Connecticut western news., 1910-02-24
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
Employer and Employee Should Abide
 by Contract or Pay for Loss.

The following letter to the waterbury American from Cornwall correspond ent deals with an evil which has caused a great deal of hardship to the public as we'll as to the parties directly interested.
 "The time has come when strikes and lockouts should be relegated to the sphere in which they belong, history.
 Enormous sums of money and years of time have been spent in endeavoring to provide a way in which labor and capital may meet on common ground and adjust any and all questions aris- are centered, but that such efforts are yet uncrowned with complete success is proven by the still too frequent labor and industrial agitations.
 Until labor and capital. employer and employee, are financially respon- sible to each other, it does not appear that the desired result may be reached.
 "That labor is purchssable as we'll as salable commodity, is at once al- lowed. This being true, why then shall not the contracting parties feel secure i'll their agreement and be insured against financial loss to themselves. providing the cause is no5 originated by the defensive party?
 'Iu a recent article penalties are pro- vided for, but it is difficult to appreciate how the fines are to aid the successful contestant. To be more explicit, after the business agent or representative of a labor organization and the representa- tive of the firm have signed the cus- tomary yearly agreement and each in turn have made the best terms possible for their respective employers, it should be incumbent upon the party violating the contract to reimburse the aggrieved one to the full extent of the loss.
 Yearly agreements always contain no lock out, no strike and all questions debatable to be submitted to arbitration clauses Yet strikes and lockouts occur which proves conclusively that some body violates the contract, and the gist of this article is to advance the con tention that the innocent contractor should recover the unavoidable, to him. financial loss. In innumerable large contracts existing between corporations @ bond is required and given to insure the faithful performance of the bargain by both sides; therefore, why is it not highly proper for firms employing 8 number of employees and for these same employees to each in turn give a fl. nancial security to the other in the event of violation of their contract.
 "On one hand, lockout immediately and completely stops the income of the employee and the consequent priva tions, destitution and suffering is i'm posed upon the victims family. At the same time. these conditions exist when the cause is strike. It is none the less true that the firm suffers as we'll, almost irreparabIe losses to his business, his factories in many ways, in the event Of a strike for which, as we'll as lockout. both parties assumed to provide against in the annual agreement, the faithful performance of which alone insures each and both that the bond shall not be for feited. Regardless of what tribunal the disputed questions are referred to, both sides eventually will accept the situation and resume operations, after consider able financial loss to each, caused by cessation of labor.
 'Why not, then. submit the questions to arbitration and abide by the decision, in the meantime there being no loss of time or delay to business? It would be infinitely better to all concerned and the community at large to arrive at a peaceable solution of the issue, than to endure weeks or months of ldleness and suffering and often rioting with blood shed and death, only to return to former conditions, as in this era of production and consumption, men will labor and factories will run.
 Ut is much more logical and practical for the deserving man to be recompensed  than for the proposed fine to go into the treasury of the town or state. Another feature of the proposition to fine an em- ployee presents itself, when he has it to pay, individually. How can man pay fifty (S50) dollars per day, when he has never been able to earn more than that amount in a month? Again how may the employer be compelled to come within the jurisdiction of the proposed law, except by action of law, and who can afford to prosecute? Not the em ployee. Allowing for a moment that either party is fined according to law and unable to pay ir, what becomes of him? Does he go to prison? In this event does his opponent feel gratified and satisfied at the outcome? It is not at all probable.
 "A bond of security, between em- ployer and employee, will soon increase