APPRENTICES’ WAGES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 25 July 1928, Page 11

APPRENTICES’ WAGES.

APPLICATION FoR REDUCTIONS.

ARGUMENT BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT; , (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND. July 24. A suggestion that the Apprentices' Act, 192 A constituted a compromise be r cause level-headed business men realised the danger or apprenticeship matters falling into the hands of idealists was made in the Arbitration Court by Mr. \V. C. Prime, employers’ advocate, ol Christchurch, in supporting an application calculated to eiteet 1 drastic revisions of the wages of apprentices in the painters' and decorators’ trade. Under the existing award operating in the northern industrial district apprentices, commence at 20s per week and increase to 65s in the fifth year by rises of five shillings’ every six months. It was now suggested that the order be amended fixing the rates of pay at 15s, 22s 6d, 3Cis, 37s and 45s p'er week for the first year to the fifth j ear respeotiv ely. Mr. Prime said that it had been found’ that conditions under the present Act were subject to bargaining. Prior to the present Act the people behind the movement largely comprised educationalists, technfcal (authorities, trade unionists and, to some extent, employers with high ideals. Opposed to the new Act were the employers, level-headed business riien who re-organised the danger of allowing apprenticeship matter to fall into the hands of these idealists. Therefore die present Act was more or less a compromise. With the setting up oi the apprenticeship committees, the employers, in spite of a good deal of organisation, were not well versed in the requirements of; the Act, and consequently a good deal of confusion resulted.

In 11 le case of the painters and decorators an experiment had been tried, u though the existing rates of pay were fixed, presumably as the result of a complete recommendation from the committee, the sole remaining employers’ representative on the original committee said definitely that he did not agree to the proposed rates. Evidence was heard in support of the application for an amended order, to the effect that the present rates of pay were unreasonable.

“I do not think the employers can afford to pay the present rates and thoroughly tram their apprentices," said a witness.

Mr. N Taylor concurred in this view, claiming that the hoys did not earn their wages. In opposing the application, Mr. H. Campbell, secretary of the Painters’ and Decorators’ Union, said that prior to the enforcement of the apprentice--.hip order of 1924 there were only 23 apprentices employed in Auckland. Today, in the two' combined trades, there wore 106, in spite of the employers’ statement that they could not afford to take on boys at the present rate. The Apprentices Committee had dealt with two contracts for apprentices monthly during the present year.. It was contended that the apprentices were paid too) much, bait Mr. Campbell maintained that apprentices in other trades were paid too little. -'We admit that trade is bad,” concluded Mr. CAmpbell, ‘‘but surely we are not going to blame the boys tor that? The attempt to reduce wages is a. mean way of trying to rob tlie children’s money-box.” In reply, Mr. Prime said that the employers were findingtbe boys unpayable propositions, and if wages were not reduced it would simply mean that they would have to take on fewer apprentices. . Pending consideration of a similar application at Wanganui the Court reserved its decision.