The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-10-28

borne exclusively by the employers,
but at the same time they must bear
their share of the burden, and reduce
their own profits proportionately to
their reduction of wages. On the
other hand the mere refusal on the
part of the employees to abide by the
terms of the contract would not OF
itself constitute an act of injustice, if
the contract was ubiquitous from the
beginning and was entered into by the
employees under the moral compul-
sion Of the fear of starvation. EN-
ployers are prone to regulate wages
solely by the marketable value of
labor, but Christian ethics insist that
other factors, besides supply and de-
mand should be taken into account in
fixing the scale of wages. Where en-
ployees have been compelled against
their will to accept for their labor re-
Enumeration that is inadequate for the
proper maintenance of their families,
they are quite within their rights if
they seize a favorable opportunity to
force their employers by equitable
means to redress the wrong.
If the actual conduct of strikes CON
sisted solely in cessation from labor
there would be no difficulty whatever
lin deciding on their morality; as
practically carried out, however, they
frequently entail losses on innocent
persons.
If the strike is based on clear in
justice or the part of employers, the
latter,s losses may be left out of ac.
count for they may be attributed to
the employers misdeeds or their own
free choice to suffer a present loss in
order to retain greater profits. But
what of the employees who do not
wish to strike, but prefer to work
under existing conditions rather than
endanger their present means Of sus-
tenance? And what of those other
men, not yet employees, who are will
ing to accept work at the employers
terms? Both these classes are pre-
vented from working by the strikers,
because it is essential for the strikes
success that the employers embar-
rassment should not be relieved.
How far are the strikers justified in
preventing innocent men from retain
ing their positions or taking those
vacated by the strikers?
No Personal Violence.
First of all it is morally wrong for
the strikers to do such men personal
violence. On the other hand they may
exert moral compulsion on actual or
prospective employees; that is, they
may resort to persuasion, eXhortation,
and even threats of exclusion from the
union and from the advantages con-
nected with it. This is not in itself
evil and, under the circumstances, to
do it would not be r~eprehensible, for
it is a necessary means of defense,
and the loss to the individuals eX-
cluded from positions by this moral
compulsion bears no comparison to
the far greater good that a, much
larger body of men hoped to attain.
1t is partly by such methods that the
entire laborirg class of the United
States has been enabled to escape
from economic slavery, and the detri.
ment of the few is negligible when
compared with the good of the many.
Another element enters into the
problem, considerably complicating it
Strikes, as a rule, are not merely a
trial of strength between two dis
putants, with the sympathy of the
public divided between them; they
often entail very serious consequences
in no way party to the dispute, and
involve them in much inconvenience
and discomfort and, at times, financia'
loss. How far may employers and
employees disregard these regrettable
but inevitable effects of their action
First Of all, if there is downright
injustice on either side, the leaders
of that side are responsible for al
the losses which their injustice en-
tails, and are under the obligation o.
making restitution to the full extent
of their culpability. If neither side
is guilty of injustice, but both are
struggling to safeguard respective in
CCISoIS1 II1C SlIlhc IdhcS III IuC CIldl
acter of an act which has two effects
one good and the other bad. The bat
effect is always to be deplored, bur
is nevertheless permissible; that is
it may be allowed to take place, pro
vided the good effect outweighs the
evil. The public is willing and pre-
pared to put UP with a certain amour
of discomfort and even loss, in ordel
, that justice may be done or Legitimate
interests advanced; but this discom
} fort and loss must be reduced to thu
) minimum necessary for the attain
, ment Of the object. In the measur'
| in which this minimum is exceeded
} the strike is illicit. This principle al
l fects both employers and employees
: 1t is a matter of justice to the publ,
that the disputants should come t.
: terms or effect a compromise, if thi
5 is possible, without involving limo
: cent persons in the effects of the quar-
3 rel. Where this is impossible, the eS
$ tent to which either side may hol,
out, and either directly or indirectl,
1 extend the strike, depends on the pre-
D portion that exists between the goo,
they reasonably hope to gain and tn
5 evils the innocent public must endure