The Evening Star MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1924. THE APPRENTICES ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 18810, 8 December 1924, Page 6

The Evening Star MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1924. THE APPRENTICES ACT.

Tun Apprentices Act, passed in the 1923 session of oar Parliament, came into operation eight months ago. From the first its success was more hoped for than relied on with coniidence. The reason-is not far to seek. It contained one arbitrary provision having about it an element of coercion repugnant to British conceptions of personal liberty. The Arbitration Court was given power to require any employer to employ and continue to employ such number of apprentices as the court may consider neccssaiy to ensure an adequate supply of journeymen in the interests of that industry. Thereafter apprentices were in a manner of speaking to be wards of the Arbitration Court, which, by means of a system of inspection, was to keep in touch with the apprentice’s progress in learning liis trade, and apply correctives to whichever party was deemed blameworthy in cases whpre that progress was deemed unsatisfactory. Thus the Act of 1923 conferred on. the Arbitration Court certain powers and responsibilities. Broadly speaking, the court has neither exercised the former nor discharged the latter. This possibility was perhaps foreseen by the framers of the Act, and provision was made, not exactly for tho delegation of the powers and responsibilities by the court to other bodies, but for the setting up in the different industrial districts of apprenticeship committees to act in an advisory capacity to the court. These were in a way designed to be in tho same relation to tho court in apprenticeship questions as the Conciliation Councils hold to the court in industrial disputes. On previous occasions we have expressed the opinion that the success or failure of the Act would hinge on the apprenticeship committees set up under the Act. E'ght months have passed, and to say that the movement for the formation of local committees has been disappointing is to state the position mildly. In this pari of the dominion there is scarcely an industry in which one exists. We have the organisations of employers and of workers from the mating of which the Act presupposed the birth of apprenticeship committees. But the parties are either antipathetic or apathetic. This is not altogether unexpected, and the Act provides that the Arbitration Court may, on its own motion, or on the application of any person interested, appoint a committee in any industry in any locality in which no committee has been voluntarily set up/ Tut the court has so far shown a decided aversion to matchmaking between unwilling principals. The birth rat© of apprenticeship committees remains at or :«ar zero, and, as was plainly seen in that event, the Apprentices Act might just as well never have been placed on the Statute Book.

The result is that there are general complaints. Youths who are seeking admission in vain to various trades complain, and so do their parents. And recently the organ of the New Zealand Em-

ployors’Federation has referred to the position of apprenticeship to-day as “chaotic.” It docs not hesitate to attribute the confusion which has arisen, out of tho administration of the Act to the Arbitration Court itself. Instead of giving the parties a lead, it declares, “ the court has side-stepped its responsibilities by urging employers and workers to confer and agree on the terms and conditions of apprenticeship to bo embodied in the court’s general orders in tho respective trades—a duty which the Act placed on the court itself.” It appears that though this procedure has saved the court a considerable amount of labor, it has been most productive of anomalies, destructive of efficiency and contentment, in an industry in which apprentices’ l wage schedules and conditions vary in different districts. Little else could be expected where apprenticeship orders are tho result of a compromise between two parties to whom tho interests of the apprentice aro usually a very secondary consideration compared with their own direct antagonisms. There is even a danger that the Act, administered in the way it is, though not in the way Parliament intended, may leave matters worse than before, since it is conceivable that continuance of the practice of adopting tho compromise recommendations of opposing parlies without any regard to their effect may tend to wreck the whole system of apprenticeship. At present there is a decided aversion on the part of employers in different industries to make any move whatever towards tho formation of apprenticeship committees, nor do tho trades unions show any keenness in their promotion. All things considered, the would-be apprentice is in a most unfortunate position. The employers in some cases look askance at the obligations the Arbitration Court may, if it pleases, impose on them under tho powers conferred by the Act of 1923, and are perhaps less disposed than before to accept apprentices. In some industries —furniture making,, carpentering, electrical, and certain branches of general engineering—there are lads vainly seeking openings to learn the trade. On the other hand, it has to be admitted that om youth shows a disposition to pick and choose. Tho bricklaying and plastering trades could absorb more learners than are offering. These are about tho best-paid branches of the building trade, but the dirtying of hands and clothes incidental to these pursuits seems to make tho modern youth turn up Ids nose at them—a phenomenon increasingly observable in other British-speaking countries since the war. On the whole, it has to be confessed that the apprentice problem has been brought not a whit nearer solution by the enactment of last year’s legislation. In some respects a solution appears to have been pushed back rather than brought nearer.