Editorial Comment

Progress, Volume XIII, Issue 4, 1 December 1917, Page 77

Editorial Comment

The ever-present trouble to adjust Capital differences between the worker and and the employer under our capitalistic Labour. system has prompted two important organisations recently to take steps towards promoting more sympathetic relations between the opposing forces. At the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in Wellington, it was unanimously resolved to request all affiliated bodies to encourage the Workers’ Educational Association, which is doing valuable service to the wage-earners by bringing within their reach sound education on political and economic subjects. Another instance of the employers’ desire to come into more sympathetic touch with the wage-earner was shown in a discussion by the Wellington Provincial Industrial Association upon ‘‘Some Aspects of Citizenship in Relation to Industry and Education.” The principal speaker, Mr. L. T. Watkins, favoured the establishment of an Arts and Crafts Guild, and suggested that if boys were apprenticed by document (as is usual), but presented through the Guild in meeting, with the Mayor in the chair, and representatives of the City Council present, as is done by the Lord Mayor and alderman of London in certain guilds, the boys might enter upon their apprenticeship somewhat impressed, and in quite a different frame of mind to the lads in present-day instances. The employer or the apprentice could appeal later to the guild if dissatisfaction existed. At the termination of the apprenticeships the completed indentures could be presented by the Mayor at periodic meetings— even this little publicity would be an incentive for the boy to improve himself, so that a word of praise might be said for the way in which he had come through his trade schooling. The Association, decided to invite views from the Trades and Labour Council, and we imagine that the Labour delegates, trained in the hard school of bargaining with employers, will get down to.bedrock with a demand that the Guild should provide something more for the apprentice than an encouraging public ceremonial. The Arbitration

Court has in several awards empowered apprentices to obtain technical school training during working hours, and thus placed apprenticeship upon more useful lines than hitherto. As the outcome of the Guild suggestion we would like to see set up a joint body of employers and employed for the purpose, of keeping in touch with all apprentices, renewing their position at intervals so as to guarantee that the training given is adequate, and that the apprentice is doing his share by maintaining his studies and diligence at work. Under such a system of close supervision, the apprenticeship period could he appreciably reduced in the case of capable youths, and the “living wage” point reached so soon that the obligation of poor parents to the apprenticeship system would he overcome, and fewer hoys turned into the avenue of unskilled employment where wages are comparatively high at first, but never appreciably advance.

The Institute of Architects ought to firmly handle the question of unfair competition from salaried men in the Government service, and other people in private employ who provide at a cheap rate plans unsigned, for “cheap” builders. It was reported at the annual meetitng of the Institute of Architects that it is the practice of some architects of drawing plans for builders instead of for employers, for whom buildings are to be erected, at a rate of 2Vo per cent. There was grave doubt as to whether even 2i/ was paid in many cases. It was decided to point out to members that the practice was not approved by the Institute, and that members should never issue plans without their signatures appended. It was decided also, to advise the Builders and Contractors’ Association that the Institute disapproved of this class of business, and asked the assistance of the association in putting a stop to it. It was pointed out, however, that some of the work, was done by draughtsmen in architects’ offices, and that much more of it was done by employees of the Public Works Department and of local bodies. It was decided that a letter be sent to the Minister of Public Works, the Public Service Commissioners, and the larger local bodies, informing them that these employees were competing unfairly with architects who had to man offices and meet other expenses,,

Friday, November Ist, was St. Andrew’s Day, though most busy people probably failed to notice it. They went about their work as usual, for holidays in honour of patron saints are strangely out of place when the whole country is striving hard to keep pace with the demand of the times for*the most strenuous activity among those who are left at home to work. But the Government offices, banks, and insurance offices closed their doors. The fact that they are short-staffed apparently was not allowed to interfere with the privilege of a spell on a saint’s day, so business people who pay wages on Fridays, even though saints’ days come on the same date, were obliged to carry large sums over from Thursday, because the banks made holiday on the busiest day

of the last week in November. Military Service Boards have been granting exemptions to the employees of hard pressed Government Departments, but what will they say to this stupid system of keeping up the fancy holidays of peace time after more than three years of war? Of all people, the Government should set an example to the community in taking seriously the responsibilities of those who remain at home to work. These fancy holidays, which upset the rest of the steady-plodding business community, are absolutely out of place at such a time as this. The Government has not even the excuse of saying it has not had attention called to the matter, for the National Efficiency Board, many months ago. reported to Parliament on Government holidays as follows: “The Board protested against the large number of holidays observed in Government offices, and submitted that the State should set an example in efficiency to the Dominion by reducing the number of holidays which are observed in the State Departments, and which, in the opinion of the Board, constitute a grave abuse.”

The building trade is in such a condition of restriction that it is not surprising to find keen competition among architects for the small amount of work obtainable. This has gone over the bounds of prudence and good taste in some instances, and at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, a brisk discussion took place on the practice of “touting” for commissions. It ended in the passing of a resolution requesting every branch to form a Vigilance committee to confer with and report to the Discipline and Practice committee of the Council as to the best method of preventing unprofessional touting for business to the detriment of other architects. An instance was given of an architect in Wellington who had lost work from a client served for thirty years, through unsolicited sketches from another architect being accepted. In limiting the enterprise of architects the Institute is on delicate ground. Every decent professional man will deprecate “touting” to rob another architect of a commission, but there are many instances in which the architect gets a good idea for the utilisation of a piece of land, and submits suggestions to the owner, who may not have the knowledge or experience to decide for himself the best purpose to which to devote the site. Architects keep themselves conversant with the nature of the demand for buildings, and it can scarcely be regarded as unprofessional if business is induced as a result of a good suggestion, though this might prejudice the architect who does not get in first. Any idea that an architect is simply going to flourish because he has been in the profession a long time is likely to sap the best influences making for progress. The border line between legitimate enterprise and absolute poaching is not easy to define in general terms, and it will therefore be necessary, if the institute is going to take effective and discreet action, to investigate specific complaints, and not try to evolve cast-iron regulations which will only serve as a protection to the more indifferent and unenterprising men in the profession.

“Touting ” and Enterprise.