The sun., 1914-08-24
THE FIT WORKMAN.
Tho Physical Examination OF Employees
Defended.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN--Sr. The
! alleged discriminat tion OF employers in
favor Of unmarried employees on account
of the workmen's compensation law
has aroused considerable discussion, and
according to paper reports has resulted
In demand from representatives OF
labor that the Compensation Commission
take steps to stop not only such discrimi-
nation but also the physical examination
OF employees.
1t Is difficult to see how the commits
sion can comply with this demand. The
compensation law gives II no such power.
and II IL extremely doubtful whether the
Legislature could confer such authority.
The right OF an employer to exercise dis
elimination In selecting his employees Is
too well established by law to be seriously
questioned.
As a matter of public policy II would
be very unwise for employers OF labor to
discriminate against married men, and In
asmuch as In this State they are insured
against their liability under the compen-
sation law to pay compensation to the
widow OF an injured employee. there can be
no advantage TO them, except In the case
OF so-called "self-insurers," in thus dis
eliminating. unless they can obtain from
their insurance carrier reduction In
their premium rates.
The insurance companies cannot grant
such reduction without the consent OF the
Insurance Department, which In the In
terest OF public policy would undoubtedly
be refused. The state Fund Commission
will assuredly not allow insurers therein
reduction in rates, because of such DIS
elimination.
The proposed physical examination OF
employees coming under the compensation
law ls quite another matter Surely there
can be no valid objection to an employer
discriminating against the physically un-
fit in selecting his working force.
Certainly he Is Justified in this from the
standpoint OF business economics as well
as public policy.
Indeed, as means OF preventing the
spread OF disease IN a working community
periodical physical examinations OF em-
ployees would surely be OF the greatest
benefit to all concerned and might well
be made compulsory under the police pow
ers of the State.
Whether 1t would be well TO allow
reduction Of premium rate to an employer
for merit on account OF the physical ex-
cellence OF his employees IL another ques-
ton. although as an accident prevention
measure such merit reduction would be
logical.
The physical examination OF those de-
string to enter the army or navy IL ac-
cepted by every one as A necessary means
OF obtaining efficient service and an es-
sential precaution against tho introduc-
ton and spread of disease.
The health laws Of the State provide
for sanitary rules and regulations to be
observed by employers In their plants and
periodical inspection Of such plants to see
that such laws are compiled with.
Upon what principle. then, can the legal
or moral right OF employers TO take 'slml-
lar precautions with their employees be
denied?
While II II true that the chief induce
ment for employers liable under the com
pensation law to discriminate against mar
ried men and the physically unfit among
their employees can be removed by re-
pealing the so-called self insurance" pro-
vision Of the law, the right of the liability
insurance companies 20 make such dis
elimination when writing worknens COM
pensation insurance will still remain.
The state insurance fund. OF course. has
no such right Of discrimination. since Il
must accept all risks offered, no matter
how dlsastrously its loss ratio may be
affected thereby.
The workmen's compensation Law was
enacted primarily for the benefit a..
labor In this State. and Its operation will
undoubtedly result to the advantage OF
| the great maiority OF workmen notwth-
standing the discrimination complained OF.
rREBLE TUCKER.
NEW YORK. August 22