The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-09-02
WORkMEN'S COMPENSATION.
The Employers Preference OF Unmarried
to Married Workmen.


To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN-Sir: Con-
siderable controversy has arisen about
how married men are affected by the
workmen's compensation law. II Is
claimed on one hand that as the amount
of premium for Insurance has been fixed
for year whether married or single men
are employed will make no difference in
the rate. 1t is also argued that as the
Insurance Is based on the payroll the
condition OF tho employee. married or sim
gle, does not affect the amount paid.
The mind is misled by the use OF the
words rate" and premium" which are
used indifferently to express two mean
ings. Ii Is true that the amount of the
insurance is determined by the payroll,
but 1t is the payroll multiplied by the
rate that determIn 8 the amount, so It IL
the rate that really covers the amount to
be paid. Now the rate Is established
based on the risk of the insured. no mat
ter by whom compensation Is paid. II
necessarily follows that II Is the character
OF the risk that must be kept in mind.
and the present rate can be ignored until
II is clearly seen what Is the risk.
The above explanation brings us to the
plain question, whether there Is "A greater
risk with tho married men or single men.
and on this point the law Is plain and
positive. and any one even. those not
versed In legal intricAc.es, can clearly see
that the married employee imposes the
greater risk on his employer.
II Is unnecessary TO repeat the law or
go into the many details OF IT, but ref
erence to clauses 2. and 4. section XVI.
is sufficient 10 show the enormous liability
Imposed on an employer resulting from
tho death Of married employee. The
| liability where the employee Is single In
much less. and this shows directly to the
employer that the law establishes pref
erence In favor OF single employeea
Here Is an Illustration OF how the com
| pensation is awarded to the married en-
\ poyee.
| John Jones. aged 90. has a wife. aged
I p. and three minor children. aged one
| month, one and half years and three
years. John Jones Ia good workman
and Is able to earn s3.33 a day. Through
his own carelessness and gross negli-
gencc he gets killed. The employer must
pay to his widow during her widowhood
| which may and can exceed sixty years,
80 per cent. of his wages. or 81 a day
Assuming that this would be 5000 year
the emp oyer IL penalized for hiring John
Jones married man, In the sum OF sls,-
600 with interest on the yearly payments
running for sixty years.
That Ia not all John Jones's infan,
! daughters Will draw what is left OF the
Sc per cent. of his wages or 80 per cent
{ ring their minority. and the amour,
paid would be something over 81 a day for
an average OF about eighteen years. OF
about $1,000.
The proposition up to the employer is
| therefore, shall he risk the loss of sea, tOC
by hiring John Jones "A married man. OF
shall he avoid this risk by hiring James
Brown. an unmarried man.
Tn" employer being simply human and
thinking he has some duty 10 provide foi
himself and family. will decide this mat.
ter himself without consulting any one
The talk published about n married mar
being because OF his marriage bettci
workman, steadier, less liable to acct
dents II raised by men who are no
familiar with workmen. and such a propo
siton is absurd and childish and is 81
recognized by every employer The law
II 1t were properly worded. should b,
called law to put the married men gu
of employment. and this Is sure to be tn
result or II. MANUFACTURER.
NEW YORK, August 81.