Los Angeles herald., 1910-09-04
INJUSTICE TO EMPLOYEES

IN HE injuries to employees, several
of them fatal, and particularly
L the killing of two men within
the past two days on one OF the large
buildings now going up in the city of
Los Angeles, again serves to call at
tention to the injustice with which
employees who meet injury or death in
the course of their employment are
treated by legislation, or rather the
lack of legislation, in our country.
The laborer who is engaged for a
daily wage in a hazardous employ
ment that is useful to society is a SOL
der of the common good. He as much
contributes his time and life to the
well being of the country as does the
soldier who serves his country on the
battle line, and if he is injured or
killed in discharging his duty to the
public, he or those dependent upon
him are as much entitled under all
the rules Of Justice and humanity to
compensation as is the soldier or those
dependent upon him for the injury or
death which meets him in battle.
It is thing to be ashamed Of that
every civilized country in the world
has recognized this fact except our
own country. Senator J. Mayhew
Wainwright, chairman of the commits
sion appointed by the New York legis-
lature to prepare and report legisla
tion for the purpose of providing
proper indemnity for employees injured
in the course of their employment. in
a report which his commission has
rendered, says:
"Our existing legal system for COM
pensating those injured in the great
strife of Industrial life is based on
the negligence or fault Of the en-
ployer. Unless such fault can be
shown there is no redress.
This theory has been discarded by prae-
ticalIy every civilized country in the world
except our own, the modern economic
theory being that the loss of life and limb
must be treated element In the cost
of production, for which the industry must
pay. and which must be taken into account
In the same manner the wear and tear
on machinery"
A la wimposing certain definite IL
ability; providing that employers
shall be liable for accidents resulting
does not impose any additional bur-
den upon the employer in its last re-
suit, because, being a settled and de-
fined liability or expense of the bust
ness, it is charged into the cost of con-
Quoting the business and in that way
the burden becomes distributed to the
public.
After all Is said and done, the pub
lie bears the liability. If a man is
injured so that he cannot support
himself, the public must support him.
If he is injured or killed, so that he
cannot support the dependent men,
bers of his family, the public must
support them. The only difference is
that under laws providing for the
proper compensation to employees for
injuries, and to those dependent upon
them for death, they receive as a right
what otherwise they would receive in
the humiliating form of charity.
The public is gradually becoming
educated to the fact that in the mat
ter of rendering justice to employees
for injuries received in the course of
their employment, our country is hope
lessly behind the other countries of
the world. There is no duty more se-
rious or calling for earlier recogni-
ton than the duty imposed upon the
legislatures Of the states and Of the
nation to correct this injustice.