WORKERS' MANIFESTO.

Otago Witness, Issue 2862, 20 January 1909, Page 81

WORKERS' MANIFESTO.

(Fsom Oub Own Correspondent.; GREYMOUTH, January 13. The manifesto issued by the Miners' Federation sets out :—": — " The statement has been assiduously circulate*! that the struggle has been precipitated solely because of the inclusion of miners phthisis in the category of the industrial diseases I in section 10 of ' The Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act, 1908." It is argued, that this placed a. risk upon employers against which they cannot be indemnified unless the miners submit to a medical examination. We are told that those who pass such an examination need have no fear, and that those unable to pass it will be employed on tneir signing an indemnity under section 17 of the act, and that they will thus be in a position no worse than that in which they were before the new act became law. This statement of the case is not correct. It is true that the disease known as miners' phthises is involved in the dispute, but it is not true that it alone is involved. What we are really asked to argree to is that every worker found on examination to be afflicted wifn any bodily defect should be employed only on his signing an indemnity under section 17 of the act. The indemnity for which that section provides extends far beyond the industrial diseases mentioned in section 10, and* therefore it affects not only the miners afflicted with phthisis, but every worker in New Zealand. It has long since been determined by decisions under the English act that a worker cannot be denied compensation merely on the grounds that his injury has been partly induced by the recurrence of some old injury, and these decisions have been repeatedly followed in New Zealand under the act of 1900. It is now sought by medical test to discover bodily defects and to protect the employer by dismissing every man affected unless he agrees to sign an indemnity under section 17. Hence it is no exaggeration to say that an attempt is being made to subject ev-ery worker to a medical test and employ him conditionally only on his being robbed of the benefits of the Workers' Compensation Act, if his bodily condition is such as to predispose him to injury. This, we submit, is something never attempted even under the Engfish act, and certainly never contemp^ted by Parliament when the act of 1908 was passed into law. In defence of this proposition it has been stated that precedents have been established, inasmuch as the Government requires all persons entering the civil service to be medically examined. The fact that the Westport Coal Company h;'s enforced a similar examination since 1903 is also cited, and we have likewise been reminded that every person proposing to insure his life must undergo an examination. Not one of these cases is in point We are all aware of the fact that the Government requires a medical examination, but the Government does not dismiss an employee merely because he develops any disease subsequently. If the principle for which we are contending is not upheld we have no hesitation in saying that some reason could be found for dismissing a man directly he develops any disease, and a man who recovers from an injury will i be re-employed only if he gives an indemnity against compeneation for any recurrence thereof. The position of State employees and of thof=e who work for ( private employers will thus be seen to be ' ■"■cry different* It is also true that the Westport Coal Comnany hac required an examination since 1903, but that company hac never attempted 1 to apply the test to itfi old employee?. None but men employed since the time the new departure was taken have been subjected to the test, whereas we nre opposing a,n attompt to make the test of areneral application, and we are nrskeel to a^qni^ce in the hiirr.'Hat-'->roposal that those of our fe'low workers who have h or u maimed or h-?v<» become diseased or have come into the world with «omc -physical handicap 5-bnulc) either be dismip^sd oi' deprived of the rights to compensation in tbe eve^t of incaparitv or death under circumstances which mitrlit nnt have harmpd a thorouglilv sound man. Thus, we maintnin, tHere is no comparison at nil Tviween the examination required by thp Weptport CoaT Comnanv and tli»t to which we are a.«ked to snbjort ourselves. In the ca=9 of a person irtfurire His own life, w^ need only point n nt that- V- ko doin r r h-e doe? not risk Vipin? rlfvnviv«d either of •"mplovm-mt or of tho benefit of some stfttiitorv advantage, hpiiclp? v.'biV'h lifo 7n=n r sn?° i^ pu? - elr vfJurc + arv. arK? onrv eP^t'H tVi* interest rer c thp r>prr=on in.c'irinjr i 5i 5 in nn wav pr°iu']i'e<J. We holW tint a m^n's l>ndv i<- hi= o^n nr.Tpei-tv, nnd l^p* he not h*> -pinccd in the TviMti-ni of V'ncr fmrod to smhmit to a rr/-di''<il exami^Tt ion in md-cr to oarn hi« WH. Tl'o for^iroincr wP' t^e rtiiblic tliPt tVie m^eent rri-i 1 - hf>« 1> en frrced nron us 'int rnirer^' nhtliiei 1 ? ropllv pla\s but a c rnall inrt in tbr- d'=nute. that tin* real facts lia\e been obscured, and that if we daviate from the stand we have taken

every worker in the Dominion will presently be required to choose between the giving of an indemnity or the loss of his employment. Under these circumstances we have no Hesitation in saying that the demands of the insurance companies are really for a diminished risk and increased piemiums. We are annoyed that this , outrageous demand is being supported by j the Government Accident Insurance Department, and we appeal to the workers of New Zealand to use every constitutional means in their power to resist a proposal hitherto unheard of in connection with the principles of the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act."