The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1906-12-22
'W0RkMGhlh MUST be ]
HELPER { OF CAPITAL
Employer Really Cannot Run
His Own Business = without
y. ! ..,.":.. Aid of Labor. :
The Capitalists Claim That He
Can, is Without Foundation,
AS Facts Show. ::

-
the dispute between employers: and
employees that q contains a fallacy OF
such altaking nature that it obscures
the question Of right and wrong. y
On account: of the sense Of owner
ship which: q proprietorship or man
ager ofsa= business hasa sen1eaSw hieh
is perfectly justifable andssflect-
he comes to feel that rlrh hg that
business is his exclusive- privilege.
And when his employees petition or
make demand with reference, 70 their
relation to the enterprise he says he
wants to run his own business;" that
he has paid for his plant; that he has
built 1T up: that he is more competent
than the laborer, and that it is insolent
tor the employe to interfere. the en-
ploy being without capital to lose
or any risk to rum. -
There is much force, on; this preser-
tation OF the subject, but still the
points do not present the whole, case.
There is fallacy In. tie claim of
the capitalist that he. can run his
own business" ~:
The fact is that he cannot run
his own business. He employs men to
work for him simply because he can
not. He needs scores or hundreds or
thousands of other men to help him.
II; he could run his own business
without the help OF other men he
would not pay them anything to help
him. He would not hire man.
When his employees strike he shuts
down his Workshop; because he can
not run his own business. Then, If
he cannot run his own business he
ought not to talk at fallacy that . is
deceptive, implying that the men that
are in partnership with him in carry
ing on his business (however humble
their shares may be) are insolent in
making petition or suggestion. It is
q: fact that because they are helpers
to him In his business they should be
listened to with deferenee to their
humanity. They are the employers
co-laborers.>
Connected with this fallacy we
point out that there is another whose
explanation will make the former still
clearer. ~.\
1t is said that the -employe sells his
slabor. Andss:th hts, IN the . minds Of
coIzles she 1eala hie
muscle, and lnu4cle only. s5ss
But the e1npIoye dslfvers more than
muscle. II muscle were all that the
capitalist needed of the laborer he
could put in machines or horses. The
horse has plenty Of muscle, and great
power can be delivered through a ma
chine. But the capitalist needs some-
thing more than muscle-that is. the
honest and sympathetic intelligence
Of man. It is the man who must
run the machine or drive the horse.
And the capitalist needs that some-
thing called a man.. He pays the en-
ploye for more than his muscle, some-
thing of his very self. He needs that
something in the emptoye in which the
employer and employe are sharers;
that which shows that they equally
belong to the genus homo.
Now, If the employer dictates with
out any permission Tor the employe to
suggest any more than mere muscle
might-that is, horse-and culti-
Yates habit Of thought that makes
him compare q striking employe to a
baking horse, he IL taking the posi-
ton that he is not merely hiring, but
absolutely buying, not merely the mus
cular labor Of the employe, but his
very manhood, or 1nanliness itself;
that is, he Is reducing his employe to
slavery. But he has no right to re-
duce q human being to slavery.
His intelligence and his character
entitle the workingman to the right
tn rnsnactf1Il a1r1peafi0n and netition
without it's being hurled back at him
that the employer is able to run his
own business"