[Diskussionsbeitrag zum Kohlenbergbau, Bd.II, S.764–765, Nr.141]

Emil Lederer: Discussion contribution on coal mining (1920)

This official commission speaking turn, printed in volume II, pp. 764–765, concerns the proposed governance of the German coal industry. Lederer addresses two institutional questions: the Reich Coal Directorate’s executive powers and workers’ representation on the Reich Coal Council. His argument distinguishes effective administration from unrestricted discretion, and designated worker seats from the wider representation of workers’ interests.

Responding to Lindemann, Lederer considers extensive directives to the Directorate consistent with the previous year’s report. Yet § 11 already combines council oversight through an annual budget and rules of procedure with operational independence. He quotes its requirement:

Diese muß dem Reichskohlendirektorium diejenige Handlungsfreiheit und selbständigen Befugnisse gewähren, die zu einer wirksamen und gedeihlichen Geschäftsführung erforderlich sind.

English translation: These rules must grant the Reich Coal Directorate the freedom of action and independent powers necessary for effective and successful management.

Lederer therefore treats the objection as substantially answered, while allowing further provisions under § 11. His position seeks to reconcile institutional direction with the autonomy needed to conduct business.

He then opposes increasing the council’s designated 25% worker share. The decisive point is that appointment categories need not exhaust the social identities of their members:

Es werden sich auch unter den 25% der Verbraucher und den 25%, die vom Reichstag und vom Reichswirtschaftsrat zu ernennen sind, Arbeiter befinden.

English translation: Workers will also be present among the 25% representing consumers and the 25% to be appointed by the Reichstag and the Reich Economic Council.

Thus, the worker quota does not delimit workers’ total influence. Lederer expects the other categories to help articulate employees’ interests. The contribution’s significance lies in this institutional reasoning: executive freedom can coexist with oversight, while social representation can extend beyond formally reserved seats.