What about the Luddites? Pt. 1

The Luddites, as explained in an excellent Wikipedia item http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite , were weavers who reacted against mechanization, therefore efforts to increase production, by destroying their looms. Luddism has therefore become a blanket term used to describe any effort to resist change in the workplace, as a deficiency to be remedied. In fact, while in Wikipedia, look up Neo-Luddism, an organized effort to promote technology as bad; and as a movement which has had its own promoters, such as the late Jacques Ellul.

My point is to challenge whether efforts to preserve methods and work should always be seen in a negative light. I have a reason for asking; I promote craft, and craft is passed on through apprenticeships, which was the way skills were developed within plants not so many years ago. One of the arguments against craftwork, beside keeping the knowledge within groups of workers, i.e. machinists, so that the front office could not control it, was that it is and was inefficient as a method of passing on skills. It is also, just as we saw with Luddism, seen as resistant to change. The reasons given for this are that efforts to alter production and speed up production are viewed individually and collectively with suspicion, for greater control of workers and reduce staff. These suspicions are not without reason.

I would like to suggest another approach to craft's arousing suspicion regarding resistance to change, that craft may be conservative, in the sense of conserving "a way of working" including methods, tools, etc. This I would like to further discuss including possible reasons. Also, I would like to continue by asking if craft is necessarily conservative; that is, does craft have to be resistant to change.