INSURANCE OF TOOLS

Evening Star, Issue 19660, 13 September 1927, Page 2

INSURANCE OF TOOLS

LABOR riIOPOSAL NOT FAVORED

The members of tho Canterbury Builders’ Association are not at all. impressed with tho proposal of Mr PFraser, M.P., to introduce into Parliament a measure providing lor tho insurance of carpenters’ tools ry the employer. So far from being impressed are they, that they see no justification for the measure whatever, and said so very decidedly, not only at the monthly meeting last evening, but in a letter which it is proposed to forward to Canterbury members ol Parliament asking them to oppose the passage of the Bill (says the Christchurch ‘ Sun ’). Tho chief object of the proposed Bill is to provide insurance _ against workers’ tools of trade, making it incumbent upon tho employer to insure to the full value tho tools of any man he employs while that man is in his employ. In the event of loss by lire the tradesman is to receive the full monetary value of them. And if they arc not insured the employer has to make good the loss. The question was discussed at some length by tho General Committee, which approved of the following letter, drafted by tho secretary of tho association, Air W H. Winsor, being sent to the Canterbury members of Parlia me nt:—

“J, am directed by my association to ask you to oppose Air Fraser’s Bill. Our reasons tor asking this aro not that wo wish to penalise workers who lose tools by lire—our experiences being that any of our employees who suffer in this way arc reimbursed for their loss by their employers. As a case in point, 1 would like to roicr to my own experience- For twenty-five years 1 have employed from ten to seventy carpenters continuously, working out at an average of about thirty for that period. In all that time not once iia.s there been a loss by firo on my jobs. “ insurance would most probably cost at least 10s a man per annum, so that I would have paid away a sum of £375 during that twenty-five years for absolutely nothing. And this amount of profit would simply have gone into the hands of insurance companies, and 1 would probably have included it in the price of the work I was undertaking for all conditions of people. “Experience also proves that the variation of the value of a carpenter’s bit, of tools is most amazing, and the temptation to incendiarism would be very hard to resist by some individuals. This fact would probably make tho burden of insurance I would have to take up, and pass on, probably double what 1 have quoted above. Further, the value of a man’s tools of trade are always taken into account when Arbitration Court awards are made.

“I havequotedmyowiica.se because I am fully acquainted with the facts, but from inquiries made among members of my association I cannot find a single case of a workman having had to buy new tools owing to this.”

In the discussion which followed several members quoted instances showing that they had never had any trouble in this direction over long periods of years. It was also pointed out that the unions had an insurance scheme, and under the award wages that employers were paying they were paying for it. The proposal appealed to one member as “ humbug.” “It would mean,” he said, “ that we would have to take an inventory of each man’s kit of tools when he came on a job, and when he left- And if w r o struck a few incapable men whom we would have to put off after a few days, look at the extra work it would mean.”

The secretary was instructed to forward the letter as drafted.