The daily Nome industrial worker., 1916-07-22
LABOR CONTRACTS.

The case of Weckman versus Tle Alaska Lighterage and Commercial Go. was followed with considerable interest and some matters apoer- taining to it are worthy consider ..t:o... Like all cases i'! whi1h woyklngmen are involved tha facts sill ,eray attention.
 As for the verdict of course 1t is due to the particular phase which fastened itself upon the minds of the .uroIs, and without knowledge of that, comment would be beside the question. in any eevnt, intrinsl- cally speaking, while of great inn portance to the litigants, to us it ls of the least importance in ;E" whole cause.
 What is important was that astonishing contract. It is an aston ishing state of things when man has to work seventeen hours or whereabouts a day and to be jack of all trades to obtain position of the kind.
 In the first place it is a physica. impossibility for any person, whether superman or not, to do any kind of efficient daily work for seventeen hours-from seven in the morning until twelve at night. It is impossible for any person to work that length of time and to maintain a clear head and an atten- tive tirelss hand.
 What is of necessity involved In such a contract is that there must be a slackness somewhere, and that there is that slackness somewhere must have been tacitly understoo by both employer and employee
 We say it advisedly that no en- plover who understands employment could expect to receive efficient service from any employee and re- uuire of him at the same time to work from seven in the morning until twelve at night. And as we see it, although none of the experts saw it from the evidence, Weckman as engineer and hoistman, must have exceeded that time in order to have steam in his boiler to start work at seven in the morning.
 Yet despite this, the testimonY showed that the employee had re- quired of him by his employer du ties as important as they were vari' ous. Most of them were such as are i'll the nature of things anywhere usually termed skilled, and which are we'll requited. Their import ance is not to be disguised by the testimony which seemed to indicate that the control of steam was easy in high pressure boilers. Such testimony is strangely in conflict with the safety first regulations which now prevail in almost all states and most plants outside. However that is neither here nor there. The length of the work day defes any possibility of its being an effective work day, and simply creates a condition of drudgery that would be fatal to tolerance by the majority of men.
 And this paper wonders why these contracts. Contracts Tor workers have no benefit whatever They are no substitute for labor un- ion control, nor for the failure to live up to an agreement entered into with organized labor. It would be no loss to labor if every employer broke every contract that ever he went into. That's fiat. It would be distinct benefit to labor if there never was contract signed That's fiat also. The contract is a relic from chattel slavery. It's very terms are insulting. The legislation and the court decisions are perpe- tually reverting to the chattel in- terest of the master in the serv- ant. The contract is no benefit to the worker. The contract is not en- tered into except when beneficial to the employer. The employer has the job. The average worker de- mands certain terms before filling it. The employer makes his own terms and says to the employee sign these or you don't. work. He has that power and that privilege.