The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1944. TRAINING FOR INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 238, 5 July 1944, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1944. TRAINING FOR INDUSTRY

11l its order of reference the Commission of Inquiry on Apprenticeship is to examine and report on existing legislation governing apprenticeship conditions, existing educational facilities of both pre-vocational and vocational character, and changes considered necessary to meet the present and future needs of industry. Apprenticeship has been a standing problem in this country for many years past, and the present Commission is by no means the first body of officially authorized inquiry set up to find a solution. Its appointment is evidence of the fact that previous well-intentioned attempts to place apprenticeship conditions on a footing satisfactory to ah concernedemployers, industrial unions, technical schools, apprentices and their parents or guardians—still left much to be desired. The Commission opened its sittings in Wellington on June 20 last, and has already taken a considerable volume of evidence. _ This on the whole has been a recapitulation of problems of apprenticeship recruitment, training and conditions with’ which the public has become more or less familiar through constant references to. them in public discussions. This is not to suggest that the Commission is simply flogging a dead horse, though this might well prove to be the case if it follows the stereotyped lines of inquiries. What seems to be required, if its subsequent recommendations are to have any. real constructive value, is an objective view of skilled craftsmanship in relation to its industrial, economic, and social values, and a practical answer to the question, how is the apprentice to be fitted into the picture in a way that these values can be realized to the full ? It is in these terms that the problem as a whole has been posed in recent correspondence, special articles, and editorial comment. in the London Times. Those who have taken part in this discussion have included industrial unionists, employers, members of .Parliament, and educationists. All have agreed that the dominant issue is the future of skilled craftsmanship in its relationship to the national problem, of industrial efficiency, and the need for raising the standard upon a basis of sound apprenticeship training. This training, declared employers and unionists in a published joint-letter, “must be placed on a proper footing at whatever cost.” Sir Lynden Macassey, in a separate letter, emphasized the importance of organizing technological education on a basis that would provide “an open door for technicallytrained graduates and students, to pass directly into remunerative employment in industry.” Another contributor, Mr. George Wansborough. in a two-column article on the subject, summed up by saying that the central cause of the country’s defective use of its human material and the crucial point for remedy lie “not in.the field of education but in the general social attitude to craftsmen,'’ and to the executives who are recruited from among them. By this is meant, as The Times infers, that if this social attitude were properly adjusted, education would be enabled to make the full response demanded. “The provision of technical education in this country,” says this journal, “is inadequate and defective primarily because the country under-values the man who works with his hands, and regards him as socially inferior to the ‘white collar’ office, or professional worker. There are signs that this attitude is changing, as well it may in view of the craftsman’s contribution to the war effort.” This'is an interesting and suggestive view of the whole problem of skilled craftsmanship from a somewhat different angle to that from which.it has previously been discussed. It is worthy of examination. ■