The idea of international legislation for the protection of workers was first mooted about the year 1870. The possibility and need of such intervention was much discussed and interest in it kept constantly alive, especially in Switzerland, until the organisations of the workers took up the idea. Several attempts failed. In France in 1883 a proposal of the Socialist party aiming at international agreement on the subject of protection of the workers was rejected. In 1885 (in opposition to Hertling) Prince Bismarck expressed himself strongly against the possibility of such international protection. But the stone, once set rolling, could not be stayed. In the years 1886, 1887, and 1888 the French and English trade unions, as well as the Swiss Federal Council, took up the question afresh. These endeavours at last took tangible shape in the first International Conference for the protection of workers held in Berlin in March 1890. This date remains a landmark in the history of the subject, but not until ten years later—1900—did the Congress held in Paris for the international legal protection of workers lead to the establishment of what had been repeatedly urged, namely, creation of an International Bureau. This was inaugurated at Basle in 1901 and forms the headquarters of the National Associations for Labour Legislation called into being in various countries.
This International Association meets regularly in conference, as in Cologne (1902), Berne (1905), Lucerne (1908), Lugano (1910), and Zurich (1912). The questions raised in the International Labour Bureau, which receives financial aid from a number of States, are fully and scientifically discussed with the object of finding a basis on which to bring into agreement the divergent laws of the different countries. A further task of this strictly scientific institution is the collection and publication of literature bearing on the protection of workers in one and another country, distribution of information, and the editing of reports and memoranda. The question of prevention of industrial poisoning has always taken a foremost place in the programme of the International Association and in the agenda of the International Labour Bureau. At its first meeting a resolution was adopted advocating the prohibition of the use of white phosphorus and white lead, and the Labour Bureau in Basle was instructed to take the necessary steps. Special, if not prohibitive, economical considerations foreshadowed difficulties—all the greater because the matter at issue concerned prohibition of articles playing a part in the markets of the world. Just on that account international treatment of such questions is necessary, since a peaceful and orderly solution can only be arrived at on such lines. International effort endeavours here to press with equal weight on the countries competing with one another commercially, so that in the protection of the workers economic adjustment is sought in order that efforts based on humanitarian grounds shall not at the same time cause economic disadvantages, the aim being to produce general welfare and not merely protection of one class at the expense of another.
Through these international agreements between various countries success in the direction aimed at is hopeful, and indeed to a certain extent—as in the phosphorus and lead questions—actually attained. Thus, for example, Germany and Italy were in a position to enforce prohibition of the use of white phosphorus early, while their neighbour Austria, on account of commercial and political considerations and the conditions of the home lucifer match industry, has only recently decided on prohibition.
As international agreement for the protection of workers is advisable on economic grounds, so also is it reasonable and just from purely humanitarian reasons that workers, without reference to civil condition or nationality, should be equally protected. On this point it is proposed to take a vote and to press only for those reforms which are thoroughly sound and recognised as necessary.
The first step in such a comprehensive attack is precise knowledge of the extent and source of origin of the particular forms of industrial poisoning and disease and the collection of reliable statistics. This suggested the obligation to notify such cases to the proper authorities in the same way as is now done in the case of infectious disease. A motion to this effect had already been passed at the Conference of the International Association for Labour Legislation held in Basle, and a request was made to the Labour Bureau to prepare a list of the diseases and poisonings in question. To them we shall refer later, but a schedule is necessary as a basis to work upon. Yet even when this is done there are obviously great difficulties to be overcome in carrying out the requirement of notification when the aim is kept in mind of collecting complete statistical data for controlling the conditions giving rise to industrial disease. The proposal of the International Association seeks to make notification obligatory on the part both of the medical practitioner in attendance and the occupier, and in connection with this to secure the co-operation of the Sick Insurance Society.[D] The proposal to require the appointed surgeons and surgeons of the Insurance Society to notify all cases is hardly feasible in view of their dependent position. Nor can the obligation on the occupiers lead to the desired result because of their lack of medical knowledge and the fact that by notifying they might be forced to act to their own disadvantage. A successful effort in this direction is recorded in Saxony, where lead poisoning was first made a notifiable disease, and later the general duty of notification of industrial poisoning was prescribed by Order dated March 4, 1901.
| Disease and Industry. (1) | Reported Cases.[E] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1912. (2) | 1911. (3) | 1910. (4) | 1909. (5) | 1908. (6) | 1907. (7) | 1906. (8) | 1905. (9) | 1904. (10) | 1903. (11) | 1902. (12) | 1901. (13) | 1900. (14) | |||||||||||||||
| Lead Poisoning | 587 | 44 | 669 | 37 | 505 | 38 | 553 | 30 | 646 | 32 | 578 | 26 | 632 | 33 | 592 | 23 | 597 | 26 | 614 | 19 | 629 | 14 | 863 | 34 | 1058 | 38 | |
| 1. | Smelting of metals | 56 | 7 | 48 | 3 | 34 | 5 | 66 | 5 | 70 | 2 | 28 | 2 | 38 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 33 | 1 | 37 | 2 | 28 | 54 | 3 | 34 | 1 | |
| 2. | Brass works | 5 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 15 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
| 3. | Sheet lead and lead piping | 6 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 17 | 17 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 4. | Plumbing and soldering | 35 | 5 | 37 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 28 | 27 | 20 | 2 | 16 | 4 | 24 | 2 | 21 | 3 | 26 | 23 | 1 | 23 | 9 | |||||
| 5. | Printing | 37 | 32 | 2 | 33 | 4 | 21 | 1 | 30 | 2 | 26 | 3 | 16 | 2 | 19 | 4 | 15 | 13 | 2 | 19 | 23 | 1 | 18 | 2 | |||
| 6. | File cutting | 13 | 18 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 10 | 15 | 12 | 20 | 4 | 24 | 2 | 27 | 1 | 46 | 7 | 40 | 3 | |||||
| 7. | Tinning | 15 | 11 | 13 | 17 | 22 | 10 | 25 | 18 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 10 | 14 | 11 | 10 | 5 | ||||||||||
| 8. | White lead | 23 | 41 | 2 | 34 | 1 | 32 | 2 | 79 | 3 | 71 | 108 | 7 | 90 | 116 | 2 | 109 | 2 | 143 | 1 | 189 | 7 | 358 | 6 | |||
| 9. | Red lead | 3 | 13 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 13 | 14 | 19 | ||||||||||||
| 10. | China and earthenware | 80 | 14 | 92 | 6 | 77 | 11 | 58 | 5 | 117 | 12 | 103 | 9 | 107 | 4 | 84 | 3 | 106 | 4 | 97 | 3 | 87 | 4 | 106 | 5 | 200 | 3 |
| 10a. | Litho-transfers | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 10 | ||||||||||||
| 11. | Glass cutting and polishing | 1 | 1 | 5 | — | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | — | 4 | 8 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 7 | |||||||
| 12. | Vitreous Enamelling | 5 | 19 | 1 | 17 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 11 | |||||||||||
| 13. | Electric accumulators | 38 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 31 | 27 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 21 | 26 | 27 | 1 | 33 | 28 | 16 | 1 | 49 | 1 | 33 | ||||||
| 14. | Paints and colours | 19 | 21 | 17 | 1 | 39 | 2 | 25 | 35 | 1 | 37 | 57 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 39 | 1 | 46 | 56 | 56 | 1 | ||||||
| 15. | Coach building | 84 | 7 | 104 | 5 | 70 | 6 | 95 | 6 | 70 | 3 | 70 | 3 | 85 | 7 | 56 | 3 | 49 | 4 | 74 | 5 | 63 | 1 | 65 | 4 | 70 | 5 |
| 16. | Ship building | 34 | 2 | 36 | 6 | 21 | 2 | 27 | 1 | 15 | 22 | 1 | 26 | 1 | 32 | 2 | 48 | 24 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 28 | 1 | 32 | 2 | ||
| 17. | Paint used in other industries | 48 | 3 | 56 | 1 | 51 | 3 | 42 | 47 | 1 | 49 | 2 | 37 | 3 | 49 | 2 | 27 | 3 | 46 | 1 | 44 | 1 | 61 | 50 | 5 | ||
| 18. | Other industries | 84 | 2 | 88 | 4 | 47 | 3 | 52 | 2 | 78 | 5 | 56 | 2 | 66 | 2 | 70 | 1 | 53 | 3 | 40 | 64 | 89 | 1 | 86 | 4 | ||
| Phosphorus Poisoning | — | — | — | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||
| Arsenic Poisoning | 5 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 23 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 1 | 22 | 3 | |||||||||
| Mercurial Poisoning | 17 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 18 | 9 | |||||||||||||
| Anthrax | 47 | 64 | 11 | 51 | 9 | 56 | 12 | 47 | 7 | 58 | 11 | 67 | 22 | 59 | 18 | 50 | 10 | 47 | 12 | 38 | 9 | 39 | 10 | 37 | 7 | ||
| Wool | 31 | 6 | 35 | 10 | 28 | 3 | 28 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 23 | 3 | 24 | 8 | 34 | 12 | 12 | 1 | 20 | 5 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 2 | |
| Horsehair | 7 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 10 | 17 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 12 | 3 | |||
| Handling of hides and skins | 8 | 20 | 14 | 3 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 19 | 7 | 17 | 4 | 18 | 3 | 12 | 1 | 11 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 9 | 1 | |||
| Other industries | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 1 | |||||
My own experience does not lead me to expect much in elucidation of industrial diseases from the Sick Insurance Societies. In Austria they make a statistical return as to the causation of illness to the central authorities. I have myself—in my capacity as an official of the State Central Board—examined these in order to try and gain knowledge of the extent of industrial disease in Bohemia. In spite of the returns drawn up by the district surgeon who visits the factories in question, it was impossible for me to obtain a complete picture of the extent of industrial sickness. The reports only give valuable data on which to base action in particular cases, and from this standpoint I do not under-estimate their value. But so far as the expressed wish of the International Association is concerned they appear to fulfil it, inasmuch as for specially dangerous trades special reports are issued, the Austrian law for sick insurance requiring such industries to institute separate sick insurance funds with separate statistics. Hence, under present conditions, I do not see how the duty of notification will be effective. There remains the endeavour to secure insurance and the right to claim compensation for industrial disease in the same way as is provided for accidents. This point was fully discussed at the eighth International Congress for Workmen’s Insurance held in Rome in 1908. There is no valid ground for granting compensation only for sudden disturbance of health arising in the course of employment by accident or acute poisoning, and withholding it in the case of gradual disturbance of health caused equally by the trade, as the effects of such chronic indisposition weigh often no less heavily on the sufferer. Inclusion of industrial disease in the same category as accident insurance, as indeed has been done in France, Switzerland and Great Britain, has, apart from the fact that it is dictated by fairness and humanity, the advantage of removing existing hardship and of solving doubtful cases. Correct statistics, further, would thus be obtainable for the first time, and the employer by insurance would be freed from the legal proceedings now frequently brought against him for injury due to chronic industrial poisoning. And it seems the more right and just course to institute a general scheme of insurance against industrial disease than to have recourse to an Employer’s Liability Act in this or that case, particularly as the question often arises in regard to a disease which develops gradually—In whose employment was the disease contracted?
Clearly in such a scheme of insurance against both accident and industrial disease only specific industrial diseases would be included, i.e. diseases in which the connection with the industry can be clearly established as due to causes inherent in the industry, and traceable to definite materials used. Such diseases as tuberculosis and the effects of dust inhalation (bronchitis, &c.), which as industrial diseases occur only too often, cannot be called specific, because they arise outside the industry and make decision impossible as to whether or not in a particular case the disease owed its origin to the occupation. In order to determine what should be regarded as specific industrial poisons it was deemed necessary to draw up a schedule. For one such list Sommerfeld (in collaboration with Oliver and Putzeys) is responsible, Carozzi of Milan for a second, and Fischer[F] for a third, published in 1910. Those by Sommerfeld and Fischer are constructed in similar fashion—enumeration of (1) the poisonous substance, (2) the industries in which it is made or used, (3) the channel of absorption, and (4) the symptoms produced. Sommerfeld enumerates the poisons in alphabetical order, noting against each the requisite preventive measures, while Fischer adopts a chemical classification, confining himself to general introductory remarks as to prevention.