Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1912-05-25

lcumDeIbOme Ill pIOCeuulti 0Ap0hoifO
lin process, and usually resulting after
Hong periods of litigation in nominal
lrellef, If any, for the injured, after
Expenses and legal fees have been
paid.
The two systems are fundamentally
different in the mode of procedure,
although seeking the same end. The
"Workmen's Compensation" method
provides for the injured and his fam
lily. The employers Liability" method
rests upon some conduct or act Of
the employe resulting in an injury
for which the employer is to be held
liable, and which liability the en-
ployer naturally seeks to minimize,
and the emplOye naturally seeks to
maximize, resulting inevitably in Gre
ating acrimonious relations between
employer and employe; while these
various efforts have in a way been
helpful, in that they have caused us
to think, we have not as yet hit u.On
any plan in the United States that
accomplishes the desired result. The
German government, through a sys-
tenn carefully worked out during the
last 25 years on plans highly scien-
tlfic, has solved the problem through
"Workmen's Compensation.
Their mode of procedure simply and
briefly stated consists of the follow
ing:
The German government has insti-
tutted a process by which employers
and employees administer their acci-
dent insurance fund, which in our
country could be administered by an
insurance commission who should
have authority to rate each hazard Of
every nature and character known to
experience, to establish uniform COM
pensation for the injuries sustained.
For example--the employe is a work.
man operating a machinist's lathe, and
the insurance rate as fixed is "a of
II per cent on the monthly payroll,
thus, If the wage is S4,O0 per day, for
25 days, $780, y of / per cent equals
so cents per month. The employe pays
one-fourth as much, or 1914 cents per
month. Fund remitted monthly to the
state treasurer for one mans wage
including employers share, is 62h
cents.
The fund thus created is RENTED
to the state treasurer monthly from
all the industries in the state. It is
beyond the control Of corporations
firms and individuals, and is useful
only in the case of injury; the EN-
ploye does not look to the employer
but both employe and employer look
to the solvent fund for relief when
the workman is injured--the time Of
his greatest need.
All kinds of work has been classi-
fled and rated about 10 per cent above
actual needs, subject to such annual
changes In ratings as may be found
necessary by experience, and the bur.
den Is thus placed upon both the EN-
ployer and employe in q manner SC
/ Just and equitable that the system is
| gladly welcomed by both, II provides
b the cheapest possible cost Of indus
, trial accident insurance for the work
, man, encourages both employer and
employe to strive for. the greatest
: safety in the workshop thereby re-
Z duclng the cost Of insurance to boti
employer and employe to the lowest
, minimum and making for the maxi
mum OF efficiency, and enabling botl
. workman aud employer to operate In
that intimate harmony so necessary tC
success. What is the argument? What
Is the proof? And what are the an
swers?
The experience OF the Germans In
dicates that II per cent plus Of acci'
dents are caused by the carelessnesr
Of employers, 20 per cent plus Of ac-
oidents are caused by the carelessness
Of the employees, 10 per cent plus "a
the fault Of employer and employe
jointly and 43 per cent plus to the
hazard OF the industry
Hence It follows that II the employer
causes II per cent plus Of the acct
dents and stands S5 per cent Of the
amount paid into the fund, and the
employe causes 20 per cent plus Of
the accidents and RENTS through his
employer one-fourth as much, that
the employer bears dlaproportion-
ately heavier burden than the em-
ploye, but both have performed an
agreed duty and all is well. When
an accident occurs this is what hap.
pens;
The employer and the employe, both
having contributed to the state fund
AZ provided by law, the employe Inn