The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1910-04-01
Strikes and Lockouts.

OF Kansas.
There are three parties to every
strike or lockout that takes place in
trouble between employers and en-
ployees. These are the laborers
united in an organization, the man
ayers of business representing the
capitalists, and the public at large.
In the consideration of the evils of
strikes the third party is generally
ignored, and yet this third party,
the public, is the chief sufferer.
What right has body of organ
lied laborers to stop the wheels Of
industry, to interfere with scores Of
businesses and millions of people
not directly involved1 What right
has the employer to force lockcu,
and in the same manner as strike,
interfere with the we'll being of the
public? If there were only two
parties concerned in the strike, we
might let them fight it out in their
own way, but as it interferes with
the rights and duties of the citizens
who are not interested in thu
particular strike, 1t is the duty Of
the stale to interfere and preveni
interruption OF public welfare.
Now right to strike may not be
legally denied, nor could the right
of man to shut down his mill be
legally denied. But if the strike or
the shutting down of the mill inter
feres with the general welfare of the
public, it is the right of the public
to protect all its people from ipjus-
tice, the destruction of property,
and interference with industrial
pursuits.
The strike and the lockout are
relics of barbarism. Society has
moved clear beyond the point
where such things should be
tolerated in civilized life. 1t is the
right and duty of the state to pro-
vide means OF settling these
disputes or preventing their distruc
tive effects upon the business and
social interests of the community.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
and England have advanced laws
regulating such affairs. The United
States lags behind in the one thing
it is proudest of and presumes to
know the most about, that is the
art of government. A law should
be established whereby local board
should sit as Board of Concilia-
ton, akd then, if tho contending
parties could be brought to settle
on fair basis, the Board should
sit as a Board of Arbitration and
settle the dispute.
Perhaps the constitution would
not permit the Board to say to
man, "Y0u should open your mill
and keep it running, paying a
certain rate of wages, and say to
certain group of laborers, "You
must return to wark at these wages;
but 1t could settle this point, that
if the mill does continue to run, it
shall pay a certain fixed wage for
certain specified time, and say to
the laborers, "If you do return,
you must peaceably comply with
the order of the Board of Arbitra.
tion and work for the wages fixed
and the terms proposed"
The Canadian law has introduced
a new feature into the question of
and arbitration. 1t
provides for a Board of Arbitration
selected, one member by the
aborers, and another by the
Employer. These two select a
hird. As soon as the board holds
is first meeting it is against the law
or strikes and lockouts to occur.
The business must go on uHtil the
question is finally settled. Then
he decision of the Board of
Arbitration may or may net be
accepted by either capital one side
'r labor on the other. Yet because
# its educational influence its de-