UNION MEMBERS OPPOSE STATE INSURANCE MONOPOLY

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 October 1947, Page 6

UNION MEMBERS OPPOSE STATE INSURANCE MONOPOLY

(P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Opposition to the clause in the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill providing for a State monopoly of workers’ compensation insurance was expressed at a meeting of more than 120 members of the New Zealand General Insurance Workers’ Union in Christchurch yesterday. The meeting, which was called at the request of the national secretary, decided to ask the Government to delete the clause from the Bill, and suggested that this request should also be made in a petition to be signed by members throughout New Zealand and presented to Parliament. The president of the Christchurch branch of the union (Mr C. E. Col- i lins) said that the national executive council intended to oppose the passing of the proposed legislation by every means within its power.

When one member referred to the future position of insurance office staffs as a result of the new legislation, Mr Collins said the most that could be hoped for was an assurance from the Government that it would absorb displaced members of staffs in future.

After further discussion, the meeting decided to advise the Government immediately that while it supported the desirability of increased benefits to workers under the Workers’ Compensation Act, it took strong exception to the clause in the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill giving the State a monopoly of workers’ compensation insurance. The‘resolution asked that the clause should be deleted from the Bill on the grounds that (1) the contents of the Bill had not been referred to the uniorr; (2) no opportunity was afforded the union to examine and present a suitable scheme by which the best interests of workers could be served by qualified experts with years of experience. Similar. protest meetings of union members were held in Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, and Invercargill. Included in a resolution carried by the Dunedin meeting was a statement that insurance workers were not prepared to accept employment under the proposed Government scheme. AUCKLANDCXERKS’ STRONG PROTEST (P.A.) AUCKLAND, October 10. Resolutions protesting against the proposed changes in the Workers Compensation Insurance, announced by the Government on Wednesday, were unanimously carried at a meeting of nearly 200 members of the Auckland district branch of the New Zealand General Insurance Industrial Union of Workers.

The meeting was well attended, for the total provincial membership ol ■ the Branch is about 500, and no insurance offices were closed while the meeting was in progress. Almost a third of those present were women and, at least half of the total attendance appeared to be under 35 years of age. I The meeting was short, orderly, and to the point. The proceedings began shortly after 3 p.m. and ended before 3.15 p.m. When the chairman of the branch committee, Mr D. F. Molloy, called for a vote on the resolutions by a show of hand, the arm of every member of the Union present was raised. Mr Molloy said the meeting had been specially called to protest, as emphatically as possible, against the Government’s Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill. “A more inappropriate time for such a measure to be introduced,” he said, “could hardly be imagined. We have no quarrel concerning the increased benefits. In fact, we are surprised that the Government has not acted in this respect before. The five clauses resolved that members of the Auckland district of the Union were: (1) opposed to the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 1947, in that it provided for a State monopoly of this class of business; (2) considered that members of the Union were doing an efficient job, and that the workers of New Zealand would get no better service under a State monopoly; (3) considered that any extended benefits under the Amendment Act, 1947, could be far better incorporated in the present Act, and thus the vast administration experience of the insurance companies could thus be utilised; (4) emphatically protested against the Union not being consulted by the Government before it brought down an amendment which might well affdet the future livelihood of union members.