Industrial training : with special reference to the conditions prevailing in London

Front matter

22102198894

Med

* I

Table Of Contents

CHAP. PACE

Preface v

I The Problem Stated . . . • • i

CHAPTER I. The Problem Stated

(I) Scope of the Problem.

(II) Trades and Industries of London.

I. Scope of the Problem. — Scope of the Problem of Industrial Training— Its Meaning — Occupations covered by the Term Industrial— Relation of the Problem to the Apprenticeship Question — Difficulty of using the plirase Industrial Training — Problem a Threefold One — First Main Question : How Boys learn trades — Second Main Question : How Boys are taught trades — Third Main Question ; How Boys do not learn trades — Method of Treatment to be followed in the rest of the book — Method of Enquiry and Assistance received.

II. Trades and Industries of London. — Numbers engaged in the Chief Industries of London — Difficulties of Making an Accurate Estimate — How Overcome ? — Size of the Chief Industrial Groups : in London, in Greater London, in the Rest of England and Wales — Industries which do not exist in London — Industries which are unusually large there — Commercial and Distributive Work — ^The Different Kinds of Employment and the Numbers engaged in them — General Features of London Industry Summarized.

I. Scope of the Problem.

The subject of Industrial Training is one which can be given either a wide or a narrow scope, and tlierefore it is necessary to begin by defining clearly the ground which our treatment of it will cover. For it is one that borders upon, and frequently overlaps, a variety of others. Training for a trade involves considerations of the methods by which it is recruited. Still more does it necessitate enquiry into the instruction given in Trade or Technical Schools, since this at present plays an important part in it. Above all,

B

INDUSTRIAL TRATNTNCx.

it is so inextricably inteiA\wen with the question of Boy Labour, that the two problems have to be considered together. For those who deal with Industrial Training are not unconcerned with its failures and their causes, whether these occur because the attempt to acquire a trade is unsuccessful or because it is never made at all. The matter, the refore, cannot be limited to its narrowest sense or regarded simply as a question of how various occupations are actually taught to the boys who enter them ; for an adequate treatment of it requires that fuU account shall be taken of its various antecedents and accompaniments.

In the first place, therefore, the meaning of the term industrial requires definition. Roughly speaking, it covers the manual workers generally, and so coincides fairl}' closely with the distinction between Industr}^ and Commerce in the wider sense. For most purposes, therefore, we shall exclude from the enquiry men and boys engaged in professional and commercial employments, and in the literary" and artistic professions, in the services — ^naval, military and police — and in the mercantile marine. Nor will it deal directly with the actual training of those who are described in the census as dealers, shop-keepers, shop-assistants and the like.

These latter have, nevertheless, an important influence upon the general problem in so far as they employ as boys those whom they cannot absorb as men, or so far as they find openings in adult processes for those who have been otherwise engaged during boyhood. Tins is also true of the lower ranks of commercial occupations, and notabty of office and messenger boys. Another interesting case arises where, as with bakers, one class of workmen is engaged in wholesale manufacture and another in retail distribution. As a whole, however, this book deals primarily with what may be called the manual workers engaged in industiy’, but to the term industry, a wide meaning is given.

Secondly, within the trades concerned, the artisan and semi-skilled workers must be distinguished, both from those who fill the higher posts, and from the so-called unskilled

THE PROBLEM STATED.

workers. With the former this book is not directly concerned and will not, therefore, cover the training of the employers themselves, their salaried staff and the various technical experts engaged in the work, or that of foremen ^ and clerks of the works. To this, however, there are certain exceptions. There is the question whether the training given to our artisans in the workshop or Trade School will enable them to rise to fill, and to fill efficiently, such higher posts, and how far existing methods provide a sufficiency of men for the latter.

Again, unskilled labour will receive a less full treatment, since what it requires is not so much training as the development of good industrial habits, steadiness, regularity and the like. Much work, however, is loosely referred to as such, which on examination has to be ranked as semi-skilled ; and in relation to certain sides of the problem the question of the recruiting of this t}q)e of worker is of great importance. When we deal, moreover, with the reasons for the presence of unskilled labour and for its presence in such large and often excessive quantities, we reach one of the most vital problems of all — namely the causes, extent and results of the failure of our existing methods. Above all, holding, as one must, the view that such labour is, and is likely to remain, an essential part of our industrial system, it is necessary to enquire carefully how such positions are filled and by whom, how they actually are fitted to fill them, and how they can best be so fitted.

Now, in dealing with the matter on these lines, one is stnick by the very significant extent to which the term apprentice actually survives to-day ; and this suggests that the frequent and confident assertion that “ Apprenticeship is dead ” may be the result of a too hasty diagnosis. This matter will be treated more fully later, but at the present day the term is often used to denote practically all

* It is necessary to distinguish between the general or '' walking” foreman and the foreman at the head of a department in a large firm, and the ” working ” foreman in a small shop who overlooks the men and works at the bench at the same time.

A

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

boys who are learning a trade, whether they are working under an Indenture or not. The problem is thus really that of Apprenticeship considered in a wider sense, and, when so defined, covers the extent of its survival and the alternative devices by which it has been replaced. Hence it is a sufficient illustration of the extension of the enquiry to say that it is coincident with what is usually known as the Apprenticeship Question.

In one respect the title of this book is an unfortunate one. The word " Training ” naturally carries with it the idea of certain things, and especially that of systematic regulations for imparting knowledge. To talk of Industrial Training or its methods, therefore, suggests the careful organization of teaching. Outside of a few trades, however, one of the characteristics of modern London is the absence of any system or uniformity. Usually a trade can be learnt and taught in a variety of ways, and in individual cases the work is often very carefully done. But on a more general view the existing state of affairs is the very reverse of what the idea of training conveys. The conditions under which boys are engaged and paid often render systematic methods impossible ; and so the workman, instead of being taught his business, may rather be said to “ get to know ” it, or in the better-known phrase “ he just picks it up.”

The use of the expression Industrial Training, therefore, contains no necessary reference to any systematic teaching. What will be done, wiU be to describe how the boy of to-day starts in life, and how he ” gets to know ” a trade. In so doing, it wiU be necessary to point out the difference between the results flowing from this “ getting to know ” and those that are attained in such trades as possess a proper system in the true sense. Present conditions involve, moreover, a further very considerable amount of ” not getting to know,” and, therefore, to the main subject of “ how boys learn trades ” must be added the scarcely less important one of ” how bo3^s do not learn trades.”

The problem, in fact, is threefold. First, there is that of how boj^s learn, which covers the different modes in

THE PROBLEM STATED.

which they enter an occupation, and the form of industrial engagement under which they work. This involves questions such as Regular Service in one firm versus Migration, the apprentice and the improver, “ picking up,” working as a mate and so on. It also considers the question of whether any contract to teach is actually entered into, and if so, what are its conditions, and also whether it still guarantees actual teaching or merely gives the ” opportunity to learn.”

Secondly, there is the problem of how boys are taught. The distinction between this and the preceding one may not be very clear, but it is nevertheless of some importance. For having discovered the general terms and conditions under wEich a boy sets out to acquire a trade, we then have to consider how these are carried out in detail. The former are important and will vary in value according as they are adapted to the trade concerned ; but the way in which they are actually carried out is of equal moment. Under this heading, therefore, are included the different arrangements made for teaching, the part played in them by the employer, the foreman and the boy’s fellow- workmen, the relation of the shop to the Trade School, and various questions regarding wages, hours and other conditions. This second problem, indeed, is very closely allied to the first and often their results vary together. But this is not alw’ays so. For, on the one hand, the actual teaching may be excellent where there is no definite system, and on the other regular Apprenticeship may be used by a certain type of firm as a means of exploitation.

Moreover, existing methods have to be judged, not only by their value to the boys who actually do fit themselves for definite occupations,^ but also by the proportion which these bear to the whole boyhood of the nation. Hence a third problem arises, as to how, and why, boys do not learn trades, and this is what is known as the problem of Boy

* The term occupation may be used to denote all employments, of whatever level of skill, which give a permanent livelihood at a man’s wage.' ]

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

Labour, It is a necessary part of that of Industrial Training, because the effectiveness of any system must be judged by its results as a whole, that is, not only by those it dcjes train more or less successfully, but by those whom it fails to train at all. We have to discover, therefore, the extent to which existing methods cause, or fail to prevent, a portion of each generation from growing up without either a trade or a settled occupation of any kind, and the character and causes of this wastage. This subject, therefore, includes not only Blind Alley employments which come to an end after the close of boyhood, but the shifting of boys casually from one unskilled job to another, the putting of them to unsuitable employments, and the generally wasteful methods of recruiting a great number of trades.

To deal with this threefold problem, therefore, the following method will be adopted. After the more important terms have been defined, the existing state of affairs in London will be briefly described, with particular reference to its special peculiarities and difficulties. Each of the chief methods of learning a trade will then be separately dealt with, the area which it covers will be considered, and its value estimated. Coming to the second problem, the ways of selecting a job and making a start in life will lead naturally to the actual means of teaching adopted in different workshops. This again will be followed b}'’ the work of continued education, whether in trade, technical or ordinary' evening schools, and by a brief consideration of the influence exerted by the increased use of machineiy and by the influx of provincial workmen into London. After this I shall deal with the problems of Boy Labour. Finally, in surveying the whole, I shall consider the relation of methods of training to Unemployment, and summarize both the work of existing agencies and the chief proposals now before the public. Future policy can then be considered in reference to its two main lines of development — the Organization of Boy Labour and improved Industrial Education.

My enquiry has been confined to the training of bo}'S and no attempt has been made to deal with that of girls.

THE PROBLE^I STATED.

For with the latter so many considerations enter which are not present in the case of the former, and a woman s connexion with industry differs so much from that of a man, that it seemed wiser to confine oneself to the one sex. The women’s question, I am aware, is no less urgent and equally needs investigation : but in many respects it is a second separate problem rather than a branch of the same one ; and to consider the two together would only create confusion.

In carrying out this enquiry I usually adopted a method that was somewhat as follows. In each case I took, to begin with, certain trades or groups of trades, and obtained interviews with as many members of them as time permitted— employers, foremen, representatives of the workmen and the boys themselves. It was thus possible to get at least a fair sample of each and of the method or methods employed in it. For this purpose I drew up a series of questions, copies of which are printed in an appendix, which enabled me to give those from whom I was seeking information a clearer view of my objective. The Trade Schools and Technical Institutes gave me my best opportunity of getting into touch with the boys themselves : and thanks to the courtesy of Principals and Teachers, I was able to interview a number who were actually engaged in learning different industries. I also carried my enquiry into the side of the subject that is connnected with the work of the School Care Committees and with the placing of boys in employment through Labour Exchanges and other organizations.

In conclusion, I desire to record my most sincere thanks for the uniform kindness and courtesy with which I have been received on all sides, and for the immense amount of trouble that has been taken on my behalf. Above all, for the way in which I was received by employers of labour and their foremen, I can never be sufficiently grateful. To many of them I was practically a complete stranger, yet only in the very rarest cases was information refused, even where the giving of it occupied a considerable amount of

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

time. But from all sides the assistance accorded to me was very great, and officials of Labour Exchanges, of Trade Unions and of other Societies, and, alxwe all, the Principals and Instructors of Trade Schools were quite ungrudging in their help. The only return, beyond these few feeble words of acknowledgment, which I can make to all this kindness, is that of using to the best of my ability the information placed so generously at my disposal.

II. Trades and Industries of London.

I shaU conclude this chapter by a brief analysis of the numbers of male persons employed in the chief industries of London. In attempting to obtain an accurate estimate of these, much difficulty is caused by the necessity of including those surrounding areas which are covered by the name of Outer London. For some time past London has been extending itself into suburban districts, which have come more and more to act as the “ dormitories ” of those who are working during the daytime within the count}’’ boundaries, whilst some manufacturers have also removed their works into them. To the whole area, which includes both the County and the Outer Ring, the name of Greater London may be given.

The recent Census in its Preliminary Report and Tables ‘ gave the following return of the total numbers living in the Urban and Rural Districts of Outer London : —

County.

Urban

Districts.

Rural

Districts.

Essex

839,076

10,676

Hertfordshire

45.390

9.519

Kent

148.4^5

^3.855

Middlesex

1,078,556

48,138

Surrey

438.715

87.592

Total : Outer Ring of London .

2.550,222

179,780

THE PROBLEM STATED.

So far the matter is fairly simple. The difficulty really begins with the investigation of the numbers employed in separate industries, and more particularly in individuad trades, since detailed returns for some of the latter are not given in aU cases. Moreover, the trade distribution of a County as a whole is not necessarily the same as its London areas. This is particularly true of Kent, which employs considerable numbers in certain small trades, such as paper and cement making, which are practically non-existent in any part of London. Compared, therefore, with the County of London, for which actual returns are available, some of the figures for Outer London ^ can only represent a rough approximation.

In arriving at an estimate I have omitted the very small proportion of the population of the latter that is living in rural districts. For the urban I have made it on the following lines. 2 Middlesex presents no difficulty, since all its urban districts are inside the outer boundaries of London. In the case of Essex, the returns for its five chief urban areas are taken,, since detailed figures are available for them and not for the others. They are the Boroughs of East and \\ est Ham and the Districts of Ilford, Leyton and Walthamstow. All the urban districts of Surrey are included, and those of Kent are entirely omitted. For the reasons already given, the trade distribution of the latter county is different from that of its London districts, whilst that of Surrey is likely to be similar : and to omit the one and include the whole of the other promises to give a more accurate estimate. The numbers added in the case of Surrey are not very much larger than those omitted in that of Kent. Finally, as the Hertfordshire urban districts are very largely dependent upon London, even if they are not within its actual boundaries, a large proportion of them — two-thirds — has been

* Except in the case of Middlesex.

’ The method adopted which appears to be the best available I owe to the kind suggestions of Professor A. L. Bowley, to whom I wish to express my gratitude for kind help and criticism in connexion with the statistical subjects of this book.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

taken. 1 Where separate returns are given for individual trades in London and not in the counties, the relative proportions between them have been taken to be the same in the latter as in the former.

The following table gives the totals of men and bfjys over ten years of age engaged in the chief occupation groups in the County of London, in Outer London, in the whole of Greater London, and in the Rest of England and Wales. It also shows the proportional size of every such group by showing the numbers employed in it for each 10,000 of the occupied population.

This table illustrates the chief characteristics of London industry. Natural and' other causes have brought about the almost entire absence of certain occupations — notably Agriculture, Mining and Quarrying, Fishing and the Textile Trades. Together theSe four account for about 2,660,000 male persons out of about 9,289,000 in the I'est of England and Wales. The absence of three of them is due to purely natural causes which are partly responsible in the case of the fourth, the Textile Trades. ^ Those Londoners shown to be employed in these groups are mainly occupied in retail work and in certain small trades like rope and canvas making, whilst more than two-thirds of those classified under Agriculture are nursery gardeners, though some living on the very outskirts are no doubt actual agricultural labourers. The rest were probably either owners or employers or too newly arrived in London to have found a new occupation. Other trades which hardly exist there, include the making (as distinct from the working) of iron, steel and other metals, the cutlery and allied trades and the manufacture of bricks,

1 “The net result of this method of estimating is to reduce the total population of Greater London by some 150,000, or alwut 6 per cent. The omissions consist of about 180,000 in the rural districts, and 148,000 and 89,000 respectively in the urban districts of Kent and Essex. In the urban areas of SuiTey and Hertfordshire the numbers included exceed those returned for Greater London by about 183,000 and 84,000 respectivel3^

* Dealers account for 27,663 male workpeople out of a total of 34,523 in the textile trades, and for 3,294 out of 5,947 mining and quarrying.

Occupied Males over id years of age.

THE PROBLEM STATED.

II I

c"

l§

E q

s o

— ’3

» O C_ «rt

I as5 ^

O

rt*0

O fO C* ^00 ^sNtxMO'^«Ovr» rooo N ts.00 vO M O O ^sC\^sN^o M o\c‘« *-* oooooo moo m^^.ln moo O

tNMMM M m m fs. lO

ODi

X c

ici i 5 3 mci M u*)M ^s»^s.l^5’^mo m o\t>»CN mco o M^^oOfN.^su-> wmcooco mo M Cl m o rs. m M

TTMiO^OOw CO»HOm mm'^mvoOm'O m ^s M o **t* o 00 ► O Cl m

-•i* M 10 m M m m

’^00 O'C'OO o MiN.00 mo H m ”^o CO o -^00 CO m m M »oco coMMm M mMmOwm mo o CN N m M

Cl Cl C\ Cl ^s m m M Tj- ^ C\

I- o -too mo a\-i-mci in.O'O lOO^oc^^nl^^m mo 00 o m m

OOHIO^*^ MWTtMmtHMVO

1 CO 0 0 Cn ^s IN.00

dO ■+iNmmooo MQooo in 00 m n

e.o '

0 •H Cl -t Cl IN.O

ON m mo 0 *^t 0 0 00 mco in -t in. in.

OnOO

m On CN m In. 0

On m moo 00 onoo m in d 0 Cl m 0 ci

Cl d 1

•4- m 0 onoo d moiNiNiNod-^Tt

ON m 1

m In, m 0 m m 0

dmomdiNdomcim mco ino

CO 0 1

“M'S

M M d m -it 0 M

om inmmm Mm mo ^st

d In 1

C3

M M

M M

<j\ M

0 In. 00 00 Cl CNiN.iN.iN.mTtTtCN-^m»H m moo in,oo 0

00 m i

U M

•o

a 0

d OnO w 0 0 -t

M On In 0 mcO C\CO O m moO d M 00

m d

rt'O

0 0 00 In. d M m

mo 0 IN d 0 '’t m d Ttco moo d

Tt d 1

1 0

oj

cn Cl 0 CO mo m

iN*i-Mco M mdCNmo mci m

M dm

M Cl H Cl M

1 s

Cl 1

M rt m M m -t M

0 -t M On m Ttoo 0 mo -4-00 ttO m

0 00

00 0 mo m Cl 00

-t iNO moo On In go m d ci m d On In

0 m

V-U

|n.<0 On m m m 0

m ’^00 m IN Tto M VO -:t 0 In m m

1 a

0 Oioo 00 -t m m

Cl Tt Cl d Cl m mo GO M IN In M Tt-

d M

m m Cl On M Cl

OmOnCI M dMdlNM-t

0 IN

M

In m I

m m m N. On mo

IN m Cl m M mo cnoo in on 0 m d in

d ON

In rt 0 0 m OnO

oino 0 "^o m»H mo onoo on in m

0 00

-t d IN. On m 0 IN.

•H mmd OnO miNco iN-rtiNO

Cl m

3 0 Si

0 In 000 ^sO IN

mci INO 0 iNM ONmci m mooo

M

P Q

m H 0 m m t

MddO dM.vodoomuco

0 In

IH d

MM M

M

■ >4/

^ U4 hcG b § "S rt'rt

HQU,00

M Cl m -t mo tNco O' o N m ^ mo Koo on d ci

MMMMMMMMMMCIdd

* TJ o

O O

HH

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

cement and paper, and, except in one or two branches, of glass and pottery.^ Again in Engineering and the Metal Trades generally London employs less than the normal proportion, except in electrical work and in one or two smaller branches, such as tinsmithing. In Engineering proper there is comparatively little new construction, and this is even more true of Boilermaking and Ship-buUding in which London has ceased to be anything more than a repairing centre.

On the other hand, London shows an enormous preponderance in Commercial, Transport and Distributive Work. In 1911 the two former employed respectively 1,072 and 1,671 per 10,000 of the population in Greater London as compared with 466 and 1,117 in the rest of England and Wales, whilst dealers and shopkeepers reached 1,263 case of the former and only 801 in that of the latter. Together this means that these occupations employ in London more than 350,000 persons beyond the normal proportions.*

Nor is London’s advantage confined to them ; for it is almost equally great in some classes of manual labour, and among these are included some industries in which the level of skill is highest. This advantage is greatest relatively in the Paper and Printing trades, in the Precious Metals and Instruments group, and in Wood, Furniture and Leather work. It is somewhat less marked, but stiU very considerable, in the Building Trades. Together these five sections employ in Greater London about 180,000 workers more than the normal. There is also some excess in certain other cases in which the level of capacity is on the whole lower, notably in the Clothing and Boot Trades, in some forms of food production, and in the manufacture of candles, soap, glue and similar products.

When the comparison is made between the actual size of different occupation groups in London, rather than between

^ The proportion per 10,000 of the population for the Rest of England and Wales is regarded here as the normal proportion, and not that for the whole of them, including Greater London.

THE PROBLEM STATED.

their relative positions there and elsewhere, Conveyance of Men, Goods and Messages is easily the largest, employing over 355,000 in Greater London, and Commercial Occupations {224,846) come next. Of the more purely industrial sections that of House Building and Works of Construction, which also includes more than 200,000 workers, is easily the largest, with the Engineering and Metal Group second with 173,756, or, exclusive of dealers, 163,246. Other important industries are Clothing (107,067), Paper and Printing (90,748), and Woodworking and Furniture (81,691). The Precious Metals and Instruments Group employs 39,346, and the Skins, Leather and Hair Trades 25,400.^

More fully to understand, however, the distribution of London industry between different classes and grades of labour, a different subdivision of employments has been made under the following headings : —

A. Industries almost non-existent in London. These are Agriculture (except Market Gardening), Mining and Quarrying, the Textile Trades, the Conversion of Metals and the Manufacture of Salt and Alkali. Wherever possible, however, dealers have been excluded and placed in with the Distributive Trades.

B. Clerical Employments.

C. Higher Branches of Labour, other than Manual and Clerical— (including the Police, Private Coachmen, Grooms and Chauffeurs, Cooks and Waiters in Hotels and Restaurants, and so on). They have been classed separately from skilled manual labour, but appear to possess a similar social standing.

D. Skilled Manual Labour.

E. Semi-Skilled Manual Labour,

F. Unskilled Manual Labour.

G. Distributive Trades.

1. Dealers and Shopkeepers.2

2. Hotel, Eating House, and Public House, Service.

3. Messengers, Porters and Newsboys.

‘The question of the Distribution of Londoners between trades * , considered in fuller detail in Appendix II.

riiis Class includes all Dealers in the products of the twenty-

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

H. Emploj^ers, the higher Professional and Commercial Employments, and the Higher Ranks of Manual labour (Foremen, etc.). These are only taken where classified under a separate heading, and do not by any means represent the whole number of employers, as where they are included in the total of an industry they have not been estimated.

K. Miscellaneous Employments, difficult to classify elsewhere, the most important being the Army and Navy, the Mercantile Marine and the Teaching Profession.

These classes cover the whole of London industr}'. The estimate of the numbers to be included in each of them was necessarilj^ rough, especially in the case of the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers. Trades were allocated so far as possible to one grade or other according to the amount of skid which appeared to be involved. When there were different grades of labour within a trade, its workers were then divided between them in such proportion as seemed likely to meet each case, and where possible, official reports on wages were used to get an approximate idea of this.

Finally, to sum up the general position of London industry, its most marked features are the very large amount of clerical employment it affords and the very great prominence of transport, dealing and distributive work. Altogether, with the addition of the police force and the domestic services, they employ more than half the population. The manual trades are on the whole in a deficiency, largely owing to the absence, mainly from natural causes, of certain large industries, and to a lesser degree to the comparatively small size of some others. Nevertheless, London has a