Evening star., 1924-02-28
WORKMEN'S BILL
OPPONENTS HEARD
Insurance Companies Rep
resented at House Com
mittee Hearing.

The argument Of private casualty
insurance companies in opposition to
the Fitzgerald workmen's compensa-
ton bill for the District Of Columbia
was given at the hearing today be-
fore the Fitzgerald subcommittee OF
the House District committee by +.
Robertson Jones, representing the
workmen'S compensation publicity
bureau.
Mr.. Jones refuted two impressions
given during the hearings by those
who are In favor of the. Fitzgerald
bill.
One Of these was that the organi-
zation which Mr.. jones' represents Is
dominated by foreign insurance or
ganlzatonS. Mr.. Jones said that at
the hearing he is speaking on behalf
of thirty-three stock casualty COM
panies writing compensation insur-
ance and that all Of these are domes-
tic concerns with the exception of
five.
Labor Views Given.
Throughout the hearings represent
atives of organized labor have pre-
sented the testimony of workmen in
jured in the District and the claim
that they have received either compen-
sation or insufficient compensation.
Mr.. Jones emphasized that as thero
is now no workmen's compensation
law in the District, by law these in
jured workmcn are really not en-
titled to any compensation, and that
what they have received has been
through the humanity of the employ
there IS no workmen's compensation
law, he said, Is due to organized labor
through its opposition to the Under
hill compulsory industria tnsurance
bill before the Senate committee last
year. This would now have been
law operating 10 the advantage OF
the workmen. Mr.. Jones said, but for
this action of organized labor.
The service given by the insurance
companies which tho state funds do
not give was stressed by Mr.. Jones.
He argued that the corrective and
preventive work done by private In
suranoe carriers and their safety
code work is one Of the big features
ingman which state funds make no
attempt to afford. He brought out
that this is the ideal of all insurance
and Is a specially OF the private IN
surance companies.
Question Of Costs.
Discussing the question Of costs,
which has been emphasized at the
hearing as an argument in favor of
the Fitzgerald measure. Mr.. Jones
showed that private enterprise gives
insurance cheaper than the Ohio or
other state funds. He quoted sta
tistics to show that the average cost
for mutual is as low If not lower
than that OF state funds and that
self-insurarcers have a much lower
cost than state funds. He brought
Crt that under the New York law the
cost Of tie state competitive fund
was 25 Per cent, while that Of the
mutual was much cheaper and that
Of the self-insurers was still lower.
He indicated that the state fund. re-
gardleSS of the fact It is subsidized,
gets only per cent Of the gross amount
Of business. Business men naturally
are going where they get the most
service at the least cost and. therefore.
If what the proponents of monopolistic
workmen's compensation measure say is
SO the competitive state funds, such as
New York. should be getting most Of
the business, Mr.. Jones argued. which
isn't So" he said. The Ohio plan ad-
vocated by Representative Fitzgerald for
the District does not meet with the ap-
proval OF employers In Ohio, Mr.. Jones
told the subcommittee He cited the
action Of various business mems asso-
Citations in registering their dissatisfac-
ton with the Ohio plan.