28
The Business Value of the Merit System
(Continued from page 27)
fered "to expidite the national defense
program,” by providing that all civilian
employment thereunder, might be made
without regard to civil service law and
rules. Certain Congressmen argued that
this would enable military leaders to
avoid "delays incident to civil service
red tape,” and also insure that no fifth
Chapter News
Continued from page 19
ably from year to year, (4) it is in
accord with the concept of a retirement
provision as a charge for depreciation
of the employees’ faculties, for it places
a proper portion of the charge on each
year responsible for the depreciation.
The chief objections raised to the
actuarial reserve plan are: (1) it is
more complicated to administer, (2) the
operation of a large reserve fund offers
opportunity for mismanagement, (3)
substantial contributions by the gov
erning body are required sooner and in
larger amounts than would otherwise
be the case, argued particularly as to
actuarial reserve plans which do not
make allowances for withdrawals from
service in determining actuarial lia
bility.— (To be continued)
What You Can Do
You can talk and preach the merit
system.
You can tell your Mayors and Gov
ernors and Legislators that you want
the merit system.
You can stimulate your local civic
groups and associations into activity
for the merit system.
columnists w e r e employed. Military
leaders themselves appeared in person
before the Committee, requested that
the amendment be stricken out and that
all employment should be made pursuant
to civil service law arid rules. They ex
plained that they were able to get 24-
hour service from the Civil Service
Commission; that the background of
eligibles was being thoroughly investi
gated and that they feared for greater
delay if politicians were to wrangle ov
er patronage appointments under the
defense appropriation. A t the request of
the President and the military leaders,
the amendment was stricken from the
bill. They recognized the value of the
merit system in the emergency.
Cincinnati vs. Cleveland
In 1938 an investigation by the Cit
izens’ League of Cleveland compared
personnel costs of waste disposal in the
cities of Cleveland and Cincinnati. The
cost of waste removal in Cleveland was
$7.94 per ton with 488 employes on
the waste disposal payroll. In Cincin
nati waste disposal cost $3.98 per ton
with only 214 employes. The collecting
systems were found to be the same and
the area and street mileage almost iden
tical. Topographical conditions and den
sity of population favored Cleveland,
which disposed of only 98,250 tons of