Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-04-17
The Building Problem.


l notice various statements in your paper
emanating from the members Of labor unions,
that the adoption Of the eight hour system will
not increase the cost Of building, which seems
to me to be the sheerest nonsense. Ii the price
per day WAS to be reduced in proportion, then
OF course the cost Of work On q building would
be the same. It would simply require a longer
time or more hands to erect it. But when the
same price is charged for eight hours as has here
tofOre been paid for ten hours, it follows as a
matter OF course, that the cost will be increased
in proportion. For instance, suppose LOCO
days work OF ten hours are required to erect a
building. At So per day that would be $1,000.
II now, the days work Is limited TO eight hours
per day will he SO, $50, an increase of $3.50, and
900 cash into buildings here last year, and
than it dill four years before TO do tie same. and
the buildings We're not AS extensively finished
either; the former being In hard woods, and the
should be / can see no reason, for there has
never been q time during the past fifty years
when 1. dollar T., would buy as much Of anything
groceries. Sugar which cost IL cents four or
now, and so Of flour, and in TACT OF every article
except, perhaps, fresh meats. At the same
time wages are higher than ever before, except
during the war, when the cost OF living WAS
double and, in many articles, quadruple what
1t Is now, especially In dry goods. These are
not mere assertions, but facts, as can readily be
seen by any one who will compare the price,
lists then and now. The reason generally given
for reducing the hours OF labor-that the addi-
tional time is necessary and will be used for
selfculture, &c.-while very pretty in theory In
not borne out by the facts. For instance the
plasterer on my jobs employed fourteen Jour
neymen, and 1T occurred repeatedly that on
Monday he could get but four men to 20 to
work, the rest OF them having been on q spree
from which they had not recovered. Indeed,
one Of them was SO drunk In the middle of the
week that he fell into the area; and u: least one
of the carpenters and some Of the bricklayers
were but little better, some OF the latter fire.
Quently going of on drunken spree for davs
at U time, right In the busiest part of the sea.
son! While no doubt there are some men who
would make good use of their time, I am
be ut all benefited by the reduction in hours.
but that 1t will simply result In so many more
hours OF iOafing at the saloons and about the
streets, and that at the end OF the year their
families will not be any better, Ii as we'll off,
It seems 70 me that II they are honest in the
pretense that the object Of reducing the hours
is to give employment to men now idle, they
work by the hour. Then every one could work
rs much or As little as he pleased, and get paw
for what he actually did. Or why do they not
unite and work on the cooperative plan taking
the jobs themselves, thus securing the profits
which now 90 To the bosses or contractors?
With the present infamous lien law IL would he
difficult perhaps TO do this, because they would
render the owner safe, II indeed an owner can
be safe under the law a. 1t now Is.
II had u million dollars TO invest In build.
ing, would not invest u cent under the present
condition Of affairs In this District; not y cent.
April IL, 1885. "A CITIZEN.