Auxiliary Workers’ Training Scheme

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23352, 11 June 1941, Page 6

Auxiliary Workers’ Training Scheme

Statements made by Mr G. T. Thurston at Monday’s sitting of the Christchurch Manpower Committee charged the management of the State Railway Workshops with a grave failure - to co-operate .with industry and with the manpower authorities in facilitating the re- , lease .of men for military training: In effect, statements charged the Director of National Service’with sustaining the work- * shops .management in this attitude; and it is .Clear that, a full official reply is due. Mr Thurston “could not see that the Government •“ is responsible blit whether the Government has been aware of the fads or not, it is responsible for what is done by its servants. The occasion for Mr Thurston's remarks was provided by appeals made on behalf of three -workshops apprentices by the Director of Service, who suggested in a letter that should be adjourned sine die, the men \balhg required to enrol under the Emergency ‘Seecautions Scheme. In summary, Mr Thurs4 /tott’f/allegation- was that the workshops steadily put forward appeals for employees called for territorial service; that they reject the' alternative of' substituting men trained under the auxiliary workers scheme, organised expressly to ■ assist the release of > as many ■ industrial workers as possible;, that private industry, facingdifflculties as great, assists the Government by’absorbing" the auxiliaries -and carrying on their at tMmsiderable cost; - and that the State workshopaare not entitled to, and should hot be 'given, 1 the preferential treatmentthey. expect' from " the manpower committees. It is-posslble that’there is another side of the case: That is one of why an official statement, is wanted. But it is ob.'vious that Mr Thurston is not likely to be a witness wildly astray upon such facts as he was ; dialing with, and that he spoke with a special

sense of responsibility as a member of the Christchurch Manpower Committee. Obviously, also, his line of argument is perfectly correct. It is not right that appeals for employees in the State workshops should be put forward or dealt with in any way that sets the State’s claims, as an industrial employer, above those of others. It is not right that the State should disregard approved and useful arrangements to facilitate the release of men for military training, while other employees are expected and, if necessary, compelled to fall in with them. Finally, it is not righ't that manpower committees should have greater difficulty in testing the grounds for appeals submitted by the Director of National Service, who does not attend for examination, than they have in the case of appeals submitted by private employers, who do. Mr Thurston’s demand for the equitable solution of manpower problems is one which should not have to be made; and the Government should explain why it has had to be and see that it is fully satisfied.