been preliminary. We have been a nation of wasters because of the fullness of our resources. It is still too frequently true that we do not regard our man power as a resource, but enter into compensation work and rehabilitation work largely from the standpoint of sympathy with the injured man. We should not decry this sympathy. It makes for fullness of effort on the part of all of us, but employers and governmental officials alike must recognize clearly that the future program for rehabilitation work need not be based alone on sympathy for the condition of the injured or his family. It may rest squarely on the sound economic platform of conservation of our most important resource and the most essential factor in even our machine age-the wage earner who has become a trained member of industrial society. Chairman WRIGHT. The next number, the subject of which is the "Responsibility of industry in the civilian rehabilitation movement" by Mr. C. L. Collens, president, Reliance Electric & Engineering Co., Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Collens. RESPONSIBILITY OF INDUSTRY IN THE CIVILIAN REHABILITATION MOVEMENT CLARENCE L. COLLENS, President, Reliance Electric and Engi- Mr. Chairman and friends of the civilian rehabilitation movement: Five years ago the attitude of society, as well as industry toward the hazards of employment might have been expressed somewhat as follows: Do everything possible to prevent accidents but unfortunately accidents are bound to occur. If accidents occur, workmen's compensation will take care of the injured employee. Industry felt in some cases further responsibility toward the injured employee, but it was generally expressed by some form of pension system or by placing the injured employee in some easy job, such as a gateman, a watchman, or an elevator operator. But since then, in the last four years certainly, the attitude of society has changed toward the hazards of employment, as expressed in the Federal and State laws relating to civilian rehabilitation. To the slogan "Safety first" and to "Do everything possible to prevent accidents" is now added the tenet, "Do everything possible to reinstate the injured employee in some equally useful, equally gainful occupation for which his handicap does not disqualify him." In fact, the difference between compensation, or the old attitude, and rehabilitation might be illustrated by a story. Picture to yourself this scene: A large, buxom colored woman, dress torn, sitting on the curb, bundles scattered in all directions; a policeman interviewing an automobile driver who had evidently knocked her down. An officious legal-looking man comes up to the colored woman and says, “Madam, come right this way. You can get damages for this." 66 Good Lawd, Boss, Ah don't need no more damages. What Ah needs is repairs." Is industry assuming its full responsibility toward the civilian rehabilitation movement? I think not, but it is largely caused by a lack of knowledge of what the possibilities are and of what is actually being done. Industry needs the civilian rehabilitation movement; first, because it brings to industry trained specialists at the time that a plant executive is faced with the problem of an injured employee. The larger industrial organizations in the country have specialists who can properly handle the work, but in the smaller establishments we do not find men who are fully qualified to cope with all phases of the problem. And there is much illadvised effort. This is illustrated by the case of a lineman employed by one of the power companies down State who was badly crushed by a falling pole. He obtained, through his workmen's compensation, $60 a month. His employer felt responsibility and was supplementing that by the payment of $100 a month, which made up the full earnings which he had received before the accident. With the $160 a month he was developing into a professional loafer. Before the accident he and his wife were buying their home on the instalment plan. His wife had developed cancer. After the accident, because of his illness and loafing tendencies, he had given up his payments on the house and was buying an automobile on the instalment plan. Once a month, even though he had recovered sufficiently to go about the streets and play pool in pool rooms, he drove to within one block of his employer's office, parked his automobile, and went into the office apparently under great suffering to receive his $100 a month. We learned of the case and of course took hold of it in the right way, and the man is being retrained. I think the employer appreciates fully the lack of wisdom of the course that was followed by him. Civilian rehabilitation also brings to industry the cooperation of similarly injured employees. We had a case here recently in Cleveland of Jim Blazeley, who several years ago lost a limb in a railway accident. He had since been an operator of a steam shovel. Recently he caught his left hand in the gears so that it became necessary to amputate the left arm. Well, he felt that the future for him was absolutely hopeless. He didn't see, how he could continue in the job that he had, but we brought to him a man who has also lost a left arm and who was equipped with a Dorrance hook. Even though the latter was inexperienced in the operation of a steam shovel, we were soon able to demonstrate to the injured employee that it was perfectly possible to operate effectively and efficiently the control levers with the Dorrance hook. He now sees hope for the future and feels that it is perfectly possible to go back into his previous employment at the same rate that he was previously earning, 70 cents an hour. Another assistance that industry gets from civilian rehabilitation is in removing the attitude of suspicion with which an injured employee views any plans for his future made by the employer alone. But men from the outside, as well as other injured employees for whom much has been done, can do a great deal to correct the suspicion that sometimes exists. And, of course, industry needs civilian rehabilitation because it is economically sound, socially just, and conserves one of the greatest assets that industry has-that is, the productivity of our employees. The result of the past five years fully justifies all the efforts that have been made in the civilian rehabilitation movement, and industry must now assume its full share of the cooperation toward that movement and lend whole-hearted support. First, industry must eliminate the idea that is very prevalent that civilian rehabilitation is in the same category as all charitable and philanthropic effort. Civilian rehabilitation is not charity. It is part of the regular educational system of the Federal and State Governments. It is no more charity than any form of apprentice or technical training. The injury merely qualifies the employee to receive that training. Workmen's compensation is not charity but is recognized by society as a right to which the employee is entitled by reason of the risks of employment. Civilian rehabilitation is simply carrying industrial justice one step farther and recognizes the right of any injured employee, by reason of the risks of employment, to be reinstated in some equally gainful, useful occupation for which his injury does not disqualify him. Industry must also cooperate to a greater extent in the hiring of handicapped workmen. There seems to be a tendency on the part of many employment managers to feel that a handicapped workman is not an efficient workman. Of course, retraining or rehabilitation does not change human nature. A man who is a lazy and inefficient worker before rehabilitation will probably be just as lazy and inefficient after rehabilitation, although I think the tendency, if anything, is in the other direction, because certainly in many cases the injury does bring a little more serious aspect toward life and toward life responsibilities. But the whole effort of civilian rehabilitation, if I understand it correctly, is to develop 100 per cent efficient workmen. Each case is analyzed from the standpoint of the man's previous experience and education, his mental and physical capabilities, his inclinations and the facts of the handicap, and then some job is chosen for which the injured employee can be developed and trained into an 100 per cent efficient workman. I personally feel that the average efficency should be higher than in the case of the workman who has not suffered injury, as greater care will be taken in selecting a course of training for which the man's experience and abilities fully qualify him and there will be fewer misfits. Industry must get over its impression that greater risks are involved in having an injured employee at work. The tendency, if anything, is the other way, as the employee is more careful by reason of his having once been injured. Furthermore, the character of the first injury is naturally taken into account as not introducing an additional risk in connection with the job for which the employee is restrained. In Ohio, as in most States, the employer is not penalized in the event of a second major injury causing total disability. The additional compensation because of total disability comes out of a general fund and the employer is merely penalized for the major injury occurring in his plant. In the past year there have been only two cases in the State of Ohio where a second major injury has occurred resulting in total disability. And industry must also cooperate in endeavoring to determine the possibilities of employment of men with different kinds of handicaps in different manufacturing operations. We have been gradually developing experience and technique, but there is much more to learn. The plant executive and the plant foreman who are close to the manufacturing operations can better realize some of the possibilities than can men from the outside. Civilian rehabilitation needs cooperation from industry in determining the full possibilities of employment. There must be cooperation between workmen's compensation and civilian rehabilitation in connection with lump sum awards so that the award to be made can be so used as to assist in any plan of rehabilitation. We had one case, here in Cleveland, where a selfinsurer decided that the best thing for his injured employee to do was to buy a farm. With the lump sum award he purchased a very poor farm outside of Cleveland, a farm that already was mortgaged above its real value. In the course of a year or two the employee will find that he can not make a success of farming in that locality. He will lose his entire equity in the farm because the mortgage is more than its real value and no progress will have been made in permanently reinstating him in useful employment. Industry must cooperate fully with the workmen's compensation agencies and with the civilian rehabilitation movement to endeavor to so use any funds that are available from compensation that the future of the employee is properly safeguarded. Mr. Duffy has already brought out the great economic benefits of civilian rehabilitation. I think that industry little appreciates how small is the cost and how great is the economic benefit. We have had any number of cases here in Cleveland similar to those Mr. Duffy cited in his address. There is one case of a punch-press operator, earning 35 cents an hour, who lost part of one hand in the punch press. He was retrained as an acetylene welder and went back into employment in the same plant with an earning capacity of 80 cents an hour. In such cases not only the man himself, but his whole family are rehabilitated, both socially and economically. Another young fellow came to us recently who had lost his right leg below the knee, part of his left hand, the tips of the fingers on his right hand, and one eye. This was in a railroad accident that happened when he was a boy playing on the tracks. He had been through school and was referred to civilian rehabilitation for further training. He was trained as a battery and ignition repair man and is now in one of the battery and ignition repair shops earning $40 a week. When he first went to this establishment we felt that he should not be given more than $25 a week, but the man said, after trying him out, "He is fully worth it. He is efficient and can handle the work just as well as a normal workman, and is fully earning the $40 a week that he is being paid." I have merely two recommendations to make from the standpoint of industry. One is that in each industrial community there should be cooperation with whatever agencies are handling civilian rehabilitation through a small advisory committee which is drawn from the industrial establishment of that community. Industry needs a little more education on the matter of civilian rehabilitation and can get a little closer to the problems if there is in each industrial community some advisory committee cooperating with the civilian rehabilitation movement. And industry also needs much greater publicity on the subject of civilian rehabilitation and what is being done. The desks of the executive heads and of the executive plant managers of all industrial establishments are simply flooded with literature on the "Safety-first " movement. In contrast with this, during the past year, I have received but one piece of literature on civilian rehabilitation. And yet civilian rehabilitation has publicity of great interest to place before the executives of industrial establishments; publicity that will have a greater appeal than is possible under the |