Point II. On the Letting of Work, or on the Contract of Rendering Work

I. Notion. The contract of rendering work is a contract by which one party, the locator, obliges himself to render his work for the benefit of another, and the other party, the hirer, to pay a wage. Therefore the object of this contract is the work or labor which someone lets to another.

II. Honesty of the contract. The honesty of the contract is clear from this: on the one hand, anyone can dispose of the use of his faculties for the advantage of another; on the other hand, that use can justly be compensated by the other party. Nevertheless the conditions of human association can be such that a contract of partnership is per se more to be recommended.

Pius XI speaks thus: "And first indeed, those who declare that the contract of hiring and letting labor is by its force unjust, and that therefore a contract of partnership must be substituted in its place, speak absurdly indeed and wrongly calumniate Our Predecessor, whose Encyclical Letters not only accept the 'wage-system,' but dwell at length on directing it according to the norms of justice.

"Yet in the present conditions of human association We judge it more advisable, insofar as it can be done, that the contract of work be tempered somewhat by a contract of partnership, as has already begun to be done in diverse ways, with no small advantage to workers and owners. Thus workers and officials become partners in ownership or management, or participate in some way in the profits received."¹

¹ Encyclical of Pius XI Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931 (A.A.S. 1931, p. 199).

III. Subject. All who are able to render the work in question and are not excluded by law can enter into the contract of rendering work.

IV. Form. The form of the contract is to be drawn from law; likewise those things which are required for proof of the contract.

V. Obligations of the locator, or hired person. 1. The hired person is bound faithfully to render his work according to the agreement.

2. With attention paid to natural law, the hired person cannot leave the hirer before the fixed time except for a grave cause. But if he does so, he ought to compensate the damages perhaps following for the hirer from the illegitimate departure. If, however, in the case the hirer finds another worker, the hired person can diminish the compensation proportionately, or even omit it, if no damage follows for the hirer. For the rest, the hired person retains a right to the wage proportionate to the time during which he rendered service, with some part nevertheless deducted as a just penalty (St. Alphonsus, III, 845). But what has force with attention paid to civil law, see in the code of one's country.

Question. What is to be said about the concerted interruption of labor, or about what are called strikes?¹

Response 1. Strikes are unjust: 1. if they are done for this end, that a wage greater than the just wage may be obtained;² 2. if the contract of letting was validly entered into, and the time of the lease has not yet elapsed, and a reason for not observing the contract is lacking. Therefore, with the end of obtaining a wage greater than the just wage excluded, they are not unjust: 1. if the contract of letting was invalid, for example because of a wage agreed upon that was less than just; 2. if the time of the lease has elapsed; 3. if there is a reason for not observing the contract, for example because the master himself does not observe the conditions.

Response 2. Strikes, though just, can nevertheless be illicit, with attention paid to graver damages that may perhaps arise, for example greater inconveniences that will befall families, disturbance of public order, etc. Hence they also are illicit if there is hope of obtaining the end by way of settlement.

Note. They are guilty of injustice who keep others back from work by an unjust means. Unjust means are threats, force, and fraud.

¹ Cf. Vermeersch, Quaestiones de Iustitia, n. 470-477; Aengenent, o.c., n. 140 sq.

² If workers conspire for the highest wage, they seem to act illicitly (n. 903).

VI. Obligations of the hirer. 1. The hirer cannot burden the hired person against his will with undue labor, that is, labor to which, apart from a special agreement, he is not bound according to the practice of the place.

2. The hirer is bound to pay a just wage. But a just wage per se is one which both suffices for the support of the worker and his family during the time of the work rendered, and corresponds to the nature of the labor which he renders, account also being taken of the social character which inheres in labor beyond its personal or individual character; and these things need a fuller explanation.¹ Therefore:

a) To labor there is owed at least some wage, and that from commutative justice. For one who labors for another grants to that other the use of his powers. But the use of human powers is worthy of a wage, or, in other words, gives to the one granting the use a right to some compensation or wage; which wage is rightly called as it were the price of labor, according to these words of St. Thomas: "For that is called a wage which is recompensed to someone in repayment of work or labor, as a kind of price of it; whence just as to pay the just price for a thing received from someone is an act of justice, so also to recompense the wage of work or labor is an act of justice" (I-II, q. 114, a. 1).

b) There is owed, and indeed from commutative justice, an individual wage, that is, one which suffices for the decent support of the laborer himself. This is clear first from the encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum novarum.² "Let it be then," says the Supreme Pontiff, "that the worker and the master freely agree to the same compact, and specifically to the manner of the wage: nevertheless there always underlies it something from natural justice, and that greater and older than the free will of those making the pact, namely, that the wage ought not to be unequal to feeding the worker, if he is frugal and of good morals. But if, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, the worker accepts a harder condition, which, although he does not wish it, must be accepted because it is imposed by the owner or by the contractor of works, that indeed is to undergo force, against which justice protests." The same is drawn from the encyclicals of Pius XI Casti connubii³ and Quadragesimo anno.⁴ The reason, however, is sought from the right, indeed the duty, of guarding life, and can be proposed thus: Labor is the means destined by God by which most must provide for their own support (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 187, a. 3). But these things involve that labor of itself is worthy of a wage which suffices for the support of the laborer.

The major is clear from this, that a means of providing for themselves cannot be lacking to most, and no other means than labor can be assigned.

c) There is owed, and indeed likewise from commutative justice, a family wage, that is, one which suffices not only for the laborer, but also for the support of his family. It is said:

alpha) A family wage is owed. Thus Leo XIII and Pius XI expressly teach, as will be clear from the citations to be adduced. The reason, moreover, is sought first from the prescription of legal justice, which brings with it the obligation of pursuing the common good. But it is very greatly to the interest of the common good that a wage be granted to the laborer by which he can provide for himself and his family.⁵ There is added the reason by which we shall soon prove that a family wage is owed from commutative justice.

Leo XIII in the encyclical Rerum novarum speaks thus: "If the worker receives a wage sufficiently ample that he can suitably protect himself, his wife, and his children, he will easily devote himself to saving," etc.

Pius XI in the encyclical Casti connubii: "And first of all this must be striven for with every effort, that what Our Predecessor Leo XIII had already most wisely decreed may be established in civil society, namely, that economic and social conditions be so constituted that all fathers of families can earn and gain the things necessary for feeding themselves, their wives, and their children according to their dignity and station: 'for the worker is worthy of his wage.'⁶ To deny this or to make it less than equitable is a grave injustice and is placed by the Sacred Scriptures among the greatest sins;⁷ nor is it lawful to establish wages so small that, according to the conditions of things, they are unequal to feeding a family."

The same Supreme Pontiff in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno: "And first indeed, a wage is to be supplied to the worker which is equal to the support of him and his family." ... "Therefore every effort must be made that fathers of families receive a wage sufficiently ample which suitably provides for common domestic necessities."⁸

beta) A family wage is owed from commutative justice. The reason again is sought from this, that labor is the means destined by God by which most must provide not only for themselves but also for their family. But these things involve that labor of itself is worthy of a wage which suffices not only for the laborer, as we have already said, but also for the support of his family. The major is deduced from this, that most men are called to founding a family; this being posited, a means of supporting a family cannot be lacking to most, and no other means than labor can be assigned.⁹

Corollary I. The wage explained above is understood of a worker who is fit for his work and is of that age at which, in that region, people think of entering marriage. It is nevertheless all the same whether the individual thinks of this, or in fact enters marriage, or remains celibate. For labor, as being destined to support a family, has such value as is required for supporting it, whether the worker founds a family or does not found a family.

Corollary II. The family wage which we maintain is understood as the wage which corresponds to supporting the usual family, or, in other words, we maintain the absolute family wage, as it is called, not the relative wage, that is, one which corresponds to an extraordinarily numerous family; for nature does not regard those things which occur, as it were, by accident. But how great the wage ought to be in some region in order to suffice for the suitable support of the usual family is gathered especially from common estimation. Yet, taking into account both that estimation itself, which is not precisely the same in all individuals, and the very nature of the thing - for it cannot be determined accurately what suitable support of a family requires - taking these into account, I say, at least in practice, a lowest, middle, and highest wage is admitted.

Corollary III. The family wage which we admit is understood as the wage by which the worker, with added to it both those things which he deposited before marriage and in the first times of marriage, and those things which wife and children can suitably earn, is able to care decently for himself and his family in the ordinary circumstances of the whole of life, that is, to provide for himself and his family the suitable instruction of the children, to meet the usual cases of illnesses, to prepare for himself an old age that is not needy, in the course of life to indulge in certain recreations, and finally, with the family estate increased both by thrift and by wise administration, to provide in some way for the surviving family. And these things, at least in part, are hinted at by Pius XI in the encyclicals.

The Supreme Pontiff in the encyclical Casti connubii: "Care must nevertheless be taken that the spouses themselves, and that already long before they enter marriage, strive to foresee or at least lessen future inconveniences and necessities of life, and be taught by experts how they can do this in a way at once effective and honorable. Provision must also be made that, if they are not sufficient for themselves alone, by the joined work of similar persons and by private or public associations established, they may relieve the necessities of life." And in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno: "It is surely equitable that the rest of the family also contribute according to their powers to the common support of all, as can be seen especially in families of farmers, but also in many families of craftsmen and smaller merchants; but it is wicked to abuse childhood age and the weakness of woman. Let mothers of families devote their work especially at home, or in those things which are adjacent to the home, by applying themselves to domestic cares. But it is a very bad abuse and to be removed by every effort, that mothers of families, because of the scantiness of the father's wage, are forced to exercise a gainful art outside the domestic walls, with the cares and duties proper to them, and especially the instruction of infants, neglected."¹⁰

Corollary IV. Leo XIII and Pius XI also speak of so great a wage "as may give workers the occasion of coming to a modest holding,"¹¹ or of increasing the family estate,¹² and of leaving some goods to their children.¹³ But these things will have place if workers, after receiving the wage assigned above, devote themselves to saving.

"If the wage," says Leo XIII, "is sufficiently ample that by it the worker can suitably protect himself, his wife, and his children, he will easily devote himself to saving, if he is wise, and will bring it about - as nature itself seems to advise - that, expenses having been deducted, something also remains, by which he may be allowed to come to a modest holding."¹⁴ And Pius XI declares that workers must strive "to increase the family estate by thrift; by administering the increased estate wisely they may more easily and securely sustain the burdens of the family; and ... even after the end of this life they may trust that they will in some way provide for those whom they leave behind."¹⁵

Corollary V. Leo XIII and Pius XI likewise declare that goods are to be distributed more equitably. But this also will occur if the wage described above is granted and workers devote themselves to saving. "When this has been done," says Leo XIII, "splendid advantages will follow; and first certainly a more equitable division of goods."¹⁶

d) It is asked whether there is also owed to labor that the laborer participate in the profit received. It must be denied, since it suffices that labor be truly compensated, and it does not matter whether this is done in this or in another way. But it can be compensated even if the laborer does not participate in the profit. Thus also Pius XI.¹⁷

Objection. Labor brings with it a right, at least some right, in that which is effected by labor, that is, in the product. But the right annexed to the product has a right in part of the profit, since profit is obtained by the price of the product.

Response. I deny the major, if there is question of an effect for producing which another supplies the material; and the major must be denied still more if another besides presides over the producing of the effect as principal cause and as one commanding; then it suffices that the labor of the cause less principal and as of one mandated be truly compensated. Nor should it be said that at least the furnishing of material - for example the factory, machines, or even money - cannot bring with it a right to the effect or product; for nothing prevents the one who furnishes the means of producing the product from also receiving a right in the product. But the one who furnishes the material furnishes the means of producing the product.

e) The wage described is owed to the laborer as such; but, with attention paid to the nature of a determinate labor, the preparation necessary for learning an art, etc., a greater wage will often be owed.

f) The things said above concerning the worker's wage have force when the matter is considered from the side of the hired worker. But it must also be considered from the side of the hirer or undertaker, who has a right to compensation both for the labor rendered by himself and for the capital expended in the business. I said for the labor rendered, which not only, equally with the worker's labor, is ordered to his own support and that of his family, but also, as directing works and therefore being nobler and a more principal cause of the product, is worthy of greater compensation than the labor of the worker. I said for the capital expended in the business, which capital indeed, as being a means of producing the effect, is likewise worthy of compensation. Now if, with attention paid to the condition of a business or workshop less flourishing, the rights of the hirer and of the suitable hired person cannot be satisfied, each should remit something to be established according to equity and good, unless the matter is brought to such straits that it is better to withdraw from the undertaking of the business.

And these things are at least in part, either explicitly or implicitly, confirmed by these words of Pius XI:

"Account must also be taken of the workshop and of its undertaker in determining the magnitude of the wage; for immoderate salaries would be unjustly demanded which the workshop cannot bear without its own ruin and the consequent calamity of the workers. Yet if, because of sloth or indolence, or neglect of technical and economic progress, it makes less profit, this is not to be regarded as a just cause for diminishing the wage of the workers. But if not so much money returns to the workshop itself as is sufficient for paying an equitable wage to the workers, because either it is oppressed by unjust burdens or is forced to sell the work produced by art for less than is just, those who thus harass it are guilty of grave fault; for they deprive the workers of a just wage, who, bound by necessity, are compelled to accept less than equitable.

"Therefore, with forces and counsels joined, let all, both workers and directors, strive to overcome the difficulties and obstacles of things, and let the wise providence of public authority aid them in so salutary a work. But if the matter has been brought to the greatest straits, then at last it will have to be deliberated whether the workshop can persist in the undertaking, or whether provision must be made for the workers in some other way. In this matter, surely most grave, a certain closeness and Christian concord of minds between directors and workers ought to flourish and to operate effectively."¹⁸

g) If the wage for any reason cannot correspond to the necessities of families, Christian charity and public authority should supplement it, according to these words of Pius XI:

"But when the things which we have said cannot equal the expenses of the family, especially if it is rather large or less strong, Christian love of neighbor wholly requires that Christian charity compensate for the things which are lacking to the needy, that especially the rich aid the poorer, and that those who have superfluous goods not spend them in vain expenses or utterly dissipate them, but turn them to preserving the life and health of those who lack even necessities. Those who have given of their own to Christ in the poor, when the Lord comes to judge the world, will receive a most abundant reward; but those who have done the contrary will pay their penalties. For the Apostle does not warn in vain: 'He who has the substance of this world and sees his brother having need, and shuts his bowels from him: how does the charity of God remain in him?'¹⁹

"But if private aids are not sufficient, it belongs to public authority to supplement the unequal powers of private persons, especially in a matter of such great moment for the common good as is the condition, worthy of men, of families and spouses. ... Therefore those who have care of the republic and of the common good cannot neglect such necessities of spouses and families without bringing grave harm to the State and the common good; therefore in making laws and in establishing public expenses let them so provide for relieving this poverty of needy families, that they have care of this kind among the principal parts of their power,"²⁰ for example by establishing a subsidy to be furnished for more numerous offspring or for the time of old age, etc.²¹

3. With attention paid to natural law, the hirer cannot dismiss the hired person before the fixed time except for a grave cause. But if he does so, he ought to compensate the damages that have followed from the illegitimate dismissal. If, however, in the case the worker finds another service, the hirer can diminish the compensation proportionately (St. Alphonsus, III, 842). If the worker was able, but did not wish, to let himself to another, the master does not seem to be held to the entire wage, because in this hypothesis the worker voluntarily admits the damage. But what has force with attention paid to civil law, see in the law of one's country.

Note. The Code of Canon Law establishes: "All, and especially clerics, religious, and administrators of ecclesiastical goods ... ought to assign to workers an honest and just wage; to see that they have a suitable space of time for piety; in no way to draw them away from domestic care and the pursuit of thrift; nor to impose more work on them than their powers can bear, nor that kind which is at variance with their age and sex" (can. 1526).

Question 1. To what extent is the hirer held to the entire wage, if the hired person for some time has not rendered the work owed at all, or has not rendered it duly?

Response 1. If the hired person is at fault, the wage can be diminished; indeed the hired person is also held to compensate the damages perhaps following for the hirer from his fault.

Response 2. If the hirer is at fault, he is held to the entire wage.

Response 3. If neither is at fault, a distinction must be made between natural law and civil law.

1. With attention paid to natural law, it must be said thus:

a) If the hirer cannot use the work of the hired person from a cause which could not be foreseen, for example because the factory is destroyed by fire, he is not held to the wage, because a case of this kind is not comprehended by the contract. The contrary must be said, by reason of the contrary argument, if the cause could in some measure be foreseen, such as a shortage of ordered works.

b) If the hired person cannot work because of illness or misfortune, the hirer can diminish the wage proportionately, because he is bound only to pay a stipend for the labor rendered. If, however, the hired person, hired for a long time, is ill for a brief time, then, with attention paid both to the nature of the thing and to custom, the contract will sometimes have to be so interpreted that the wage cannot be diminished without injustice (St. Alphonsus, III, 864).

2. With attention paid to civil law, see in the law of one's country what has force. But a just civil law in the case obliges in conscience.

Question 2. To what extent is the hirer held to bear the expenses of treatment of the hired person when incapacitated and ill?

Response. With attention paid to natural law, he is not held from justice. But with attention paid to civil law, see in the code of one's country to what he is held.

¹ Cf. Vermeersch, De Iustitia, n. 403 sq.; Pottier, De Iure et Iustitia, diss. 3, c. 3, a. 5; Aengenent, Leerboek der Sociologie, n. 180 sq.; Koenraedt, Rechtvaardig arbeidsloon.

² May 15, 1891.

³ December 31, 1930.

⁴ May 15, 1931.

⁵ Cf. Encyclical Quadragesimo anno (A.A.S. 1931, p. 201).

⁶ Luke 10:7.

⁷ Cf. Deut. 24:14, 15.

⁸ A.A.S. 1931, p. 200.

⁹ I omit the argument which some deduce from the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius XI, since I do not see that an obligation of commutative justice is contained in those documents.

¹⁰ A.A.S. 1931, p. 200.

¹¹ Encyclical Rerum novarum.

¹² Encyclical Quadragesimo anno (A.A.S. 1931, p. 198).

¹³ Encyclical cited, loc. cit.

¹⁴ Encyclical Rerum novarum.

¹⁵ Encyclical Quadragesimo anno (A.A.S. 1931, p. 198).

¹⁶ Encyclical Rerum novarum.

¹⁷ Encyclical Quadragesimo anno (A.A.S. 1931, p. 199).

¹⁸ Encyclical Quadragesimo anno (A.A.S. 1931, p. 201).

¹⁹ 1 John 3:17.

²⁰ Encyclical Casti connubii, December 31, 1930.

²¹ Cf. Aengenent, o.c., n. 186; Koenraedt, o.c., p. 147 sq.

VII. Cessation. The cessation of the contract is commonly determined by civil law; let it be consulted.

¹ Cf. Aengenent, Leerboek der Sociologie, n. 134 sq.; Koenraedt, Rechtvaardig arbeidsloon, p. 71 sq.