Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-12-13
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY.
Germany Has Unique Plan to Protect
Worker

yard switchman. He was laid up foi
about thirty days as a result OF the in.
jury. He received nothing from the
railroad company to compensate him
for his loss Of time or for his pain
and suffering. There was some doubt
as to whose negligence caused the
accident. c. paid, or at least prom
ised to pay. his doctor and drug bills
While working for the company
however. 1t had deducted from time
to time a certain proportion Of his
wages as his voluntary contribution
to the relief department of the rail-
road company, and during his en-
forced idleness he received from this
relief fund a small sum which enabled
his family to partially support itself.
This railroad relief department sim
ply returned to him during his ILL
ness a part of his own money, and
before doing this ii exacted from him
a full release of all liability for the
injury. c. then discovered for the first
time that he would receive nothing
but small payments from this relief
fund as compensation for his in
jury.
When he had so far recovered as
to feel himself able to resume his
work and earn enough money to pay
his doctors bill he returned to the
office Of the superintendent Of the
railroad and applied for work.
Feeling that his experience in the
so-called voluntary relief department
had been unsatisfactory and unfair to
him, he stated to the company's Off
GER that he did not wish to belong to
the relief department, but wanted to
be employed independently of it. He
rangement, and when he insisted upon
the desired change he was told the
company did not want him.
His circumstances compelled him to
return to work, however-indeed, the
actual wants Of himself and family
had driven him to apply for work be-
fore he was really physically able to
resume it. He therefore surrendered
his plain legal rights, swallowed his
pride, repressed his just indignation,
and went to work.
Within a week he was seriously in
jured, this time as a direct result of
the company's unquestioned negli-
gence. The company did not deny
its blame, but 1t again was able to
and did satisfy and discharge it's legal
obligation to G.. and his family by
paying him a small weekly sum for
about three months. Except for the
relief" agreement, which the superin-
tendent forced him to sign at the time
of his unemployment after his first
accident, he undoubtedly might have
recovered from the company several
thousand dollars, which in justice he
should have received.
Our declaration of independence
in 1916 that 'all men are
by nature free and independent" The
trainers of that great historic docu-
ment had in mind the tyranny Of the
English kings, and the unjust dis
made by the sovereign at
the time of the revolt of the colonies
in favor of the few and against the
many.
This declaration originally had no
reference to the relation Of man in
the industrial life as we know 1t to-
day. An absolute equality between
such men was not announced, or even
contemplated.
The American courts, however, in
this and similar provisions
i'm the various bills of rights of the
various states of the union. and apply
ing them to the relationship of en-
ployer and employe, have too often
held that the employer and the work
man were, as a matter OF law, equal
and that their respective rights with
reference to the making Of a contract
Of hire were equal, and that If the
terms of employment offered by the
employer were not satisfactory to the
employe he had the power TO reject
them and perfect right to do so and
seek employment elsewhere.
Mr.. Justice Brewer in the "Adair"
case in the supreme court of the
United States said that in regard to
the terms Of employment the employer
and employe have equality Of right,
and that any legislation tending to
disturb" that equality, such as linn
iting the hours Of labor, etc, was an
interference by the state
I'm a matter of private contract.
As a pure fiction of the law this
may be true, but the case Of c. forci-
bly, illustrates how clearly it is fic-
ton. and nothing else.
If this supposed equality" of en-
plOyer and employe were reality In
stead of a legal fiction the employe
would not seek legislative interfer-
ence for the purpose of shortening his
hours Of labor, providing proper safe
guards, ETC., more often than would
the employer but we all know that all
the agitation for this sort of legislation
comes from the working man.
He may not felicitate himself upon
his right to seek employment else
where, when the terms proposed are
and unfair to him, be-
cause I'm reality he has no such right.
He must have work at whatsoever
terms it is offered to him.
Fortunately our courts are begin
ming to recognize this actual inequali-
ty between the employer and his
workman, and endeavoring to apply
rules more equitable for modern in
dustrial conditions. Hope for the
workman in a fairer conception by
the courts of the actual inequalities
which all recognize as existing is to
be found in a recent decision of the
supreme court Of the United States.
In discussing this subject the court
says: THE legislature has also rec
ognized the fact, which the experience
Of legislators in many states has cor
that the proprietors OF
these establishments and their opera
tives do not stand upon an equality,
and that their interests are, to GER
tain extent. conflicting. The former
desire to obtain as much
labor as possible from their employees,
while the latter are often induced by
the fear of discharge to conform to
regulations which their judgment.
fairly exercised. would pronounce to
be detrimental to their health or
strength. In other words. the pro-
prietors lay down the rules and the
aborers are practically constrained to
obey them. In such cases self-inter-
EST is often an unsafe guide and the
legislature may properly interpose
it's authority"
One of our state courts I'm the ardor
IF it's attack upon this old fiction has,
in rather undignified and unjudicial
language, called this doctrine OF
equality a base deception"
This incident of c.. with its legal
application. merely serves to demon
strate again how far we are behind all
he industrial countries of Europe In
Dur laws regulating the relationship
IF employer and emplOye.
We are at least fifty years behind
Germany. Here such a situation as
developed in the case of C.-with all
he injustice and hardship which 1t
entailed for him-wOuld have been