The Portland daily press., 1895-04-12
THE RULES FOR THE SELECTION OF
LABORERS

1t will be remem bered that at the last
meeting of the City Council, Alderman
Peters presented code of rules for the
government OF the registration of labor,
as substitute for those prepared by
Alderman Thompson and submitted at
previous meeting. The chief differences
between the two sets of rules are in the
matter Of giving preference in the selec=
ton of laborers and in the time for which
common laborers may be employed.
These differences sare of q very impor-
tanu character. With regard to the first
the Thompson's rules prescribed as fol-
lows:
In filing acquisitions for laborers, pre-
terence will be gwen, other things being
equal, to those OH the register who have
had experience in city work, those who
have served in the army or navy in time
of war, and those having families de-
pending upon them for support.
The Peters rules follow the above
language but add, except by special
vote of the committee" That addition
looks innocent enough at first glance.
Why shouldn't the COMMITTEES have the.
right to refuse to give preference for Theses
reasons? Simply for the reason that
when they refuse to give preference for
these specified causes they give preference
for other reasons not. specified, or for no
reason at all. The addition made by MIR.
Peters makes the rule mean simply
this, that we will give preference for
these reasons or for any other. A man
who has been veteran is on the registry
list. Under the Thompson rule, other
things being equal, the committee
is bound to give him prefers
ence Under the Peters rule the
committee can deny this preference,
and indirectly compel the officer who has
made the requisition to take somebody
else. Indeed we are inclined to think
that under this rule as amended by Mr..
Peters the committee would have the
power to give preference to men be-
cause they were Republicans or Demo-
Gratis. The real meaning of the rule
would be much better expressed by
making the rule read thus:
In filling acquisitions for laborers
preference will be given, other things
being equal, to anybody the committee
thinks proper.
The other point in which Mr.. Peters's
rules differ materially from Mir. Thomp-
sons is in the time for which common
iaborers shall be kept upon the pay role.
The Thompson rules contain no provision
OH this matter leaving it to the executive
officer in charge Of the particular work
to determine how long particular gang
can he profitably employed. The Peters
rules provide as follows:
Men employed as common laborers,
shall not be continued on the payroll
more than one month at time,
This means of course that the gang of
laborers shall be changed every month:
No matter how faithful and efficient they
may be they arc to be turned out at the
end of every month and another gang put
in their places. This is an injury to the
city and a hardship to laboring men, No
private contractor would carry on work
in that way. If he had secured a good
crew of men he would keep them until
the work was done. Such programme
as the Peters rules contemplates is an
affront to business principles. IG is
direct Indictment to laziness aud shirk-
ing on the part of the laborers. Every
laborer is told in advance by this rule
that faithfulness or smartness on his part
will count for nothing, that at the end
of month he has got to go. We can
conceive of no device better calculated to
make our street laborers INDECENT aud
shiftless than this.
If the purpose of the City Council is to
embarrass and discredit the new street
commission it should make haste to
adopt the amended rules. They will
make it possible to put politics into
street management and to take business
methods out and that is sure way to
discredit the commission plan.