Proceedings, Third National Conference Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents

by National Conference on Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents

I would state briefly that the first tentative bills were drafted with the object of drawing out discussion on the part of the employers and employes. We had held some meetings previously, and those who appeared before us were somewhat in the dark as to just what we intended to do and wanted to do, and therefore we drafted tentative bills to which they should direct their fire of criticisms and suggestions.

The first bill presented was a bill destroying the common law defenses, assumption of risk, the co-employe doctrine, and modifying contributory negligence to that of comparative negligence. The second of the first tentative bills was a compensation measure. The purpose of the first bill was to use a "constitutional coercion," as we have termed it, making the compensation bill practically compulsory, but not in the language of the bill declaring it compulsory, hoping in this way to bring it within the constitution. That destroyed the common law defenses and then gave the employer the right to come under the compensation act. Also in that bill the employe was presumed to be acting under that bill unless he contracted to the contrary at the time of entering his employment.

The matter of compensation and the details of the bill are not of particular interest to the Conference, because they are questions concerning which there is very little contention, and they resolve themselves practically to the point of working out the question of arbitration and the measure of compensation and the manner of arriving at compensation, and such court procedure as is necessary, in detail.

We found that our first tentative bills performed the exact object which we intended they should. Neither the committee nor any of its members, I believe, had any idea that the first tentative bills represented their individual ideas or even the idea of the committee as a whole; but they certainly resulted in bringing about discussion, and after those bills were sent about the State to employers and employes they all got busy and we had very valuable and helpful discussions upon those bills. We held a conference in Milwaukee lasting about a week. There appeared before the committee representatives of the Merchants' and Manufacturers' Association of Milwaukee, and from the northern part of the State representatives of the lumber and various other industries. We also had the State Federation of Labor.

After that meeting we met again in May and drafted our second set of tentative bills, the first bill destroying the defense and assumption of risk, and also the co-employes doctrine as a defense, but embodying the question of contributory negligence. That bill, if enacted into law, independent of every other act, would make all employers of every nature subject to the law, whether the employer was a farmer, a manufacturer or whatsoever he might be. The second bill provided practically the same as our other bill.

We found at these public hearings that the question of who shall pay for the insurance, as it is called, is not a matter of great contention in Wisconsin. I think the larger manufacturers, and the great majority of all of them, favor paying the compensation themselves and either assuming the obligation, or organizing mutual insurance companies or protecting themselves with liability insurance policies. There are a few who believe that the employes should contribute a small portion toward the compensation, but I do not believe that is the general sentiment among the employers and manufacturers in Wisconsin.

I think the only serious problem we have to meet is whether we shall take away the common law right from the employe. The Federation of Labor of Wisconsin is very much opposed to that feature of our bill, and personally I am opposed to it. I have expressed that opposition at all the hearings and directed many questions along that line to ascertain the sentiment of employers and employes.

Our bill creates the presumption that an employe is acting under the act unless he contracts to the contrary at the time of his employment, and of course the idea of that is to get around the constitutional provisions; therefore, there will be consent to act under the law, and consent to arbitration, and hence it will no doubt be constitutional. But the employes, through their representatives, believe that they should have the right of selection after the injury has occurred. The Federation bill that they have prepared, follows practically the same lines as the English act, giving the double remedy of a common law right of action, and then also compensation in case of their failure to recover under the common law; but they have gone so far, through their representatives, as to state that they would not ask for that provision in its entirety. While I am not going to speak authoritatively as to just what they will or will not do, I think it is their idea that if they are given the right to elect at the time or within a reasonable time of the injury, whether they shall proceed under the common law remedy or accept the provisions of the compensation act, that they will be willing to waive the double remedy, and whichever act the employe chooses to proceed under, will be a waiver of all other remedies.

That question is going to be debated by both sides and I think if we are going to meet with any danger of defeat in promoting this legislation it will be upon that one subject, and personally I hope that the employers will find that under a reasonable bill, with reasonable compensation and protection drawn about them, so there will be no danger to mulct them in any great damages, that they will be willing to accept some provision giving the employes the right of election at the time of the injuries.