There's a load of victorian terraced houses in my home town. they were built around 1890 for the workers of a now closed brewery. Earlier today I was walking along a row of them and I looked up and saw "1892" carved in large stone digits to make when the street was finished. I found myself wondering
"was the sculptor who made those digits any more respected in society than the factory workers whose houses it was placed above?"
Yes. In 19th century Britain the class system was stable enough to incorporate workers, and what resulted was, in the words of Thomas Hobsbawm, an "aristocracy of labour" which is to say an upper stratum of the working class which prided itself on its own respectability and wage-earnings compared to those of the other workers. Though there is debate in scholarly circles on the notion of a labour aristocracy, Hobsbawm argued that skilled labourers were economically better-off and developed their own idea of themselves as being at the top of the working class. Unskilled factory workers, on the other hand, especially if they weren't unionized, earned lower wages and faced increased competition at and loss of work. Thus, to answer your question, many historians, following Hobsbawm, would argue that skilled workers such as sculptors or masons were considered to be of a higher stratum of the working class and of a higher degree of respectability as a result.
Edit: stale --> stable