Full Download Using And Administering Linux: Volume 2 Zero To SysAdmin: Advanced Topics (2nd ed.) 2nd Edition David Both PDF DOCX
Full Download Using And Administering Linux: Volume 2 Zero To SysAdmin: Advanced Topics (2nd ed.) 2nd Edition David Both PDF DOCX
https://ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/using-and-
administering-linux-volume-2-zero-to-sysadmin-
advanced-topics-2nd-ed-2nd-edition-david-both/
https://ebookmass.com/product/using-and-administering-linux-
volume-3-zero-to-sysadmin-network-services-2nd-ed-2nd-edition-david-
both/
testbankdeal.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/using-and-administering-linux-
volume-1-zero-to-sysadmin-getting-started-2nd-edition-david-both/
testbankdeal.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/using-and-administering-linux-
volume-1-zero-to-sysadmin-getting-started-2nd-edition-david-both-2/
testbankdeal.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/ubuntu-linux-bible-10th-edition-david-
clinton/
testbankdeal.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/advanced-fermentation-and-cell-
technology-2-volume-set-byong-h-lee/
testbankdeal.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/linux-security-fundamentals-1st-edition-
edition-david-clinton/
testbankdeal.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/ubuntu-linux-bible-10th-edition-edition-
david-clinton/
testbankdeal.com
Using and
Administering
Linux: Volume 2
Zero to SysAdmin: Advanced Topics
—
Second Edition
—
David Both
Using and Administering
Linux: Volume 2
Zero to SysAdmin: Advanced Topics
Second Edition
David Both
Using and Administering Linux: Volume 2: Zero to SysAdmin: Advanced Topics
David Both
Raleigh, NC, USA
Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xxvii
v
Table of Contents
vi
Table of Contents
vii
Table of Contents
viii
Table of Contents
ix
Visit https://ebookmass.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks and enjoy
exciting offers!
Table of Contents
lspci������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 226
Cleanup������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230
Chapter Summary��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230
Exercises����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230
x
Table of Contents
xi
Table of Contents
xii
Table of Contents
xiii
Table of Contents
xiv
Table of Contents
xv
Table of Contents
xvii
Table of Contents
xviii
Visit https://ebookmass.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks and enjoy
exciting offers!
Table of Contents
xix
Table of Contents
Index��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 773
xx
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
more than, those of the skilled foremen who supervised their work.
Rumor naturally exaggerated the real position, but there was plenty
of evidence available to justify many of the stories that were current
as to boys’ earnings.” It was noted that “boys do not seem to mind
monotonous work if they are well paid for it,” and rates for the older
boys were at times actually higher for unskilled and semi-skilled than
for skilled occupations. In one typical munitions district their wages
averaged somewhat as follows:[240]
Age Unskilled Semi-skilled Skilled
14 3-3½d. an Hr. 4-4½d. 4-4½d.
15 —— 4½d. 5-6d.
16 6d. 6d. 5d.
17 7d. 7d. 6d.
Hours
Along with the relaxation of hour limitations on women’s work,
the similar restrictions on “protected persons” under eighteen were
modified. The result of the relaxation of standards was thus
described by the Health of Munition Workers Committee:
The weekly hours have frequently been extended to sixty-seven,
and in some instances even longer hours have been worked. The
daily hours of employment have been extended to 14, and
occasionally even to 15 hours; night work has been common;
Sunday work has also been allowed, though latterly it has been
largely discontinued.[241]
Working hours for boys under eighteen were given more
specifically in an “inquiry into the health of male munition workers,”
made for the committee between February and August, 1916. The
investigation followed the same lines as its companion study on the
health of female workers, including an examination of over 1,500
boys under eighteen and their working conditions. It was found that
“large numbers of boys,” many of them just over fourteen, were
“working a net average of sixty-eight and one-half hours per week.”
In some cases boys under fourteen had a forty-eight hour week,
“but in others boys of eighteen were found to be working an average
of over eighty hours per week and it was ascertained that they had
worked ninety and even a hundred hours per week.”[242] It is not
surprising that the investigator concluded that “hours tend to be too
long for the proper preservation of health and efficiency.”
In most cases the Home Office claimed that it had allowed
Sunday work only under rather strict conditions. “The Home Office,
as a rule, only authorizes Sunday work on condition that each boy or
girl employed on Sunday shall be given a day in the same week, or
as part of a system of 8 hour shifts in which provision is made for
weekly or fortnightly periods of rest. Apart from this, permission for
boys over 16 to be employed periodically on Sunday was on July 1
last [1916] only allowed in seven cases, and in three cases for boys
under 16. In only one instance are boys employed every Sunday, but
this is limited to boys over 16, and the total weekly hours are only
about 56. In only one case are girls employed periodically on
Sunday, and there the concession is confined to girls over 16.”[243]
The employment of girls under 16 at night had been permitted only
“in one or two cases ... through exceptional circumstances.” In
March, 1916, it was stated that the cases were “under review with
the object of arranging for the discontinuance of such employment
at the earliest possible moment.”
The recommendations of the Health of Munition Workers
Committee called for a considerable improvement in these
standards. “The hours prescribed by the factory act [sixty] are to be
regarded as the maximum ordinarily justifiable, and even exceed
materially what many experienced employers regard as the longest
period for which boys and girls can usefully be employed from the
point of view of either health or output.” Nevertheless, “in view of
the extent to which boys are employed to assist adult male workers
and of limitation of supply, the committee, though with great
hesitation, recommend that boys should be allowed to be employed
on overtime up to the maximum suggested for men, but every effort
should be made not to work boys under 16 more than sixty hours
per week. Where overtime is allowed substantial relief should be
insisted upon at the week ends, and should be so arranged as to
permit of some outdoor recreation on Saturday afternoon.” But for
girls “similar difficulties did not often arise,” and the committee
advised weekly hours of sixty or less and brought forward the claims
of the eight hour, three shift system. Under the exceptional
circumstances existing, the committee believed that overtime might
be continued on not more than three days a week for both boys and
girls, provided the specified weekly total of hours was not exceeded.
The absolute discontinuance of Sunday work was strongly
advised. “The arguments in favor of a weekly period of rest ... apply
with special force in the case of boys and girls; they are less fitted to
resist the strain of unrelieved toil, and are more quickly affected by
monotony of work.... It is greatly to be hoped that all Sunday work
will shortly be completely stopped.”
In regard to night work, an earlier report of the committee,[244]
published in January, 1916, held that girls under eighteen should not
be employed on a night shift “unless the need is urgent and the
supply of women workers is insufficient. In such cases the
employment should be restricted to girls over 16 years of age,
carefully selected for the work.” But for boys, “it does not seem
practical to suggest any change of system, but the committee hope
that care will be taken to watch the effect of night work on individual
boys and to limit it as far as possible to those over 16.” In the
subsequent memorandum on “Juvenile Employment,” the committee
“remained of the opinion that girls under eighteen and boys under
sixteen should only be employed at night if other labor can not be
obtained. Wherever possible it should be stopped.”
The interdepartmental committee on hours of labor, organized
late in 1915, which based its action on the recommendations of the
Health of Munition Workers Committee, was instrumental in securing
improved regulations for protected persons in munition factories as
well as for women. The general order of September 9, 1916, made
special arrangements for boys and girls over and under sixteen,
respectively. Sunday work was abolished for each of these classes of
workers. The maximum working week for girls was to be sixty hours,
as before the war. But girls between sixteen and eighteen, like adult
women, might work overtime on three days a week, provided the
weekly maximum was not exceeded. Boys over sixteen were
permitted to work as much as sixty-five hours a week, on three days
a week as long as twelve hours and a quarter, and twelve hours on
other week days. Under this scheme work on Saturday must stop
not later than 2 p.m. In “cases where the work was of a specially
urgent character,” the twelve hour day and sixty-five hour week, but
not the overtime, might be worked by boys of fourteen.[245] The
committee had already forbidden the employment of girls under
sixteen at night. The prohibition was extended by the general order
to boys under fourteen and girls under eighteen, and boys under
sixteen were allowed to do night work only in “urgent” cases.
Long as these hours seem according to American standards, they
undoubtedly represented a considerable reduction from the hours
worked by many munition plants during the early months of the war.
But it is doubtful if these standards were completely reached even in
the latter part of the struggle. An official report published shortly
after the armistice admits that “boys and girls of fourteen and fifteen
have been working for as much as twelve hours a day, sometimes
more, and have been employed for considerable periods on night
work.”[246] The Health of Munition Workers Committee, in its final
report dated April, 1918, was still obliged to recommend the
discontinuance of night work by girls between sixteen and eighteen
and urged that it was “undesirable” for boys under sixteen, though
in both cases it was decreasing. “Special concessions” allowing girls
under sixteen to work at night had by that time been withdrawn.
But these results were not believed to show the full burden of
overwork, since much was unrecognizable and since those worst affected
tended to drop out. The examination could only detect “definite and
obvious fatigue”, amounting almost to sickness. The physical defects
most frequently observed included indigestion, serious dental decay,
nervous irritability, headache, anemia and female disorders. These were
found in about a quarter of the women examined, but it is not stated
whether any of them were supposed to result from the employment.
In the manufacture of fuses, where fine processes involving close
attention were in use, some evidences of eye strain were found. In one
factory 64 per cent of the women in the fuse department had eye
defects, while only 19 per cent of those cutting shells by machine were
similarly affected.[254]
Another hazard to the overfatigued woman worker is suggested by
the increase in industrial accidents under the stress of long hours. With a
twelve hour day and seventy-five hour week, accidents to women were
two and a half times as frequent in one munition factory as when the
shifts were reduced to ten hours. At another shell factory, when the
working hours of men and women were equalized, lengthening the
women’s week nine and three quarters hours and reducing the men’s
nine and a quarter, the ratio of women’s to men’s accidents rose 19 per
cent for the day shift and 61 per cent for the night shift.
Factors likely to be injurious to health included the frequent twelve
hour shifts and the premium bonus system of payment. There were
numerous complaints of the strain of twelve hour shifts, which usually
entailed ten and a half hours of actual work. Particularly in the case of
married women with children the strain of these hours appeared to be
excessive. The factory inspectors stated in 1915 that especially at night
the twelve hour shift “for any length of time for women ... is undoubtedly
trying, and permissible only for war emergencies with careful make-
weights in the way of good food and welfare arrangements.”[255] The last
hours of the twelve hour night shift were often found to yield but little
additional output.
Such a judgment is not surprising when the nature of the work
frequently done by women munition makers is considered. To be sure,
such work as filling shells with explosive mixtures was easy and semi-
automatic; but other tasks, for example, examining and gauging,
although light, took much attention and exactness; and some work, such
as turning shells, was comparatively heavy. In lifting shells in and out of
the lathe women were obliged to stretch over the machine, which
involved a considerable strain on the arms with the heavier shells. For
shells over 40-50 pounds, special lifting apparatus was generally
provided, or a male laborer used to lift the shell, but women, in their
haste to proceed, sometimes failed to wait for help. A number of
compensation cases have arisen in which women were seriously injured
by heavy lifting. Yet a woman physician who had medical supervision of
several thousand workers from April, 1916, to November, 1918, decided
that if women were chosen with care they could perform without risk
operations formerly thought beyond their powers. The employes in
question were expected to lift shells up to sixty pounds without special
appliances, but women with pelvic or abdominal defects were not
allowed to enter this work.[256] Ten and a half hours, however, of the
heavier work might prove to be a serious strain.
Moreover, long train journeys were frequently necessary, adding two
or three hours to the time spent away from home. Out of seventy-five
women whose working hours began at 6 a.m. and ended at 8 p.m., none
had time for more than about seven and a half hours’ sleep, and many of
them less than seven hours. Only nineteen of these women were over
twenty years of age.
The premium bonus systems of payment, which became more and
more common, provided increased rates for increased output. In some
cases such systems were said to have proved “a strong temptation to
injurious overexertion.” One example was that of a woman who had “won
a ‘shift’ bonus by turning out 132 shells (nose-profiling) in one shift
where the normal output was 100 shells, and had as a result, to remain
in bed on the following day. When it was pointed out to her later that she
had acted foolishly, her reply was that she knew but she ‘wasn’t going to
be beat.’”[257]
As counteracting influences to these strains, several factors were
brought forward. Improved pay, and the more nourishing food, better
clothing and living conditions which women workers were often enabled
to secure were mentioned by a number of authorities, including the
Health of Munition Workers Committee, the factory inspectors, the
Association for the Advancement of Science, and the War Cabinet
Committee on women in industry. “The dietary was in most cases more
ample and suitable than the workers had been used to previously,” said
the investigators for the Health of Munition Workers Committee. It has
been observed that many well paid women gave up the supposedly
feminine habit of living on bread and tea for substantial meals of meat
and vegetables. The British Association for the Advancement of Science
noted a higher “physical and mental tone” due to the better standards
permitted by higher wages. The health of low paid workers frequently
improved after entering munitions work.[258] The improvements in
factory sanitation encouraged by the Ministry of Munitions were likewise
helpful in decreasing the risks to health, and the patriotic spirit of the
women also received mention as a partial preventive of fatigue. “The
excitement of doing ‘war work’ and making munitions added a zest and
interest to the work which tended to lessen the fatigue experienced,” said
the physicians who investigated the health of women munition workers
for the Health of Munition Workers Committee.
Development of Personality
in Women War Workers
Nevertheless, surprising as it may seem in view of the harm which
war work appears often to have done to home life and sometimes to
health, the development of the woman industrial worker under it may
prove to be one of the most important changes wrought by the conflict.
An interesting article in The New Statesman[265] suggested that
“three years of war have been enough to effect an amazing
transformation,” in the average factory woman, especially in the munition
centers. They had gained an independence and an interest in impersonal
affairs seldom found before the war. “They appear more alert, more
critical of the conditions under which they work, more ready to make a
stand against injustice than their prewar selves or their prototypes. They
seem to have wider interests and more corporate feeling. They have a
keener appetite for experience and pleasure and a tendency quite new to
their class to protest against wrongs even before they become
intolerable.” It is “not that an entire class has been reborn, but that the
average factory woman is less helpless, and that the class is evolving its
own leaders.” The writer ascribed the change in the main to a wider
choice of employments, occasional gains in real wages, praise of the
women’s value in war service, and their discontent with the operation of
the munitions acts and other government measures:
Again, the brains of the girl worker have been
sharpened by the discontent of her family. She is living
in an atmosphere of discontent with almost all
established things. There is discontent because of the
high prices of milk and meat, because of the scarcity of
potatoes, sugar, butter or margarine, because of the
indigestible quality of the war bread, because of the
increased railway fares and the big profits of many
employers and contractors. There is discontent with the
discipline of the army, with the humiliating position of
brothers and husbands and sweethearts who are
privates, with the inadequacy of army pensions and the
delay in giving them. There is rage against the
munitions act, against munitions tribunals and military
tribunals. Every member of the family has his or her
grievance. The father perhaps is a skilled engineer and
is afraid that he is being robbed of the value of his skill
by the process of dilution. The eldest son is in the
army, and perhaps sends home tales of petty tyrannies,
and minor, avoidable irritations. Another son, with
incurable physical defects, is forced into the army and
falls dangerously ill. One daughter goes to another
town to work in a munitions factory, can not get a
leaving certificate, and barely earns enough to pay for
board and lodging. Thus the women of the family are
being brought more than ever before into contact with
questions of principles and rights. Questions of
government administration are forced upon their notice.
And in the factory the very men who used to tell them
that trade unionism was no concern of theirs are urging
them to organize for the protection of men workers as
well as of themselves.... The woman worker who was
formerly forbidden by her menfolk to interest herself in
public questions is now assured by politicians,
journalists, and the men who work at her side that her
labor is one of the most vital elements in the national
scheme of defence, and that after the war it is going to
be one of the most formidable problems of
reconstruction. Flattery and discontent have always
been the soundest schoolmasters. The factory woman
was a case of arrested development, and the war has
given her a brief opportunity which she is using to
come into line with men of her own class.
Though naturally more guarded in expression, the factory inspectors’
report for 1916 reflected a very similar opinion. The change was noted
principally among women substitutes for men. There, especially in heavy
work, “the acquisition of men’s rates of pay has had a peculiarly
enheartening and stimulating effect.” On the northeast coast in particular,
where prewar opportunities for women had been limited and their wages
very low, their replacement of men in shipbuilding, munitions, chemicals
and iron works had “revolutionized” the position of the woman worker.
“The national gain appears to me to be overwhelming,” it was stated
further, “as against all risks of loss or disturbance, in the new self-
confidence engendered in women by the very considerable proportion of
cases where they are efficiently doing men’s work at men’s rates of pay.
If this new valuation can be reflected on to their own special and often
highly skilled and nationally indispensable occupations a renaissance may
there be effected of far greater significance even than the immediate
widening of women’s opportunities, great as that is. Undervaluation there
in the past has been the bane of efficiency, and has meant a heavy loss
to the nation.”[266]
p The principal effects of the war on the woman worker were
strikingly reviewed by Dr. Marion Phillips, at a “conference of working
class organizations,” held at Bradford in March, 1917. Dr. Phillips held that
the roots of the change lay in the absence of millions of men from their
homes on military service and in the fact that for the first time the
demand for women workers was greater than the supply. As a result of
military demands, wives were deprived of their “dearest and most
intimate counsellors,” their husbands, and were obliged to form
independent judgments, but gained thereby a “new grasp of experience,
a widened outlook and greater confidence in their own judgment.”
The keen demand for women workers resulted in higher wages,
greater opportunities for promotion and more openings in the skilled
trades. Women learned their own value as workers and a growing desire
for equality with male workers was manifested. Higher wages enabled
women workers to obtain more food, and there was a general rise in
their standard of living.
On the other hand, Dr. Phillips notes as unfortunate results on women
workers, the increase in hours, night work and frequent entrance into
unsuitable occupations which overtaxed their strength. There had been a
great influx into industry of women with young children, and a “general
dispersion and scattering of home groups.” Many young women lived in
munition centers in hostels or lodgings away from the restraining
influence of family and friends. It was claimed that this system
encouraged too militaristic a discipline and unfortunate interferences with
the private life of the worker by employers and “welfare supervisors.” But
it is reassuring to see that Dr. Phillips, who is not likely to underestimate
the evils produced by the war, gives as her final judgment that “the good
effects were infinitely more important than the bad ones.”
CHAPTER XV
Peace and Reconstruction