Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, AUG. 30, 1898. Wages Protection Bill.

Manawatu Herald, 30 August 1898, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, AUG. 30, 1898. Wages Protection Bill.

— «■ On the Bfch July the third reading of " The Wages Protection Bill " was carried almost unanimously. In 1896 the Premier introduced this measure, and again in 1897 when it paqgpd through committee, and was left for Us third reading this session. The Bill is said to be " to better srcirre the Workers the payment in fall of their wages," and the preamble recites, f( Whereas there ha9 lately grown up amongst certain employers a practice of taking out accident insurance policies to insure their workmen again.dt accident and themselves against liability under the Employers' Liability Acts, and of compel!^ or inducing thoir workmen to contribute, as premium for su*h insuranoe, sums at a rate proportionate to their wages ; and whereas such practice is oppressive, •"nd it is expedient to prevent the same ; and whereas it is al?o expedient to make other provisions for the protection of wages ; be it enacted, &c. M The Bill bears the nam*. of the Rt. Hon. R. J. Seddon, nn»l we have thus brought distinctly brfore us thp views of Mr Seddon as the Liberal Leader, and the acte of T jlr Sfddon as a land-owner. It is "Well- known that Mr Seddon and Mr Frnser, both members of Parliament, are also directors of the Assets R^alisatien Board, and as they receive an adequate salary, we imagine they give that attention to their duties pufftcient to know what ia done in tb'iir name. In Mr Foster these »',anUemen have a very capable manager, who however prides himself on having a heart of stone in business. He believes this to be necessary and probably his great value is the possession of such a I heard, but then surely, after so many i years' companionship on the Board both Messrs Seddon and Fraser ought to be aware of their manager's much prized possession, and should Iherefore have exercised sufficient | oversight oeer his actions as to pre. I vent glaring acts of oppression. We j have not only the preamble of the | Bill to assure us of the horror with which the Premier views the acts of certain employers who compel or I ; nduoe their workmen to insure, but \ wo have, his words as recorded in Mansard, and putting the words and nets in comparison one is apt to be very much amused. Mr Seddon in 1897 said As to the necessity for this Bill, I have no hesitation in saying that a i state of things most undesirable 1 existed before we introduced the Bill last year. Some cf the employers insured their workmen, and thus committed an illegal act, and they deducted from their workmen's wages the premiums for the payment of the 1 insurance. I say it is not proper to insure the ! lives of fellowmen — it is not proper that an employer should insure his workmen without the workmen's consent. In 1898 the Premier said I think that the conditions are such now that if the employers seek to save themselves from their legitimate obligations and set at defiance the will of Parliament, with Parliament behind the employees we shall teach the employers that they have a duty to perform to humanity and to those who toil for them. It is very sad to have to report that in every- case has Mr Seddon Binned aa bad as those employers who ara to be taught they have a I duty to perform to humanity. When The Employers Liability Act came into force every band engaged on the Assets Realisation Board's property at Motoa had to insure their lives, and the premiums were deducted by the station-manager from their monthly pay. Whether that course is still pursued we do not know, but it would be easy to ascertain the fact. This however we do know, and it is a point much more to the purpose, that every ocoaseional hand who may be employed on the estate, at the usual rate of wages paid there, of pix shillings a day, has a sum equivalent to two and a-half per cens deducted for insurance premium. It appears evident that in his earnest desire to attend to the good of the people the Premier has neglected to attend to the good of the people he is more closely connected with, the employees on the estates of the Assets Board, and by this neglect he has heaped all sorts of unkind expressions on his own head, while he imagined be was dealing out vengeance to the social pest. The Premier cannot be held free from blame, for if these undesirable things were done with his knowledge we can hardly imagine he would have addressed the House in the language he did ; and if he did not know what his manager was doing, he must be found guilty of indiffeveßca to the cause of the workers employed under the Board of which he is a member.