TRAINING APPRENTICES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20243, 1 May 1929, Page 16

TRAINING APPRENTICES

PAYMENT WHILE <N CAMP.

EMPLOYERS' STRONG OBJECTION

"UNJUST CLASS TAXATION."

1 A strong protest against tho practice of requiring employers to pay wages to apprentices during tho time they wero in territorial training camps was entered by Mr. S. E. Wright, secretary of the Employers' Association, when appearing before (lie Arbitration Court yesterday. Mr. Wright was appearing in support of an application by the Master Plumbers' Association for employers to bo allowed to mako rateable deductions from tho wages of an apprentice for all time lost by him through sickness, accident not arising out of tho course .of employment, apprentices' default, voluntary absence with tho consent of the employer and any other cause over which the employer had no control. Mr. J. Clark, for the union, opposed the application. "Payment of wages to apprentices while in military camps is a matter which all employers look al with grave concern," said Mr. Wright. "Under the law as it now stands employers not only havo to loso tho services of their apprentices while they are in camp, but also are obliged to pay their wages as well. While in camp the boys are found in board and lodging'and uniforms by the Government and are paid 4s to 5s 6d a day, according to rank, and are therefore at no expense to themselves. This is more than many of them earn as apprentices and in addition they have to keep themselves. We are therefore not asking that any particular hardship shall bo inflicted on the apprentices. . This payment of wages to boys in camp is looked on by employers as most unjust class taxation, to which employers who are willing to train apprentices are subjected. The whole cost of training of our territorials is a charge which should in all justice bo borne by the whole country, not by any particular section."

Mr. Clark said this amendment meant that the boy was to be paid only for the hours that ho worked. If it suited the employer he could tell the boy to stand off as he had no work for him. It was a wonder that the employers had not objected to payment for holidays also, but that would have looked, too bad. The Court reserved its decision.