The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1933-03-03

lie IHiTu anu last nearing on the
Harrison-Keifer unemployment in
surance bills was held Tuesday eve-
ming, February 21, before the joint
session of the labor committee of the
senate and the insurance committee
of the house.
When the first hearing was held on
these bills, two weeks previously, the
time was allotted to the proponents.
The second hearing was given over to
the opponents. At the third hearing
the time was divided equally between
the proponents and opponents, and
about three and half hours con-
sumed. There was a large attend
ance, made up of those advocating and
opposing the measures and the gen.
eral public.
Senator Harrison, chairman of the
senate labor committee, read a state
ment from President Green, of the
American Federation of Labor, in re-
lation to the attitude of mnaufactur-
ers and Chambers of Commerce when
the compulsory workmen's compensa-
ton bill was before the legislature in
1913, showing that they had vigor
ously opposed such legislation. Sem
ator Harrison also quoted Governor
White to the effect that he is "defi-
nitely committed to unemployment
Insurance." and that he is not unfa-
vorable to the legislation if the date
for the collection of premiums is
postponed to January /, 1885.
Prof. William M. Leiserson, of An
tioch College and chairman of the
Ohio unemployment insurance COM
mission, spoke for labor and the
commission.
Mr.. w. E. Odum, of Chicago, econo-
mist and editor, spoke for the "Ohio
Defenders" Manufacturers Associa-
tions and the Ohio Chamber of Com
merce, in opposition to the bill.
The opposition charged that unem-
ployment insurance is a dole. DR..
Leiserson then said that our present
charity system is triple dole from
the city, state and federal govern
ment.
The opponents said that politics will
enter into the administration of an
,.x.ox.,.l ox,,~,o,,+ ;nc,ronoo law Tho
answer was that there is politics in
the relief situation now, and incidents
cited to prove it.
The opposition insisted that ulti-
mately there would be borrowing
from the public treasury to sustain
the unemployment insurance. The
answer was that local and state gov
ernments already have borrowed
three hundred million dollars from the
federal government and must get
more, and that this amount is in ad-
dition to what has been given by local
subdivisions and the state.
The opposition charged that unem-
ployment insurance would not end the
depression. The answer was that un-
employment insurance in itself ad-
mits the impossibility of completely
ending anything, but that it is pro-
lection against an eventually caus-
ing distress and the dole, as relief
is now being administered.
The opposition charged that unem-
ployment insurance is communistic,
taxing the thrifty and efficient
worker. The answer was that the
share the work" movement centainly
taxes the employed, thrifty, efficient
worker and the sharing of the work
is communistic in character.
The opposition charged that it is un-
American, that the idea has come from
Europe The answer was that the
only difference between the present
American system of relieving distress
caused by unemployment is that
America is handling the unemploy
ment situation according to the Eng
lish system created by Queen Eliza
beth in 1901 as against the present
and more modern unemployment in
surance system of England and other
countries.
1t was charged that there will be
abuses under the unemployment in
surance system. The answer was that
there can be no denial of the gross
abuses of the present system of char
ity and relief.