Montana labor news., 1945-02-15
Why House Bill Y Should
Be Given Consideration

House Bill u seeks to increase weekly
payments on all classifications Of weekly
payments under the Montana Worldnen's
Compensation Act.
The measure is designed to leave the
percentage of wages schedule as is and
to increase the maximum and minimum
amounts only. Thse have remained un-
changed for more than 20 years despite
the fact that both wages and living costs
have greatly increased in hazardous in
dustry during that time.
The Eleventh National Conference on
Labor Legislation held in Washington,
D. C.. on December u. 13 and IA, 1914,
at the invitation of the q. S. Secretary
of Labor and being composed Of Cover
nors' representatives from 36 states, as
well as from Alaska and the District OF
Columbia-such being mainly State La
Dor Commissioners, took recognition of
the aforementioned growing disparcity
when their committee on safety and
health and workmen's compensation re-
ported as follows.
"The nonprogressive and static
conditions Of our workmen's compen-
sation laws in general is illustrated
by the failure OF a majority of the
states to increase weekly compensa-
ton rate correspondingly with the
increase Of wages ana concurrent in
crease Of living costs during recent
years. Compensation benefits in
principle are substitute for wages
while the wage Garner is disabled,
the amount of payments being based
upon weekly earnings Nevertheless
despite the fact that earnings as
well as living costs have risen
sharply above the 1889 average, a
majority of the state acts still adhere
to the same top limitations Of
amounts for disability compensation
payments. In q states today the
maximum weekly compensation pay
able is less than $40, an amount
designed to compensate a disabled
workman whose actual earnings as
well as family maintenance require
ments, may amount to as much as
$50. $50 or $40 per week.
The conference had a number of rec
concentrations to make with reference to
Worknen's Compensation all of which
are not our concern Of the moment
But their recommendation Of first i'm
portance was:
THE complete removal or the
raising Of present maximum limits
on weekly compensation payments
to permit compensation awards
eoualing two-thirds of the regular
wage income of the disabled worker"
H. B. 70 does not propose to increase
! any wage percentage payments nor raise
anv weekly limits as far a are now
scheduled for death, permanent total
temporary total or for scheduled injuries
as in section 1920. It merely seeks to
nav an industrially disabled wOrkmen
and his dependents subsistence benefits
| more nearly in keeping with the nature
Of the times than the old weekly limlta-
tions. moreover recognizing the com
promise basis OF the act.
Compensation payments appear TO DC
based on a COMPROMISE between the Iul
wages which a workman is deprived Of
the ability to earn through injury anc
no wages at all. Prior to the enactment
of compensation laws this was about the
outcome of personal injury litigation
This compromise basis has not beer
a living principle. H. B. 70 by not rails
ing percentages but maximums only
would make it so. It leaves plenty o
leeway for any wage bracket in any in
dustry. In short, it puts benefits on
sliding scale with consideration for in.
, alrers in the lower wage brackets.
! Montana has Jagged in consideration
of this problem. From August /, 1912 tc
August 1, 194s quoting from Bulletir
! No. 90, u. S. Department Of Labor, Di
b. vision Of Labor Standards), We fine
that.
Benefits we're liberalized in 10
states. and minimum weekly benefits
IN seven. Nevada raised from 60 to