Document np4xV9eBM6GVgE5GjyY80RKpR

FILE NAME: Shipbuilders Council of America (SHIP) DATE: 1965 Oct 1 DOC#: SHIP054 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: SCA Memo to Shipyard Delegates RE Compensation and the Occupational Diseases with Confidential Proposal Attached Shipbuilders 1730 K Street N. W. Council FEDERAL 8-7722 of America W a sh in g t o n 6, D. C O ctober 1, 1965 00137 TO: SHIPYARD DELEG ATES Gentlemen: Subject: Compensation and the Occupational D ise a se s At a recent m eeting of.the Council's Safety C om m ittee, the attached p ap e rs w ere reviewed. The m ain thrust of the p r e s e n tation is that State W orkmen's Compensation and F e d e ra l Medi c a r e conflict and the tim e has now a rr iv e d for a decision, with re gard to occupational d i s e a s e s , on whether W orkm en's C o m pensation should be abondoned in favo r of M e d ic a re c o v erage. The C o m m itte e a g r e e d that the situation should be r e f e r r e d to the shipyard M em b ers of the Council for their advice. P le a s e review the p ro p o sa l and submit your views to the Council promptly so that an early decision can be reached. Enclosures PLAINTIFF'S E EXHIBIT | SBCA 5004 1 x August 26, 1964 CONFIDENTIAL COMPENSATION AND THE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE It a p p e a r s that the tim e h a s c o m e f o r the s h ip y a rd in d u stry to take inventory of its p osition and v u ln erab ility with r e g a r d to the health fa c t o r s of its e m p lo y e e s and the relatio n of th e se f a c t o r s to s o - c a l l e d occupational d ise a s e s for which em ployers are so often unfairly held to be responsible. The integrated shipyards have taken great strides forward during the la st d ecad e in the p rotection of em p lo y ee s f r o m physical in ju ries, this made possible by improvement of personal protective equipment, sounder safety p rogram s, improved production practices, and the like. The c o m pelling factor in this im provem ent, aside fro m the basic one of hum ane n e s s , is the ever-m ou n tin g co st of com pensation and m e d ical c la im s which threaten the very com petitiven ess of a yard. Now, a s f a r a s actu al p h y sical in ju r ie s to life and lim b a r e c o n cerned, industry is facing a known a d v e rsa ry and can help protect its econ omic soundness with sound safety p ro g ra m s, close liaison with its under w rite rs on com pensation controls, etc. However, when we approach the ' subject of em ployee health, we enter an a r e a that is pretty much beyond employer control. True, considerable attention is given respiratory p ro tective equipment, ventilation, etc. , but when an e m p lo y e e 's general health -- is con sid ered the e m p lo y e r's p ro b lem and resp on sib ility under c o m p e n s a tion laws, the latter had better place this probLem in the p roper p e r s p e c tive and attempt to do something about it before it b ecom es a m onster. While compensation law practice always included so-called occupational' d iseases, present-day ideology can very well 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 r e p o r t s for w ork on each shift, his g e n e ral o v e r a ll p h y sical c o n dition is quite obvious, with the possible exception of his back or other m u sc u la r sy s te m s . So, he is turned lo o se on the job, and if he is su b jected to any physical dam age such as cuts, b ru ise s, fra c tu re s, burns, etc. , he is treated for sa m e and com pensated for the tim e lo st a s the r e sult thereof. And, truthfully, w here he has brought an o ff-th e-jo b injury to work with him that day and has su ccessfu lly , though feloniously, hidden it f r o m his su p e rio r, he can and does have it r e p a ir e d under his e m p lo y e r 's coverage. The em ployer is tacitly quite aware of these instances, e sp e c ially with the many in fam ous back c a s e s with which he is charged . However, when our industry con siders defense against or employee protection against occupational d ise a s e s , we have a frightening spectrum facing us. As a m atter of fact, we must ex p re ss our concern cautiously l e s t w s t a r t a r a s h of c l a i m s that c a n b u r y u s . steadily at any one shipyard. And being interim, or day-by-day, em ploy ee s, the shipyard has no knowledge of the contam ination ex p o su re of its em ployees during days or periods when they a r e working elsew here. What industry i s ac tu ally saying then is that if it is furnished with ' completely healthy em ployees whose off-the-job activities, including diet, - ; are beyond reproach, and if such em ployees will w ear all p rescrib ed p r o tective equipment, even when the su p e rv iso r i s not o bserv in g, and if S u c h ; e m p lo y e e s will subm it to r e g u la r re -e x a m in a tio n s to m ak e certain no d i s ease has been contracted privately or during employment elsew here that d might be aggravated by their regular work, industry might then, and only j then, consider the burden of occupational d is e a s e s to be fa ir and re a so n - ii a b l e when p r o p e r l y a d j u d i c a t e d b y the c o u r t s . d 1 In s u m m a r y , cannot we in industry, who a r e a lr e a d y sh oulderin g a r, trem endous burden in this cost of com pensation for physical d am ages to em ployees, do something to prevent utter ruin in the fo rm of health im - jj pairm ent responsibility. This is, at present, a sm oldering menace which ! may and probably will at any time break out into a holocaust. jj t I: # # # H > r. r -f -] *f 4