period if disability continues for 2 weeks or more; in one State 41 if disability continues for 3 weeks; in 6 States 42 if for 4 weeks or more; in 2 States 43 if for more than 30 days; in 6 States 44 if for 6 weeks or more; in 1 State 46 if for more than 7 weeks; and in 1 State 47 if for 8 weeks or more.

Table 12 classifies the States according to length of waiting period:

TABLE 12.-COMPENSATION STATES, CLASSIFIED BY LENGTH OF WAITING PERIOD.

Probably no other feature of compensation laws is considered and debated more than the waiting period. It is maintained, especially by organized labor, that the laws in this respect are by far inadequate, since the large majority of industrial injuries cause disability of less than two weeks. There is a general tendency toward reducing the waiting period, 18 States 18 amending their laws to this effect during the past 2 years, and Utah reducing its period from 10 to 3 days.

41 Oklahoma.

48

42 Four weeks or more, Alabama, Delaware, and Illinois; over 4 weeks, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

43 Washington, Wyoming.

44 Six weeks or more, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee; over 6 weeks, Missouri.

46 New York.

47 Alaska.

48 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont.

The loss of even a week's wages to the average workman would create a hardship or at least cause inconvenience to his family. On the other hand, several objections are advanced against the abolition of the waiting period altogether. There is the supposed danger of increased malingering; another objection is the undue increase in administrative expenses. There is an irreducible minimum amount of expense involved in the settlement of every case, and a point may be reached where the cost of administering a case may exceed the compensation award. This difficulty will be obviated to some extent, however, by the fact that in many cases the injured employee will make no claim for compensation when the injury is slight and the award is small.

COMPENSATION BENEFITS.

The theory underlying the old employers' liability system is the payment of damages to an employee for an injury resulting from the employer's fault or negligence. It is recompense for a wrong. The new compensation system, with unimportant exceptions, abolishes the whole question of negligence and bases its justification upon economic necessity. Instead of the least able unit of industry assuming its risks, the consuming public, acting through the employer, furnishes relief to injured workers by fixed awards.

The question arises, however, as to the extent to which an employee should be compensated for his losses sustained as a result of the injury. On the one hand it is maintained that the entire cost of rehabilitation and restoration of earning capacity, including full wages, or more if necessary, and adequate medical treatment, should be borne by the industry; and if the employee is totally and permanently incapacitated he should receive an adequate life pension. On the other hand it is contended that only major injuries should be compensated for, and then only for a small part of the wage loss. In most of the States the compensation scale has been based, in theory at least, upon the loss of earning power of the injured workman, while a number of States, notably Oregon and Washington, in providing fixed pensions have based their awards upon the worker's need rather than his loss of earning capacity.

No 2 of the 45 States have identical compensation provisions, and few States seem to have followed any definite theory in this respect. Nevertheless, two factors have operated in determining the amount of compensation provided in various State laws: (1) Loss of earning capacity, and (2) social need. In general it may be said that State workmen's compensation schedules are based upon loss of earning power modified both by the employee's need and by the desire to limit the employer's burden. Thus, the expression of compensation bene

fits in percentages of wages clearly shows that loss of wages was a determining factor, whereas the adoption of a sliding scale of benefits in accordance with the number of dependents shows the effect of the social need factor. On the other hand, the desire not to burden the employer unduly finds expression in the limitations upon the amount of medical service, the weekly compensation payments, the periods during which compensation is to be paid, and finally upon the percentages of wages themselves. The necessity for a workable law, therefore, not excessively burdensome to the employer and not conducive to malingering, while affording such reasonable benefits to the injured workman as to prevent hardship to himself and family, has led to a wide variety of attempts to determine the proper amounts to be awarded.

Every injured employee should receive adequate compensation, which should include unlimited medical service and full indemnity for loss of earnings resulting from the injury. This would also fulfill the requirements as to social needs, assuming, of course, that the workers' wages adequately meet their needs.

Compensation benefits may be classified according as they apply to death, total disability, and partial disability. The provisions for each class usually vary, and there may also be different provisions for permanent and temporary disability. In addition to these compensation provisions most of the laws provide for medical, surgical, and hospital treatment, and in most of the States for burial in case of fatal injuries as well.

SCALE.

The compensation scale is usually based upon the earnings of the injured employee, ranging from 50 to 663 per cent of his weekly or monthly wages at the time of injury or for a prescribed period preceding it. In the case of minors, however, an exception is sometimes made, the law recognizing the fact that the wage of a minor would naturally increase as he grows older. Twelve States 19 make provision upon this point.

The weekly benefits are, as a rule, also subject to a maximum and a minimum limit. The period during which compensation is paid varies also, the usual provision in case of death being from 5 to 8 years, and in case of disability payment during disability, with a maximum of 300 to 500 weeks, and frequently during life in case of permanent total disability. A further limitation may be prescribed stipulating that the total compensation shall not exceed a certain fixed amount. To compare accurately the compensation benefits

49 California, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

awarded in the several States it is necessary to take into consideration the present value of those benefits-i. e., whether the compensation is paid outright as a lump sum or whether it is paid in periodical installments covering a long period of time. For example, a lump sum of $4,000 considerably exceeds the present worth of payments of $10 a week for 400 weeks. Similarly the present value of a payment of $20 a week for 100 weeks exceeds that of a payment of $10 a week for 200 weeks. However, experience has shown that, on the average, greater economic benefit will result from continuing payments.

Table 13 shows the provisions of each State as to (1) percentage of weekly wages, (2) maximum weekly payments, and (3) maximum period and amount of compensation in case of death, permanent total disability, and partial disability.