The labor world., 1921-01-15
THE APPRENTICE QUESTION.

Ono Of them had something to say
about it in his own peculiar way the
other evening. He thought unions were
all right in their place, but what he OBJ.
,iectcd to was the 'closcd' shop and
their action in "denying the American
boy the right to learn a traue.''
1t is the same old camouflagcd cry;
anvthing to have on hand at all times
an abundant supply Of labor to draw
from with the same case AZ they get
material from the stockpilc. Idle mate
rial on shelves or in lumber yards need
only insurance to be protected. Idle
abor needs bread and clothing and fuel
and shelter.
10 hear presidents Of employers as
sociations talk about the apprentice
question one would think that all the
wrong was on the side Of the unions,
and all the good on the side Of the
employers. Those who talk about it
most seldom send their boys to the
workshop or the job, except as prepa-
ration for something better. Most Of
them enter the higher professions.
Tradesmen and other skilled work.
mcn come from the homes Of labor. Are
union men unnatural fathers7 Are they
enemies o. their own children? Would
they lock tho door Of opportunity to
them? The questions need no answer.
The records Of union labor tell the
story.
1f i'll some instances unseeming re-.
styictions have been made to the en-
plcyment of apprentices there is usually
good trade reason for it. It is said
that the bricklayers restrict apprentices
to the sons Of bricklayers. This custom
antecedes trade unionism. It was
handed down from the old guilds of
England. The rule applied in all the
highly skilled trades and resulted in
the development of the most efficient
and most skillful mechanics on earth.
We recall conversation we had one
time with a prominent shoe manufac-
'urer in St. Paul. He spoke Of the
difficulty Of getting competent opera
tivcs because Minnesota was so far re-
moved from the center of America 9
shoe industry. lin Massachusetts, he
said, :" the training of operatives begins
IN the cradle. Most Of them are the
children Of shoemakcrs. They are eff
cent from the first day Of their en-
ployment. 1t means great deal in
keeping down labor costs.
All unions. however, have no such
restrictive apprentice regulations as the
hricklayers. We aren t troubled verv'
much about the apprentice question:
said the secretary of the Plasterers'
union. American boys are not very
anxious to learn our trade. 1t is too
much like work. However, we always
stand willing to give every boy chance
hut we do insist that there be q ;our.
newman on the job TO teach him.
The plumbers and several other build
ing trades unions limit the number Of
apprentices to one for every three or
tour ]ourneymen, always agreeing to
have at least one in every shop. And
that is about all the restrictions there
are, excepting as to time of service and
the age of beginning. Is there anything
wrong with that's
There probably would have never
been any restrictions whatsoever to the
employment of apprentices in any in
dustry IN America were it not for the
TACT that employers themselves, in their
desire to get cheap labor, used them
TO do the work Of journcymcn, paying
only apprentice wages. At Morgan
Park the steel company turns out a
machlnlst in six months, such as he is.
That is what every "open shop' would
90 If there wefe no unions. It is said
that there is not paint shop in Duluth
that employees as many apprentices as
are allowed to it under tho rules of
the union.
We have observed, and our own ex.
perience is an illustrations, that a boy
is employed as an apprentice only while
there is work for him to do. We spent
five years learning trade requiring but
three and one.half years of service. We
were idle for one and one-half years
during that time, due to the Door ron.
dition Of trade.
The apprentice question is mighty
big one. It cannot be properly settled
by masters or journeymen alone. It
can be settled by mutual understanding
and agreement. Union labor has shown
fine spirit in helping to solve the
problem by encouraging vocational
....