The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-12-01
A Question Of Personal Liberty.

The order promulgated by President
Howard Elliott Of the Northern Pa
cific, that employees Of that company
must refrain from the use of liquor at
all times, has called forth much COM
ment in conversation. The question
that is raised is whether a railroad
company has a moral right to make;
such rule and whether it is not OPP
posed to public policy. r
The, subject is one that has a wider
scope than the actual effects Of the
enforced abstentton on the employees
and the road. No doubt twill be bene-
fetal to many Of the employees Of the
Northern Pacific to be compelled, thru
fear of losing their positions, to. stop
drinking in every form and at + all
times. No doubt the road will be
benefited thru the certainty. that none
of its employees will come to work
drunk or suffering from the conse-
quences Of excessive drinking.
But the real question that is raised
is as to how far an employer, corpora.
ton Or otherwise, has a right to direct
the conduct Of the employe outside of
working hours-outside, that is, the
time the enploye sells to the en-
ployer. The employee agrees to do,
certain work in certain hours for GER
tain pay; he does not sell his whole
time or his whole life, or the right to
regulate that portion Of his, time. not
spent in the service of the; employer.
Now, when the employer says to the
employe that he shall not drink at any
time or place, even to the extent of
taking a glass Of beer with his meals
in his own home, is he not interfering
to an unwarranted degree with the
personal liberty Of the employee?
Where one employer of one employee
makes such a rule it does not affect
the community, but when that one en-
ployer, engages the services of thou
sands, and it's. example is likely to be
followed* by other employers, SO
the entire. wage and salary earning
class has it's personal liberty thus cir
cumscribed; the question be comes a
grave one. IF a great corporation
can interfere with the personal affairs
of it's employessin one respect, why not
| in others? Already, everybody
| knows, the responsible. employees. Of
many corporations rarely dare to
speak their own minds on any Question
Of the day. If, now, to sacrificed free
dom Of speech, there be added restric-
lions on the personal and family life
Of the employe, is it not true that we
are. rapidly approaching that be-
| nevolent feudalism of which we have
| heard SO much? IS ~
There is a great difference between
discharging an employe because of bad
+. character, bad habits Or incornpe
and discharging him because Of GER
tain conduct in private life which may
or may not be bad in itself and may
l or may not have results in the EN-
i ploye's sold time that are injurious to
] the interests Of the employer.
There is much to be said : on both
sides Of this question. That the rule
will be more powerful In promoting
temperance than a. vast amount Of
4 preaching, exhorting and pledge-mak-
ing there can be no doubt. # 1t APP
plies to trainmen, engineers firemen
/ and operators only, 1T is easier to de-
fend than if it applies to all employees
If it applies to all,employes it.shonld
/ include the, president himself as well
as the clerks in the auditors office.