Craft Regulations in the British Engineering Industry ; its origin, reproduction, and the industrial relations

在分析了从18世纪到战争时期的300多名工程师的生平资料后，我们发现英国工程行业的工艺法规最迟起源于19世纪30-40年代，当时雇主和工人之间有一种习俗，只有在工程行业工作超过5年的人才能合法或正常地进入该行业。即使有一些例外，这种习俗在英国和爱尔兰已经盛行了一个世纪。尽管早期的工程师工会在19世纪20年代放宽了基于学徒制的入职规则，但工程师雇主根本没有规定他们需要工程师具备什么样的能力以及如何培训工程师，为了获得必要的劳动力，他们不得不几乎完全依赖学徒制这一现有的培训体系。事实是，工程学徒制是在新的行业中新形成的，比如车工、搬运工、机械木匠等等，甚至在旧的工程行业，比如磨坊匠和铁匠，学徒制是新的。转变为现代版本，不需要严格的七年，但只有五年的学徒，两年的经验，在贸易和/或被评为工艺（熟练）工人。James Nasmyth打破了学徒制和入学规定，但他的“非学徒制”并没有定义工程师的能力及其培训过程。在19世纪中期，不仅有进入行业的规定，而且对学徒人数、界限、新工艺和机器、工作时间和加班时间、支付方式等各种规定作为一个整体，使工程行业建立了“工艺规则”。雇主协会，在19世纪60年代至70年代和随后的几十年里，与工程工会（如工程师联合会和锅炉制造商联合会）一样发展了他们的权力和组织，站在工艺基础上。他们被授权限制个人的管理特权。工程雇主获得了工厂管理和行政的主观问题，尽管他们没有定义他们自己授权的能力和车间权力，使工程工人能够规范行业。因此，《工艺条例》在本世纪后半叶没有改变。为了更好的管理，雇主跟随工头的非工会化，作为车间事务的关键人物，而工头追求自己的组织作为利益和教育社会，他们呼吁并认为他们保留了工程师的文化，现在被雇主和工人都忽视了。在两次世界大战之间的英国工程工业中，可以找到击败《工艺条例》的可能性，但雇主实际上并没有击败它，因为他们受到劳资关系制度和他们自己的协会的限制，而不仅仅是受到工会的限制。雇主一方面谴责集体工人制定的不合理的工艺条例，另一方面又依赖它，认为工艺是英国工程工业的重要遗产。少

After analyzing more than 300 biographical data of engineers from the eighteenth century till the litter-war period, the origin of Craft Regulations in the British Engineering Industry is found at latest in the 1830-40s, when it was maed a custom between employers and workers that only those who have served more than five years at the engineering trade can enter into the trade legally or regularly. Even with some exceptions, such custom has been prevailing in Britain and Ireland for a century. Though the early engineers' unions relaxed the entrance rules based on apprenticeship in the 1800-20s, engineering employers did not define at all what competence they required of engineers and how to train it, and they were obliged to depend almost entirely upon apprenticeship as an existing training system in order to procure necessary workforce. The fact was that engineering apprenticeship was newly formed in the new branches of the trade such as turners, litters, machine-joiners etc., and eve … More n in the old engineering trades such as millwrights and smiths apprenticeship was. transformed into the modern version which did not require strict seven years but only five years apprenticeship with two years experience in the trade and /or being rated as craft (skilled) worker. James Nasmyth remarknbly broke down apprenticeship and the entrance regulations, but his 'non-apprenticeship' did not define engineers competence and its training process too.In the mid nineteeth century not only the entrance rules into the trade but various regulations on the number of apprentices, demarcation, new processes and machinery, working hour and overtime, paying method, etc. as a whole made the Craft Regulations established in the engineering industry. Employers' associations, which developed their power and organization in accordance with engineering trade unions such as the Amalgamated Engineers and the Boilermakers in the 1860-70s and the following decades, stood upon the Craft basis. And they were empowered to restrict individual managerial prerogatives. Engineering employers attained a subjective issues of factory management and administration, though they did not define the competence and the shop floor power authorized by themselves with which engineering workers were made capable of regulating the trade. As a result Craft Regulations survived unchanged through the latter half of the century. For a beter management the employers followed non-unionization of foremen as keyperson on shop floor matter, while foremen pursued their own organization as benefit and educational society by which they appealed and assumed that they retained the engineers' culture' which was now neglected by both employers and workers.In the inter-war British engineering industry there can be found a possibility for defeating Craft Regulations, but the employers did not actually defeat it because they were restricted by the industrial relations system and their own associations, not solely by trade unions. The employers condemned the unjustifiable Craft Regulation set by the collective workers on the one hand, and depended upon it on the other hand, thinking that craftsmanship was the important heritage of the British engineering industry. Less