The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1926. A SERIOUS QUESTION

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 45, 17 November 1926, Page 10

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1926. A SERIOUS QUESTION

It has been apparent tor some lime past that the -Apprentices Act is not producing the results contemplated by those responsible for that piece of legislation. Its most serious delect m operation has been its evident failure to provide openings for thc laige number of boys desiring to learn skilled trades. ...... , ■ The advantage to the country oi staffing the skilled tiadcs with New Zealand-bred workers need not be stressed, lor one tl.n & would check .the drift of youths into blmd-a ley occupations im another, it would relieve the pressure on what has been described as the “cuffs and collar” occupations. The Apprentices Ac. m designed, amongst other things, to provide the machinery for direct ing boys into skilled trades for which they were best adapted. If, as is asserted, it has failed to function in this respect, its failure ought to be investigated. . . , There is evidence from two distinct quarters in support o review of the whole position—the Labour Department and the employers. Speaking at the Rotary Club luncheon yesterday. Secretary of the Department ‘Mr. h. W. Ko ' v . ,e) J' official story of the break-down of the Act. The Department for the last three years had acted as a connecting-link between the head teachers of the schools and the parents on the one side and the employers on the other. Reports had been received advertisements had been'published in the newspapers, applications had been made to employers. The response from the employers had been disappointing—bv comparison with the number of applications from boys. From the employers’ point of view, the chief objection to the Act seems to be the district proportion which apparently places restrictions upon boys entering certain trades. Mr. Kowlev says that this’objection is not sustained by actual experience, for in practically every trade where the proportion for the district was fixed, the employers did not engage anything like, the number the greatest proportion would allow. The point here is that there is a definite difference of opinion, which ought to be examined Another point of objection stated by employers is that the administrative machinery of the Act is not satisfactory that better results would follow if'the control of apprentices were taken from the Arbitration Court and the district committees, and vested in an independent tribunal. It has been argued that the district committees have not the time to discharge all the duties assigned to them by the Arbitration Court, and that the Court is in practically the same position. If the machinery is too cumbersome it ought to be simplified. i r The real difficulty about the question seems to he in the tact that the Act in principle represents an attempt to solve a social problem by harnessing it to private business. In theory it would appear that employers generally would eventually profit by cooperating with the State in promoting this method of increasing the supply of skilled workers. In practice, the average employer is disinclined to worry over much about theories, and prefers to make the best of what be can obtain rather than accept the restrictions of a svstem which puts him under regulation. Mr. Rowley now suggests that the question is one for the public interest, which, in effect, is as much as to say that the Department, having done its best for the last three years, and failed, through no fault of its own. there should be a stock-taking. Ills proposal that a committee representing the Department and others interested should examine the question is a good one. Since he has put part of the responsibility for the failure of the Act upon the employers, it might not be amiss to invite the co-operation of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation at the same itme.