vocations and trades with a lot of so-called trained people which would just reverse the conditions to what they were in the years from 1929 to 1934. I am further of the opinion that there is an overemphasis, at the present time, on vocational education. I feel that there is a hysterical move on the part of a good many people crying to Heaven that there is a shortage of mechanics, a theory with which I disagree. There will be no shortage of men in this district for some time to come. Due to the intermittent nature of building trades operations, all men might be employed at a given time, but as the jobs finish, they must again seek employment. An inquiry was made into the trade schools of Connecticut, which received Federal aid. The unions complained bitterly about "the unfair competition of these schools, the anti-union attitude of the whole outfit, with the instructors and boys working on outside jobs, while good mechanics with families walked the streets." 19 The Secretary of the Connecticut State Federation of Labor states: The manufacturers have completely dominated the whole school program. We have long tried to get a voice in it but to no avail. The State board of education is hostile and the trade schools throughout the State are simply used for the employers' benefit. . . . Our State Federation opposes these trade schools. At the last session of the legislature we defeated appropriations for any more of them. 20 Time and time again I have gone to the State Board of Education, to the Commissioner of the State Board of Education and even to some of the members, with complaints and requests that the procedure be changed. ... It has been the policy of the trade schools in this State in the building trades industry to take contracts at figures that Union contractors could not compete with. . .. ... This whole principle of trade school training has been contrary and just opposite to the principle of apprenticeship inaugurated by employers in years gone by, and maintained by Labor Unions. We have set up the principle to employers of approximately one apprentice to five mechanics. Trade schools have one supervisor and a dozen or fifteen apprentice boys, and they certainly can't get the proper training.21 19 Views expressed by labor representatives interviewed January 13, 1937. 20 Interview held January 13, 1937. 11 Letter in files of the Advisory Committee on Education. To check the claims of the union officials, a visit was paid the State Director of Vocational Education in Connecticut. In response to the question, "How do you meet the unions' claims of unfair competition?" his reply was, "We have little or no contact with the unions. Thirty percent of our students' time is spent in school, the rest on the jobs. We take only enough outside contracts to keep the instructors and the boys busy. We get the regular price that the contractors get.' 1 22 An instructor in the plumbing department of the Hartford Trade School stated that about 85 percent of the boy's time is spent on outside work, at least for the last two years.23 The State Supervisor of Trades and Industries stated that "about 50 percent of the student's time is spent on outside work." 24 A pamphlet describing the State vocational education program says: Approximately 70% of the student's time is spent in the special shop of his trade on work of a productive nature. The remainder of his time is divided between mathematics, science, and blueprint reading, and such training in civics and English as will make him a useful citizen.25 The State Supervisor stated that, "The small contractors have complained more than the unions. Recently, we had a meeting of these contractors and tried to show them that they are not being harmed." The boys receive no pay for their labor and the instructors are paid by the State, so such schools can easily underbid any competitor. There is a plant training program in Connecticut. On December 1, 1936, this program, the State Supervisor stated, had about 400 enrollees. He expected this number to double in the next two years. The pamphlet describing this program states: 22 Interview held January 13, 1937. In this connection, a leaflet issued by the Division of Vocational Education reads: "The State Trade Schools take contracts for doing productive work, because only by doing the actual kind of work a skilled mechanic has to do can the student learn to become a skilled mechanic. For example, if a young man wants to become a carpenter, he can learn to be a carpenter much more readily by working under instruction on actual houses than by working on models of houses." (State Trade Schools, 1931.) 23 Interview held January 14, 1937. 24 Interview held January 14, 1937. 25 Connecticut Industrial Council. Facilities for Trade Training in Connecticut (Hartford: State Trade School, no date), p. 4. Where no state trade school is located in a town or near enough to render the attendance of employees possible, special arrangements may be made under which a trade school instructor may be sent to the plant and classes established . . . This type of instruction particularly fits the needs of the plant since it is based entirely on operations carried on in the organization. Work of this description is being carried on at the Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Company in Thompsonville. For the past several years, trade school instructors . . . have come to the plant and operated classes in theory and shop practice, using the company equipment. The men taking these courses are given training on regular plant machinery, carrying the manufacture of rugs through, from the raw material to finished product. . . . Another illustration of special courses operated by the state trade schools in an industrial plant are the classes in automatic screw machine operation. . . . These classes were for employees of the plant or any others who wished to attend. . . There is a flexibility in the trade school organization that will enable it to offer training outside its own school buildings. Service may be brought to plants practically anywhere in the state if industries are in need of such assistance. Inquiries should be addressed to the Bureau of Vocational Education, or to the state or local manufacturers' or employers' association.20 With few exceptions the attitude of the unions toward vocational education is one of defense against its abuses. Where labor is strongly enough organized, it curbs the worst evils, it insists on running its own apprentice programs, and it accepts, and apparently tolerates as a commonplace, the failure of the educational system to consult with labor or to utilize its experience and cooperation. Some States have been wise and far-sighted enough to secure the full confidence and participation of organized labor in their vocational policy. The results of such a policy are shown in a letter from the New Jersey State Building Trades Council. Without exception the attitude of those persons handling vocational education in New Jersey is favorable to union labor and to the standards of wages and working conditions that organized labor strives for... Yes, . vocational education has worked out satisfactorily in New Jersey. No training is provided in the part-time or evening schools that has not been supplementary to a daily employment. . . . 28 Ibid. pp. 5-8. In many instances employers cooperate with schools, and with Labor, through advisory committees, to see that pupils' vocational training is complete. Vocation training programs in New Jersey have only been instituted after careful surveys, usually participated in by Labor. This scientific approach has made it possible to have the training relate directly to the actual needs of the trade involved.27 If organized labor fails to revive the optimism and enthusiasm it showed in the years up to 1917 and if it now conceives its duty to be that of protecting itself against the abuses of vocational education, its attitude is understandable. The factors which brought about the change in the attitude of organized labor may be summarized as follows: Failure to encourage or allow labor participation in the development of the program. Disregard of the apprentice method of training and, hence, creation of substandard craftsmen. Failure to balance trade training programs to personnel needs of the industry, thus creating an artificial surplus. Disregard of proper labor standards as to wages in placing trade school students and graduates. Unconcern as to whether such placements displaced adult workers. Domination of many vocational training systems by "chiseling" employers. Participation of the vocational training system in strike-breaking activities for fugitive employers. Complaisance on the part of educators toward the use of Federal funds to train new sources of labor for migratory industries. Training workers under so-called vocational education plans for mere routine processes. Permitting student employees to work on a production basis without wages. Encouraging boys to go into trade courses to the detriment of their general education. Lack of cooperation with union apprentice training programs. Failure to supply trade extension classes for union journeymen already employed and seeking to keep abreast of technical changes in a trade. Susceptibility of vocational educators to employer propaganda, such as the cry of labor shortage, without regard to the real facts as to shortage or whether the schools can actually do anything about it, or whether another depression will hit us before the "shortage" could be met. " Data in files of Advisory Committee on Education. Failure to give trade school students any instruction on subjects which would prepare them for a proper understanding of industrial life. Inculcation of anti-union propaganda and fostering of employerdominated philosophies that tend toward company unionism, such as seen in movements such as the Future Craftsmen of America. Present Attitude Typical attitudes of labor are as follows: One comparatively small group feels that labor is adequately represented and consulted on the program in some States and is satisfied that vocational education is operating at least inoffensively. A second and by far the largest group is that which is completely disillusioned, and which feels that its duty is merely to protect labor against the abuses and evils of the vocational education system, and otherwise to leave it severely alone. A third group believes that a complete change in attitude and practices from top to bottom in the vocational education system is necessary if labor and the public are to be protected from present abuses. This group also believes that the first step in such a reform is a change in personnel in the division of the Office of Education which deals with trade and industrial education. |