The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-08-24
"DISOBEDIENCE OF RULES. !"

In every well organized railway,
manufacturing or other industry
where labor, expert or otherwise, is
employed rules and regulations are
published for their guidance, as we'll
as protection. The manifest impor-
lance of such directions is for the sole
and express purpose that the business
may be conducted as to obtain the
best results; that the employee be
educated in his labor; and that Sucn
a system be placed in vogue that the
product, be it manufacture or that of
carriage or freight or passenger, be
transacted in such a way as to be
remunerative, OF with the least pos
sible danger to the employee, or the
public; and in this article it will be
my aim to speak more particularly of
the rules and regulation of transpor-
tation, being somewhat converSant
with the diSobedience thereof by en-
ployees of such companies. And l do
not in the outset of this subject desire
to say that all employees diSobey
rules, as there are so many employees
in this class of work who are profit
cient and understand and obey the
rules under which their work is per-
formed. All men are not of the
same average ability You will find
employees who are too anxious TO
follow what is known as the Book of
Rules, and on the ouner hand there
are many who delight in the doing OF
freak acts in open violation of the
rules. in other words their own way,
which sooner or later is one of dis
aster. But in this connection. is such
care exercised by the employer that
the employee understands the rules
concerning his labor? I fear not.
The mere fact that the employee
prior to his employment is given a
book of rules to read and study, and
when he returns, if his application is
accepted, to enter upon his employ
ment he is usually asked if he under
stands the contents of such book and
his answer being in the affirmative,
assumes work on the machine in the
shop, or on top of the cars, and thereby
subjects himself to hazards which
might at any time result in an acc1-
dent, fatal or otherwise, the result
being he has read the book of rules,
his reading being such and the various
terms therein expressed not under
stood has led to doing the work in his
own way, which cannot be charged
to anything else than ignorance or
the employee, who, while he knows
and understands the rules, wilfully
the obedience thereof. |
These are a fair illustration in which |
the rules are obeyed and disobeyed- |
Of course, in case of accident the en- |
ployer will say, I'VE have rules on |
this subject and the employee hav- |
ing known of them is chargeable with |
his own carelessness, and there is no |
one to blame but himself, and he must !
take the consequences. If there is I
evidence of his competency, this as
sertion is true; but how many times
does the contrary occur? At least, it |
can be truthfully said too often A
violator of rules when made known to
MIS- employer is not a proper subject |
should be purged of this labor
ng filth. 1t is due the careful en-
oloyee that he be not confronted with
such carelessness or negligence. He
should not and ought not to be obliged
% submit himself to take chances of
being injured by being compelled to
earn his daily bread alongside of such
In employee. Why is it that rules are I
permitted to be disobeyed? / am told
ind believe it to be true that a viola
ion of a rule with the knowledge of
he employer, or where it has ex-
sted for such length of time that
lie ought to have known of its open
-iolation if not enforced, that the
courts of our state hold that the en-
,Ioyer is negligent. How many en-
Dloyers at stated intervals examine
heir employees as to their knowledge
# the book of rules? 1 fear very few,
md the laborer is permitted to jog
long in haphazard way without
cry little in his own mind whether
he same are obeyed or not. In
tances have come up when an acct
ent occurs that might just as well
ave been avoided, and much pain and
distress averted, where the employee |
ever knew there was book of rules. :
III this laxity in the discharge of a !
lain duty on the part of the en-
loyer has been the cause of much {
riticism on the part of employees, |
he public and the courts. am a !
irm advocate in the competency of
abor and believe it is the duty of the !
mployer to educate the men, and I