Arizona republican., 1902-12-14
TAKING OTHER MEMS JOBS.
Is There a Contractual Relation Be-
 tween Employer and Employe?

We have heard much of late of the wrong suffered by strikers who find their places filled by others when 1t suits them to return to work, and no grievance is deeper or less forgiveable than that which the union workman who has been on strike has against the man who has taken his job" If after five months of voluntary idleness. as in the case of the anthracite coal min- CTS. a man presents himself for re-em- ployment and finds that the position he left and to which he desires to re- turn is filled by another who does not wish to relinquish it, and whom the employer has no wish to dismiss, he deems himself deeply wronged. This is a subject concerning which the aver age workingman needs very much clearer views than he now holds.
 The ownership of job would imply some sort of contractual relation be- tween employer and employed. Obvl- ously it is not natural right The in- cumbent holds it only as long as he renders a service satisfactory to the employer. If his tenure were for a period or in perpetuity, it would imply a contract of some sort. The essence of contract is a mutual obligation, equally binding upon the parties there to. If man has a permanent interest in job which suits him, and which en- titles him to demand Q certain wage for his service, such right could on:y be cquired by the undertaking on his part to render faithfully an continu- ously the service which such position or job demands.
 Assuming such a contract to exist be- tween an employer and workman who for any reason sees fit to leave his employment, it should need no argu- ment to show that if he fails to perform his part of the undertaking he abro- gates his contract, and has no claim moral or legal. upon the employer for either employment or wages. To at tempt to assert such a claim would be an absurdity. A relation would be i'm possible in which A was bound to give B employment of a certain kind while B was free to work when he pleased oI refrain from working when it suited him, leaving A no other recourse than to remain unserveL O.. find some one willing and capable tC take B's place ad interim. This is so evident that the workman does not make hims elf ridicu- lous by asserting so prt posterous claim against the employer when al the close of a strike he seeks re-em- ployment but he asserts it with great confidence against the man who, en- gagged to fill a vacancy. seeks to retain the employment he has secured when the man who left it wants to recover it.
 On this subject a correspondent of the Times WI voi es the union senti- ment says:
 The heroes " 10 are hired as strike breakers-who take other mems work at less wages and longer hours-have neither their own s If respect nor that of others. Still they are hardly tC blame; they can, as a rule, get work at no other time. Tht SC who hire then get rid of them as soon as possible after the trouble is settled. They don't last. |.
 The phrase take other mems work is significant. How does a.lA engage ment to work become the property oi any man save by rendering the service which it entails and for which the wage it carries is paid? Organized labor can. not expect to secure or retain the re. spect of thoughtful and right-minded men as long as it makes itself absurd l by setting up such contentious as this | and whining about it's wrongs wher they are not respected.-New Yorl Times