APPRENTICES' LAW

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16705, 24 July 1928, Page 11

APPRENTICES' LAW

THIRD EDITION.

DANGER OF IDEALISM (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, this day. A suggestion thai the Apprentices Act of 1(123 constituted n compromise because levelheaded business men realised the danger of apprenticeship mallei's falling into the hands of idealists was made in the Arbitration Court In Mr. VV. I'. Prime, employers' advocate of Christ church, in suppoi i ing an application calculated to effect a draslic revision of the wages of apprentices in the painters and

Under the existing award operating in the Northern Industrial district an apprentice cemmenecs at 20s weekly, increasing to bos in the fifth year 'by rises of live shillings every six months. h was now suggested thai the order lie amended fixing the rates of p"ay at 15s. 22s 6(1, 30s. 375, and 45s a week for the lirsl to fifth year respectively. Mr. I'rinie said it had been found that ihe conditions under the present Act wen- snhjeel to bargaining. I'rior lo the present legislation the people behind the movement were largely comprised of educationalists, lechuieal aulhori ties., trade unionists, and to some extent employers with high ideals. Opposed to the new Act were employers, level-headed business num. who recognised the danger of allowing apprenticeship matters to fall into the hands of these idealists; therefore the present Act was more or less a compromise. He urged a bill setting up an apprenticeship committee. Employers, in spite of a good deal of organisation, were not well versed in the requirements of the Act, and eon seipienllv it good deal of confusion resulted. 'ln the ease of painters and decorators an experiment had been tried. Although the existing rales of pay were fixed, presumably as the result of a complete recommendation from its committee, the sole remaining employers' upresentative on the original committee, however, 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 don't think employers can afford to pay the present rates and thoroughly train I heir apprentices." said n witness, N, Taylor, who concurred in the view expressed, claiming that the boys did not earn their wages. In oppositing the application, Mr. 11. Campbell, secretary of the Painters and Decorators' Union, said that prior to the enforcement of the apieni ieeship order in 1924 there were only 23 apprentice employed in Auckland. To-day in two combined trades there were LOG. Despite 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, but Mr. Campbell maintained that apprentices in other trades were paid too little, "We admit- trade is bad," concluded Mr. Campbell, "but surely we're not going to blame the boys for that. 'I lie attempt to reduce wages is a mean way of trying to rob the children's money box." In replv, Mr. Prime said (lie enplovers were finding boys unpayable propositions and if the wages wore ,noi induced it would simply mean that they would have to take on fewer apprentice.-,. Pending consideration of n similar application'in Wangauui. the court reserved its decision.