may bo said to be of general application, and have either followed the investigations of commissions or have been enacted under conditions making the results of such investigations available to those interested in their enactment.

The first of these laws to be noted is the elective compensation law of New York, 1910, followed in the same session by a compulsory law for hazardous occupations. Ten laws were enacted in 1911, 7 providing for simple compensation, and 3 for a system of insurance; while in 1912, 3 States enacted compensation laws and 1 an insurance law; and in 1913, 7 States were added to the list, in 5 of which a compensation law was enacted, while 2 provided for a system of insurance. The finding of unconstitutionality of the compulsory law of New York as determined by the court of appeals of that State in no way affects the elective law; furthermore a new compulsory law was enacted in 1913, as already noted; so that there are now 22 States having laws of this class on their statute books, of which 16 are compensation laws and 6 provide for insurance. All these laws are reproduced on subsequent pages, as well as the Federal law applying to certain employees of the United States, with its amendments, and the modified United States commission bill applicable to employees engaged in interstate commerce. By an act of August 24, 1912, Congress authorized the President of the United States to provide a system of compensation for employees on the Isthmian Canal and the Panama Railroad. This was promulgated by President Taft as an Executive order of February 26, 1913, to take effect March 1, 1913. On account of the lack of an appropriation to meet the payments provided by the order, an order was issued by President* Wilson on March 24, 1913, suspending the operation of the order of February 26, and continuing in effect the act of May 30, 1908, and its amendments relative to employees of the Isthmian Canal Commission. The order providing compensation is reproduced, however, as the later order only suspends and does not abrogate it.

The constitution of Arizona as adopted when that State was admitted to the Union contains a provision authorizing the enactment of a compulsory compensation system; while California, New York, Ohio, and Vermont have amended their constitutions to the same effect. Also, the Legislature of Wyoming has taken steps to submit a similar amendment to the people of that State at the next general election. These amendments and the proposed amendment are also reproduced.


Hie principal features of the various laws are presented in two forms, one as a table facing page 48, and the other as analyses of the laws, according to a fixed outline, presented at pages 49 to 74. The form of analysis used in the latter presentation corresponds to that used in presentations made of the principaL features of foreign workmen's compensation and insurance laws, given on pages 138 to 179.

While all the laws under consideration are compensation laws, in that they provide for fixed awards in case of industrial accidents, proof of negligence and legal actions being dispensed wit h, some of the laws go beyond the simple determination of the right to compensation and provide for insurance systems, either under State supervision or otherwise. While, therefore, the laws are all classifiable as compensation laws, they may be distinguished for convenience as compensation laws and insurance laws.

A question, second only in importance to the right of the workman to compensation for industrial accidents, is the security of payments. Under some of the compensation laws, the provision is made that the employer must give satisfactory evidence of his solvency, or must give bond for the payment of any sums for which he may become liable, or must insure his liability in some approved company. The necessity of some provision of this sort, apparent on the face of things, is borne out by the report on the operations under the statute of New Jersey (pp. 115 and 116) in which it is reported that in a number of cases the benefits due workmen were not paid to them.

The establishment of a State fund involves a considerable departure from the experience of the past in this country, and the question of its advisability is warmly discussed. The compulsory State insurance system of Washington is the conspicuous example up to the present time, and is claimed by its administrators to have achieved marked success. There is on {he other hand vigorous criticism and it is charged by persons within and without the State as being inadequate and unjust. The elective insurance law of Ohio, which likewise provides for State management of an insurance fund, fares similarly at the hands of the respective parties, i. e., the administrators of the act and critics among the employers and insurance companies.

It is not within the province of the present study to go into the arguments of the two parties, but it is suggestive to note that during 1913 the law of Ohio has been strengthened so as to be in effect compulsory, as permitted by constitutional amendment, and that the States of Nevada and Oregon have adopted elective State insurance laws.

30597°—Bull. 120—14 3


An inspection of the table or chart above referred to discloses a considerable diversity in the matter of systems adopted, whether compensation or insurance, compulsory or elective; if insurance, whether under State control or with approved companies, and whether at the sole cost of employer or cooperative.


There is wide variety in the scope of the laws and the tests adopted for the inclusion or exclusion of industries. In most cases domestic and agricultural labor is excluded, while in some oidy designated classes of extrahazardous employments are covered. This matter is shown more in detail on the page summaries than in the table.


Under this head are presented the methods prescribed for the expression by employers and workmen of their preference as to the acceptance or rejection of the compensation system. This ranges from an individual filing by each workman of an acknowledged writing in the elective law of New York to a presumed acceptance in the absence of formal rejection in a number of States.


Under the elective system in most of the States, it is made an inducement, which has been criticized as coercive, that where employers refuse to come within the provisions of the compensation law the customary defenses to actions for injuries shall not be allowed them. Such abrogation is not necessarily connected with the alternative of accepting the provisions of the compensation law, as is evident in the case of the New York statute, but in most instances the provision is made as an alternative one. In some cases where the law applies only to employers having in excess of a certain number of employees, the abrogation of these defenses does not affect employers of a smaller number of employees. The same is true also in cases in which the employee rejects the compensation system and sues an employer who has accepted such a system.


The bringing of suits for damages seems not absolutely forbidden in any State, though after electing to accept compensation, or failing to give notice of a rejection of the system, the employee may not sue unless the employer was guilty of serious or willful misconduct or failed to comply with the safety laws. In one State it is permitted as a simple alternative in lieu of compensation, but as this State provides for a simple elective compensation system the difficulty is not met that was found in the case of the Montana statute which fixed upon the employer a double liability by compelling him to contribute to an insurance fund and leaving him still liable to defend an action at law.


Under this head are presented the provisions of the laws relative to agreements between employers and employees on questions of substitute schemes or modifications of the employer's liability under the law. Such schemes are not usually absolutely forbidden, but the employer is not allowed to reduce his liability as fixed by the law, and where the burden of cost is entirely on the employer by the statute, if the employee makes any contribution to the fund or substitute system he must receive additional compensating benefits.


With practical uniformity the States have placed the entire burden of the cost of the compensation or insurance systems adopted on the employer. The exceptions to this rule are the States of Maryland, Oregon, and West Virginia, the Ohio law having been amended in 1913 so that contributions by employees are no longer required.


As already noted on page 33 under this general heading, the importance of the guaranty of payments has been recognized even more widely than any provision has been made therefor. One commission in considering this matter recognized the practical necessity for such a provision, but desired further time before making a recommendation for legislation. Aside from the guaranties and preferences indicated in the table, compensation payments are usually exempt from execution and are not assignable when not in the hands of the beneficiary.


Most of the laws fix a time during which no compensation is payable immediately following the accident causing disability. This ranges from six days to two weeks, and for this time no compensation is allowed in most States other than such provision as is made for medical and surgical attendance. In a few cases, however, if the disability is prolonged beyond a designated time benefits are payable for the first week or weeks of disability. The Federal statute allows no compensation for an injury not continuing beyond 15 days, but where the injury continues payment is made from the first day. This results in the denial of all compensation for disabilities lasting as much as 14 or 15 days, but allowing 16 days' full pay for a disability of a single day or portion of a day beyond the waiting time fixed. An amendment restricted in its application to the Canal Zone permits compensation under local regulations for all work time lost, and in connection with these facts it may be noted that during the 11 months of 1908-9 that this law was in operation 55.2 per cent of all injuries lasted less than 15 days on the Canal Zone, while in all the other branches of the service the number was 40.95 per cent of the total; in 1909-10, 61.4 per cent of the injuries on the Canal Zone terminated within 15 days, while in the other branches of the service 38.93 per cent so terminated; in 1910-11, 73.04 per cent of the employees on the Canal Zone recovered in less than 15 days, while in the other branches of the service the number amounted to but 39.35 per cent. On the other hand, the recoveries from disability lasting from 15 to 21 days on the Canitl Zone during 1908-9 amounted to 12.64 per cent of the whole as against 13.35 per cent in other branches of service; in 1909-10, 8.24 per cent on the Canal Zone as against 14.46 per cent elsewhere; and in 1910-11, 6.96 per cent on the Canal Zone as against 15.48 per cent in the other branches of service. There may be a variety of reasons for these differences, but there is ground at least for a belief that the difficulty in enforcing a return to work under circumstances that would forfeit all compensation, when the prolongation of the disability, whether with or without serious extension of a proper time for recovery, allows the injured workman to secure full pay for all the time lost, is a factor.


Compensation proper falls into three classes—for death, for total disability, and for partial disability, while for disability of any class there may be also different provisions for temporary and permanent disability. Besides these compensation provisions, a number of the laws provide for medical, surgical, and hospital attendance, and in a number of cases for burial in case of fatal injuries as well. The determination of the scale of compensation is a subject earnestly discussed and on which considerable differences have arisen. The necessity for a workable law on the one hand, not excessively burdensome to the employer and not unduly tempting the prolongation of benefits, while on the other hand it affords actually reasonable benefits to the injured workman so as to prevent hardships of dependents and loss of income of the family wage earner, have led to a wide variety of attempts as a determination of the proper amounts to be awarded. In defending the proposition for a certain waiting tune during which no benefits shall be paid, the argument is offered not only that trivial injuries will thus be left out of consideration, but also that it is proper that the workman should share in the burden of accident; so also in determining the scale of compensation, the premise is laid down that the employer should be responsible only for a fraction of the loss incurred, since the employee is also a factor in industry, and it is industry that is to be charged with the burden of accident, one important report stating that "the scale, so far as possible, should divide the wage loss sustained by the em

« ForrigeFortsett »