The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1917-05-25
DIRECT ACTION AND
INDIRECT ACTION
(BY Scott Nearingl

reached such proportions that the
Bureau of Statistics Of Massachusetts
is able to issue two hundred and
fifty page book under the title:
Labor Injunctions in Massachusetts"
The volume is practically filled with
quotations and summaries taken from
cases in which judges have issued in
functions in labor disputes.
Two things are noticeable in these
cases. The first is the fact that
the injunction is a weapon which is
used by the employer against his
employees. The workers do not use
the injunction Whatever its posi-
bilities, the workers have not availed
themselves of the opportunity which
the injunction might give them to
secure quick action on vital ques-
tions.
The injunction is a form of direct
action. Where irreparable damage
is threatened; where it can be shown
that the ordinary processes of law
are inadequate to give relief from
injustice, injunctions may be secured
from the Courts. If, for example,
one man appeared on the property of
another, and began cutting his shade
trees, for which no damages would
be an adequate compensation, the
court would issue an injunction for
bidding the intruder to continue cut
ting the trees. If he persisted, he
would be adjudged in contempt of
court and punished by the judge who
had issued the injunction.
Preceding upon this theory, courts
have issued injunctions in labor dis
putes. A group of workers, striking
against their employer, are threaten
ing to destroy his property. These
workers have no property upon which
the employer can levy if he wins a
damage suit against them. Besides
that, the injury which they are do
ing to his business is so great that
no money damages would ever com
pensate for it. The court grants
the injunction because no amount of
damages will make up for the loss
sustained.
Look at the other side of the ques-
ton for minute.
A hundred women are at work in
a state where the law required that
women shall be provided with seats.
No seats are provided, however, and
the constant standing, day by day,
undermines and finally destroyes the
health of the women. These women
have remedy at law They may
compel the factory inspectors to en-
! force the law and to provide seats.
| But that takes time Meanwhile.
the women are suffering a daily and
irreparable loss of health. This is
clearly case for the issuance of an
injunction.
A number of men are at work in
a mine. The mining company in
violation of the law, does not provide
adequate ventilation. The mems
health is damaged in consequence,
and one day the dust and gas in the
mine will explode, killing and main.
ing scores or perhaps hundreds. The
danger is imminent and constant.
The men have a remedy at law, but
meanwhile, irreparable damage is be-
| ing done. Again there is a case
for the use of the injunction.
Oddly enough, injunctions are not
! issued in these cases. 1t is only
when irreparable damage will be done
to property that the courts hasten to
| the assistance of citizens. Injunc-
tons are secured by employers, to
protect property
The property owners of the United
| States are the real irect-actionists.
The workers appoint legislative com
mlttees, elect representatives, lobby
for legislation, and when it is de-
clared unconstitutional, they go back
and pursue the weary path again
sometimes consuming years in the
process. Children are toiling; wo-
men are being overworked at starva-
ton wages; trade diseases threaten
health and life; accidents occur by
the tens of thousands-ha
health and life itself are destroyed
ruthlessly with no redress save the
tedious machinery of legislative ac-
ton. A strike is called. Strikers
and strike-breakers come into con-
flict, property is threatened, and
presto-an injunction is granted and
the danger of irreparable damage to
properly is warded off.
Injunctions are issued to prevent
irreparable damage; they are issued
at the behest of the employer; they