Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1915-08-12

To most of you.
The Senate amendment would simply
put a premium on foreign labor in plain
language 1t would simply mean that the
more foreign labor was employed, the less
compensation there would he to pay, i'm |
consequence Of which the employers rate |
Of insurance would be considerably less ,
and IL everything else were equal an en- I
ploycr would naturally give preference to
foreign labor
We made our position on that point as
emphatic and plain as possible. as we
could not stand for the idea that an cm- |
ployer should make money because of
the nationality of his employees. and we
maintained that native labor should in no
wise he Disseminated against.
After much argument and trying a s best
we could to explain the fundamental prln-
ciples of the measure under discussion we
let the committee plainly understand that
the principal Senate amendments were OBJ
jectionable to us and that would far
rather the committee would not report it
favorably, or in the event of its coming
up for action the House would refuse IT
passage with those amendments in it.
Many and various questions were put to
us by the committee and others relative
81
hearing was over were rather we'll
impressed by the seeming favorable atti-
tude OF the committee and felt they would
make an effort to cut out the objections
able amendments.
Those of you who have any knowledge
of what is known as the common law
as It had been applied in negligence
cases. or even the present statute relating
to employers liability for injuries to
employees, and have followed some Of
those cases coming to court i'm your own
localities are aware of the hardships in
jured employees or their dependents have
had to contend with and even If sue
cessful in their suits and getting YER
dict in their favor, it was very often the
case that after paying legal and other
necessary expenses there was next to
nothing left the injured party or those
dependent on him.
Some of YOU may also he aware that
in some States what was considered good
compensation laws have been enacted,
notably New Jersey, but such laws have
become little better than the application
! of the common law because of the fact
that the law is not enforced or supervised
by n State commission. You will there
fore realize our object in objecting to
some proposed or suggested amendments
! to cut out the three members con-
stituting the accident board and paid
by the State.
While some objected to the accident
board entirely. others would have it com
! posed Of two members, while others
were of the opinion one commissioner
was all that was needed
In combating all such suggestions, We
let the committee understand that if the
accident board was cut down or their
number reduced. the very life blood
would DE- taken from the measure, and it
would be Of Very little value to us.
! The committee at all times and as far
! as eXpedient favored some system of
| State insurance. furthermore We are
! thoroughly convinced that state insurance
will ultimately no the system adopted,
but of course while we desired the state
| to contribute towards the operation of
the act. We knew full well that Vermont
| at this time would not experiment on
| state insurance. Ther" is another un-
! satisfactory feature In most laws. and
| in some States employers. wherever
| practical and possible. are taking adj
/ vantage OF it: We refer to such employees
| who may be killed leaving no actual
| dependents in such cases there is only
! the expenses of last illness and funeral
expenses to pay. Now We believe We are
right in assuming that a great ma iority
/ of such cases must he young. or at least
! unmarried, employees
( some employers find it good bust
ness proposition to employ mon whose
death may only cost them say two hun
| dred dollars in preference to employees
with a wife and children who may cost
| him from $500 to 81 coo as tho various
laws may provide However, some States
have taken up that question and some
( remedy must be found so that married
men with families shall not h.e dis
eliminated against in that respect.
Your committees brought that phase
/ of the question before the committees
of both houses several times but they
could not find way to overcome 1t.
The House committee amended the
bill by cutting out what we have term
ed the objectionable Senate amend
ments, they also cut down some of the
schedules OF compensation but added a
schedule for the loss Of thumbs. IN
gers, and toes or parts thereof. also
for loss of eye or eyes
! AS amended by the committee with
slight alterations, the House passed it
and the Senate concurred ii is now on
the statute books and became effective
the first day of July /. 1915.
! We are led to believe employers gem
! orally throughout the state have elect
ed TO come under its operation, ana
! in Washington county widow and
her children are reaping its benefits
| The fear of enforced id'eness through
injury on account Of employment is
now removed.
| Although all of your committee are
actively engaged in the granite indus
try we must, and are willing to admit
that the strike in that industry even
If peacefully conducted, was detrimen-
less and unfortunate acts of violence
and lawlessness were committed by
certain groups who are At all times
opposed to the peaceful methods adopt
| ed in such instances by genuine labor
organizations only too well realize
that such action was serious handi-
cap to us in our work. in fact we were
informed by the highest authority that
the compensation bill in all probab
| ity would be defeated on that account
| However although at all times keen
" feeling the position such disturb
ances placed us in. we never for a
minute suspended or diminished out
energies In this direction
While having no active labor rep