The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1901-07-27

ways Gets the Werst Of 1t. ~
A few years ago we heard q great
deal about "boycotting," weapon that
was most generally used by one person
against another. Sometimes. spite work
was the cause Of boycotting, as we'll as
good and sufficient reason for trying
to bring some unjust employer of work
ingmen to terms. It IL said that the
word boycott" originated in Ireland
some years ago. when Captain John
Boycott mistreAted his tenants, and the
cry went, out. Let us refuse to work
for Captain John Boycott; let us boy
colt him." '''
There is little doubt but what the
term boycott originated as before
stated. and in that instance Is served
Its purpose. Finally in this country,
the watchword was LET US boycott
those who oppose u.s." and it was NOT
long until we heard complaints from
employers Of men, saying that the boy
colt was working two ways, that the
only the one who deserved it, was now
being used by evil disposed persons to
1njure those against whom they had
an imaginary grievance. The press
then took up the boycott and handled
1t without gloves, claiming that 1t was
un-American. and should not be al
lowed to get foothold In this country
While bOycotting was a harmful
weapon, it did great deal of good, and
we know Of some wrongs that could
never have been r1ghted otherwise.
different manner to what IL WAS a few
years ago, and we believe it is more
effectual in its consequences. When a
union uses the boycott to bring some
unfair employer to terms, mention is
made that certain goods made or hand
led by said employer are not union
made, and more than likely are made
by prison labor. The purchaser Is left
to choose between goods made by a
Establishment, and If the union article is
bought instead of the other, the unfair
shop or concern will have to unionize
its place or go out OF business.
The courts have held in nearly every
instance, that boycotting as carried on
in trying to bring employers of labor
to terms as regards wage, was illegal,
and injunctiins were served against
those who took part in same.
Judge Caldwell, in making a minority
report on boycotttng case of the
rnnnore 1Yrio>@ ~
against their employers, said that to
take the boycott away from the labor
ing man was to enslave him, but. as the
judge happened to be alone in render
Ing his decision, and the other two
judges decided to the contrary, the boy
cotters got the worst of 1t. All that
could be said against boycotting was
said with vengeance; employers Of la
Dor, judges on the bench, and the press
Of the country, denounced the boycott:
in unmeasured terms, because it was
un-American. and unjust in its dealings.
So much for boycotting. It was not
my intention to speak at length of boy
cotting, but did SO because Of the howl
it raised. Only few days ago a Chica-
go judge went boycotting one better, by
saying that blacklisting on the part Of
an employer in certain case was just
and right, all because a poor woman
took a notion to strike for what she
thought was right. She lost employ
ment, and when she sought employ
ment at the same kind of work in an
other place she was told that there was
no work for her as she had been OF, a
strike, or in other words, her refer
ences were not good because she had
seen flt to quit work and 60 on strike,
and by that method try and enforce
her demands. On being refused employ
ment, or being boycotted with this "un-
American weapon we hear the pluto
cratic press talk so much about, she
tried to get redress in the courts, and
was told by a learned Judge on the
bench, that she can't work for anyone
unless her former employer gives con-
sent, as he has blacklisted her, and in
doing so he did perfectly right. O, tell
us, what will be the next move to be
made by the judges whom the working
people elect to office?
We have always believed that an EN-.
| ployer had the right to discharge an
| employee whenever the services of such
| employe were unsatisfactory, but to
follow this same employee to some other
company and demand his or her dis
missal, because the said employee went
on a strike, and keep the said employee
out of work is too awful to think about;
and the judge who upheld such work
as that ought to Be regarded by all hon
est men as being one of the vilest
creatures. TO follow up men and WON
en- and keep them out of employment
will be to make beggars, or criminals
or both, Of them. How long will this
continue? Just so long as we put men
in office who have mo respect for the
rights of laboring people. II judges
were not elected to- office by the votes
Of working people, don't know that
would have very much to say. All We