WORKERS’ COMPENSATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19250, 14 August 1924, Page 6

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION.

It may be accepted as economically axio matic that all imposts that are levied for the benefit of any special class are ultimately paid out of the pockets of the entire community. It may also be accepted that if burdens are thrown upon industries greater than they are able legitimately to bear, the results that ensue must be unfavourable to the whole of the working classes. It is in this light that the amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act that are proposed in a Bill before Parliament standing in the name of Mr Howard must bo considered. It may have been observed that a strong protest against the proposals contained in this Bill was expressed this week at a meeting of the executive of the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association. It is not surprising that this was so. It is to be fully recognised that proper and liberal provision should bo made by law for the payment of compensation to workers who meet with accidents through no fault of their own when engaged in their ordinary employment. A provision of this nature is not only required in the interests of humanity but, considered purely from the economic standpoint, it is both just and wise. Manifestly, however, there must be limits to the compensation that is granted, and it is exactly because the Bill which is now before Parliament transcends the limits that seem to be reasonable that opposition is offered to it. The increase

that is proposed in payments by way of compensation and the extension of the maximum total of the employer’s liability that is contemplated in the Bill are so serious that it is estimated that the enactment of the measure would have the effect of increasing by 131 per cent, the amount of the premiums payable by employers for insurance against the accident risk. We are informed that the employers of the dominion are at present paying something like .£700,000 per annum for protection by insurance against this risk, and it has been actuarially calculated that if Mr Howard’s Bill became law that annual charge upon industry would be increased to about £1,600,000. The industrial classes themselves, in whose interest proposals of this character are supposed to be framed, should, upon reflection, realise that the actual effect of the enactment of them may be wholly injurious to them. There are ominous signs that the cost pf production of commodities in the dominion, if not still mounting up, are not being reduced. A very striking statement was made in the Arbitration Court a few days ago by Mr T. O. Bishop, general secretary of the Employers’ Federation. “As between 1911 and 1923,” he said, “the average output per man employed in the engineering industry has fallen by 66 per cent., the average labour cost per ton of raw material has risen 400 per cent., and the average wage per employee in the industry has improved 70 per cent.” Unless the tendency which is indicated in these figures is checked it is c l ' r that the industry cannot possible rvive, and it is to be feared that the .-.nerience of the engineering trade is fairly general in industry. Obviously, the effect of amending the law with respect to an employer’s liability for compensation for accidents in the way that is proposed by Mr Howard would be that the cost of production of industry would be further increased. Nor is it exaggerative to suggest that, in that event, the avenues of employment would be restricted. The difficulty which a number of secondary industries, sheltered by protective tariffs though they are, would have in competing with imported goods would be substantially increased. in or would the primary industries escape the weight of this new import. It would, in fact, hit them at both'ends. Not only would the producer himself he called, upon to pay extra insurance costs, but he would also be compelled to share the payment of the additional costs that would Be imposed upon his agents in the cities. It should be seen, therefore, that proposals of the kind embodied in Mr Howard’s Bill may in reality be opposed to the interests of those for whose welfare they are devised. So far from casting additional burdens upon industry, the desirable course would be for all classes to co-operate in an endeavour to lessen tbe costs of production and thus to lower the cost of living and encourage consumption. It is a fatal policy that would check enterprise and restrict the avenues of employment. That is, however, as we conceive, what would result from the enactment of Mr Howard’s Bill. It is difficult to believe that, if it were passed, it would benefit the industrial classes in the long run.