Case 6. Not a Living Wage

Albert, a young German, came to London, where he obtained the position of a clerk in a certain large commercial house. But since he knew neither the English language nor the duties to be performed sufficiently, he was received on the condition that he would be content with a salary of twenty pounds for each year. He intended, after one or two years, enriched by experience of the English manner of business, to return to his own country, and hence accepted the condition. In the meantime, however, sometimes pressed by great straits, since twenty pounds in no way sufficed to support him, he sought counsel and help from a certain Catholic priest, who doubted whether Albert might take something more, even secretly, in the name of a just wage. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the mutual obligations of masters and workers?

2. What is a just wage?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 289.

2. What is a just wage?

This question may be answered in the words of Leo XIII, who in his “Encyclical on the Condition of the Working Classes,” May 15, 1891, says: "Let it be then taken for granted that workman and employer should, as a rule, make free agreements, and, in particular, should agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that the remuneration must be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If, through necessity or fear of a worse evil, the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.”

3. The case. Albert, a young German, came to London and obtained a post as clerk in a merchant’s office. As he knew English very imperfectly and was new at his duties, a salary of £20 a year was offered him. He intended to learn the English method of business, and; in a year or two, go back to Germany, so he accepted the terms. He soon found that he had not enough to live on, and sought the advice and help of a Catholic priest, who doubted whether Albert might not secretly take something more than £20 to make up a living wage.

No; Albert will not be justified in occultly compensating himself and taking in secret more than he agreed to take. He was in reality only an apprentice at the post, his work was not worth more than £20 a year, and the experience he gained made up for what might have been wanting in the amount of his salary. The general rule laid down by Leo XIII does not apply to special cases like this. Albert should get assistance from home, or in some other way; he is not the victim of injustice, and he can not resort to occult compensation.