The Birmingham age-herald., 1919-02-10
NEW LAW IS UNF AIR ! BOTH ID EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYES
A. J. Arrant Points Out Some of Chief Objec-
 tiOns to Compensa- tiOn Law

A. J. Arrant, who has been active in
 opposition to the workmens compen-
 sation law now pending at Montgom-
 cry, yesterday pointed 10 several fea- lures of the act which are unfair both
 to employer and employe. MT. Arrant says he believes in compensation laws
 but thinks they should be fair to all
 concerned. He says:
 'In view of the fact that my name was mentioned fn your good paper
 this morning as one of those opposing the passage of the workmen's com- pensation bill now pending in both
 houses of the legislature, I would like for the public to know the facts con corning this matter
 "The workmen want compensatioR law in Alabama that will compensate them for temporary and permanent ac- cidental disability, and one that will guarantee compensation to their fam lilies if they should be killed whiAe performing their duties of occupation in the business or trade of the em- ployer. Does the proposed bill guar antee to the workmen the benefits named in the schedule of benefits? It does not. The bill, as drawn by Judge Anderson stands for itself and ff-anyone interested in securing the passage of fair and equitable work mems compensa tion act for Alabama will take the time to read and stud. the effect of section 31a, which dis tinctly says Any employer who is responsible for compensation as pro- vided under part two (2) of this act
 may insure the risk in any manner then authorized by law
 Take, for example, a small coal op orator or any other small manufac- turing concern starting in business and upon borrowed capital or mostly so.
 not come under the provisions of this act. and he employs 25
 men or more Say within a few months an accident occurs at his plant or nina causing the death of several em- ployes. Could anyone ever suppose : the families of the deceased workmen would be able to collect their loss, unless the financially insolvent en- ployer had purchased insurance pro- tection for the men? Suppose he had
 not purchased protection of any kind,
 and he was operating a leased plant and operating on borrowed capital,
 then the families of the deceased workmen would not be able to collect
 enough from the employer to buy de- cent caskets for their loved ones. Why
 should Alabama put on it's statute
 books an act like this?
 'If, as represented by one or two
 of those representing the working
 man, their desire is to pass a con-
 pensation law that will compensate
 the workingmen when injured while
 working, they are absolutely blind If
 they think this proposed bill will meet
 their wishes as to their protection
 arf oP j- fa.
 to the workipgman, and it is unfair
 to the larger corporations who are
 compelled to and can be made to pay
 their injured workingmen, whereas
 small corporations, firms and indi-
 viduals sell their product without tn.
 expense of securing compensation pay ments to their injured employees Would that be fair to the manufac- turer who is financially able to and
 does meet promptly compensation pay
 ments to his employees, and would it
 be fair to the workingmen or their
 families should the injuries and fatal.
 lties occur to employees at certain
 plants not financially able to or in no
 manner could they be compelled to
 do so?
 When Alabama enacts workmen's compensation law it should be fair 70 +he worlSingmen and manufacturers as compared with compensation laws of nearby and other states. Therefore, the lumber manufacturers of Alabama and Alabama has large lumber in dustry, would have to stand most prob ably, and speaking conservatively, q cost in production over and above those located in the state of Louisiana over s1,o0o,0o0. How many people in Ala bama believe the lumber manufac- turers of this state could successfully compete in the markets with the Louisiana mills?
 NOW why Is this true? Under the proposed act for Alabama the maxi mum amount stipulated for death, per. | manent disability etc, is s6OOO, and the Louisiana law provides for only s4000. The proposed minimum weekly in Alabama is $6.50. whereas Louisiana pays $3 The proposed maximum week. ly in Alabama is $17.50, whereas Louis jana pays s10,~ It seems to me that
 any sane person with just little knowledge of addition and subtrac-
 tion could easily figure the expensive effect of the proposed Alabama act as compared to Louisiana, which state is our largest lumber competitor. "Conservatively figuring, the coal operators and steel and other metal manufacturers in Alabama would be penalized at least $1,000.000 each year as compared with similar industries of Kentucky. Indiana, Illinois, Penn sylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia. Why this additional cost to Alabama? The answer is. the difference in tn 3 benefits paid to the workingmen when killed or injured. Indiana pays total of $3960: Illinois. $3500, Kentucky, $5000; Minnesota s3300: Colorado, $2500: Massachusetts s4000. There Is quite a difference in cost to the em- ployer in the several states mentioned as against the employer of Alabama. against whom it is proposed to charge the fixed amount of s6000. The most objectionable feature relating to cost is that of the minimum and maximum weekly compensation payments. The nnmber and amount of death compen- sation losses~will be insignificant as
 compared to the weekly amounts The proposed act would charge the em- ployers of Alabama a minimum of S6.50 and maximum of S17.a0 per week as compared with Kentucky, s5 | and s1.: Illinois. $5 and SIP: Colorado, | s5 and SS: Minnesota. s5.50 and $11: ! Louisiana s3 and $10, Massachusetts, s4 and sl0: Iowa. s5 and $10; Ohio, s and SIP; Pennsylva ss and SIP. 'The proposed Alabama act does not provide for the regulation of conn rensation insurance rates, neither does it provide tor inspection of risks with in rre state in order that the employer may Ecake improvements in his plant to reduce the number of accidents. that | the cost os his compensation insurance rate may decrease. There are many large industrial plants and coal min | in,. operations in north Alabama hay | ing trr catastrophe hazard ever over | them, and no matter how large they are they could not afford to take the