TWO WAYS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 73, 27 March 1931, Page 5

TWO WAYS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —A short time ago Mr. Semple introduced a deputation to the Government as to the means of relieving unemployment and spoke of the lack of opportunity for work for boys leaving school. He remarked that the door of opportunity was slammed and bolted in their faces; it was one of the tragedies of the moment. He I appealed to the Government for statesmanlike action, etc. A little later the Labour Department issued a notice to employers that the Arbitration Court, "after consulting the parties to the award," had decided to allow only one apprentice to each'journeyman, instead of two, in the engineers' award. At a stroke of the pen the Court cut out half the future jobs for apprentice engineers in New Zealand. As a party to the award, we heard nothing till we received the notice. This, in my opinion, is an instance of interference with industry by the Court which will have a far-reaching effect. I hardly think manufacturers are so pessimistic as the Court seems to be. As there is no compulsion to take_ on apprentices, naturally, if there is little work, none would be started. Yet the way should be open to take them at the first sign of trade improvement. Apprentices have nothing to do with journeymen. From the time a boy starts his time to the end of, say, five years, he does his own job according to his ability. These boys have their part in the economy of manufacture and quite two-thirds of the many.jobs done the apprentice does as quickly and as well as a journeyman. It is common-sense that it is wasteful to give a skilled band a job that a boy can do—all countries grade the work in manufacture. AVith the most careful management in doing jobs as economically as possible we can just manage to compete with the imported article. If we cannot make our machinery and goods to sell at a reasonable competitive price with apprentices making parts not calling for the superior skill of the journeyman, what hope is there with half the apprentices cut out. Even now customers say the New Zealand goods cost too much. Most employers have apprentices to pay and little work and it alters no arrangement at present. No one has troubled. What justification was there for raising wages 200 per cent, since 1914 and also giving them all sorts, of privileges? Why pay £2 os per week to a boy, and the English journeyman gets £2 15s, and we compete with English, manufacturers for work. The Minister of Labour, in Parliament last week, made a great point that apprentices' wages would not be interfered with. Why? Surely a boy at £2.5s in a sheltered industry should take his share in the reduction in these hard times. The Minister should surely allow the Court to judge, along with other costs. The apprentice gets 17s per week more than the single man who only gets two days per week. He is on a better wicket than many others. Awards of the Court are simply killing what little trade there is, and unioa officials seem to get all they want. A short time ago they got a rise of 5s all round, and it. was ■made retrospective for eleven| months. What business could estimate for work ahead? And nothing was known till it was1 sprung on the trade, the same as this last lot. The primary end of, manufacture is sale of the goods, and all charges loaded on the goods are paid for by the customer. It would be interesting to know if the Railway Department Works will have a free hand with apprentices or will take no more till half they have at present become journeymen. If so, their expenses will go up. There is a large quantity of machinery and gear imported that could be made here if there were reasonable wages and conditions, and the money could be kept in the country. There should be some inquiry as to who asked for this one apprentice business, and if necessary it should be crossed out. —I am, etc., MANUFACTURING ENGINEER.