Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-06-02
THE STRIKE BREAKER

Has a workman the moral right
TO work chow, when and where he
pleases." even to becoming a strike
] breaker7
That right to individual freedom of
action in the greatest number of ways
is perhaps the most precious product
of civilization. In the degree that this
/ freedom is assured and individual ini-
tiative permitted, social progress Is
stimulated. In brief, the entire adj
vance of the masses from serfdom
and feudal bondage TO the sovereign
citizenship of our own time has been
through the increase of the liberty of
the individual in matters political,
religious and economic.
1t must not be assumed that trade
unionists seek TO curtail the absolute
legal rights of men to work how,
when and where they please. What
soever unduly coercive measures ire
sponsible and injudicions men have
sometimes resorted to in times of in
dustrial trouble, trade unions are pre-
pared to grant and respect the legal
ity of the acts of non-unionists in
breaking that commandment in the
labor decalogue which says: Thou
shalt not steal-thy neighbours job"
The contention of the trade unionist
himself is, that he has the legal right
to sell his labor how, when and where
he pleases, for this carries with 1t the
legal right to refuse to sell his labor
excepting under conditions approved
of by him. Thus, if it should be as
sumed that the individual workman
has, legally, no choice in the dispo-
sition of his labor, an involuntary
servitude would be established, which
would effectively debar the union
man from refusing to work with un-
fair men.
A man may do many harmful and
unjust things and still be within the
law. The Shylock who forecloses a
mortgage or evicts a widow and or
phans from their little home is within
the law. The merchant who bank
selling him, is within the law. The
trust which freezes out the smaller
dealer is within the law. The magnate
who controls the oil market and raises
the prices of the poor mans light, is
within the law. Hundreds of instances
are familiar to US, all Of which con-
clusiyely prove that legality and JUS
tice are by no means synonymous
terms. Hence, it is apparent that an
individual wage-earner may be acting
legally, and yet be pursuing policy
which is seriously harmful to the in
terests of other workmen.
To say that the non-unionist has
the moral right to work how, when
or where he pleases is, of course, the
same thing as saying that he has the
moral right, If he pleases, entirely
apart from extenuating circumstan-
ces,, to become strike-breaker, an
active agent working against his fell
low-craftsman, a traitor to his class
and kind.
The Standard Dictionary gives the
primary definition of "moral" as
pertaining to the practice, conduct,
and spirit of men toward God, them
selves, and their fellowmen, with
reference to right and wrong"
In simple phrase, then, those acts
which are right are moral; those acts
which are wrong are immoral. A man
can have no moral right to commit
wrong act.
The industrial question looms in
front today. Men, having arrived at
tacit agreement as to theology, are
now wrestling with the issues of in
ldustrial relationship. The strike
breaker is the legitimate inheritor of
Il the odium which was formerly heaped
upon the hereto.
If there be those so abnormally
constituted as to feel they serve con-
science best by serving their fellow
men least, then the trade unionist can
only absolve them from responsibility
and leave them free to put on the halo
CONSTRUCTED for them by that most
eminent parsonage who has designat-
ed the scab as the best type of mod
ern hero.
But it will hardly be asserted, even
by the opposition, that men are SER
iously lacerated in conscience by re-
framing from taking the jobs of men
on strike. The motive which leads
them to do this may come from need,
from desire for promotion, from mo-
tives of revenge, but scarcely from
conscientiousness The very person
/