A DIFFERENT VIEW

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 89, 12 October 1938, Page 28

A DIFFERENT VIEW

S. INGRAM.

(To the Editor.)

Sh",—-A good deal of publicity has been given in the Press throughout the Dominion to criticism expressed by Messrs. A. G. Shrimpton, W. R. Sellar, and other officials of the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows. This reminds me of. the opposition displayed by officials of this order to the introduction in the railway service of a sick benefit scheme in 1928. This was vigorously opposed by the Friendly Society movement, culminating in an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee before which officials gave evidence; in doing so claiming the introduction of the Sick Benefit Society in the railway service would detrimentally affect the Friendly Society movement. I was present when the evidence was given, and had the privilege of cross-examining the witnesses. I also staunchly supported the formation of this Sick Benefit Society iin the railway service, and although a

Friendly Society member of long standing, claimed that it would in no way detrimentally affect those societies. The experience gained during the intervening ten years has proven my claim to be correct and the Friendly Society's officials quite wrong.

As a member of the management committee of the Railway Sick Benefit, and also still a member of the Friendly Society, I feel I am qualified to express an opinion. The railway fund started off without any assistance, and in ten years has accumulated a reserve fund of £45,000, sick pay each year exceeding £20,000, and there is no evidence of the operation of this fund having in any way affected the Friendly Societies. These societies have rendered invaluable service to their great mass of "members for many many years, and are deserving bf full credit for the social security they have provided. However, while still a very enthusiastic supporter of these societies, I realise their benefits are restricted to the medically fit section of the community. -What of those who cannot qualify for membership therein? It is generally recognised as the responsibility of the fit to assist in providing for the unfit. In the Railway Superannuation !Fund provision is made for a restricted section of the community. All of these social security funds should be open to all. It is, therefore, with a good deal of satisfaction I welcome the proposal to put into operation a national health and superannuation scheme embracing all and sundry. My experience is that the chief worry and concern of the working people is how they are to carry on through periods of sickness and also old age. This is more pronounced with married men, each additional domestic responsibility adding to their fears as to how to tide over periods when they are unable to work through sickness.

The Friendly Societies have done excellent work in catering for some section of the community, and as the national scheme is an advance upon the policy of these societies, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of Friendly Society members will most heartily support the Government to make a success of their social security scheme.

Co-dperation with the Government is the proper attitude to adopt and by such means the Friendly Societies will remain to carry on in fostering social security which is the true basis of the whole of their schemes which they have successfully carried out for so many years.^ —I am, etc.,

(To the Editor.)

Shv —I-have watched with deep interest the controversy injrour columns over the health insurance scheme. For years, even after its inception in England, the same outcry was raised—but it gradually died a natural death and its greatest opponents were loud in its praise. For years. I paid in 5d per week and my employer paid the other sd, and the benefits I and other, young people derived were far in excess of that small expenditure. People in this country have been paying 8d in the £ for so long that I feel sure as soon as they are used to paying the extra 4d they will wonder how they could possibly have opposed a scheme so infinitely greater in benefits to themselves than any scheme I have yet heard of.—l am, etc.,

MARJORIE E. SIMPSON.