As long as industries were of a simple nature and were conducted upon a small scale, the system of apprenticeship worked to the satisfaction of everyone. With the growth of modern industry, however, these conditions changed. The introduction of the machine destroyed the value of much of the knowledge formerly acquired by apprentices, and the division of labor frequently rendered it unnecessary. When an article was begun and completed by the same person, a knowledge of the trade was a thing difficult and tedious to acquire, but when this manufacture became divided into twenty, fifty, or a hundred different processes, each process a simple mechanical movement, the value of a complete knowledge of the trade became purely fictitious. The introduction of the machine and the division of labor meant specialization. It meant the performance by an unskilled man of a single, simple operation, not a whole series of operations by one skilled workman.

The apprentice system as it formerly existed began to crumble away about the middle of the eighteenth century. Children styled apprentices were worked at nominal wages, but were not taught any trade, being used merely as long as they were profitable and then turned adrift upon society. This unscrupulous exploitation of child labor under the guise of the apprentice system has been a standing grievance with many trade unions. Under the pretext of apprenticeship large numbers of boys, supported principally by their parents, are brought into the factory and kept there at low wages until they are old enough to demand more money, when they are discharged and a new relay of boys is taken on.

As a result of the breakdown of the apprenticeship system, the great mass of youths to-day receive little or no training in their particular trade. Even when there are no abuses on the part of employers, the unionists see their trade swarmed with crowds of boys who receive no regular instruction and who, as half-skilled workmen, are after a few years injected into the industry. Some of the unions, therefore, desire to secure the introduction of a system by which boys can obtain regular training and the number of apprentices to the trade be limited or adjusted to the real needs of the industry.

In consequence of their attempt to prevent the unregulated exploitation of children under the guise of apprenticeship, the unions have been charged with restricting their numbers and with attempting to establish a monopoly in the trade. This charge, however, cannot be maintained. A careful investigation, made by Mr. and Mrs. Webb, revealed that the British trade unions that actually and effectively restrict the admission of apprentices below the needs of the trade represented less than one per cent. of all unionists in the Kingdom. The percentage in the United States is probably smaller. Such a policy would necessarily be unsuccessful, since, as a result of unduly limiting the number of apprentices in union shops, the boys would learn their trade in non-union establishments, or the ranks of labor would be recruited from skilled immigrants. As a matter of fact, it is usually found that in the cases in which American trade unions actually determine the number of apprentices the employers in the trade are unwilling to take on as many apprentices as the union permits.

While in certain trades unmodified by the advent of machinery apprenticeship in its old-time form may still persist, in most cases the system of indenturing boys for a long period must be definitely surrendered. The boys themselves are no longer willing to serve this protracted apprenticeship, and, as a general rule, no opportunity is afforded in the great industrial establishments of to-day for a youth to acquire a thorough knowledge of the trade, even when such a knowledge would be necessary or advantageous to him.

The solution of the problem of training workmen is now being sought in industrial education. There is growing up in the United States an everincreasing number of industrial schools, well managed and equipped, with all appliances and materials necessary for turning out efficient skilled workmen. It is probable that in the future many skilled mechanics will be graduated from schools of this nature. By means of special instruction in the manual arts, as well as in regular school studies, the boy receives a general education and is thus enabled to start life better equipped than the skilled workman of a generation ago.

However, there is one feature of the excellent industrial school system of this country which requires modification. It is a regrettable fact that a large number of the graduates from these schools are imbued with a hostile spirit toward trade unionism. In many cases the instruction is of such a nature as to fail to promote sympathy on the part of the boys for the doctrines and customs of labor organizations. This defect should be remedied. No line of cleavage should separate the shop-taught man and the school-taught man. The boys at an industrial school should learn not a trade alone, but methods for bettering their condition within the trade. I do not believe that graduates of industrial schools will permanently remain outside the trade union movement, but much needless friction and bitter feeling might be avoided if their instruction were of such a nature as to create in them a sympathetic feeling toward the great trade union movement.

CHAPTER XXXI

THE BOUNDARIES OF TRADES

The Definition of a Trade. Importance of Jurisdictional Disputes. The Old Trades and the Division of Labor. The "Trade" Union vs. the "Industrial" Union. Wastefulness of Jurisdictional Disputes. The Injustice to Employers. Federated Unions. The Representation of Unions. The Necessity of Peace between Unions.

IN

N the eyes of the ordinary man the most incomprehensible feature of trade unionism is the trade or jurisdictional dispute. It is difficult for anyone not versed in these matters to understand that there can be differences of opinion as to the trade to which a particular piece of work belongs. We speak of a trade as something clearly defined, as the trade of a carpenter, a blacksmith, a tailor, or a stone-mason. There are, however, hundreds of cases in which it is practically impossible to determine where one trade leaves off and another begins. A charge frequently brought against unions is that they themselves cannot agree upon questions of jurisdiction and cannot decide to which group of workmen a particular job should belong. The problem is extremely important, since it is injurious for union men earning three dollars a day to be displaced by men earning two, whether it be by workmen candidly non-union, or by members of a different trade union. If the employer is to decide which of two unions shall receive the work, he will invariably give preference to the one which does the cheaper work, and he may not hesitate to create organizations for the express purpose of underbidding the regular unions at the trade.

The conflicts over jurisdiction between various unions have been the result of the growth of industry itself. At one time the blacksmiths performed many functions now relegated to other workmen. The machinery trades have been divided and subdivided into hundreds of different processes. New materials have been introduced; iron has taken the place of

wood, steel of iron, and copper and other materials of various metals since displaced. At one time a watchmaker made the entire watch, but now one set of men make the main-spring, another the hands, still another the case, and so on. The shoemaker, who makes a complete shoe, can no longer secure a position in the factories of Massachusetts, since the work has been subdivided into scores of simple operations.

This change in the character of industry has necessarily brought with it corresponding changes in the scope and organization of labor unions. According to the old theory, a trade union was an organization of men performing a certain given function. The union was based upon the fact that all its members performed essentially the same work and required essentially the same training. All the carpenters in the early trade unions performed practically the same work, and every shoemaker was likewise equal in all respects to his fellow-craftsmen. The trade union existed largely for the purpose of determining what period of apprenticeship should be served, for regulating the conditions of apprenticeship, and for keeping out of the trade men who had not had a particular training. This theory, however, while entirely suitable for the simple conditions of former times, is becoming less and less applicable. Division of labor has put an end to many old trades and has created hundreds of others; and with each new invention, with each change of tools or material wrought upon, the boundaries of trades become more dubious. With the change from wooden to iron ships, the boiler makers may come into conflict with the shipwrights, the carpenters, or any other of several trades. A given class of work may be contested for by a number of groups of workmen, one of which claims it because of the material worked upon, another, because of the operation performed, another, because of the tools used, another, because of the character of the establishment in which the work is done, another, for any one of a dozen apparently valid reasons.

The problem of the proper jurisdiction of trades is complicated by the fact that organization of men into unions is carried on upon distinct and conflicting bases. There are, roughly speaking, two classes of unions, the