“NO URGENT NEED”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1005, 23 June 1930, Page 11

“NO URGENT NEED”

WORKER S COMPENSATION REPORT PROPOSALS CRITICISED From Our Resident Reporter WELLINGTON. Todaj. “One conclusion to be drawn from the report is that, with the possibl* exception of the setting up of a separate Court, there is no urgent nee: behind any of the recommendations made.” said Mr. T. O. Bishop, secretary of the Now Zealand Employers Federation, when commenting upon the report of the Royal Commission on C. operation of the Workers’ Com pens < the commission, which are desirab* from a social viewpoint, may be he d over until more prosperous times.” lie added. Mr. Bishop considered that if there was any striking fault in the repot it was that too much attention had been paid to social and sentimental appeals and not enough to the practical aspect of some of the proposals advanced. “But after all,” he commented. “that is a weakness to which we are all somewhat liable in these days and probably large numbers of employers will agree with the following paragraph which appears at tiu foot of page six of the report: *\Vare not unanimously agreed that aii the more highly-rated industries av at present in a position to bear t - • cost of the improved benefits. ;<- recommended by this commission, l*m we are agreed that from a social and humanitarian point of view the amendments suggested are desirable’ “If all the recommendations in the report were carried out it is apparent that a very substantial increase in the* cost to employers, probably 50 per cent . would result. I differ from the commission in that 1 say definitely that the more highly-rated industries, coalmining, goldmining, quarrying. sawmilling. meat-freezing and some others are not able to bear the cost of the improved benefits, as recommended by th» commission. ‘My personal opinion is that tb* establishment of a separate Coun would benefit both employers and workers sufficiently to justify it. “The recommendation that the maximum sum obtainable by action for damages in case of injury due to tiie negligence of a fellow’’ servant be in- - to £1.250. 1* one I am entire! , opposed to. because it is wrong in principle and is particularly open to abuse. ________ _