TECHNICAL EDUCATION. What do the Trades Unionists Say?

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 9, 1 September 1900, Page 6

TECHNICAL EDUCATION. What do the Trades Unionists Say?

NOTHING could possibly be more gratifying to the advocates of technical education than Premier Seddon's sentiment that he feels a greater interest in this subject than in any other that can be brought under his notice. Also, he is not at all displeased that the Wellington Education Board has embarrassed itself by its technical education expenditure, and he is satisfied that it could not get into debt for anything better. Finally, he is going to give capitation for technical school attendance, subside voluntary contributions for these schools, and provide funds for the erection and equipment of schools and purchase of materials and appliances. m • • All this is more than satisfactory. But, before raising the hopes of the technical educationalists too high, would it not be wise of Mr Seddon to obtain the sanction of the Boxer party to his proposals ? They represent the trades unionists, and the trades unionists have already been showing some hostility to technical schools, so that there is a danger of a Boxer veto being placed upon the scheme unless some degree of caution and tact is exercised at the outset to conciliate the plotting party. * # • The hostility of the trades unionists to technical schools, as expressed by themselves, rests on the basis of selfprotection. For years they have been endeavouring to preserve their respective trades from an undue proportion of apprentices ; and, to this end, have strongly advocated the adoption of the Masters and Apprentices Act. Moreover, much of their litigation before the Conciliation Board and Arbitration Court is undertaken for the purpose of limiting the number of learners in their respective trades and keeping those trades as much aspossible to themselves. • * • Necessarily, therefore, they view the technical schools with suspicion and. alarm, because these schools teach lads at night to become carpenters and joiners, plumbers, saddlers, bootmakers, tailors, and so on, and, according to unionist ethics, the effect is to overcrowd the avenues of these callingswith half-taught workers, who are jacks of all trades and masters of none. This is, of course, a selfish view to take of" technical education, but all labour legislation is necessarily selfish to a greater or lesser extent, and there is no gainsaying the fact that to teach a bricklayer's labourer carpentering after hours is, eventually, to bring anotherindifferent carpenter into competition, with expert journeymen. .* * * Mr Seddon's sympathy with technical education is very considerable, but, like his tariff proposals, it will not be acceptable to the trades unionists. They won't appreciate any proposal having for its object the maintenance of workshops where trades are taught in evening hours, on theoretical or practical principles, to workers in other trades or avocations. Therefore, it would only be prudent if Mr Seddon were to take counsel of the Boxers* who are the dominant political factors of the hour, and obtain their consent to his scheme. Otherwise, they may submit him to the humiliation of withdrawing it at the eleventh hour.