APPRENTICES’ WAGES

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27075, 25 June 1953, Page 7

APPRENTICES’ WAGES

BIGGER STARTING RATE SOUGHT ARBITRATION COURT HEARS CLAIM (Neto Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 24. An increase of £1 14s a week in the starting wage for apprentices was sought by Mr K. McL. Baxter, advocate for the employees, in a claim for a general apprenticeship order heard before the Arbitration Court today. Mr Baxter said the unions concerned sought an amendment to existing apprenticeship orders which would establish starting rates,at 40 per cent, of the appropriate journeyman’s rates, with a 5 per cent, increase for each 1000-hour period, compared with the increase of 12s weekly, or 6 per cent., authorised by existing rates. He said the Federation of Labour had decided to present a case for all unions which had apprenticeship orders after the application of the Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union for a per centum increase in the wage rates of apprentices had been set down for June 24 and June 25. Mr Baxter said it was not the federation’s intention to seek increased wage rates for apprentices on the ground of increased costs of living, but the claim for an increase in the starting rate could be justified. It cost as much to feed, clothe, and shelter a youth of working age as an adult. Most of the cost of providing for a youth in the first year on the present rate of £2 16s to £2 18s a week fell on the parents. Mr Baxter said that boys and men were not likely to enter apprenticeships unless tangible rewards were offered, and at the present there was insufficient incentive to induce youths in the required number to enter into apprenticeship contracts. A strong contributing factor in the shortage of skilled workers was the low wage rate payable to apprentices, particularly in the initial stages, said

Employers* View Mr R. Hanlon, advocate for the employers, said that apprentices entered into contracts with the full knowledge they were not going to earn sufficient wages to support them in the early stages of their careers. They wdre acquiring knowledge which, in a few years, would place them in an advantageous position compared with youths who elected to enter “blind-alley” occupations to obtain initial wage rates. Mr Baxter, in his reply to the employers’ submissions, said that any increase recently in the number of apprentices was a result of an intensive propaganda campaign conducted by the employers, and did not reflect the true position. He denied the employers’ submission that increased wage rates would not remedy the position, and quoted the timber industry, which, he said, had had an influx of workers because of increased rates.

The unions’ opposition to quota increases was to safeguard the apprentices in their training, he said. Mr Baxter denied a submission that many apprentices in their training period were not an economic proposition. If in some cases this was so, it was purely because the employers were not making proper use of the apprentices’ services. “We have reached the stage where industry, not the parents, should pay for the upkeep of apprentices,” said Mr Baxter. If industry could not support the apprentices, then it was uneconomic. ~T he employers’ advocate had said there would be more apprentices available for industry if outside jobs for youths were scarcer, said Mr Baxter This was a defeatist attitude, and the federation would not agree to it. Perhaps the employers’ advocate had in mind that New Zealand should be said ed mt ° 3 peasant community, he The Court reserved its decision .