Apprenticeship in the ‘golden age

Apprenticeship in the ‘golden age’: were youthtransitions really smooth and unproblematicback then?

■ Sarah A.VickerstaffUniversity of Kent, UK

ABSTRACT

This article challenges the taken-for-granted orthodoxy of contemporary youthstudies that young people’s transitions from school to work have becomeextended and fragmented in comparison to those of people who left school in theperiod 1945–75. It is argued that the characterization of the earlier period as a‘golden age’ of smooth, unproblematic, one-step transitions from school into thelabour market misrepresents the experiences of people in that period and in par-ticular, fails to understand the specificity of the apprenticeship model of transitionwhich was experienced by around 35 percent of the male school-leaving agecohort.The discussion examines the experience of people in the period 1945–75by reference to 30 interviews undertaken by the author with people who didapprenticeships in a variety of trades.

KEY WORDS

apprenticeship / young workers / youth studies / youth transitions

Introduction

t is a truism of current youth studies that what was seen as the traditionalyouth transition from school to (training to) work has been progressivelyfragmented and individualized in the period from the mid 1970s onwards

resulting in less certainty, more risk and a variety of possible (and impossible)transitions for young people (Chisholm, 1995; EGRIS, 2001; Evans, 2002;Evans and Furlong, 1997; Nagel and Wallace, 1997). These changes are argued

269

Work, employment and societyCopyright © 2003

BSA Publications Ltd®Volume 17(2): 269–287

[0950-0170(200306)17:2;269–287;033312]SAGE Publications

London,Thousand Oaks,New Delhi

I

033312 Vickerstaff 20/5/2003 10:44 am Page 269

www.sagepublications.com

to have resulted in a period of extended youth dependency (Coles, 1997) withattendant consequences for identity formation (Nagel and Wallace, 1997). Thiswork is premised, to a degree, upon an assumed ‘golden age’ of unproblematictransitions in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s when, by implication, youngpeople easily made the related transitions from school to work, from family oforigin to own family and from family home to independent living. However,relatively little research exists on young people’s experience of work in this‘golden age’.

This article interrogates the notion of smooth and easy transitions in thepost-war period by investigating the experiences of one particular group ofyoung people (mainly young men) who seemed to encapsulate the opportuni-ties available for working-class boys in this era, namely those who wentthrough apprenticeships. Despite the long history of apprenticeship in thiscountry (and its sudden renaissance in the form of Modern Apprenticeshipssince 1994), relatively little has been written about the experience of appren-ticeship from the apprentice’s point of view (for what there is see Liepman,1960; Ryrie and Weir, 1978; Venables, 1974). This discussion is based onresearch, which was designed to illuminate the specificity of the apprenticeshipmodel of vocational education and training by reflecting back upon the pastexperiences of apprentices, with a view to contributing to current concernsabout the relevance of the apprenticeship model for contemporary conditions.It is based on in-depth interviews with 30 people (see Appendix A for details)who undertook apprenticeships in a range of trades between 1944 and 1982.

These historical experiences are viewed through the lens of current debatesabout youth transitions. In particular, the author was struck by the taken-for-granted assumptions of contemporary discussions, that transitions wereunproblematic for most young people in the past and that by implication youngpeople were passive in the unfolding of their life trajectories, in contrast to theprevailing imagery of today’s youth as having to navigate through troubled andrisky waters. This did not seem to fit with the accounts given by the ex-apprentices who were interviewed. These issues are explored by looking at fourkey aspects of the apprentices’ experiences: how they came to be doing appren-ticeships in their particular trades; the degree to which the apprenticeship rep-resented an easy and smooth transition into the world of work; the need tomanage their status as juniors and the potential vulnerability of the apprenticein the workplace (the personal accounts of some respondents describe theirexperience of abuse or bullying) and, finally, the degree of financial indepen-dence that the apprentices experienced. However, first there is a brief discussionof the ‘golden age’ of youth employment.

The ‘golden age’

It is often assumed that the path from childhood to adulthood and school to workwas relatively unproblematic in the 1950s and 1960s because the labour market

270 Work, employment and society Volume 17 ■ Number 2 ■ June 2003

033312 Vickerstaff 20/5/2003 10:44 am 70

was buoyant and jobs and apprenticeships were readily available (Bynner, 1991,Pollock, 1997; Roberts, 1984). Furlong and Cartmel (1997: 12) refer to youngmen making ‘mass transitions from the classroom to the factories and buildingsites, while young women followed pathways leading straight from school toshops, offices and factories’. This picture is echoed again by Ashton and Field(1976) who disputed that transitions for most young people were stressful or dif-ficult, pointing to the way in which family background and school conditionedmost young people into a dull (and largely unquestioning) acceptance of theniche destined for them. This availability of relatively secure work leads on to theassumption that other transitions could be smoothly achieved: ‘Leaving school atthe earliest opportunity and going straight into full-time work has the obviousadvantage that a young person can become quickly financially independent’(Pollock, 1997: 625). As this article shows, apprentice pay was very low andrarely afforded the opportunity to set up an independent household, so at leastone third of young men, even in a buoyant labour market, were taking some timeto become financially independent. It is also debatable whether many young mengoing into unskilled or semi-skilled work in the 1940s and 1950s immediatelyearned enough to set up home for themselves.

Full-time jobs and apprenticeships were relatively plentiful for young menin the period up to the mid 1970s but there was very little guidance or prepa-ration for work (Carter, 1966) and many approached the end of school life withfew concrete ideas about what they wanted to do. Research throughout theperiod (1945–80) seems to indicate that many more young men aspired toapprenticeships than were actually available (Carter, 1966: 134–141; Fergusonand Cunnison, 1951: 9, 107, 132–37; Maizels, 1970: 90; Ministry of Labourand National Service, 1956: 1; Nagel and Wallace, 1997: 39, 43–49; Veness,1962: 64–5, 179; West and Newton, 1983: 80–81). Broadly speaking, the tri-partite division of secondary education into Secondary Moderns, TechnicalSchools and Grammar Schools was supposed to allocate young people into the‘appropriate’ labour market niches. Respectively: manual work, including craftskills for the Moderns, technician and higher engineering apprenticeships andjunior management for the Technicals and white-collar work and professionsfor the Grammars. In practice, there were the exceptions due to personal fac-tors or prevailing labour market conditions. Perhaps surprisingly, rather moreGrammar School boys undertook apprenticeships than might have beenexpected: estimated at one in five in the late 1950s (Ministry of Education,1960: 149–50).

Objectively, we can see that the connection between class background andtype of school attended did, and indeed still does, determine in large measurethe labour market opportunities available to individuals. However, it cannot beassumed from this that the school-to-work transitions were experienced as easy,comfortable or unproblematic at the time. As Kerckhoff (1996: 37) reminds us:‘trajectories are paths through sets of structural locations encountered at suc-cessive stages of the life course, and which individuals follow which trajectoriesis determined by the intersection of individual and institutional actions’.

271Apprenticeship in the ‘golden age’ Vickerstaff


Thus, individual biography, interests and attributes, family relationships,educational settings, organizational settings, labour markets and national poli-cies all intersect to produce individual outcomes (Kerckhoff, 1996: 37). This isnow taken as read in youth studies with conceptualizations such as ‘structuredindividualisation’ (Nagel and Wallace, 1997: 42) or ‘bounded agency’ (Evans,2002) to highlight the interplay of structural determinants and individualagency that lead to particular youth trajectories or ‘navigations’, but perhapsthis was no less the case in the past. The range of choices was different:employment opportunities in the labour market, especially for young men, weremore plentiful and more secure, leading to greater homogenization of possiblepathways (Pollock, 1997: 619). It does not necessarily follow, however, thatyoung people experienced this greater certainty of employment as giving themchoice or freeing them from individual risks and dilemmas.

From school to apprenticeship

Given the relative buoyancy of job opportunities for young men, why wereapprenticeships much sought after by young people (and their parents), despitethe not uncommon fact of better immediate wages for school leavers who wentstraight into unskilled or semi-skilled work? This question is answered by thepresent respondents in a number of different ways.

For many, especially the older ones in the sample, there is the traditionalassumption that this is what boys did:

[What were other schoolmates doing at that time?]1 Well, they were going into gasworks, and the Southern Electricity Board in those days. And there were a few thatreally were more interested in going into the air force and the army. A lot of themdid that. But I think the main concern was to get an apprenticeship, because with-out that, you didn’t go anywhere. (Motor Fitter, 1947–52)

… at that time, there was no question – or even thought – that you would not get ajob, or would not get an apprenticeship. You just assumed that you would.(Engineering Draughtsman, 1952–57)

The attraction of apprenticeship, despite the presence of higher-paid startingjobs for school leavers, was the traditional one of getting a trade that wouldlead eventually to better prospects:

… the thing was at that time you had a choice. If you went into an apprenticeship,your wages were quite low for the first two or three years. Where if you chose to go– especially into the pits as my mates were doing – they was earning big money andthey were laughing at me saying ‘what you want to do that for, when you …?’ Butmy parents, especially one of them – my father – he used to say ‘Think of the futureyou’re going to be earning more than them.’ (Painter and Decorator, 1948–53)

It is clear from the accounts that the school system was generally chan-nelling young people in the directions expected, none more so than the oneTechnical School graduate in the sample:



I was offered a chance to go for the Technical School examination, which I passedwith flying colours [having failed the 11+ examination for Grammar School]…. Sofrom there I joined the Technical School situation, which basically fielded studentsinto, as I recollect, probably about three different categories. You had either build-ing; anything associated with electrical trades…. And the other side was, of courseengineering…. You have co-ordinators, teachers, who say ‘this guy is definitely bet-ter for an engineering apprenticeship than perhaps electrical, and perhaps the build-ing trades.’ (Engineer,1956–61)

However, those respondents who went to Grammar School tended to seethemselves as misfits in that environment and hence were keen (or, in bloody-minded defiance, determined) to leave school:

I come from the East End of London and I passed my 11+ and went to GrammarSchool, which was a really good traditional Grammar School. But unfortunately itwas designed for people who were going into law and medicine and engineers justdidn’t fit in. (Electrical Power Engineer, 1957–62)

… mainly the school liked to find jobs for us, but I’ve always been a bit independentthat way, a bit of a rebel that way and I saw the advert so decided to go for it. Itsuited me that way. But they didn’t like that at school. I was taken in front of theprincipal and given a ticking off for finding my own job sort of thing. (Gas Fitter,1955–60)

So for these generations the ‘equilibrium model’ or ‘socialization theory’ in whichthe class structure and related school systems simply channel or reproduce thenext generation of workers into appropriate stations in the labour marketappears to be largely confirmed (Nagel and Wallace, 1997: 67; Rudd, 1997:259–60). However, even if, in the main, their aspirations were class ‘appropriate’it still begs the question of the extent to which these young people exercised orexperienced any sense of choice in terms of the trade or occupation they entered,(which one might reasonably assume would contribute to the degree to whichthese transitions were experienced as unproblematic and risk-free).

Research in the 1960s by Veness (1962: 69–72) made a distinction betweenthree possible sources for career ‘choice’ (borrowing categories used originallyby Riesman to describe whole societies): ‘tradition directed’ in which youngpeople followed in their father’s or wider family footsteps; ‘inner-directed’ inwhich young people pursued a career in something that they had always likedor been good at; and ‘other directed’ where choice of job or apprenticeship wasmade with reference to outside sources of help or information. Using this frame-work for assessing the respondents in this study, of the 30 interviewed, 14 couldbe said to be inner-directed, 3 tradition-directed and 13 other-directed. Of thosewho were not inner-directed, a majority had wanted to do something else. Whatis striking is the lack of choice, notwithstanding the apparent availability of jobopportunities.2 Those who were tradition-directed were typically forced toabandon an original idea:

I wanted to be a commercial artist, and my old dad said no. He said ‘I think you’dbetter come to the trade.’ (Sheet Metal Pattern Maker, 1951–6)



My first choice was to have gone into the forces, but my parents wouldn’t entertainthat. (Plumber, 1952–7)

Amongst the other-directed group all manner of factors intervened to pushthem in one direction or another. Schools or the juvenile employment servicesuggested particular trades in some cases. For others there was a choice ofapprenticeships, and factors such as proximity of work to home were critical:

So I left school with four ‘O’ levels and had no idea whatsoever what I wanted todo. None. I’d rather have done nothing, but that wasn’t allowed. One day my fathersaid to me, ‘Look, Come on. If you can’t think what to do, then let me give you twooptions.’ First … he knew somebody who worked, I think as a sub-editor, at theWarrington Guardian…. And the offices in Warrington were two miles away fromwhere I actually lived. ‘Or’ he said ‘I can probably influence someone at the firm intogiving you an apprenticeship or at least an interview’ … at the firm next door [tohis father’s employment].… So I was faced with this choice really. With my arm upmy back from my father! …. So I decided to take this … simply because this wastwo minutes round the corner, whereas the Warrington Guardian was a two-milebus ride. (Engineer, 1952–57)

So I left at 16 and I had the choice of about seven aeronautical engineering appren-ticeships. But one of the other reasons for wanting to leave school was to be finan-cially independent of my parents, so I eventually finished up getting anapprenticeship with London Electricity Board so that I was local. The problem beingwith the aeronautical ones that … you had to go in a hostel and the hostel fees inthe first year were greater than the first year wages. (Electrical Power Engineer1957–62)

Others found themselves in particular trades by virtue of what was avail-able or by chance:

Was going in the police force. No interest in being a mechanic at all…. Went look-ing to get rid of all my part-time jobs [paper round, butchers round]. I went to agarage for a full-time Saturday job, an all-day Saturday. I took a day off school, aTuesday off school, to go and do it. And he offered me an apprenticeship there andthen. So I went back to school and told them I’d left, told me parents I’d left andbecame a mechanic and have been at it ever since. Absolutely no interest at all incars. (Motor Mechanic, 1965–70)

How I started was there were lots of jobs in those days. Lots and lots in 1952. Iwanted to go into the clerical side you know, into an office because I knew I waspretty good at maths and all the rest of it. But my brother went past this book-binders and ‘Boy Wanted’ it said on the door. So my dad said, ‘You’ve got to bringsome money in. You’re 15 years of age and you’re just about to leave school. Gothere.’… It was the wrong thing for me right from the start. In those days, if yourdad said ‘You do it’, you do it. You got a choice now. (Bookbinder, 1952–58)

Even amongst those who pursued their own first interest some expressed asense of the constraints on choice:

[So what attracted you to hairdressing?] It wasn’t the money! It was quite a socia-ble job. I think the fact that I would have a qualification and it would be something



I could do for the rest of my life. And I think we were a bit programmed really totake jobs that meant that you could do them as well as children. You know, youwere still sort of programmed to think that you were intended to get married.(Hairdresser, 1975–8)

This suggests that Roberts’s comment: ‘The generations who grew to matu-rity in the 1950s and 1960s learnt from their own experience to take smoothtransitions into the labour market for granted’ (1984: 1) is perhaps a little over-stated. They did indeed assume that work would be available and thus, facedless uncertainty than their contemporaries today, but many factors includingfamily pressures, individual abilities, local labour market contexts and thepatchiness of the apprenticeship system overall frequently contrived to steeryoung people in directions other than their first choice, or indeed to deny themany real choice at all. We should also not forget the significant numbers ofyoung men who aspired to, but failed to get, an apprenticeship.

A one-step transition to work?

The availability of work and apprenticeships in the past has led commentatorsto characterize the transition into work as typically ‘a traditional one-step tran-sition at age 16’ (Ashton and Lowe, 1991: 209); with the assumption that thiswas necessarily accomplished ‘cleanly and swiftly’ (Chisholm, 1995: 210)resulting in a ‘successful entry into the world of work’ (Roberts, 1984: 7). Thisis contrasted with the picture today of the ‘yo-yo’ structure of young people’stransitions: ‘Uncertainties, fluctuations, discontinuities, reversals and seesawsmark young people’s lives’ (EGRIS, 2001: 103–4). This is perhaps to confuseaccess to, or availability of, jobs or apprenticeships with a one-step transitioninto adulthood. Certainly, for the group under consideration here, apprentice-ship was precisely an institutionalized form of prolonging an intermediatestatus between childhood and adulthood and not, as the accounts below sug-gest, in any sense experienced as a one-step transition to mature status. In the1940s and 1950s five-year apprenticeships were still the norm, having onlyrecently been reduced from 7 years. In addition, for a significant number ofthose interviewed here, five years was to be immediately followed by NationalService, delaying their eventual entry into skilled work (at skilled rates of pay)until 22–23 years of age. This at least puts a question mark over the often-stated assertion that contemporary youth transitions have been extended incomparison with the past. At the beginning of their apprenticeships youngworkers may have entered the ‘adult community’ (Ashton and Field, 1976: 12)but very much as junior members.

… you were always ‘the boy’ going through the apprenticeship, you were alwaysperceived to be the boy. (Engineer, 1956–61)

For those who had indentures, the documents themselves reminded the youngworker and their parents or guardian of the apprentice’s child-like status:



3. The Guardian hereby covenants with the Master and the Representative that hewill during the term of the apprenticeship provide the apprentice with such boardclothing and lodging and all other necessaries as he may reasonably require.

4. The Guardian hereby covenants with the Master and the Representative that hewill to the best of his ability and opportunities during the term of the saidApprenticeship restrain the Apprentice from contact with any harmful influencesoutside the apprentice’s working hours.

(Standard wording for the National Joint Council for the Building Industry Deedof Apprenticeship in 1940s and 1950s)

By this time the wording of these documents had certainly lost some of the sig-nificance they may have had for pre-war apprentices and their families, but theapprentices in this study still experienced their apprenticeships as an extensionof their pre-adult status and one that felt never-ending for some. In some indus-tries you had to be 16 to sign the apprenticeship papers, and hence 15-year-oldschool leavers were too young but were taken on anyway, converting to theapprenticeship proper at 16 (Ministry of Labour and National Service,1958:18–9).

When you’re young one year is like five when you’re 60. Yes it was endless. It wenton and on and I just couldn’t see the end of it.3 (Motor Fitter, 1947–1952)

It was blooming harsh. And I just couldn’t believe it. The six years seemed liked 60years. (Bookbinder, 1952–58)

Although for at least some apprentices serving the time was not an unpleas-ant or unexpected prospect:

[So when you started the apprenticeship, and you signed up for five years, did thatseem a bit daunting at 15?] No. It was far from daunting. It was exciting that if Icould, as they used to say, keep my nose clean, I would have five years work up untilI was – well no. Seven years work really because when I finished my apprenticeshipI’d be going in the army. No one in Thanet at that time envisaged seven years work.Seven years constant employment. My grandfather was a scaffolder and he used todo sort of a week’s work here and week’s work there, and go on the parish, as theyused to say…. No it was exciting. (Carpenter and Joiner, 1948–53)

Because it was something accepted wasn’t it? In those days an apprenticeship wasregarded – whatever apprenticeship you did – they all lasted five years. And 16–21was an apprenticeship time and that was it. I mean, sometimes you probablythought it was rather a long time. But you didn’t know anything different. (Engineer,1962–7)

Not surprisingly, however, starting the apprenticeship was intimidating formany:

Quite frightening. You felt like a small child amongst these really knowledgeablepeople. (Motor Fitter, 1947–52)



As soon as I arrived, they showed me to my room and they said ‘Right. Go and getchanged and start work!’ I’m not kidding. And that was the start of the apprentice-ship. It was a bit of a culture shock to say the very least.… And to be thrown intothe deep end of a kitchen of a major hotel was just so foreign, and as a kid of 15 itwas, well, I can remember going to my room and crying. I just felt so alone. (Chef,1956–61)

And it was quite daunting because I was working, for example, with an electricianand he would say ‘Go and get me a piece of conduit’ and I didn’t know what a pieceof conduit was. And so it was – you were, I think very vulnerable. Although I wasquite a big lad for my age, I was nearly six-foot then – well same height as I am now– you just felt at their mercy. (Electrical Power Engineer, 1957–62)

It might be particularly difficult for those apprenticed in small businesseswith few or no other apprentices:

So there were two of us doing an apprenticeship.… Which was quite nice becausethere was somebody my age. Because when Billy left [the other apprentice] every-body else was that much older.… You got on, but I suppose when you’re – I’d beOK now. I could stand my ground now that I’m older, but when you’re young it’s abit sort of daunting. (Bespoke Tailor, 1967–72)

All but two of the apprentices in this study undertook day or block releaseas part of their training, some spending a significant proportion of their firstyear at college.

I had a three-year apprenticeship which initially, at the time, if you were lucky, yougot a six-month course at college, which I did.… So I went to site for, I think, thefirst week or couple of weeks. And then I spent from the middle of September nextsix months at college, five days a week. (Carpenter and Joiner, 1978–81)

To characterize these apprentices’ experiences as a ‘one-step transition’ intowork is to neglect some of the essential features of the apprenticeships theyserved. For all but two in the sample there was a combination of formal edu-cation (in college) alongside training and learning at work. The typical timecommitment to college work amongst the sample was one day and one eveninga week studying for City and Guilds or the Ordinary National Certificate(ONC). So there were continuities with the past experience of schooling as wellas the new terrain of work:

So the first eight months of the apprenticeship was taken up with basic hand skills[in the apprentice training centre].… It was like being at school again, really, andyou had various aspects of the work explained to you. They gave you notes, youmade your own notes and again, at various times when you had your trade test pieceto do, you also had a sort of mini exam. (Electrical Technician, 1965–71)

The main difference between these apprentices’ experiences and those ofmany young people today was the degree of certainty in the outcome of theirtraining and hence, the length of their transitions were not problematic becausetheir training was leading somewhere reasonably well defined and predictable.



Navigating the risks of junior status

The ‘junior status’ of the apprentices also meant that adult workers might feelthat they could take liberties, and the accounts of the apprentices are litteredwith examples of what we would define today as bullying and physical abuse.Two respondents in the sample were systematically bullied for periods of theirapprenticeships, illustrating, in the words of the electrical power engineerabove, just how vulnerable the apprentice potentially was. Away from homeand the only apprentice at the hotel where he worked, this respondent was verypoorly treated:

My experience…. Was appalling to be perfectly honest. If you compared it to today,well, there’d be people in court for what they did to me…. And of course, as a 15-year-old, not even aware of the world … you just accept what you are presentedwith…. I remember I’d been there about six months I suppose and I eventually gota day off after umpteen weeks – I tell you I was working seven days a week, 12hours a day…. I mean, for example, I was dragged out of bed at 11 o’clock at nightto scrub the kitchen.… For the simple fact that I lived on the premises. (Chef,1956–61)

Living at home, however, was not necessarily a defence against bullying:

It was the wrong thing for me right from the start…. It was the worst six years ofmy life. Every morning I used to dread getting up and going into this place…. It wasname-calling. Taking the Mickey – ‘Long streak of piss’ and all this sort of thingbecause I was only about ten and a half stone and already six foot three. I becamea nervous wreck in a way. And I never told my mum and dad about it because youdidn’t do. I used to come out in the lunch break to cycle home and the bike wouldbe turned upside down, the tyres let down, two or three times a week. (Bookbinder,six-year apprenticeship, 1952–58)

These two last accounts were from people who suffered systematic bullying butmany of the others, who enjoyed their apprenticeships, had stories of harshtreatment to recount:

One part of discipline, if you were what they call the back-up man, then you had tolay the bricks two bricks behind the man in front. And if you didn’t, he wouldsmack the back of your hand with a trowel, hard. And you’d only want that once.Your hand would swell up. And if you thought you were clever, and were goingfaster than he was. The other punishment was if you had too much mouth, they putyou in a tub of cold water. (Bricklayer, 1948–52)

This kind of casual violence was not just at work but also in the workshops atcollege:

And when they taught me to sharpen a saw – you should never drag the file back.It only cuts one way. If I dragged it back, the bloke who’d be standing there with ashort length of dowel, which is a round stick like a bird perch, then you’d get awhack across the knuckles. And you’d ‘Ow, ow’, you know. ‘Don’t do that againlad will you?’ ‘No Sir’. Oh yes you used to get – I wouldn’t say beaten up, but you



used to get a clip alongside the ear just to keep you in line, which was quite acceptedthen sort of thing. It’s not now. But there it is. (Carpenter and Joiner, 1948–53)

It is also clear here that an important element for the young men was learningthe appropriate form of masculinity. From these accounts it is apparent that theapprentices were going through a transition stage and one that had to be man-aged. Some young people were obviously better able to stand up for themselvesthan others:

I think other people just – well they did what they were told. I’d like to come ontohow the whole thing was run. And it was all run on fear. It really was. And this waspart of the fear. You were told to do that, and so you did it. And you were afraid todo anything else or say anything. But I wasn’t. I wasn’t afraid. I thought if I have agood reason for not doing something, or a good reason for doing more of it [inrespect of the process of being moved to different sections to get work experience]it’ll be in the company’s interest. So putting it like that, I was able to think moreclearly perhaps, and get away from this fear aspect, and go straight and get itchanged. Where other people just did what they were told and that was it.(Engineer, 1952–7)

I mean if you got put with a good chippie, he’d always give you bits and pieces todo. But you get some idiots, like, who want you to just go and fetch this, go andfetch that. Go and get me rolls at teatime. So I put a stop to that first – going get-ting rolls. Because once you do it for one, you do it for like ten. So I used to alwaysgive the wrong change. I never used to keep any money, but I used to distribute itunevenly like, you know. So they then got the wind up with that. (Carpenter,1978–81)

Commenting on new perspectives on youth transitions emerging in the1990s, Evans and Furlong (1997: 18) argue that:

… metaphors of navigation started to emerge. Individuals came to be seen as ‘nav-igating perilous waters’ and ‘negotiating their way’ through a sea of ‘manufactureduncertainty’. Within this model successful transitions came to be seen as dependentupon individual skill and capability as well as external risks and ability to judgethem.

This would appear also to provide a good description of the experiences of theapprentices recounted here. They were not merely passive recipients of theirexperiences; their apprenticeships required them to manage their junior sta-tuses, to navigate the vagaries of the adult world of work and to participate inconstructing their own skilled identities. The apparent transparency of thestructural determinants configuring the apprentices’ paths should not beallowed to obscure the significance of their individual agency and dispositions.

Earning a living

Another aspect of youth transitions, which is rightly accorded great signifi-cance, is beginning to earn money and looking towards the possibility of an



independent existence and residence from family of origin. For apprentices inthe period 1945–82, the general assumption, as indicated in the deeds ofapprenticeship quoted above, was that apprentices would live at home. All ofthe respondents in this study lived at home during their apprenticeship, with theexception of five that stayed in lodgings because the apprenticeship was at somedistance from the family home. Four of the sample were living independentlywith friends or were married by the end of their apprenticeships. In large mea-sure the majority were still in the family home because apprentice rates of paywould have been insufficient to support independent living.

The typical starting wage was one-fifth of the tradesman’s rate, rising a pro-portion each year:

During the 1st year of service at the rate of 3.53d per hour worked.

„ the 2nd „ „ „ „ „ „ „ 4.98d „ „ „

„ the 3rd „ „ „ „ „ „ „ 5.87d „ „ „

„ the 4th „ „ „ „ „ „ „ 7.06d „ „ „

„ the 5th „ „ „ „ „ „ „ 7.91d „ „ „

Plus a bonus determined from time to time by the Apprenticeship Committee.(Schedule to an indenture for an apprentice Engineering Draughtsman, 1942–47)

Although, as Ryan (1999) has documented for engineering, apprentice pay wasimproving throughout the post-war period, it still represented a clear signal tothe young worker that s/he was not of adult status and hence should not aspireto an adult life style. The relatively poor pay reinforced the apprentice’s depen-dence upon their family and the assumption that they were not ready to makeother transitions to independent living or marriage.

So at least living at home, you got paid so much, you had so much for fares, paidyour mum so much, which was handy because you borrowed it back again onTuesday. So it kind of – short of money so your mum lent you. And then you paidher back at the end of the week and then you were short the following week. So youwas in a permanent state of owing your mum. (Draughtsman, 1961–65)

Only three apprentices in the sample married during their training, one at17 years of age, one at 20 and the other one month before the end of theapprenticeship. When asked about marriage many of the respondents dismissedit in similar ways to the following:

You didn’t get married until you were roughly 21. You couldn’t afford to for onething. On 15 bob a week you couldn’t afford to. It did go up to 30 bob in your lastyear. But you couldn’t afford to. You were living with your mum, and no doubtbeing subsidized by mum and dad to that extent. (Electrical Installation Engineer,1950–55)

[Did many apprentices get married during their apprenticeship?] A few, but not verymany during the apprenticeship. A lot after. I mean 20, 22 age group. But not verymany while they were still doing their training…. Obviously you were still working



your way up to full man’s wage. Buying a house was just starting to become voguein ’80, ’81… . I don’t suppose they’d even be granted a mortgage as an apprentice.(Electrical Fitter, 1978–82)

A number in the sample got married soon after finishing their apprenticeship.But for some the transition to full adult pay was not achieved even at the endof the apprenticeship when they went onto ‘improvers’ rates for a short period.

And then of course, after you finished your apprenticeship, you was in for nationalservice. And then when you come back, there’s a clause in the apprenticeship sort ofdeeds, that your firm, was compelled to take you on for two years. But they could,if they wished, pay you below the full rate as an improver. (Painter and Decorator,1948–53)

You just finished and carried on. It was just a feeling of ‘Now I’m a mechanic’, andthe boss saying ‘No you’re not. You’re an Improver!’ He never let us get carriedaway too much! Because after that I went into the services…. And I went into theservices and then came back to Invicta. And even then he didn’t want to pay me fit-ters’ rates. He still wanted to pay the improver’s rate. In fact he did. (Motor Fitter,1947–52)

These comments about wages and marriage seem to indicate that for most ofthe apprentices, even those who did their training in the 1960s and 1970s, theapprenticeship was viewed as a continuation of adolescent status and that fin-ishing the apprenticeship was the real point of transition into the adult world.Commentators on the current condition of youth cite the decoupling of school-to-work and family-of-origin-to-family-of-destination transitions (e.g. EGRIS,2001; Nagel and Wallace, 1997: 48) as a point of difference from previous gen-erations. However, whether this is related primarily to changes in the labourmarket and school-to-work transitions or to much wider social changes, espe-cially in respect of attitudes towards divorce, marriage, cohabiting, single par-enthood and living independently, is unclear.

Conclusions

This article was inspired, in part, by reading the literature on youth transitionsin current day society and feeling that the casual assumption contained in muchof it, that transitions from school to work were unproblematic in the past, sim-ply did not sound right in relation to what the ex-apprentices in this study hadsaid about their own experiences. Take, for example, the argument that youngpeople today have more extended transitions. The apprentices in the study hadan extended transition, most of them assuming that adult status and its relatedeffects (adult wages, marriage, independent living) would not be achieved untiltheir early 20s. The continuation of national service for the immediate post-warcohorts also served to extend the period of pre-adult status for apprentices andnon-apprentices alike. Perhaps the main difference from young people of today



is less the length of transition and more its manner. The labour market haschanged; the industries which traditionally soaked up unskilled male youthlabour and provided others with apprenticeship opportunities have declined(Ashton et al., 1987; Pollock, 1997). More young people stay in education forlonger and then may experience periods of part-time work or unemployment,but it is still the case that ‘full-time employment is the norm for young men’(Pollock, 1997: 623). For the apprentices in this study the transition was underthe auspices of a single employer (although a number in the sample movedemployers during their apprenticeship for one reason or another), unlike themore fragmented patterns documented for young people in the 1980s andbeyond.

However, even this fragmentation is perhaps less new than it appears.Research on young workers who did not either serve an apprenticeship or stayin education after compulsory school leaving age in the 1950s, 1960s and1970s indicate that job changing was the norm in the immediate years afterschool (see, for example, Carter, 1962: 178–94; Carter, 1966: 158–62; Maizels,1970: 155–69; West and Newton, 1983: 144–51). The causes of this job chang-ing were much debated, especially the extent to which it should be seen aspathological (i.e. fecklessness) or instrumental and calculative (e.g. West andNewton, 1983: 147–51). In the absence of national figures on young people’sjob changes, research in this period was based on area studies or specificcohorts of young people often not directly comparable with each other, but nev-ertheless these studies regularly reported a third to a half of school leaverschanging jobs in the first three years after school. Some changed jobs a numberof times, especially those not obtaining an apprenticeship. This seems to suggesta more fluid and differentiated youth labour market and more fragmentedexperiences than the established orthodoxy of a ‘single one-step transition’ intowork implies. A little over a third of the age cohort were going into appren-ticeships, often not entirely of their choosing, which extended their transitionto adult status through to their early twenties. Of the rest a majority were enter-ing unskilled and semi-skilled employment, despite many of them hoping forskilled work. In this sector of the youth labour market job changes (not justchanges of employer but movements in and out of very different occupations)were quite common, with the young workers not ‘settling down’ (in terms ofjob stability) until their late teens or beyond.

This is not to deny major differences between school-to-work transitionstoday and in the period under consideration here; the work available, its secu-rity and prospects have changed. Young people today with few or poor educa-tional qualifications are likely to move into and out of employment,unemployment, training schemes or periods of further education whereas theirhistorical contemporaries, with greater job opportunities and poorer furthereducation availability, moved from job to job. Apprenticeships proved a moreinstitutionalized form of this transition by giving young people an extendedperiod of junior status within a single organization, but often, at its best, pro-viding quite a broad range of experience in different areas of work. The



accounts of the apprentices provide evidence for apprenticeships (especially thebetter ones) comprising a series of stages: a process marked by the acquisitionof different skills, qualifications, responsibilities and wages over time. Perhapsthe key difference between current cohorts of young people and those inter-viewed here is the extent to which the respondents as young people largelyaccepted that they had little choice and few supports for resisting adult author-ity; whereas in research today young people regularly assert that they do havechoices (see, for example, Ball et al., 2000). They perceive their paths to havebeen individualized, even if the common reality is of relatively circumscribedpossibilities.

The mission of this discussion is ultimately less to say something new aboutcontemporary youth transitions and more to establish a better understanding ofwhat apprenticeship meant in the past. What is clear from the research reportedhere is that some of the distinctive features of apprenticeship at its best wereactive engagement, negotiation and participation of young people in an extendedperiod of learning in a work and college context, which was not always smooth,easy or without its risks, but which largely provided a cushioned environment inwhich to develop and make a slow transition to adulthood.

Appendix A: Details of the research

Respondents and period of apprenticeship

1. Motor Fitter, 1947–52.2. Sheet Metalworker Pattern Maker, 1951–56.3. Boilermaker, 1956–61.4. Bricklayer, 1959–64.5. Electrical Technician, 1966–71.6. Shipwright, 1956–1961.7. Engineering Draughtsman, 1942–47.8. Chef, 1956–61.9. Plumber, 1952–57.

10. Painter and Decorator, 1948–53.11. Motor Mechanic, 1965–70.12. Engineer, 1952–57.13. Gas Fitter, 1955–61.14. Toolmaker, 1963–68.15. Engineer, 1962–67.16. Carpenter and Joiner, 1950–55.17. Bricklayer, 1948–52.18. Electrical Power Engineer, 1957–62.19. Carpenter and Joiner, 1948–53.20. Bespoke Tailoring, 1967–72.



21. Electrical Fitter, 1978–82.22. Engineering Draughtsman, 1952–57.23. Engineer, 1956–61.24. Bookbinder, 1952–58.25. Wood Machinist, 1946–51.26. Carpenter and Joiner, 1978–81.27. Draughtsman, 1961–65.28. Hairdressing, 1975–78.29. Electrical Installation Engineer, 1950–55.30. Chef, 1973–77.

The sample was self-selecting in that the individuals responded to an advert inthe local newspaper, the Thanet Gazette. It might be expected from this, thatthey had definite feelings about their apprenticeships, either positive or negativeand/or that they were generally outgoing characters. All of the respondentswere interviewed in their own homes (with the exception of one who was inter-viewed at work) in November and December of 1998. They all lived in thesouth east of Kent. The interviews were loosely structured (focused discussions)and the respondents were encouraged to talk broadly about their experiences asapprentices. The interviews were taped and varied in length from one and a halfto three hours. (Where the respondent gave permission a copy of the tapedinterview has been lodged in the National Sound Archive.)

By virtue of the lack of a national framework for apprenticeship in theperiod 1945–64 there are no comprehensive and reliable statistics on the num-bers who underwent apprenticeships (Croft, 1960; Ministry of Labour andNational Service 1958: 10). Cohort studies and Ministry of Labour figures sug-gest that in the region of 35 percent of male school leavers went into appren-ticeships for much of the period 1945–1975 (Croft, 1960; Fogelman, 1985;Ministry of Education, 1960). The majority of these were in engineering trades.The proportion of young women undertaking apprenticeships was much less,in the region of 7 percent of the age cohort. There were, however, significantregional variations in the proportions of young people undertaking apprentice-ships (Fogelman, 1985). It is not possible, nor was it intended, that the sampleof respondents in this study should mirror the national position exactly.However, the balance between trades in the sample (43% in engineering; 26%in construction-related trades) and the gender ratio (7% women) are not untyp-ical of the national situation of the period.

Acknowledgements

I have benefited greatly from discussions at conferences where earlier versions of thisarticle were given and from comments from colleagues and anonymous reviewers.Thanks to all that have heard or seen this before; I hope that I have done justice tothe points you made.



Notes

1 When quotations from the interviews are recounted, questions in square brack-ets at the beginning indicate a specific question posed by the researcher; therespondent is identified by trade and period of apprenticeship.

2 All of the respondents were currently resident in East Kent and 13 of themundertook their apprenticeships locally, of which seven were in construction;for these there would have been prevailing local labour market factors, in par-ticular the scarcity of heavy engineering industry in the area.

3 All of the respondents were asked what it felt like at the outset of their appren-ticeship signing up for the relevant number of years.

References

Ashton, D. and Field, D. (1976) Young Workers. London: Hutchinson and Co.Ashton, D. and Lowe, G. (1991) Making Their Way: Education, Training and the

Labour Market in Canada and Britain. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Ashton, D., Maguire, M. and Spilsbury, J. (1987) ‘Labour Market Segmentation

and the Structure of the Youth Labour Market’, pp. 160–78 in P. Brown andD. Ashton (ed.) Education, Unemployment and Labour Markets. London: TheFalmer Press.

Ball, J., Maguire, M. and Macrae, S. (2000) Choice, Pathways and Transitions Post16. New Youth, New Economies in the Global City. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bynner, J. (1991) ‘Transitions to Work: Results from a Longitudinal Study of YoungPeople in Four British Labour Markets’, pp. 171–95 in D. Ashton and G. Lowe(ed.) Making Their Way: Education, Training and the Labour Market inCanada and Britain. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Carter, M.P. (1962) Home, School and Work: A Study of the Education andEmployment of Young People in Britain. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Carter, M.P. (1966) Into Work. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Chisholm, L. (1995) ‘Youth Transitions in the European Union’, pp. 203–17 in L.

Bash and A. Green (eds) Youth, Education and Work. World Yearbook ofEducation. London: Kogan Page.

Coles, B. (1997) ‘Vulnerable Youth and Processes of Social Exclusion: A TheoreticalFramework, Review of Recent Research and Suggestions for a Future ResearchAgenda’ in J. Bynner, L. Chisholm and A. Furlong (eds) Youth, Citizenship andSocial Change in a European Context. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Croft, M. (1960) Apprenticeship and the Bulge, Research Series, 216. London: TheFabian Society.

European Group for Integrated Social Research (EGRIS) (2001) ‘MisleadingTrajectories: Transition Dilemmas of Young Adults in Europe’, Journal ofYouth Studies 4(1): 101–18.

Evans, K. (2002) ‘Taking Control of their Lives? Agency in Young Adult Transitionsin England and the New Germany’, Journal of Youth Studies 5(3): 245–69.

Evans, K. and Furlong, A. (1997) ‘Metaphors of Youth Transitions: Niches,Pathways, Trajectories or Navigations’, pp. 17–41 in J. Bynner, L. Chisholm



and A. Furlong Youth, Citizenship and Social Change in a European Context.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Ferguson, T. and Cunnison, J. (1951) The Young Wage-earner. Oxford UniversityPress.

Fogelman, K. (1985) After School. The Education and Training Experiences of the1958 Cohort. London: National Children’s Bureau, NCDS Working Paper No.3.

Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (1997) Young People and Social Change. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Kerckhoff, A.C. (1996) ‘Building Conceptual and Empirical Bridges BetweenStudies of Educational and Labor Force Careers’, pp. 37–74 in A.C. Kerckhoff(ed.) Generating Social Stratification: Towards a New Research Agenda.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Liepman, K. (1960) Apprenticeship: An Enquiry into its Adequacy Under ModernConditions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Maizels, J. (1970) Adolescent Needs and the Transition from School to Work.London: Athlone Press.

Ministry of Education (1960) 15–18. Report of the Central Advisory Council forEducation – England, Vol. 11, Surveys. London: HMSO.

Ministry of Labour and National Service (1956) The Work of the YouthEmployment Service 1953–56, a report by the National Youth EmploymentCouncil. London: HMSO.

Ministry of Labour and National Service (1958) Training for Skill: Recruitment andTraining of Young Workers in Industry, report by a sub-committee of theNational Joint Advisory Council, (‘The Carr Report’). London: HMSO.

Nagel, U. and Wallace, C. (1997) ‘Participation and Identification in Risk Societies:European Perspectives’, pp. 42–55 in J. Bynner, L. Chisholm and A. Furlong(eds) Youth, Citizenship and Social Change in a European Context. Aldershot:Ashgate.

Pollock, G. (1997) ‘Uncertain Futures: Young People In and Out of EmploymentSince 1940’, Work Employment and Society 11(4): 615–38.

Roberts, K. (1984) School Leavers and their Prospects: Youth and the LabourMarket in the 1980s. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Rudd, P. (1997) ‘From Socialisation to Postmodernity: A Review of TheoreticalPerspectives on the School-to-work Transition’, Journal of Education andWork, 10(3): 257–79.

Ryan, P. (1999) ‘The Embedding of Apprenticeship in Industrial Relations: BritishEngineering, 1925–65’, pp. 41–60 in P. Ainley and H. Rainbird (eds)Apprenticeship: Towards a New Paradigm of Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Ryrie, A.C. and Weir, A.D. (1978) Getting a Trade: A Study of Apprentices’Experience of Apprenticeship. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton.

Venables, E. (1974) Apprentices Out of Their Time. London: Faber and Faber.Veness, T. (1962) School Leavers. London: Methuen and Co.West, M. and Newton, P. (1983) The Transition from School to Work. London:

Croom Helm.



Sarah Vickerstaff

Sarah A.Vickerstaff is a Reader in Employment Policy and Practice in the School of

Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of Kent. Her main research

interests are in the changes to the relationship between paid work and the life course,

in particular at the beginning and end of ‘working life’. She is working on a Joseph

Rowntree Foundation funded project on ‘ The organisational context for retirement’.

Address: School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent,

Cornwallis NE, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Date accepted 19 November 2002



Apprenticeship in the ‘golden age

Documents

Transcript of Apprenticeship in the ‘golden age