Evening star., 1949-09-25

Pubic invited.
Brandt
Continued From Page C-1)
sponsibility for developing. main.
tanning and administering the
plan, and there Is greater likeli
hood of extension to other pro.
grams.
Interesting Points Raised
3. Contributory plans can be
worked out by collective bargain.
ing that would take into account
difference among the variou:
companies.
4. The National Industrial Con.
ference Board in June this veal
reported that contrary to the
trend up to 1945, the present
trend. is toward employe contri.
buttons.
5. Joint contributions encour.
age independence, the American
way-no one unwilling to contri.
butte to his own old-age require
ments has q moral right tx
demand that others make tha-
provision for him. Mr.. Murray
as a member of the Advisory
Council on Social Security, sub.
scribed to the following council
report in 1898:
The council is convinced Of tht
wisdom of Congress in establishing
a contributory plan of old-age in.
surance. The council believes tina,
such a method of encouragement
of self-reliance in security protec.
ton in old age is essentially ir
harmony with individual incentive
within a democratic society"
The pros and cons of the argu.
ment raise several interesting
points.
Case of Executives
When the social security law
was enacted in 1885. the country
was coming out of the depression
unemployment was still large anc
corporation profits were just be.
ginning to make a good showing
No serious attempt was made by
anybody to have management pay
all the cost of the old-age bene.
fits. 1t was considered a burden or
business to have the companies
alone pay the cost of unemploy.
ment insurance that was to be dis.
tributed by the States. The theory
behind the pension law was thai
employer : employe contribution.
would gradually build up a fund
it was estimated that 1t woulc
reach $4,000, ,000, 900 in 1980-fol
payments. The deductions from
payrolls for employees and employ.
ers was not to start until 1887, anc
no pension was to be paid unit
five years later, 1912, and ther
only on the basis of the number o1
years the employe had been GOV.
cred by the plan when he retired
at the age Of IS. Those initial pay.
ments were woefully small, the
maximum about $40 month. Hac
the bill called for employer contri.
buttons alone, it is highly doubtful
whether it would have been ap.
proved by Congress. The EN-.
ployer-paid unemployment ia,
was sharply criticized as an in.
equitable burden on business. Fol
Federal old-age retirement, the
sentiment in Congress is still ir
favor Of joint contributions.
Answering the steel companies
argument that the non-contribu.
tory plan is un-American and de.
|stroys self-reliance and persona,
initiative, Mr.. Murray contendeo
that the steel executives were SET
ting up double standard"-one
for themselves, another for the
wage-earners. From documents
filed with the Securities and Ex.
change Commission, he pointed
out that Mr.. Fairless and two
other top executives of United
States Steel will receive pension.
of $50, 900 a year, paid for by theil
company. He noted that A. B
Homer, president of Bethlehem
Steel. received 1868 ,280 currenr
compensation in 1948 and will re.
ceive when he retires in 1861 e
pension of $1l0,460 a year, t.
which he contributes not on,
cent" Mr.. Murray cited examples
in other companies, including re
tirement compensation" under the
guise of "consultants," going up tt
$40, 900 year for 10 years.
MIR. Murray observed sarcasti.
cally: For an official Of com.
pany to receive a pension paid fol
solely by the company is a gooe
thing. For worker to receive
the same benefits is loss of hi
freedom
Unions Change Minds
AS paradoxical as the fact thai
steel executives are prime bene.
ficiaries under their own non.
contributory plan is the fact thai
before the 1929 depression, unior
leaders wanted no part Of com.
pany- financed pensions and de.
manded that organized labor par.
ticipate in these plans. The argu.
ment was that such employer.
pay-all plans were part of a drive
for company unions, that they
were unilateral and that the EN-.
ployes had no say in their man.
agement. That was before ths
National Recovery Act and the
Wagner Act gave the unions {
firm legal right to be recognized
and to bargain collectively. Tit
recognition fight is over and thu
unions are established. Company
unions are no longer a difficult