Document gaEVj1R4aEBENRrMXgm18je4V

1957 .VationaJ Safety Congress This is sheer gain, hot these laws still focus on doing something for the man who has met with an accident, rather than on driving full steam into eliminating causes for accidents. When a ship is sinking, then the whole weight of responsibility rests on manning the life boa^s 2nd getting the pas* fcaigers and crew off the vessel. When an auto has gone hurtling off a thruway then the weight of moral responsibility is to rush medical care. But neither life boats nor ambulances are the full measure of moral responsibility that rests upon us today when ships Still sail the high seas and cars ride the highways. Our moral sense has grown up beyond that level of moral satisfaction. In its modern eoncep* moral responsibility stresses preventing the worst from happening on the oceans and on our roads rather than being content with picking up the pieces after the worst has happened. Total security is a goal that is beyond our reach, but great progress can be made when men of competence and good will and devo tion join together to help cadi other in every way possible to promote safety mea sures against accident hazards. The symbol of litis step is. 1 suppose, the National Safety Congress itself. It stands for moral responsibility toward these hazards at its lst. for our deepest responsibility toward the victim of accidents is to see to it that all is done to keep him from becoming a victim. And that is a worthy cause for all of us, wherever we are--in labor and in management, m education and in govern ment^ * LABOR'S STAKE IN SAFETY by A. J. HAYES international president. International Association of Machmists; vice president, AH.-CIO, Washington, 0. C. I don't intend to stay within the UmiX5 of this title because I am certain little new in formation could be said about `'Labor's State in Safety. It is obvious that no one could have a greater stake in industrial safety than the men and w.:men who are the direct victims of industrial acridents. To an employer -- matters of industrial safety, occupational disease, accident pre vention and workmen*? compensation--are all tied up with economic considerations. They are importan: insofar as they affect-- and can be made to reduce--insurance cons, training costs and material costs. But these are all money costs---cash costs--cost? that arc measured m dollars and cents. To a worker, on the other hand, an in dustrial accident is a matter of something that is even more tangible than money. It is a matter of a man's blood, bones and sinew--of tragedy, suffering and sorrow. .And sometimes, in fact, more than 50 times a day--on every working day--it is a mat ter of life itself to someone, somewhere, in this country. That is why I sav tliat labor's stake in safety i pretty obvious. Therefore 1 will touch upun asjects of the subject that are not often discussed--aspects that are somewhat controversial. Perhaps they are not discussed because they are controversial. ETHICS IN SAFETY Since my views and public statements on the 'corruption m unions" issue have been as frank and honest as I can make them. 1 see no reason to be any less candid in stating my views about matters of indus trial safety. 1 assure you, however, that I am not injecting controversy for its own sake, but because these are matters that con cern the men and women who run the daily risk of being injured, diseased or lolled on their jobs. Safety--and accident prevention--have an ethical as well as an economic side. 1 think none o: us--whether we represent labor or management -- would disagree with certain basic ethical principles in the field of indus trial safety. We would all agree, for ex- 16 Labor Safety ample. that the objective of industrial safety <hmiM be the preservation of human life sad the protection of human health. We would further agree that as employer has a moral responsibility to protect his workers against disease, accidents, mental stress and infections front the conditions of employ ment. We all profess to agree that human life is not cheap; that man is not something to ! sacrificed to a machine. .And yet. these ethical principles are not always applied in day to day life nor are thry self-enforcing. In practical application they come into con So we finally got factory laws--and work men's compensation--and an organized effort to make mines, factories aad mills safer places to work. But of all the legislation aimed at this objective, workmen's compen sation was the key. For until employers were made directly and financially respon sible for the results of workers* accidents, they had no economic reason to prevent accidents. The whole pattern and fabric of our industrial safety program throughout the nation rests entirely on how good and how* effective our workmen's compensation and our occupational disease law*s are. flict with individual economic interests, and ECONOMIC REASONS thus must be enforced other through group action, or by society as a whole through political action. As a rule, society does not move as fast as the need would indicate. We all know, Oh, of course, you can point to many other good economic rationalizations for in dustrial safety. You can say industrial ac cidents add adl lands of direct and indirect costs to production. Yon can point to the for example, that the first industrial revolu tion had run its coarse for more than 100 years before society got around to adopting and enforcing rules and regulations of in dustrial safety. For more than 100 years industrial workers were given no legal pro tection against the risks and hazards of in dustrial employmem. Here and there, a lone individual employer might attempt to provide decent and health ful working conditions for his workers. But on the whole, the story oi factory emtAoyment in the 19th century--and through the early 30th century--was a pretty ghastly one. cost of hiring and training a new employee, of equipment damaged in a work accident, of the time lost by other employees when an accident occurs. But I will throw them all right hack to you and say that these considerations were present long before we liad industrial acci dent programs--and that it wasn't until ac cident prevention was reinforced with work men's compensation and occupational disease legislation that employers really became safety conscious. So it seems that the thing that counts here i how good oar workmen's compensa tion and occupational disease legislation I don't need to go into the details that are indicative of the cold indifference with which human life was held in American mines and factories. Suffice to say, it did not seem to matter how many men, women and children were killed or crippled in the course of a day. There were always more waiting at the gates the next morning--driven by raw poverty to plead for a chance to jeopardize their fives and limbs. really are. And that's a good question! I've spent my whole adult Trie in the labor movement As a matter of fact. 1 was projected into it by the very thing we are talking about here today--an industrial accident. I went to work at 17 years oi age because xny father was totally disabled by a work in jury--an injury* that eventually killed him. In the course of many years of studying SOCIETY BROUGHT CHANGES The point I am getting at. of course, is that change--when si came--was not the result of any regeneration of moral and ethical comiction on the port t>f employers. It amc rather because society as a whole was thoroughly revolted. It came because the Americas people were finally shocked enough to correct a condition that had pre vailed--and grown worse--for 100 years. and dealing with the problems of my muon --which are. of course; the problems of the members of my union, 1 realized that our present system of workmen's compensation and occupational disease legislation is com pletely and wholly inadequate to meet the needs of our complex industrial society. 1 am not alone in that conclusion. There are, in fact, many men in the labor move ment today who feel even more strongly 37