Ohio History Journal
PATRICK D. REAGAN
The Ideology of Social Harmony
and
Efficiency: Workmen's Compensation
in Ohio, 1904-1919
From 1912 through the early 1920s,
progressive reformers tried to
enact social insurance legislation
through a state-by-state and step-
by-step strategy to ameliorate the
industrial conditions of work acci-
dents, sickness, unemployment, and
premature old age. An integral
part of the campaign concerned the
workmen's compensation move-
ment in Ohio from 1904 through 1919.
The successful conclusion to
reform efforts in Ohio stemmed from the
growth and implementa-
tion of a conservative ideology of
mutual accommodation between
the Ohio State Federation of Labor
(OSFL) and the Ohio Manufac-
turers' Association (OMA). This
ideology encompassed an interlock-
ing set of concepts now becoming
familiar to historians of the "orga-
nizational society" in Progressive
America.1 Social constructs in-
creasingly acted upon by the OSFL and
the OMA included the ne-
cessity for social harmony between
conflicting industrial classes,
reliance upon administrative
centralization and expertise, and a
heavy use of rhetoric aimed at promoting
techniques of business-
like economy in new spheres of public
life.
Recent studies of the workmen's
compensation movement argue
that this reform grew out of the
desires of the business community
Patrick D. Reagan is Visiting Instructor
of History at Kenyon College. The author
wishes to thank Robert H. Bremner and K.
Austin Kerr for their assistance in
preparing this article.
1. For a review of the literature, see
Louis Galambos, "The Emerging Organiza-
tional Synthesis of Modern American
History," Business History Review, XLIV (Au-
tumn, 1970), 279-90. For works dealing
with this subject in the areas of business and
labor, see Glenn Porter, The Rise of
Big Business, 1860-1910 (New York, 1973);
Robert H. Wiebe, Businessmen and
Reform (Chicago, 1962); Gabriel Kolko, The
Triumph of Conservatism (New York, 1963); Warren R. Van Tine, The Making of
the
Labor Bureaucrat (Amherst, 1973); and Melvyn Dubofsky, Industrialism
and the
American Worker, 1865-1920 (New York, 1975).
318 OHIO HISTORY
to rationalize one of the costs of
production and to better labor-
management relations through the
manipulation of the political
arena or that similar motives among a
number of interested groups
led to compromise of reform.2 Case
studies of the movement in Mas-
sachusetts, Minnesota, and New York,
however, reach somewhat
different conclusions. The 1911
Massachusetts law established a
voluntary and privately run system
through a "compromise mea-
sure ... supported by labor and either
endorsed or tolerated by
employers." Although Minnesota's
1913 law was "originally viewed
by sophisticated, class-conscious
employers, politicians, and middle-
class reformers as a method for averting
revolution and radical
reform," the state's federation of
labor and the Non-Partisan League
nevertheless sought to obtain more
liberal legislation in 1919. New
York's system began as a compulsory
compensation law in 1910, but
was ruled unconstitutional in a 1911
State Court of Appeals' deci-
sion. Undeterred, social progressives
and organized labor fought
back in New York to gain a moderately
liberal elective compensa-
tion system allowing for state
insurance, employers' mutuals, pri-
vate liability policies, and
self-insurance. The Ohio case revealed
some similarities with the stages of the
course of reform in Mas-
sachusetts, set the pattern for the
second round in New York after
1911, and served as precedent for the
1919 battle over compulsory
compensation legislation between
Republicans and a labor-farmer
coalition in Minnesota.3
While one remains hard-pressed to trace
the exact picture of the
development of the "Ohio Plan"
due to incomplete records and
sketchy secondary accounts, the rough
outlines clearly show active
cooperation among progressive Democratic
politicians in search of
votes, the business-unionist oriented
OSFL, and the politically ac-
tive OMA.4 Ultimately, the
proponents of workmen's compensation
2. James Weinstein, "Big Business
and the Origins of Workmen's Compensation,"
Labor History, VIII (Spring, 1967), 156-74, and Roy Lubove,
"Workmen's Compensa-
tion and the Prerogatives of
Voluntarism," Labor History, VIII (Fall, 1967), 254-79.
Both authors expanded their ideas in,
respectively, Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in
the Liberal State: 1900-1918 (Boston, 1968) and Lubove, The Struggle for Social
Security: 1900-1935 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968).
3. Robert Asher, "Business and
Workers' Welfare in the Progressive Era: Work-
men's Compensation Reform in
Massachusetts, 1880-1911," Business History Review,
XLIII (1969), 473; Asher,
"Radicalism and Reform: State Insurance of Workmen's
Compensation in Minnesota,
1910-1933," Labor History, XIV (Winter, 1973), 25-26;
and Robert F. Wesser, "Conflict and
Compromise: The Workmen's Compensation
Movement in New York, 1890s-1913," Labor
History XII (Summer, 1971), 365-66.
4. The standard account is H.R. Mengert,
"The Ohio Workmen's Compensation
Law," Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Publications, XXIX (1920), 1-48. Uneven
Workmen's Compensation 319
in Ohio used the ideology of social
harmony and efficiency through-
out their campaign: at the 1910 public
hearings to garner initial
support, during the 1911 and 1913
legislative sessions to enact the
system, and between 1913 and 1919 to
conserve the new administra-
tive system.5
The overall course of reform occurred in
six general stages: ren-
ovation of nineteenth century common law
statutes; social inves-
tigation under the auspices of a
temporary state commission; leg-
islative activity by a coalition of
aroused interest groups centered on
leaders of institutionalized labor and
manufacturing seeking a
tolerable accommodation; defense of
reform in the courts and by
popular referendum; revamping of the
system through a turn to a
compulsory law backed by new
administrative structures; and con-
solidation of reform through sound
business practices. In the main,
the Ohio developments followed the
reform pattern set by earlier
elective compensation laws and set the
precedent for later compul-
sory systems.
During the nineteenth century, employees
injured in industrial
accidents sought compensation through
civil actions in Ohio's
courts. However, workers rarely won
awards when they managed to
get their cases to the courts. Employers
benefited from three com-
mon law defenses usually interpreted in
their favor: "assumption of
risk"-in accepting work, employee
assumed the hazards of the job;
the "fellow-servant
doctrine"-fellow workers including laborers,
foremen, and managers would be
personally liable if involved in the
accident; and "contributory
negligence"-the employer was not li-
able if the worker were in any way
responsible for the accident as
determined by the court. Starting in
1904, reformist legislators
tried to balance the scales of
liability in Ohio by enacting legislation
shifting some of the burden from the
individual worker to the manu-
facturing concern in order to cut down
on legal costs, eliminate
increasingly larger and more frequent
judgments in favor of a few
fortunate workers, and improve
worker-management relations
through a series of employer liability
laws.
historical accounts can be found in
Louis Levine, "A Twenty-Year Appraisal of the
Ohio Workmen's Compensation Fund,"
(Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University,
1934), 1-134 and William Elbert Biggs,
"The Handling of Workmen's Compensation
Claims by the Ohio Industrial
Commission," (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Uni-
versity, 1956), 1-41. Some additional
material is found in Hoyt Landon Warner,
Progressivism in Ohio: 1897-1917 (Columbus, 1964), 282-83, 401-02.
5. For perceptive insights about
progressive ideology, see Samuel Haber's excel-
lent Efficiency and Uplift:
Scientific Management in the Progressive Era: 1890-1920
(Chicago, 1964).
320 OHIO HISTORY
The Ohio General Assembly enacted three
such laws between
1904 and 1910. The 1904 Williams bill
modified the assumption of
risk defense by making employers liable
for injuries resulting from
their failure to enforce safety
standards set by the state. The 1910
Norris-Mathews Act abolished the
assumption of risk defense in a
limited number of "dangerous
trades" and implied the abolition of
the fellow-servant doctrine by ruling
that foremen and managers
acted as agents of the employer, who
was now liable. This act substi-
tuted a doctrine of "comparative
negligence" for contributory negli-
gence, making employers liable if the
court ruled employer negli-
gence was more than 50 percent-meaning
that employees could
potentially recover proportional
damages in court. The capstone to
these laws came with the 1910 Metzger
Act which made employees
equal recipients of contractual rights
under an employer's private
liability insurance policy.6
The General Assembly passed a bill in
that same year creating an
Employers' Liability Commission to be
appointed by then
Democratic Governor Judson Harmon. This
typically progressive
tripartite commission of employer,
employee, and public representa-
tives investigated industrial accidents
in Cleveland, heard testi-
mony from employers and labor leaders
indicating dissatisfaction
with the current state of liability
procedures, and drafted a bill
calling for the Legislature to
establish a compulsory workmen's
compensation system.7
With the New York State Court of
Appeals' ruling in the 1911
Ives case that that state's compulsory
system was unconstitutional
under the due process of law clause in
the state's constitution and
the Fourteenth Amendment, Ohio needed
to turn elsewhere. Ohio
legislators considered four alternative
voluntary and elective com-
pensation bills to circumvent possible
constitutional entangle-
ments. After a compromise caucus
between the OSFL and the OMA,
state Senator William Green, past
president of the Ohio District,
United Mineworkers of America,
introduced what became the 1911
Workmen's Compensation Act by a vote of
29-1 in the Senate and
84-18 in the House in March-April,
1911.8 This law set several prec-
6. Mengert, "The Ohio Workmen's
Compensation Law," 7-8, and Biggs, "The
Handling of Workmen's Compensation
Claims by the Ohio Industrial Commission,"
19-21. For national developments, see
Lawrence M. Friedman and Jack Ladinsky,
"Social Change and the Law of
Industrial Accidents," Columbia Law Review, LXVII
(1967), 51-83.
7. Ohio Employers' Liability Commission,
Report, Parts I-III (Columbus, 1911).
8. Proceedings of Twenty-Eighth
Annual Convention of Ohio State Federation of
Workmen's Compensation 321
edents: the elective feature was a
compromise between voluntarism
and an incipient welfare state; in
excluding small employers it did
not discriminate in favor of large
manufacturers completely; in
creating a new state agency it
centralized administration; and in
compromising the demands of the OSFL and
the OMA it promoted
the notion of social harmony.
The 1911 elective act established a
state insurance fund to be paid
into by all those employers choosing to
participate who employed
five or more people-the principle of
social insurance was now at
least partially accepted. The fund would
be administered by a three-
member State Liability Board of Awards
appointed by the governor
as full-time salaried bureaucrats
serving for staggered six-year
terms. Employers would pay 90 percent of
the total premium, while
workers would pay the remaining 10
percent. Thus labor's demand
that industry shoulder most of the
burden was balanced by the
employers' desire to regularize the
costs of accidents. Several other
compromises were included in the
provisions of the elective law.
Employers who paid into the state fund
would no longer be liable in
the courts for injuries other than those
resulting from an employer's
violation of state safety standards.
Employees would receive 66 and
2/3 percent of their weekly wage up to
a maximum of $12 weekly and
medical costs adjusted according to
administrative schedules for
partial and total disability developed
by experts on the Board of
Awards after a one-week waiting period
to rule out minor injuries.
What did each group gain by these rules?
Participating employers
could now accurately account for accident
compensation as a pre-
dictable cost of production in the
annual premium and benefit from
a better image with their workers.
Workers could avoid past prob-
lems such as the inability to afford
expensive court battles, extended
litigation, and irregular or delayed
awards from the courts. Addi-
tionally, workers' claims would be
adjudicated by a public adminis-
trator working with predetermined, i.e.,
certain, schedules.
The final compromise concerned legal
issues. While the employer
could now choose among state insurance,
private stock insurance, or
self-insurance, he would remain liable
in the courts and unable to
use the remnants of common law defenses
if he did not join the state
fund. On the other hand, if the employer
did join the state fund,
injured employees suing for failure to
live up to state safety stan-
Labor (1911), 16, 19, 97; Report of
Legislative Agent Ike S. Byrum and Executive
Board of the Ohio State Federation of
Labor (1911), 6-8; Ohio General Assembly,
Senate, Journal, CII (1911), 288,
and House, Journal, CII (1911), 852; and Mengert,
10-11.
322 OHIO HISTORY
dards could either go to the courts or
apply to the Board of Awards-
but not both, as workers in Great
Britain could do.9
Governor Harmon appointed the
respective employer, employee,
and public members of the Board of
Awards in 1911-Morris
Woodhull, T.J. Duffy of the OSFL, and
Wallace D. Yaple. Yaple and
Duffy began an educational campaign to
attract employers, and
with Woodhull they developed
bureaucratic rules, occupational pre-
mium rates, and disability schedules in
order to institutionalize the
compensation system. In literature
which they passed out to em-
ployers, the Commissioners stated the
ideology of social harmony
explicitly:
In conclusion, we desire to suggest
that the provisions of the new law are
worthy of the most careful
consideration of every person engaged in indus-
trial enterprise, whether employer or
employe[e]. Its general adoption will,
we believe, convert the only uncertain
element in the cost of production into
one of absolute certainty, which cannot
help but be of mutual advantage to
both employer and employe[e].
We therefore hope for the active
cooperation of all classes in our efforts to
make the law successful in its
operation.10
Proponents of the new
system-politicians, leaders of the OSFL,
and many, but not all, employers
represented by the OMA-sought
to meet the attacks directed against
the law by private liability
companies and some personal injury
lawyers who challenged the
constitutionality of the law on the
grounds of the state's failure to
provide for due process of law. These
opponents argued that em-
ployers were deprived of their
property-their money in pre-
miums-and workers in work accident
litigation were deprived of
their right to civil action through a
trial by jury. This attack floun-
dered when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled
on February 6, 1912, that
the act was constitutional under the
police powers of the state and
that it infringed on neither employer
nor employee rights.11
9. Mengert, 12-13; the text of the law
is in 102 O.L., 524 (1911); Ohio State Liabil-
ity Board of Awards, Workmen's
Compensation Act of the State of Ohio with Appendix
and Notes to the Sections (Columbus, 1911); Board of Awards, Ohio State
Insurance
Manual: Rules and Rates Adopted
November 20, 1912 (Columbus, 1912);
Board of
Awards, Does the Workmen's
Compensation Law of Ohio Protect the Employers of
Ohio? (Columbus, 1912); and Board of Awards, Some
Prominent Features of the
Compensation Laws of the States of
Ohio, Washington, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and
California (n.c., 1912).
10. Ohio State Liability Board of
Awards, Workmen's Compensation Act of the
State of Ohio (102 O.L., 524) (Columbus, 1911), 14.
11. Ohio State ex. rel. Yaple v.
Creamer, Treasurer of State, 85 O.S. 349 (1912).
|
Workmen's Compensation 323 |
|
|
324 OHIO HISTORY
Organized labor's growing legislative
influence led the OSFL to
search for stronger compensation
legislation and constitutional
safeguards in the form of a
constitutional amendment allowing for a
compulsory system run by the state and
paid for wholly by
industry.12 At the 1912 Ohio
constitutional convention, labor dele-
gates gathered support for a referendum
amendment calling for a
compulsory system, employer-financed
premiums, state administra-
tion, and the total abolition of the common and
employer liability
law defenses except with regard to the
breaking of state safety stan-
dards. In the general election of
September 3, 1912, the amendment
passed by a vote of 321,588 for and
211,772 against.13
With the aid of Democratic Governor
James M.Cox, the labor
group in the Ohio General Assembly
pushed through the Green
Compulsory Workmen's Compensation Act on
February 26, 1913,
with a unanimous vote in both houses. In
another series of prear-
ranged compromises, the 1913 law amended
the 1911 act. Em-
ployers of five or more people now had
to contribute 10 percent of
their annual premium to a new state
catastrophe reserve fund cre-
ated to guard the solvency of the state
system. In a trade-off with the
OMA, the OSFL agreed that employers
could still elect to self-
insure beyond the required 10 percent to
the new fund, but only
after the Board of Awards had approved
the private plan to ensure
its meeting or exceeding the state's own
insurance standards. Em-
ployers joining the state system would
pay the complete annual
premium, but the premium would be
adjusted by changes in the
merit rating schedules prepared by the
Board of Awards. State em-
ployees also came under the new system.
Additionally, employers
had to file annual employment and wage
statistics with the Board,
whose increasing powers now became
institutionalized.
Drawing on the administrative reforms in
Wisconsin, Ohio refor-
mers provided the bureaucratic
complement to the compulsory sys-
tem when they passed the Industrial
Commission Act of Ohio on
March 12, 1913. The new tri-member
Commission not only took
over the duties of the old 1911 State
Liability Board of Awards, but
also those of a number of other state
agencies. This centralizing
measure consolidated the functions of
establishing safety rules, pro-
12. Proceedings of Twenty-Ninth
Annual Convention of Ohio State Federation of
Labor (1912), 16. For the growth of the
OSFL's political power, see Patricia Terpack
Rose, "Design and Expediency: The
Ohio State Federation of Labor as a Legislative
Lobby, 1883-1935," (Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1975), chapter IV.
13. Constitution of Ohio with
Amendments Proposed by the Constitutional Conven-
tion of 1912 and Approved by the
People September 3, 1912 (Columbus,
1912), 17.
Workmen's Compensation 325
viding voluntary arbitration and
conciliation services in labor dis-
putes, establishing state employment
agencies and licensing private
ones, investigating unemployment
problems, collecting all statistics
in regard to labor and industry, and
censoring movies. In a move
supported by the OSFL, the reform forces
had strengthened the
conservative functions of the
compensation system. The Industrial
Commission now set and collected
premiums, determined disability
schedules, adjudicated cases, and
dispensed awards in a burgeoning
network of public administration of
workmen's compensation.14
Governor Cox appointed Yaple and Duffy
of the old Board of
Awards and M.B. Hammond, an economics
professor at Ohio State
University, to the new Industrial
Commission. By maintaining con-
tinuity with the old Board and
recognizing Hammond's role as ex-
pert, Cox reinforced the ideology of
social harmony and administra-
tive efficiency. In one of its early
bulletins, the Commission drew
attention to its grounding in that
ideology:
The creation of the Industrial
Commission of Ohio was a development of the
idea that in order to secure the
greatest efficiency and economy in the
administration of public affairs modern
business methods should be applied
to the organization and conduct of the
affairs of the state.15
Opponents of the compulsory system
renewed their offensive
against reform, using traditional
anti-monopoly rhetoric. Commer-
cial liability companies wished to
profit from the expanding field of
accident compensation. They did not
oppose the use of the insurance
principle in regard to dealing with industrial
accidents, but they did
oppose a section of the 1913 law which
excluded private companies
from writing compensation policies in
Ohio. Various representa-
tives of these disgruntled companies
canvassed the state to drum up
opposition to "state monopoly"
amidst Ohio employers. For instance,
P. Tecumseh Sherman, onetime factory
inspector in New York and
longtime opponent of any form of social
insurance, argued to the
business community that state monopoly
was unfair to private com-
panies accustomed to a competitive
system. Arthur Vorys, ex-
Superintendent of the Ohio State
Department of Insurance, spoke
14. Ohio General Assembly, Senate, Journal,
CIII (1913), 213, 281, and House,
Journal, CIII
(1913), 423, 601. For the OSFL's support, see Proceedings (1912), 44,
82-83 and (1913), 11-12, 19. The text of
the laws and other pertinent information are
in Bulletin of the Industrial
Commission of Ohio, I (August 1, 1914), 1-50. Also see
Warner, 401-02.
15. "The Industrial
Commission," Bulletin of the Industrial Commission of Ohio. I
(December 1, 1913), 2.
326 OHIO HISTORY
along similar lines in defending
private insurers' interests. E.W.
Davis, secretary of the Insurance
Federation of Ohio, went so far as
to openly misconstrue the "open
liability" clause of the 1913 statute
in propaganda aimed at pressuring
hesitant or reluctant employers
into opposing the new system.16
For the next decade Commissioners such
as Yaple and Duffy
fought a seesaw battle with private
liability insurance companies to
keep Ohio's compensation system within
the purview of the state. In
1913 commercial stock companies filed
petitions for a referendum to
repeal that section of the 1913 law
forbidding private carriers, but
the state's Attorney-General and the
Secretary of State threw out
the petitions on the grounds of forged
and fraudulent signatures.
The stock companies did manage to write
some workmen's com-
pensation policies in 1916-17 after a
favorable ruling by a judge
friendly to these private interests.
Only after a prolonged fight
through the courts, a referendum, and a
legislative battle did
reformers thwart the efforts of private
companies to practically
change Ohio's compulsory system to an
elective one. Once again, the
OSFL in cooperation with the
progressive Governor Cox and the
OMA led the reform coalition to
victory.17
While opponents continued to challenge
the state system, the In-
dustrial Commission formulated
bureaucratic rules of procedure,
refined the complexities of merit
rating to stimulate a "safety first"
movement and attract hesitant
employers, and worked to put the
state fund and the new catastrophe
reserve fund on a sound actuar-
ial foundation. In these years the
Commission lowered premium
rates, handed out rebates or premium
credits, and incorporated 90
percent of Ohio's eligible employers into the state system.18
16. P. Tecumseh Sherman, A Criticism
of the Ohio Law of Workmen's Compensa-
tion Insurance (n.c., [1913?]); Arthur I. Vorys, State Insurance ([Cincinnati?],
1913);
E.W. Davis, Workmen's Compensation
and Employer's Liability Insurance in Ohio
(n.c., [1914?]) and The
Truth About Workmen's Compensation and State Insurance in
Ohio (Cleveland, 1915).
17. Wallace D. Yaple, "Workmen's Compensation-the
Ohio Law," Bulletin of the
Industrial Commission of Ohio, I (August 1, 1914), 51-65, and "Evolution of Work-
men's Compensation Legislation," in
Ibid., II (January 1, 1915), 3-12; Thomas J.
Duffy, "Advantages of Compulsory
State Insurance," American Labor Legislation
Review, III (1913), 247-52, and "Ohio's Experience with
State Insurance," U.S. De-
partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin No. 210: Third Annual Meet-
ing of the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions
(Washington, D.C., 1917), 227-36; M.B.
Hammond, "The Ohio State Fund for Work-
men's Compensation," American
Labor Legislation Review, XII (1922), 210-18. The
best account of private liability
companies' opposition is in Levine, 18-90, along with
Mengert, 23-25 and Thomas J. Donnelly, Report
of the Legislative Agent of the Ohio
State Federation of Labor (1917), 9-10.
18. See the Ohio Industrial Commission, The
Ohio State Insurance Manual: Rules
|
Workmen's Compensation 327 |
|
|
328 OHIO HISTORY
Dissatisfied insurance agents shifted
their attack to question the
financial solvency of the state fund,
only to be rebuffed anew. Gov-
ernor Cox appointed the customary
tripartite board of employer,
employee, and public representatives to
find disinterested auditors
to investigate the state fund and
settle the issue. The secretaries of
the OSFL and the OMA along with the
Auditor of State chose Miles
M. Dawson, consulting actuary from New
York City and longtime
social insurance advocate, and E.H.
Downey, special deputy of the
Pennsylvania Insurance Department, to
conduct the audit.19 The
application of the notion of social
harmony again aided the reform
coalition in institutionalizing
workmen's compensation in Ohio.
Dawson found the state fund to be both
financially strong and
actuarially sound, while Downey,
slightly more critical from a more
liberal standpoint, criticized delays
in claims adjustment and casti-
gated the General Assembly's niggardly
low appropriations for the
Workmen's Compensation Division of the
Industrial Commission.20
By 1919 elective and compulsory
workmen's compensation laws
had replaced nineteenth century
common-law defenses favoring em-
ployers and modifications of those
defenses in the employer liability
laws of the first decade of the
twentieth century. Social insurance
reform of a limited kind-workmen's
compensation legislation of
any sort was considered by reformers as
only the first step in social
insurance-resulted from the active
cooperation of political progres-
sives mostly from the Democratic party
such as governors Harmon
in 1911 and Cox in 1913, the
conservative leadership of the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor affiliate, the
Ohio State Federation of
Labor, and the astute legislative
efforts of the Ohio Manufacturers'
Association. As early as the public
hearings in front of the Ohio
Employers' Liability Commission in
1910, leading manufacturers
and business unionist leaders had
indicated their interest in some
improved form of compensation for
industrial accidents and death as
a means of both rationalizing their
respective group's economic in-
terests and promoting social harmony in
a society many saw as torn
by industrial warfare. Employers wanted
stabilized and limited
costs in the form of low insurance
premiums set by the state, while
labor leaders worked for certain and
standardized awards from a
public administrative agency.
Compensation standards in Ohio
and Rates (Columbus, 1914-16) for the annual revisions of the
merit rating system
and the changes in rates for the various
occupational classifications.
19. Mengert, 40-41 and Thomas J. Donnelly,
Report of the Legislative Agent of the
Ohio State Federation of Labor
(1919-20), 52-53.
20. E.H. Downey and Miles M. Dawson, Actuarial
Audit of the Ohio State Insur-
ance Fund as of March 1, 1919 (Columbus, 1919).
Workmen's Compensation 329
went beyond the more limited goal of
competitive funds run both by
the state and private companies sought
by the national middle-class
reform group leading the state-by-state
campaigns, the American
Association for Labor Legislation. Yet
success in Ohio arose from
the growth and application of the reform
ideology of social harmony,
administrative efficiency, and business
economy in public pro-
grams. Although disagreements between
the OSFL and the OMA
over the setting of disability schedules
and annual premiums
stretched mutual accommodation to the
limit at times, the system
was institutionalized as an agent of
social conservation by 1919.21
Organizational leaders of labor and
industry voiced their accep-
tance of industrial cooperation at
various times. State Senator Wil-
liam Green, who had introduced both the
1911 elective law and the
1913 compulsory law, went so far as to
support the logical extension
of social insurance to state health
insurance-although he back-
tracked on this position later when he
moved up the A.F. of L.
hierarchy. In recognizing the import of
the new law in 1913, the
OSFL combined the offices of
secretary-treasurer and legislative
agent, making the new position a
full-time salaried one which the
incumbent held well into the 1920s.22
So fully had the leadership of
the OSFL taken the principle of social
harmony to heart that Presi-
dent John Voll stood before the
assembled convention delegates in
1915 to denounce private liability
companies' attacks on Ohio's com-
pensation system in words that the OMA's
leaders might have
chosen:
Their policy and method of
administering, intimidates and coerces the
working man and his family, and, in
addition, creates dissension between
the employer and employe[e], thus
breeding social unrest that tears at the
very vitals of society.23
Following similar development, the OMA
in January 1914 hired
Malcolm Jennings, ex-legislative
correspondent at the statehouse
21. For background on the American
Association for Labor Legislation, see
Lubove, The Struggle for Social
Security, 29-44 and the group's journal, the American
Labor Legislation Review. For the 1910 hearings, see Ohio Employers' Liability
Com-
mission, Report, Part II: Minutes
of Evidence and Record of Public Hearings (Col-
umbus, 1911).
22. Charles A. Madison, American
Labor Leaders (New York, 1950), 110; Proceed-
ings of Thirtieth Annual Convention of Ohio State Federation
of Labor (1913), 121;
and Thomas J. Donnelly, "Methods
and Accomplishments in Ohio." American Feder-
ationist, XXXIII (1926), 550-54. Warren Van Tine discusses the
importance of this
step in relation to national unions in The
Making of the Labor Bureaucrat, 143 ff.
23. Proceedings of Thirty-second
Annual Convention. (1915). 24.
330 OHIO HISTORY
since 1883 and key man in the 1911 and
1913 compromises, as its
new secretary to work alongside a
like-minded general counsel. So
strongly did the Ohio State Medical
Association feel about the possi-
bilities of state health insurance
following on the heels of work-
men's compensation, that in 1913 it
hired George V. Sheridan, a
newspaper reporter turned business
administrator, as secretary,
journal editor, and legislative
watchdog.24
As the first step in social insurance in
Ohio, workmen's compensa-
tion succeeded because of mutual
accommodation between the lead-
ers of organized interest groups
instrumental in building the new
"organizational society." By
1913 the path for compulsory work-
men's compensation had been cleared and
institutionalization of the
system through the new Industrial
Commission was assured. The
1920s and 1930s witnessed further such
administrative structuring
with the creation of the Department of
Industrial Relations in 1921
and the establishment of the Division of
Industrial Safety and
Hygiene in 1925 as the two key stages.25
The way seemed clear for the "next
step"-state health insur-
ance-as reformers geared up in the years
from 1915 through 1919.
Yet the triumph of the ideology of
conservative reform encompas-
sing social harmony in an age of
industrial violence, administrative
efficiency in an era almost obsessed
with public order, and business
economy in a time which saw the first
tentative expansion of gov-
ernmental functions beyond the confines
of the business commun-
ity, eventually led to the defeat of
that "next step" in Ohio.26 That
reform ideology led politicians, labor
leaders, and many manufac-
turers to accept social accommodation as
a political reality in a
battle originally aimed at ameliorating
the effects of industrial acci-
dents on those people immediately
affected-workers. For the first
time the state of Ohio affirmed the idea
that those workers deserved
social attention from public agencies.
Yet so thoroughly did the
ideology of social harmony and
efficiency take root that an anony-
mous investigator for the Ohio Health
and Old Age Insurance Com-
24. James K. Mercer, Ohio Legislative
History, I: 1909-1913 (Columbus, [1914?]),
660; Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the Ohio Manufacturers' Association
(1914-15), passim; C.B.
Galbreath, "Daniel Joseph Ryan," Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Publications, XXXII (1923), 571-89; and George V. Sheridan,
"Conclusions
Reached as the Result of Six Years'
Experience as Executive Secretary of the Ohio
State Medical Association," Ohio
State Medical Journal, XV (1919), 410-17.
25. Levine, "A Twenty-Year
Appraisal of the Ohio Workmen's Compensation
Fund," 119-34.
26. Patrick D. Reagan, "Early
Social Insurance Reform in Ohio: 1910-1919," (M.A.
thesis, Ohio State University, 1976).
Workmen's Compensation 331
mission of 1917-19 could discuss the
role of the modern industrial
worker in terms that well might raise
emotional tempers to a high
pitch in a time other than the
Progressive Era:
These health problems were forced upon
the attention of the country by
the national exigency. National needs
required maximum production by
every industrial agency. It became a
plain proposition that maximum pro-
duction could not be attained except by
the physical fitness of every unit.
For the first time in generations man
power was valued at its full worth.
The old system in which men disabled by
sickness or accident were scrapped
and new men took their place, rapidly
broke down. A "new industrial day"
came for the worker. He was raised to
the level of the machine on which he
worked. Care was extended to keep him
fit, just as care had always been
extended to keep the machinery fit and
the dumb beasts well fed and
efficient.27
27. No author, "Health Problems in
Industry," Ohio Health and Old Age Insur-
ance Commission Papers, Series 1120, Box
3, File 10, Ohio Historical Society, Co-
lumbus, Ohio.