The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-12-08

Where shall it come from? The
 proposals suggest three possible
 sources, the employer, the efns
 plOye, the state. Which one, or
 which combination of these three
 shall contribute?
 5. Shall the law exempt any
 group of employers and any type
 of employees?
 6. Shall employers contribu-
 tion be fixed percentage charg-
 ed against each or shall there be
 a graduated scale based upon the
 stability of employment in the
 individual concern of industry,
 How much shall the employees
 pay?
 z. There will be a huge fund
 to invest and administer. Whose
 responsibility shall this be? What
 effect will this have on our pres
 ent financial structure?
 8. What employees shall be
 eligible for benefits? The regular
 working force? Part-time em-
 ployes? Extraordinary help :? Should higher salaried employees
 be included?
 9. Shall the amount of the
 benefits, to be paid be related to
 the number of contributions made
 by the employe To the previous
 wage? How long should benefits
 continue? Shall the cause of the
 loss of employment effect bene- fits?
 10. Should state or national
 employment agencies be set up
 and maintained as an integral
 part of the administrative sys-
 tenn? I
 The retailer reaction to these questions. MT Reyburn indicated; will form the backbone of the pro- gram and list of suggestions which the retail committees are expected to jointly submit/to Washington.
 The committees have already collected considerable information from merchants, manufacturers and publishers as to how they feel about such legislation, according to the chairman, which is now being released in second study outline.
 One merchant, he reported, be- lieves that unemployment insur- ance has its own special problem. and should not be confused with relief, retirement allowance, or dis ability compensation. That it would be desirable to work out, if pos sible, a national system of unem- insurance; failing which the federal government should at least arrive at definite principles for enactment by the states. That should be by employ CT, employe, state governments, federal government and that the first three should make equal cash to the fund.
 Another merchant feels that in view of the fact that business is still struggling to reach firm ground, a reasonable delay in col lecting funds would aid recovery; and that a similar delay in the use of the funds collectde is an equal ly sound economic principle at this time.
 Still another retailer declares: Unemployment insurance is being used in such a way as to imply that it provides a sure remedy for all distress arising from unemploy- ment. Twenty years experience in England, and seven in Germany in- dicate that the amount of money necessary for relief of unemployed at the present time cannot be pro- vided under any system which can be called insurance.
 One merchant feels that before any compulsory scheme of unem- ployment insurance is finally it is necessary to estab- fish under government auspices with the cOoDeration of actuarial experts, a fact finding body rep resenting labor, industry and gov ernment.
 In Wisconsin, where unemploy- ment insurance is already in effect, a merchant urges that unemploy- ment legislation should not be such as to Hull the employe into assum- ing that the responsibility for pre- pairing for a rainy day no longer rests upon him.
 A group of manufacturers pre- sents ideas for a plan which dove tail federal and state action, neces- sitating two distinct laws; one, ex- a revnue act; the other an act nabling the fereral gov ernment to control legislation and within the states.
 A publisher thinks it unfair that an employer who does something to relieve the situation should be to pay for the failure of the employer who makes no ef- fort to stabilize employment, and states that there should not be any connection between the amount of benefit paid and the in- n n l..