APPRENTICESHIP INQUIRY

Evening Star, Issue 25226, 13 July 1944, Page 8

APPRENTICESHIP INQUIRY

EVIDENCE OF AUCKLAND EMPLOYERS AGAINST INDENTURE TO INDUSTRY (P.AI) AUCKLAND, July 12. The submission that the present scheme of apprenticeship was working" very satisfactorily and should not be interfered with was made when the Auckland Provincial Kmployers' Association presented evidence to-day to the commission of inquiry which is investigating the existing apprenticeship legislation and vocational and prevocational training facilities. The association's case was presented by Mr W. E. Anderson, secretary, and evidence was also given by Mr D. Budge, on behalf of the Auckland Ironmasters' Association, and Mr J. A. Steele, president of the contractors' motion of the Auckland Electrical Traders' Association.

Employers who were members of apprenticeship committees had set up a committee to examine the present system and ►o suggest desirable amendments, said Mr Anderson. The present system was 21 years old, and for that reason alone some employers had believed that amendments might be uecessary in view of the altered methods of manufacturing which had been introduced in recent years. After examining the system thoroughly the committee was unable to suggest one amendment to the law as it stood. The Act had operated very efficiently for 21 years, and, in «ho opinion of the employers, required no amendment to-day. " Proposals have been made that the education of apprentices should be continued to the age of 18 years by attendance at classes during one full day a week within working hours," said Mr Anderson. " This proposal clearly implies that, at least to the extent of one dav a week, compulsory education would be extended in the case of apprentices from the age of 15 to 18. The employers I represent have given careful consideration to these proposals and they cannot recommend the making of a general rule applicable to overy apprentice within the proposed age limits."

Owing to the extension of the compulsory period of school attendance and the reduction of the weekly working hours, the association contended. Mr Anderson said, that apprentices to-day entered employment with a longer and better education and with more leisure than they had in 1923 to pursue their studies. The association did not support the proposal that an employer should be required to allow an apprentice to attend classes of instruction during his 'ordinary working hours without a deduction from his wages. A sensible lad. anxious to become more than a rank and file journeyman, would on at least two evenings a week attend classes at school, taking general subjects even if the appropriate trade classes were not available, and lie would be encouraged by his ■ parents to attend if they were sensible people.

"Employers generally are strongly opposed to the proposal that lads should be apprenticed to an industry instead of to an individual employer, and that in order to give them wider experience of their trade they should be employed by severa. employers during their apprenticeship,'! said Mr Anderson.

Under the proposal, he added,* an employer would not select his own apprentice, and would be required to employ many boys whom >he would not have engaged under the present system. The employment with each employer would be of a more of less temporary nature. The apprentice would not take the same interest in his work and in the wellbeing of his employer's business, and the employer would not take the same interest in the boy's training". Discipline would deteriorate, and employment after the apprenticeship contract had been completed would not be prolongedin as many cases as it was at present.