Document XzrEpz86Zb2OrXx43Rjm40GoK

FILE NAME: Shipbuilders Council of America (SHIP) DATE: 1965 Aug 9 DOC#: SHIP035 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Internal Report - Compensation and the Occupational Disease Addendum to Paper Dated 8.26.64 Shipbuilders 1730 K Street N . W. Council FEDERAL 8-7722 of America W a s h in g t o n 6, D. C O c to b e r 1, 1965 00137 TO: SHIPYARD D ELEGATES G entlem en: Subjec ^* C om pensation and the O ccupational D ise a se a . At a recen t m eeting of.the C ouncil's Safety C om m ittee, the attach e d p a p e rs w ere review ed. The m ain th ru s t of the p r e s e n tation is that State W orkm en's C om pensation and F ed eral M edi c a re conflict and the tim e has now a rriv e d for a decision, with reg ard to occupational d is e a s e s , on w hether W orkm en's C om p en satio n should be abondoned in fav o r of M ed icare coverage. T he C om m ittee ag reed that the situ atio n should be r e f e r r e d to the shipyard M em bers of the Council for th eir advice. a* P lea se review the proposal and subm it your views to the Council prom ptly so that an early decision can be reached. E n c lo su re s j ( r f s V ; v-4i.5ir A u g0 u s t 9, 1 9^ 5 COM PENSATION AND THE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE A D D E N D U M T O P A P E R D A T E D 8 / 2 6 / 6 4 ________ A pproxim ately one y ear has elapsed since the subject paper was p r e p ared and during this tim e th e re has been w id e-3 p read publicity given the subject in new spapers, m agazin es and other m edia. Union m em b ersh ip g ro u p s a r e being a d d r e s s e d in m any a r e a s of the C ountry by a tto rn ey s fo r the purpose of letting em ployees know th eir rights under the W orkm en's C o m p en satio n L aw s to m ak e c la im s ag ain st e m p lo y e rs fo r such health im p a irm e n ts as hearing, occupational bro n ch itis, im p airm en t of vision due to repeated rem oval of foreign bodies, h eart ailm ents, hand trem o rs through the continued use of a ir tools, and the like. W hile it is still w ise for in d u s try to be d is c re e t in its d is c u s s io n of th is subject, to avoid en couragem en t of open debate w ith opposing fo rc e s, b elieve the tim e has com e when it should sta rt taking definite steps tow ard defending itself. Follow ing a re som e suggested argum ents that might be used by in d u stry in attem pting to have the occupational disease feature rem oved fro m our W orkm en's Com pensation Laws and handled as a separate coverage. 1. A w a rd s f o r o c c u p a tio n a l d is e a s e s a r e bound to conflict w ith benefits receiv ed by our older citizen s under M edicare; m ost aw ards for health deficien cies are, of co u rse, m ade in the m ajo rity of instances to em p l o y e e s p r e t t y w e l l up i n a g e . __ 2. T he s h ip y a rd in d u s try ack n o w led g es re s p o n sib ility fo r v ery f e w O . D. c l a i m s b e c a u s e o i t s h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s , a s s e t o u t in th e a t t a c h e d m em orandum . B ecause of this fact, em ployees are given aw ards purely through the socialistic and w elfare tendencies of the co u rts or other bodies before which these claim ants appear. . 3. B e c a u s e of th e s e u n s ta b le g ro u n d s upon w hich a w a rd s a r e p re se n tly m ade, it is believed the unions, feeling that the wind m ight not alw ays blow in th is sam e d irection, would be recep tiv e to a m o re stable m eans of having th eir w orn-out m e m b ers cared for. 4. T h e re a p p e a r to be two a lte rn a tiv e s to the p re s e n t effo rt of h an d lin g th e p ro b le m , i . e . , p r iv a te in d u s tr ia l h e a lth in s u r a n c e c a r r i e d by the em ployees, or an am endm ent to the M edicare bill. The M edicare am end m ent w ould c e rta in ly s e e m to be the m o re lo g ical of the two since the claim s of w o r k m e n in th e a g e g r o u p of p e r h a p s 50 y e a r s on up a r e th e p u r e r e s u l t of long y e a r s of p h y sical la b o r w hich should not, and re a lly connot, be charged to a com pany, co rp o ra tio n or in d u stry . 5. N e e d le s s to' say , if th e s h ip y a r d in d u s tr y w e r e to be h it vjith the full im p act of all possible aw ard s under its W o rk m en 's co m p en satio n co v erag e for em ployees who endure deficiencies failing within me occupational d is e a s e group, it would be a financial burden w hich v ery lew. if any. c o r p o r ations could m eet. # ## A ugust 26, 1964 C O N F ID E N T IA L COMPENSATION AND TH E OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE It a p p e a r s tha.t th e tim e h a s co m e f o r the s h ip y a rd in d u s try to ta k e in v e n to ry of its p o sitio n and v u ln e ra b ility w ith r e g a r d to th e health fa c to rs of its em p lo y ees and the re la tio n of th e se fa c to rs to s o -c a lle d occu p atio nal d ise a se s for w hich em p lo y ers a re so often unfairly held to be resp o n sib le. The integrated shipyards have taken great strides forw ard during the la s t decad e in the p ro tec tio n of em ployees fro m physical in ju ries, this m ade possible by im provem ent of personal protective equipm ent, sounder safety p ro g ram s, im proved production p ractices, and the like. The co m pelling facto r in this im provem en t, asid e fro m the basic one of h u m an e n ess, is the ever-m ounting cost of com pensation and m edical claim s which th reaten the very com petitiveness of a yard. Now, as fa r as actu al physical in ju rie s to life and lim b a re co n cerned, industry is facing a known ad v ersary and can help protect its econ om ic soundness with sound safety p ro g ram s, close liaison w ith its u n d e r w rite rs on com pensation controls, etc. H owever, when we approach the ' subject of em ployee health, we en ter an a re a that is p retty m uch beyond em ployer control. True, considerable attention is given resp irato ry p ro tective equipm ent, ventilation, ate. , but when an em ployee's general health is co n sid ered the em p lo y er's p ro b lem and resp o n sib ility under co m p en sa tion law s, the la tte r had b etter place th is p ro b lem in the pro p er p e rs p e c tive and attem pt to do som ething about it before it becom es a m o n ste r. W hile com pensation law p ractice alw ays included so -called occupational' d ise a se s, p resen t-d ay ideology can very w ell expand this subject far b e yond the bounds of reason and acceptance. When an em ployee is originally hired, and likew ise when an e m ployee rep o rts for w ork on each shift, his general o v erall physical con dition is quite obvious, with the p o ssib le exception of his back o r o th er m u s c u la r s y ste m s . So, he is tu rn e d lo o se on the job, and if he is su b jected to any physical dam age such as cuts, b ru ises, fractu res, burns, etc. , he is tre a te d for sam e and com pensated for the tim e lo st as the r e sult thereof. And, truthfully, w here he has brought an off-the-job injury to w ork with him that day and has successfully, though feloniously, hidden it fro m his su p erio r, he can and does have it re p a ire d under his em p lo y er's coverage- The em ployer is tacitly quite aw are of these in stan ces, e sp e c ially w ith the m any infam ous back c a ses with which he is charged. However, when our industry considers defense against o r em ployee protection against occupational d ise a se s, we have a frightening spectrum facing us. As a m a tte r of fact, we m ust e x p re ss our concern cautiously l e s t we* s t a r t a r a s h of c l a i m s t h a t c a n b u r y u s . W hile the whole subject is in tise lf baffling, the re a l pu zzler is the fact that w ere em ployers to hum anely and p raisew o rth ily m ake a..m ore p o s itive m ove to g u a rd and im p ro v e the w ellb ein g of theijr em p lo y ees, such as p ro p o sed , fo r exam ple, by the D ire c to r of the B ureau of L ab o r S tandards in le tte r of A pril 22, 1964, a d d re sse d to M r. Edwin M. Hood, P re sid e n t of th e S hipbuilders C ouncil of A m e ric a , they would, under p re s e n t law s ( and court philosophy, be program m ing th eir own doom . Suppose, for in stance, a shipyard em ployer, for his own protection and in a vital d e te r m in a tio n to sa fe g u a rd h is em p lo y e e s f r o m in ju ry and h a z a rd s , d ecid ed to h ire only those new em ployees who could p ass a rig id health exam ination, and fu r th e r re q u ire d the exam ination of each of the em p lo y ees on his c u r rent p ay ro ll tow ard the end of elim inating all but those who w ere physically fit. We believe the following would resu lt: I (1) The unions would not allow elim ination of any reg u lar em ploy ees who failed to m eet the stan d ard s. (2) T h o s e on th e p a y r o ll w ho fa ile d to m e e t th e s ta n d a r d s would sue im m ediately for com pensation aw ards, claim ing their deficiencies w e re tbe resu lt of w orking conditions - and win. (3) T h e n u m b e r of new h ir e s who p a s s e d the p h y s ic a l s ta n d a rd s would be so low as to m ake it im p o ssib le to fill m anning re q u ire m e n ts. T h ere fo re , it m u st be concluded that if pur in d u stry is going to con tinue to do the m axim um to p ro tec t its em ployees, the staggering potential burden of aw ards for occupational d ise a se s m ust be elim inated from our com pensation law3, or the law s rew ritten to protect the em ployer from "buying" h ealth d e fic ie n c ie s c a u s e d o u tsid e of em p lo y m en t. The an sw er would seem to be p riv ate p ro c u re m e n t of in d u strial health in su ran ce by the- em ployee. No doubt negotiation of labor ag reem en ts would ultim ately throw at le a st p a rt of the health in su ran ce p re m iu m s to the em ployer, but the final ju d g m en t as to w h eth er o r not th is w ould e v e r be acc ep tab le w ould be b ased upon th e ty p e c o v e r a g e in v o lv e d . Now th a t M e d ic a r e is- a fa c t r a t h e r th a n a d re a m , p erh ap s we could p riv ately p re v a il upon som e wild lib e ra l to sponsor an am en d m en t to co v er our needs. i! I If t h i s p r o p o s a l r i n g s of b r u t a l i t y , h e s i t a t e b r i e f l y b e f o r e m a k i n g the accusation and ask yourself w hether the need for such proposal is not actually based on e x tre m is t m oves on the p art of our courts, law m ak ers, and the like, to m ake the shipyard em ployer totally responsible for the health of his em ployee when he re a lly c o n tro ls in a m inute way only eight hours of the m an 's twenty-four hour day and only five days of the m an's s e v e n - d a y w e e k , o r 2, 080 h o u r s out of a t o t a l 8, 760 h o u r s p e r y e a r . D u r ing this sm all portion of the e m p lo y e e 's life, his exposure to health co n tain m en ts. in an in d u stry such as o u rs, is e x tre m e ly s m a ll and. at that. iW k , - v i r v .c ' - ' C t c o : a r c o n t r i v e d P s s i b i i out sta nom* a r g u m e n t a g a i n s '- h e a l t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y is t h e f a c t t h a t b e c a u s e ot t h e " f e a s t or ta.mine" nature of our b usiness a m ajority of our em ployees do not work . .. . Page T hree steadily at any one shipyard. And being interim , or day-by-day, em ploy ees, the shipyard has no knowledge of the contam ination exposure of its em ployees during days or periods when they a re working elsew here. What industry is actually saying then is that if it is furnished w ith 1 com pletely healthy em ployees whose off-the-job activities, including diet, - ` a re beyond rep ro ach , and if such em ployees w ill w ear all p re sc rib e d p r o tective equipm ent, even when the su p erv iso r is not observing, and if such j em plo y ees w ill subm it to re g u la r re-ex am in atio n s to m ake certain no d ia - ' ease has been contracted privately or during em ploym ent elsew here that j m ight be aggravated by th e ir reg u la r w ork, in dustry m ight then, and only j then, consider the burden of occupational d iseases to be fa ir and re a so n - . able when properly adjudicated by the courts. , * ? i In su m m ary , cannot we in in d u stry , who a re a lre a d y shouldering a ; trem en d o u s burden in th is cost of com pensation fo r physical dam ages to , em ployees, do som ething to p rev en t u tter ruin in the fo rm of health im - j p airm en t responsibility. This is, at p resent, a sm oldering m enace which j m a y a n d p r o b a b l y w i l l a t a n y t i m e b r e a k o u t i n t o a h o l o c a u s t . ! # # # : ii f i fi