MEN AND EXPERTS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18785, 14 June 1929, Page 9

MEN AND EXPERTS.

To the Editor. Dear Sir, —Your query presents a problem. I cannot quite determine on which word you desire to lay the emphasis. Are you objecting to the “labourers" advising the engineer, or is it the right of the staff to elect its representatives that you object to? If the former is your real trouble, my reply is that there are to be found in the ranks of the labourers in this country men who are eminently suited to give valuable advice of a practical nature to any engineer, and I dare say there are few engineers who would not be glad to receive it. Moreover there are times when labourers are capable of giving valuable help of a more technical and scientific order. I remember a case of a surveyor in the field who was surprised at the offer of his chainman to assist him in his calculations. He discovered that he had a labourer mathematician.

When you think of labourers you seem to have your mind on the man who is so illiterate as to be unable to sign the pay roll. There have been times and I suppose there are still places where such men are to be found; but we are in New Zealand, and in the twentieth century. We have our national system of compulsory education. It is far from perfect, few human institutions are. Its primary departments are supplemented by Technical Colleges with their night and day classes.

The labourer you think of has almost vanished. Dux medalists are to be found amongst labourers. You may ask how they got there. I submit another question. There are men in the commercial world occupying prominent positions who are incapable of writing a decent business letter. How did they get there? Yes, Sir. I would rather take the advice of «a good labourer than a bad engineer, and this is not intended as a reflection on our present engineering staff.—l am, etc., TONGS. The correspondent in his first letter said that the sane engineer handed his plan to his foreman. He added:—“The foreman or engineer who is not prepared to take counsel with his men is not fit for his job.” This may be right in some cases, but hopelessly wrong in others. But the engineer should be free to consult his men, and the men should not be allowed to elect one of their number to advise not only the engineer but also the committee of the council, especially as the Mayor says that “the man working on the job knows more about it than all the experts in the world." Is there any guarantee, in any case, that the elected labourer would be chosen primarily for his knowledge of the job? And if he knew little about his job, would the Mayor still prefer the bad labourer to the good engineer? —Ed. “Star.”