The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-08-16
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC }. HAsKIN. Director,
Washington, ID. G.
A MANS RIGHT no HIS JOB.

A MANS RIGHT TO HIS JOB.
Washington, D. c., Aug. 13.-Does
workman have a right to his job?
This is a question, much discussed in
recent years, to which a definite an
swer may be established in the near
future as one of the results of the cur
rent Industrial upheavaL
The controversy over the seniority
rights of the striking railway en-
ployes has an indirect bearing on the
question. and the settlement of this
controversy may point the way to the
answer to the question. Obviously 1t
is a matter OF the greatest importance
both to capital and to labor, and the
general public is only slightly less in
terested in it 1t is equally obvious
that the subject is debatable.
On the one side there is the con-
Client service and complies with rea-
sonable rules and working conditions
he acquires a right in or to his job
which corresponds at least in degree
to the property right of the employer
in his invested capital and plant. This
right increases with the length of
service of the worker, it is argued,
and relatively it is just as valuable
to him as real and personal property
are to the employer. Therefore the
conclusion is drawn that the worker
should not be deprived of his job
without due process any more than
his employer should be deprived of
his property without recourse to
measures duly provided and establish
ed by law.
On the other side the argument is
advanced that employment may be
given. withheld or withdrawn entirely
at the will or pleasure of the en-
ployer and that the laborer has no
rights in the premises except to his
wage after he has earned it. En-
ployment is a contract according to
this theory and when the employer
has paid the wage prescribed and full
filled any other conditions that may
be stipulated in the contract he is
quilted of all obligation. The job is
his and he gives it to the worker for
a consideration. The worker owns
nothing but his time, his labor and
his skill, and these constitute the con-
sideration in return for which he gets
first the opportunity to work and sec
ond the wage after he has rendered
a specified service If labor is free,
If a man can not be compelled to
work against his will or accept a job
he does not like. then capital must be
no less free and the employer can not
be required to hire a man he does not
like or does not want, or to retain a
man If he sees fit to terminate the
employment.
But there is a third side to this
question, as there is to most phases of
the industrial problem-the public
side. From this viewpoint it is urged
that in this day and age industry is
primarily social institution and that
the promotion, operation and expaa-
sion of industry should be social
service subordinated to the general
welfare of all the people. Rules and
rights as between employer and en-
ployed must be established not only
on the basis of what is fair and just
to each, but on the basis of what is
best for organized society. Conse-
quently society should have something
to say about this question of a mans
right to his Job.
A subject of this kind may perhaps
be presented more clearly and sue
cinctly by citing a concrete example.
Not many months ago some several
hundred workers here in Washington
found themselves out of Jobs over
night. The nations of the earth had
decided on a policy of disarmament
which meant that all new construc-
ton for the United States navy would
be curtailed or cease entirely. The
workers in question had been en-
ployed in the yard here and when the
navy department set about carrying
out the new policy they were dis
missed aim ost without notice
There was no question of their eff
their ability or their willing
ness to work. Most of them had been
in the service many years. Their
labor had been vital in time of war
They and their families were part and
parcel of this community, they had
established homes here, and, pre-
sumptively, they were essential to this
unit of the general social fabric. They
mad TO nave 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 discharged it meant that
they had to sever all ties here and go
INTO other communities for jobs
Not n Mere Matter of Ethics
Now it may be commended that it is
not wholly a question as to whether it
was fair to these men to deprive them
or their Jobs in this ruthless fashion
not merely a matter of ethics They
were useful, productive members of
society and thru no fault of their own
they were made non-producers over
night Is it not possible that it was
not for the best interest of organized
society to accord them such treat
mentE Is there not some basis for
vested right to their jobs-that their
employer should have been required
10 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 sat-
Everybody was sorry, but nobody
could de- 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
workers were not being deprived arbi-
trarily of rights in the enjoyment of
which they should have been pro-
tected. 1t was suggested that a suit
be brought to en1oin the secretary of
the navy from discharKing them on
the grounds indicated. and that the
case be carried to the supreme court
of the United States for a final de-