Fraud and Strike

Economics Economics Questions
, , , ,
1

This morning I was thinking of an incident that occured in my hometown of Rutland, Vermont, in the 19th century. Rutland was home to several marble quarrying companies and marble was fortuitously discovered just as the Rutland Railroad came to town and the famous quarries of Carrara, Italy closed do to their unworkable depth. It was maybe 10 years before the Civil War. So there was a lot of immigration into town by people who could not neccesarrily speak English. They took jobs at the quarries, but the terms of their contracts (which they likely could not read) stipulated they had to buy goods from a company store (that charged outrageous prices) and were required to rent homes from property owned by the company. By the 1880’s (I believe) they were so fed up with this state of affairs they went on strike.

I find this an interesting scenerio from the Austrian perspective because they signed contracts and then were coerced into fulfilling different terms then the ones they agreed to (the company employed thugs, I understand). So my question for debate is this: were the employees of the company justified, from the Austrian point of view, into going on strike and forcing the company to adhere to the terms they originally agreed to, but were not necessarily on the paper contract?

2

“16 tonnes and what’da ya get? another day older and deeper in debt…”

I don’t know if there is a particular Austrian angle on this issue. “Striking” often means stopping work and using force to prevent the employer from hiring anyone else, which is clearly illegal. Quitting the job and using moral persuasion (picketing etc) is a legal recourse, as is the use of court action against the company. Whether or not the workers knew English when they signed could have been a factor in court (it certainly would be these days).

With communications as they are now, it’s pretty hard for any employer, outside of the enlightened world of Academia, to get away with behaviour like this.

3

You can’t coerce someone into fulfilling an employment contract. That is slavery. All the the employer is entitled to if the workers walk away is compensation for his losses.

The same thing applies to the employees’ contracts. They could demand justice for the non-respect of their contract, but they couldn’t force the employer to fulfill it.