INSURANCE OR DOLE?

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19892, 10 March 1928, Page 14

INSURANCE OR DOLE?

Sir,—This question is raised again and even after a committee, representative of employers' associations and Labour leaders, assisted by Government officials responsible for the working of the British unemployment insurance scheme, has reported in favour of it as far as the basis of contributions is concerned, your correspondent "Accountant" has no hesitation in describing the system as "unsound." "Accountant's" arguments are dangerous and misleading. The Act is compulsory and the insured worker must come under the scheme whether he will or not. The employer, according to "Accountant," obtains his contribution from the general public, as also does the State, and as the workers form the bulk of the general state then there is nothing to find fault with in that respect. The fact referred to by "Accountant" of the employed worker carrying the unemployed one on his back is not a fact at all. It is the result of a scarcity of labour, from, whatever cause, that the genuine unemployed must be provided for and surely "Accountant" will admit that the provisions of this scheme is an improvement on our past experience during a time of trade depression. The surplus of labour is a serious question and must be considered and very early too. (It is not a question of whether the surplus is necessary or not. The question, in my mind, is this: There is a surplus of labour and any scheme that will improve matters should be considered. John Walker.