The Theory and Policy of Labour Protection Part 16

The first condition is, that special protection shall only be used to guard against distinct dangers arising out of employment in service.

Next, Labour Protection is only justified in dealing with such dangers as cannot or can no longer be adequately guarded against by any or all of the old forms of protection, viz., self-help, family protection, private agencies and non-governmental corporate agencies, or the protection of the regular administrative and judicial authorities, and even with such dangers only so far as is absolutely necessary. And lastly, the extraordinary State protection contained in the several labour-protective enactments must be adapted to the suppression of such dangers altogether.

Bearing in mind these conditions, it will be found on examination of the several measures of Labour Protection, as they appear in the resolutions of the Berlin Conference and in the _von Berlepsch_ Bill, that not one of them oversteps these limits. The labour protective code as already existing, and as projected by government, nowhere stretches its authority beyond the specified point, either in its scope, extension or organisation; at present it rather errs on the side of caution, and in many respects it does not go nearly so far as it might. This also I claim to have shown in the foregoing pages. This fact alone fully justifies the policy of Labour Protection as at present projected by the German government.

It is in nowise intended (as shown in Chaps. IV. to X.) by this protective policy to supplant and replace free self-protection and mutual protection, or the ordinary State protection of common law.

No addition to Labour Protection will be permitted except where special need exists.

In no case shall a larger measure of protection be afforded than necessary. There is no question of treating all and everywhere alike the various cla.s.ses of industrial wage-labour needing protection. But rather that complete elasticity of treatment is accorded, which is required in view of the variety of needs for protection and of the different degrees of difficulty of applying it; it is this variety which necessitates extraordinary State intervention, extraordinary alike in scope, basis and organisation.

Labour Protection has not, it is true, by any means reached its full development either in aim and scope or in organisation. None of those further demands, however, from various quarters, which I have treated in this book as within the range of discussion overstep in any essential degree the limits imposed on Labour Protection, regarded as special and supplementary intervention of the State.

Even the Auer Motion when carefully examined--if we set aside the general eight hours day and certain special features of organisation, in particular its claim to include in its scope the whole of industry--is not really as extravagant as it appears at first sight; for although indeed it demands complete Labour Protection for all kinds of industrial work, it requires only the application of the same special measures as are also demanded in other quarters, and as I have shown to be justified, except in a few special cases where it calls for more drastic measures.

We have seen also that the policy of Labour Protection does not involve a kind of State intervention hitherto unknown. The State has long afforded regular administrative and judicial protection to the work of industrial wage-service, and has even interfered in a special manner in the case of children, young men, young women and adult women; and for still longer in the case of adult men, by affording protection in the way of limitation of employment, truck protection and protection in occupation, and by affording protection of contract through the Industrial Regulations, applied to non-factory as well as to factory labour. The application of protection by limitation of employment is thus far from being the first exercise of State interference with the hitherto unrestricted freedom of contract. Nothing will be found in the developments of protection here dealt with, that has not long ago been demanded and granted elsewhere, chiefly in England, Austria and Switzerland.

The economic burden imposed upon the nation by Labour Protection, when compared with that of Labour Insurance, which we have already, will be found to be comparatively small. Those measures which call for the greater sacrifices--protection of married women, and regulation of the factory ten hours working-day--are recommended on all sides by way of international uniform regulations.

Freedom of contract will not be impaired, since such adults as are included under Labour Protection stand in special need of protection, and are as incapable of self-defence as minors in common law; we have discussed and proved this contention point by point. This will certainly soon be recognised generally, even by England and Belgium, whose representatives at the Berlin Conference laid such stress on freedom of contract for adults.

An international and internationally administered code for the whole of Labour Protection is strictly to be avoided.

The wider measures of Labour Protection demanded by the Berlin Conference, and the _von Berlepsch_ Bill,[16] I conclude therefore to be nothing more than a fully justifiable and harmless corollary and supplement to the Social Policy of the Emperor William II. and of Prince Bismark.

By following in the paths already trodden without ill results by separate countries, long ago by some, only lately by others, in paths therefore which have to a certain degree been explored, this policy will need to be subjected to fewer alterations than that great and n.o.ble policy of Labour Insurance which has struck out in entirely new paths, and too often worked in consequence by somewhat unpractical methods.

FOOTNOTE:

[16] See Appendix.

APPENDIX.

INDUSTRIAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (GERMANY).

[_June 1st, 1891_].

We, William, by the grace of G.o.d Emperor of Germany, etc., decree in the name of the Empire, by and with the consent of the Federal Council and Reichstag, as follows:--

_Article I._

After -- 41 of the Industrial Code shall be inserted:

-- 41_a_.

Where, in accordance with the provisions of ---- 105_b_ to 105_h_, employment of a.s.sistants, apprentices and workmen is prohibited in any trading industry on Sundays and holidays, no industrial business shall be carried on on those days in public sale-rooms.

This provision shall not preclude further restrictions by common law of industrial business on Sundays and holidays.

_Article II._

After -- 55 of the Industrial Code shall be inserted.

-- 55_a_.

On Sundays and holidays (-- 105_a_, 2) all itinerant industrial business, so far as it is included in -- 55 (1) 1-3, shall be prohibited, as well as the industrial business of the persons specified in -- 42_b_.

Exceptions may be allowed by the lower administrative authorities. The Federal Council is empowered to issue directions as to the terms and conditions on which exceptions may be allowed.

_Article III._

Chapter VII. of the Industrial Code shall be amended as follows:--

CHAPTER VII.

Industrial workers (journeymen, a.s.sistants, apprentices, managers, foremen, mechanics, factory workers).

I. GENERAL RELATIONS.

-- 105.

The settlement of relations between independent industrial employers and workers shall be left to voluntary agreement, subject to the restrictions laid down by imperial legislation.

-- 105_a_.

Employers cannot oblige their work people to work on Sundays or holidays.

This, however, does not apply to certain kinds of work mentioned further on. Holidays are determined by the State Governments in accordance with local customs and religious belief.

-- 105_b_.

There shall be no work on Sundays and holidays in mines, salines, smelting works, quarries, foundries, factories, workshops, carpenters'

yards, masons' and shipbuilders' yards, brick-fields, and buildings of any kind.