Workers, Compensation Act, 1908.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 41, 15 December 1911, Page 15

Workers , Compe nsation Act, 1908.

Hqw to Rectify its Anomalies.

By JOSEPH TAYLOR, Mining Engineer, Nelson.

One cannot but admire the earnest efforts of P. J. O , Regan to hammer into shape the crooked Workers' Compensation Act, 1903. I have read with interest his article in your issue of November 17 entitled "A Trick that Failed. How a Wire-puller was Beaten. Were Parliamentarians Hoodwinked ?" but I cannot Be© after all that Mr. O'licgan's efforts touch the taproot of mischief at all in connection with either that unprincipled Act or its superficial and ridiculous amendments. Mr. G'Rcgnn quotes several legal authorities in support of his contention that "the rule of common employment violates the first principles of justice as well as common sense." He maintains that liability tc compensate for accidents should fall upon the employer and that irrespective of neglect, and he further contends that the amount of compensation should not be limited to £500. In reply to this last point of compensation being not limited to £500, be shows how he lias taken some considerable trouble to secure the defeat of the efforts of "some nameless intriguer." Bub after all, is it not clear that even if Mr. o"Regan has secured :his point, he has done very little to ensure that all shall be compensated who suffer from or through accidents? Mis argument would apply in case the employer was a company with a considerable capital, but in case the employer had little or no capital the in-jnr-ed worker or his dependents would get little or no compensation. You cannot force blood out of a stone a and what is to become of an injured worker or his dependents in this case? I mention this chiefly to show that the present Compensation Act is radically wrong in principle; and that, mend it as you will, it is liable to produce more harm than good. As an illustration of rhe beneficial effect of tlie clause formerly fixing the maximum compensation at £500, Mr. O r ßegan gives several cases from his own experience, but. really the coses do not touch the .taproot of the trouble at all, and they are not even pertinent to the point at issue. He says: "Already this amendment of the law has been of great service to workers. Take, for instance, the case of the Penguin wreck. I recollect a mother whoso son (a seaman on that ill-fated vessel) was drcvniod. Sh-3 resided in Ireland, and hence by reason of the iniquitous "domicile clause" she was precluded from claiming under the Workers' Compensation Act, for there was not at thai timu. reciprocity with tbe "United Kingdom. Had the de-X.-nee uf c.jraiuon. been available, the poor old lady would have got. iiothii-g. although ."-he had ample proof tlict her son regularly sent her money. Because t-ho defence of common employment hod been taken away. hcvr*3ver, we wore able to threaten the Union Company v/it-h an action claiming dainfi-ges for ii-f-gligerse-e., and hence the company paic *.;.;.bst;i}]tial compensation. In a recent o-sse that came under my notice a boy was badly injured through the collapse *f a scaffold under the direction of a fellow-servant. On account of his small, the compensation payable to him under the Workers 1 Compensation Act was a mere trifle. Accordingly, a threat to claim damages for injury l-;y reason of the f< j lkrA'~~ervaiii's i;.c g]igc«<:o brought Iran a srr.bsfan tial -pli-i-ium in settlement of 'bis claim. i raention these facts merely to iJliHivjitfc ike practical importance to i~l~.r- -Kor'iio-vs of ihe alteration niado by Abolishing, of the iiVh-'-sriiiYJi! rule of corni^.or. <-Ji;ployrn-e>jt.'"'" Now tins shows \<z-y dearly tbo sincerity of Mr. O'Rogorf« ?-:yrr-pathy with suffering and his okvnczz aud. suecosful efforts t-o obtain ]i-.;.3.p in the cases cited, but the facis rjK-ntionec'i in no v,-ay prove that either ike principle of compensation irrespective of neglect is an equitable pririfiip'o. or that £000 or more should be e!ahy;,;"blc-» in the ens-} of serious aceid'e-nt, -or. further,, that firry eojy.pcnsa-tios) at a; 3 cay] be wrung from an -cmpl^'ei , wii-o i.as iio capital to claim upon. In connection with the wreck of the Penguin, it was to claim and obtain, compensation because tb-e Penguin was owned by a oompany possessing considerable capital. But suppose instead of this Penguin the wrecked boat Lad "been the little ketch. Mataka.na, which recently *.-a.-psi;i-nd off Motueka, with only two men (the captain and' ills mate) on board, and suppose the mat-p., who was working for wages, had in this case lost his life, the vessel bf'ing owned by the employer (tlie captain), ail of whose capital was in tho vessel that was 3-r.S't —where would have been the claim for ■ronrpenßjuion ? It must be clear that in such a case (by no liwaTif ft. vp.va ot\<o) no ■cr:vip.orisolion. could have ?K-en -r-btaii:";-: and ilie old woinsm in Ireland vrm;.lrj have Wen. left -entirely without Uk; means of sub sister^. It may be that iuuVt onr our, Compensation Act of IVQS rhe rule r,i common wa« abolishrt]. tints making fmployr-rs iial>'<? for cou'.i*r:sanV.n in all acf-vh-Dts. wht.i-tu-y r ac tf> nc-glecT. or otherwise, bnt w3ir.,fc avails that In kuc-U a ease ;is I have ? S<huv:T cf-ction 62 of the 1008 Anrendnifait Act r l-h"? r<-rjgir:jil iV.ork-prs* Coiup-<--i)r-ration for Aft, 1000. jvjitki-p any. provision \<<r v" >'.&>:>-■* of this Irlr.*]. -v!.:r<- Vi.c *-vt xxifU-ruif!, : t» j'lk-f-J v "■■> ]-c i.r. ilicted -.■■•-•■( .i^i , -p:"i-<"i.i''iiis JJJ' <ji^f■Jμ , -!. , < .1 ;wx:i-

The fac-t is tihat the Act upon our Statute Book in this connection, is unsound, and: glaringly unjust in its fundamental principles, and this is what Mr. O'Regan should have emphasised instead of tinkering and trimming at the tips of the tree. In. a pamphlet entitled "Employers and Employed: The Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act, 1900," which I published in 1901 as a reprint of four articles I contributed about that time to the '''Nelson Evening Mail," I pointed out that "The Bill which bears the above euphonious but .misleading title, and which came into oi>eration yesterday (7th inst.) is one of th© most illconsidered and mischievous measures that ever passed into th© statute books of this colony." In spite of all subse-qu-ent amendments of that principal Act, I hold precisely the same opinion, and I have even a more drastic criticism to offer to-day. In the preface I said: "The present pamphlet purports to be a fearless, impartial, and non-partisan exposition and criticism of the main principles a.nd provisions of the most drastic and significant measure of modern times. The articles it contains were written and reprinted from a profound conviction of duty irrespective of political considerations, and are set forth as much in the interest of the employed as in the interests of the employers, believing that both labor and capital have received a rude shock by the Act in question which will toll in compound ratio as time proceeds and from which they can never recover until that essentially unrighteous Act is totally repealed. The author's chief solicitude is for the married and more aged members of the working community on whom this law will doubtless bear with a most direct and trying incidence, especially c-n those v/ho have large families or are in any measure lame or infirm." After over ten years of the working of the Act I then severely criticised, I can now say without fear of contradiction that the prediction I then made has been literally and completely fulfilled. I could quote from my own experience striking cases in proof, but space at present will not permit, especially as I want not only to point out the evil, but also to intimate the only effectual remedy. My main thesis may briefly be put in the following propositions: — 1. Real "accidents" are occurrences which are incidental in the human sense of the term and such as man cannot avoid. 2. It is unjust to penalise any man,. whether employer or employed, for occurrences he cannot intentionally avoid. 3. Injuries inflicted intentionally by those who can avoid them are crimes, and ought to be punished as such. 4. The criminal lav/ of New Zealand already makes ample provision for the punishment of deliberate crimes. 5. Every man, w-oman, or child is liable to real accidents as contradistinguished to such as are avoidable. 6. There are other causes, besides accidejyts duriirg employment, which incapacitate people for s el f -in aint enan<:e. 8. The problem to be solved is properly not one of compensation, but one of maintenance, and it applies enuaJly- to all people, 1 whether technically "workers" or otherwise. 9. The Now Zealand "Workers'_ Corapen sation A.ct, whether in its original form or in any of its •subsequent amendments relates on!} , to accidents caused to such "aro technically '''workers" in case they are incapacitated for self-maintenance by sickness_ or pih , r.ther cause than technical "aceitknts." 10 The present Workers' Compensation Act, 1908, in New Zealand should therefore be repealed, and should be replaced by _ _an Act which makes full provision- for the maintenance of -all members of the State who are incapacitated for self-maintenance, whethcY they be technically "workers 1 y or otherwise. The bringing in of such' a measure w.ould, -of -course, -mean the •estafoc lishrne-nt of a -uniform and universal system of State insurance. This, I submit, is the- only way of effectually doing away with the exceptions and ridiculous anomalies under the present Compensation Act. And I do not disgi;!s3 tlie fa<;t that the introduction of such a recognition of common human rights and of State responsibility would mean the introduction of the thin end of the wedge of absolute Socialism., towards which so much has been done by the N.Z. Federation of Labor in its persistent attempts to amend the mischievous Act I have ventured io criticise.