Hi ungern~
First, let me lay out some of the pros and cons of 19th century
apprenticeships:
The Pro's for the Master:
* He received help in his work, for a minimum of 5 years (in most 19th
century cases).
* The master, instead of hiring employees as we do today, took on a
child and typically did not give him money (or very much of it), but
only food, shelter, and clothing--which, if he already had a family,
was in easier supply.
The Con's for the Master:
* The Master was, in most cases, in charge of the child's spiritual
education, as well. (This, one could argue, did not benefit his
business, so I've listed it as a "con.")
* The master was not ensured that the child wouldn't break his
contract, leaving him in the lurch. He'd have to find a new
apprentice, and chalk up all the time, supplies, and money given to
the previous child to "live and learn." (There was legal action that
could be taken against the apprentice that broke a contract, but it
was often difficult to enforce if the child could not be found or the
parents were unable to compensate the master.)
* As the 19th century progressed, more boys received cash for their
work, which would have been a little more difficult for the master to
give than everyday supplies.
The Pro's for the Apprentice:
* The apprentice learned skills that would have been difficult to
acquire if they had simply gone out on their own. Without
apprenticeships, they would have been unable to land good-paying jobs,
since they were unlikely to have skills.
* Ultimately, apprentices were rewarded for their time with their
master by good wages and strong skills that would provide a lifetime's
employment.
* Most boys began their apprenticeship at around 15 years of age, and
stayed with their apprenticeship for about 5 years. This meant that
during formative years, when they might be getting into trouble, they
were instead paving the way for a lifelong career.
* At a time when public schooling was virtually nonexistent, this was
an excellent way for children to "learn a living."
Con's for the Apprentice:
* Apprentices worked for a number of years at a low salary (or just
for room and board with a cash and/or clothing allowance).
* A child's allowance rarely changed over the entire course of his or
her apprenticeship; it rarely went up, even when he or she became more
productive and more valuable to the master.
* Some scholars argue that the reason for the decline in
apprenticeships was that worker's desired more freedom: they wanted
the right to quit, which apprenticeship didn't afford them.
(I have not listed the issue of child labor as a con, because in the
19th century, child labor was a "given.")
In my personal opinion, apprenticeship was a good deal for both master
and apprentice in most cases--but, unlike the master, the apprentice
had less to loose and lots to gain.
For an excellent scholarly article on the decline of apprenticeships,
see this website:
http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/Papers/tortecipahamiltng-99-01.html
A brief article about the history of apprenticeship:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~hoanhe/emvet/wwwboard/england/messages/10.html
Keywords Used:
apprenticeship "19th century"
://www.google.com/search?q=apprenticeship+%2219th+century%22&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1
Hope this helps!
kriswrite |
