THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1901. WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 103, 17 September 1901, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1901. WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.

Despite the comparative brevity : of this Act, and its- application to all sorts and conditions of men, there appear'to be several point* in regard to its operation not yet understood. We will set aside that unending argument as to the liability of farmers, holding that there is not the shadow of a doubt that they are responsible to men who may be injured -while".ia their employ or hi the employ of contractors engaged by them. This brings us near to one point on which several correspondents desire enlightenment. Theyask T what is the situation in case it man is employed to do contract work and has his men -insured, but is not insured himself? The employer, of course, must insure him, and be at once becomes an employee, '"but this presents no obstacle, for insurance -is effected on the amount of wages paid yearly, and an allowance could be made to covet extra hands who might be engaged from time to time. An employer cannot insure HIMSELF under Worlrmen's Compensation for Accidents Act, 1900, but if the course we suggest is followed there should be no difficulty in any case, for an employar of labour can accurately gauge the "amount o$ wages he will pay during the year under ordinary circumstances, and by each making a slight extension of the policy all classes of labour will be covered in their relations tiie one to the otter. Already there have been cases where tradesmen have been refused work because they are not insured, but, as already pointed out, this is absolutely impossible? for even if an employer of labour were insured under an ordinary accident policy to the amount of £IO,OOO the man who employed, him would still be liable for damages should accident befall him, although the contractor would be primarily liable for injury to his own men. It ishere the real danger lies, for sup- • posing the contractor to be a " man of straw "' the liability rests on HI3 employer, be his occupation what it may. In the case of his employing a tradesman or contractor, the farmer is practically compelled to insure, fori even though his liability in regard to his farm employees may be ■■. questioned, there is no manner ot doubt that he is liable'for every- ; one else whom he may employ, should tbey choose to sue htm» ■ The Act is loot complicated, onty I

exceedingly comprehensive, so much so that everyone who is an •employed or an employer of labour (and who'is not) comes within its scope.