Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-08-16
A MANS RIGHT TO HIS JOB

Washington, Aug. 1s,-Doss q work
man have . right TO his job7 This -
= question, much discussed in rscsn&
years. to which definite answer may
be ssta bliAhed In the near future ~
one Of the results Of the current indus
trial upheavAl.
The controversy over the seniority
nghtA OF the striking railway EN-
ployees has an indirect bsar1nG on tho
question. and the settlement Of this
controversy may point tho way 10
the answer to the question. Obviously
II 10 4 matter Of tho greatest import
ance both to capital and TO labor, and
the general pubic Is only slightly less
interested in II. 1t " equally obvious
that the subject " debatable.
On tho one side there In The con-
tention that Y 4 worker gives efficient
service and complies with reasonable
rules and working conditions no &C
quires a right In or to his Job which
corresponds mt least In a degree to the
property right OF tho employer in his
invested capital and plant. This right
increases with tho length OF service
OF the worker. II u argued, and rels-
| lively It II just ~ valuable to him AZ
real and personal property are TO the
employer. Therefore tho conclusion IL
drawn that the worker should not be
deprived OF his Job without due pro-
cess any more than his employer
should be deprived OF his property
without recourse TO measures duly
| provided and established by law.
On the other side the argument Is
advanced that employment may b.
given, withheld or withdrawn entire
ly at tho will or pleasure OF the EN-
| ployer and that the laborer has M
rights in the premises except 20 his
wage Aztec he has earned Il. Employ.
ment is a contract according TO thi,
theory and when the employer hal
paid the wage prescribed and fulfilled
any other conditions that may be slip.
ulated in the contract he Ia quilted o,
all obligation. The job is his and h,
gives IL to the worker for a consid
GRAFTON. Tho worker owns nothing bu
his time, his labor and his slcill. ant
these constitute the consideration fl
return foe which he gets FIRST tn
opportunity to work and second tn
wage after he has rendered a specific,
service. If labor is free. If a man cal
not be compelled to work a@atnet nj
VIII or accept a job no does not like
then capital must be no less free an,
the employer can not BE- required 4
. hire man no does not like or doe
not want, or to retain a man II n
sees III 10 termolnate the employment
Third Side to Question.
But there is a third side 10 thi
question. as these Is TO most phase
: OF the industrial probIem-the pub
2 lie side. From this viewpoint It /
? urged that in this day and age ind,l4
try " primarily a social Institute
and that tho promotion, operation an
= expa nsion Of industry should be
. social service s,Ibordinated to the ger
v eral welfare OF all the people. Rule
5 and rights 80 between employer an
= employed must b established M
9 only on tho basis Of what IL fair an
s just TO each. but on the basis OF wis
: Is best for organized society. Cor
: eequentiy society ehou1d have som.
thing 70 say about this question OF
4 HAan tight TO his JOB.
O. A subject q this kind NAY porha,
9 be presented moro clearly and su,
q cinct1y by citing = concrses exAmpI
! Not many months ago some sever
" hundred workers hero in waHhinxtr
!, found themselves out OF Jobs owe
II night. The nations OF the earth had d
= clded on policy Of disarmame
= which meant that all new constructtt
~ for the United States Navy snou
% be curtailed or cease entirely. T
workers in question had been q.
- ployed in the Navy yard here win
the Navy Department set about ca
rying out the new policy they we
dismissed almost without notice.
There was no question of their 9
ficiency, their ability or their wiIlin
ness to work. Most OF them had be
in the service many years. TIL,
IL labor had been vital in time Of W
v when the nations life. was at stal
10 They and their families were part a
IL parcel of this community, they n
=. established homes here, and, pr
sumptively, they were essential
this unit Of the general social fabr
They had to have their daily wage
order that they might have da
os bread. There was no other emplc
ss ment in their line in Washington q
y, when they were discharged it mea
~ that they had to sever all ties he
and so into other communities
jobs.
i'd Not a Mere Matter of Ethics.
to Now it may be contended that it
m. not wholly a question as 10 whetl
RS IL was fair 10 these men TO depr
res them of their Jobs in this ruthl
fashion-not merely matter
ethics. They were useful, product
&C. members Of society and through
n: fault OF their own they were ma
is producers overnight. Is it
no possible that it was not for the b
40 interest Of organized society to
cord them such treatment? Is tn
not some basis for the claim that II
- no In r~tvh 70 .