The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1890-09-18
THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS

What would railroads and other .eat
properties be worth to those who invest
their money in them if one
of them could not employ or
discharge an employe without the
consent of persons who are not owners?
That is, after all, the question which the
strike on the New York Central and the
West Shore compels the public to con-
slider. In other controversies, the en-
ployes have had complaints orgrievances,
or there have been questions of wages or
hours, about which the public might
judge. Often the claim of the strikers
have been reasonable. But in this case
there is no grievance, except that certain
men have been discharged, and that a
company, which has been conspicuously
fair in dealing with all employees, declines
to discuss the reason for that discharge
with anybody.
An attempt is made to prove that this
refusal is arbitrary and tyrannical. But
there is not single emplOye of the New
York Central who would not thoroughly
uphold his wife in refusing to give any
reason whatever for declining to employ
particular servant girl any longer. If
the girl does not suit, there is an end of
it. Very likely she may suit some other
hOLsUkeeper; that is her business. Very
likely the reason for discharge may con-
cern the pocket of the wife, or her nerves,
or her comfort in her home, or any other
one of thousand reasons which nobody
has any any right to ask.
If the girl wants to go anywhere else,
she goes. No power can stop her, for
she is free, and her work if she could be
restrained by compulsion would be
worthless. The bargain, to be Just must
be equal. The housekeeper must have
an equal right to get better girl if she
can, or to 60 without any. Exactly the
same principle applies to railroad hands.
No power can keep them at work on the
New York Central a single day if they
see fit to go elsewhere, be the reason a
slight difference in pay or hours, or any
whim, however trifing. Where the
hands necessarily have that degree of
freedom, the employer also must have
the same. Neither law nor public
opinion will ever uphold requirement
that an employing company must give
reasons satisfactory to somebody, and
without them cannot discharge or change
la hand, but the hands are nevertheless
free to 60 when and where they please,
reason or no reason.
This measure of freedom, moreover. is
not arbitrary, or accidental or depend
ent upon any especial form of contract.
1t is inherent in the very nature of the
services performed The worker can, if
he sees fit, do his work so poorly at anv
time that bis departure viii be desireG.
This meaDs that, contract or no contract,
he can, in fact, go at pleasure. If he can
go when he likes, the employer must be
equally free TO discharge wlen he likes.
And, in fact. every employer has that
absolute riglt, which no law or custom
or dictum of any organization can take
away. 1t is naked impudence for any
body to claim riTht to have reasons
given for notice that an employer pre-
fers, after proper date, to do without
the services Of an emplOye.
If this is clear, and surely nothing can
be more clear, then the question whether
persons are discharged foo belonging to
particular labor organization is entire
ly out of place. The worker is always
free, nd no one pretends TO dispute his
right to join any organization, any more
than his right to leave and go elsewhere
to work can be disputed. But while he
is by his own choice in the employ of a
company or an indiN dual, he must either
try to suit or expect to he discharged. II
the employer is not suited with men who
choose to join organizations which he
considers inimical, that is his lookout.
BY setting up such rule he may per
haps debar himself of the help Of some
who are verv desirable. But he has an
absolute right to do as he chooses about
that, and no man, in or out of an Organi-