Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(1) An estimate of the minimum wage adequate to supply to women and minors engaged in the occupation, trade or industry in question, the necessary cost of proper living and to maintain the health and welfare of such women and minors.

(2) The number of hours of work per day in the occupation, trade or industry in question, consistent with the health and welfare of such women and minors.

(3) The standard conditions of labor in the occupation, trade or industry in question, demanded by the health and welfare of such women and minors.

The commission, after a public hearing, has power to fix:

(1) A minimum wage to be paid to women and minors engaged in any occupation, trade or industry in this State, which shall not be less than a wage adequate to supply to such women and minors the necessary cost of proper living and to maintain the health and welfare of such women and minors.

(2) The maximum hours of work consistent with the health and welfare of women and minors engaged in any occupation, trade or industry in this State; provided, that the hours so fixed shall not be more than the maximum now or hereafter fixed by law.

(3) The standard conditions of labor demanded by the health and welfare of the women and minors engaged in any occupation, trade or industry in this State.

This bill was strongly opposed by labor leaders, as well as employers, although some labor leaders and many employers supported it. The temper of the Legislature regarding it was well expressed by Senator

Brown, who had introduced a similar bill in the Senate, when he said before the special committee appointed under the Beban resolution to investigate vice conditions: "If any industry in California employing women cannot pay its employees a wage sufficiently large to permit them to live decently, the State is better off without such industry."

The many-sided opposition offered to the bill prevented its final passage until May 7, five days before adjournment. It passed the Assembly by a vote of fortysix to twelve, and the Senate by a vote of twenty-seven to seven.

CIVIL
SERVICE
MEASURE.

The Civil Service measure was not enacted until the day before the Legislature adjourned. The bill 359 passed was a committee substitute for measures introduced during the earlier days of the session. The measure provides for a State Civil Service Commission, empowered to classify positions to be held under State authority; to hold examinations to determine the merit, efficiency and fitness of applicants for positions and prepare properly classified eligible lists for applicants so examined; keep records of industrial efficiency of State employees, etc. The act, except in exempted cases, brings State employees under civil service.

When the measure came up for final action in the Senate, an amendment was offered which provided that persons already holding office should take the Civil Service examinations in accordance with the provisions of

359 Assembly Bill 2080, committee substitute for Assembly Bills 59 and 502.

the act. This amendment was rejected, however, by a close vote of sixteen to eighteen.360

The measure passed the Assembly by a vote of fiftyseven to six, and the Senate by a vote of twenty-five to ten.

NON-PARTISAN

COUNTY
ELECTIONS.

The passage of the Young Direct Primary Election bill, providing for non-partisan county and township elections, indicates the the progress made in California toward nonpartisanship. At the 1909 session, a bill to take the Judiciary out of politics by making the election of Judges non-partisan, passed the Senate, but was defeated in the Assembly on narrow margin. At the 1911 session, not only the election of judicial officials, but of school officials was made non-partisan.

In the Young bill this non-partisanship in elections. is extended to county and township elections. Not a negative vote on the bill was cast in the Assembly. In the Senate, however, two members, Juilliard and Wright, cast their votes against it. As in the case of the great majority of Progressive measures which were enacted, the Young Non-Partisan Primary bill was not finally passed until the last hours of the session.

The conditions under which the work of the last hours of the session were conducted have already been described.

360 The vote by which the amendment was rejected was as follows:

For the amendment-Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Cohn, Curtin, Finn, Gerdes, Jones, Juilliard, Kehoe, Larkins, Owens, Regan, Sanford, Shanahan, and Wright-16.

Against the amendment-Anderson, Avey, Beban, Birdsall, Breed, Brown, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Flint, Gates, Hewitt, Lyon, Mott, Rush, Strobridge, Thompson, and Tyrrell-18.

CHAPTER XXIX.

CONCLUSION-SEEKING Remedies.

One of the most important problems before the 1913 Legislature, if not the most important, was that of the Legislature itself.

Since the political awakening in California following the San Francisco graft prosecution, the public had followed the work of the Legislature carefully. Members who at the 1909 session had not responded to public opinion were, with but few exceptions, denied re-election, and did not sit in the Legislature of 1911. The admirable work of the 1911 session had led the public to expect much of the 1913 session, elected to carry on the policies of 1911. But the 1913 session had a more difficult task. For the first time in the political history of California, the Legislature was put to the test of constructive work.361 It was found unequal to the task.

361 There was important difference between the work of the 1911 session and that of the session of 1913. The 1911 session to a large extent dealt with issues which had been long before the public. Corruption of the Australian ballot, under machine rule, for example, had been resisted at every point. At the 1909 session part restoration of the ballot to its original simplicity and effectiveness was nearly realized, a bill to that end passing the Senate and being defeated in the Assembly only by a narrow margin. The restoration of the ballot came at the 1911 session as a matter of course. In the same way, the taking of the judiciary out of politics, fought for and almost realized in 1909, was accomplished in 1911. At the 1911 session a practical Direct Primary law was fought for and important progress made in the direction of the reform. The reform, without hampering restrictions, was secured in 1911. At the 1911 session a constitutional amendment granting suffrage to women was submitted to the electors. Here again was realized a thing which had been agitated for years. The same was true of the submission of the Initiative and Referendum amendment, and partially true of the Recall amendment, which with the restoration of the powers of

The failure should not be charged to the majority of the legislators. The 1913 Legislature, all things considered, was probably as representative and as effective a Legislature as the State will ever have under the present legislative plan. The perplexed members could not understand their own lack of accomplishment. They knew that something was radically wrong, but were unprepared to agree as to what it was.

As the lobby was the most conspicuous element in opposition, condemnation of the lobby was to be expected. But for the most part the condemnation fell

was

government to the people comes as a matter of course. The 1911 session even made start toward the constructive work of the sort, which changed industrial conditions are now requiring of Legislatures. A workable railroad regulation law was, for example, enacted. But here again was a matter which had been an important issue at the 1909 session, and the way prepared for its realization. But even so, an extra session of the Legislature was required before a satisfactory railroad regulation law secured, and then only after the State Railroad Commission had made a study of such legislation in other States and presented a draft of the measure to the Legislature for action. Thus, one great piece of constructive legislation credited to the Legislature of 1911 was primarily the work of the Railroad Commission and not of the Legislature. To be sure, the 1911 Legislature undertook to deal with such unfamiliar subjects as workmen's compensation, conservation of the State's national resources, practical regulation of the working hours of women and children, and the like. Some progress was made, but at once the sinister opposition which hung upon the Legislature of 1913 was encountered. Progress was indeed made, but the best of this work was the clearing of the way for the constructive work which was generally recognized was to come after. The Legislature of 1911, at the extra session in December of that year, when called upon to pass a comprehensive Conservation act, broke down as completely as did the 1913 Legislature at any point. Genuine constructive work was required of the 1913 Legislature. And the 1913 Legislature was as unprepared to meet the requirement as the Legislature of 1911 had been unprepared to meet the problem of State Revenue and Taxation. Had the 1913 Legislature been controlled by the vicious element as in the days of the corporation-tenderloin machine rule, much of the work of the 1911 sessions would have been undone. Controlled as the Legislature was by a majority made up of representative citizens it could only hold what had been gained by the 1911 Legislature, and, at the close of the session, put through, in many cases with little understanding of their provisions, measures intended to carry forward the policies which had governed the Legislature of 1911. The present State's legislative plan was on trial at the 1913 session, and the plan was found insufficient for present-day conditions.

« AnteriorContinuar »