The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1886-05-04
Employer and EmplOye.


The doctrine has prevailed up to
this time that an employer should be
free to select employees according to
his own views of necessity and ad-
vantage, and to dispense at his pleas
ure with the services of any person
whom he may not care to retain.
This seems so reasonable in every
sense that it is difficult to understand
how an intelligent person can serious
" propose to establish any different
theory. 1t is not 10 be assumed that
a man who is engaged In a CONNER
cial or industrial enterprise, where
success largely depends upon the man
ner in which certain work shall be
performed, is going TO employ incom-
petent workmen and discriminate
against competent ones for merely SEN
timental reasons. Self.interest must
naturally prevent him from indulgiDg
in that sort of folly. He needs the
help of capable men quite as much as
they need his preference and assist
ance and since he must pay the
wages and take the risk of the busi-
ness, it would certainly seem that he
ought to be allowed to exercise his own
Judgment in choosing between differ
ent individuals who may wish to work
for him. If he can not do that much,
then he is no longer the master Of his
private affairs, as all men are supposed
to be, and must look for success, not
to his personal energy and ability,
foresight and economy, but to IN
fiuences which he does not IN any re-
spect control, and which are to GER
tain extent directly inimical to his
interests.
1t seems almost absurd to say that
a man who invests his money IN
business and becomes an employer of
labor should be thus deprived of the
means of shaping and directing his
operations; and yet that is substan-
tally what is demanded with an
appearance of perfect sobriety and
earnestness. Not only is it claimed
that the employer should hire certain
men, at the dictation of an authority
which, in the nature of things, can not
Judge as surely as he in the matter,
but it is also contended that he should
not have the power to discharge such
men even though he should be dissatis-
fled with their work and should have
an opportunity to get better men in
their places. At the same time, 1t Is
held that the employe should be at
liberty to abandon his position when
ever he may choose to do so, no mat
ter how much loss or inconvenience
may result to the employer. That is
to say, the idea of compulsory employ
ment as it is now being urged does not
carry with it the idea of compulsory
service, which it clearly should do IN
point of fairness and consistency. 1t
is maintained that an employer should
hire only such men as are named by a
given society or committee, but no
corresponding obligation is recognized
on the part of the employe to remain
at his port in a faithful manner for
any stipulated time. Such a theory
is hostile to all sound and proper no
tons of Justice, and the American peo-
pie will never consent to accept it as .
solution of the vexed and important
problem which is just now claiming 80
much attention. The right of men to
work, and of other men to employ
them, on terms agreeable to both par
ties, and free from dictation of any
kind, is not to be disputed in this
country; and any movement which
antagonizes that vital fact must newt
j ABLY fail.