United States Steel: A Corporation with a SoulCotter, Arundel
History
United States Steel: A Corporation with a Soul
Cotter, Arundel
United States Steel Corporation
As the world grows older and wiser and civilization progresses,
old ideas are being discarded one by one, and nowhere is this more
noticeable than in the realms of business and industry. Principles of
doing business, once held as cardinal, have in many cases later been
recognized as immoral, not only from the human, but from the economic
standpoint.
The old trading doctrine of _caveat emptor_, or “let the buyer beware,”
is no longer relied on by reputable merchants. They realize that the
man who hopes to build up a sound, steady business must take upon his
own shoulders the responsibility for what he sells both as a question
of honesty and policy. Another principle which may be called “let
the worker beware,” one which laid down the law that the industrial
worker was supposed to be cognizant of whatever risks were involved in
his employment and to assume these risks himself, is gradually being
legislated out of existence, compensation laws of recent years taking
the burden of the dangers of industrial employment off the shoulders
of the worker and placing it where it rightly belongs, on the industry.
But the United States Steel Corporation did not wait for the law-makers
to force upon it the assumption of this liability. Cheerfully and
voluntarily, it accepted for itself the onus of accidents in its plants
before a single state of the Union had passed a Workmen’s Compensation
Act.
More, the compensation relief plan for injured workmen, adopted by the
Corporation in 1910, has served as a model for a number of states in
drawing up liability legislation, and is more liberal in some respects
than the plans of most, if not all, states.
Yet though the Steel Corporation, as evidenced by its action in putting
its compensation plan in force, heartily approves of the theory of
industrial liability legislation, the big company’s management is
strenuously opposed to certain forms that state legislation sometimes
takes. One of these is state insurance, the objection being that this
takes away from the employer all incentive to adopting measures for
accident prevention. For compensation, after all, is not a cure but a
palliative. It does not strike at the root of the disease; and in the
final analysis, the important thing is the prevention of accidents
rather than payment for them after their occurrence.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account