Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-08-16
The H1skin Letter . r. r.
By E
J. HASKlN
MANS RIGHT TO HIS JOB

cheney. their ability or their willingness
to work. Most Of them had been in
the service many years. Their labor
had been vital in time of war, when
the nations life was at stake. They
and their families were part and parcel
of this community, they had established
homes here, and. presumptively, they
were essential to this unit of the gem
eral social fabric. They had to have
their daily wage in order that they
might have daily bread. There was no
other employment in their line in
Washington and when they were dis
charged it meant that they had to sever
all ties here and 90 into other com
munities for jobs.
Not a Mere Matter of Ethics
Now it may be contended that it is
not wholly a question as to whether it
was fair to these men to deprive them
of their jobs in this ruthless fashion
not merely a matter of ethics. They
were useful. productive members of So
ciety and through no fault of their
own they were made nOn-producrs
overnight. Is it not possible that it
was not for the best interest of or
ganized society TO accord them such
treatment? Is there not some basis
for the claim that they had a certain
vested right to their jobs-that their
employer should have been required to
find some work for them to do or make
some provision to tide them over until
they could be absorbed into industry
elsewhere:
Such are the questions that their
Spokesman asked, but they were never
answered very definitely or very salts
factorily. Everybody was sorry. but
nobody could do anything about it. At
the time there was some talk of taking
the matter into the courts in a test
case to determine whether these work
ers were not being deprived arbitrarily
of rights in the enjoyment of which
they should have been protected. 1t
was suggested that a suit be brought
to enjoin the secretary Of the navy
from discharging them on the grounds
indicated. and that the case be carried
TO the supreme cOurt of the United
States.
However. labor leaders are loath to
go into court. particularly in an effort
to use the process of injunction which
they have inveighed for years, and
nothing came of the suggestion. The
case would have been one of equity
as well as of law. and its decision would
have been of far-reaching effect and
Importance.
1t is not suggested that the en-
plover has no legal right to discharge
at will as the laws now stand and as
they have thus far been interpreted
and applied by the courts. In fact. he
may discharge an employe for any rea-
son. or even for no reason. But laws
may be changed. or new laws enacted.
and courts have been known to changa
their minds. The knowledge obtained
BY the increasing study of industrial
conditions and relations is the fundn-
mental factor back of the states policy,
as expressed by legislatures and as
sustained by the courts. and the legis-
latures. as we'll as the courts. must
take and have taken notice Of this
growing fund Of knowledge.
Whatever the contentious for or
against the idea that a worker does
possess SOM kind or degree of a right
TO his job it is unQuestionably true that
far-sighted and successful employers
are coming to realize that it is a good
business policy to accept and act upon
that idea unless they are imposed upon
by their employees. individually or col
lectively. They regard this as giving
expression 10 the principle that capital
and labor are partners III industry. and
they know that partners never get
along or succeed unless each is consid-
crate OF the other. In such a rela-
tionship it should rot be necessary for
either partner to be on guard constant
ly against possible invasions of his
rights" One partner can become I'M
duly selfish or assertiye only AT the
expense of the other. and in the long
run at his own expense. as well.