Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-02-16
Logical Legislation

-
Your February IL issue con-
tanned an editorial indorsing
Logical Legislation"--a work.
mems compensation law for
the District of Columbia.
In support Of the so-called
Mcmillan bill. seemingly de-
signed to achieve this result,
your editorial makes no analy-
sis Of the bills contents but
rests its case on the PROPOSE
ton Of a separate District
law"
That you feel strongly about
this matter is clear from your
Characterization Of the pres
ent applicable law. the Long
shoremen'S and Harbor Work.
ers' Compensation Act: This
absurdity :. =" This irrational
tie-up -" Nothing could be
more illogical :" Your more
charitable descriptions include
Legislative anomaly" and g.
utterly without regard. :"
Does the existing law merit
such historical abuse, and is
the Mcmillan bill. written and
sponsored by the Board of
Trade. a worthy successor? The
answer to both questions is an
emphatic no"
The act has long since
ceased being an act for long
shoremen principally. The act
is not tied to longshoremen in
New York. Boston or San
Francisco. 1t applies to all
areas of Federal jurisdiction
where workmen's conpensa-
ton for private workers is
necessary whether it be
on the navigable waters inside
the United States or on mil
tary bases in the Near East:
whether it be Biloxi, Miss, or
Thule, Greenland.
The application Of this act
to the District Of Columbia for
almost 80 years has been
eminently successful. Were its
application as intolerable as
your editorial suggests. would
it not long ago have been
amended to exclude the Dis
trict?
But continuing the present
policy is not based upon his
tory alone; it is supported by
the economic realities of to-
day.
The per capita income in
the District is among the
highest in the country-and
workmen's compensation is
based upon the level of earn
ings. Second. some 100000
Federal workers in the Dis
trict are covered by workmen's
compensation benefits much
more bountiful than those
applying to workers in pri-
vate employment. Third.
progress is made by going for
ward, not backward-and
backward is the direction of
the Mcmillan bill.
The Mcmillan bill support
ers seek to leave the impress
sion that the bill gives work.
ers a separate but equal
compensation law. This is the
grossest fiction. Not only does
the Mcmillan bill repeal some
Of the benefits recently en-
acted but 1t actually lowers
benefits that were inadequate
10 years ago.
For example, widows of
workers who have died from
work-connected injuries are
entitled to compensation for
so long as they live and do not
remarry: the Mcmillan bill
places a ceiling on such pay
ments.
Workers permanently UNI
able to work because of their
injuries are entitled to COM
pensation for the remainder
Of their lives: the Mcmillan
bill places a ceiling on such
payments also.
Injured and disabled work.
ers are entitled to free medical
care for their injuries for as
long as they may require med
ical care; the Mcmillan bill
places q ceiling on medical
care.
The Mcmillan bill has
shortcomings beyond those
mentioned. not the least of
which would mean that the
majority Of disabled workers
would receive lower compensa-
ton payments If their in
juries affected their head,
neck, back or internal organs.
1t is not surprising, there
fore. that advocates Of the
Mcmillan bill avoid discussion
Of It's merits. Nor is II surpris-i
ing that the Mcmillan bill
wears the cosmetic Of logical
legislation" In order to hide
the wrinkles Of deceit.
Lee g. Ashcraft.