The Case Against the Contractor
A labor editorial argues that public works projects should be managed by the city directly, not by private contractors who cut corners and inflate costs.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Calling for bids on public work and letting contracts to the lowest responsible bidder works beautifully theoretically. But the way it has worked out has been that a lot of inspectors were necessary to keep the contractors from skinning the municipalities—and the taxpayers—to death, and the taxpayers generally got skinned despite the inspectors. A contractor figures his bid as low as he can and make a good profit, and as soon as he gets the job he immediately sets his brains to work figuring out a way to increase his profits. He starts out by employing a lot of cheap labor or substituting cheap material. A remedy for the evils of the contract system as applied to public improvements seems to be the day system. When a municipality learns to run its business on business principles and makes ability the qualification for positions rather than political pull, it will learn that it can do its own public work and manage its own public utilities.
“The contractor's profit could be eliminated and the inspectors employed to watch the contractor could superintend the work.”
This 1911 argument echoes ongoing debates in Everett and across Washington regarding 'prevailing wage' laws, municipal control over public works, and the perennial tension between privatization and government efficiency.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.