Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
REAL ESTATE
AND
NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 6, 1915
MililllBIIIilBiiill
NEW LABOR LAWS MENACE REAL ESTATE I
Real Estate Board Objects to the Larger Powers Conferred Upon
the State Industrial Board, and Denounces Safety Agitators
li^^
A LARGE part of the present Labor
•*»• Law, and particularly its fire-pre¬
vention provisions, was enacted in re¬
sponse to the cries and demands of a
hysterical part of the populace after an
awful fire calamity, which would prob¬
ably never occur again even if no laws
were passed.
The far-reaching effect of this law, and
its broad and unreasonable requirements,
were hardly even discussed, the con¬
servative element of the community
being afraid to plead for a modification,
knowing that the alarmists had created
such an atmosphere that the Legislature
dared not refuse to approve any meas¬
ure or demand regardless of the motive
or reason for it.
As a result we have a labor law which
goes far beyond the rational require¬
ments of the situation. To say that the
law is absurd, ridiculous, unreasonable,
unwarranted, irrational, confiscatory,
reactionary and even harmful to the
laboring classes themselves, would be
characterizing it very mildly.
The community, settled down to its
general calm condition now appreciates
that the law passed during the excite¬
ment are unnecessary to accomplish the
protection desired, and that they afifect
disastrously both labor and business.
Therefore it is demanding that the laws
be made logical and reasonable.
Should Ignore Safety Agitators.
Now, if it is the desire of the State
Factory Investigating Commission to re¬
vise the labor laws and make them sane
and treat both labor and business men
impartially, it should ignore the clam-
orings of the so-called safety agitators,
recommend that Home Rule prevail and
that cities of the first class, which have
established efficient building bureaus, be
exempted from the provisions of the law
in reference to the construction, altera¬
tion and structural changes in buildings.
It is an unquestionable and undeniable
fact that such bureaus understand build¬
ing conditions in their respective cities
much better than any general State De¬
partment possibly can and that they
know the needs of the people of the
community more intirnately than a
Legislature which is composed of mem¬
bers who come from all parts of the
State, and who are admittedly not con¬
versant with the conditions existing in
the different cities.
The absurdity of giving to the De¬
partment of Labor jurisdiction over
buildin.g construction in New York City
is fairly demonstrated by the fact that
it sends all plans submitted to it to the
local building bureaus for examination
and approval and as to their conformity
with all laws and ordinances, including
the Labor Law. What arguinent can be
made against giving, the bureaus that
do the actual work original jurisdiction,
and thereby saving the needless expense
of the round-about procedure, which ac¬
complishes nothing; to say nothing of
the useless loss of time and money oc¬
casioned our citizens.
The commission should ;.lso recom¬
mend:
C OME time ago the State Fac-
^ tory Investigating Commis¬
sion issued **for criticism and sug¬
gestion'* its revised recodification
of the Labor Law. On Thursday
last the Real Estate Board of New
York forwarded to the commis¬
sion its criticisms and suggestions
prepared by George W. Olvany,
counsel. This brief contains a
general suggestion for changes in
the law and a detailed analysis of
the proposed recodification, em¬
bodying the changes which the
Real Estate Board, after a year*s
experience of the workings of the
law and analysis of complaints
made to it by its members, be¬
lieves to be essential. The state¬
ment given herewith is from the
brief.
1. Reasonable definitions as to what
shall be classed as factories, factory
buildings and mercantile establishments.
2._The specific fixing of the duty and
liability of the owner and lessee and
not have one or the other made criminal¬
ly liable for matters concededly not un¬
der his control.
3. Common sense provisions for fire
escapes, ventilation, dressing-rooms and
interior stairways, etc.
4. That agents be not made criminal¬
ly liable for the failure of the landlord
or lessee to comply with the law. Such
a provision would be unjustifiable in
view of the fact that in almost every
instance the agent is simply authorized
to collect rents, or lease the property,
and to do nothing more.
It is a fundamental principle of law
that an agent can only legally do what
he is authorized to do by his principal.
To provide in a statute that an agent
is criminally accountable if he does not
violate his authority and commit a tres¬
pass for which he would again be crim¬
inally as well as civilly liable, means
that the real estate broker must quit
business unless he wants to go to jail
and pay damages for trying to earn an
honest living.
5. That appeals be allowed from orders
of the departiTient to a board with au¬
thority to modify them, if they are
found to be unlawful or unreasonable.
6. That the Industrial Board should
not have the right to make general rules
which tend to extend the law. Such
board could be given the power to adopt
a special rule for a particular case to be
based upon the facts as presented.
7. That not more than a given number
of employees should be employed, in¬
stead of not less than a given number.
8. That fire-alarm signal systems
should not be required in buildings
equipped with an approved automatic
sprinkler system.
9. That a reasonable time instead of
__â–
a definite time should be allowed to com¬
ply with the department's orders.
_ 10. That the civil penalty for a viola¬
tion of the provisions of the law, or
non-compliance with the department's
orders should not exceed fifty dollars.
If the commission will treat with the
subject as above outlined, we feel as¬
sured that much-improved labor, finan¬
cial and business conditions will prevail,
and that life and property will be fully
safeguarded.
Amendments Proposed.
To deal specifically with the proposed
revised recodification we suggest amend¬
ments as follows:
1. That New York City be exempted
from all the provisions of the law which
apply to the construction, alteration and
structural changes in buildings, and that
the Industrial Board have no power to
make rules in reference to the same.
2. That the term "employee" mean a
mechanic, workingman or laborer who
works for another for hire in a factory
or mercantile establishment.
The addition of the words "in a factory
or mercantile establishment" would limit
"employee" to those who are employed
in those places and not include every¬
body who works in business places other
than factories or mercantile places.
3. That the term "factory" be defined
in the language of the Court of Ap¬
peals, viz:
"A factory is a structure or plant
where something is made or manufac¬
tured from raw or partly wrought ma¬
terials into forms suitable for use."
With the additional provision that any
requirements of the law affecting struc¬
tural changes and alterations and the
installation of fixtures and apparatus
should not apply to factories where less
than fifteen persons are employed.
It seems unfair that the term "fac¬
tory" should be so stretched as to be¬
come unrecognizable and include every
conceivable business or occupation as is
the apparent attempt now.
For instance: the insertion of the word
"packing" in the law, under a strict con¬
struction, would include every retail and
wholesale establishment in the State, ir¬
respective as to whether any article was
manufactured in those buildings.
The Industrial Board should not be
given authority to make rules for struc¬
tural changes and alterations, etc.,
where less than fifteen persons are em¬
ployed, as they could arbitrarily defeat
the intent of relieving the property
owner from the burdensome provisions
of this act, in that respect.
4. In the "factory building" section
the same argument applies as to the pro¬
visions in reference to tlie Industrial
Board.
_ 5. That the term "mercantile estab¬
lishment" be defined to mean "any place
where goods, wares or merchandise are
offered for sale at retail, and more than
fifteen persons are employed."
The remainder of the board's state¬
ment to the commission is concerned
with suggested changes, both as to sub¬
stance and form, in a number of sec¬
tions of the proposed recodification.