THE EMPLOYER’S CASE

Opotiki News, Volume II, Issue 182, 15 May 1939, Page 3

THE EMPLOYER’S CASE

Sir.—Could you spare me a little t . space to reply to one or two remarks made by “Old Swaddy” in a, recent issue. Looking at it from one point of view his idea appears very nice—Tor the young trainee. In cold! cash what would it mean from the employer’s point of view? in the ordinary course of events employees at around 18-20 receive something like £2 weekly. Most cmplpyees are granted two weeks on full pay with more than a week extra for various additional holidays. That means £6 for two weeks’ the employer to>” pay. Then “Old owaddy asks the poor old employer to “cough up” another £4 for two weeks’ training, plus another £G or so for approximately £0 half-days. This would mean another £(i or £7; - I Ids means something like £ls yearly lor the unfortunate employer. If he .should hare, two workers it means £3O a year. Why should one employee pay and another escape? Wouldn’t it bo better to hand our businesses over to the Government and let the Government pay? That would be the only fair way as it would rope in the men without employees. After carefully considering Old Swaddy’,s wonderful suggestion I can only come to. the conclusion that, like those who supported the Conscription vote at the meeting, he himself will not be affected. No oru else would come forward with such a splendidly generous plan. W T ere I a young man l would! jump at the idea oi; all the time off, not to mention the additional pay that would be received as camp “screw”. Now, what about it employees? It looks like another case of conscripting the employers’ wealth, if thev have any. DOLLARS.