferent to the performance of their duties. In fact, there was no supervision of the work of apprentices and students, of their behavior, of the relationship of masters to them. Pupils worked from 12 to 14 hours a day and often suffered physically and mentally, under the yoke of a difficult situation. The absence of supervision over the craftsmen, apprentices and students, according to the St. Petersburg craftsman elders and workshop leaders, was due to the small acquaintance of artisans (not excluding the officials of craft management) with legalization applicable to the craftsmanship, with insufficient general development of education in the craft environment and from the fact that the officials, being the master-masters themselves and mainly engaged in the affairs of their own craft workshops, could not, without prejudice to their Interests, conduct the business of a craft society. Even worse, no doubt, the situation was in the province. If it is impossible to force people to be actively selected by the craft councils through criminal penalties (Art. 1372 of the Penal Code), the question of reorganizing the workshop device on new corporate principles was put forward by life with particular persistence.