Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Mr. Underhill said we might have had a compensation law four or five years ago when the representative of the employees insisted upon the Fitzgerald bill and opposed the Underhill bill.

I want to call attention to the record of that hearing, in which Mr. Charles Columbus, representing the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, appeared, and he opposed the Underhill bill— the Bruce bill, if you will. The representative of the employers opposed any form of compensation, and the record will so show, until

now.

Senator BLAINE. Don't you think that men should have an opportunity to reform?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. He should have an opportunity to say "Yes, if we must have compensation, give it to the insurance companies." Senator BLAINE. If there is nothing further we will adjourn. Will you report to the secretary or to me the names of your represenatives within the next two or three days?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes.

(Whereupon, at 11.20 o'clock a. m., the hearing in the aboveentitled matter was adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)

X

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE

COMMITTEES ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

SEVENTIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1653

A BILL RELATING TO ASSURING COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURIES OR DEATH OF EMPLOYEES IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

S. 2025

A BILL CREATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INSURANCE FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES INJURED AND THE DEPENDENTS OF EMPLOYEES KILLED IN EMPLOYMENT, PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH FUND BY THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, AND AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION THEREFOR

S. 3565

A BILL TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY OR DEATH RESULTING FROM INJURY TO EMPLOYEES IN CERTAIN EMPLOYMENTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; ALSO

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Printed for the use of the Committee on the District of Columbia

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

WORKMEN'S ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1928

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

JOINT SUBCOMMITTEES ON INSURANCE AND BANKING
OF THE COMMITTEES ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittees on insurance and banking of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the House and Senate, met in joint session in the committee room of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to call.

Present: Senator Blaine (presiding), and Representative Underhill, Hall of Indiana, Hammer, Lampert, Jenkins, and Combs.

Senator BLAINE. The joint subcommittee of the Committees on the District of Columbia will come to order. Other members of the subcommittees may appear later. There are some preliminaries we can dispose of now.

At the former hearing of the Senate subcommittee the suggestion was made that two committees be appointed, one representing the employers and one representing the employees, each to consist of three members, the respective groups to choose their own committee. The purpose of those committees was to ascertain whether or not the differences which were indicated at the last hearing might not be composed. Those committees were appointed as agreed upon and the respective committees have had conferences with me. I can not say that they have accomplished nothing. I think some ground has been gained in an effort toward a solution of the difficulties or differences which exist between the two groups. But the differences were not compromised to such an extent that it may be said that there was any agreement.

I thought, under the circumstances, that we ought to hold this .hearing so that the respective groups might have an opportunity to present arguments on the differences which exist. At the last hearing I think it was generally conceded, in fact admitted, that there is no substantial difference between the two groups with reference to a compensation law except as to two features, one relating to the method and boards or commissions to be charged with the administration of the law, and the other with respect to the methods of insuring solvency of the employer. One group of employers desired to have the law administered by an existing agency known as the superintendent of insurance of the District of Columbia and to provide for solvency through private agencies or insurance companies, so-called old line or mutual companies, or self insurance. On the part of the employees it was contended that the administration should be by the

47

board or commission created under the longshoremen's act relating to compensation and that the method of insuring solvency should be by a public bond as provided for in the bill presented by Senator Capper. The employers' viewpoint was embodied in a bill introduced by Senator Bruce, of Maryland. There has been a third bill introduced by myself since that time designed to meet the objections of the respective parties. The bill would grant the same benefits that are provided by the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act, in fact adapting that act to the District of Columbia. Aside from the details of that act, the administration is by the board or commission which administers the longshoremen's act. The solvency question is provided for through private insurance, old line or mutual insurance or self insurance.

Therefore, we have before the joint committee what was designated as the Bruce-Underhill bills, the two being of the same tenor, the Capper-Fitzgerald bills, the two being of the same tenor, and my bill, S. 3565, which we will insert in the record at this point:

[S. 3565, Seventieth Congress, first session]

A BILL To provide compensation for disability or death resulting from injury to employees in certain employments in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the act entitled "Longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act," approved March 4, 1927, including all amendments that may hereafter be made thereto, shall apply in respect to the injury or death of an employee of an employer carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia; except that in applying such provisions the term "employer" shall be held to mean every person carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, and the term "employee" shall be held to mean every employee of any such person.

SEC. 2. This act shall not apply in respect to the injury or death of (1) a master or member of a crew of any vessel; (2) an employee of a common carrier by railroad when engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and commerce solely within the District of Columbia; (3) an employee subject to the provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes," approved September 7, 1916, as amended; and (4) an employee engaged in agriculture, domestic service, or any employment that is casual and not in the usual course of the trade, business, occupation, or profession of the employer.

SEC. 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 1928.

It does not appear that we can divide these two groups into opponents and proponents. Both groups desire an enactment of legislation along some lines; that some legislation be provided for workmen's compensation in the District of Columbia. The chairman of the House subcommittee is compelled to be in attendance in the House at 12 o'clock and I likewise must be prompt in my place on the floor of the Senate at 12 o'clock, so we will divide the time between now and 12 o'clock between the two sides. That will allow 50 minutes for each group. It has been suggested that we give 30 minutes to the employers to open, then 50 minutes to the employees to reply, and then 20 minutes to the employers to close.

There are just two questions involved. It does not seem necessary to go into the details of the legislation or to show the necessity for it, because I think that is conceded by everyone. I think the committee would like to hear a discussion of the two controversial questions.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »