The Birmingham age-herald., 1923-03-04
GIVES GU M M \ RY' IF REQUIREMENTS. IN COMPENSATION.
Bowen Presents Minimum With Accompanying Data and Comment on Laws
 Provisions
By LEWIS BOWEN Member Legislature from Jefferson
 County.


 County.
 In the following memorandum there is presented a model provision for each of the principal features of an adequate compensation law, together with the present status relative to each provision and comments sub stantiating the desirability of the model provisions suggested.
 Scope of Coveraxe.
 Minimum requirements.-All indus tries and employments including pub. lie employees with the possible ex- ception of agriculture and domestic service should be covered.
 Present status.-All compensation states except New Jersey exempt ag- riculture and domestic service. Twelve states limit their acts to so- called hazardous employmen there- by excluding mercantile establish ments, clerical occupation and the professions. Nineteen states exempt the small employers, that is those having less than a stipulated mum Der of employees ranging from three employees in five states to 16 employees in one state (Alabama). A large ma jority of the states cover public em- ployments including employees of the state and it's political subdivisions. In New Hampshire the scope is limited to hazardous employments and to em- ployers having five or more employees. Assuming that all employers in the state have elected to come under the act only 56 per cent of all the em ployes in the state are covered by the compensation law. Of the A per cent excluded from the benefits of the act 10 per cent are in agriculture, 9.7 per cent in domestic service, Is per cent are employees of employers having less than five employees. and 22S per cent are in non-hazardous and other employments.
 Comment.--If a compensation law is desirable (and AZ states have them no state having adopted this sys- tenn has ever repealed same) there exists no good reason why it should not apply to all employees. It may be desirable because of administra- tive difficulties to exclude certain kinds Of labor, but the exclusion oi employments or employers on the ground of having low hazard is indefensible from every point of view and especially from that of the injured workman whose misfor- tune is Hot at all allevjated by the suggestion that the injury was quite unusual or unexpected. An Injury re- 
 may be just as severe and entail just as much economic distress as one re- ceived in the mine. Furthermore, il an occupation is in fact only slight ly hazardous the additional burden to the industry and society will be slight because of the very fact that accidents are 1nfrequent in those exempted employments. Nor is there any good reason why the small em- ployer should be exempted from the compensation act. One reason ad. vanced for the exclusion of such em ployers is based upon the theory thai the hazard of fellow service is low ir employments where only a few work men are employed. But. as already stated, hazard should not be a cri- terion as to the desira bility of the law.
 Agriculture has been almost uni. versally excluded. partly because o1 the political power eXerted by the farmers and partly because of the difficulties in administration. par ticularly in administering the in surance provisions. Many of the European compensation laws include either all or a portion of agricul- tural laborers. Moreover, in the United States most of the laws per init the exempted classes to come under the law voluntarily and in quite a number of the states con siderable proportion of the farmers have voluntarily accepted the provis ions of the compensation act and are paid benefits in accordance there with. The difficulties of adminfstra- tion are not insurmountable. Insur- ance premiums may be levied upon a per capita basis and collected in much the same way as any per capita tax is collected at present.
 O o
 Injuries.
 Minimum requirements-An in- injuries including occupational dis eases arising out of and in the course of employment unless Intentionally f-inflicted or due to intentional act of a third party for personal req sons not connected with the employ ment.
 Present status.-No state holds the employer liable for every injury re- ceived by the employe. As a rule in-