Library Collections: Document: Full Text

In the United States the Secretary of the Interior is planning similar provision. As most of the desirable public lands have already been taken up, it is proposed to reclaim for soldier settlement territory which is now of no value, but which can be made fertile and productive.

Historically, one of the most lucrative fields for the employment of the ex-soldier has been the public service, either by political appointment or under civil service control. After the Civil War one of the greatest handicaps to the efficiency of national departments was the "veteran preference" legislatively enjoined, and many discharged soldiers received jobs for which they were not capable. Taking men into jobs on this basis is just another form of charity, and as this is now being discouraged on the part of private employers, so should it be reprehended on the part of the state.

The civil service authorities should be asked, not to burden their list of appointments with men unfitted to the jobs in which they are placed, but merely to revise some of their rulings so as not to discriminate against the disabled as regards positions for which they are qualified. They may properly give preference to an ex-soldier when all other things are absolutely equal -- but not otherwise. This is the fairest course toward the disabled applicants themselves.

Many civil service commissions have, in the past, refused to permit crippled men to sit for any examinations, even when their disability would be no handicap whatever in the position sought. The one-legged but expert electrician has been barred from employment in the alarm division of the fire department; the one-armed cost accountant has been excluded from candidacy for an inside clerical job. Even in the national crisis of war it has been impossible for one highly skilled wireless operator, with a leg amputated, to gain employment in government service. If the authorities preach to individual employers an end of arbitrary and unjust discrimination against the disabled, the change in practice should begin at home.

In France certain suitable posts in the government service or in enterprises benefiting by concessions from the state have been reserved for disabled soldiers. In Canada the returned man has preference in civil service appointments, and a great many of the re-educational classes prepare men for jobs in the revenue and postal departments, so that the men may go to their work with preparation adequate to ensure success.

After a disabled man has been placed in employment he should be followed up to see that the new relation is working out happily. The friendly visitor should interview both parties at interest: the employer to see in what ways, if any, the worker is not giving satisfaction; and the employee to ascertain whether he considers he is being treated unfairly or not being given the best opportunity to make good. In the majority of instances the difficulties are not fundamental and may often be cleared up by a helpful third party, where the will to make the enterprise succeed is present on both sides.

After disablement the first employment is a new experience under strange conditions, and troubles either real or imaginary are liable to arise. Those of real substance, such as unsuitability of an artificial limb, the lack of technical preparation for a certain process the worker is called on to perform, the misunderstanding on the part of a department head of the scope of work for which the man was employed, may be remedied in the appropriate manner. Those having their existence only in imagination are more difficult of adjustment. The deaf employee is sensitive and, not being able to hear the conversation of his fellow-workmen, becomes convinced they are criticizing and scheming against him. The blind man presents his perfected product to the taciturn foreman and interprets his silence or ambiguous grunt as dissatisfaction. In both these instances exactly the opposite situation may prevail, but it may require considerable tact in the demonstration.

And lastly, where the job offers no fair remuneration for the present nor prospect for the future, or, from the man's point of view, is for other reason definitely unsatisfactory, the employment should be terminated at the advice of the visitor, and another placement made. An employment authority will often send men to jobs which are known not to be ideal, but the position should be regarded as temporary only and the worker recalled when better employment is available. On the other hand, where an employer -- often with motives of good-will and helpfulness -- has hired a disabled man on representation that he can competently meet the requirements of the job, and it is found that the worker is failing to do so, or is careless, irresponsible, and not trying to do his duty, then he should be removed on the initiative of the same organization as made the placement, thus relieving the employer of the embarrassment of discharging a physically handicapped man. The general employment interest of the disabled will best be served by such a policy. This is particularly being recognized in relation to the blind, present placement plans providing for recall of the worker who is misplaced or failing to succeed. The average employer shrinks from discharging a blind man and may, even in spite of incompetence, carry him on the payroll for several years. But after one experience of this kind he will take good care indeed that he is not again saddled with a similar embarrassment in the person of another blind employee.