The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-12-03
Eight Hour Law Decision
Doesn't Affect City Employees.
Those Who Work ON Salaries
Are Not Included.
POINT MAY BE TESTED.
Commissioner Johnson Says
Question Is Involved.
Patrolmen, Firemen and Others
on Duty 10 to Is Hours.

Topeka had itself adapted to the s.
hour law before the United States SUI
preme court got around to consider the
case, and as a result, there is no par
ticular interest felt here in the decis-
ion.
Topeka policemen, fremen, electric
light plant employees, and all others
who work on a monthly salary instead
of on the per diem basis. will continue
to put in from 10 to 16 hours a day-or
less-as they see fit. The law does not
seem to apply to them. though Labor
Commissioner w. L. A. Johnson thinks
that it might pay to bring another test
case to determine this point.
This is what the law says:
Section THAT eight hours shall
constitute a days work for all laborers,
workmen, mechanics. or other persons
now employed or who may hereafter
be employed by or on behalf of the
state of Kansas. by or on behalf Of
any county, city. township or other
municipality of said state.
The law intimates that only those re-
ceiving q per diem" wage are to be
considered within the scope OF the d
hour law. Labor Commissioner john
son insists, however, that the law
what it says-''a1l other persons" I'M
GLIDING every kind of city official.
City Attorney Spencer says the de-
ciSion of the supreme court VIII nave
absolutely no effect on the existing SIT
uation in Topeka. He says: THE y
hour law does not apply to anyone re-
ceiving a monthly salary. only those
who get a day wage, and the men VINO
work for contractors holding city con-
tracts, are obliged to obey the S-hour
| law"
At the present time the members of
the city street force work on per
diem basis. and work only hours q
day. All the city contractors work
their men hours. a day.
About a year ago, half dozen OF the
employees at the city electric light
plant tried to make the city pay them
overtime for the hours IN excess OF
filed detailed claims with the council
for the money, and City Attorney
Spencer wrote quite an elaborate opln-
ion, holding that these employees were
paid by the month. and were not en-
titled to the protection of. the S-hour
law. The matter was referred to- the
attorney general. and he affirmed Mr..
Spencer's opinion in every particular.
This put an end to- the effort. by the
electric. light plant employees to get
| "A similar case was that of a Wichita
policeman who shortly after the S-houT
! law was passed fled a claim for extra
pay The cese was tried in the; district
court of Sedgwick county and the po-
liceman was defeated. The judge ruled
that the s-hour law. did not apply to
policemen who were paid by. the
month The caserwas never appealed
to the state supreme court.
Labor Commissioner Johnson said to-
day in conversation with a reporter:
! This department had no funds to
make a further test of this law to de-
termine whether it applies to state,
county or municipal employees who are
paid by the week or month. 1t seems
to me that as a matter of fact, every
man who works for wages is on a per
diem basis. If you or I should quit
sometime during the month, our en-
ployer would have to figure out how
much he pays US per day, and make
out our check for the fraction of the
month accordingly.
1.-THE trouble is that no employe de-
sires to sacrifice himself to test the
| law It would be necessary for him to
refuse to take pay at the present basis
and demand extra pay for his overtime
He would, of course, be promptly fired
| from his position. If he commenced a
| criminal prosecution, the result to him
would be the same. He might knock
out the law, but it would be the other
! fellows who would get the benefit
| Therefore it is hard to find anyone who
wants to make a test case.
I'm Tennessee, it is the custom *
have three shifts of police officers in tn
| cities, each shift working eight hours
|