1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
DIRECT VERSUS CONTRACT REFUSE COLLECTION
Page 109
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'THE cleansing superintendent of the
Metropolitan Borough of Islington, Mr. F. E. Browning, expresses his views on the question of direct operation versus contract work--in the collection of refuse. He favours direct operation by the municipality, on the score of completeness of control and flexibility of method, and explains that the executive officer, together with his committee, is able to vary the work as experience dictates; employees are safeguarded in their jobs, wages are regu
larized, and there is a correspondingly greater interest in the performance of their duties.
The executive officer, again, is enabled to keep in close touch with the whole field of operations, watching the interests of the council and ratepayers, as well as those of his employees, and complaints are more readily dealt with.
The conclusion which Mr. Brown arrives at is that, whenever the authority is big enough to justify direct operation, this should be resorted to.