Under the common law a workman was entitled to receive damages when injured as a result of the negligence of his employers, but he was supposed to assume the ordinary risks of the business. When the injury was caused by the work man's own negligence or by the negligence of a fellow-workman, the employer was not responsible. The Employers' Liability Act of 18801 gives the workman a right to compensation when the injury was caused (1) by reason of any defect in machinery or plant, when this defect arose or had not been discovered or remedied owing to the negligence of the employer, or of some person intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the plant was in proper condition; or (2) by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who had any superintendence intrusted to him; or (3) to whose orders the workman was bound to conform; or (4) by reason of the act of any person in the service of the employer done in obedience to the instructions of the employer or of any person delegated with his authority, providing that there was some fault or defect in these instructions; or (5) by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who had the control of any signal, points, locomotive engine, or train upon a railway. But the workman is not entitled to damages if he knew of the defect or negligence which caused his injury and failed to report it. This act is still in force, but the workman has the choice of taking advantage of a new law, the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897.2 This is a radical departure from previous legislation. The employer is now liable to pay damages even when there has been no negligence on his own part, and even when the accident has been due to the neglect of the injured workman himself, except only in cases of "serious and wilful misconduct." This liability exists even where the workman makes a contract exempting the employer, with the following 1 This act is printed in full in the Report of the Industrial Commission, Vol. XVI, pp. 68–70. 2 Printed in full in the Bulletins of the Department of Labor, 1901, p. 126, in an article by A. Maurice Low, entitled "The British Workmen's Compensation Act and its Operation." The law is also printed in the Report of the Industrial Commission, Vol. XVI, p. 71, but without the "schedules" giving amount of compensation and method of arbitration. exception: If the registrar of a friendly society, after taking steps to ascertain the views of the employer and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation is on the whole not less favorable to the general body of workmen than the provisions of this act, the employer may contract with any of his workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this act. An undertaker is liable for the injuries also in cases where the work is conducted by sub-contractors. He is not liable for an injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages at work at which he was employed. The amount of compensation is as follows: Where death results, and the workman leaves dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, the payment is a sum equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of £150, whichever of these sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case £300. In case the dependants are in part dependent upon his earnings, then a reasonable amount not exceeding the maximum is fixed by arbitration. If there are no dependants, medical and burial costs not exceeding £10 are to be paid by the employer. Where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, the workman receives a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer, the weekly payment not to exceed £I. Under the former act damages for accidents are recovered by actions brought in the law courts. This act provides a system of arbitration. It is also less broad in its scope; it applies only to workers on or in a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work, and in certain cases to work on buildings. By a later act (July 30, 19001) agricultural laborers are included. 1 Printed in the Bulletin of the Department of Labor in the article cited. CHAPTER X INDUSTRIAL PEACE It is a self-evident proposition that if we would avert strikes, we must deal with the causes of strikes: consequently any fruitful discussion of preventive measures must be based upon an analysis of these causes. What, then, are the causes of strikes of wage-earners? Many different causes are enumerated in reports on strikes, but most of these are subsidiary causes. The main causes are four: namely, first, a desire for higher wages or an effort to prevent reduction of wages; second, methods of calculating wages, as by the piece or time, by weight or measure, as in case of coal, methods of pay as in money or store orders, etc; third, a desire for a shorter working day; and fourth, a desire to improve the general environment under which work is conducted. The first cause is the one which appears most frequently in industrial disputes; but during the past generation many bitter strike conflicts have been waged with reference to the length of the working day. In the United States, especially, efforts to secure a normal working day of eight hours have provoked The regulation of some of our fiercest strikes. environment has been a relatively infrequent cause of strikes, although the matter is one of great importance. Efforts to secure recognition of labor organization, to regulate apprenticeship, etc., are subsidiary to the main causes enumerated, and all these causes obviously may be reduced to the one main cause a desire on the part of the wageearners to improve their economic position. But this desire on the part of wage-earners taking the main directions mentioned does not lead to strikes until it encounters opposition. If desire were realization, conflict would cease. Now the opposition to the realization of desire in the case of the wageearners is found in the attitude of their employers. These in turn have their own desires, taking frequently an opposite direction; namely, desires for a longer working day or lower wages, and they also generally find in the economic conditions surrounding them sharp limitations of the possibilities of compliance. Without dwelling longer on these preliminary observations, it may be said that as a result of conflicting desires and interests, which in spite of all fine words are not precisely identical, we find arrayed against each other two economic classes; namely, the employed and the employers. The earners of wages frequently feel that the resistance to their aspirations is unjust and indefensible, and the wage-payers feel that the demands made on them are unreasonable and sometimes even impossible of fulfilment. A dispute |