WORKERS' INSURANCE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 667, 18 November 1909, Page 3

WORKERS' INSURANCE.

AN EMPLOYER'S VIEW. WHO SHALL An interesting paper dealing. with'-' the'' van--ous schemes,' proposed ' for tho insurance' of workers, was read by Mr. F. W. Hobbs, of. Christchurch, at the annual meeting of tho Now .Zealand Employers' Federation;?ycstcr* day.' ■:; ' '-' ' ■. ; ''''■ ■ /■■ ■",*■■■,"'":'■' From a humanitarian standpoint, nhd also •as a business proposition, on tho part of the State, such schemes, Mr. Hobbs affirmed;' -had much to commend them, but'thrift and individual effort sluiuld- be encouraged.. The Prime Minister's'; National Provident Fund Bill demanded most favourable consideration as an easy means of providing for old age, sickness, and incapacity, and,'as being based on the cardinal virtue of thrift,-Mr. Guinness's Bill was not likely to become law.' '.It was difficult to see on what grounds. its author suggested that an* industry employing a man eight or nine hours a day should bear the cost of insuring him for. more than double that time. . ■"; ' ■ .' .",': Unemployment Insurance'.^;■ io;; In. dealing with compulsory, insurance against unemployment, the Legislature would have a difficult task, as it wiiuld have, to follow paths ha*l Deen txltf Ksht\y. trodden. No country had v«t attempted to enforce insurance of this ifearacterT '; Germany, with all her comprehensive State systems, had yet left the question of unemployment ance to be dealt with by the municipalities, on a voluntary principle. Voluntary 6chemes when worked outside the Trades Union have almost universally, failed, but that when worked through, or in conjunction with the unions, they have '■ achieved a fair measure of snecess. If tho State decided to make some I provision against unemployment, ' tho . good work done by the unions' would be a strong argument in favour of giving thorn a considerable share in the financing and ■;.; management of tho scheme. ■; . .;j ■■'~' : . ... -'.. British Scheme and New Zealand Conditions. During the recess, the Hon! J. 'A. Millar stated that ho would, probably'; bring down a measure similar to the Britishjproposals. The scheme of Mr. Winston Churchill would, however, bo quite unjust if adopted in Now Zealand, especially in regard to the proposal that employers should bear a large proportion -ol I the cost of insurance of workers against,un- ■ employment. Tho Arbitration Act already compelled industries to pay the wago necessary to prdvido a fair living for all the timo after a worker had finished his apprenticeship. To tax thom again would bo forcing them to pay part .'of tho charges tirico ovor. The incapacity of the worker to meet bad times i could not bo said to bo generally due to insufficient wage/ rate, but living up to tho full income, little or no: provision . was' made for the rainy day. If, therefore, thrift was not strong enough in human nature, it would surely be - a wise proceeding. on the part' of the : State to enforce compulsory thrift by the .retention of the small part of the wage necessary to provide for ago, sickness, and want. important reason why our. industries should not contribute, was that as compulsory ! unemployed insurance did not exist tinywhere ■ else, its establishment with us would attract I a great influx of'workers to the. Dominion. Unemployment would, therefore, become much greater, and the calls on tho fund increased ,lo a breaking' point. To meet this, the contributions would have to be considerably enlarged, .and this additional tax on our industries for'the kcop of the workers of other lands would bo scandalously unjust.... Tho difficulty could not be met: by any fixed period of rosidenco beforo becoming eligible for a share in the fund, because a man newly arrived, conld obtain work instead of an old resident, and the latter therefore be thrown out ■of employment. The incentive to outside workers to'comohere would,' however, bo much reduced if they knew that: instead 'of the employer and tho State supporting them they -would themselves havo to provide tho .unemployed insuranco funds. '

• .-•' Against a Levy on Employers. : Other 'arguments' advanced in : support o( making the industries contribute aro: (1) That employers should contrib.uto because they will : benefit by the workers having.a greater spending capacity. (2) That' if employers have a toancial responsibility they will .try and neutralise unemployment by spreading, the Work over the wholo year, instead: of doing it when the;buyer. . In answer to the first reason, they, had only to ask who it was.with whom the worker spent his money. When tho landlord, grocer, butcher, and draper had been paid, there was little left ■ for anyone elso.' Yet . these were the . very employed little ; labour in Proportion to their sales. It might be said tnat the landlord and tradesmen mentioned would be in a hotter position, to spend money, and it would thoreforo'come'back again to the manufacturer. That they woSld be bettor off ml 6nt be true,,but their expenditure was on much the same lines as the worker's, und only an.infinitesnnal. portion of tho manufacturers' contributions to the fund would filter back to hm :,, The second .reason was even more impossible to uphold. In the first "place, many industries were seasonable trades, and the demand for their products was ruled absolutely by ; the temperature, by rain and sunshine. Many.other occupations, such as the building trade, were equally impossible to regulate. "Unequal Burdens. • Another very grave fault of the proposal was that industries in which labour, comprised a large portion of the costs would have to contribute heavily, whilo those on which labour costs were small would escape very lightly. As an example; what could justify the flaxmiller, whose, labour cost is at least 75 per cent.; of the cost of his output, having to pay ten times as much as the iiourmiller, whoso wages sheet possibly would not-be ;moro" than 7£ per cent, of his sales? The flaxniiller coiild not recover Vthis extra insurance cost, because he. sold-his products in the world's mar:ko?at the ruling price. Yet tho flaxmiller and the flourmiller wore' equally citizens of tho State, and should bo taxedv alike. .' . Prepared to Fight. . . Our industries were new,, and,' by reason of our small population, limited in sizoj'tho costs of production,were relatively high, and the _ difficulties of competition with the great and'long-established industries of the older countries were such thatheavier burdens would tend to further curb this development, and to increase our. importations. Yet the value of industries to give. employment to our worker was so. enormous that everything possible should be done to assist their development and expansion. If Parliament passed legislation for compulsory insurance against sickness, accidents outside working hours, or unemployment,- then let .those who were to benefit find the necessary funds. If this was not entirely possible, let the whole community share tho burden of the extra amount required in the same manner they now shared all other calls, £! 'the State. Employers might be prepared to help the administration of such an Act by retaining and handing to , the State tho prescribed portion of the worker's wage. That in itself would be no small thing for them to do. If the fund, had to be subsidised they would do their part in ratio with other, taxpayers, but they would, fight most, strenuously against any attempt to differentiate against them and saddle ■ them with any greater proportion of the cost'than that borne by other taxpayers. ; The meeting thanked Mr. Hobbs for his valuable paper, and decided to have it printed in full.