Great, if I could graduate a high school student that could pass an x-ray welding test, why not do it? Unions are a form of government. their roles have been slowly overtaken by the government with OSHA etc. I am basically saying to do the same thing with education. You are calling me a partisan because I am calling for the massive expansion of federal and state government.
the world has changed, and a 5 year apprenticeship is no longer enticing to high school graduates who were told a university is the key to success. unskilled labor, but you have my deepest sympathies.
Sigh. Really? Ignoring the duplicity, the above is not practical anyhow, very few welding jobs are going to be given to a "school" anyhow - there's a reason why company's maintain "preferred and not-acceptable vendor" lists... No need for school at all then, go work under a "master" electrician and get certified. Work 3 more years and gain "mastership" yourself. This is how it works now in plumbing (more or less) and is definitely how professional organizations operate too. I tried, and you ignored the response. Thadeus has done a better job above so I'l leave it at that.
It's common for new apprentices to do a lot of work that is just labor, and possibly to get called "rookie" or "new guy" (and worse) a lot ... but the system, as it is (was) established, not only trains the apprentice but also gives him experience in the culture of workmen. Every single person in the system has paid their dues, just as the apprentice will. And they aren't paid slave labor. They get paid relatively well (particularly in comparison to non-union positions), they get paid while they are learning a skill that will offer increasing pay as they get better at their work, and they have benefits. Also, the fact that you point out that foundation work is "unskilled labor" makes me increasingly suspect that what you're really in favor of is a market for labor where they owners and contractors have the upper hand in every negotiation with their employees. That's fine and all, if that's your perspective, but trying to go this route to attack unions isn't really working for you. That said, you're really digging yourself into a hole here. So, how much experience do YOU have with skilled labor? I can't help but notice that you're here, posting on the BBS, in the middle of the workday.
With all due respect, CaseyH, if your post got any further off the roadmap, we'd be in Oz. Why does it have to be "either, or" with regard to the several ways young people have to be trained in skilled labor? Why does nearly every one of your posts on this topic contain a slam at unions? Who's saying one can't learn a trade in school, say at a junior college, as an alternative to a union apprentice program? No one wants to force a kid to do one or the other. Knowing what I know about both, I'd rather see a young person get his or her skilled training with a union, because they are paid, and they will receive training they would have to pay for at a junior college, better training, in my opinion, along with actual work experience. What's so hard to understand about that? If you have a kid who wants to be an electrician, who feels that college isn't for him or her, no one is pointing a gun at the head of anyone. The kid can do as he likes. If it were my kid? I'd suggest a union.
Negative. I said I thought the union approach would be better, and could possibly be used in conjunction. Read, dude.
It's possible that you read your posts and see a different tone towards unions than I see, so I'm not going to offer quotes from them. I'm too slow a typist. As for Rhad and the thadeus, I really don't think you've read their posts as thoroughly as you seem to think. I don't see any comments about imposing unions on anyone. Merely that they believe they are the best option available for training in skilled labor, at least in the professions they are familiar with.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the union apprenticeship system has distinct and practical advantages over an in-school training program. I'm not arguing for the ineffectuality of in-school training, I'm arguing that union apprenticeships are far more effective and beneficial to the trainee. If someone wants to go to a class to learn how to weld, then that's fine - but in my experience (particular in the north) a lot of in-school training programs are actually associated with particular unions. Would you be opposed to in-school training that was really a pre-apprenticeship program? I can tell you that it's highly unlikely that a person who only has school training in a craftsman field to get a decent job right out of school. Experience is infinitely more important - to both employers AND customers.
Well then I would say that I am proposing change to a system that has failed according to the article in the OP and they are suggesting we keep it.
And I can tell you that many welders work in a shop and that work could easily be duplicated by a school. Also unions are not the only option for on the job training. Just because it was the system in use for a long time doesn't mean we need to keep it. And just because I suggest a reform to high school training doesn't mean all unions will be abolished.
CaseyH, they are complaining about our workers not getting the training they need, training they are able to get in Germany. A large part of the decline of that element in our workforce, in my opinion, is tied to the decline of unions in America. "He said Siemens was having to invest in education and training to meet its staffing needs, including apprenticeship programmes of the kind it uses in Germany." Apprentice programs.
And I am saying that the government step in and create a bridge to help train people while at the same time greatly helping out our high schools. I mean are you saying the government should increase the spread of unions? Why not have the government just take over the education directly.
and round and round it goes the gov't should step in and help what you don't want unions i'm saying schools can help train, there's a shortage the shortage is because the attack on unions the gov't can fill this void what you don't want unions I have to defend caseyh on this one. a) there's no evidence that the reason for lack of trained employees is the decline of unions. if you are going to keep making that argument at least give a little more substance. i don't see anything wrong with schools filling the void, i don't see how that's an anti union stance. unions have a lot of other responsibilities. unions don't train teachers. they don't train regsitered nurses. etc.
I don't have a problem with what you're talking about, CaseyH. What I have a problem with is seeing the active assault on unions by the political Right in this country, with the active support of big business. It's helped make our trained skilled labor force decline, IMO, thus the comment from Siemans. We should have both methods of training, a multitude of methods, and without one element being a political pinata. See what works best and fund the heck out of it/them. With unions, it's allowing them to operate and giving them contracts. In other words, productive work. It's not "either, or."
