Who will do the dirty work?

Most Socialists will agree that, of all the questions put to them in their attempt to explain Socialism to their fellow-workers, this is among the most common. In fact, sooner or later during the process of convincing a worker, it is almost certain to come up.

We all know what is meant by the question. The enquirer is not alluding to the sharp practices of his masters, the betrayals of his leaders, nor yet to his own exploitation. He refers to some of the jobs that are looked upon as dirty and degrading, and to which many of his fellow workers seem doomed by the very nature of things.

It is not all dirty jobs that worry the questioners—for example they never ask about doctors and coroners—but only the badly paid dirty work, a favourite being the work of dustmen. The following extracts from a Government report show what could be done about that work now if cost were not the deciding factor. Under Socialism health, comfort and safety will be first considerations.

“At Quarry Hill flats in Leeds . . . we inspected what we believe to be the only installation in this country of a water-borne system of refuse disposal whereby the refuse is conveyed direct from the kitchen sink of each flat by means of large bore pipes. The specially constructed sink is combined with a large circular hopper into which the refuse is placed. The hopper is then filled with water and when the tenant raises a plunger it discharges its contents in much the same way as an ordinary w.c. The refuse, which may include without damage to the system ashes;, tins and bottles, is then conveyed by suction through underground pipes to a central chamber. Here the liquids and solids are mechanically separated, the liquids discharging into the ordinary sewerage system and the solids being burnt in the furnaces which heat the water for the communal laundry. The system appears to work extremely satisfactorily . . .”(“Design of Dwellings,” H.M.S.O., 1944, p. 21.)

However, let not any dustmen among our readers imagine that they will soon be out of work. To the best of our knowledge the system of refuse disposal described above was first installed in blocks of flats near Paris in 1932. The Quarry Hill flats in Leeds were built in 1935 and appears to have been, in 1944, the only scheme of flats in this country where such a system was employed. It does not look as if dustmen are on their way out just yet. The next paragraph in the report may suggest why: —

“Owing to the cost of equipping the central chamber, which contains an expensive plant, a water-borne system of refuse disposal would scarcely be a practical proposition except on a large-scale development. But at Quarry Hill, with its 938 flats, the average cost of maintaining the system does not exceed 1.7 pence per week per flat.”

The all too familiar reason: too expensive. Atomic bomb plants, yes. Refuse disposal plants, no.

However, dustmen should not despair. Since the local authorities who pay their wages are also building the flats, it may occur to them that a mechanical system of refuse disposal might be cheaper. In that case we can anticipate many fine speeches about the progressiveness of public authorities in abolishing an unpleasant task.

Would it be churlish to ask whether the dustmen will be found other work? Or will it be a case of “off the dust cart, on to the dole”?

J. M.