St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1890-09-11
THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS.

What would railroads and other
great properties be worth to those
who invest their money IN them, II
one of them could not employ or dis
charge an employee without the con
sent 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 pub
lie to consider. In other controver-
sizes, the employees have had com
plants or grievances, or there have
been questions of wages or hours.
about which the public might judge,
Often the claim of the strikers has
been reasonable. But in this case
there is no grievance, except that GER
tain men have been discharged, and
that a company, which has been con-
spicuouslv fair in dealing with all en-
ployees, declines to discuss the reason
for that discharge with anybody.
An attempt is made to prove that
this refusal is arbitrary and tyranni-
ployee of the New York Central who
would not thoroughly uphold his
wife in refusing to give any reason
whatever for declining to employ a
particular servant girl any longer. II
the girl does not suit, there is an end
of it. Very likely she may suit some
other housekeeper; that is her bust
ness. Very likely the reason for dis
charge may concern the pocket of the
wife, or her nerves, or her comfort in
her home, or any other one of q thou
sand reasons which nobody has 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 il
she could be restrained by compulsion
would be worthless. The bargain,
to be just, must be equal. The house
keeper must have an equal right to
get better girl if she can, or to go
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 trifling
Where the hands necessarily have
that degree of freedom, the employer
ctlSO llitSL IclNN Liz SStIilS NSIlllSl
law nor public opinion will ever up
hold a requirement that an employ
ing company must give reasons sat
isfactOry to somebody, and without
them cannot discharge or change a
hand, but the hands are nevertheless
free to go when and where they
please, reason or no reason.
This measure of freedom, moreover,
is not arbitrary, or accidental, or de
pendent 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 any time that his de
parture will be desired. This means
that, contract OrnO contract, he can,
in fact, go at pleasure. If he can go
when he likes, the employer must be
equally free to discharge when he
likes. And, in fact, every employer
has that absolute right, which no
law or custom or dictate of any or
ganizatiOn can take away. 1t is
naked impudence for anybody to
claim a right to have reasons given
for q notice that an employer prefers,
after a proper date, to do without
the services of an employee.
If all this is clear, and surely moth
ing can be more clear, then the ques-
ton whether persons are discharged
for belonging to a particular labor
organization is entirely out of place.
The worker is always free, and no
one pretends to dispute his right to
join any organize ton, 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
company or an individual, he must
either try to suit or expect to be dis
charged. If the employer is not suit
ed with men who choose to join or
ganization which he considers mimi
cal, that is his lookout. BY setting
up such rule he may perhaps debar
himself of the help of some who are
very desirable. But he has an abso-
lutte right to do as he chooses about
that, and no man, in or out of an or
ganization, has any right to dispute
the freedom of the employer, which is
in fact only the exact equivalent OF
the freedom which every worker en-
joys. He can stay or go, as he likes
The employer can keep him or not, as
he likes.
1t is on such a basis of mutual
freedom, and frank recognition by
each of the others freedom, that re-
lations between capital and labor
will have to be regulated. This is
not an arbitrary dictum of anybody
but law of nature which cannot be
set aside by all the organizat tons in
the world. Even the law would be
strictly powerless, if it should under
take to limit the rights of an employ
er to cease employing any hand at
his pleasure When this freedom on
both sides is frankly recognized, and
only then, will both parties be pre-
pared to deal frankly and in a spirit
of mutual helpfulness with each other,
workers and employers both seeking
their best interests.-[ New York Bull
letin.