Illness in Industry-Its Cost and Prevention

THE obligation of an employer to the State requires certain things of him as matters of good citizenship: for instance, that his workmen shall have a living wage, that child labor shall not be employed, that injuries from accidents shall not- make workmen a charge upon the State, and that the laborer's children shall have opportunity for education and to become good and useful citizens. Affairs of this kind are not taken up as philanthropy, for the officials of a corporation or a large manufacturing concern may not feel at liberty to spend the funds of their company as prompted simply by motives of kindliness; but they may spend company money on such matters because it is good business. For years, the poisonous effects of lead, phosphorus and dust have been emphasized in books on industrial hygiene and their elimination has been urged; but the more important and everyday physiology of the workman himself has been neglected. Part of my object in writing this paper is to show how our knowledge of physiology may be applied to working conditions in everyday life. In the interest of industrial laborers, accident compensation laws have been enacted in 33 States. This has been carried forward rapidly, because it has been shown that it pays both employer and employee. A further step is the recognition of sickness and disablement independent of accidents, not only because of their immediate cost to the worker and to the employer, but because continued efficiency in work and business depends largely upon health. Some measure of the importance of health in industry can be gained by the knowledge that records kept by some companies which now make this the subject of careful inquiry show that the time lost by employees, through illness; is several times as much as that lost as the result of industrial accidents. It is true that accidents frequently result in permanent disability or death, but it is equally true that illness is also a cause of permanent disablement or death. Thus the chief difference is that the loss to the employee through accidents occurring in the course of his employment is now generally recognized as a cost