that's one example, what about electricians? what about plumbers, although who wants to be a plumber.
I am proposing the last two years of high school be totally dedicated to training people who are not college bound in these or other trades. It wouldn't be hard to figure out how to best train them for it. Also. welding is a huge trade with a lack of labor, and will be increasing into the future.
okay, cool. i like the plan to train kids in h.s. i was just trying to work through why some people consider unions better. I do accounting type work, but i was seriously contemplating taking San Jac's welding course a few months ago. i'm tired of being laid off and I see so many welding jobs, and i think its good to have a skill, even though its completely out of the realgm of my skill set.
Explain to me the difference between a welding shop that is a school and one that is for profit. More contracts? LOL
You really seem to be weaving logical circles around the obvious fact that you really dislike unions. Your explanations don't really reduce the need for or the value of union labor. So, are you just holding on to a partisan perspective here?
I think you are the one coming with a skewed perspective and trying to get me into a partisan argument. I am offering my ideas on how to better train people and reform our schools. We have a lack of skilled workers under your glorified union education system, yet you seem to be resistant to change.
It talked about experienced educators whose jobs were saved by the Union. I mentioned thousands of them in one district alone. Without a union those jobs would have lost, class size would have increased, and thousands of experienced teachers would have been removed from education.
You didn't specify which jobs were saved. Plus your entire subject was off topic from the post of mine that you quoted.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: Assume you are an employer, seeking an electrician to do work for a project. Given candidate A, who came from the high school for future electricians, and Candidate B, who comes with two years experience working under an electrician at another job, which would you choose? Typically, a school cannot replicate the workplace environment, or the corresponding work procedures and experience. There is no good way to explain this. The motivation, the expectations, and the methods are intrinsically altered due to the setting in question. You are free to disagree, of course, but in my experience I believe I am right. Certainly, some positions require a degree of schooling, and naturally schooling + experience is the optimal candidate record. But for the positions to which we are referring, the experience is more valuable, more relevant. Lastly, there are many other good reasons for unions, apprenticeship programs are just one example (and the one which we are discussing).
Also, this is a dumb question. The better question is who would you rather be, the 18 year old or the 20 year old? I would rather be the 18 year old who just graduated.
Ok, I would hire the 18 year old because he has a formal education, is likely certified and will work for less money. How much experience do you have in the skilled labor market? Zero? Also why are you against my ideas for reforming high school education?
Age is irrelevant. One idea, as I mentioned offhand earlier, was for Union apprenticeships to function as those last two years of HS. The utility of certification is subjective, as is the relative cost of a more experienced employee. I have worked with both union and non-union skilled labor. I have not hired any myself. Regardless, irrelevant - stick to the topic. I'm not, if you'd bother to read.
I'm saying your arguments don't make practical sense - genuine on-the-job training in an apprentice system that offers the trainee an actual paycheck while learning (and allows for advancement through levels as the worker gains more experience, and with concomitant pay increases) trumps virtual in-school training every single time. I'm not saying your idea is terrible, I'm saying that it doesn't really compare to the apprenticeship system the unions use (a system, by the way, that has been in more-or-less continuous use since the 18th century and is now rapidly deteriorating). I agree that kids should have good options other than going to college for training, but your proposed system has none of the real benefits of actual union apprenticeship. The fact that you fail to see this makes me suspect that your motives are purely partisan. Now, before you flip this around on me again I feel I should point that that I have plenty of experience in skilled labor, and that both my brother and I have gone through the apprenticeship system. I can still lay brick, I have extensive TIG and MIG welding experience (if you live in Houston there's a good chance that you've seen some of the things I helped construct), and I worked for awhile laying concrete foundations. I work in a different field now, and my little brother is slowly, like most union workers, getting trumped by scab labor. I'm sure you're still gonna go with the NU-UH, UR PARTISAN NOT ME LOL approach, but I am telling you from actual experience that the Union apprenticeship system is still the best approach for kids who don't want to (or can't) go to college but still want to make a decent living and have some degree of job security.
No one mentioned that. I don't want 16 year old being put into the hands of anyone but educators. Union apprenticeships are close to paid slave labor. The high school reform is purely for education. Age is not irrelevant either. A large part of the problem is no 18 year old wants to wait 5 more years before making any decent money. 5 years is a very long time for an 18 year old. But i we graduate that 18 year old with a certification and then have only 2 or 3 years before being a journeyman the path will be much more appealing. also you directly attacked school training of skilled trades without explaining the difference between a school based welding shop and a private one.
